How do Teachers Develop an Understanding of Giftedness?

A Qualitative Investigation

Frank M. Davies.

Supervisors

Dr. Jane Jarvis (Flinders University)

Dr. Paddy O’Toole (Monash University)

A thesis submitted as partial fulfillment for the requirements of the Doctor of Education

degree

2

ABSTRACT

DECLARATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

ABSTRACT 5

DECLARATION 6

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1. DEFINITIONS OF GIFTEDNESS 7

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION 9

1.3. A BRIEF HISTORY OF GIFTED EDUCATION WITHIN SOUTH AUSTRALIA 9

1.4. UNDERSTANDING GIFTEDNESS: A GUIDE TO IMPLEMENTATION 10

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 12

1.6. A BRIEF COMMENT ON RESEARCH METHODS 14

1.7. OUTLINE OF THESIS 15

1.8. SUMMARY 16

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17

1.9. DEFINITIONS OF GIFTEDNESS 17

1.10. INDICATORS OF GIFTEDNESS 17

1.11. PARADIGM SHIFTS WITHIN GIFTED EDUCATION 21

1.12.COMMON MYTHS THAT MAY HAVE IMPACTED UPON A TEACHER’S UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS 27

1.13.TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARDS GIFTED STUDENTS 28

1.14.HOW TEACHERS MIGHT DEVELOP THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS 35

1.15. SUMMARY 41

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS 43

1.16.TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS: A QUALITATIVE APRROACH 44

1.17.NARRATIVE INQUIRY CASE STUDY 45

1.18. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 47

1.19. SEIDMAN’S THREE INTERVIEW METHOD 47

1.20.DATA COLLECTION METHODS 51

1.21.DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 51

1.22. SUMMARY 56

CHAPTER 4. FINDING 58

1.23. INTRODUCTION 58

1.24.CHRIS 59

1.25. PAT 70

1.26. SAM 79

3

1.27. SUMMARY 88

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 89

1.28.RE-OCCURING THEMES ACROSS CASE STUDIES 89

1.29. PARTICIPANT’S HABITUS AND UNDERSTANDING GIFTEDNESS 90

1.30.TEACHER EDUCATION (PRE-SERVICE) AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (IN-SERVICE) 92

1.31.CONTINUING MYTHS REGARDING GIFTEDNESS 95

1.32. PURPOSEFUL REFLECTION 104

1.33. SUMMARY 106

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................107

1.34.KEY THEMES 107

1.35. FUTURE RESEARCH 111

1.36.LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH STUDY 112

1.37. SUMMARY 112

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................113

4

ABSTRACT

The terms gifted and giftedness have been used by teachers for decades when discussing

students who appeared to be bright. This research study has recognised that although

public school teachers in South Australia may have experienced similar professional

development in the field of gifted education, they may not share the same

understandings of giftedness. The participants had been identified in their respective

schools for their knowledge and experience as exemplary teachers of gifted students.

Participants communicated similar nomenclature, but lacked congruency of common

understandings related to giftedness.

Using a qualitative Narrative Inquiry case study approach, employing Seidman’s three-

interview method this study provided three participants opportunities to reflect upon

how their understanding of giftedness had developed, and why it had developed in that

way. Discovering how teachers develop their understanding of giftedness provided

insight into how teachers might be better equipped to teach gifted students. During the

interviews, common themes of influence emerged that connected with early life

experiences, common myths relating to giftedness, pre-service and in-service provision,

and purposeful reflection.

This research study recommends suggestions for further research relating to pre-service

and in-service professional development, teachers gaining greater access to teacher

friendly research and gifted educators working collaboratively to clarify nomenclature

within the field of gifted education.

5

DECLARATION

I certify that this thesis does not incorporate, without acknowledgement, any material

previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university and that, to the best of

my knowledge and belief, it does not contain any material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.

Frank Davies............................................................................

6

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces a research study that explores and discusses how teachers

develop an understanding of giftedness. This question is particularly appropriate in

educational settings where relevant policies and professional development exists yet

inconsistencies, between teachers, in understanding giftedness, appear to prevail. This is

a qualitative study using a Narrative Inquiry case study methodology.

Because the participants in this study were South Australian, the research question is

positioned within the context of a brief history of gifted education in South Australia

and the current policy relating to gifted students. The significance of this study is also

discussed.

DEFINITIONS OF GIFTEDNESS

This research study addresses giftedness, making it necessary to provide a context for

that term. There is no single definition of giftedness that is universally accepted.

Historically there have been various definitions of giftedness and how it might be

demonstrated. The literature reveals that giftedness resembles a multi-faceted diamond:

hard to see all aspects at once. Different groups of researchers suggest diverse

characteristics and identification criteria (Delisle, 2000; Freeman, 1998). Porter (1997,

p. 14) cited McAlpine’s observation that “definitions [of giftedness] differ according to

whether they are conservative or liberal, are single- [sic] or multidimensional, and focus

on potential or performance”. Further discussion regarding definitions of giftedness will

be explored in Chapter 2.

Even though there may be diverse interpretations of giftedness, broad characteristics are

similar and accepted within the literature. These include that gifted students may learn

at a faster pace (Moltzen, 1996; Porter, 2005; Van Tassel-Baska, 1988), and gifted

students may have capacities to find and solve problems more readily (Braggett, 1997;

Braggett, Day & Minchin, 1996; Pohl, 1997; Winebrenner, 2000). Gifted students may

also demonstrate capacities to manipulate abstract ideas and make connections, and to

work at multiple levels (Clark, 1997; Schiever & Maker, 2003; Snyder, Nietfeld, &

Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). Though there may be agreement regarding broad

characteristics of giftedness there still remains a lack of clarity relating to a universally

accepted definition of what constitutes a gifted child (Rogers, 2002).

7

Sternberg and Davidson (1986) observed that: “Giftedness is something we invent, not

something we discover: it is what one society or another wants it to be. Understanding

giftedness is a fluid concept as interpreted by a variety of cultures and educational

needs” (p. 3). Colangelo and Davis (2003) wittily suggested: “Historical events

underlying today’s strong interest in gifted education center on half a dozen people, an

intelligence test, one Russian satellite, and three national reports” (p. 6). While this

might be useful as a thumbnail sketch, it does not reveal the changing paradigms that

have occurred within the field of gifted education. Some of these paradigm shifts

include Terman’s (1925) study of children with high Intelligence Quotients [IQ] which

utilised the Stanford-Binet IQ tests declaring the population top 2% as being gifted

(Clark, 1997; Terman & Merrill, 1937). Another paradigm shift came with Bloom’s

Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives published in 1956 (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002).

Bloom’s research had an impact on curriculum understanding and development that

created many positive opportunities for all students including gifted students (Maker &

Nielson, 1995). The Renzulli triad model promoted inclusivity (Renzulli, 1976), and in

1983 Gardner’s multiple intelligences encouraged the recognition of different types of

intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 2006). These paradigms will be discussed more fully in

Chapter 3. For the purposes of this study, the focus will not be on providing a particular

definition of giftedness. The definition of giftedness will be guided by each participant’s

understanding of what it means to them.

Much has been written concerning gifted students. Researchers have provided a rich

body of literature concerning keys areas of gifted education including identification

(Brown, Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle, Zhang & Chen, 2005), learning needs (Rogers,

2002) and differentiation for gifted students (Rowley, 2008; Tomlinson, 1995a). The

literature is also rich in understanding how the needs of gifted students might be

different from other students (Rogers, 2002) and even how various cohorts of gifted

students differ from each other (Betts & Neihart, 1988).

This research study focuses on teachers and asks how they developed their

understanding of giftedness. There is a growing body of work discussing teachers

responding to, and providing for, gifted students (Bangel, Enerson, Capobianco, &

Moon, 2006; Bangel, Moon & Capobianco, 2010; Geake & Gross, 2008; Harris &

Hemmings, 2008; Lassig, 2009; Moon & Brighton, 2008), but little on how teachers

understand giftedness. This research suggests that there is inconsistency in the

understanding of giftedness between teachers who are teaching gifted students.

8

Understanding how teachers develop their understanding of giftedness might enable

pre-service and in-service providers to use strategic measures to provide a strong basis

for understanding the learning needs of gifted children (Rogers, 2002).

RESEARCH QUESTION

The research question, “How do teachers develop an understanding of giftedness?”

guided and focused the study. The qualitative investigation employed a structure of

Narrative Inquiry case studies, using face to face interviews as the method to collect

data.

All the participants were middle primary [grades 3-5] teachers in public schools within

South Australia. At the time of data collection all public schools in South Australia were

governed and managed by the Department for Education and Children’s Services

(DECS) In 2011 DECS revised its name to become the Department for Education and

Child Development [DECD]. Teachers in DECS, including the participants in this

research study, received professional development in the field of gifted education. This

professional development provided was based on the DECS Gifted Children and

Students Policy (1996). Accompanying the policy was an implementation guide entitled

Understanding Giftedness [Department for Education and Children’s Services, 1996].

This guide aimed to equip all DECS teachers to understand and teach gifted students

within the state of South Australia. It would be expected that all the participants in this

research study not only knew about this policy but also might have implemented it in

their own schools.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GIFTED EDUCATION WITHIN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The DECS policy for teaching gifted students was developed in 1994 and was recently

reviewed in 2010. The policy was originally developed as a response to gifted education

being a South Australian DECS priority between the years 1994-1998. Federal and State

funding was provided for the development of Students with High Intellectual Potential

[SHIP] programs within schools to facilitate support in identifying and accommodating

the needs of gifted students. Some schools became known as “SHIP schools” whereby

the teaching staff received extensive professional development in gifted education.

These schools became lighthouse schools for any surrounding DECS schools. Funding

and provision was also made available to employ a State Co-ordinator of SHIP, a

Curriculum Officer for gifted children and students, a Project Officer in SHIP as well as

six fulltime SHIP co-ordinators travelling across South Australia implementing the

9

Gifted Children and Students Policy implementation guide within DECS schools. SHIP

schools no longer exist and in-service professional development is often provided by

private providers or academics.

UNDERSTANDING GIFTEDNESS: A GUIDE TO IMPLEMENTATION

Understanding giftedness: a guide to implementation [Department for Education and

Children’s Services, 1996] provided comprehensive support encouraging teachers to

implement the 10 key policy outcomes of the DECS Gifted Children and Students

Policy (pp. 5-6). These outcomes, as found in the policy, included:

Outcome 1: Gifted individuals are provided with opportunities to realise

their potential.

Outcome 2: Gifted individuals are identified as early as possible.

Outcome 3: Gifted individuals have equality of educational opportunities.

Outcome 4: Gifted individuals have appropriate and ongoing educational

opportunities.

Outcome 5: Gifted individuals have a differentiated educational curriculum.

Outcome 6: Gifted individuals interact with an appropriate peer group.

Outcome 7: Accelerative measures and flexible entry into all levels of

education are available to gifted individuals.

Outcome 8: Gifted individuals learning outcomes improve when teachers

and other personnel have appropriate training in gifted education.

Outcome 9: Parents and other appropriate community members have

opportunities to be involved in the education of gifted individuals.

Outcome 10: Gifted individuals have access to counselling and vocational

services.

All of the participants in this study received similar professional development based on

these ten outcomes.

It is interesting to note that both the policy and the implementation guide failed to

provide a clear and meaningful definition of giftedness. In outcome 1 (p. 9) the

10

following definition of giftedness was the only one suggested: “In 1977, Gina Ginsburg

suggested that gifted children do things a little earlier...a little faster...a little better...and

perhaps a little differently”. The authors instead, referred to characteristics of gifted

learners to support identification. The following example, taken from the

implementation guide is representative of identifying through observation:

Identifying the gifted child in the educational setting: All children tell us

something about their abilities through the kinds of behaviour that they

exhibit in a learning situation. Careful, informed observation in a variety of

learning situations and the recording of observed student behaviours provide

the teacher with valuable information about a student’s particular interests

and abilities (Department for Education and Children’s Services, 1996,

p.12)

Without a clear-cut definition of giftedness it would be reasonable to ask the question

“If there is no single standard reference for the definition of giftedness what influences a

teacher to reach their own understanding of giftedness?” Other questions might follow,

such as “Was their understanding of giftedness formed throughout their life experiences

as they interacted with gifted children during their own schooling?” or “Is their

understanding gained through their teacher preparation in university or during their

experience whilst teaching in the classroom?”

Knowing how teachers reach an understanding can shed light on the rationale employed

when they teach gifted students. It is equally important for the teachers to understand

the processes used to arrive at any conclusions made. The strength of a teacher’s view

about giftedness does not validate that view. If a teacher is holding a view which is not

evidence-based in promoting efficacy when teaching gifted students, then their belief

will not change unless it proves to be unsatisfactory (Miller, 2009, p. 97). Teachers are

at an advantage when they can understand what influences their professional practice

(Lassig, 2009).

The literature discussing gifted education includes a wide range of research focusing

upon teacher attitudes towards giftedness. Examples include a study by Jacobs (1972),

who developed a measure for teacher attitude toward the gifted when determining

whether that attitude was positive or negative. Jacobs concluded that “teachers tend to

reflect the more general attitude that giftedness is not a blessing, and, to adjust best to

the world, should learn to hide their abilities so they will be more acceptable” (Jacobs

11

1972, p. 25). Whilst this is an older study, it concurs with recent research and reflects an

attitude of ambiguity embraced by some teachers (Gallagher, 2009; Megay-Nespoli,

2001).

A review of the literature in the area of teacher attitudes relating to giftedness revealed

that there is an apparent lack of coherence between some research findings. McCoach

and Siegle (2007) reported that some studies indicated that teachers in general, tended to

have positive attitudes. Another study found that some teachers tended to hold negative

attitudes towards gifted students (Geake & Gross, 2008). Cramond and Martin (1987)

researched in-service and pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and

found that scholastic achievement, gender, and previous teaching experience influenced

how teachers perceived gifted children. There are reasons why teachers may experience

negative attitudes when considering gifted students, including perceived lack of social

cohesion (Geake & Gross, 2008), and extra preparation work (Rogers, 2002).

Regardless of personal bias or attitude, teachers are professionally obliged to support all

students as much as possible to reach their learning potential, enabling them to function

effectively within a society (Marsh, 2010). In order to do this, teachers need to consider

differentiating curricula to meet the learning needs of gifted students. Researchers have

suggested that appropriate curriculum differentiation for gifted students may be a

complex task, yet highly advantageous (Gross, Sleap, & Pretorious 1999; Maker &

Neilson, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003).

Starko (1986) suggested that many teachers are challenged to provide relevant and

academically appropriate learning experiences which last an entire day. There is an

inference that some teachers struggle with both understanding appropriate curriculum

and providing appropriate curriculum for gifted students. This would seem likely if

teachers do not have a clear understanding of the explicit learning needs of gifted

students (Borland, 2003).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research study evolved from the completion of previous research by the author

(Davies, 2002). It investigated various ways that teachers provided for gifted students in

their classrooms. All of the participating teachers appeared to have different

perspectives of what giftedness was. Some aligned themselves with Gagné’s

Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné, 1985), while others embraced

Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences (2006), believing that all students had some

12

giftedness to draw on, and that a teacher’s role was to develop these gifts. Each teacher

appeared to be strongly influenced by their own personal understanding of what

giftedness meant. This resulted in the teachers pursuing different practices and

methodologies according to their perceptions of giftedness. One of the participants

inserted an hour’s ‘thinking skills’ into the weekly classroom timetable, while other

teachers included differentiated thinking tasks and creative problem solving activities

into their daily lessons. As a consequence, some of the practitioners demonstrated

efficacy while working with gifted students, while others did not. In order for teachers

to be able to cater appropriately for gifted students, it is important to excogitate what

teachers understand about giftedness and how they might have come to those

conclusions.

The significance of this research study contributes to our awareness of how teachers

develop their understanding of giftedness. It demonstrates that while the three

participating teachers had completed similar professional development in gifted

education, all provided by a common source [DECS], each had a different

understanding of what giftedness was. One of the participants, when discussing

giftedness, initially asserted that all students were gifted. Another participant

demonstrated high levels of advocacy for gifted students, especially those she believed

to be disadvantaged. The third participant exhibited a strong emotional attachment to

the gifted students in her class because she felt an alignment and camaraderie with

them. As the findings and discussion chapters discuss, all participants held different

viewpoints which highlighted various nuances of their understanding of giftedness.

This study has additional significance since it suggests that pre-service teachers would

benefit from being aware of their underlying attitudes and understandings of giftedness

and how these might impact upon their teaching practice. Discerning any personal bias,

whether negative or positive, provides the teacher with an opportunity to gain a sound

perspective of their own learning needs. Hopefully, self awareness and an understanding

of any bias or prejudice would enable a teacher to prepare for specialist teaching in the

field.

In Australia, Teacher Registration Boards [names vary from State to State] expect

graduands to be equipped and prepared to teach effectively. This assumes that one of

the roles of Teacher Education institutions is to facilitate pre-service teachers to develop

understanding and skills in the area of special education and gifted education. Yet all

13

too few teachers appear to be equipped with explicit opportunities to gain expertise

working with gifted students, either in their pre-service preparation or in accessible

professional development (Hudson, Hudson, Lewis, & Watters, 2010; Matthews &

Foster, 2005). The participating teachers, in this study, raised concerns by indicating

that they had not received any pre-service preparation in the area of giftedness.

Therefore this research study is significant in that it may prove to provide useful

commentary for Teacher Education institutions for facilitating students engaging in

developing personal awareness of their underlying attitudes and understandings,

particularly in highly specialised areas.

A BRIEF COMMENT ON RESEARCH METHODS

This study is a qualitative research study since it considers inner states as outer

expressions of human activity, and has been informed through personal interview

methodology. Since these inner states are not directly observable, qualitative researchers

need to rely on subjective interpretations and judgements to bring them to life (Hatch,

2002, p. 9).

The research study also employs an interpretivist paradigm, accepting multiple,

emerging and sometimes shifting realities. These realities are formed by the subjective

experiences of the participants. This study seeks to discuss not only an understanding of

giftedness held by each participant, but how each may have come to that understanding.

As the participants engaged in the interviewing processes, they began to verbalise a

construction of understanding as they recalled, pondered and reflected upon their

responses. Sandelowski (1986) advocated that “A qualitative study is credible when it

presents such faithful descriptions or interpretations of a human experience that the

people having that experience would immediately recognize it from those descriptions

or interpretations as their own” (p. 30).

Each teacher participated in three interviews based upon Seidman’s (2006) Three

Interview Model. Seidman (2006) purports that by using the three separate interviews

“People’s behaviour becomes meaningful and understandable when placed in context of

their lives and the lives of those around them. Without context there is little possibility

of exploring the meaning of an experience” (Seidman, pp. 16-17).

The first interview [focused life history] explored past experiences, the second interview

[previous and current experience] considered the present experiences, and the third

14

interview [reflection on meaning] discussed each participant’s future by reflecting on

the previous two interviews.

The research study involves multiple narrative case studies based on individual

discussions with the teacher-participants which revealed their recollections of life

experiences that led each to a current understanding of giftedness.

OUTLINE OF THESIS

This research study has at its core the research question: “How do teachers develop an

understanding of giftedness?”

In Chapter 2, attention is given to what the literature reports about perspectives of

giftedness, how teachers might construct understandings, and attitudes that some

teachers appear to have about giftedness and gifted students. This provides a reader with

an understanding that the concept of giftedness is a complex one with differing

interpretations and nuances. There is also discussion of pervasive myths about

giftedness that have permeated into school and classroom understandings and also have

been embraced by societies and cultures in general.

In Chapter 3 the research approaches and methods are described, including the nature of

the sample, the method of data analysis and the ethical issues underpinning the work.

The research is qualitative in nature and employs Narrative Inquiry case studies to

collect, collate and interpret the data.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the interviews and Chapter 5 discuss these findings,

seeking to draw attention to a comparative analysis of the participants’ responses. This

chapter also provides insight into how each teacher may have come to their

understanding of giftedness facilitated by early life, school and their teaching

experiences.

In Chapter 6, conclusions have been drawn and final comments made regarding this

research study. It is possible to see how each participating teacher may have been

strongly influenced by early memories of family and school experiences, pre-service

and in-service provision, and recurring myths about giftedness. It also becomes apparent

that the interview processes used in this research study resulted in a high level of

purposeful reflection which positively impacted each participant.

15

SUMMARY

This research study has at its core the research question ‘How do teachers develop an

understanding of giftedness?’ This introduction chapter indicates that the research study

is based on qualitative Narrative Inquiry case studies. It has been drawn to the reader’s

attention that a singular definition of giftedness is not being sought in this study; rather

the exploration of each participant’s understanding of giftedness. The following

literature review will discuss definitions and indicators of giftedness, paradigm shifts

within gifted education, myths about giftedness, teacher attitudes and how teachers

construct their understanding of giftedness [habitus].

16

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This review commences with discussion regarding changing definitions of giftedness

and indications of giftedness. It will then consider key paradigm shifts within the

history of gifted education. The next part of the review will focus on research related to

teacher attitudes to gifted students and gifted education. Attention will be given to

literature which expounds various myths [non-factual attempts to explain or justify

something] that have existed in the area of gifted education, as well as discussing

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. The final section will discuss teachers’ understandings

and how these might develop.

DEFINITIONS OF GIFTEDNESS

In discussing a definition of giftedness the first realisation is that, there is no actual

status of generic giftedness. Every gifted child is different, as is every child whose

learning skills are not identified as gifted. This could partly account for why there have

been many definitions of giftedness (Delisle, 2000; Harris & Hemming, 2008; Moon &

Brighton, 2008).

In reviewing the history of gifted education it is clear that nothing is static. As

Colangelo and Davis (2003) explained:

The history of gifted education has shown an ebb-and-flow pattern with

both educators and the general public. The educational pendulum swings

between excellence and equity; between cultivating talents of the brightest

and most talented – while aiding all children - versus helping below average

children to become more proficient (p.vii).

Early definitions of giftedness tended to have an emphasis on high general intelligence

(Terman & Merrill, 1937, 1961). Later definitions embraced a broader understanding to

include many domains of ability (Gagné, 2003a; Gross, Sleap, & Pretorious, 1999).

INDICATORS OF GIFTEDNESS

Key indicators of giftedness include particular behaviours and characteristics. There is a

common theme in the literature regarding the behaviour and characteristics of gifted

students. Commentators suggest that when teachers understand and consider these

characteristics and learning needs, they are able to provide more appropriately for gifted

students (Bragget, 1994, 1998; Gross et al., 1999; Hertberg-Davis, 2009; Wood, 2009).

17

Van Tassel-Baska (1988, pp. 14-15) commented on three fundamental differences for

gifted children, These included precocity, the capacity to learn at faster rates; intensity,

the capacity to find, solve and act on problems more readily; and complexity, the

capacity to manipulate abstract ideas and make connections, while working at multiple

levels. These three fundamental differences imply particular learning needs experienced

by gifted students (Eyre, 1997; Freeman, 1998; Van Tassel-Baska, 1994). Each

difference could be considered when planning relevant, meaningful and powerful

learning experiences for gifted students (Gross et al., 1999; Porter, 1999a; Tomlinson,

1995b). This requires attention to both pace and depth of curricula (Eyre, 1997; Lassig,

2009; Piirto, 1999).

Within the literature, common themes emerge when discussing gifted children. These

include that not all gifted students may display all of the identified characteristics

(Delisle, 2000) and that within each characteristic there will be a range of responses

from gifted students (Eyre, 1997). It is also posited that these characteristics may be

viewed as developmental (Geake & Gross, 2008). The literature also suggested that it is

entirely possible that some gifted children can have learning difficulties (Van Tassel-

Baska, 2000), and that not all children’s academic giftedness is easy to identify

(Whitton, 1997).

It is predicated that because of these characteristics, gifted students have particular

learning needs (Archambault, 1993; Coleman & Gallagher, 1995; Harris & Hemmings,

2008; Hartberg-Davis, 2009). It is wise to remember Van Tassel-Baska’s (1994)

recommendation that curriculum planning needs to be modified appropriately for

specific students at each stage of their development.

On that premise, teachers need to determine what appropriate curricula are for gifted

students. The determining factors for teachers will be their attitude regarding giftedness,

and their understanding of the learning needs of gifted children. Plunkett (2000)

purported “...the attitude of the teacher is an important starting point from which

identification and provision will take direction” (p. 33). This could mean that the

recognition of, and curriculum provision for, a gifted student relies on the teacher’s

previous interactions with, and understanding of, giftedness. It is the initial

understandings that pre-service teachers bring with them that might determine how they

understand and perceive giftedness (Geake & Gross, 2008). The path that a person takes

to become a teacher of gifted students is significant; family background, pre-service and

18

in-service provision, and purposeful reflection all help a teacher prepare for the task

(Graffam, 2006, p. 130).

Given that the literature provides a clear understanding of the learning needs of gifted

children, it is concerning to note that many gifted students may be overlooked world-

wide (Dai, Swanson & Cheng, 2011), including those in Australian schools (Harris &

Hemmings, 2008; Lassig, 2009; Lewis & Milton, 2005; Wood, 2009). Providing

appropriately for the possible learning needs of gifted students requires teachers to

master an increasingly complex knowledge base and sophisticated repertoire of

instructional practices (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). The difficulty

may be that many teachers believe that they are providing appropriately whereas in

reality this is not always an accurate assessment. A research study, in the United States

of America [USA], investigating the relationship between what teachers report they do

in their classrooms and their students’ perceptions of classroom activities with respect to

the dimensions of challenge and choice, found a discrepancy between the two (Gentry,

Rizza, & Owen, 2002). That particular study worked with 91 primary classrooms and

64 middle school classrooms and found “...no relationship existed between what

teachers reported they do and what students perceived is done …concerning the

dimension of challenge” (Gentry et al., 2002, p. 145).

In another study in the USA, McCoach & Siegle (2007), noted that although

professional development in gifted education increased a teacher’s understanding of

giftedness and the needs of gifted students, it failed to build support for meeting those

needs (2007, p. 246). In a smaller Australian study, it was also found that some teachers

believed that they appropriately met gifted students’ learning needs, but this was not the

case (Davies, 2002). Such findings may explain why teacher understanding and

provision for gifted students requires review.

