Conceptions of Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Q-Sort Approach

Abstract

Gifted education continues to wrestle with fragmented priorities rooted in differing paradigms. This study used a Q-sort methodology to examine the subjective interests of 66 professionals in the field. Participants sorted 71 items representing key issues, revealing three distinct viewpoints: (a) optimizing equity in advanced academics, (b) supporting the social-emotional needs of the gifted learner or whole child, and (c) instructional practices for developing students’ talents and creativity. These components reflected alignment with Dai and Chen’s paradigms—Differentiation, Gifted Child, and Talent Development—but also illustrated evolving priorities, particularly regarding equity. Participants endorsed system-level changes for expanding access, supporting diverse forms of potential, and challenging traditional assumptions about giftedness. Demographic analyses and open-ended responses showed how participants’ roles and identities shaped their beliefs. Although long-standing divides remain, the findings revealed areas of convergence—especially around personalization and equitable talent development—that may support a more inclusive and dynamic vision for the field.

Plain Language Summary

Understanding Different Perspectives on Gifted Education

Gifted education is often shaped by competing ideas about what giftedness means and how best to support high-ability students. These different approaches—sometimes called “paradigms”—can create confusion and disagreement about priorities in the field. This study explored the views of 66 professionals, including educators, researchers, and policymakers, to better understand where people in the field agree and where they differ.

Using a method called Q-sort, participants sorted 71 statements that reflected common beliefs and practices in gifted education. The results revealed three main viewpoints:

Equity in Advanced Academics—Advocating for greater access, inclusion, and fairness in identifying and serving gifted students.

Support for the Whole Child—Emphasizing the emotional, psychological, and social needs of gifted learners.

Instructional Talent Development—Focusing on teaching practices that nurture student potential and creativity.

These perspectives align with three major frameworks in the field—Differentiation, the Gifted-Child model, and Talent Development—but also show how priorities are shifting, especially toward greater equity and personalization. While differences remain, there was shared support for expanding opportunities, rethinking traditional assumptions, and creating more inclusive systems for recognizing and developing talent.

Participants’ roles and backgrounds influenced their views, highlighting how identity and experience shape beliefs about giftedness. These insights can help bring people together around common goals and build a more responsive and dynamic vision for gifted education.