The Forgotten Minority – Gifted Students
My interest in gifted education has only recently truly begun and was initially prompted after I met my wife, who is an Early Years and Primary educator with a passion for anything educational psychology related. I recall one-night lamenting over the fact that although the schools I have worked for there was always a department for students with emotional/intellectual/cognitive challenges, however most of the time a lack of provisions/accommodations for those on the other side of this spectrum.
The forgotten gifted child is a concern I have had for many years as an educator in the tertiary and secondary education, though it was always just something I would sit pondering or reading superficially about. I understand much discussion and debate continue about using the term gifted. However, I am hoping that teachers agree that identifying a student that has learning features that differ from most of those in the class is an issue of need. Like developmentally disabled students have different learning needs, so to do gifted students who deserve appropriate learning opportunities or ideally a more responsive curriculum that undergoes regular evaluation (Jacobs, 2004)
For the schools and educators, I have had discussions with about this topic, it would seem the systems in place seem(ed) tired, rote and reflexive. The reaction/solution often results in either giving these students more work or allowing them to work independently, neither of these challenging the students or developing them (Bruner, 1977). This is especially true for independent work, which many gifted students prefer, however, if allowed too often, they will not develop social skills.
As stated before, my journey into this field has just begun, but it is hoped that those who have (and should) have an interest will be provided a starting point to reach these often forgotten/overlooked students. I would suggest that teachers start off by looking at Gagne’s Model of Giftedness and Talent (2003) which looks at giftedness in terms of exceptional potential instead of exceptional performance and talent with high achievement.
Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT.2003)
Some of the takeaway’s teachers might have from this model is that gifted students are often unmotivated in the classroom and this inhibits them from translating their high potential into high achievement. He also points out that gifted students often need more help in developing their concentration skills because frequently learning comes easily to them.
What teachers need to bear in mind is that these students reasoning can be far more abstract and complex, they need less replication of tasks and revision. Teachers should also understand that even though they have gifted students in their class that are academically more abled, their social-emotional well-being is important. Gifted students may have already experienced that showing their abilities could lead to social rejection and bullying, teachers should create a safe or alternative means for these students to confidently show their abilities.
Research also indicates that gifted students react emotionally at a deeper level than their peers (Colangelo, 2003) and may resist displaying these emotions if it is deemed unacceptable by classmates. Teachers could encourage gifted students to befriend older students who they will be able to connect with them on an intellectual and emotional level. In the class, research also shows that grouping these students with same ability students is preferable (Gross, 1997) as they will likely have more confidence to display their strengths.
As with all students, teachers should not ignore proper feedback, all students benefit from timely and thoughtful feedback that helps support self-efficacy development (Schunk, 1991). Another suggestion to teachers is to have a look at the Maker Model (Maker, 1982) to help differentiate the taught and written curriculum. It specifically addresses differentiation approaches geared towards gifted students in content, process, product and learning environment. Regarding content, this could be modified in terms of its level of abstraction, complexity, variety and organization. Process modifications include more focus on higher-order thinking and inductive thinking opportunities. Products could include real-world problems, evaluation and real-world audiences. Finally, the learning environment should be more learner-centred and include varied groupings
Whilst gifted students make up a tiny minority, they require thoughtfully structured and monitored (often individualized) programmes and approaches. Teachers and schools should become more acquainted with models in place that can be utilized in the classroom to truly be inclusive of all in the learning journey.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education – A landmark in educational theory. In Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press (Vol. 25). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Colangelo, N. (2003). Counselling gifted students. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (3rd edition) (pp. 373-387). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (3rd edition). (pp. 60-73). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gross, M.U.M. (1997). How ability grouping turms big fish into little fish – or does it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2), 18-32.
Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Curriculum Mapping as a Hub: Integrating New Forms of Data, Decision-Making Structures, and Staff Development. Getting Results with Curriculum Mapping website: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/104011/chapters/Curriculum_Mapping_as_a_Hub@_Integrating_New_Forms_of_Data,_Decision-Making_Structures,_and_Staff_Development.aspx
Maker, J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
In Neihart, M., In Pfeiffer, S. I., & In Cross, T. L. (2016). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?.
Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 337–345.