Gifted Students: Debunking the Myth

“Gifted students will make it on their own.” (Rimm et al., 2018 p.1)

Prior to my move into the realm of gifted education, I perceived the needs of high performing students to be of lesser importance compared to students who struggle in their learning. I found my high performing students to be easy to manage, requiring additional busywork after completing set tasks to keep them out of my hair. These students were effectively my personal teaching assistants, helping the students who needed it and reducing my teaching load. They had a job to do, and it was one which I believed to be serving two purposes – supporting the needs of others and reducing my workload. They knew the content, mastered it quickly and then helped me. No harm, no foul. I didn’t believe it was my job to extend these students and was offended when parents would mention their child being bored in my classroom. They were busy, where’s the boredom in that?

After building my knowledge of the complexities of gifted students, it is now very clear to me that I left these students to their own devices and made assumptions about their ability and felt these students needed to fit my teaching and not the other way around. Rimm et al. (2018, p. 1) describes the wide held opinion of educators and parents of non-gifted students that “gifted students will make it on their own”. Supported by an unfounded opinion that the notion of providing learning support to gifted students to be elitist and this support should be redirected to the students who fall at the opposite end of the learning spectrum.

This article aims to put the learning needs of gifted students into context, using a case study to frame how a change in catalysts, effective identification and talent development processes can impact underachievement in the talent development of a child (Gagné, 2009) and how this impacts school and government policy. Recommendations to debunk the notion of gifted students requiring no support are provided by changing teacher perception of the notion of giftedness through targeted professional development, differentiation and establishing effective talent identification and talent development processes will help to ensure gifted students are experiencing appropriate levels of challenge (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021).

McCoach and Siegle (2007) note the reluctance of some educators to see the value in prioritising gifted education, fearful of widening the educational gap and promoting elitism. In addition, gifted students seem to be overrepresented by students from Asian and white cultural backgrounds, highlighting a need for equitable access to gifted and talented programs (Rimm et al., 2018). Therefore, if a child has not received any exposure to their area of giftedness, they will not have the opportunity to exhibit their gifted characteristics (Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2017). So if a child’s giftedness is not identified, how can we ensure all students are receiving targeted instruction at their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)? In a study conducted by Akgül (2021), teachers perceived their ability to teach gifted children to be out of their skillset, believing gifted students require separate specialised classes or schools. The study continued to note the aversion to teaching gifted students and some teachers were of the belief that high performing children should be used to teach their classmates and some educators arguing the point that giftedness can be found in all children in some way. Further highlighted by Peters et al. (2019) is the lack of understanding of the representation of gifted students in any given cohort. Many teachers believed they did not teach any gifted students, especially amongst students in a low socio-economic category. Rimm et al. (2018) further supports this claim, noting many families who perceive their child to be gifted place them in private education when they don’t have the financial means to do so.

Models of giftedness & Characteristics of gifted students

Renzulli (2012) questions the notion of giftedness and its social perception. Why do some people who receive tailored educational opportunities rise to the occasion and others fall into obscurity? Can a person only be labelled as gifted or not gifted? What needs to happen for a person to reach their full potential?

Gagné (2009) provides a Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) where he argues the distinction between giftedness and talent must be clearly defined and identifies them as:

Giftedness – an individual possessing natural ability in at least one domain of giftedness to a level placing them in the top 10% of their age-equivalent peers. These domains are broken down into mental (intellectual, creative, social, perceptual) and physical (muscular, motor control) sub-domains.

Talent- is the mastery of these abilities through systematic development, placing the individual in the top 10% of age-equivalent peers in the same field.

A gifted individual moves through a talent development process over a prolonged period of time where their gift is developed into a talent. A combination of environmental and intrapersonal catalysts influence the development process where the notion of chance is also highlighted (Gagné, 2009).

