Teacher variables

Several teacher factors that might influence teachers’ judgments and beliefs about giftedness have been researched, and some of them are discussed in the following sections: teachers’ experience in general classrooms, experience with gifted students and training in the area of giftedness.

1.3.3.1 Teaching experience in general classrooms

Some differences in teacher judgments about whether or not a student is gifted have been found in relation to their tenure. Siegle et al. (2010) prepared eleven case vignettes with different embedded giftedness characteristics. Student teachers and school teachers were to state whether they would or would not refer the student to a gifted program. They found that school teachers were more likely to nominate a student to the gifted program than student teachers. Similar results were reported by Guskin, Peng, and Simon (1992).

However, in both studies, school teachers had experience in the area of giftedness, thereby confounding the results. In Rubenzer and Twaite’s (1979) study with 1,220 participants, teachers with six or more years of teaching experience in general classrooms indicated more often than teachers with less experience that they had gifted students in their classes and that the identification of gifted students is not difficult.

However, teaching experience in general classrooms might rarely be relevant for differences in beliefs about giftedness. Specifically, Şahin and Düzen (1994) identified similarities rather than differences between university students in social sciences (e.g., psychology, education, and history) and elementary school teachers’ beliefs about giftedness. Similarly, Guskin, Peng, and Majd-Jabbari (1988) reported that student teachers and school teachers agreed on the same categories of giftedness (e.g., verbal ability and creative arts). Moreover, teachers’ beliefs about giftedness also seem to be rather stable throughout their careers. Baudson and Preckel (2013a, 2016) did not find differences between student teachers and school teachers or between school teachers with different amounts of teaching experience: Overall, all study participants were in favor of the disharmony hypothesis (i.e., social-emotional maladjustment) instead of the harmony hypothesis (i.e., superiority in every respect) regarding giftedness. The number of years of teaching in general classrooms mostly did not impact teachers’ beliefs about gifted education either (Bégin & Gagné, 1994; Chessman, 2010; Cramond & Martin, 1987). An

exception was that inexperienced teachers in Rubenzer and Twaite’s (1979) study were more in favor of enrichment than experienced teachers.

1.3.3.2 Experience with gifted students

Almost all elementary school teachers in Germany should have—knowingly or unknowingly—experience with gifted students as students of all ability levels are taught in the same classroom at this school level. However, only 19% of the elementary school teachers in Heller, Reimann, et al.’s (2005) study suspected having gifted students in their classes. If teachers know about having gifted students in their school, they seem to be more accurate in judging students’ giftedness because they might use their experience with these students as a basis for their judgments about other students’ giftedness (Anastasiow, 1964a, 1964b). Based on case vignettes with embedded giftedness characteristics, Bianco and Leech (2010) showed that teachers of gifted classes nominated students as gifted more often than general classroom teachers or special education teachers—independently of whether or not the students had an additional disability label.

Whereas some studies reported no differences in beliefs about giftedness among teachers who stated that they had or did not have experience with gifted students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Schroth & Helfer, 2009), more studies indicated differences.

Of the 384 elementary school teachers who were asked by Endepohls-Ulpe and Ruf (2005) to describe a gifted student, 50 percent stated that they never had instructed a gifted student. Teachers with experience had more precise and realistic conceptions of giftedness than teachers without experience. Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) indicated that whether a teacher had taught or not taught gifted classes explained differences in beliefs about giftedness, but not the duration of teaching gifted classes. Teachers without experience in teaching gifted classes, as opposed to teachers with this experience, more heavily stressed that gifted students have a mature personality, are successful in school, exhibit negative characteristics (e.g., lazy, rebellious, inattentive), and need challenges.

Also, Schack and Starko (1990) reported differences in relation to having or not having experience in teaching gifted classes. Vocabulary, IQ scores, and multiple interests were more preferred among teachers of gifted classes, whereas grades, class performance, and motivation were more often chosen as indicators of giftedness by student teachers and general classroom teachers. The authors concluded that teachers of gifted classes’ beliefs about giftedness were more in line with giftedness indicators proposed by giftedness

researchers, whereas the indicators mentioned by preservice teachers and classroom teachers were more in line with school success.

1.3.3.3 Training in the area of giftedness

Teacher training can be associated with teacher judgments of giftedness. Gear (1978) and Şahin and Cetinkaya (2015) developed trainings to, among other things, explain the importance of intelligence and increase teachers’ attention to indicators of giftedness. In comparison to teachers who did not participate in these trainings, teachers with training identified more students who had high scores in intelligence tests as gifted.

Borland (1978) and Jacobs (1972) also indicated that trained teachers identified gifted children more accurately than untrained teachers. Rubenzer and Twaite (1979) reported that teachers who had received training in the area of giftedness judged that students in their classes were gifted more often than teachers without training. Siegle and Powell (2004) found similar results. Furthermore, they nominated students who had high mental computation and problem solving skills and single areas of interest more often.

The research is rather inconclusive about the effects of training on teachers’ beliefs about giftedness: Teachers with training associated fewer negative characteristics with gifted students (Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992) and reported greater understanding of giftedness and gifted education (Cashion & Sullenger, 2000; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994) than teachers without training. In a qualitative study, Goodnough (2000) evaluated the change in six student teachers’ beliefs about the nature of giftedness over the course of a university course on giftedness that aimed to foster liberal beliefs about giftedness. Three student teachers started with narrow views: for example, that giftedness is a high test score on an intelligence test or that gifted students are geniuses who are superior in many ways. The other three student teachers already had broad multidimensional views of giftedness. All of them expressed broad multidimensional beliefs about the meaning of giftedness at the end of the course. However, having or not having training in the area of giftedness did not always have effects. The teachers in Miller’s (2009) study had different levels of gifted education training but did not differ, for example, in the complexity of their beliefs about the nature of giftedness, although a strong heterogeneity of beliefs was observed. In McCoach and Siegle’s (2007) study, as well, teachers’ beliefs about giftedness did not differ in relation to having training experiences or not.

Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) reported that teachers who had the most training in the area of giftedness were also those with the most experience in teaching gifted students. This result emphasizes the problem of confounded variables and the possibility of non-representative samples due to interest or personal affectedness. Furthermore, the presented studies did not sufficiently distinguish between different kinds of training or describe the training (e.g., length, goals, content) so as to allow for conclusions about what leads to differences and what is ineffective.