-
11 Gifted and Talented International - 26(1), August, 2011; and
26(2), December, 2011.
Socioemotional development of gifted students Schools have long
been concerned with more than just the cognitive development of
children. Whlle academic goals have always been a primary
concern, there ls recognition that schools also have a
responsibility to foster students' social and emotional
development, in order that they may be effective and
well-functioning contributors to society (Battistich, Watson,
Solomon,
Years of research have established that gifted students require
differentiated educational provision in order for their unique
academic and social needs to be met, and that two of the most
effective strategies for educating gifted students are ability
grouping and acceleration (Colangelo, Assoullne, & Gross, 2004;
Gross, 2006a, 2006b). However, despite an apparent preponderance of
evidence supporting the use of acceleration and ability grouping
with gifted students, It appears that some educators are reluctant
to use these strategies because of entrenched beliefs about their
potentially damaging consequences (Bain, Bliss, Choate, &
Brown, 2007; Colangelo,
Keywords: Gifted students; teacher attitudes; acceleration;
ability grouping.
Introduction
This qualitative multi-site case study sought to examine the
current educational provisions in place for intellectually gifted
primary school students in Queensland and to consider how the
beliefs and attitudes of primary school stakeholders were reflected
In the production of their school gifted education policies.
Attitudes and perceptions of principals and teachers at four
Queensland primary schools are reported in this article. The major
findings indicated that while reported attitudes towards
acceleration and ability grouping were fairly positive overall,
educators are still concerned about the possible adverse effects of
grade-skipping on students' social and emotional development, and
the connotations of elitism associated with full-time models of
ability grouping. However, teachers' knowledge and awareness of the
affective characteristics of gifted students did not appear to
influence their attitudes or beliefs regarding acceleration and
ability grouping.
Abstract
Selena Gallagher; Susen R. Smith; and Peter Merrotsy
Teachers' Perceptions of the Socioemotional Development of
Intellectnally Gifted Primary Aged Students and their Attitudes
towards Ability Grouping and Acceleration
Assouline, & Gross, 2004). While most states' departments of
education current pollcles on the education of gifted and talented
students are research-based and support the use of ability grouping
and acceleration with gifted students (for example, NSW Department
of Education and Training, 2004; Department of Education, Training
and the Arts, 2004), stereotypical myths surrounding the social and
emotional development of gifted students and the use of these
strategies persist (Clark, 2008; Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner,
2002). The beliefs associated with these myths may hinder
acceleration and grouping provisions in practice.
-
Gifted and Talented International - 26(1), August, 2011; and
26(2), December, 2011. 12
Acceleration Research consistently reports achievement benefits
for all forms of acceleration (Kulik, 2004;
Rogers, 2004), while finding no evidence of social or
psychological harm (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). In a
meta-analysis of studies on acceleration, Kulik (2004) concluded
that acceleration has clear achievement benefits for gifted
students and that no other educational Intervention works as well
for gifted students. In response to concerns about the possible
social or emotional Impact of acceleration, many studies have been
conducted to assess any psychosocial implications, although many of
these focus retrospectively on older students and much of the
research Is American. The situation is also complicated by the
diversity of gifted students and the medley of accelerative options
available to them, as well as the imprecise nature of finding
comparison groups and selecting a measure of social or emotional
adjustment (Robinson, 2004). However, in a
Ability grouping Ability grouping has strong support in the
research literature (Adams-Byers, Whitsell, &
Moon, 2004; Chessor & Whitton, 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett,
& Karns, 1998; Goldring, 1990; Gross, 1997; Kulik, 1992;
Rogers, 1998) and has been found to have academic benefits for
students at all levels of ability, but especially so with gifted
students (Rogers, 1998). When gifted students are grouped by
ability and given a differentiated curriculum in response to their
ability, they perform slgniflcantly better than equally gifted
students In a mixed ability setting (Gross, 2006a; Kulik, 1992;
Rogers, 2002). Grouping gifted students together has not been found
to cause any detrimental effects to the social and emotional
well-being of either the gifted students, or their typical peers
(Gross, 2006b).
Despite this, many teachers express a reluctance to use ability
grouping strategies with gifted students (Bain, Bliss, Choate,
& Brown, 2007; Lewis & Milton, 2005; Plunkett, 2000),
citing common concerns, including that ability grouping Is elitist,
that it will not have any effect on achievement, that It will cause
gifted students to have an Inflated opinion of themselves, and that
gifted students should be kept in the regular class as role models
and to learn to relate to a wide range of people (Gross, 1997).
Lewis, & Schapps, 1999). In fact, according to Geake and
Gross (2008), some teachers rate social ability higher than
academic ability when describing the attributes of an ideal
student.
Evidence generally supports the view that there is a positive
correlatlon between children who are gifted and children who are
advanced socially and emotionally (Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis,
1995), but there are some dissenting views (Freeman, 2006). Studies
report that most gifted students are at least as well adjusted and
mature as typical students, and in some cases may have superior
social and emotional development (Clark, 2008; Douthitt, 1992;
Neihart, 1999). However, while gifted children are a diverse group,
they tend to share some common affective characteristics that have
the potentlal to bring them Into conflict with their social
environment (Kitano, 1990; Webb, 2001). Additionally, some
characteristics of giftedness such as Intensity and
overexcitability or superstimulatability can sometimes be
misinterpreted as ADHD or other similar disorders (Webb, 2001).