During 1988 the Australian Senate Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and

Talented Children released “The Report of the Senate Select Committee on the

Education of Gifted and Talented Children” (Commonwealth Government Publishing

Service, 1988). This report tabled nine recommendations. The first four

recommendations related to the preparation of pre-service and in-service teachers to

cater for gifted students, the next three recommendations advocated for increased

Commonwealth funding and a proposal to establish a national research centre for gifted

education. The final two recommendations called for changes in the curriculum and for

19

resources to be given to identified schools to enhance gifted students’ skills and abilities

(Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1988). The 1988 report asserted that the

learning needs of gifted students were not being effectively met.

In 2001 another select committee of the Australian Senate reviewed the 1988 report.

One of the main findings to emerge from the 2001 report was that gifted children were

still lacking in appropriate curriculum provision. Reasons identified for this inadequacy

focused upon a lack of teacher understanding of the educational needs of gifted

students. The report declared “Many teachers feel a lack of expertise, lack of

confidence, and a lack of resources to meet the needs of gifted children” (Parliament of

the Commonwealth of Australia, 2001, p. xi). The report indicates a variety of areas

where teachers lacked appropriate knowledge. These included identification, issues

relating to the learning needs of gifted students, assessment, and differentiation of

curriculum and advocacy for gifted students.

The literature indicates explicit needs of gifted students, yet reports and investigations

world-wide demonstrate that the learning needs of gifted children are not consistently

met by educators. Research studies reviewing the extent of appropriate provision for

gifted students has yielded little good news. Projects including The Classroom

Practices Survey (Archambault et al., 1993) and the Classroom Practices Observation

Survey (Westberg & Archambault, 1997; Westberg et al., 1997) concluded that little or

no appropriate provision in general schools was made for gifted students. In Australia,

the Regular Classroom Practices Survey was conducted (Whitton, 1997). This research

methodology paralleled the survey study conducted by Archambault and colleagues

(1993) which suggested that if the literature, research studies and government select

committees agree that more should be undertaken to provide for gifted students then the

question must surely be, “Why is it not happening?". Taylor and Milton (2006)

suggested that "there is little understanding of the nature of giftedness or the needs of

gifted learners in the general community or amongst the teaching profession and

therefore little understanding of the needs for specific training in this area" (p. 26).

One of the recurring themes of the literature, in the area of providing appropriately for

gifted students, appears to be the teacher’s ability to appropriately understand giftedness

to be able to meet the learning needs of gifted students. A teacher is often the sole

person deciding curriculum content and delivery methodology for their students. It is a

20

teacher's knowledge and attitudes that will inform those decisions (Bain, Bliss, Choate,

& Brown, 2007; Geake & Gross, 2008; Lassig, 2009; Musanti & Pence, 2010).

PARADIGM SHIFTS WITHIN GIFTED EDUCATION

Understanding historical paradigm shifts within gifted education illuminates origins of

understanding and belief. A significant event took place in 1869 with the publication of

Hereditary Genius by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). It was Galton’s cousin, Charles

Darwin, who wrote Origin of Species. This was significant as Galton followed the lead

of Darwin and pursued a belief in a survival of the fittest intellectual approach (Delisle,

2000). Galton posited that intelligence was related to the intensity of a person’s senses

particularly visual, auditory, tactile sensitivity and reaction time. Colangelo and Davis

(2003) suggest that Galton’s “…heredity basis of intelligence appeared to be confirmed

by his observation that distinguished persons seem to come from distinguished

families…” (p. 6).

Galton’s work influenced Alfred Binet (1857-1911) and Lewis Terman (1877-1956). In

1905, Binet was the director of a psychological laboratory at Sorbonne, in France

[where one of his assistants was Piaget]. Binet was asked to develop an assessment tool

that would identify students who would have learning difficulties at school (Piirto,

2007). This led to Binet and his colleague Simon developing the Binet - Simon scale

(1916). This in turn created data [rough estimates] of what might be expected from

“average” children from the ages of 3-13 which eventually and inadvertently provided a

standardised understanding of giftedness (Piirto, 1999, pp 23-24). This scale also

underpinned the first published levels of intelligence (Morelock & Feldman, 2003;

Whitton, 2002). By utilising and refining Binet and Simon’s previous intelligence tests,

Terman later developed the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. This test was revised in

1937, 1960, 1986 and 2003 (Becker, 2003).

At a time when a stereotype of giftedness was one of a fixed IQ, and a gifted child was

seen to be frail (Colangelo & Davis, 2003, p.14), Terman undertook a longitudinal

study in 1921, involving 1,528 students 10 and 11 years, with a ‘Binet IQ’ of 130 or

higher. The study was entitled Genetic Studies of Genius and through it Terman

provided data to demonstrate that gifted children were in fact balanced, socially capable

and emotionally stable (Delisle, 2000; Porter, 2005; Silverman 1993). Feldhusen

(2005), suggested,

21

The first major finding of the study [Terman’s], published in 1925, was that

the children overall were not, as commonly thought, a group of social

misfits, characterised by eccentric behaviour, but rather they were generally

quite normal except for their academic superiority and very good health (pp.

65-66).

The data also led Terman to believe that intelligence was “a unitary trait that can be

measured accurately and fully by a one-time IQ test” (Delisle, 2000). Even though

Terman’s longitudinal study was pivotal for providing advocacy for gifted children, it

has critics. Many of Terman’s study sample group were males from white middle class

families (Feldhusen, 2005; Porter, 2005) and therefore are not a true representation of a

gifted cohort. Sarouphim (2001) suggested that some of the reasons why minority

groups have been over-represented in remedial programs and under-represented in

programs for the gifted include the use of standardised IQ tests and narrow conceptions

of giftedness. Terman’s traditional finding that gifted individuals as those who scored in

the top 1% in general intellectual ability “...exemplifies how giftedness was viewed

three-quarters of a century ago. Evidence from recent publications indicates the notion

is being reconceptualised” (Sarouphim, 2001, p.130).

Inspired by Terman’s research, Leta Hollingworth (1886-1939) conducted case studies

of twelve children who had IQs above 180. She postulated that a student with an IQ

higher that 150 might attract negative attention for being “different”. This contrasted

with Terman’s findings. Hollingworth suggested that there might be an optimal level of

giftedness which included the 135-150 range (Delisle, 2000, p.14), but that highly gifted

children were vulnerable emotionally, and socially (Porter, 2005). In 1942, three years

after her premature death, Hollingworth’s research was published under the title

Children above 180 IQ Stanford Binet: Origin and Development. In it Hollingworth

identified three areas where highly gifted children might be vulnerable (Morelock &

Feldman, 2003). These areas included problems with lack-lustre curriculum for gifted

children, lack of peers and peer support, and emotional vulnerability: “To have the

intelligence of an adult and the emotions of a child combined in a childish body is to

encounter certain difficulties” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 282).

Paradigm shifts continued with Thurstone’s model (1938) which contended that

intelligence was not a single global capacity, rather that intelligence incorporated seven

separate abilities including: verbal comprehension, word fluency, numerical fluency,

22

special visualisation, associative memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning (Porter,

2005). This broadened the understanding of what giftedness might “look like”.

Guildford (1959), who studied under Thurstone, also commented on the multi-structure

of intelligence by proposing a Structure of Intellect Model. In this model different

content [4], operations [5] and products [6] are combined to produce a large number of

machinations. This raises the possibility of many different types of giftedness.

In the USA during 1970, a political event brought the definition of giftedness into the

general arena of teachers, politicians and parents. Assouline (2003) reported,

Congress mandated Secretary of Education Sidney Marland to generate a

report on the Education of the Gifted and Talented [published in 1972 and

commonly called the Marland Report]. From this report, a national

definition of gifted and talented students was generated (p. 127).

The Marland Report claimed that gifted and talented children are those identified by

professionally qualified persons, and were identified as having outstanding abilities, and

who demonstrated high performance in the following areas: specific academic aptitude,

creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual or performing arts, or

psychomotor ability (Landvogt, 1998). This was a landmark report as it provided

guidance and understanding for a wide cohort of people including classroom teachers,

parents and students. For this reason, The Marland Report also influenced the

understanding of giftedness in Australia, “...because it illustrates many of the common

and mistaken assumptions made by people uninformed in this field” (Landvogt, 1997b,

p. 14).

Gardner (1983) further developed the concept of variance within intelligence by

expounding his understanding of multiple intelligences [MI]. He purported the existence

of several autonomous multiple intelligences that can either operate alone or in

partnership with others. In 1983 Gardner published his landmark publication Frames of

Mind in which it he described seven intelligences as “biological and psychological

potentials... unevenly distributed across different skill areas. Mostly...the intelligences

worked in harmony...” Porter, 2005, p. 22). Gardner’s work has been devoted to

demonstrating the evidence of several relatively independent ‘intelligences’ to respond

against a single static concept of intelligence (Guskin, Peng, & Majd-Jabbari, 1988).

23

Gardner’s theory has been widely adopted and used by classroom teachers, possibly

because it recognises that social-emotional areas of potential talent should be accorded

the recognition they deserve (Bailey, 2000). There has also been wide spread criticism

of Gardner’s theory. Delisle (2001) warns, “As a theory, MI

is convenient, simple ...and wrong. So many people have jumped on to the bandwagon

with the idea that everyone is gifted at something that many gifted programs have been

eliminated or watered down” (2001, p.12). It is important to note that that this

misrepresents Gardner’s original proposal. He did not posit that all people are gifted at

something. Rather he suggested that “there were several relatively autonomous multiple

intelligences which can be combined in many adaptive ways by individuals and

cultures” (Porter, 1999, p. 21). Other objections raised against the theory of multiple

intelligences include the lack of empirical evidence to substantiate the theory (Eysenck,

2000) and a departure from explicit testing procedures for high potential students

(Tannenbaum, 2003).

Renzulli also brought about change in the field of gifted education when he wrote a

journal article entitled What Makes Giftedness? (Renzulli, 1978). In introducing the

concept of the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, he wrote:

The purpose of this article is therefore threefold. First I shall analyse some

past and current definitions of giftedness. Second I shall review studies that

deal with characteristics of gifted individuals. Finally, I shall present a new

definition of giftedness that is operational, i.e., useful to school personnel,

and defensible in the terms of research findings (Renzulli, 1978, p. 180).

Renzulli argued that giftedness was not only to be measured by a standardised

intelligence test, but could also be measured by creative productivity. He stated that

giftedness in our culture is less a trait and more like a set of behaviours based on traits

(Renzulli, 1978).

In 1984 Renzulli developed the enrichment triad/revolving door model to enable gifted

students to be identified more successfully, and to be provided with appropriate

curricula (Renzulli, 1984). This model assumes that gifted children demonstrate their

capacity for giftedness by behaviours which are developed from “...an interaction

among three basic clusters of human traits, that is, above average...or specific abilities,

high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity” (Clark, 1992, p.189).

24

In 1985 the concept of giftedness was influenced again when Gagné proposed the

differentiated model of giftedness and talent [DMGT] whereby he posited that “The

model presents giftedness as exceptional competence in one or more domain of ability,

and defines talent as exceptional performance in one or more fields of human activity”

(Gagné, 1985, p. 111). Gagné highlighted the difficulty arising when scholars used the

words “gifted” and “talented” synonymously:

Giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously

expressed natural abilities [called aptitudes of gifts], in at least one ability

domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10

percent of age peers.

Talent designates the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities

[or skills] and knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree

that places an individual at least among the top 10 percent of age peers who

are or have been active in that field or fields (Gagné, 2003b, p. 60).

The DMGT (Gagné, 1985) had implications for both teachers and gifted students.

Firstly it was a challenge to teachers and scholars who expressed no difference between

giftedness and talent. Secondly the focus was taken from the child who was gifted or the

child who was talented and introduced catalysts [chance, interpersonal, developmental

processes and environment] which connect both the ‘gifted’ and the ‘talented’. These

catalysts influenced by society, included family, individual, school and were both

internal and external influences (Rogers, 2002).

The majority of these catalysts can be influenced either positively or negatively leading

to a gifted child’s potential being encouraged or discouraged. Rogers (2002) succinctly

suggested “It is possible to be gifted but not talented. If something has not happened in

the catalysts, the child will not be talented” (p. 34). Examples of this might be

discouragement by family, school or friends, or if they lost interest. Rogers also

commented on being talented “It is not possible to be talented without being gifted, that

is, if a child is performing at very high levels, then there had to be potential to start

with” (p. 35). If high potential is not present, it cannot be developed, no matter how

hard the child tries.

25

Feldhusen (1995) also celebrated moving away from believing that giftedness is a

unitary trait, and encouraged readers to accept that giftedness is fluid, and that human

abilities are diverse. It is through catalysts that potential is encouraged and fanned,

...a wide range of challenging experiences is available in home, school, and

community and particularly with people – parents who model achievement

orientation, knowledgeable and stimulating teachers, peers who value talent

development and mentors who exhibit the characteristic behaviours and

achievements ... (Feldhusen, 1995, p. 92).

Other important advocates drew attention to new research in the areas of “creativity”

(Torrance, 1974), “nature of intelligence” Sternberg (2003) and “identification”

Tannenbaum, 2003). Each researcher highlighted a particular aspect of giftedness that

enabled the field of gifted education to grow.

Torrance (1974) highlighted the importance of creativity when understanding

giftedness. Torrance and colleagues encouraged identification of giftedness through a

measurement of creativity [the Torrance tests of creative thinking]. Currently

Torrance’s tests have become the standard against which all creativity scales are

measured (Delisle, 1992; Torrance, 1974).

Another important voice when understanding giftedness has been that of Sternberg

(2003) who developed the triarchic theory of intelligence. In this model Sternberg

posited that giftedness [intelligence] is demonstrated by three major information-

processing components of intelligence. Feldhusen succinctly commented on the

Sternberg’s concept:

The first is the higher order executive processes of planning, monitoring and

problem solving. The second is performance components that execute and

evaluate the operations; and the third is knowledge acquisition, which refers

to learning how to solve problems (Feldhusen, 2005, p. 67).

Tannenbaum (1983, 2003) attempted to provide an understanding of giftedness when he

created a psychosocial model which comprised five factors that need to be demonstrated

for a child’s potential to be acknowledged as achievement. These five factors are able to

reside within a five pointed star shape and include, [1] general ability; [2] special

aptitudes; [3] non-intellective factors; [4] environmental supports; and [5] chance

(Porter, 2005). Tannenbaum insists that this is not a foolproof method (Tannenbaum,

26

2003, p. 47), and encouraged the reader to interweave these factors with each other in an

attempt to encourage the richness of giftedness to occur within a gifted young person.

Research and conversations continue to take place regarding how giftedness needs to be

understood. Recent research suggested that giftedness could include significant

advancement in a domain or domains that are highly valued within a culture or society

(Kirschenbaum 1995; Porter 1999a; Spiers Neumeister et al., 2007). There is an

apparent lack of a consistent understanding of giftedness, therefore teachers require

support to appreciate that there is not an all-purpose definition, (Borland, 2003;

Tomlinson, 1995a). Nevertheless a broad definition of giftedness embraces diverse

characteristics, and posits that specific learning needs of gifted students are genuine,

needing to be catered for by the classroom teacher (Borland 2003; Rogers 2002; Siegle

& Powell 2004).

There were several paradigm shifts that occurred during the twentieth century. The

discussion in this research study is not meant to be exhaustive, merely representative of

some of the key changes in understanding giftedness.

In reviewing these pivotal paradigm shifts, we see how ideas develop when concepts

build upon previous theories. Each theory provides enlightenment, yet it is evident that

the understanding of giftedness demonstrates subtle changes. In this current research

study, an understanding of paradigm shifts provides a background to comprehending the

differences and similarities that teachers are often faced with when thinking about

giftedness. Each paradigm shift may result in a change of thinking for some but not all

people. Even though new understanding has grown, it cannot ensure that all teachers

will think the same way. As a result we read how teachers, both in the USA and in

Australia, do not all share the same understanding of giftedness (Chamberlin &

Chamberlin, 2010; Davies, 2002; Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2010; Treffinger,

2009).

COMMON MYTHS THAT MAY HAVE IMPACTED UPON A TEACHER’S

UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS

In 1982, ten years after the Marland Report was released, the myths and misconceptions

surrounding giftedness still prevailed. With this in mind, the winter edition of the

journal Gifted Child Quarterly (1982) centred on the question, “What are the main

issues that gifted education must confront effectively if it is to survive the 1980s?” The

editor of this edition, (Treffinger, 1982) asked leading researchers in the field of gifted

27

education to identify and speak to commonly held myths relating to the understanding

of giftedness. The ultimate purpose of this request was to encourage the development of

models for teaching gifted students, and facilitation to withdraw gifted students from

general classrooms in order to provide them with intellectual peers and appropriate

differentiated curricula (Treffinger, 1982).

These myths could be grouped into categories which included identification of gifted

children (Callahan, 1982; Treffinger, 1982), and appropriate curriculum provision for

gifted children (Feldhusen, 1982; Reis, 1982; Stewart, 1982; Tomlinson, 1982). In 2009

Treffinger returned as a guest editor of Gifted Child Quarterly (Treffinger, 2009, p. 53)

to revisit the same myths to discuss any progression that might have occurred. He asked

the original contributors to consider again the original myth that they had explored. The

outcomes revealed that most of the myths remained as they were in 1982.

Some of the current myths that are particularly pertinent to this research study include:

giftedness is fixed with a homogenous group (Reis & Renzulli, 2009), identification is

through academic achievement (Borland, 2009; Worrell, 2009), gifted students do not

face problems or challenges (Moon, S., 2009; Peterson, 2009), and equality means

teaching all children the same (Cooper, 2009; Sisk, 2009). While these myths are all

relevant I note with interest that in the 1982 and the 2009 issues, the myth of “all

students are gifted” did not arise, as it did in this research study. This might have

indicated that it is not a common understanding amongst teachers in the USA. The

other point of interest was the inclusion in the 2009 edition of myths relating to the

social and emotional states of gifted children (Moon, S., 2009; Peterson, 2009).

Myths that were identified 25 years ago are still prevalent and being addressed today.

The ways in which teachers respond to gifted students are often influenced by the

conceptions and myths that the teachers embrace. The following section discusses some

common teacher attitudes towards gifted students that can be identified as influential

regardless whether they are founded on evidence or myth.

TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARDS GIFTED STUDENTS

Teachers’ beliefs about education affect every aspect of their work. It

sounds obvious, and yet much of recent theory and textbook practice has

ignored the need to find out what teachers believe and, if necessary,

challenge those beliefs (Landvogt, 1997a, p. 3).

28

Attitudes and beliefs are interchangeable for some commentators (Bohner & Wänke,

2002) and yet for others they are linked yet separate. Richardson (1996) suggested that

attitudes lead to beliefs, and cites Eisenhart “... a belief is a way to describe a

relationship between task, an action, an event, or another person and an attitude of the

person toward it” (Richardson, 1996, p.103). For the present study, attitude and belief is

interchangeable. Even though the word ‘attitude’ [belief] is used and understood by

many people, its meaning from a psychometric perspective has not been clearly

delineated (Solomon, 2003). An attitude is understood as a summary evaluation of an

object of thought which affects perceptions, which often affect behaviour (Bohner &

Wänke, 2002). Attitudes may be formed in early life and provide a broad basis for how

people construct both understanding, and what they use for making decisions (Zipin,

2002).

Different definitions of attitude and belief reflect the multifaceted understanding that we

have of the development and influence of personal attitudes. There are few research

studies that have explored the beliefs primary school teachers hold (Richardson, 1996),

and even fewer about teachers’ personal beliefs about giftedness, (especially in

Australia). Of the latter studies, the research findings are not always conclusive or in

agreement (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Moon & Brighton, 2008). A number of

researchers posited that gifted students have explicit needs (Kanevsky, 2011; Van

Tassel-Baska, 1988) while others believe that gifted education is a form of exclusion

and elitism (Geake & Gross, 2008; Sapon-Shevin, 1996).

It is pertinent to consider literature relating to how teachers view and understand gifted

students. Teachers are instrumental in the identification of and provision for gifted

students. Pierce et al. (2007) suggested that teacher’s recommendations “provide a

window into the classroom performance of a child that a test does not illustrate” (p. 117)

reflecting how the teacher has a large responsibility in the process. Lewis and Milton

(2005) posited that some studies indicated that teachers are positive towards gifted

students, even providing them with preferential treatments, citing Cavin 1980; Riggott

1980; Rubovits and Maehr 1973 (in Lewis & Milton, 2005, p. 5). A larger body of

research would suggest ambivalence or uncertainty towards giftedness and gifted

students, on the part of teachers (Archambault et al., 1993; Cashion & Sullenger, 2000;

Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992; Korynta, 1982; McCoach & Siegle, 2007). Other

studies would indicate that this ambivalence could be demonstrated by teachers not

valuing academic ability of students (Cramond & Martin, 1987).

29

Ambivalence may also influence any teachers holding stereotypical views that relate to

the myths previously discussed in the Gifted Child Quarterly journal (1982, 2009).

When discussing identification of gifted students, teachers may believe that children

cannot be identified early because they are too young (Hall, 2001) or that teachers often

develop their own personal conceptions of giftedness and identify only students who fit

within those parameters (Cashion & Sullenger, 1996; Siegle et al., 2010; Speirs

Neumeister et al., 2007). The myth that all children are gifted (Rogers, 2002) may also

be common one in Australia.

Myths relating to the appropriate curriculum provision for gifted students also abound.

These include that gifted students will succeed without special provision because they

are gifted (Harris & Hemmings, 2008), or that for parity and consistency, we should

teach all children the same way (Cooper, 2009). Myths relating to the social and

emotional development of gifted students are raised by teachers who believe that gifted

students are arrogant, over-confident and self-centered (Geake & Gross, 2008). The

apparent ambivalence of some teachers is exactly that: ambivalence. It may not always

be intentional, but it will invariably be influential. For those teachers working with

gifted students, ambivalence or uncertainty may be a product of their lack of experience

or prior negative experiences with gifted students. Such negative experiences may have

influenced them to lack operational confidence in the field.

In South Australia, all pre-service teachers initially undertake teacher education in order

to secure a teaching registration. Many enter the teaching profession with a positive

view to participating in the learning of all of their students (Marsh, 2010). Beliefs and

attitudes held prior to undertaking teacher education, will provide a basis for what they

choose to identify with during their training and teaching career, and will strongly affect

what and how they learn (Goodnough, 2000; Richardson, 1996). Attitudes and

understandings about school and teaching might be recalled relatively easily for most

student teachers, as the concepts of school are broad and within their recent memory

and experience, whereas any personal understandings and beliefs about giftedness may

not be as accessible.

There is a body of literature suggesting that beginning teachers hold moderately positive

views about gifted students (Gallagher, 2009; Guskin et al., 1988; Megay-Nespoli,

2001). Findings from a recent small study (Miller, 2009) discussed commonly agreed

indicators/characteristics of gifted students that are generally held by teachers. Miller

30

(2009) found that teachers generally expect that gifted students will tend to demonstrate

a broad range of knowledge; the ability to find new uses for things; an extensive

vocabulary; enjoyment in experimenting and discovery; the ability to draw conclusions;

the ability to see patterns, relationships and connections; the ability to generate

imaginative and original ideas; and a tendency to become bored when not sufficiently

challenged.

Gallagher (2009) found that teachers hold positive attitudes but that they still subscribe

to some popular myths about giftedness and gifted students. The following attitudes are

common amongst some teachers when they consider gifted students and reflect the

myths as discussed in the Gifted Child Quarterly special issue (2009) and outlined

earlier in this chapter.

Narrow views of giftedness

When teachers have gifted students in their classroom they have opportunities to

broaden and deepen their understanding of giftedness (Braggett, 1998). Gifted students

are not common in every classroom, so it is understandable that a teacher might revert

to a personal default position on giftedness and gifted students, when encountering a

gifted student. This default position may have been influenced by previous teacher

training, professional development, teaching or personal experience and exposure to

social myths and understandings.

A narrow view might mean inflexibility in recognising and identifying gifted students,

insisting that identification can only take place through standardised testing (Schroth &

Helfer, 2008). As with the myth indentified in the Gifted Child Quarterly special issue

(Worrell, 2009), teachers may believe that a single test score is all that a teacher needs

to be informed about a child’s giftedness. This would discourage the use of teacher

observation, parent and peer nomination. Teachers who rely solely on a standardised

test might preclude other students who demonstrate potential in the arts, athleticism, or

leadership.

Teachers unaware of a wide understanding of giftedness may tend to focus only on

measurable academic achievement for identification and inclusion within a gifted

program (Siegle et al., 2010). This means that a teacher using very limited parameters

might only identify a very small sample of gifted students. Some teachers are hesitant to

initiate the identification of gifted students, for fear of getting it wrong. Hodge and

Kemp (2006) found the effectiveness rate of teacher identification of giftedness was less

31

than 60% of those teachers that they worked with. Does this demonstrate a lack of

confidence for teachers (Siegle et al., 2010), or does it demonstrate how difficult

identification might be?

Recent research has shown that teachers are less likely to recognise abilities and

strengths in students for whom they had concerns (Siegle & Powell, 2004; Speirs

Neumeister et al., 2007). This inability to recognise may be due to lack of guidelines

containing distinct and clear indicators of giftedness (Schroth & Helfer, 2008). Without

these clear and useful guidelines, teachers might only identify giftedness by high

performance in Mathematics and English subjects (Landvogt, 1997a; Siegle & Powell,

2004).

A narrow view of giftedness does not reflect a comprehensive understanding of

giftedness. How a teacher understands giftedness will determine how they respond to

the learning needs of gifted students.

Gifted students are good at everything

Some teachers believe that if a student is gifted that they will automatically have a

broad range of giftedness, and they should not have areas of deficiency. Productivity

across all areas is often seen as an indicator of giftedness. This is a myth that was

detailed in the 2009 issue of Gifted Child Quarterly (Moon, S., 2009). These teachers

may have difficulty accepting that gifted students could also have learning difficulties or

even that the students may be non-compliant.

It is possible for teachers to equate giftedness with compliance and good behaviour

where they presume that compliance indicates academic readiness (Tomlinson et al.,

1994). Research studies have discussed this proposal and have rigorously confronted it.

It is clear that giftedness is not a mantle to be worn in covering every aspect of a child’s

learning or abilities (Galbraith, 1985; Moon, S., 2009; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007).