Benjamin: A Case Study

It is at this point where I would like to put this model into context. Growing up in the 1990’s, I encountered a child (for the sake of anonymity, lets’ call him Benjamin) exhibit behavioural challenges from a very young age. In his first year of school, he managed to depose his teacher and take control of the class. He caused frustration and anger for many of his teachers throughout his schooling and was seen as argumentative, disrespectful and his behaviour was too challenging to manage. He was expelled from one private catholic high school and moved to an independent grammar school where he thrived in the school’s cadet program, received the top English prize and achieved a final study score in the top 5% of his peers.

According to the DMGT (Gagné, 2009) Benjamin was an intellectually and socially gifted child. His behaviours masked his true potential; however, through a change in catalysts (both environmental and intrapersonal), Benjamin’s talent was developed. Upon reflection during his schooling, Benjamin identified that his learning required purpose in order for him to perceive it as valuable, showing the strong need for motivation in order for him to engage in any learning (Gagné, 2010). As Benjamin was not encountering cognitive challenge, he was not intrinsically motivated to apply himself to a set task without first assessing the value in what was required of him (Bergold et al., 2020). Benjamin’s education was also at a time where giftedness was perceived to be only attributed to students who achieved academically whilst requiring little to no teacher support (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). As a result, Benjamin adapted to his environment and over time his gifts were developing into undesirable behaviours rather than being channelled into talent development (Dai & Renzulli, 2008). Benjamin was inevitably labelled as a difficult child who had the potential to achieve if he applied himself.

It could be said that from the schools’ perspectives, Benjamin’s lack of focus was the cause for his underachievement. However, it could be argued that the schools he attended failed to provide him with adequate provisions as a gifted student as the school did not believe his behaviours were reflective of what they believed a gifted student to be, resulting in Benjamin being under challenged (Peters, 2016). Had his giftedness been identified through a systematic process, he may have had the necessary adjustments made to ensure he was developing his giftedness into talent (Cao et al., 2017).

Identification processes

In order for students to be identified as gifted, a range of subjective and objective measures are required (Merrick & Targett, 2004). VanTassel-Baska and Baska (2021) promote the need for selecting a range of appropriate assessments to collate a clear data profile on students. The identification of giftedness needs to take into account student potential as well as performance measures to identify a child as gifted (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021). Should data provided prove to be inconsistent or unbalanced, then having a range of data points to draw from is important (McBee et al., 2013). When utilising subjective measures of giftedness, it is important to acknowledge the influence of bias in these measures as many teachers tend to misinterpret socially acceptable traits to be reflective of giftedness (Acar et al., 2016). In Benjamin’s circumstance, the removal of bias is imperative as his display of behaviours is seen as an undesirable trait by many of his teachers. Another point to consider is that although Benjamin was educated through the private system, his parents did not have the means necessary to pursue independent psychological assessments in order to have his giftedness formally identified.

Underachievement

Prior to his move to the independent grammar school, Benjamin was underperforming in his intellectual domain and channelling his social giftedness into disruptive pursuits. Reis and McCoach (2000) describe the notion of underachievement as extremely difficult to define, rather generalised as a discrepancy between potential and performance. Should a child continue to underachieve, the implications on their future can be long-lasting, influencing future career success and self-actualisation (Rubenstein et al., 2012). Not being provided with sufficient academic challenge early on in his learning resulted in Benjamin devaluing the place of education in his personal beliefs and fostering a declining level of intrinsic motivation (Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). It was not until his move to an environment that provided him with the necessary catalysts was Benjamin’s talent eventually developed (Rimm et al., 2018). 

How does this influence teaching practice, school policy, and government policy?

In Benjamin’s case, the first two schools failed to identify the origins of his behavioural traits, instead labelling him as a difficult student rather than providing necessary catalysts for his giftedness to develop into talent. As a result his behaviours became more and more difficult to manage, eventuating in expulsion. Effectively, the belief was held by many that Benjamin may have been gifted, but unless he made changes to his own behaviour he would continue to be unable to conform to a one-size-fits-all pedagogy. One could only imagine the hours spent by educational staff managing Benjamin’s behaviour rather than developing his talent. Upon his move to the independent grammar school, Benjamin was involved in the decision-making process, researching his preferred schools, engaging with school leaders to identify and set goals and participated in programs that allowed him to redirect his disruptive behaviours.

