Teachers’ perception of gifted students

Abstract

Eight-five elementary and secondary teachers were asked to completean open-ended questionnaire. The significant perceptual differences identified appear to be related to grade level taught and whether teachers have taken courses or workshops on gifted education. The overriding implication is that effective teachers of the gifted need more grade specific preservice and inservice course work and involvement with gifted students.work preparation was a factor in determining the most successful teachers of the gifted.In a study that focused on teacher experience, Hamninen (1988) discovered that experienced teachers perceived possible solutions for providing for gifted and talented students differently than novice teachers. In another study, Guskin, Peng and Mald-Jabbair (1988) reported that experienced teachers and prospective teachers had similar perceptions regarding the areas in which gifted students would excel. It should be noted, however, that the teachers in their study were not teachers of gifted students.

Teachers’ Conceptions of Gifted and Talented Young Children

“…Reported here, however, are the results charting teachers' conceptions in a more general sense, as the first step in exploring the major question, which is why teachers appear to nominate boys rather than girls for enrichment in mathematics and science. Similar studies examining teachers' conceptions of giftedness have been conducted elsewhere (Busse, Dahme, Wagner & Wieczerkowski, 1986;McBride, 1988;Wolfe & Southern, 1991;Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992;Rohrer, 1995;Sternberg & Zhang, 1995;Persson, 1997;Wellisch, 1997).…”

Primary school teachers' criteria for the identification of gifted pupils

“…Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992), for example, found features from the field of social behaviour appearing as relevant criteria for the identification of gifted children in their whole sample, but teachers from the primary school sector listed more negative features than teachers from the secondary school level did.…”

“…Depending on the method of data collection-open-ended questions vs. rating scale descriptions-contradictory results are gained concerning the relevance of social behaviour as a criterion for identification. When analysing free descriptions of gifted children negative (Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992) or extremely positive (Persson, 1998) aspects of social behaviour appeared as central elements of the interviewees' concepts of giftedness, whereas social behaviour was of no importance when analysing rating scale descriptions (Busse et al, 1986a,b;Dahme & Eggers, 1988). Dahme and Eggers (1988) did not even find any importance of features from the field of social behaviour in open-ended descriptions of gifted pupils done by secondary school teachers.…”

Selling students short: Racial differences in teachers’ evaluations of high, average, and low performing students

“…Although most teachers have little training in gifted education (Archambault et al, 1993; Karnes and Whorton, 1991), the majority of states use teacher nominations, referrals, and input to identify and decide which students will receive gifted education services (Coleman, Gallagher, and Foster, 1994). These decisions are informed by how well a student performs academically but also by perceptions of seemingly irrelevant or subjective behaviors such as cooperation, promptness, and tidiness (Copenhaver and McIntyre, 1992; Cox, Daniels, and Boston, 1985). 4 …”