This misunderstanding may lead to false assumptions from teachers, as they do not

understand why their identified gifted students are not consistently “head and

shoulders” above all other students which may distort a lack of true understanding of

gifted students. Some teachers have difficulty accepting that a student might be gifted if

they are messy workers, or if they have difficulties with some areas of the curricula

(Braggett, 1994, 1998; Department for Education and Children’s Services, 1996).

Teachers may have difficulty accepting students might be gifted if they observe any

learning weaknesses. A generic understanding of giftedness is often perceived that a

32

student is holistically gifted, and that this giftedness pertains to all areas of ability. If a

student is suspected to be gifted, then why would they have difficulty writing, or

reading? This attitude, while widely held by many teachers is slowly being replaced

with an understanding reflecting the truth that gifted students also have areas of

strengths and weaknesses (Megay-Nespoli, 2001).

As teachers develop their understanding of giftedness and accept the uniqueness of

individual gifted students they are more likely to teach in a way that best reflects current

research and practice.

Lack of recognition of giftedness amongst minority groups

Another lingering myth which was identified in 1982 and again in 2009 was that the

gifted cohort constitutes 3% to 5% of the population. The percentage was advocated in

the Marland Report (1972) by presenting a definition and claiming that if that definition

was accepted then a minimum of 3% - 5% of school population would be gifted

(Borland, 2009, p. 236). Borland (2009) explained that this had consequences for

students from minority groups:

The idea that giftedness either equals or requires a high IQ is far from dead.

This is one of the causes of the chronic, severe under-representation of

lower-socioeconomic status children... from racial, ethnic and linguistic

minorities in gifted programs in this country. This in itself...should be

sufficient to persuade anyone who does not believe that giftedness is a

predominantly white middle-and upper – class phenomenon that using IQ as

a determiner of giftedness... is seriously misguided practice. (p. 237).

Teacher attitudes relating to the underrepresentation of identified gifted students from

minority groups [either socio-economic or ethnic], are also strongly evidenced within

the literature. Students from minority backgrounds are placed at particular risk of either

not being identified or not being included in a program supporting gifted students

(Moon & Brighton, 2008). Mainstream teachers [as opposed to teachers trained in gifted

education] rated students from a disadvantaged or culturally diverse background [both

gifted and non-gifted] lower and recommended identification less frequently than

teachers with gifted training (Spiers Neumeister et al., 2007). Studies support the

suggestion that fewer students from low SES backgrounds are nominated for gifted

programs (McBee, 2006). There is very little Australian data discussing this question of

33

teacher attitudes relating to minority cohorts being identified as gifted. This has led to

paucity in the literature relating to Australian contexts

Integral with the level of difficulty for minority groups to be recognised are the tools

used to measure students regarding giftedness. It is crucial to assess the usefulness of

assessment tools for minority groups to ensure their appropriateness. For example, the

widely used Stanford-Binet test was developed in 1916, and the latest edition was

released in 2003. It was designed by testing white children of English speaking parents.

Understandably it has the colloquial name of ‘The Anglo Test’.

When testing within a school setting, Mathematics and Literacy are given high

priorities, with creativity, leadership and the arts not being valued as highly; as a result

it has been suggested that I.Q. tests merely predict a student’s success within ‘a school

culture’. A student from a non-English speaking background would be disadvantaged

by the verbal content of the Stanford-Binet, which has been of concern since the first

publication in 1916 (Becker, 2003). This suggested unsuitability for students outside of

an Anglo culture (Clark, 1997). As teachers consider giftedness, it is important that they

know about and understand not only the characteristics of giftedness, but also effective

tools essential to identifying gifted students.

Teacher preference for average students

While teachers may have a positive view towards giftedness, literature (Gallagher,

2009; Megay-Nespoli, 2001) suggested that they often prefer students who are not

academically gifted. In an Australian research study 942 primary pre-service teachers

from five universities generally expressed a preference for students who are not studious

(Carrington & Bailey, 2000). The main purpose of the study was to discuss pre-service

teachers’ reactions to a range of hypothetical students differing according to ability,

studiousness and gender. The participants were asked to rank the hypothetical students

according to desirability. Questionnaires were completed by participants using a Likert

scale to respond. The discussion section reports:

...primary pre-service teachers clearly did show that the average students

were more desirable, ranking them first, second and third, while the last

three positions were filled by gifted students...the finding that primary pre-

service teachers prefer average students is clearly a cause for concern.

(Carrington & Bailey, 2000, p. 20)

34

These findings were supported by Cramond and Martin (1987) who also found that

experienced teachers felt uncomfortable with gifted students. The participants believed

that giftedness was more palatable when it was expressed in an athletics or sports forum

rather than in classrooms. Cashion and Sullenger (2000) found that a number of

teachers undertaking professional development in gifted education did so because of

concerns relating to identified gifted students in their classes, and their own sense of

professional inadequacy.

Research studies have indicated that teachers may have a strong negative attitude

toward gifted students in the area of social non-compliance (Geake & Gross, 2008).

This negative attitude has been intensified by the stereotypic view of gifted students

suggesting they are arrogant, overconfident and self-centred (Gross, 1997).

HOW TEACHERS MIGHT DEVELOP THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF

GIFTEDNESS

There is a paucity of literature discussing how teachers develop and grow their personal

beliefs regarding giftedness. Those who educate gifted students are influenced by their

own unique understandings and experiences. What teachers believe about giftedness

will influence their provision and responses to gifted students (Schroth & Helfer, 2008).

We may ask how teachers develop their understanding and knowledge of giftedness,

and it is probably the same way that all other people do; by interacting from an early

age with the world around them and developing a framework of understanding. This

framework or schema enables people, including teachers, to arrive at their

understanding of ‘what’ and ‘who’ might be gifted:

...when does information become knowledge? Knowledge is information

that is acted upon cognitively. In other words knowledge refers to what we

do with the information we process and how we make meaning from it

(Krause, et al, 2003, p. 142).

What a teacher thinks, understands and believes about giftedness will become evident in

their teaching practice and there has been a growing interest in research focusing on the

correlation between a teacher’s beliefs and their classroom practices (Borko & Putnam,

1996). There has also been widespread academic comment that the providers of teacher

education need to understand and embrace the pivotal role that pre-service beliefs play

in the preparation of new teachers (Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 2010; Moon et al., 1999;

O’Sullivan, 2003; Taylor & Milton, 2006). Researchers are also calling for pre-service

35

institutions and providers of professional development to focus on a person’s personal

belief system rather than just focusing on the teaching of pedagogical strategies

(Graffam, 2006; Miller, 2009; Richardson, 1996). When selecting teachers to teach

gifted students it may not be enough to have just certification and formal training in

gifted and talented education; there may also need to be evidence of understanding and

interpretation and the ability to operate in classes using appropriate practices (Mills,

2003).

Understanding the knowledge that pre-service teachers bring to their teacher education

experiences may be an important part of their tertiary training and mentoring processes.

It has been suggested that how people feel about and respond to various stimuli, is

largely determined by the attitudes they hold (Lassig, 2009, Stroth et al., 2008), and

those experiences and attitudes, cultivated early in a person’s life, are powerful filters

by which they interpret the world around them (Mustani & Pence, 2010). As a person

grows chronologically, they not only gain information, they also gain different

perspectives which influence how they think about the world around them (Krause et

al., 2003).

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides understanding as to how people construct

knowledge about the world around them. This concept is useful in discussing how

teachers might develop their understanding of giftedness.

Habitus

The concept of habitus is a complex one, but in essence it discusses a position that

suggests that ‘patterned ways of ‘knowing’ emerge distinctly in different contexts and

conditions of early life’ (Zipin & Brennan, 2006, p. 334). The suggestion being that

within the social habits of language, practice, and behaviours, a social habitus [habits] is

created in early childhood within a child’s experiences, and that this becomes the

subconscious norm. A “taken for granted” world view is formed that we carry around

with us at both a conscious and subconscious level (Tranter, 2006). Mander (1987) adds

to the definition: “Briefly it is a system of unconscious schemes of thought and

perception or dispositions which act as a mediation between structures and practice”

(Mander, 1987, p. 428). The very basic idea of habitus is reflected in a quote attributed

to St. Francis Xavier: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.

While the concept of habitus appears to have originated in the thought of Aristotle

[hexis] it was resurrected and reinterpreted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in the 1960’s

36

(Wacquant, 2006). Hexis originally referred to a disposition whereby a child acquired

an entrenched state of moral character that heavily influenced feelings and behaviours in

particular situations. The term hexis was then translated into the Latin and became

habitus, meaning ‘to have or hold’ (Wacquant, 2006).

Such an understanding of habitus is relevant to this current research study. In the

interest of academic integrity however, it needs to be noted that habitus is a far more

complex and circuitous concept. A definition of habitus from Bourdieu illustrates this

point:

...systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures

predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which

generate and organise practices and representations that can be objectively

adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends

or an express mastery of the operations necessary to attain them.

Objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without being in any way the product

of obedience to rules, they can be collectively orchestrated without being

the product of the organising of the conductor (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 55).

When considering Bourdieu’s habitus concept it would be natural to discuss the very

nature and understanding of the definition of giftedness, such a discussion would be

well suited for ‘purist Bourdieuns’. It is not my present intention to discuss the political

or sociological understanding of giftedness, but rather to take as a premise its definition

and rationale. As seen from the above quotation, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is

complex, complicated and far-reaching. Therefore for the purposes of this research

study I declare that many of the intricacies of Bourdieu’s theories are not relevant here,

though the basic premise of habitus is. That premise being that as a child is influenced,

so they develop understandings, and beliefs that align with those influences.

The concept of habitus was encouraged by Pajares (1992) who, after reviewing the

literature addressing teachers’ educational beliefs, suggested sixteen key assumptions,

as to how beliefs are formed. These assumptions include:

1. Beliefs are formed early and tend to self perpetuate.

2. Individuals develop a belief system that houses all the beliefs acquired

through the process of cultural transmission.

37

7. Beliefs are prioritised according to their connection or relationship to

other beliefs.

10. The earlier a belief is incorporated into the belief structure, the more

difficult it is to alter.

11. Belief change during adulthood is a relatively rare phenomenon.

(1992, pp. 324-325).

These assumptions infer that a teacher’s belief system is commenced during early

childhood and is maintained and developed with each new context or situation. This is

relevant to this present research study which explores how teachers came to their

understanding of giftedness and considers influences impacting that understanding.

Bourdieu’s concept of Habitus, which in its very simplest terms “encompasses how

people act in a way that is reflective of social structures and their process of

socialisation, which in turn is reproduced by their actions (Johnson, 2009, p. 60). How a

person develops their understanding of giftedness may be dependent on a variety of

influences, including upbringing, socialisation, and school experiences. There appears

to be a breadth of literature discussing habitus, as it relates to all sections of people,

cultures and societies yet there is very little literature discussing habitus and giftedness

(Ingram, 2011).

In order to contextualise Bourdieu’s concept of habitus we need to consider other

sections of his proposal. These include Cultural Capital, and Field, with both aspects

adding to the foundation upon which habitus is built.

Cultural capital

Capital usually refers to something of monetary value yet Bourdieu's concept of cultural

capital is an attempt to widen our understanding of capital to understand culture as a

form of capital. The notion of cultural capital was first suggested by Bourdieu as a

theoretical hypothesis which made it possible to explain the unequal scholastic

exposures of children originating from different social classes (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 47).

According to Bourdieu, this facilitates an ongoing process where history tends to repeat

itself.

Zipin (2002) suggested that for a child, the dispositions of habitus are implemented with

subtle reinforcements and affirming expectations from family and community. Schools

38

also contribute largely to a person’s developing habitus. Bourdieu posited that in pre-

school and primary school, children begin to experience an overlay of values and

attitudes separate to their family and develop what he calls a ‘secondary habitus’ Within

this setting, dispositions continue to be formed and assumed and are often reinforced as

they are shared across families and culture sharing a similar status or standing within

society. The essence of cultural capital includes ‘the received wisdom that attributes

academic success or failure to natural aptitudes’ (Reay, David & Ball, 2005, p. 19).

Cultural capital involves elements of appreciation of art, learning for the sake of

learning, libraries within homes and musical appreciation with instruments being

played. For the family and dominant culture that the child is a part of, cultural capital

may simply be what is considered to be important, and highly prized. Teachers gather

their understanding of cultural capital as they became adults, and embedded within this

cultural capital is possibly their increasing knowledge of and attitude to giftedness. As

teachers they often reflect standards and expectations about what is and was not

important within our society. If teachers believed strongly in advocating for children

with learning difficulties, then their cultural understanding of learning difficulties will

influence students in their classrooms.

To understand this concept better, Bourdieu identified three forms of cultural capital:

the embodied, objectified and the institutionalised states.

The embodied state alludes to long lasting dispositions of the mind and body it cannot

be transmitted or purchased instantaneously (Bourdieu, 1986). It is the slow result of

cultural influences that create and develop within a child an understanding of what is

and what is not important. If we objectified this process, it may be seen and experienced

by both formal and informal conversations within the home and classroom embracing

attitudes and prejudices expressed by family, peers, and teachers and to some extent the

media. It is evidenced in, and by, the literature read, social customs observed, holiday

destinations and family or cultural traditions observed. The embodied state is the long

process of becoming who we are and what we think is important. It is those attitudes

and beliefs that we hold on to tightly as we develop. Bourdieu was particularly insistent

on it being from a sociological stance including class, wealth and power (Lizardo,

2009). For the purposes of this research, I am considering an interpersonal imbuing of

the value and recognition of giftedness, within a family or school setting.

39

The objectified state relates to those objects and cultural goods, artefacts and concrete

possessions by which others assess us. Do we drive the ‘right’ car, live in the best

neighbourhood and have the qualifications that effectively speak of our social standing?

Our cultural capital may also be identified as our economic capital in some contexts,

such as possessing an art or expensive wine collection (Tranter, 2006). Even though a

person may own enviable cultural objects, they can only really be consumed

appropriately if the person has a habitus to understand and appreciate the cultural

meaning and significance. So while owning something is desirable, being seen to

instinctively understand and appreciate the object is pivotal and rewarding (Bourdieu,

1986).

The institutionalised state is evidenced in the form of educational qualifications

bestowed upon a person, encouraging a tacit understanding that academic qualifications

signposts achieved success and social status. This recognition is bestowed on an

individual by an institution that perpetuates its own values and standards:

With the academic qualification a certificate of cultural competence which

confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with

respect to culture, social alchemy produces a form of cultural capital which

has relative autonomy vis-a-vis its bearer and even vis-a-vis the cultural

capital he effectively possesses at any given time (Bourdieu 1986, p. 51).

Bourdieu likened academic qualifications to cultural capital in the same way that money

relates to economic capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1993). Institutions, such as

universities, are accountable for bestowing qualifications. One of the main purposes of

receiving qualifications is to enter a lucrative work force in order to assume a lifestyle

that is desirable for an individual.

These three areas [embodied state, objectified state and the institutionalised state] all

support each other in potentially providing an individual better access to a successful

standard of living and social success. Embodied and objectified states provide easier

access to an institutionalised state, thus hopefully facilitating success.

Field

The concept of ‘field’ relates to the setting where human interactions take place. These

fields may include a workplace or school, or more broadly politics, religion, education.

Within a field there are players [or agents] who coexist with different acquisitions of

40

cultural capital. In general terms, a field is a place where there are both overt and tacit

understandings of rules and expectations and the players then function within the field

to both accumulate and demonstrate cultural capital. Bourdieu defines field as:

‘configuration of relations between positions objectively defined, in their existence and

in the determinations they impose upon the occupants, agents or institutions’ (Bourdieu,

1992, p. 72-73).

For the purposes of this research study the field is not as applicable as the concept of

habitus. As I am seeking to understand how a teacher might come to their understanding

of giftedness, the habitus is the predominant feature. The most influential fields, in this

research study are early experiences within the family and education. Family values and

socialisation are paramount in a child’s experiences. The child will often attend school

representing their family’s worldview and will adapt school life and the world around

them into their own schema of understanding.

The education field includes school experiences, pre-service and in-service provision.

The habitus would prepare a person for the appropriate field. Grenfell (1998) asserts

that ‘habitus brings with it field and field the notion of habitus’ (1998, p. 87). If

someone from a middle class background enrolled in an academic course at university,

they might feel more at home and able to interact and contribute both academically and

socially more effectively than a person from a working class background from which

they are a first generation to attend university. This might be due to the shared

experiences of parents and siblings who also attended university. The fact that previous

family have attended university can serve to normalise the experience.

SUMMARY

The literature review has discussed three areas which relate to this present study. These

include paradigms shifts within historical definitions of giftedness, previous and current

myths surrounding giftedness and teacher attitudes and finally how teachers might

develop an understanding of their world, including giftedness. These three areas provide

a context for understanding responses from participants when considering how they

have grown into their understanding of giftedness. The literature review reminds us that

ideas and concepts are all built upon previously discussed ideas. Despite much that is

agreed upon, as to the nature of giftedness, there are still cohorts of teachers who

believe a variety of conflicting interpretations of giftedness. The literature review

reminds us that understanding and knowledge are forever growing and developing.

41

The interviews with participants provided a snapshot of their current understandings of

giftedness. In the next chapter the research methods undertaken are discussed.

42

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS

A research design is the logic that links data to be collected [and the

conclusions to be drawn] to the initial questions of study (Yin, 1994, p. 18).

This research study employed a qualitative Narrative Inquiry case study method

involving data collection from three interviews with each of the three participants.

The priority and starting point of any research, as Yin (1994) rightly indicated, is that

the research design or method is built solely upon the research question. The research

question therefore guides and determines the method being used. If the research is

consistently driven by the primary research question and not by the methodology, then

the study will remain focused and will yield meaningful data and will facilitate an

understanding of the data. As a research study commences the question of which

methodology to use, [qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods] needs to be discussed.

It is important not to view these three methods [qualitative, quantitative or mixed

methods] as being in conflict with each other, rather that they can exist as different

stages of a continuum. Quantitative methods might rely heavily on numerical data with

closed questions covering a large sample to discuss findings, whilst qualitative research

tends to be framed with words, using open ended questions and smaller samples

(Creswell, 2009, p. 3). Researchers using a quantitative method could also be isolating

and defining categories as they research and then carefully determining the relationships

between them (McCracken, 1988). In broad terms quantitative research “…supported by

the positivist or scientific paradigm, leads us to regard the world as made up of

observable, measurable facts” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 6). Using mixed methods

enables researchers to incorporate a variety of both data collection and interpretation,

thus facilitating different ways of framing and studying social phenomena. This variety

encourages different types of understanding within paradigms (Schwandt, 2007).

Alternatively, qualitative research chooses to employ a naturalistic approach that

endeavours to consider phenomena within context-specific settings, such as "real world

setting [where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of

interest" (Patton, 2002, p. 39). A naturalistic approach or setting has many advantages,

including that of being an opportunity for the participant to stylise their response. Patton

(2002) provided an example of this:

43

Open-ended, conversational like interviews as a form of naturalistic inquiry,

contrast with questionnaires that have predetermined response categories.

It’s the difference between asking “Tell me about your experience in the

program” and “How satisfied were you?” “Very, somewhat, little, or not at

all” (2002, p. 40).

Qualitative data are records of observation or interactions that are complex, and not

given to being reduced to numbers (Richards, 2009). This data can be fluid, flexible and

open to interpretation, as is the participant’s voice. There needs to be continuing

growing interdependence between qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Qualitative research can often provide reasons why the connections happen and why

they become so strong. Quantitative research often investigates the ‘what’ whereas

qualitative research tends to pursue the ‘why’ (Elliot, 2005).

TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS: A QUALITATIVE

APPROACH

In this research study a qualitative methodology was employed because the main

research question necessitated a qualitative approach. Qualitative research questions

address meaning, understanding and interpretation; they focus on the ‘why’ and ‘how’.

In particular they focus on human beings and examine their situational contexts and

their understanding of self. Qualitative research “seeks meaning [rather than a collection

of general statistics] and contributes to theory development by proceeding inductively”

(Daly, 2003, p.193).

This research study discussed how participants came to their understanding, not just

what they knew. Data were collected from interviews where participants had

opportunities to communicate with reflection and at their pace, instead of just answering

set questions in a prescribed time frame (Seidman, 2006).

I took advantage of qualitative research tools, for which the benefits included;

Insight into the context of a participant’s understanding of giftedness (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985).

Being able to member check for accuracy (Glesne, 1999).

Being able to view the case studies holistically and be able to identify influences

and factors that may have been overlooked in quantitative research

44

methodology. This included clarifying and understanding nomenclature used by

participants (Merriam, 1988).

Being able to tacitly understand and appreciate much of the culture of teaching,

and giftedness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Providing research findings that may be more appropriate for use by teachers

because it focuses upon ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions within their teaching practice

(Glesne, 1999).

In retrospect I was able to hear their true ‘voice’ (Reissman, 1993) and understand how

they believed they came to their understanding of giftedness. An explanation of what is

meant by ‘voice’ is encapsulated by Britzman (1990):

Voice is meaning that resides in the individual and enables that individual to

participate in a community... The struggle for voice begins when a person

attempts to communicate meaning to someone else. Finding the words,

speaking for oneself, and feeling heard by others are all a part of this

process....Voice suggests relationships: the individual's relationship to the

meaning of her/his experience and hence, to language, and the individual's

relationship to the other, since understanding is a social process (Britzman

as cited in Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 4).

As Lichtman (2006) suggested, qualitative researchers gather, organise, and interpret

information using their own eyes and ears as filters. As a qualitative researcher, one of

the driving forces when collecting this data was the need to facilitate opportunities for

the participants to reflect upon how they came to their understanding of giftedness. This

would have been a difficult task without providing them with avenues through which to

describe it in their chosen words.

NARRATIVE INQUIRY CASE STUDY

A Narrative Inquiry approach was chosen for this study because the data collected

would be narrative in nature and not numerical. The Narrative Inquiry method not only

commissions the researcher to hear what the participant says, but also enables

understanding as to why they might think in that way. Riessman (2001) suggested “the

truths of narrative accounts lie not in their faithful representation of a past world, but in

the shifting connections they forge between past, present and future” (Riessman, 2001,

p. 705).

45

Narrative Inquiry discusses the richness of data within the context of the participant:

The main claim for the use of narrative in educational research is that

humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead

storied lives. The study of narrative, therefore, is the study of the ways

humans experience the world. This general notion translates into the view

that education is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social

stories; teachers and learners are storytellers and characters in their own and

other's stories (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2).

For the current research study there were several considerations for choosing Narrative

Inquiry case study. Firstly, narrative is rich in meaning for both the person and

community and has been used effectively to explain and describe complex, human and

cultural understandings (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Narrative allows researchers to

present people’s stories and experiences [the participants’ reality] to make sense of

previous actions or decisions made. When understandings are seen in context the

researcher can begin to see not just what’ but also ‘why’.

In an interview setting participants have time to gather and sort through their thoughts,

to remember contexts, replay conversations and to provide insight to reflect upon how

they developed their understanding of giftedness. When participants simply fill out a

questionnaire, there may be a temptation to ‘tick the right boxes’ whereas during

conversations, participants can often reveal what they really believe by linking their

responses to times, places and contexts (Riessman, 1993).

A Narrative Inquiry approach provided strong, trustworthy data in an environment that

participants found safe and comfortable. It was also effective as people could take the

opportunity to express themselves through language, particularly language of their

choice. There may be a hesitancy for teachers to work with academics for fear of

‘failing the knowledge test’ so an invitation for participants to share their stories could

provide a greater sense of safety (McCracken, 1988). The Narrative Inquiry method has

a foundation in understanding the stories that people tell:

The method [Narrative Inquiry] assumes that people’s realities are

constructed through narrating their stories…The researcher explores the

story, Narrative Analysis can be applied to any spoken or written account

(e.g. in-depth interview) (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 123).

46

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The focus for this research was not on the collection of a large general quantity of data,

rather on its depth and richness (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Three teacher participants

participated in this research study. All the participants were primary school teachers and

all worked within the public school system at metropolitan schools, even though some

of the schools might be categorised as semi-rural. All were experienced teachers with at

least 15 years teaching experience. The participating teachers were selected by

approaching school principals and enquiring whether they could recommend teachers

who were recognised for their understanding of gifted education training and practice.

This recognition included that the teachers had undertaken professional development in

the area of gifted education, or had experience teaching gifted students.

The school principals were fully briefed on the ethical nature of the research and were

given full assurance of the personal and public safety of any staff members involved. As

the researcher I was provided with individual contact details, and the principals were not

advised if the teachers had or had not decided to participate. These teachers had no

knowledge of the other participants. I also obtained permission and ethics approval from

DECS [Department of Education and Children’s Services] to work with these teachers.

All the participating teachers had undertaken DECS professional development in gifted

education, including identification and provision for gifted students. This professional

development was rooted firmly in the DECS implementation guide Understanding

Giftedness [Department Education and Children’s Services, 1996]. Selection on this

basis suggested that all participants had been exposed to a similar understanding and

paradigm of giftedness and may therefore hold similar views. It also provided

consistency in their rationale of practice and nomenclature.

I used Seidman’s three interview process, also known as a long interview methodology

(McCracken, 1988; Seidman, 2006). Being able to interview teachers and to directly

ask them for their interpretation and understanding provided me with contextual data.

Each interview lasted at least 85 minutes.

SEIDMAN’S THREE INTERVIEW METHOD

Seidman explains the interview framework:

People’s behaviour becomes meaningful and understandable when placed in

the context of their lives and the lives around them. Without context there is

47

little possibility of exploring the meaning of an experience (Seidman, 2006,

p. 16-17).

The three interview approach was based on Dolbear and Schuman’s model (Seidman,

2006, p.17). The approach consists of three long interviews [at least 85 minutes long],

which facilitates the participants to reconstruct his or her experiences of the research

topic under study (Seidman, 2006). The three interview method was chosen to allow

participants time to reflect on three areas of their life [past, present and future], in the

context of giftedness, thus encouraging personal reflection and opportunity for linkage

of thoughts. The three interview method provides opportunities for the participant to

explain how they think about things, and have the opportunity to verbally travel back

and forth to correct any unfinished thoughts (Kvale, 1996). Multiple interviews

provided the participant with the time to reflect on and even retract statements made.