Renzulli (2005) raises the point that many teachers find it difficult to cater for students who don’t fall into the stereotypical profile of a complicit student who willingly completes assessments and learns without questioning. He continues to argue that all students have the right to access higher order thinking skills and the opportunity to engage in enrichment activities, not just those who have been labelled as gifted. Many teachers continue to implement the notion of proving mastery before moving on to specialised learning (Kaplan, 2020). This can result in disengagement from set tasks and a gifted child’s inability to see the value in their learning (Rubenstein et al., 2012).

Should a school continue to ignore the needs of gifted students, they run the risk of failing to comply with government policy. The New South Wales Department of Education High Potential and Gifted Education Policy (2021) explicitly states the need for schools to provide opportunities and learning environments where students are able to reach their full potential. Failure to comply with this section of the policy may prove to be failing many more students than those perceived to be gifted. Further highlighted by the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2019) is the need to provide students with adequate challenge. When students are not provided with challenge, disengagement is highly likely. As in Benjamin’s case, minimal challenge resulted in high disengagement.

Where do we go from here? Research-informed recommendations. 

Professional Development

As initially stated, many teachers mentioned an aversion to providing adequate challenge to gifted students (Rimm et al., 2018) and do not see the value in extending students when support is required for others (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). In order to counteract this aversion, adequate professional development is required to understand the needs of gifted students. Lassig (2009) identifies the lack of knowledge about effective provisions for gifted students. However, these attitudes were largely held by teachers who worked at a school where gifted education was not a focus. In schools where gifted education was valued, teacher attitudes were positive. In order for students to learn at their best, teachers need to be provided with the right resources and time in order to teach well (Marzano et al., 2014). Marzano’s High Reliability Schools framework (2014) is a structured approach to ensuring all students across the learning spectrum are reaching their potential. Coupled with identifying the desired outcomes for gifted learners, teachers can tailor their professional development to suit their teaching goals (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021).

Differentiation

Through the implementation of a differentiated pedagogical approach, teachers can ensure they are meeting the needs of all students. van Geel et al. (2019) acknowledges the difficulties of implementing a differentiated curriculum, requiring teachers to know the abilities of their students thoroughly and adapting content suitable to their ability. This knowledge equips teachers with the necessary understandings to set appropriate levels of challenge for all students (Tomlinson, 2017). VanTassel-Baska and Baska (2021) suggests teachers require a balance of flexibility, creativity and discernment when it comes to selecting learning activities for all students. As curriculum development is continually changing, so must teachers continue to upskill themselves to effectively challenge all students (Marzano et al., 2014).

Effective identification and talent development processes

In addition to teachers participating in effective professional development and implementing a differentiated curriculum, it is important to establish an effective identification and talent development process to ensure gifted students are being challenged at their point of need (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021). Schools need to implement regular assessments of potential and performance via the collection of empirical evidence (Acar et al., 2016). Assessing student performance through standardised testing and aligning performance with measures of cognitive potential can help identify instances of underperformance. In order for this process to prove effective, continual review of student assessment data is required in order for student growth to be monitored (Griffin, 2018). As the process for talent identification is important, it is ineffective without comprehensive talent development processes to support it. VanTassel-Baska and Baska (2021) establishes an instructional design model focusing on the student, establishing their characteristics and needs and then designing a learning pathway that establishes clear learning goals coupled with effective teaching strategies. Renzulli (2005) promotes the Schoolwide Enrichment Model where students do not necessarily need to be gifted to be able to access the opportunities to reach their maximum potential. At the core of both these models, lies the student and the need to understand their specific educational needs with an end-goal of setting high expectations and appropriate challenge.

How do these recommendations help a child like Benjamin?

Upon reflection, Benjamin has a negative association with his time at school. He found it to be disengaging, boring and lacked any sense of true purpose. Had Benjamin been identified as gifted on the same day he created a mutiny in a Kindy classroom, he may have spent less days being disciplined, and more time spent engaging in learning relevant to his gifts, developing those gifts into talents at a young age. Benjamin’s story has a happy ending. Although he dropped out of a prestigious Australian university, he found his purpose through his career pursuits. He began working at a large retailer, became a store manager at 19 and is now CEO of the company. Benjamin attributes his success to seeing the value in his work, knowing his contributions make a difference and being supported by knowledgeable mentors who provided support, encouragement and wisdom along the way.