Similarly, gifted children can appear to lack appropriate soclal
skills when they struggle to get along with their age-peers while
any apparent dlfflcultles may disappear when they have the
opportunity to interact with intellectual peers (Davis & Rimm,
2004; Valpied, 2005).
Teachers are often concerned about possible social and emotional
problems of gifted children and may make educational decisions that
are detrimental academically In order to attempt to favour social
development (Halsted, 2002; Yoo & Moon, 2006). Many educators
believe that the social and emotional needs of the student should
take precedence over their academic needs, not recognising that the
two are Inextricably linked, and also not considering that falling
to provide for gifted students' intellectual needs only compounds
any socioemotional issues (Halsted, 2002; Valpied, 2005; Vialle et
al. 2001). A recent survey study by Bain, Choate and Bliss (2006)
examining the perceptions of teacher education undergraduates of
the social and emotional development of gifted children found that
the majority believed that the gifted were at greater risk for
emotional stress and relationship problems than other children. It
is also commonly assumed that the more highly gifted a student Is,
the greater the potential for social and emotional problems, but
this Is not supported by the research (Gross, 2006b; Neihart,
1999). Beliefs such as these may contribute to educational
decisions that are not In the best Interests of the gifted child
(Bain, Choate, & Bliss, 2006), particularly when making
decisions regarding ability grouping and acceleration (Valpled,
2005).
The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
-
Results and Discussion Socloemotlonal development
Across the four schools, the level of knowledge and
understanding of the social and emotional development of gifted
students was generally fairly low. Those teachers who had
encountered giftedness within their own families were generally
able to offer much deeper Insights than those without the benefit
of such personal experience. Insightful comments from some of the
respondents highlighted some of the well-known affective
characteristics of gifted students, such as a mature sense of
humour, a highly developed sense of justice, perfectionism and a
desire to question authority. Teachers with more limited knowledge
tended to present a narrower view of social or emotional
development and focused mainly on potential classroom management
concerns. Comments suggesting that boredom may lead to gifted
students becoming the class clown or having behaviour problems were
typical.
However, despite the relatively low levels of knowledge and
understanding, most of the teachers In this study were not taken in
by the myth that gifted students were more at risk for social and
emotional problems. Many rejected the myth out of hand, while some
expressed mixed feelings,
The data collection for the present study took place during the
latter half of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, during a period of
renewed Interest in gifted education in Queensland. Data analysis
involved a two-step process: a deserlptlve level to convey an
understanding of the holistic case in context; and a thematic level
of analysis that looked at the data in their entirety, in order to
highlight implicit connections therein (Merriam, 1998). Pseudonyms
are used throughout for Individual participants and schools.
Method and context The data reported in this article form part
of a larger case study Involving four Queensland
primary schools (Gallagher, 2010). The focus of this article is
on the knowledge and attitudes of the teachers and prlnclpals,
while the perspectives of students and parents are reported
elsewhere (Gallagher, Smith & Merrotsy, under review). The
findings In relation to early entry to school have also been
previously reported (Gallagher, Smith & Merrotsy, 2010). One of
the aims of this study was to examine teachers' knowledge and
understanding of the socioemotlonal development of gifted students
and any possible relationship with the attitudes and beliefs of
those teachers towards the use of ability grouping and acceleration
for gifted students. For this purpose, a qualitative multi-site
case study approach was chosen. Case study research has been an
established part of the gifted education research landscape for
many years (Gross, 1993, 2004; Holllngworth, 1942), but has rarely
been applied to the investigation of attitudes towards acceleration
and other gifted education provisions.
This case study was set within a single educational region of
Queensland with a mixture of coastal and hinterland towns. Of the
four schools that participated In this study, three were public
primary schools serving grades Prep to Year Seven (Heron Haven,
Black Swan and Pelican Point) and one was an Independent school
that serves students from Prep to Year 12. (Kingfisher). Thirty
teachers participated in the current study. Six of these
participants were principals or deputy principals, four were
designated gifted education teachers and the remainder were
classroom teachers from grades Prep to Year Seven. Twelve of the
participants were male, and eighteen were female. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted, digitally recorded and transcribed
verbatim. Examples of Interview questions Included:
How are gifted children catered for In your schooV classroom?
What can you tell me about the social or emotional characteristics
of giftedness? How do you feel about acceleration of gifted
students? How do you feel about ability grouping of gifted
students?
comprehensive review of the research literature, Robinson (2004)
concluded that there is no research evidence to support the concern
that gifted children who are younger than their classmates will
experience social or psychological problems. Most forms of
acceleration have been shown to have little or no effect on
measures of socialisation (Rogers, 2002). Despite the apparently
overwhelmingly positive research evidence in support of
acceleration for gifted students, it is still not a popular option
among teachers and educators (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown,
2007; Plunkett, 2000; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989).
13 Gifted and Talented International -26(1), August, 2011; and
26(2), December, 2011.