Spoken language is a powerful communicator and enabler when used appropriately

(Webster & Mertova, 2007).

Seidman’s three interview method embraces three long interviews for each participant

to present their voice using preferred vocabulary and colloquial language. Researchers

are able to hear that voice, record and interpret it. This method also recognises that

researcher(s) have a voice which is inexplicably linked to the research study (Seidman,

2006). In this research study I have attempted to clearly identify my voice, along with

any personal bias or vested interests. Through careful awareness and strategic tools

[reflexivity] the researcher can identify and comment on their voice within the research

process (Czarniawska, 2004).

For this research study each teacher participated in three interviews. Each interview

took place at least a week apart and highlighted a particular area to provide a variety of

rich meaningful data. Each interview spanned approximately one hour and fifteen

minutes. The interview sites were selected according to each participant’s preference.

This resulted in interview sites including my home and school classrooms after school

had finished. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed, with each participant

reviewing the material and asked to confirm accuracy. The data was then coded to look

for patterns of meaning.

The relationship between qualitative researcher and participant can be far more complex

than between a quantitative researcher and a respondent because the qualitative

researcher is meeting the participant face to face and engaging in a form of relationship

48

(McCracken, 1988). An interviewer needs to be aware of many possible impacting

factors, including the influence of the academic institution represented, or by the dress

or language or even the body language demonstrated by the researcher. After reflecting

on these factors I incorporated the following measures for the participants’ comfort. I

attempted to strike a balance between formality and informality with both dress and

speech. I limited personal enthusiasm as much as possible and I attempted to become

bland without being insipid. These measures were to minimise unnecessarily

influencing the participants. I consciously resisted giving any indication of my personal

views regarding giftedness whilst recruiting participants, and during interviews I spoke

as little as possible and did not flippantly contribute to the discussions. My involvement

was merely to pursue clarification or to bring a participant back to the subject of

understanding giftedness.

During the first interview I came to understand the importance of not giving any

indication of agreement or disagreement with a participant’s responses, and to keep my

body language as still and open as possible at all times. Entering into this process I

became aware that the focus needed to stay completely upon the participant and not on

me. I also understood that a monologue yielded far richer data, as much of what was

said originated with the participant.

Interview one: Focused life history.

This first interview reconstructed the past experiences of the participant and gathered

data relating to early experiences and understandings of giftedness, exploring memories

they had of gifted friends, family members or class members. As the interviewer, I

explained that I was keen to find out how they came to their understanding of

giftedness, and was also keen to hear memories and stories of their experiences of

giftedness while growing up. I had questions which I would use to clarify or to redirect

to the subject if we diverged excessively. Participants were given no guidance as to

what was expected, and it was made clear that any and all responses would be

appropriate. This enabled participants to relax, reconstruct memories and display

understandings which were evidenced by participants smiling at various memories, and

for some recalling things that they had not thought about for decades.

Attention was given to their experience of giftedness as a child within their family

setting and their own experience whilst as a student within school. They were also asked

to reflect upon their pre-service teacher preparation and early teaching experiences of

49

giftedness. They were free to move into any areas of interest and recall randomly,

though as the interviewer, I clarified and guided discussion to ensure that there were

optimal opportunities for participants to communicate how they might have come to

their current understanding of giftedness. As participants talked, they reconstructed their

past. Reconstruction may be partially on memory and partially on what a participant

now senses is important about the past (Seidman, 2006, p. 88). During the interview,

participants spoke of their earliest recollections and understandings of giftedness, and

had clear memories of people or family members who were gifted and why they thought

that they were gifted.

Interview two: The details of previous and current experience.

The second interview took place at least a week later. An opportunity was given to the

participant to reflect upon the previous interview and for me as the researcher to

reconfirm confidentiality and ethical practices, while reminding them that at anytime

they could withdraw from the process without any obligation. The second interview

explored each participant’s current understandings about giftedness and their interaction

with gifted students in their classroom.

Participants were also encouraged to discuss any current involvement with in-service

professional development that particularly related to gifted students. Participants were

able to share how their understanding of giftedness impacted their teaching practice.

This interview provided participants with some opportunities for reflection on both their

understanding of giftedness and their provision for gifted students and to have time for

considering how these two things were aligned. It was during this particular interview

that participants were moved from reconstructing how they developed a personal view

of giftedness to one of discussing pedagogy with an awareness of expectations, based on

DECS Understanding Giftedness policy implementation guide [Department Education

and Children’s Services, 1996].

Interview three: Reflection on the meaning.

The third interview encouraged the participant to reflect on the previous two interviews.

The discussions included their current understanding of giftedness and also asked if

there had been any changes in their thinking. Examples of questions included “How

have our previous discussions regarding giftedness influenced your current

understanding of giftedness?”

50

Constructing meaning requires participants to recall and retrace how they came to their

current understanding. This process provides opportunities for reflection and where

necessary adjustment (Seidman, 2006). This third interview can only be productive if

the previous two have also enabled opportunities for reflection, discussion and time to

ponder. In all three interviews participants selected incidents and experiences and

language to express themselves. Each story told was a part of the jigsaw and had been

selected by the participant for a reason (Elliot, 2005).

Seidman (2006) explained it well when he wrote:

When we ask participants to tell stories of their experience, they frame some

aspect of it with a beginning, middle and an end and therefore make it

meaningful, whether it is in interview one, two, or three. But in interview

three, we focus on that question in the context of the two previous

interviews and make meaning the centre of our attention (Seidman, 2006, p.

19).

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The three interview method matched the qualitative nature of the research questions.

This methodology provided an opportunity to incorporate my strength of experience. I

collected data by transcribing interview material and by keeping a reflexive journal.

Stake (1995) claimed that one of the principle qualifications of qualitative researchers is

experience. The qualitative researcher benefits from knowing, understanding and

recognising trustworthy sources of data. In my own context it is useful to declare that I

have worked with primary schools both as a teacher and a gifted education coordinator

helping teachers to gain skills in the area of giftedness. This provides me with an

explicit knowledge of the professional development undertaken by participants. I am

also familiar with the South Australian schooling systems and the context of teachers’

work [such as the South Australian curriculum documents].

DATA ANALYSIS METHODS

The interviews generated a large volume of material. Determining relevant data was a

continual focus. Two important driving forces in data analysis and interpretation are the

research questions and ethical considerations. Firstly the data analysis needs to be

driven by the research questions (Bouma, 2000; Yin, 1994). Data analysis provides

illumination for the research questions and the interpretations need to be trustworthy:

51

Data analysis involves organising what you have seen, heard, and read so

that you can make sense of what you have learned. Working with the data,

you describe, create explanations, pose hypotheses, develop theories, and

link your story to other stories. To do so you must categorise, synthesise,

search for patterns, and interpret the data you have collected (Glesne, 1999,

p. 130).

In this research, data analysis focused on developing patterns within interviews and

informal conversations; observations and patterns which indicated a participant’s

awareness of how they came to their understanding of giftedness.

Patterns within interviews

Kvale (1996) advocated for participants to not only answer questions prepared by the

researcher, but also any that they themselves formulated, within a dialogue, their own

conceptions of their lived world. In this particular study, that would include their

understanding of giftedness (Kvale, 1996, p. 11).

It was important to listen repeatedly to all of the interviews, particularly the content,

tone, inflection and even any pauses used by participants (Reissman, 1993). Whilst

reviewing the recordings and transcripts I actively sought repeated patterns and themes.

I read through the interviews chronologically, and then re-read them out of sequence. I

took opportunities to read them in reverse order [the third interview then the second,

then the first]. This provided me with a consistency of rich meaningful data. I

highlighted strong emergent themes, common phrases and key words. Attention was

given to the type of language used, and to how things were said. I not only looked for

patterns between each interview, but also between participants. Burns (2000, p. 432)

explained that coding involves classifying material into themes, issues, topics, concepts

and propositions.

I linked data that clustered or belonged together, and at the same time ensured that data

was not taken out of context, or stretched to make a point. Eventually several clusters of

data emerged which included areas relating to their construction of an understanding of

giftedness. Within the data analysis I compared and contrasted the participants’

narratives.

As I began to write up my Findings and Discussion chapters, I regularly went back into

the transcripts seeking supporting evidence or for clarification. This action was very

52

profitable as I frequently returned to the primary data and often found clarification or

illumination. I also consistently referred back to literature in the area of giftedness and

attitudes of teachers. This provided me with maintenance of the larger picture and

enabled me to consider the data that I was collecting within a larger body of previous

research. Being able to record, document, cluster and code the data, enhanced its

analysis of data while providing opportunities for colleagues to analyse it

independently.

Trustworthiness within qualitative research

Researchers need to be able to demonstrate trustworthiness for readers to have

confidence in the research methods and the research findings. One of the major

differences between qualitative and quantitative research is that within qualitative

research the role and voice of the interviewer can be recognised. For some researchers

this can be seen as a negative, with the perceived potential for an interviewer to self-

contaminate their own data, but it may also be interpreted as a positive strategy: “The

human interviewer can be a marvellously smart, adaptable, flexible instrument who can

respond to situations with skill, tact, and understanding” (Lincoln & Guba, 1989, p.

157). The qualitative researcher needs to demonstrate awareness and proactive measures

to ensure trustworthiness. The qualitative researcher is part of the interview process by

asking questions and interpreting responses (Seidman, 2006).

Validity deals with how the research findings match reality: Do they capture what is

really there? This is achieved when a study conveys faithful descriptions of the

experience being studied:

A qualitative study is credible when it presents such faithful descriptions or

interpretations of a human experience that the people having that experience

would immediately recognize it from those descriptions or interpretations as

their own (Sandelowski, 1986, p. 30).

Validity can be safeguarded through the following means:

Spending the appropriate time needed with each participant (Burns, 2000;

Merriam, 1988).

Representing, through observations and discussion, both typical and non-typical

events (Bouma, 2000; Stake, 1998; Yin, 1998).

53

Looking for other explanations for what is heard or observed (Stake, 1995; Yin,

1994).

Being aware of and minimizing any bias. Researchers need discipline and

correct protocols to ensure that the interpretations of observations do not depend

on mere intuition or possible prejudice (Glesne, 1999; Marshall & Rossman,

2011).

Reflexivity.

Reflexivity might be understood as a heightened awareness of self to indicate an

awareness of the ‘self’ of the researcher within the research process (Elliot, 2005).

Through the data collection process I maintained a journal to facilitate reflexivity, and

this tool became important in data interpretation. As soon as possible after each

interview I would recall the interview content and record what I believed were salient

points. These salient points included my overall impression of what was said and how it

was said. I also thought carefully about my role as researcher and looked for critical

incidents which would help me with further interviews. One example of this occurred

after my first interview I realised that I had interrupted the participant while they were

talking. I ensured that in future interviews I was more patient and focused more on

listening rather than speaking. Utilising this method enabled me to identify and

acknowledge my involvement and also the limitations of this research study, including

“... its location, its subjects, Its process, its theoretical context, its data, its analysis, and

how accounts recognise that the construction of knowledge takes place in the world and

not apart from it” (Shacklock & Smyth, 1998, p. 7).

As I interviewed participants, I kept in my mind the idea posited by Richards (2009, p.

49) that qualitative data are not just collected, but generated collaboratively by the

researcher and the research. Creswell succinctly explained this process:

Because qualitative research involves sustained and intensive experience

with participants, researchers need to reflect explicitly on factors which

might impact the interpretation of the data. This continual process requires

the research to consider reflectively their own bias, gender, beliefs and

personal background or in deed anything that might shape their

interpretation of the data collected (Creswell, 2009, p. 177).

54

Dependability within qualitative research

As we contrast reliability [a positivist concept] with dependability [a constructivist

concept] it is noted that reliability is a quest for precision the attainment of which can

threaten validity. This is because an outside researcher may not fully comprehend the

meaning behind the participant’s behaviour. In recording and categorising the data, the

researcher may only observe and interpret the behaviour. Dependability acknowledges

that researcher’s observations and findings will be unique to themselves because of

what they bring into the research. While the aim is for different researchers to have

similar observations and findings, dependability also has an emphasis upon meaning

(Yin, 1994).

To safeguard dependability, the researcher needs to document the steps by which data

were collected and interpreted. In this way another researcher can follow the original

researcher’s path and would achieve similar results.

A second method to safeguard dependability is to ensure that no data are lost through

carelessness or bias (Yin, 1994). This awareness has been termed disciplined

subjectivity and incorporates self-monitoring by researchers. It involves researchers

being aware of their assumptions; guarding against value judgments in data collection

and analysis; and preserving raw data to provide evidence of the conclusions drawn

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

Underpinning all aspects of trustworthiness, in either qualitative researcher or

quantitative research, is a solid foundation of appropriate ethical practices and

procedures. Without a sound ethics plan, any research study would be seriously lacking

trustworthiness.

Research ethics and protection of participants

In discussions of the rights of research participants, privacy is generally the

foremost concern. Participants have a right to expect that when they give

you permission to observe and interview, you will protect their confidences

and preserve their anonymity (Glesne, 1999, p. 122).

Ethics refer to the researcher’s moral duty and obligation to do what is right, just and

trustworthy rather than what is expedient, convenient or practical (Porter, 2005). It is

imperative that research does not disadvantage or harm any of the participating subjects.

Respect for participants needs to be demonstrated by ensuring their informed consent to

55

participation, safeguarding their confidentiality, and if possible, providing some

professional enrichment to them in return for their participation.

This research was approved by both the Flinders University Social and Behavioural

Research Ethics Committee, and the DECS Research Unit. Confidentiality has been

successfully maintained. Participants were assured that all data collected, coded and

discussed would not have any identifiable names attached and would be accessible only

to me. This data would be kept in a password secure computer in a safe and lockable

location. Pseudonyms were used in the authorship of this report. In the ethics

application for Flinders University I included introductory letters, informed consent

forms and assurances of full and complete confidentiality. All participants were aware

of the research intentions and that participation in the research study was voluntary.

Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. I

assured them that under no circumstances would their name or location be revealed.

Because I interviewed participants about their life experiences and performance as a

teacher, I was aware of using inclusive, non judgemental language. It was important not

to ‘lead’ or ‘guide’ the participant in saying things that they thought I wanted to hear.

Participants were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, prejudice or judgement

though my status as a mandatory notifier was current throughout the research study.

Another ethical implication was to ensure a high level of quality in both the data

collection and the analysis. This is important for maintenance of academic integrity and

production of accurate data. This can be achieved by having well prepared research

questions, a solid research methodology, and attention to detail in data collection and

analysis.

SUMMARY

The research method used for this research study was naturalistic. The primary method

used was Narrative Inquiry case study, focusing on how teachers construct their

understanding of giftedness using qualitative methods. Rigorous ethical safeguards via

procedures and requirements were employed. I acknowledge that the sample is small,

but there were opportunities to spend time with participants and to collect rich data.

There are limitations with qualitative methodology, and in particular interviewing, but I

have demonstrated that with academic care, reflexivity and ethical applications that

safeguards can be put into place and adhered to.

56

The following chapter provides the findings from the interviews. These are provided as

a foundation for the discussion chapter. The Findings chapter demonstrates the diversity

of rich data collected from the participants and presents that data in form of text

organisers. It is my aim to provide the reader with both a contextual insight into the

participants, as well as a basis to discuss their developing understanding of giftedness.

57

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents data related to participants’ emergent understanding of giftedness

from their early years including early experiences of giftedness, current understanding

of giftedness and their reflections upon the interview process in which they engaged.

I have used pseudonyms (Chris, Pat and Sam) to ensure privacy for all participants; they

were fully briefed on their ethical rights for confidentiality and anonymity at the start of

every interview. Each was advised that they could withdraw from the study at anytime

without obligation. All of the interviews took place at a time and site of each

participant’s convenience. Participants viewed transcripts [member checking] to ensure

accuracy and that they were true reflections of what was spoken. This ensures that the

grammar used is truly reflected, as are repeated words, unfinished sentences and pauses.

At times some of the responses appear incoherent, but they are a true reflection of what

was spoken by the participants. The words student/students and child/children are used

synonymously throughout this chapter.

All of the participants worked in DECS [public] schools and had been provided with

professional development in the area of gifted education. Most of this took place as

school workshops, or by teaching at a school that was identified as a Students of High

Intellectual Potential [SHIP] focus school. DECS also provided each public school with

a policy implementation guide entitled ‘Understanding Giftedness‘. This policy guide

discusses the ten outcomes relating to the DECS Gifted Education policy and was

written by teacher practitioners. It has been written in a practical writing style which

teachers may access and easily use.

When reviewing the interview transcripts, I was struck by the informal nature of the

discussions that took place, the quiet unfurling of memories and understanding, and for

all of the participants, a gaining of personal enlightenment. Considering the gentle

nature of these interviews I have chosen to present the case studies in a similar way, to

best reflect the data collected and interpreted. This chapter is designed to present

meaningful data providing context and insight into each participant’s narrative. I will

present three distinct reports, highlighting one participant at a time. As each participant

is quoted, a system will be used to demonstrate the source of the quotation as described

below:

58

I think the thing that is probably the cornerstone event in teaching is

relationships. (Chris 1:1 represents Chris interview 1, transcript page 1).

Each section, for each participant reflects similar headings. The fifth dot point contains

particular data that were unique to the participant and therefore driven by them:

Who is [participant’s pseudonym]?

Growing up

Early experiences of giftedness

Current understanding of Giftedness

Material particularly relevant to the participant

Reflections

Synopsis

Each participant demonstrated a different context for how they developed an

understanding of giftedness. Chris had no personal connection of giftedness growing up,

Pat had a brother who was gifted and Sam was herself gifted. Their three accounts are

not only interesting but also enlightening in regards to their contexts. Throughout the

interviews I observed many of the myths emerging which had been discussed in both

the 1982 and the 2009 special editions of Gifted Child Quarterly. These myths included

those related to: identification of gifted children, social and emotional challenges for

gifted children and appropriate curriculum provision for gifted children.

I will highlight the findings for each participant separately and will discuss their

responses in the next chapter.

CHRIS

Who is Chris?

Chris is a male primary school teacher, in his early fifties, whom I have known

professionally for approximately six years. During this time he willingly accepted pre-

service teachers into his classroom for professional experience placements. I have been

a representative from a Teacher Education institution observing the pre-service teachers

as they taught lessons under his mentorship. When he was offered the opportunity of

participating in this study Chris was very keen: “Well this is a lovely way to spend

some time in the holidays – talking and reflecting” (Chris 1:1).

Whenever I met Chris he always seemed to have a smile on his face. He was a man who

had been teaching for most of his working life. He was of average height and slight

59

build which is possibly due to his love of running. Chris had a very unassuming

presence and could easily melt into a crowd as he did not draw attention to himself. If

you engaged with him in a school setting you might be struck by his gentleness, or his

softly spoken voice, or even his moustache, the sort that I imagined Hercule Poirot to

have had. When I met him for the first time he was gently singing instructions to his

grade three students, and waiting for them to sing a response back to him. The

apparently quiet and unassuming character of Chris can be misleading as he was quite

vocally passionate about teaching. Although eager to listen first and speak later, Chris

had some very firm and clear ideas about education, which came from a lifetime of

teaching and learning.

Chris was not an extrovert; when asked questions he took time to think and he answered

carefully. He made consistent conversational eye contact and always gave his full

attention. Whenever Chris interacted with students he appeared to make huge effort to

effectively communicate with them. He demonstrated his interest in what they were

saying, and he genuinely laughed responsively at their jokes. Chris responded to

children the same way that he responded to adults. To each he gave respect and

appreciation.

Chris appeared to be comfortable in his role, and was keen to build relationships with

students rather than just teach them the curriculum. Chris invested time in developing

high quality relationships with students, colleagues, and parents. When asked about how

he became an effective teacher, Chris replied: “...I knew that relationships were really

important. The rest sort of fell into place eventually” (Chris 1:6). In his understanding

of teaching, Chris appeared to err on the side of beauty and minimalism:

Aw...I think beauty is really important so I would try and make sure that

our, a, a, learning situations were as beautiful as they could be... If I could,

I’d make a rule that children don’t (laughs) watch any TV until they are in

their teens. Burn all the computers and shove all of the TV’s off I think.

But just bring the world to children in the simplest way you can, but that’s

idealistic and that’s not the way the world is at all (Chris 3:4).

It is interesting to note that this reflects Steiner Education philosophy which Chris

strongly supports, evidence being found in Chris 1:8.

60

The school where Chris taught is located in the Adelaide Hills [South Australia]. While

it is classed as a metropolitan school, the pace of life is a little slower than in the city

and the students are more in tune with the changing seasons.

All the interviews with Chris took place in my house. The first interview was during a

warm, lazy day and Chris was enjoying school holidays. The ‘interview room’ was

quiet and cool with floor to ceiling windows; it afforded a tranquil and informal setting,

giving permission to sit and reflect. We sat facing each other, on separate chairs, with

cool drinks and with a tape recorder. I discussed the research interview procedures with

Chris and affirmed his ethical rights. Chris saw this interview as an opportunity to

reflect upon his teaching practice and to enter into discussions about the teaching

profession. He was very keen to participate and commented that he saw this as an

opportunity to find some space to think through some professional issues related to his

understanding of giftedness.

Growing up

Chris explained that his early experiences of family were built upon conservative

foundations and expectations: “Just very happy, very comfortable…very conservative is

a good way to say it...very generous people but very conservative and very not

gregarious people” (Chris 1:1). This attitude seeped into his professional life quite early.

When he began teacher training he says “.... I took a lovely conservative view and did

history and geography, not the arts that I would have loved to have done now”

(Chris1:1).

Chris’s early family experiences included strong emotional security, academic

opportunities and very positive and loving family relationships. He enjoyed a secure

environment which was built on mutual respect and love: “I felt very grateful to be part

of just a very loving family and my mother and father who were just the very best of

people” (Chris 1:1).

Chris discussed the nurturing he had received from his parents and family: “...yes, a

great security, yes, and my parents were very mild mannered and rarely really raised

their voices. I can’t remember ever really being spoken to even in a stern way” (Chris

1:2). As an adult Chris took the view that an effective teacher nurtured students: “...you

have to somehow get quality time with individual children which are the great challenge

and the great bane of all teachers lives, isn’t it?’ (Chris 2:1). This was evidenced by the

core belief, and regular practice, that all students were special and had gifts in their own

61

way. Chris believed that it was part of his professional duty to be inclusive, and to

accentuate the positive at all times.

Even though Chris did well at school, he doubted his own accomplishments; although

he was not formally assessed he believes that this may have been due to his

experiencing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] as a child:

I think the ADHD... um... caused me to lose confidence in myself because I

just couldn’t focus on things as well as I might. I got by ok and was

reasonably successful at high school, but I could never easily reach the

potential that I thought that I could have reached and probably that

frustrated me (Chris 1:3).

These experiences may have inspired him to understand ‘difference’ and to pursue

research regarding ADHD more thoroughly:”Having students with ADHD I was really

quite interesting in terms of my, my research in ADHD” (Chris 1:9).

Early experiences of giftedness

When we discussed his early experiences and understandings of giftedness Chris had a

variety of early memories relating to children who were identified through streaming

assessment. Students were assessed and cohorts of students were grouped together

according to specific results; any students achieving a high score were put into a group

with other students attaining similar high scores. Chris explained; “If a child scored well

they were put into a higher level class. We saw those who got the high marks and scored

well on tests as being gifted” (Chris 1:4). He would have liked to have been one of

those ‘gifted’ students, but he thinks he lacked the drive: “There were boys who were

really very focused and very good academically and got the highest marks and I didn’t

ever get the highest marks, although I aspired to, but I wasn’t determined to do it; I

always wished” (Chris 1:4). Being focused and 'being driven' resulted in a student doing

well. Chris, being a student who may have experienced ADHD, possibly encountered

challenges in these two areas.

As a young student Chris understood that the evidence of giftedness was very much

linked to the intellectual performance and possible ‘eliteness’ of gifted students,

So the gifted students were the ones who got the top marks as I could

remember, and I s’pose that is how we saw gifted students then, we saw

62

those who got the high marks and scored well on tests as being gifted (Chris

1:4)

This idea sits within the myth that a single test score or indicator tells us all we need to

know about giftedness (Worrell, 2009). Chris was in the top stream at high school [1A]

but he still did not think that he was in the gifted set even though he would have liked to

have been: “I guess my understanding of gifted children would have been that they were

people that I would aspire to, to get good marks like” (Chris 1:4). Even today Chris

feels uncomfortable thinking of himself as ‘bright’ or particularly able academically:

“...I don’t think I am so good at the academic side of things and I don’t think I probably

would be very successful” (Chris 3:6).

As a school student Chris expressed that he often felt left out and not quite fitting in.

Since becoming a teacher Chris believes that his vocation provides opportunities to

make a positive difference to the lives of his students.

I thought that the way Chris spoke about education was similar to how an evangelistic

preacher might preach the Gospel, with great enthusiasm and excitement. His face lit up

and an enormous smile grew as he talked about his teaching career. I noted that his

raison d’être for teaching was:

... to encourage them [students] on this journey to find freedom, to be

themselves without having to...to be able to make decisions without having

to worry about what other people or other things or other contexts, just to be

really free to do that, not to educate them to get a job (Chris 1:10).

Current understanding of giftedness

To get a historical sense of Chris’s understanding of giftedness I asked if he had ever

received any explicit gifted education training. He replied “No, none at all” (Chris 1:9)

but he then went on to add:

I remember in the early 1990’s we became a gifted education focus

school ...and there were a couple of people who were quite interested in that

and they led the rest of us into areas of gifted education (Chris 1:9).

Chris teaches in a government school, and has done for many years, and has received

gifted education professional development based upon the ‘Understanding Giftedness’

policy guide (Department for Education and Children’s Services, 1996). He taught in a

63

school where the staff undertook explicit skill development in the areas of identifying

gifted students and providing appropriately for gifted students, yet when asked if he had

received gifted education training he said “No, none at all” (Chris 1:9). Was this

indicative of how he useful he found that professional development to be? Or did it

indicate the level of understanding of relevance that he had regarding the unique

learning needs of gifted students?