By ensuring students’ gifts are acknowledged by skilled educators, children like Benjamin should be able to redirect their behaviours into developing their talents. Utilising Gagne’s DMGT (Gagné, 2009), educators working with gifted students have a framework to develop gifts into talents. Utilising a range of objective and subjective measures, a student’s giftedness can be identified (Merrick & Targett, 2004) and underachievement can potentially be mitigated. Although teacher perception of giftedness still has room for improvement, the establishment of government policy assists with compliance at a school level, depending on the priority the school places on gifted education. Raising the profile of gifted education in schools can be achieved through targeted professional development (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021). Establishing effective identification and talent development processes and implementing learning pathways for students tailored at their point of need can raise the level of challenge for gifted students (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2021). By utilising differentiated learning approaches, all students can be challenged at their point of need (Tomlinson, 2017) regardless of them being labelled as gifted or not. Implementing effective strategies will ensure gifted students are no being left to develop their talent on their own and equipping themselves to have a positive impact on society in the long-term (Renzulli, 2012).

References

Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the Performance and Nonperformance Methods in Gifted Identification: A Multilevel Meta-Analytic Review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438

Akgül, G. (2021). Teachers’ metaphors and views about gifted students and their education. Gifted Education International, 37(3), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421988927

Bergold, S., Wirthwein, L., & Steinmayr, R. (2020). Similarities and Differences Between Intellectually Gifted and Average-Ability Students in School Performance, Motivation, and Subjective Well-Being. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220932533

Callahan, C. M., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2017). Fundamentals of Gifted Education : Considering Multiple Perspectives. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unsw/detail.action?docID=4941863

Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment in Gifted Education: A Review of the Literature From 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2019), Revisiting Gifted Education, NSW          1           Department of Education, https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-                        1          filter/revisiting-gifted-education

Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, Living Systems, and the Mystery of Giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315732

Gagné, F. (2009). Leading change in gifted education : the festschrift of Dr. Joyce Vantassel-Baska. Prufrock Press.

Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341

Griffin, P. (2018). Assessment for Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (2020). The Curriculum Dilemma. Gifted Child Today, 43(3), 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520916212

Lassig, C. (2009). Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Gifted: The Importance of Professional Development and School Culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.985113224788269

Marzano, R., Warrick, P., & Simms, J. (2014). A Handbook for High Reliability Schools: The Next Step in School Reform. Solution Tree.

McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Waterman, C. (2013). Combining Scores in Multiple-Criteria Assessment Systems: The Impact of Combination Rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What Predicts Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719

Merrick, C., & Targett, R. (2004). Gifted and Talented Education Professional Development for Teachers: Module 2 Primary (Vol. 2022). GERRIC. https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/images/photos/campus/kensington/2021-06-gerric-documents/2021-06-gerric-Module2_primary.pdf

New South Wales Department of Education (2021). High Potential and Gifted Education Policy. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/pd-2004-0051

Peters, S., Gentry, M., Whiting, G., & McBee, M. (2019). Who Gets Served in Gifted Education? Demographic Representation and a Call for Action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

Peters, S. J. (2016). The Bright Versus Gifted Comparison: A Distraction From What Matters. Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628917

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302

Renzulli, J. (2005). Applying Gifted Education Pedagogy to Total Talent Development for All Students. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_2

Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent Development for the 21st Century:A Four-Part Theoretical Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901

Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D, & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (G. A. D. Rimm, & D. Siegle, Ed. 7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., REIS, S. M., Mccoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A Complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678-694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620

Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A Developmental, Person-Centered Approach to Exploring Multiple Motivational Pathways in Gifted Underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unsw/detail.action?docID=4829767

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Baska, A. (2021). Curriculum Planning & Instructional Design for Gifted Learners (3rd ed.). Routledge. (2019)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.