I asked Chris what he thought it was that made a child a gifted child. Chris said that he

believed that “It was the luck of the draw” (Chris 2:1) if a child was gifted or not but

went on to explain:

We know that every child has specific gifts...when you talk of children to

their parents you really do understand that every child has special gifts... and

it is a great joy to share those gifts to parents [laughs]. Of course from the

parent’s point of view they know their children are gifted too in all sorts of

ways (Chris 2:1).

As Chris defined giftedness and commented on those who might or might not be gifted,

I noticed that he spoke very carefully and slowly. As he spoke, he looked up wistfully

as though he was really trying to capture the words. I observed a possible tension within

him as he slowly ‘ummed’ and ‘ahhed’:

[children] are unique aren’t they?,... and we... when we talk in those terms

you always feel a bit uncomfortable but there is no doubt that children do

have degrees of giftedness... um...and um... and know that things aren’t,

no...It’s not an equal playing field for all children at all (Chris 2:2).

From the way Chris spoke, slowly and apprehensively, he appeared uncomfortable to

delineate between students who were and who were not gifted. It appeared that Chris

thought that everyone was gifted to some degree: “We know that every child has

specific gifts” (Chris 2:1).

Chris explained that his recognition of giftedness relied upon the child’s emotional

resistance and ability to ‘get on’ with open ended situations; it had a lot to do with how

a child behaved, and how the child was perceived. This correlated with Sidney Moon’s

discussion [2009] of the myth that gifted students do not encounter problems or

challenges. Chris gave this example of what he meant:

64

... My greater interest is emotional resilience, I can think of two children in

my class who are at different ends of the scheme, you know. One little boy,

probably has some Asperger qualities but finds it very, very difficult in

relationships, doesn’t have the generosity of spirit, the other end of the scale

there is a little girl who does. She has this ability to see situations and has

this generosity of spirit that I’d call it giftedness, where she can put herself

into situations to support others. The little boy at the other end of the scale

can’t possibly do that. He needs consistent support, so by way of contrast,

those two children demonstrate to me this degree of giftedness in emotional

resilience (Chris 2:2).

It’s the open-endedness I think in intellectual giftedness, that I think is the

critical factor (Chris 2:3).

Giftedness is universal

Chris shared a variety of understandings of giftedness which included that every child

should be identified as gifted: “...but in actual fact really all children do have giftedness.

Often our challenge is to recognise that that giftedness is the thing that we really have to

hold up in front of us all the time” (Chris 2:5).

Chris also advocated that giftedness may be divided into three areas: head [intellectual],

hands [kinaesthetic], and heart [social/emotional]. Chris believes that the ‘head’ gifts

are the ones that schools traditionally focus on.

When asked about the learning needs of students, including gifted students, Chris

responded:

...Well, I think I probably think along the lines of, of, of the Steiner head,

heart and hands and I think each of those areas there are intellectual gifts

that children have and there are certainly emotional gifts that children have

and certainly physical gifts that children have and probably if you wanted to

rate them I would put them on a par. Yet we probably see intellectual gifts

as the ones that traditionally be focused on. I don’t, I don’t see that as being

the important one, not that um, um, not that is not important but I would put

it on a par with the others. And see giftedness in terms of children being in

those three areas (Chris 2:1).

65

Other ways that Chris identified gifted students was the demonstration of resilience,

motivation, and who got things done and did they use their giftedness to achieve at a

high level: “...one of the great joys that you have is working with children who have

these [abilities with hands, heart and head], and I would say that they have more

resilience” (Chris 2:5).

Chris expressed the importance of spending time with students to identify them as

gifted. He believed that quality time would enable gifted students to shine: “...I would

endeavour in the classroom to get this quality time with all children, to recognise the

gifts that they have better and then I would try to structure the classroom so that I can

enhance those gifts as much as I can...” (Chris 2:2).

Chris also acknowledged the role that home might play in the encouragement of

giftedness: “You know genetically it’s important and, um, the context that they grow up

in is really important and then the flukes that happen along the way for them are

important” (Chris 2:1).

Throughout our interviews Chris spoke about a variety of ways of viewing giftedness.

Most of his views came from his desire to be inclusive for all students. He did not have

a strong confidence relating to his overall understanding of giftedness. His

understandings tended to fluctuate as he recalled different contexts and different

teaching situations.

During our interviews it was clear that Chris had taken opportunities to reflect upon his

understanding of giftedness. He confidently declared that his reflections confirmed his

difficulty with the nomenclature regarding giftedness. He found the word ‘gifted’ to be

very unhelpful:

I think the three talks [our three interviews] have been an excellent way to

allow reflection and I really have focused a lot more on what giftedness

means, the term giftedness and I do think that it is a title that is out of time

and maybe we need to think of something else because when you think of

what a gift is, I mean a gift is a, a,... often I think that politically we use

these terms and giftedness is probably a political term that is used to make

parents feel good about their children (Chris 3:1).

Throughout our interviews Chris had expressed differing ideas of giftedness ranging

from “all children are gifted” to “some are more gifted than others”. During the third

66

and final interview, Chris indicated that as he had reflected on previous interviews he

had now been able to see some differences for students who are indentified as gifted,

and he felt more confident as an outcome. He had taken the time to put the pieces

together in a way that related well to his personal philosophy of teaching:

...it has really allowed me to think along those lines of what giftedness

really does mean to me and I guess it does mean the children who are, are

the square pegs who are the different children who and that’s in, in a holistic

sense, it’s children who fit in all areas, in intellectual and … I was talking

about in the heart area and in the hands area (Chris 3:1).

Chris suggested that gifted children are different: they do have difficulties, but they are

difficulties that stem from being able, not from being disadvantaged: “I think to have,

um, to, of, children who have had, um, the intellectual gifts and um, um, trying to allow

them to be children as well, to enjoy the, the joy of playing” (Chris 3:1).

A strong theme in Chris’s interviews was one of accepting each child as an individual

and not seeing them through a lens of gifted or otherwise. Again, Chris’s strong

commitment to inclusivity was evident: “I think really that we need to think of another

title and just get that word giftedness right out of the way because it does have

connotations that I don’t think are necessarily really being proactive about how we

support children” (Chris 3:2).

Chris believed that simplicity in teaching was the key and that children needed the

opportunity to just be children with little interference: “I mean we, we, just need to be

simple in what we do and they are the simple things we... add the complexities to the

curriculum, the complexities to the media, the complexities of technology and we just

need to let children be children to really enhance the simple things” (Chris 3:2). For

Chris some of the simple things that students [gifted and not gifted] need can be found

in play and the Arts. Chris believes that these two areas are pivotal for children as they

encourage creativity, joy, and self expression: “[I] ...aim to bring out the students

potential by being proactive, giving the student time, providing opportunities to play”

(Chris 3:3):

I try to think of children who have intellectual gifts and trying to allow them

to be children as well, to enjoy the, the joy of playing (Chris 3:2).

67

This viewpoint reflects a myth commented on in the 2009 edition of Gifted Child

Quarterly which discussed that gifted children only need good differentiation within a

general classroom setting, Hertberg-Davis (2009) explained that some teachers believe

that gifted students are accommodated when teachers take the time, the skill and the will

to differentiate appropriately. The truth might be that: “...the way we do school’ does

not make it easy for classrooms to be places where individual student needs, rather than

the pressure to pass standardised tests, ultimately shape the curriculum” (Hertberg-

Davis, 2009, p. 252).

Tomlinson, from the same edition (2009), discusses a similar idea that Chris may have

been embracing: the idea that “patching up” a program for a gifted child is effective and

meaningful. This is where the teacher will add something extra for the gifted child to

ensure that they are provided for. Tomlinson (2009) clearly outlines the hazard of this

approach and identifies weaknesses.

Reflection

In our final interview Chris was encouraged to talk about our interviews and to reflect

upon them: “I think the three talks have been an excellent way to allow reflection and I

really have focused a lot more on what giftedness means, the term giftedness” (Chris

3:1).

Chris did not take the opportunity to exclusively discuss the needs or unique situations

of gifted students, but rather adopted a broad view of meeting the needs of all his

students. I asked Chris to think of an example which particularly related to the needs of

gifted students. His response was illuminating as to his understanding of giftedness:

We took our children to, um, to Kypo Forest for an adventure, and the joy in

seeing children working together building cubbies in the forest would have

to have been the best learning experience to ever see to recognise

giftedness...But I think it struck me again that that was a very simple

learning opportunity (Chris 3:2).

Chris spoke about the needs of students, regardless of them being identified as gifted or

not. His main concern was that teachers needed to simplify classroom procedures for all

students. From his hesitation to speak exclusively about gifted students I presumed that

providing safe learning environments for all students, including play, personal attention

and engagement, were the keys for Chris and this covered the needs of all students

68

including gifted students. In essence, Chris may not have seen that the needs of gifted

students were separate from the needs of all students.

As we brought the third interview to a close Chris, once again, expressed appreciation

for the interview processes and I asked him what impact this experience might have on

his teaching practice:

I think it has confirmed a lot of things anyway in doing it [participating in

the research study]... I’ve gone back and I’ve a bit of a journalist and I have

been able to write down the things that I have been thinking and that has

been really valuable, you know and ...this really does cement a lot of views

in mind. I really have had that opportunity to think through issues that I

wouldn’t have had the opportunity to think through in just working with the

children (Chris 3:7).

Participation in this study has provided Chris with opportunities to consider key

teaching issues, but ultimately it has confirmed, for him, that he is ‘on the right track’.

Chris valued the process of interviews and interpreted them as a form of professional

development:

Um, I must say, at the outset that it has been a wonderful in-service, I can’t

think of a better in-service that I have had because it has got those elements

of um the context is really quite wonderful for learning and reflecting (Chris

3:6).

It also confirmed his uneasiness with nomenclature, and provided him with space and

time to work through his thoughts regarding what giftedness means:

Well, it has certainly done that, it certainly has enabled me to think more of

what giftedness means and as I, I, I said in my reflection it really made me

think of how an anachronistic the word gifted is and how loaded it is and

how politically driven it is but, um, it has enabled me to think more about

the uniqueness about the individual children that I work with (Chris 3:7).

I found it interesting that in this final reflection it is inclusively ‘all students’ that are

discussed not gifted students. Chris reiterates that simplicity, security and equality are

the necessary tools to enrich the lives of all students.

69

Synopsis

I was left with some interesting perceptions of our three interviews. Firstly that Chris

felt uncomfortable stepping outside of inclusive language and concepts. He did not

separate the needs of gifted students from those students who were not identified as

gifted. He saw all his students as students with various needs. He treated all students

‘equally and fairly’.

Chris was in a family where inclusivity was a driving force. He did not ‘push himself

forward’ but chose to adapt to expectations place upon him by his environment. In

school Chris saw that gifted students were the ones who were fortunate: they attained

good grades, were envied, and demonstrated desirable personal qualities. They were the

‘smart’ students, the students who were resilient and successful, Giftedness was very

much performance orientated. He did express some sense of being ‘on the outside

looking in’ at these gifted students and wishing he could be like them (Chris 1:4).

PAT

Who is Pat?

Pat taught in a small school, where there was a strong rural community feel. Tucked

away in the Adelaide hills, she taught a composite middle primary class involving three

year levels in her classroom. I met with Pat in her classroom after we had talked on the

telephone. I had known Pat professionally for a number of years, as she too had

accepted pre-service teachers into her classroom for professional experience

placements. I had also had professional conversations with her regarding inclusivity and

accommodating gifted students in the classroom. I felt comfortable talking with Pat, and

I believe that she reciprocated those feelings.

Even though it was after a busy school day, she exuded a lot of energy and passion for

teaching. Pat was in her early fifties, yet looked a lot younger. She had a slight build

and with her dark hair and glasses easily slips into a stereotype of ‘being a teacher’. Pat

was a person who would greet a visitor warmly yet formally. I gained the impression

that she was a hard worker who did ‘nothing by halves’. She spoke confidently and

clearly and maintained eye contact, yet through it all she smiled warmly and was eager

to participate.

As I entered Pat’s classroom I was struck by an amazing array of students’ work and

projects on display around the room. This was a very interesting classroom. Student

70

work featured heavily, and the variety of subjects and topics was extensive. There were

interesting things hanging from the ceiling, sitting on shelves and pinned to walls.

Student desks were well-organised, clean and tidy and throughout the whole classroom

there was an air of freshness, order and interest. This was a classroom that I wished I

had grown up in.

Pat was a strong advocate for gifted students and she believed that it was important to

advocate at all levels for them: “They [gifted students] need to know about giftedness,

the teachers, their, their, learning facilitators need to know about giftedness, their

parents need to know about giftedness” (Pat 2:6).

As we sat together we made small talk about her the classroom and then I thanked her

for participating in this research study. I discussed the research interview procedures

and affirmed her ethical rights to confidentiality and privacy. I also advised her that she

could withdraw at any point without any obligation.

She was a passionate teacher, who knew from an early age that she wanted to be a

teacher:

I think the fact that teaching runs very strongly in our family. My mother is

a teacher and both her parents were teachers as well…I loved school, I loved

being at school, I loved being a student, um, I loved getting things right.

That’s probably an indicator that I wasn’t gifted. I had to get it right [laughs]

(Pat 1: 6).

Growing up

Pat was born in Adelaide into a large family: “I was the second of four children, I have

an older brother, a younger brother and a younger sister and I was brought up by two

professional parents so I always remember the expectations of schooling was fairly

high” (Pat 1:1).

Pat was a high achiever, who worked hard and was successful because she did what she

was told to do:

I just saw myself as somebody who, you tell me I have to do this, this is the

criteria that you need to get an A+ I’ll do it and I could do it and if I

couldn’t do it myself I would go and ask somebody to help me who could.

So I just saw myself as somebody who school just suited (Pat 1:3).

71

Pat worked hard, was competitive and enjoyed school, but she did not recognise herself

as gifted: “I always saw myself as a high achiever” (Pat 1:2). There was pressure from

her father to do well, and this was a motivator for Pat:

…and my parents had very high expectations of us. I can always remember

Dad, when we brought a test home. If I got 98 out of 100 it would be what

did you get wrong instead of focusing on the 98% that I got right, so I’m

very conscious of the way I respond to children when it comes to work

they’ve done (Pat 1:1).

Pat believe that although her siblings were smart and did well, she had a brother whom

she now understands was not just a high achiever, but probably gifted: “My younger

brother, I suspect with what I know about giftedness now that he may have been gifted

because school did not suit him at all” (Pat 1:1).

During our third interview she gave an interesting insight into her thoughts of what it

must be like to be gifted:“…if that tag [gifted] was put on me ...people would have more

expectations of me I think, if I was tagged as gifted or I would then have more

expectations of myself” (Pat 3:4).

Early experiences of giftedness

Pat acquired an understanding of giftedness at an early age, even though she did not

recognise the nomenclature: “…in those days because I don’t think that we were aware

of giftedness in children. We were aware that some children were brighter than others

but we never looked at the degree of brightness” (Pat 1:2). It was mainly through

observing her gifted brother, and his behaviours, that Pat developed an understanding of

what giftedness might be like. At an early age she observed the following traits in her

younger brother, whom she considered to be gifted. She now recognises these traits in

students who are identified as gifted. These include:

Social difficulties: “He had a lot of the classic social problems that traditionally

identified gifted children can often have... he still has problems keeping employment

because of his inability to work with other people” (Pat 1:3).

Thinking and problem solving: “He was able to think in really interesting ways. He

would come up with incredible solutions to things. He would be able to work things out

in his head that I just couldn’t do” (Pat 1:3).

72

Creativity: “I think his ability to, um, draw and design; I think was where his giftedness

lay. He used to bring things home, for example sheets of paper that would have these

tiny little gladiators drawn all around the edge and every single one of them would be

different. He had the most incredible eye for special things and he would draw these

incredible pictures” (Pat 1:1).

Learnt things quickly: “He breezed his way though adult year 12 without having to

hardly do a minutes work and he got the equivalent of a 98 TER by today’s standards”

(Pat 1:4).

Quirkiness and across the board brightness: “It’s probably his quirkiness and his social

dysfunction that I think has probably been one of the major things that has made me

think if it was just the academic stuff well maybe I’d think, that he is just really, really

clever at maths but he was clever at everything too. He was clever at English, he was

clever at Maths, and he could do any science that you threw at him. But he could also

do a lot of the arts as well so he was one of those across the board kids too” (Pat 1:4).

These areas are acknowledged in the literature as being representative of a gifted

aptitude. So at an early age, by interacting on a daily basis with her brother, Pat possibly

developed a contextual understanding of giftedness.

Even at an early age Pat knew the difference between being gifted and being a high

achiever. Pat recognised a difference, between herself as a high achiever, and her

brother as gifted:

I could do exactly what was asked of me but throw a curly challenge at me

and I would often battle with it. I would need someone to help me through

it. …Um, I didn’t have social problems at all…I didn’t ever consider

myself quirky…a lot of the features that we classically consign to

particularly highly gifted children I never had any of those…because I’m a

fairly verbal, linguistic, logical and mathematical person I suited… school

suited me (Pat 1:3).

In spite of her personal knowledge and understanding of giftedness, Pat graduated from

Teacher’s College with little or no professional understanding or experience of gifted

education: “I knew absolutely nothing about gifted education when I started teaching”

(Pat 1:8). Gifted education was not referred to or covered in the pre-service course that

73

Pat attended. This lack of appropriate provision in pre-service appears a common theme

in the literature (Hudson et al., 2010; Matthews & Foster, 2005).

This awareness of the lack of provision was confirmed in 1988 when the Australian

Senate Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children released a

report on the “Education of Gifted and Talented Children”. Four of the nine

recommendations tabled referred to the need to increase pre-service teachers’ skill and

understanding in the area of teaching gifted students. In 2001, another select committee

of the Australian Senate (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2001) reviewed

the 1988 report and found that “Many teachers feel a lack of expertise, lack of

confidence, and a lack of resources to meet the needs of gifted children” (Senate

Inquiry, 2001, p. xi).

Current understanding of giftedness

The second interview took place in the same classroom after the school day had

finished. All the students had gone home and when I arrived Pat was busy tidying up

around the classroom. The day had been full and busy. Before we began the interview

she said that our previous conversations had brought up memories from her school days

and she had found herself thinking over afresh what it meant to be gifted. The

conversation had sparked her interest and she reported that she had found it valuable to

discuss giftedness within the context of her personal and professional experience.

I began by asking Pat what she currently understood by the term giftedness. Initially Pat

spoke in general terms: “Children who from a fairly young age ... do things a bit faster

than other children, they do it better, and they may even do it differently...gifted kids

aren’t always easily recognisable" (Pat 2:1). Pat then moved on to describing gifted

students and her answers became more detailed and descriptive. As she answered, she

recalled various students she is currently teaching. Her responses included:

He also has a really sophisticated sense of humour....

He gets very obsessive about certain topics and will be able to tell absolutely

everything there is to know about those topics...

He reads at about his age level but he seems to comprehend way beyond...

He doesn’t work particularly well in a group because nobody actually matches

his academic ability...

He has a very strong view of what’s right and wrong and gets very upset if

things don’t go his way or he perceives that injustices have been done....

74

He’s emotionally quite immature compared with his academic ability and

socially quite immature as well...

He is off in a world of his own quite often. He is very creative um, does things

very differently from the other children...

(Pat 2:1)

Pat was quite certain of the difference between gifted children and high achievers:

I’ve got children in my class that I see as high achievers not gifted children

because they’re the ones who maybe know all the answers but they are not

the ones asking the questions....I see children who are inquisitive beyond

where the other children are as being perhaps the ones to look at for

giftedness too. They’re the ones wanting to know more, they have a more

intense curiosity about things. They are not happy to just accept what I say;

they want to know more they want to delve more into a topic (Pat 2:1-2).

Pat explained that she used observation as a primary means of identifying giftedness.

She is aware of a variety of indicators, as demonstrated above. Because of her

experience she constantly observed students and can identify traits of giftedness.

Observation will then lead her to use checklists, and then to consult parents to confirm

her thoughts (Pat 2:2).

Providing appropriately for gifted students

Pat was quite clear in her mind that there are differences between gifted students and

those who are high achievers. Pat’s ability to differentiate between the two revealed her

understanding of both. She believed that “high achievers learn things quickly, but not as

quickly as a gifted child... high achievers want to get it right to please.... High achievers

may know all the answers but they are not the ones asking the questions ... [and they]

are not always the curious ones” (Pat 2:2).

As Pat spoke I perceived a confidence within her that had come from many years of

experience. There appeared to be very little doubt in her mind. She did not present as

being opinionated, but rather as being confident and comfortable with her conclusions.

There were no pauses as she spoke. I couldn’t help but wonder if she was speaking

about her brother as the gifted one and herself as the high achiever. The two concepts

paralleled throughout the three interviews.

75

Pat’s understanding of gifted students was also demonstrated as she began to explain

her teaching methodologies to meet their learning needs. How a teacher provides for

their gifted students can represent their understanding of both giftedness and the

learning needs of gifted students (Davies, 2002):

There is a body of literature that suggested that teachers can become ambivalent

towards giftedness (Archambault et al., 1993; Cashion & Sullenger, 2000; McCoach &

Siegle, 2007). Other studies indicate that this ambivalence could be demonstrated by

teachers not valuing academic ability of students (Cramond & Martin, 1987). Pat clearly

demonstrates that her passion and understanding of the learning needs of gifted students

inspires and motivates her into action:

...those children [gifted] have as much right to be challenged and to be able

to work at their level or at their pursuit as any other child in the class. We

tend to focus not on the children with learning difficulties and learning

disabilities because they are the ones that struggle but if you have ever had a

gifted child in your class they can also become a huge behaviour problem

too (Pat 2:3).

Pat suggested that explicit learning needs for gifted students need to include enrichment

and/or acceleration:

They [gifted students] need to be either accelerated or enriched. I mean

acceleration takes into account finding out what they know by pretesting,

skipping them through the bits that they already know to the bits they don’t

know, and finding out where the gaps are and giving them very quick

instruction because they don’t need much instruction often to pick basic

concepts (Pat 2:6).

Use of Gardner’s multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 2006) and Bloom’s taxonomy

(Bloom 1956) are key strategies that Pat uses with all students, especially gifted

students:

…multiple intelligences, in the sense that, um, the children are aware of

their multiple intelligence profiles (Pat 2:8).

Bloom’s taxonomy, we look at more specifically when we look at the

questioning… um, …question matrix and how can we design enquiry

76

questions that will challenge us a bit more and go beyond what we already

know (Pat 2:8).

As I glanced around the room I could see a variety of examples of work, projects,

posters, models and presentations, all evidence of rich provision for diverse abilities.

This wide variety demonstrated that Pat’s understanding of giftedness was grounded in

current literature and a broad awareness of the needs of gifted students. Pat’s practice

represented her understanding. Her actions matched her words.

As we drew the interview to a close we made arrangements for the next interview. Pat

expressed an appreciation for the opportunity to discuss her practice in this way. She

said that it felt like she was able to lay out what she did, and to look at it objectively.

My impression was that the interview had energised Pat, providing an opportunity for

her to discuss publically her rationale for teaching and in doing so it had also confirmed

its validity.

Our third interview, one week later, began as the other two did in Pat’s classroom at the

end of a school day. The room was tidy and there appeared to be even more work on

display than before. The classroom looked very bright as the sun was streaming through

the windows. The classroom looked excitingly inviting. As usual, I took a few moments

to wander around and observe the new work displayed around the room.

Reflection

As we began the third interview, Pat wanted to discuss the pressing needs for gifted

students within the school system. A few areas that she felt strongly about were the need

for greater advocacy for gifted students and more professional development for teachers

in the area of understanding giftedness. I was happy to discuss these issues because it

gave me another opportunity to gain another insight into her understanding of

giftedness, and the source of those understandings:

At the moment with the backlog the gifted children tend to be put at the

bottom of the pile in favour of more pressing needs which I think are the

children of the disadvantaged learning disabilities end although the gifted

children can therefore become the disadvantaged in the education system

(Pat 3:1).

Pat believes that part of the ‘problem’ for gifted students is their lack of perceived

vulnerability “...because gifted children know the work, they are not given the priority

77

that the ones that don’t know the work are given” (Pat 3:1). Alongside a student’s

‘vulnerability’ is a teacher’s inability to really understand the diverse needs of gifted

students:

I am reasonably au fait with identifying gifted children but even then I, I, I

look at some children and I say are they or aren’t they? It is still such an

unknown and teachers need more education (Pat 3:2).

Throughout the interviews Pat often made mention that her brother had not been

appropriately catered for in school and she sometimes wonders if this is why she feels

so strongly about the need to advocate for gifted students. Her brother suffered at

school, and even now as an adult he struggles with life so she feels personally

committed to helping gifted students:

I don’t know whether it’s got to do with my background and my family and

the fact that my younger brother wasn’t catered for terribly well at school’

(Pat 3:2).

As a classroom teacher Pat believes that she now has a good understanding of giftedness

and attributes this to:

…teaching [at least] two highly gifted children who were actually assessed

as highly gifted...just doing a lot of reading I think as well, looking at all the

indicators that are out there in checklists for you to consider when trying to

identify a gifted child…talking to parents, sometimes all you’ve got to do is

to talk to the parents and you realise yep the genes are there’ (Pat 3:2).

Pat also indicated that participation in this research has help to grow her understanding

of giftedness:

I have started looking at some of the children a bit differently and the

children who are a bit different, what is different about them and why, why

am I suspecting that they might have some gifted traits? (Pat 3:6).

Synopsis

One of the interesting findings for Pat was her own re-visiting of her past and the

mental and emotional energy it took. She started to re-evaluate her understanding and

family history. I asked her for any conclusions or reflections about the process we had

used:

78

Reflecting on myself and my upbringing and how much that might have

influenced my thoughts about education and what I need to be providing for

kids...My brothers and sisters and I and yeah just looking at us all has just

been interesting, yeah...and with you throwing in a few probes... Yeah (Pat

3:7).

So the action of thinking and verbalising her past understandings had been useful. The

interviews had facilitated opportunities to think, talk about and reflect upon giftedness

thus provide opportunities for change. Throughout the interviews and the transcripts it

was clear that having a gifted sibling offered Pat a unique opportunity to understand of

what it is like to be gifted, and also some inherent disadvantages of giftedness, hence

her strong advocacy. Pat has enabled her understanding in part by personal reading but

mostly through having an inner drive for advocacy of gifted students.

Pat was the research study participant who was most consistent in her understanding

and responses. She mirrored current literature regarding characteristics of gifted

children and high achievers and reflected this current literature by being able to speak

about the diversity of giftedness and the need not just for ‘more work’ but a variety of

learning experiences.

In this context, Pat has a sound understanding of both identification of, and provision

for, gifted students. This understanding impacts all aspects of her teaching program for

both gifted and non-gifted students: “...children are aware of their multiple intelligence

profiles...We use that as a bit of a way of getting into how we are all different” (Pat 2:8).

Pat would agree that her understanding of giftedness was a consequence of having a

gifted brother who was struggling in the educational environment of the day, as well as

a professional interest in her pursuit of catering and being inclusive in the classroom in

order to meet the diverse range of student needs

SAM

Who is Sam?

When I first met Sam I noticed her ‘arty’ individualism. By observing the clothes she

wore one might assume she had a certain creative flair. In her late forties, with a slight

build, a smiling open face, her strawberry blonde hair danced around her shoulders. It

was easy to talk with Sam as she often smiled and made friendly gestures. I felt

comfortable and relaxed and I think she did too.

79

Sam considered herself to be independent and expressed confidence in her own abilities:

“I think for myself...I have a lot of faith in my own abilities to solve problems and to

work things out and to enjoy things at an academic level if I want to do that” (Sam

1:10).

During the interviews it became apparent that Sam had had a growing awareness and

acceptance of her own personal giftedness:

I guess what has also changed for me is questioning whether I have, was,

am gifted myself and that was so profound for me to think in those terms

and I guess that’s why it has been some very emotional responses to these

kids who are gifted because it’s just felt enormously (Sam 3:5).

Sam was happy to confess that she sometimes becomes frustrated by people who do not

recognise her natural abilities:

I don’t suffer fools and I don’t like to be given information slowly, I don’t

like to be read to when I have got the thing in front of me...please don’t

make me listen to you say that again, you know slowly, it’s killing me (Sam

1:10).

I first met Sam in her classroom. She had expressed interest in participating in the

research study and I met with her to discuss what might be involved. The classroom was

an interesting mix of creative work displays, and general student mess. I mean this in a

positive way; some teachers insist on order, neatness, and conformity from students but

the classroom I was standing in did not reflect this. Looking around I saw some very

neat student desks, and others that needed some tidying. There were demonstrations of

student projects on the wall and a whiteboard adorned with student graffiti. Another

whiteboard outlined work for the day with instructions for students relating to timetable

and homework. There was evidence of popular culture displayed on the walls, with

items reflecting current trends e.g. sports/music heroes, and other work discussing

Asian studies and Indonesia.

The desks were arranged in rows, leaving a large gap between the Sam’s desk and

students’ desks. This gap would probably have been the main thoroughfare for students.

Resources were stored around the room: maths equipment, books, and general

classroom equipment. The shelves were not tidy, but looked like they were well used.

There was a ‘general student smell’ in the classroom: the smell of 25-plus students

80

being in the room for most of the day. It was not an unpleasant smell, but it was

pervasive. I found that it provided me a quick insight into the teacher with whom I was

about to talk. Previously, when I had interviewed Chris [another participant] we were in

my home, not sitting in his classroom, and therefore I could not see his ‘classroom

extension’. Sitting with Sam, I had an added sense of ‘who she was’ and it was a pre-

cursor of what she might think about teaching. I found Sam to be an interesting and

bright teacher to talk with.

Growing up

Sam had a modest childhood and lived in a large family:

I was born in Adelaide in a very working class suburb and I was one of

seven children… It [education] was much undervalued, because there was a

lack of space... We didn’t have anywhere to do our learning; it wasn’t a

priority (Sam 1.1).

Sam was comfortable talking about her childhood, and happy to draw attention to the

fact that they lacked strong educational support and backing. Currently Sam is the only

tertiary educated person in her family: “Yeah, indeed, in fact the only tertiary educated

one” (Sam 1:1).

Sam really enjoyed primary school but found high school to be a difficult experience:

“...loved it, absolutely loved primary school, I loved it... [High school] was a

nightmare” (Sam 1:1)

Primary school was a good experience for Sam, perhaps because she had a good group

of friends who were like her: “We loved learning together” (Sam 1:2). Around the time

of Grade Three she started to realise that she might be quite bright: “[when asked when

she became aware of being bright]...probably in year 3” (Sam 1:6).

Early experiences of giftedness

Throughout the first interview Sam gave a retrospective assessment that she was

possibly gifted as a child. She showed caution by saying: “I think before I have my IQ

test, I still am not going to say that I am” (Sam 1:10). However she went on to say in the

second interview “I am not a great believer in standardised testing” (Sam 2:6).

Sam identifies areas where she believes she demonstrates the possibility of being

gifted:

81

I am very good with written tasks and digesting information and putting it in

a logical sort of way and quite, you know I use language well when I am

writing. Um, bringing big things into manageable writing or for maths sort

of problem solving (Sam 1:10).

Even though as a child she was not aware of herself as being gifted, she now understood

that she probably was, and used her early experiences as a reference point for

understanding giftedness:

… It’s just a different relationship [teaching gifted students] and it’s almost

like we are in a club now and I mean I do feel it’s something that I have got

to be… (Sam 2:5).

...that’s why it has been some very emotional responses to these kids who

are gifted because I’ve just felt it enormously, I remember the burden, I

remember those feelings of not and I still am not a good learner...but it has

helped me understand these kids and it’s helped me want to know the ones

who I don’t feel a connection to on that emotional level about learning (Sam

3:5).

Sam now considers herself to have been gifted as a child; she explained why she may

not have been fully aware of it: “I just think to take a straight A’s report card home [but]

there was no reinforcing of it...I think because you haven’t got someone telling you ‘that

is amazing’...you just think that’s what all kids get” (Sam 1:6).

I asked why she now thought she might have been gifted as a child and her responses

matched current literature which discusses characteristics of gifted students. They

include:

Intellectual peers: “I could only hang around with people were sort of at the same

intellect as myself. I couldn’t really be bothered with people who were slow and dopey.

All my mates were pretty sharp and we were in same group of smartness I guess” (Sam

1:3).

Divergent thinking and creativity: “I felt like I understood things, I felt like I could go

off the track and get to something even better than I reckon the teacher even wanted.

Um… Creative I guess, just a creative person” (Sam. 1:3).

82

High levels of literacy: “It [Sam’s evidence of giftedness] was right across. I would say

it was um, especially written tasks, but whether they were in geography or any of the

subjects that we did history, or , it just seemed to me right across” (Sam 1:8).

Academic success: “I was bright in my report cards, um; yeah definitely I got the

feedback from them [teachers], most certainly” (Sam 2:7).

Sam disclosed that she believed that her small group of school friends were also gifted. I

asked Sam how she knew. Her responses are again consistent with the literature.

They produced high quality work: “They very much paid attention to detail, their work

was well presented um, there was volume, you know there was volume to the work, it

was very high quality” (Sam 1:3).

They had a degree of quirkiness: “We were... quirky as in I guess we were a little bit ah

less or more I don’t know even the way that we dressed was more creative” (Sam 1:3).

They all loved learning: “We loved learning together” (Sam 1:4).

Sam gave an example of how much she loved learning:

I remember vividly one time that we had gone so far in learning some music

and [the teacher] said in year 4 the next lesson we would be learning

something really amazing…I was so excited and I stood lining up and said

“we’re going to be learning about those xyz today.”, “No, no, no, we are

going on with something else” and my heart broke. “You promised me we

would be learning about that and we’re not” and I have never, I’ve just

never forgotten it, that disappointment that she said that we were doing it

and we weren’t (Sam 1:5).

Current understanding of giftedness

When we discussed understanding giftedness I asked Sam if she had been provided with

any gifted education preparation as part of her teaching degree, She replied “No not at

all, no far from it” (Sam 1:9). Sam discussed the various factors, situations and

especially people who had influenced her current understanding of giftedness:

My ex-husband was obviously a very gifted person and still is. That my son

was identified as being gifted and that, um, there is no reason that I

shouldn’t be when I deal with my gifted kids and hear and understand in my

83

heart the excitement and their passion, um, and do anything I can for them

to keep them going and keep filling up the drink bottle for them because

they are so thirsty. That’s got to me more so in the last year or so (Sam

1:4).

Sam cited previous students that she had taught as being influential in her understanding

of giftedness. She identified strongly with the struggles that some gifted students can

have. In discussing one of her gifted students Sam explained:

We are just exactly on the same plane…Um, it is not about he’s a naughty

boy or he’s a pain in the bum…[he] struggles in the same way I do in

meetings when someone is labouring the point and… I feel physical pain to

be honest with you. I almost feel physical pain (Sam 1:4).

The second interview took place in the same classroom a week later, after the students

had left for the day to go home for the day. Sam sat behind her desk and I sat facing her.

The room looked and smelt the same as the previous week, and I observed that more

work had been displayed on the walls by students. Sam’s desk was as untidy as it had

been the week before.

I started the second interview by affirming Sam’s ethical rights to confidentiality. I also

reminded her that she had the right to withdraw at anytime, with no obligation. Finally I

thanked her for her willingness to participate.

To gain an indication of her current understanding of giftedness, I asked Sam ‘what is

giftedness?’ She spoke with fluidity, and confidence:

...giftedness is the potential to be amazing ...the potential for me to do

something more with that as opposed to this very good student who just

does what I have asked them, does it quite neatly, and gets it all right. There

is something different about that and it’s about sometimes the speed with

which they [the gifted student] do it, sometimes the messiness with which

they do it, it varies (Sam 2:2).

Sam was aware of the inconsistent nature of her understanding of giftedness and how

over the years it had grown and changed. Sam would probably claim that it was still

evolving. Her challenging upbringing, with little affirmation, impacted some of her

thoughts:

84

I simply don’t know [what makes a child gifted]...I always espoused that

that anyone in the, you know, rich environment could be gifted. More and

more though I tend to be going on the other side of the fence now and

thinking that it is almost something a little bit inherent plus the

environmental stuff and they will certainly be blessed (Sam 2:2).

Sam discussed in the first interview that she came from a challenged background that

she believed was not conducive to giftedness. She took the time to explain more fully

this idea:

…I was always fighting on the wrong side of the fence, and… it backed up

why I was able to admit, …that there was nothing special about me, because

I was in the crappiest learning environment that could have ever been and

therefore I was keeping myself where I was, by saying that (Sam 2:2).

I asked Sam how she identified if a student was gifted or not. Sam appeared to rely on

instincts and perception to identify gifted students and this may take different forms.

… Initially I think it starts off sometimes as a – ‘you’re troubling me’ kind

of feeling, rather than a yeah, they have their work done quickly, and I can

extend them a bit (Sam 2:3).

See I am a very, I’m a sense person and there is no testing here at all. I

imagine I am not a great believer in standardised testing …I can feel it, I

know it, I can sense it (Sam 2: 6).

She expanded her explanation by talking about the difference between ‘high achieving’

and ‘gifted’ students. This was a useful way for indicating again what she understood

about giftedness:

High achievers do exactly what you ask them, they usually do it very neatly,

they present their work beautifully, they usually are quite correct and they

are wonderfully easy to teach ... love to be engaged. Gifted students are not

easy to teach...the difference is phenomenal... there is something very

different about them; they are so easily... riled if things don’t go correctly,

and they question a lot… It’s negotiable for them (Sam 2:3).

85

Knowing intuitively how to provide for gifted students

During the second interview Sam professed an empathy with gifted students when

providing learning tasks. When I asked how, she responded “I’ve got to say, it’s a

different affinity I have with those people” (Sam 2:5). Sam provides learning

opportunities by incorporating her understanding of learning needs for gifted students:

I am thinking about one boy in particular … if you, um, if you just change

some of the factors in the learning equation…it’s like his face changes and

he blossoms and he becomes a different sort of learner all together. Just it’s,

it’s, it’s not subtle, it’s powerful. But it registers for me almost on an

emotional level if I can say that hmm... (Sam 2:3-4).

When asked explicitly about differentiating the curriculum for gifted students Sam

indicated that there was no generic solution:

Different gifted kids have different learning needs and for some it is a lot of

negotiation and a lot of alteration to the regular curriculum and for some it’s

just getting a year 8 textbook (Sam 2:7).

Sam revealed a personal and almost spiritual attitude regarding her provision for gifted

students. Given that these students were already gifted, did it really matter or not

whether extension or enrichment was provided?

It matters to their soul of who they are. It matters and that is something that

I am getting much more in tune with. It’s almost not about learning any

more, it’s about feeding, it’s about feeding their souls and that’s the best

way that I can put it (Sam 2:8).

Reflection

For the third interview I met with Sam again in her classroom, after school. The setting

was similar to the previous two interviews. The room was quiet and empty of students,

new work had appeared on the wall, but in essence most things were the same. One

difference was Sam herself. It appeared that she was very keen to chat that day and had

some interesting things to tell me. I again reminded her of her ethical rights and

reiterated previous conversations about confidentiality and privacy.

At the beginning of the third interview Sam clearly indicated that the interviews had

helped her to really think about what it meant for her to be gifted:

86

And so for me it has just changed and you know I don’t feel like I need to

go and get tested or anything, I just feel like I can sit with it comfortably and

no-one needs to know but it has helped me understand these kids and it’s

helped me want to know the ones who I don’t feel a connection to on that

emotional level about learning. It’s made me want to see ah... so what is it

like for them (Sam 3:5).

Sam spent most of the third interview discussing how she now felt empowered to

identify and provide for gifted students. It was a time of revelation for her and she spoke

with great wonderment about her recent acceptance of her own giftedness. I asked Sam

if she would be more of an advocate now for gifted students:

Yeah absolutely, yeah, because and I guess the reason I never outed myself

is because people have gone, “Oh bloody mamby pamby gifted kids”, you

know there is this shocking attitude and I guess, ...I would have said the

same thing. And yet even, yeah I would have said the same thing. Jesus

Christ luck old them, they can be left alone, let’s get on with these

strugglers, you know (Sam 3:6).

This new appreciation and personal attachment to giftedness influenced Sam and her

teaching practice in a powerful way:

I am teaching as though everyone is gifted. That’s the new thing, that’s the

brand new thing. And I feel like I have been holding back for so long and

that is my new thing and that’s my promise to myself for my programming

in the future, why not? Why would you dumb down anything, why, you

know you can go back and pick up the pieces later but talk about high

things, why not? (Sam 3:7).

Synopsis

The three interviews that I shared with Sam were interesting for me, as a qualitative

researcher, in that I was able to witness a person beginning to identify with and

accepting their own ‘giftedness’. Whether Sam was gifted or not by standardised testing

methodology is not the issue. She came to believe that she was, and I was interested in

her responses to that belief. The interviews provided Sam with space and time to talk

and think through issues that had been within her consciousness, but not yet resolved, ‘I

guess I have felt really great every time I have gone away from the sessions. It has been

87

wonderful to talk about this stuff. It has been fabulous, almost like therapy in a way;

it’s been good to talk about it’ (Sam 3:7).

Sam’s journey through these interviews had created an intellectual space in which she

could question her thoughts and speak aloud to someone who would not judge her for

what was said. I think that this precipitated a space for ideas to become conclusions.

Sam clearly understood that her family and teachers had not recognised her giftedness

and that had impacted negatively on her developing understanding of giftedness.

Several months after these interviews were finalised, I received a telephone call from

Sam. She told me that the interviews had initiated a profound effect upon her and that

she had resigned as a teacher to follow her dreams. She explained that there were

always things that she wanted to do, but that she had always been unsure of herself.

Now that she felt liberated in her understanding of her own giftedness, she felt that the

time was right to follow those dreams.

SUMMARY

This chapter has discussed the findings from interviews conducted with three

participants. Each participant talked about their evolving understanding of giftedness

and independently drew meaning and understanding of their journey. Some of the myths

that were discussed in the literature review also influenced their understanding of

giftedness, and in some cases were held strongly by participants.

In the discussion chapter the prominent themes, arising from the participants’ responses

and which contributed to developing their understanding of giftedness, will be identified

and discussed.

88

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

The previous chapter presented personal responses from participants illustrating how

they had developed their understanding of giftedness. This discussion chapter will

briefly consider some unique data from individual participants by discussing the

emergent themes and patterns that influenced participants. Each participant had been

impacted by giftedness, but in very different ways.

As a child Chris had no personal connection with giftedness and in fact aspired to be

more like gifted students in his school without ever achieving that inclusion or

acceptance. Chris was the participant who was least sure about what he understood and

believed about the concept of giftedness. Throughout our interviews Chris struggled to

demonstrate a clear understanding of giftedness. He originally thought all students were

gifted then shifted his view that suggested that some were more gifted than others, and

finally to a perspective that there were students who may be justifiably identified as

being gifted. Chris lacked a clear and sustainable definition of giftedness and

unfortunately many other teachers may be in this position (Pfeiffer, 2003).

Pat had a younger brother who was gifted and was not catered for appropriately at

school. As a child, Pat came to the conclusion that she was not gifted like her brother,

but that she was a high achiever and recognised that he was very different to her. Pat

expressed strong advocacy for appropriate provision for gifted students. Pat reflected

upon the reasons for such advocacy and responded that it was probably due to her

background, her family upbringing and the fact that her younger brother was not catered

for appropriately at school.

Sam grew up in a large working class family where giftedness was not discussed or

acknowledged and academic ability was not encouraged. She was unaware that she was

gifted as a child and has only recently embraced this understanding. If her academic

potential had been acknowledged, and encouraged as a child, Sam may have invested

more into staying at high school to finish Year 12 and to explore academic possibilities

for post-school destinations.

RE-OCCURRING THEMES ACROSS CASE STUDIES

The participants shared some common experiences. They were all primary teachers in

South Australia; they were all recognised for their leadership and skill in gifted

education; and they had all undertaken very similar professional development based

89

upon the Understanding Giftedness policy implementation guide. At the conclusion of

the interviews, common themes emerged relating to how participants developed their

understanding of giftedness. These themes included the influence of a person’s habitus,

teacher education and in-service preparation in the area of gifted education, the

influence of pervading myths, and purposeful reflection.

PARTICIPANT’S HABITUS AND UNDERSTANDING GIFTEDNESS

This research study suggests that a teacher’s habitus influences their development in

understanding giftedness. Habitus refers to our own personal interpretation and

understanding of our culture, society and of our own place in the world. There develops

within us an automatic tendency to behave and think in particular ways based on our

upbringing. Zipin and Brennan (2006) asserted that:

... residing at a deep core of identity, dispositions of primary habitus are

often sensed, by oneself and others, as if biological ‘natures’ – thus

misrecognising what, says Bourdieu (1984), are cultural constructed second

natures (p. 335).

Each of the three participants reflected upon and spoke about their early experiences of

giftedness. Each could identify occurrences within their habitus [family or school life]

which had influenced their later adult understanding of giftedness.

Tranter (2006) described habitus as “... the context within which we later perceive and

evaluate all life experiences. Habitus is second nature, knowing how to ‘walk the walk’

and ‘talk the talk’ in relation to a particular field, how to play the game” (Tranter, 2006,

p. 4). Habitus is a mediating process that helps a child to understand the commonsense

duality between themselves and their place within society by helping them to capture

the internalisation of externality and the externalisation of internality. Wacquant (2006)

explained it as:

...the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting

dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel,

and act in determinate ways, which then guide them in their creative

responses to the constraints and solicitations of their extant milieu. (p. 318)

The life experiences of the participants appeared to influence how they developed their

understanding of giftedness in adulthood. Early experiences [including those relating to

giftedness] either in the home or school can provide a foundation for later thinking on a

90

wide variety of subjects (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1993). If parents or

siblings are gifted, it allows windows of opportunities to observe and understand

firsthand the nature and experience of giftedness. If a child experiences a negative

influence of giftedness it might lead to that child forming a negative or ambivalent

approach towards giftedness and gifted students. A lack of attention given to a child’s

potential giftedness can compromise the opportunity for that child to be recognised as

gifted, and to be appropriately catered for.

This research study suggests that the participants brought pre-programmed blueprints of

their life experiences into their teaching practice. The paradigms of understanding their

world appeared to have begun within childhood, and then evolved into ‘hooks’ that

categorised and supported their understandings. Each of the three participants discussed

childhood experiences which influenced their developing awareness and understanding

of giftedness. There appears to be correlation between what they had exposure to and

how they developed an understanding of giftedness.

Examples of this include Chris who experienced safety at home where inclusivity was

the norm. His experience of exclusion from the gifted group [due to the fact that he was

not gifted] may have led him to form a view that gifted people were elite. Pat witnessed

the difficulties that her gifted brother encountered and worked hard to redress the

balance for gifted students through strong advocacy. Sam, who as a child, received no

academic acknowledgement, but as an adult, came to the conclusion that she was gifted.

This lack of acknowledgement is significant as we consider Tannenbaum’s (2003)

psychosocial model that suggests that five factors are needed to be in play for giftedness

to be fully revealed. The factors include [1] general ability; [2] special aptitudes; [3]

non-intellective factors; [4] environmental supports; and [5] chance. Tannenbaum

suggests that these five factors need to interweave with each other to encourage the

richness of giftedness to occur within a gifted young person. It is noted with interest that

Sam, being the only gifted participant, clearly did not have access to all five factors.

This might explain why it took her such a long time to accept and then understand her

own giftedness as an adult.

The habitus of each participant appeared to be highly influential in the early

development of their growing understanding of giftedness. These influences were also

reflected in their understanding of giftedness as adults. They appear to have held their

basic understandings of giftedness well into their teaching career, with little change in

91

their perceptions or understanding. There would have been expectation that pre-service

teacher training would contribute to their understanding of giftedness. Unfortunately

this appeared not to be the case.

TEACHER EDUCATION (PRE-SERVICE) AND PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT (IN-SERVICE)

Each participant claimed that they had no exposure to giftedness or how to teach gifted

students in their pre-service training. Their responses were unequivocal. Whether they

had or hadn’t is not the question. All the participants believed that they had not received

any exposure to giftedness in their pre-service training. Therefore this research study

raises questions relating to teacher education and professional development for teachers.

Teacher education in Australia has been identified as lacking in appropriate preparation

for pre-service teachers to both understand and teach gifted students (Geake & Gross,

2008; Lewis & Milton, 2005; Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1988,

2001). Two reports from Australian Senate Select Committees on the Education of

Gifted and Talented Children under the heading of “Education of Gifted and Talented

Children” (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1988, 2001) both identified

the paucity of preparation for teachers in the area of teaching gifted students. The 2001

follow-up report declared “Many teachers feel a lack of expertise, lack of confidence,

and a lack of resources to meet the needs of gifted children” (Senate Inquiry, 2001, p.

xi). The report indicated a variety of areas where teachers lacked appropriate

knowledge. These included identification, issues relating to the learning needs of gifted

students, assessment, and differentiation of curriculum and advocacy for gifted students.

It was interesting to note that these are the same areas where some participants in this

present study demonstrated inconsistencies in both understanding and purported

practice.

This lack of appropriate pre-service provision is not peculiar to Australia alone, and has

also been identified in the United States (Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010; Gentry,

Steenbergen-Hu, & Choi, 2011; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Morris, 2009; Van Tassel-

Baska & Johnsen, 2007). When pre-service teachers are denied access to appropriate

understanding of giftedness, they are left to their own construction of both knowledge

and understanding, thus defaulting to their own personal understanding and experience

of giftedness. With appropriate teacher preparation, pre-service teachers can begin their

92

teaching career with a solid foundation to build upon, including the complex area of

gifted education.

Participants in this research study were selected for their recognised work in gifted

education and leadership, yet it is noted that their responses regarding giftedness were

inconsistent with each other and at times even with themselves.

This research study suggests that pre-service and in-service teachers need to engage

with understanding gifted education in a meaningful, relevant way. Pre-service teachers

need effective learning opportunities that reflect best practice in teaching and learning.

Marsh (2010) and Barry and King (1998) advised pre-service teachers to use the

strategy of pre-assessment and prior knowledge before developing learning outcomes

for their school students. Could these same strategies be employed when teaching pre-

service teachers or in-service teachers? The employment of effective learning strategies

was underscored by Haymore Sandholtz (2011) who posited that teachers can

ineffectively go through the steps of teaching, but for student learning to occur, students

need to engage in reflective practice:

Effective teaching is not based on implementing routines, managing

classroom activities, engaging the students, and covering the curriculum. It

is possible for teachers to successfully accomplish those actions yet not

promote student learning. In order to reach its potential as a strategy for

improving teaching and learning, reflective practice ultimately must be

focused on student understanding (Haymore Sandholtz, 2011, p. 45).

This research study provided the participants with opportunities for reflection,

particularly focusing on what might have contributed to their understanding of

giftedness. This culminated in rich data and expressions of thanks from each participant.

This reflexive approach might be an effective core procedure for both pre-service and

in-service teacher engagement with gifted education. Pre-service teacher education

curricula could provide greater learning opportunities for pre-service teachers by

incorporating students’ prior knowledge and a high expectation of reflective practice

related to giftedness.

Research literature indicates that pre-service teachers benefit from an exposure to and

an understanding of the learning needs of gifted children (Harris & Hemmings, 2008;

Lassig, 2009; Matthews & Foster, 2005; Taylor & Milton, 2006; Van Tassel-Baska &

93

Johnsen, 2007). An example of this was a study by Siegle et al. (2010) who conducted

research with both pre-service and in-service teachers. The authors developed a series of

11 student profiles to measure 290 pre-service and 95 in-service teachers’ attitudes

whilst identifying gifted students. In-service teachers were more likely to identify

giftedness within the profiles provided. Siegle et al. (2010) suggested that the in-service

teachers participating had an interest in giftedness, thus they had previous experience

while the pre-service teachers tended to use traditional indicators [success in

mathematics and literacy]. “Teachers with more training are more likely to recognise

and appreciate different ways students exhibit their giftedness” (Siegle et al., 2010, p.

342). Pre-service teachers benefit from sound teaching about giftedness in their teacher

education preparation.

Pre-service education is a forerunner to in-service professional development for

practicing teachers. Even though each participant replied negatively in regards to their

pre-service preparation, Pat and Sam responded positively to the professional

development that they had undertaken. Whilst Chris did not acknowledge the value of

his professional development experience he had clearly undertaken a large amount in

the area of gifted education. He taught for a long time in a SHIP [Students with High

Intellectual Potential] school which required all teaching staff to be proficient in

teaching and working with gifted children. It is important to reflect upon the reasons

why he did not acknowledge it as effective professional development.

I suggest that Chris lacked a personal interest in giftedness and may not have perceived

a need for professional development in this area. He certainly attended the professional

development as it was a requirement by his school but did he accommodate the content

presented? I noted that the three interviews had a strong impact upon Chris and they

encouraged him to engage and reflect upon his learning. After he reflected on each

interview he showed great enthusiasm to continue reflecting and journaling.

There is a need for professional development to be designed to enable teachers to

effectively develop new skills and understandings regarding the diverse learning needs

of gifted students (Matthews & Foster, 2005; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006). Effective

professional development in the area of gifted education advocates for gifted students.

Professional development in the area of giftedness can result in successful outcomes. A

research study by Lewis and Milton (2005) found that while a number of professional

development workshops did not change the attitudes of the teacher participants, it was

94

noted that they were willing to modify classroom programs to accommodate gifted

students. Their research study found that teachers with an interest in the area of

giftedness, and who had undertaken in-service training were more likely to recognise

gifted students

Since graduating Pat has participated in a lot of professional development relating to

giftedness, becoming highly practiced and a strong advocate for gifted students.

Although she claimed to know absolutely nothing about gifted education when she

started teaching (Pat 1:8), it is evident that she did have an understanding and awareness

of the needs of gifted students. Professional development enabled Pat to utilise her own

personal experiences which provided a framework to organise and connect her ideas.

Pat was motivated into advocacy for gifted students by her brother’s experiences of

difficulty. “I’ve, just over the years I’ve tried tying all the things that I’ve read about

giftedness and tried to put them together for him” (Pat 1:2)

Even though the professional development in South Australia was based on the

Understanding Giftedness policy guide it was noted that none of the participants

referred to the policy, or even cited it, when discussing professional development. All

three participants could have used this policy for both application and advocacy but

gave no indication that they had. This has implications for practice within DECS

schools when the major policy for gifted students is neither referred to nor used by those

teachers who are seemingly committed and experienced in gifted education.

It is noted that the Gifted Children and Students policy and the Understanding

Giftedness implementation guide was revised in 2010 by DECS. The only changes

made in both documents were to nomenclature and not content. This meant that the

updated policy and guide still lacked a clear definition of giftedness.

CONTINUING MYTHS REGARDING GIFTEDNESS

Myths about giftedness played a role in the understanding of giftedness for some of the

participants. The myths presented themselves as ideas that had been tacitly accepted

about gifted students and had become part of classroom culture. Participants had not

made a conscious decision to adhere to a myth and did not perceive them to be myths.

Some of the ideas about giftedness had been a subtle part of their habitus. The

prevailing myths that participants embraced included understanding giftedness,

identification of gifted students, the social and emotional needs of some gifted children,

and equality versus equity.

95

Understanding giftedness.

Before reviewing myths that influenced participants, it can be useful to comment on

how they communicated a basic understanding of giftedness throughout the interviews.

Pat had a clear understanding of giftedness and it linked well with the literature in this

area. Sam and Chris had difficulty expressing a consistent understanding of giftedness.

Sam initially said giftedness was “I see ... giftedness is the potential to be amazing...”

(Sam 2:2) and then later said “I have simply had to challenge my own concept that

anybody could be gifted...I’m not” (Sam 2:8). During the third interview Sam shared “I

see giftedness now as a burden... you need almost to be a master tactician to do that”

(Sam 3:5). With each interview Sam shared a different understanding as she came to the

conclusion, in her final interview, that she was gifted now and always had been.

Throughout our conversations Chris expressed a variety of views of giftedness

including:

Every child should be identified as gifted (Chris 2:5).

Giftedness can be divided into three areas head [intellectual], hands

[kinaesthetic], and heart [social/emotional] (Chris 2:1).

It was the luck of the draw if a child was gifted (Chris 2:1).

There is no doubt that children do have degrees of giftedness. It’s not an equal

playing field for all children at all (Chris 2:2).

The definition of giftedness is very fluid and depended on the context and child

(Chris 2:1).

Gifted children are disadvantaged because they are able. They need to spend

time being a child by playing more (Chris 3:1).

This reveals that Chris was inconsistent in his understanding of giftedness, unlike his

‘rock solid’ views of inclusivity and the need to nurture and encourage all students. It

might be suggested that because giftedness was not a priority for Chris, he was able to

be flexible in his understanding of it, whereas inclusivity was at his core, therefore is at

the centre of what he believes and practices.

This research study would suggest the importance of commentators, scholars and

teachers having a common understanding of giftedness that is securely rooted within

current literature.

96

Identifying gifted students

Chris and Sam reflected a common prevailing myth that identification of giftedness is

through academic achievement alone. As such students score consistently well on

academic tests and exams it demonstrates that they are superior and therefore gifted

students. Students who achieve high academic scores are in a small minority within

societies. Borland (2009) challenges the notion that the gifted is only within the top 3%

to 5% of the population and that demonstration of giftedness is purely academic (2009,

p. 236). Worrell (2009) challenges the idea that a single score is sufficient for

determining giftedness. This myth may be influenced by the historical notion that

giftedness is recognised by a single test (Terman & Merrill, 1937, 1961).

In the Gifted Child Quarterly special editions, two authors (Treffinger, 1982; Worrall,

2009) discussed this prevailing myth that all gifted children needed to be identified with

the same ‘scoring system’. They both advocated there was no consensual definition of

giftedness. No single score allows us to make accurate predictions. Both Chris and Sam

held to this myth. It is noted that as the interviews progressed Sam changed her opinion

to a more varied approach to identification. This myth still infiltrates classrooms with

teachers declaring that a student cannot be gifted because they have not scored well, or

for example, they have difficulty with handwriting (Rogers, 2002). Pat was the only

participant who held to consistent methods for identifying gifted children.

This apparent confusion indicates an inconsistent nature not only of the definition of

giftedness but also the nature of giftedness. Supporting the myth that giftedness is

standardised and test driven is the assumption that giftedness is fixed with a

homogenous group. Reis and Renzulli (2009) suggest that this myth might endure

because it is easier for teachers to identify gifted students by a score despite the

literature indicating the need for multiple criteria. Chris and Sam both concurred with

this myth by accepting stereotypical views including that all gifted students are high

scorers, academically advantaged, clever at everything and have no real problems.

As a school student, Chris believed that giftedness was evidence-based. Students who

attained high scores in standardised tests were viewed as gifted. Both Chris and Sam

expressed views that gifted students were apart from other people. They would do well,

be in the top class, enjoy success and very possibly be envied by the other students.

They were an exclusive cohort. This belief may not have been intentionally taught to

97

Chris; nevertheless he embraced common myths about giftedness being fixed and test-

driven (Callahan, 2009; Juntune, 1982; Worrall, 2009).

Accepting these ideas of academic success as the indicator of giftedness also

accommodates a view that there need to be winners and losers when identifying gifted

students. This myth was identified by Callahan in the 1982 edition of Gifted Child

Quarterly:

A most unfortunate by-product of many current approaches to identifying

and serving gifted and talented children is the perception that children are

either ‘in’ the program [the winners] or they are ‘not’ in the program [the

losers]. Associated with the status of ‘winner’ are the positive advantages of

the label of gifted, the opportunity for special activities, access to new

resources and challenges....To the losers go the feelings of inadequacy, the

feelings of being left out, and the disappointments of not meeting parental

expectations (Callahan, 1982, p. 17).

This misunderstanding regarding ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ blurs the true issues of

identifying gifted students and leads into potential non-productive vacuums of

discussing giftedness and elitism. Even within the gifted education community there is

a lack of clarity in some areas. It has been suggested that the field of gifted education

can be characterised as “...fractured, contested, porous rather than unified, insular, and

firmly policed’ (Dai et al., 2011, p. 126), whereby even ‘the experts’ may have

conflicting definitions of what giftedness is. Teachers may not have the time or the

inclination to consume research findings to come to their own conclusions when the

‘experts’ might disagree. Teachers need guidance from research projects to provide

material that is clear, relevant and supportive by the majority of research in the field of

gifted education.

By recognising the difficulties that teachers face, a pilot study was conducted in the

USA, asking a group of key researchers to outline the major challenges facing the field

of gifted education (Cramer, 1991). Twelve key challenges were identified, the first of

these being a common understanding of the term ‘gifted’. Despite the 1972 Marland

report giving direction on the multiple domains within the definition of giftedness, there

is still a strong understanding that giftedness is associated exclusively with intellectual

potential and academic talent (Kay, 2001).

98

Teachers will be supported in their understanding of giftedness when they are able to

consider a clear, widely agreed upon definition which is provided by their pre-service

teacher education, researchers in the field, and their own education system employers.

All three participants had the Gifted Children and Students Policy and the

Understanding Giftedness implementation guidelines within their schools, wherein a

clear definition of giftedness was omitted from both documents. This is a serious

oversight as it provides opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding.

This research study suggests that in tandem with the confusion of definition is the

resistance to using nomenclature referring to ‘gifted’. Chris mentioned several times

that he found the term ‘gifted’ to be untenable, “...it [the interviews] really made me

think of how an anachronistic the word gifted is and how loaded it is and how

politically driven it is” (Chris 3:7). Sam also found the label to be confusing (Sam 2:6).

The literature has seen emerging shifts in the nomenclature from ‘gifted education to

‘talent development’, which Van Tassel-Baska (2006) suggested is a sign of transition

within the field, but is it enough to quell the possible toxic qualities of the word

‘gifted’? As there is a paucity of literature relating to teachers and gifted nomenclature,

a further research study could discuss the responses teachers attach to that term, and

what impact the word has upon their thinking and classroom teaching.

Social and emotional issues

Another myth which appears to be commonly held by many teachers, including some of

the participants in this study, is that of gifted children not having social or emotional

problems because they are bright. This myth may have its roots within Terman’s early

work commenting on the social and emotional capability of gifted children (Terman &

Merrill, 1947). Terman found that gifted individuals were well adjusted and

demonstrated sound emotional and social behaviours. This conflicted with

Hollingsworth’s (1926) conclusion that highly gifted students are socially and

emotionally vulnerable:

Further, Hollingworth believed that to be precocious was to be vulnerable,

so both her writing and her instruction stressed the resolution of special

problems that might develop with children who have ‘the intelligence of an

adult and the emotions of a child’ (Delisle, 1992, p. 6).

99

The reason that Terman had these findings could be as a result of the sample that he

used. His sample came from kindergartens, primary and high schools and tended to be

white, and middle class. There was a high level of good nutrition within the sample. The

sample used was not a true representation of all gifted children (Khatena, 1982). This

sample did not accurately reflect minorities or different cohorts within a society.

In the Gifted Child Quarterly special edition (2009) Peterson addressed the myth that

gifted children do not have unique social and emotional needs: “Early scholarly work

related to giftedness may have contributed to the notion that high capability means solid

mental and physical health” (Peterson, 2009, p. 280). It is interesting to note that this

myth was not included with the original myths identified in the 1982 special edition.

Research in recent years has contributed to understanding the social and emotional

development of gifted children and has brought this issue to the attention of educators.

Chris did not discuss providing appropriately for the gifted students in his classroom.

Sam, after reflecting upon and accepting her own giftedness, began to speak about the

social and emotional needs of gifted students. Pat, who had experience with her gifted

brother, clearly understood and advocated for gifted students in this area. Pat spoke

strongly about the need for teachers to assist a gifted student by adjusting curricula to

accommodate any emotional and social requirements (Delisle, 1992; Gross, 1993;

Silverman, 1993). One measure to achieve this is the provision of an optimal

environment that will support them as they deal with the social and emotional

challenges that are particular to being gifted (Delisle, 1994; Gross et al., 1999; Knight &

Becker, 2000; Whitton, 1997).

This common myth impacted Chris and Sam who both supported a belief that gifted

children are emotionally and socially strong, and as a consequence they do not face

problems or personal challenges. A consequence of this myth may be that gifted

children are seen to be coping well with everything and it may be a reason for teachers

to ‘let them be’. Chris firmly believed that gifted students were at an advantage because

they were gifted; they had an easier time in the classroom, they were good at everything

and they had the social and emotional ability to succeed, because, he thought all gifted

students were resilient, “I would say that they [gifted students] have more resilience or

emotional gifts and seeing how you can give children, who have gifts like that,

challenge” (Chris 2:1).

100

This myth, of gifted children being socially and emotionally resilient, continues to be

challenged by researchers in the field of gifted education (Moon, S., 2009; Porter, 2005;

Peterson, 2009).

Equality versus equity

A negative view of giftedness, as being elite, is a myth that has permeated throughout

school systems within the Western world (Geake & Gross, 2008; Matthews & Kitchen,

2007; Renzulli, 1984). This view may be held by those who believe that provision for

gifted children is unnecessary or unfair, because they are already able. A major

proponent of this view has been Sapon-Shevin who claims that gifted students are

perceived as being better than others’ “This ‘othering’ [identification of gifted children]

contributes to the idea that educational programming for children labelled gifted is

logically considered separate from or apart from educational programming for typical

children – they’re different – they need something special” (Sapon-Shevin, 1994, p. 15).

As a school student Chris identified ‘the gifted group’ as being bright, successful and

separate to everyone else. In his interviews he alluded to a possibility that giftedness is a

form of elitism. Chris embraced practices posited by Sapon-Shevin when he stated that

inclusivity is the key to successful learning outcomes for all students. Sapon-Shevin

advocated for inclusive classrooms, where all students had access to all programmes.

This was achieved without incorporating any pull out programmes: “Many teachers

report that the modifications and adjustments that they have made for a specific student

have had a positive impact on a wider group of students” (Sapon-Shevin, 1995, p. 65).

Tomlinson, Coleman, Allan, Udall, and Landrum (1996) drew our attention to a core

issue in the discussion of elitism:

…there have been evident tensions between general education and gifted

education borne largely from (1) the view of gifted education by general

educators as elitist….(2) the view of general education by educators of the

gifted as insensitive to the needs of a high ability learner (p. 165).

This specious claim of elitism might lead teachers to resist providing differentiation for

giftedness on the grounds of being unfair because gifted students already have academic

achievement. Chris went to great lengths to communicate that he treated all students

fairly and equally.

101

There appears to be some unease when some teachers have gifted students in their

classroom (Geake & Gross, 2008). This unease may be fuelled by cohorts of the gifted

education community who seem to suggest that gifted students are being disadvantaged

by general classroom teaching, and that they need extra attention. This approach is

demonstrated by the following statement by Stanley and Baines (2002):

Perhaps the most sinister force undermining gifted education programs is

the re-emergence of the concept of egalitarianism. In practice egalitarianism

has come to mean that all students should get the same educational

experience (p.11).

These comments are understood and appreciated by advocates of gifted children (Shore

& Delcourt, 1996; Tomlinson, 2009) but a different approach might be better received

by general classroom teachers when expressed in the following way: “Much of

curricular decision-making and planning comes down to a question of balance. The

curriculum must be balanced to respond to the unique learning needs of the gifted and

their unusual make-up” (Parke & Ness, 1988, p. 197).

While teachers in general may have a vague view towards giftedness, literature

suggested that they often prefer students who are not academically gifted (Gallagher,

2009; Megay-Nespoli, 2001). In an evolutionary psychological study Geake and Gross

(2008), offered reasons for some teachers to be apprehensive when providing

appropriately for gifted students. They purport that giftedness in sport or the arts is well

received and enjoyed by the community, whereas “...development of high intellectual

ability is seen as a selfish endeavour – social noncompliance – as it is the possessor of

the talent...who will primarily benefit” (Geake & Gross, 2008, p. 219). The authors ask

the question: “Could there be an evolutionary apprehension of gifted people that they

might seize unfair social advantages?” They discussed two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Teachers harbour negative feelings towards academically

gifted students...in the form of suspicion of their intellectual precocity.

Hypothesis 2: Following Dunbar’s account of the evolution of the human

language...such suspicion of intellectual precocity will ...focus on superior

articulateness and nonconformist socialising (Geake & Gross, 2008, p. 220).

To support teachers in their efforts to understand giftedness there is efficacy in

encouraging teachers to differentiate between the principles of ‘equity’ [fairness and

102

impartiality] and ‘equality’ [being considered equal with others]. This enables teachers’

understanding of difference to recognise that all students need access to high quality

learning and content to achieve their potential. The literature indicates that although

gifted students may have huge potential they also need appropriate recognition and

provision to bring about realisation (Borland, 2003; Brownell et al., 2010; Tomlinson,

2009). Sawyer (1988, p. 8) asserted that ‘it is robbery of the gifted merely to teach them

how to learn without teaching something worth learning’.

The following statement could challenge a teacher’s understanding of the difference

between equity and elitism:

If a ten year old can only learn what a six year old can, money will be spent,

but if a six year old can learn what a ten year old can, nothing is done. If the

rationale for differentiated instruction is variance from the mean, then

differentiation for gifted students is as defensible as it is for those in special

education (Winebrener, 1999, pp.11-12).

Teaching all students in the same way is not a remedy for success since different

students have different needs. Myths relating to unnecessary provision for gifted

students still need to be broken down (Gallagher, 2009; Link, 1982; McCoach & Siegle,

2007; Robinson, 2009; Ward, 1982).

Hertberg-Davis (2009) described a variation of a theme with this myth by comparing

Tomlinson’s description of a teacher who differentiates curriculum for the gifted in the

classroom (Tomlinson, 1995a) with an approach which assumes that ‘all students in a

classroom, regardless of its heterogeneity, benefit and learn from a standard, one –size-

fits-all curriculum’ (Hertberg-Davis, 2009, p. 251).

In this issue of treating all students fairly the difference between Chris’ and Pat’s

perspectives was very marked. Chris believed that all students should have access to

everything, whilst Pat advocated that gifted children had particular learning needs and

needed something different. The myth that equality means teaching all children the

same was challenged by Cooper (2009) and also by Sisk (2009), who both argued that

gifted children have specific learning needs related to their giftedness with personal and

academic potentials needing to be addressed. Other educators struggle with this

‘appearance’ of elitism. Sapon-Shevin (1996) questioned the need for differentiated

curricula for gifted students. She suggested that all groups in the classroom benefit from

103

differentiation, and that all groups need ‘hands on’ activities that are relevant and

meaningful. Sapon-Shevin argues that no student benefits from endless worksheets, so

why are enrichment activities reserved for the few ‘gifted students’?

Once again this research study respectfully suggests that all forms of pre-service and in-

service provision in the area of giftedness must include clear, definable teaching and

guidelines in the areas of understanding giftedness; identifying gifted students;

appreciating the social and emotional asynchronous development of gifted students; and

how curriculum development can become more authentic for gifted students.

PURPOSEFUL REFLECTION

Another major influence of developing the participants’ understanding of giftedness was

a surprising one for the author. The three interviews appeared to have had a very

positive impact on each participant. They all spoke about the value of having time and

guidance to consider their understanding of giftedness in an interview setting. Each

participant expressed that they had experienced consolidation and growth in their

understanding of giftedness.

It appears that the interview structure provided Chris with an excellent opportunity to

grow in his understanding of giftedness. He declared that the interviews had challenged

what he thought about giftedness and had made him reconsider why he had an

inconsistent understanding of giftedness (Chris 3:1):

I must say, at the outset that it has been a wonderful in-service, I can’t think

of a better in-service that I have had because it has got those elements of um

the context is really quite wonderful for learning and reflecting (Chris 3:6).

Even though Pat was highly motivated and had consistently attended professional

development, the interview process provided opportunities for her to deepen her

understanding of giftedness. Pat voiced that the interviews had provided a space for her

to be reflective:

Reflecting on myself and my upbringing and how much that may have

influenced my thoughts about education and what I need to be providing for

kids...My brothers and sisters and I and yeah just looking at us all has just

been interesting, yeah. And with you throwing in a few probes Yeah. (Pat

3:7)

104

The process of talking, reflecting, and being asked questions provided a space for Pat to

take some ownership of what she wanted to reflect upon. She also expressed the view

that this was a rare occurrence, just sitting and reflecting and piecing things together

(Pat 3:7). All three participants extolled the value of the interviews having provide time

to think, talk and reflect.

The research study interviews were very life changing for Sam, and resulted in a

growing awareness and personal acceptance of her own giftedness:

I guess I have felt really great every time I have gone away from the

session. It has been wonderful to talk about this stuff. It has been fabulous,

almost like therapy in a way; it’s been good to talk about it (Sam 3:7).

Sam demonstrated over the course of our interviews, that she experienced revelations

about her identity both as a child and as an adult. She gained confidence sufficient to

declare that she believed that she was and is gifted. These were ideas which she had

been aware, but it was the interview process that provide a space to verbalise and

construct an understanding, in a safe and confidential arena. As previously mentioned, a

short time after these interviews Sam made a life-changing decision and left teaching to

pursue her dreams. She stressed that the interviews had empowered her to being able to

come to a greater level of self acceptance.

Providing time and space for teachers to work through their thoughts about giftedness is

essential. Davis and Rimm (2004) recommended that the starting point for teachers

commencing gifted education training should be to identify and understand the attitudes

and beliefs relating to gifted children held by participating teachers. Incorporating how

a person understands giftedness provides the facilitator with some indication of the prior

knowledge of participants. Lassig (2009, p. 5) suggested that a lack of knowledge and

understanding about giftedness may be largely responsible for the mistaken beliefs held

by teachers.

A study by Cashion and Sullenger (2000) showed that teachers benefited from sustained

support, rather than bursts of training. Their study included teachers who came together

each year for gifted education training; returning to their schools with no follow-up

support. The authors suggest that change takes time and that the teachers who had

success were able to find their own source of support and communication. The

interview process in this research study provided teachers with the time and space for

105

personal reflection, and then an opportunity to debrief during the third and final

interview. It would be interesting to return to these participants, after a period of at least

six months to gather further data of any further thoughts or changes in their

understanding of giftedness.

SUMMARY

This chapter discussed the common themes that have influenced and developed the

participants’ understanding of giftedness. These themes included understanding

giftedness, identification of gifted students, equality and equity, and purposeful

reflection. Their family and school life exposed them to both positive and negative

understandings of giftedness. These exposures left memories and feelings that acted as

pegs upon which their adult selves could hang ideas and beliefs.

It was noted that some participants demonstrated inconsistencies in their understanding

of giftedness. These inconsistencies correlated with common myths that were identified

as misconceptions in 1982 and then revisited in 2009. These myths may not have been

introduced intentionally to participants but they had influenced some of the participants

in their understanding of giftedness. It was interesting to note that none of the

participants had undertaken gifted education in their teacher education, but had engaged

as a need arose through personal interest or having to cater for a gifted student. All of

the participants spoke about various advantages and benefits of the interview process.

They also claimed to have progressed in their understanding of giftedness as a result of

the interview process.

106

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

This research study considers how teachers develop an understanding of giftedness. The

research method used has been Narrative Inquiry case studies implementing Seidman’s

(2006) three interview method providing time and space for each participant to reflect

and consider their own journey in understanding giftedness. Three primary school

teachers participated in the research study. Each teacher taught in a public school,

received DECS professional development in the area of gifted education and had been

recognised for their understanding of giftedness and leadership in that area.

The resulting interview conversations indicated key differences between each of the

participating teachers. These differences included their understanding of giftedness,

beliefs about recognising gifted students and the appropriate provision for gifted

students in the general classroom. Each participant reconnected with their childhood

experiences and was able to identify and discuss factors that influenced their current

understanding of giftedness.

Chris, who as a child had no personal encounters with giftedness, and who possibly

experienced exclusion from a gifted cohort in primary school, was highly committed to

inclusion and equality for all students, and saw no rationale for identifying gifted

children.

Pat who as a child saw her gifted brother disadvantaged at school and not appropriately

provided for now understood her current fervour in advocating for gifted children. She

felt strongly about the poor treatment that her brother received and is now better

positioned to support gifted students.

Sam, who was bright as a child but not recognised or encouraged, was aware that she

was ‘different’ from other children. Now, as an adult, she took the time to consider her

own status as a gifted person. Sam had an emotional journey as she finally embraced the

acceptance that she was gifted.

KEY THEMES

The participating teachers developed their understanding of giftedness in a variety of

ways including their habitus/life experiences, tacitly accepted myths about giftedness,

pre-service and in-service provision, and purposeful reflection during these interviews.

107

Habitus

All three participants revealed specific early experiences which had influenced their

understanding of giftedness. Pat understood at an early age how gifted students can be

disadvantaged at school, while Chris encountered a very different experience. He saw

gifted students as being advantaged, they were bright and successful. Sam’s

understanding of giftedness was possibly stunted by the lack of parental support and the

lack of awareness from teachers that she may have been gifted. Each participant’s

current understanding of giftedness, in their adult life, reflected some connection with

experiences that happened in their early life.

A person’s habitus is subject to the contextual influences that the person experiences, it

can also provide clear memories which could be a foundation for later understandings.

For the purposes of preparing teachers to teach gifted students it is not appropriate to

assume that they will have a sound understanding of giftedness nor that they will

understand or share a common understanding and acceptance of nomenclature used.

With experienced teachers it must not be assumed that they have an understanding of

giftedness which reflects current research or best practice.

Common myths about giftedness

All the participants were possibly influenced by prevailing myths that are rarely ‘taught’

but which are tacitly received. During their lives each participant may have been

exposed to a variety of the previously discussed myths. The myths are perpetuated

within contexts [schools, television. and pop culture] and thrive on people’s ignorance.

These myths can be generated in a variety of ways from television stereotypes – think of

current comedy shows that represent gifted people as nerds [Big Bang Theory and

Beauty and the Geek], there are also movies that portray gifted students as socially

awkward [Revenge of the Nerds, and Social Network].

Common stereotypical images still portray a gifted male as weak and weedy and a

gifted female as unattractive, wearing glasses and lacking any sex appeal. Cross (2005)

conducted research which found that gifted children were often referred to as geeks or

nerds. These terms “had very negative ramifications in the gifted students’

personas...nerds were considered ...physically weak, uninteresting...and ultimately

undesirable” (Cross, 2005, p. 26).

Myths surrounding giftedness reside in cultures, language, stories, radio, humour,

literature and the Arts. Through a number of decades people have initiated and

108

participated in conversations that incorporate myths about giftedness whilst not

recognising it as myth themselves, in the same way that people might tell racist and

sexist jokes without considering themselves as being racist or sexist.

Common tacit understandings can provide the colour and tone for teachers’

understandings about giftedness. Many teachers accept the myths about giftedness

without question and this leads to some myths becoming so entrenched within a school

culture that they promote obfuscation. An example of this might be the popular myth

that all parents think their child to be gifted. Thus when the parents talk about their

child, suggesting that there may be a possibility of giftedness, the teacher might dismiss

the parent’s ideas because “all parents think that their child is gifted.....” This myth is

accommodated by some teachers even though there are insufficient data or research to

suggest the validity of this myth. These myths have promoted reification as individuals

embrace the half truths or comical interpretations without critically reviewing the

evidence instead of reiterating and promoting the myths.

These myths can influence teachers and can add to a default understanding of

giftedness. The myths may sound right but without research and reflection they may

remain intact and part of a teacher’s understanding of giftedness. Effective education is

needed to eradicate myths.

Pre-service and in-service provision

When participants were asked about their pre-service teacher education it became clear

that gifted education was omitted from their pre-service preparation. Each participant

strongly declared that they had not received any pre-service preparation to either

understand nor to teach gifted students. This suggests we might expect this particular

cohort of teachers [pre-service teachers who trained throughout the eighties], in South

Australia, to have difficulty in understanding and agreeing with common

understandings of giftedness. This is compounded by the current DECD Gifted Children

and Students Policy which lacks an explicit definition of giftedness.

Pre-service teachers would benefit from their teacher preparation equipping them in

both understanding giftedness and by having strategies and tools to teach gifted

students. This research study recommends that teaching institutions evaluate their

current awards to ensure provision is made. Two Australian Senate Select Committees

on the education of gifted and talented children have identified the paucity of

preparation for teachers in the area of teaching gifted students. Teaching institutions

109

need to become accountable in ratifying these recommendations within their pre-service

courses. For their own teaching integrity and practice, pre-service teachers would

benefit from participating and engaging in interactive learning whereby they identify

what they believe about giftedness and why. This is an important key to equipping all

teachers with an understanding of giftedness which is relevant within their own contexts

and experiences. If teachers are given an opportunity to internalise and accommodate

educational principles relating to giftedness, there may be a personal commitment from

teachers to utilise ‘best practice’ skills. As teachers grow in their understanding of

meeting the learning needs of gifted students, some of these same skills can be applied

to a wide spectrum of ability within the classroom (Tomlinson, 1995a; Tomlinson &

Imbeau, 2010).

Another key theme from this research study explores the notion that teachers can attend

in-service professional development, discussing gifted education, with no assurance that

the material presented will either teach or enlighten the participants. This scenario

appears to be the experience for some of the participants in this study. There may be

reasons for why this might happen. Professional development is traditionally undertaken

at school, at the end of the school day, or as part of the weekly staff meeting. This

research study suggests that the practice of in-service professional development needs to

be re-examined for efficacy to ensure that providers incorporate adult learning

principles in the delivery mode and acknowledge and accommodate a participant’s prior

knowledge and current understanding of the concepts being taught.

In-service professional development needs a firm and sure foundation, rooted firmly in

current literature. This research study makes two recommendations in this area. Firstly,

that there is a common consensus of agreement between both public and private schools

as to the nature, recognition and provision for giftedness. This would require all

education systems collaborating and negotiating to establish common ground and shared

understanding. The value of this ensures that all teachers within a jurisdiction would

receive parity of provision content. Secondly, policies need to be reviewed to provide

clear definitions of giftedness and to recommend effective practices when working with

gifted students. This research study would also recommend that in-service provision

needs to formally attempt to understand and integrate a teacher’s baseline knowledge

before undertaking professional development in the area. This would enable the teacher

to actively participate in constructing understanding rather than passively receiving

information about giftedness.

110

This research study suggests the need for commentators to persevere in writing research

journal articles and text books in a way that there is a clear understanding of

nomenclature and content used. Some of these writings, without losing academic rigour,

need to be written for classroom teachers to access the material and use it in their own

professional development or classroom teaching. As teachers read and understand the

unique learning needs of students they will grow in their understanding of giftedness

and teaching gifted students.

Purposeful reflection

Another key theme highlighted in this research study was the advantage of purposeful

reflection. All three participants engaged in three separate and protracted interviews. In

each interview the participants led the conversation. As the interviewer I provided very

little content, but I did facilitate each person’s narrative by asking clarifying, defining or

exploratory questions. As the transcripts demonstrate the participants had opportunities

to talk out ideas and to construct meaning from the memories and practices that they

engaged in.

Seidman (2006) encouraged the interviewer to facilitate a space for participants to

reflect upon their behaviour through the lens of context: “People’s behaviour becomes

meaningful and understandable when placed in context of their lives and the lives of

those around them. Without context there is little possibility of exploring the meaning

of an experience” (Seidman, pp. 16-17).

If teachers can engage in purposeful reflection while teaching gifted students an

opportunity will be created for the teacher to be open for change in both understanding

and practice.

FUTURE RESEARCH

There are several opportunities for future research incorporating the same research

focus. The study could be repeated with the participants having follow up interviews

every three months to monitor paradigm shifts accompanied by appropriate thinking and

behaviours reflecting these changes. This approach would provide insight into the

lasting changes of any enlightenment which took place during the interviews.

A research study could also be undertaken with a cohort of general classroom teachers

with no specific interest in gifted education and compare responses to those from a

cohort of teachers who have received in-service professional development in the area of

111

gifted education. It would be beneficial to discover if there was evidence of the myths

influencing the cohort of general teachers, this would provide an opportunity to

compare and contrast the influence of myths relating to gifted education across the two

cohorts (general teachers and teachers engaged in gifted education).

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

It is acknowledged that this study included a small sample of three participants, who

may not be representative of all teachers. Though the sample was small, it produced rich

data that was valuable, authentic and provided valid comment on the participants

involved. Each collection of data involved travel time, discussing ethical and

confidentiality processes, and greeting and departure routines, and the long interview.

Each of the three protracted interviews generated a large amount of data to transcribe

and code. This process was manageable by a single researcher, but a larger sample

might prove to be daunting thus necessitating research assistance. Another limitation of

this research study could be the possible bias of a single researcher. The interpretations

and conclusions arrived at could be influenced by my own beliefs and experiences.

SUMMARY

This research study has followed the journeys of three teacher participants and

demonstrated that each developed an understanding of giftedness through their habitus,

pre-service and in-service preparations and that they had been influenced by common

myths and had benefitted from purposeful reflection in their understanding of

giftedness. This study recommends that more consistent and monitored professional

development is required at both pre-service and in-service levels, ensuring that the

participants recognise and identify their own baseline understanding of giftedness and

the nomenclature used. During this process some form of purposeful reflection could be

encouraged and facilitated.

Wherever Australian educators position giftedness in the future, this study has provided

an initial litmus indicator that more work in the field of gifted education needs to be

undertaken to raise awareness, consistency and competency levels of teachers working

amongst students who are gifted.

112

REFERENCES

Archambault, F.X., Jr., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S.W., Hallmark, B.W., Zhang, W. &

Emmons, C.L. (1993). Classroom practices used with third and fourth grade

students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 103–119.

Assouline, S. (2003). Psychological and educational assessment of gifted children. In N.

Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.,pp. 124-145).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bailey, S. (2000). Culturally diverse gifted students. In M.J. Stopper (Ed.), Meeting the

social and emotional needs of the gifted and talented children. (pp. 12-36).

London: David Fulton.

Bain, S.K., Bliss, S.L., Choate, S.M., & Brown K.S. (2007). Serving children who are

gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478.

Bangel, N.J., Enerson, N., Capobianco, B., & Moon, S. (2006). Professional

development of pre-service teachers: Teaching in the super Saturday program.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(3), 339-363.

Bangel, N.J., Moon, S.M., & Capobianco, B.M. (2010). Pre-service teachers’

perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 54(3), 209-221.

Barry, K., & King, L. (1998). Beginning teaching and beyond (3rd ed.) Sydney: Social

Science Press.

Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and

psychometrics. (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment

Service Bulletin No. 1). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives – the classification of

educational goals handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co.

Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and attitude change. East Sussex, UK:

Psychology Press.

113

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfree

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York:

Macmillan.

Borland, J.H. (2003). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.),

Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.,pp. 293-307). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Borland, J. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population.

Moreover, giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude: Spinal

tap psychometrics in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 236-238.

Bouma, G.D. (2000). The research process (4th ed.) Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory

of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The rules of art. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1993). Reproduction in education, society and culture

(2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Braggett, E.J. (1994). Developing programs for gifted students. Melbourne: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

Braggett, E.J. (1997). Differentiated programs for primary schools. Melbourne: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

Braggett, E.J. (1998). Gifted and talented children and their education. In A. Ashman &

J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (3rd ed.,pp. 229-283).

Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Braggett, E.J., Day, A. & Minchin, M. (1996). Differentiated programs for secondary

schools. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Britzman, D. (1990). Practice makes perfect. In F.M Connelly, & D.J. Clandinin.

Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14.

114

Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W. & Chen C. (2005).

Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted

Child Quarterly. 49(51), 68-79.

Brownell, M.T., Sindelar, P.T., Kiely M.T., & Danielson, L.C. (2010). Special

education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a

new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-379.

Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Sydney: Longman.

Callahan, C.M. (1982). There must be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in identification and

programming! Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 17-19.

Callahan, C. M. (2009). Myth 3: A family of identification myths: Your sample must be

the same as the population. There is a ‘silver bullet’ in identification. There must

be ‘winners’ and losers’ in identification and programming. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 53(4), 236-238.

Carrington, N.G. & Bailey, S.B. (2000). How do pre-service teachers view gifted

students? The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 19(1), 18-22.

Cashion, M. & Sullenger, K. (2000). Contact us next year: Tracing teachers’ use of

gifted practices. Roeper Review, 23(1), 18-21.

Chamberlin, M. T. & Chamberlin S. A., (2010). Enhancing pre-service teacher

development: Field experiences with gifted students. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 33(3), 381-416.

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coleman, M.R. & Gallagher, J.J. (1995). Appropriate differentiated services: Guides for

best practice in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 18(5), 32-33.

Commonwealth Government Publishing Service, (1988). The Report of the Senate

Select Committee on The Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Canberra

115

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.

Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14.

Cooper, C.R. (2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach all children the same way? Gifted Child

Quarterly, 53(4), 283-285.

Copenhaver, R.W., McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers’ perceptions of gifted students,

Roeper Review, 14, 151-153.

Cramer, R.H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A Delphi

study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 84-91.

Cramond B. & Martin, C. E. (1987). In-service and pre-service teachers' attitudes

toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1) 15-19.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, T. L. (2005) Nerds and Geeks: Society’s evolving stereotypes of our students

with gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 26-27.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Research: Introducing Qualitative

Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dai, Y. D., Swanson, J.A. & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and

gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998—2010.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126-138.

Daly, M. (2003). Methodology. In R. Miller & J. Brewer (Ed.), The A to Z of social

research (pp. 192-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Davies, F. M. (2002). Practices employed by participating teachers to differentiate the

curriculum for the gifted students in their class. Unpublished Masters thesis.

Adelaide: The Flinders University of South Australia.

Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Department of Education and Children’s Services, (1996). Understanding giftedness: A

guide to implementation. Adelaide: Author.

116

Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth.

New York: Longman.

Delisle, J. R. (1994). National report misses some important issues for educators of

gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 17(1), 32-33.

Delisle, J.R. (2000). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of gifted child

education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company.

Delisle, J. R. (2001). In praise of elitism. Gifted Child Today, 24(1), 13-14.

Eisenhart, M., Schrum, J., Harding, J. & Cuthbert, A. (1988). Teacher beliefs:

Definitions, findings and direction. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),

Handbook of research on teacher education (p. 103). New York: Macmillan.

Elliot, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. London: Sage.

Eyre, D. (1997). Able children in ordinary schools. London: David Fulton.

Eysenck, H. (2000). Intelligence: A new look. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent direction: The new direction in gifted education. Roeper

Review, 18(2), 92. Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise and

creative achievement. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds), Conceptions of

Giftedness. (2nd ed., p. 65). N.Y. Cambridge University Press.

Feldhusen, J. F., Haeger, W. W., & Pellegrino, A. S. (1989). A model training program

in gifted education for school administrators. Roeper Review, 11, 209-214.

Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research. London:

Office for Standards in Education.

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and Talent: Re-examining a re-examination of the

definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103-112.

Gagné, F. (2003a). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N.

Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 483-

493). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

117

Gagné, F. (2003b). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental

theory. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. (3rd

ed., pp. 60-74). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Galbraith, J. (1985). The eight great gripes of gifted kids: Responding to special

needs. Roeper Review, 8(1) 15-18.

Gallagher, S.A. (2009). Myth 19: Is Advanced Placement an Adequate Program for

Gifted Students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 286-288.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books.

Geake, J., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically

gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly,

52(3), 217-231.

Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge

and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students

and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 46(2), 145-155.

Gentry, M., Steenhergen-Hu, S., & Choi, B. (2011). Student identified exemplary

teachers: Insights from talent teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 111-125.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New

York: Longman.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, P. (1992). Becoming qualitative researches: An introduction.

New York: Longman.

Goodnough, K. (2000). Fostering liberal views of giftedness: A study of beliefs of six

undergraduate education students. Roeper Review, 23(2), 89-90.

Graffam, B. (2006). A case study of teachers of gifted learners: Moving from prescribed

practice to described practitioners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 119-131.

118

Grenfell, M. (1998). Language and the classroom. In M. Grenfell & D. James (Eds.),

Bourdieu and Education: Acts of practical theory (pp. 72-88). London: Falmer

Press.

Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Gross, M. U. M. (1997). Changing teacher attitudes towards gifted children: An early

but essential step. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds), Maximising potential:

Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 3-22). Hong Kong: World Council

for Gifted and Talented Children.

Gross, M. U. M., Sleap, B., & Pretorious, M. (1999). Gifted students in secondary

schools: Differentiating the curriculum. Sydney: GERRIC.

Guildford, J.P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14(8), 469-479.

Guskin, S. L., Peng, C. J., & Majd-Jabbhari, M. (1988). Teachers’ perceptions of

giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(1), 216-221.

Hall, J. (2001). Teacher Thinking: Perceptions of the teacher of the gifted. The

Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 10(2), 19-28.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers

of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115–121.

Harris, A. M. & Hemmings, B. C. (2008). Pre-service teachers' understandings of and

perceptions for gifted and talented Education. The Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 17(1), 5-18.

Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is

equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time,

the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4),

251-253.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Haymore Sandholtz, J. (2011). Pre-service teacher’s conceptions of effective and

ineffective teaching practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 27-47.

119

Hodge, K. A., & Kemp, C.R. (2006). Recognition of giftedness in the early years of

school: The perspectives of teachers, parents and children. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 30, 164-204.

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and

development. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted

education. (3rd ed., pp. 455-469). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hudson, P., Hudson, S., Lewis, K., & Watters, J. (2010). Embedding gifted education in

preservice teacher education: A collaborative school-university approach.

Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 19(2), 5-15.

Ingram, N. (2011). Within school and beyond the gate: The complexities of being

educationally successful and working class. Sociology, 45(2), 287-302.

Jacobs, J. C. (1972). Teacher attitudes towards gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,

16, 23-26.

Johnson, N. F. (2009). Teenage technological experts: Views of schooling. The

Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 59-72.

Juntune, J. (1982). Myth: The gifted constitute a single, homogeneous group. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 26(1), 9-10.

Kanevsky, L. (2011). Differential differentiation: What types of differentiation do

students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 9-10, 279-299.

Kao, C. Y. (2011). The dilemmas of peer relationships confronting mathematically

gifted female adolescents: Nine cases in Taiwan. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2),

83-94.

Kay, S. I. (2001). A talent profile for facilitating talent development in schools. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 45(1), 45-53.

Khatena, J. (1982) Educational psychology of the gifted. New York; John Wiley &

Sons.

Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1995). An interview with Howard Gardner. In R. Fogarty & J.

Bellanca (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences: A collection. (pp. 3-24). Melbourne:

Hawker Brownlow Education.

120

Knight, B. A. & Becker, T. (2000). The challenge of meeting the needs of gifted

students in the regular classroom: The student viewpoint. Australasian Journal of

Gifted Education, 9(1), 11-17.

Geake, J., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative attitudes toward academically

gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly,

52(3), 220.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into

Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Krause, K., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2003). Educational psychology for learning

and teaching. Southbank, Victoria: Thompson Australia.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Landvogt, J. (1997a). Direction in gifted education: Reflections on the implications of

research for practice. IARTV Seminar Series, No. 63, Melbourne, Vic: IARTV.

Landvogt, J. (1997b). Teaching gifted children. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow

Education.

Landvogt, J. (1998). Probing deeper: issues in gifted education. Cheltenham, Vic:

Hawker Brownlow Education.

Lassig, C. (2009). Teacher attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional

development and school culture. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,

18(2), 32-42.

Lewis, E. & Milton, M. (2005). Attitudes of teachers before and after professional

development. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 14(1), 5-14.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Link, A. E. (1982). Myth: Gifted programs should stick out like a sore thumb! Gifted

Child Quarterly, 26(1), 42-42.

Lizardo, O. (2004). The cognitive origins of Bourdieu’s habitus. Journal for the Theory

of Social Behaviour, 34(4), 375-401.

121

Maker, C. J., & Neilson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies

for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maker, C. J. & Neilson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in the education of gifted (2nd

ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Mander, M. S. (1987). Bourdieu, the sociology of culture and cultural studies: A

critique. European Journal of Communication, 2(4), 427-453.

Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 1). Report to the

Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of

Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues (5th ed.). Pearson

Education Australia. NSW: Australia.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Matthews, D. J. & Foster, J. (2005). Being Smart about Gifted Children: A Guidebook

for Parents and Educators. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great Potential Press.

Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs;

Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51(3), 256-271.

McBee, M.T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification

screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 17, 103-111.

McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the

gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Megay-Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction

of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23(3), 178-182.

122

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom

teachers’ theory based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65-105.

Mills, C. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher

background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272-

281.

Moltzen, R. (1996). Characteristics of gifted children. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen

(Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 43-62). Palmerston

North, New Zealand: ERDC Press.

Moon, S. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students don’t face problems and challenges.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 274-276.

Moon, T. R., & Brighton C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447-480.

Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M. & Tomlinson C. A. (1999). The effects of mentoring

relationships on pre-service teachers' attitudes toward academically diverse

students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(2), 56-62.

Morelock, M. J. & Feldman, D. H. (2003). Extreme precocity: Prodigies, savants, and

children of extraordinarily high IQ. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.),

Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 455-469). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Musanti, S. & Pence, P. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking

resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 37(1) 73-90.

Navan, J. L. (2009). Nurturing the gifted female. A guide for educators and parents.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

O’Sullivan, M., (2003). Learning to teach physical education. In S. Silverman & C.

Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to

enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 275-294). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

123

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3). 397-332.

Parke, B. N., & Ness, P. S. (1988). Curricular decision-making for the education of

young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(1), 196-199.

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (1988). The Education of Gifted

Children. A report of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and

Education Committee. Canberra: Senate Journal No. 73 - 18 MAY 1988.

Retrieved on 27th September 2011 from

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=198

8%20gifted;rec=0;resCount=Default#HIT1

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). The Education of Gifted

Children. A report of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and

Education Committee. Canberra: AGPS.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique

social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282.

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What

experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 161-169.

Pierce, R. L., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., &

Cross, T. L. (2007). Development of an identification procedure for a large urban

school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted

elementary students. Roeper Review, 29(2), 113-118.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill.

Plunkett, M. (2000). Impacting on teacher attitudes toward gifted students. Australasian

Journal of Gifted Education, 9(2), 33-42.

124

Porter, L. (1997). A proposed model describing the realisation of gifted potential. The

Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2), 33-43.

Porter, L. (2002). Educating young children with special needs. Sydney: Allen and

Unwin.

Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents (2nd ed.)

Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Reay, D. (2010). From the theory of practice to the practice of theory: Working with

Bourdieu in research in higher education choice. In E. Silva & A. Warde (Eds.),

Cultural analysis and Bourdieu's legacy: settling accounts and developing

alternatives (pp. 75-76). London: Routledge.

Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of Choice: Class, race and gender and

higher education. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In M.

Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Social and

emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125-135).

Washington, DC. National Association for Gifted Children.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009), Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one

single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in a

person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233-235.

Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994). The impact of staff development on

teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 38(3), 127-135.

Renzulli, J. S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible

programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(3), 303-326.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness: Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta

Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J. S. (1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research based

approach to identification and programming for the gifted and talented.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 163-171.

125

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd. ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,

T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.

102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Riessman, C. K. (2001). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.

Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 695-

710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Robinson, A. (2009). Myth 10: Examining the ostrich: Gifted services do not cure a sick

regular program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 259-261.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential

Press Inc.

Rowley, J. L. (2008). Teaching strategies to facilitate learning for gifted and talented

students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 17(2), 36-42.

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in

Nursing Science, 8(3), 27-37.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favourites: Gifted education and the disruption of

community. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1995). Why gifted students belong in inclusive schools. Education

Leadership, 52(4), 64-70.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Including all students and their gifts within regular

classrooms. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues

confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 69-80).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sarouphim. K. M. (2001). Discover: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and

identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 130-138.

Sawyer, R. N. (1988). In defense of academic rigor. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 11(2), 1-19.

126

Schiever, S. W. & Maker, J. C. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration.

In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed., pp.

163-173). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Schroth, S. T. & Heller, K. A. (2008). Identifying gifted students: Educators’ beliefs

regarding various policies, processes and procedures. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 32(2), 155-179.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Shacklock, G., & Smyth, J. (1988). Being reflexive in critical educational and social

research. London: Falmer Press.

Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices

in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 138-154.

Siegle, D., Moore, M., Mann., R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-

service and pre-service teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented

programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337-360.

Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for

gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21-29.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L.K.

Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 51-78). Denver, CO:

Love.

Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone”. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 53(4), 269-271.

Smith, S. R., & Chan, L. K. S. (1998). The attitudes of Catholic primary school teachers

towards provision for gifted and talented students. Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 7(1), 29-41.

127

Snyder, K. E., Nietfeld, J. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Giftedness and

Metacognition: A short-term longitudinal investigation of metacognitive

monitoring in the Classroom. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(3), 181-193.

Solomon, M. A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: Attitudes,

cognition, and motivation. In S. J. Silverman & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), Student

learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (pp.

147-164). Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Peirce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A.

(2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for

identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 30(4), 479-299.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Stanley, G. K., & Baines L. (2002). Celebrating mediocrity? How schools short-change

gifted students. Roeper Review, 25(1), 11-13.

Starko, A. J. (1986). Meeting the needs of the gifted throughout the school day:

Techniques for curriculum compacting. Roeper Review, 9(1), 27-33.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In

N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., (pp.

88-99). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.

New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, A. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A.

Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45-59). Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Taylor, T., & Milton, M. (2006). Preparation for teaching gifted students: An

investigation into university courses in Australia. The Australasian Journal of

Gifted Education, 15(1), 25-31.

128

Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M.A. (1937). Measuring intelligence. High Holborn,

London: George G. Harrap & Co.

Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1961). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale. London:

George G. Harrap & Co.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monograph no.1.

Chicago Il: University of Chicago Press.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995a). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995b). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One

school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77-87.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Myth 8: The ''Patch-on'' approach to programming is

effective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 254-256.

Tomlinson, C. A., Coleman, M. R., Allan, S., Udall, A. & Landrum M. (1996). Interface

between gifted education and general education: Toward communication,

cooperation and collaboration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(3), 165-171.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated

classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M., Pizzat-Tinnin, P.,

Cunningham, C. M., Moore, B., Lutz, L., & Roberson, C. (1994). Practices of pre-

service teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse learners. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 38(3), 106-114.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic

Testing Service, Inc.

Tranter, D. (2006, December). Becoming self conscious: Exploring habitus. Refereed

paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education conference,

Australia.

Treffinger, D. J. (1982). Demythologizing gifted education: An editorial essay. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 26(1), 3-8.

Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Guest editorial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 230-232.

129

Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Demythologizing gifted education (Sage audio Podcast).

Retrieved on 25th September 2010 from http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/sage-

podcast/id281473116

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989). Appropriate curriculum for gifted learners. Educational

Leadership, 6(6), 13-15.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.)

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the

gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),

International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp.

345-366). Oxford, UK: Pergamon

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Differentiating curriculum experiences for the gifted and

talented: A consumer’s guide to best practices. Parenting for High Potential,

Washington: DC: NAGC.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted

programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted education development. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 50(3), 199-215.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the

field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the

21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.

Wacquant, L. (2006). Habitus. In J. Beckert & M. Zafirovski (Eds.), International

Encyclopaedia of Economic Sociology (pp. 318-321). London: Routledge.

Ward, M. (1982). Myth: The “ostrich syndrome”: Do gifted programs cure sick regular

programs? Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 32-36.

130

Webster, L. & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An

introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and

teaching. New York: Routledge.

Westberg, K. L., & Archambault, F. X., Jr. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful

classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1), 42-51.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Jr. & Brown, S. W. (1997). A survey of classroom

practices with third and fourth grade students in the United States. Gifted

Education International, 12(1), 29-33.

Whitton, D. (1997). Regular practices with gifted students in grades 3 and 4 in New

South Wales, Australia. Gifted Education International, 12, 34-38.

Winebrenner, S. (1999). Short-changing the gifted. The School Administrator, 56(9),

12-16.

Wood, D. (2009). Project Gifted: Using a project-based approach to developing teacher

understanding of gifted education. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,

18(1), 49-56.

Worrell, R. C. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to

know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 242.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research, design and methods (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Zipin, L. (2002). Cultural capital and the role of schools in reproducing social class and

other group disadvantages/disadvantages. University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Retrieved on 6th July 2011.

http://catalogue.library.unisa.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti.

Zipin, L., & Brennan, M. (2006). Meeting literacy needs of pres-service cohorts: Ethical

dilemmas for socially just teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, 34(3), 333-351.