The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the ways gifted and talented pupils are served in Finland. The trend toward individualism and freedom of choice as well as national policy affecting gifted education are discussed. Empirical research on Finnish teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education with respect to the national discussion on giftedness is reviewed. Special schools, programs, and summer camps designed for gifted and talented pupils are introduced. Finland’s strengths and weaknesses in supporting academic and creative talent through gifted programs are identified. A greater need to recognize the social and affective needs of gifted pupils is acknowledged.
AndreaniO.PagninA. (1993). Nurturing the moral development of the gifted. In HellerK.MönksF. J.PassowA. H. (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 539-554). London, England: Pergamon.
BerneliusV. (2011). Osoitteenmukaisia oppimistuloksia? Kaupunkikoulujen eriytymisen vaikutus peruskoululaisten oppimistuloksiin Helsingissä. [Location based learning results? Effect of differentiation between schools on learning results of basic education pupils in Helsinki]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 76(11), 479-493.
5.
BlomH. (1994). Erityislukiot ja niiden toiminta [The special schools and their functioning]. In Jakku-SihvonenR.BlomH. (Eds.), Lukion tila. Arviointi ja seuranta 5 [The state of upper secondary school. Evaluation and follow-up 5]. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education. (In Finnish)
6.
DweckC. (2006). Mindset. New York, NY: Ballantine.
7.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2012). Project for development of gifted and talent’s education in Finland 2009–2011. Retrieved from http://www.lahjakkuus.fi/page5.php
8.
Framework Curriculum for the Comprehensive School. (1994). Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education, The State Printing Press.
9.
Framework Curriculum for the Upper Secondary School. (1994). Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education, The State Printing Press.
HautamäkiJ.SäkkinenT.TenhunenM.-L.UrsinJ.VuorinenJ.KamppiP.Knubb-ManninenG. (2012). Evaluation of the competencies for higher education of upper secondary school students. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland: The Finnish Education Evaluation Council. Retrieved from http://www.edelphi.fi/fi/groups/ot/documents/julkaisu_nro_59.pdf
13.
HotulainenR.LappalainenK. (2007). Correlation between identified academic potential and talent development: Results from the 15-year study. In TirriK. (Ed.), Values and foundations of gifted education (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
14.
HotulainenR.SchonfieldN. (2003). Identified pre-school potential giftedness and its realtation to academic achievement and self-concept at the end of Finnish comprehensive school. High Ability Studies, 14, 55-70.
15.
IivonenP. (2000). Luokattomuuden synty, kehittyminen ja tunnuspiirteet [The birth, development and characteristics of ungraded school]. In Luokaton lukio ja toimivuus [The functionality of ungraded upper secondary school] (pp. 6-9). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National Board of Education, Edita: Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/download/48977_luokattoman_lukion_toimivuus_2000.pdf
16.
KumpulainenK.LankinenT. (2012). Striving for educational equity and excellence. In NiemiH.ToomA.KallioniemiA. (Eds.), Miracle of education (pp. 69-81). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
17.
KuusistoE.GholamiK.TirriK. (2012). Finnish and Iranian teachers’ mindsets and purpose orientation. Manuscript in preparation.
18.
LaineS. (2010). The Finnish public discussion of giftedness and gifted children. High Ability Studies, 21, 63-76.
19.
LaukkanenR. (1995). The formation of evaluation policies in education in Finland. In YrjönsuuriY., (Ed.) Evaluating education in Finland (pp. 17-40). Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
20.
LehtonenH. (Ed.). (1994). Individualization of education. Hämeenlinna, Finland: Hämeenlinna school 1. (In Finnish)
21.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Koulutus ja tutkimus vuosina 2011–2016 [Education and research 2011–2016]. Publications of Ministry of Education and Culture 2012:1. Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2012/Kehittamissuunnitelma.html
22.
MönksF. J.PflüngerR. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
NiemiH. (2012). The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in Finland. In NiemiH.ToomA.KallioniemiA. (Eds.), Miracle of education. (pp. 19-38). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
26.
NieminenK.PicheR. (1995). The 1994 Finnish summer math camp and the edutech mathematics and physics enrichment program for gifted high schoolers 1993-1995. In PehkonenE. (Ed.), NORMA-94 conference: Proceedings of the Nordic conference on mathematics teaching (NORMA -94) in Lahti 1994 (Research report 141, pp. 143-147).Helsinki, Finland: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki.
27.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: Author.
28.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Author. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en
PerssonR. S. (2011). Ability climates in Europe as socially represented notability. High Ability Studies, 22, 79-101.
31.
RuokonenI. (2005). Estonian and Finnish gifted children in their learning environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Helsinki, Finland.
32.
SiekkinenT.SaastamoinenM. (2010). Esi-ja perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmien perusteiden 2000 ja 2004 toimivuus [The functionality of core curricula of pre- and basic education 2000 and 2004]. In KorkeakoskiE.SiekkinenT. (Eds.), Esi-ja perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmajärjestelmän toimivuus [The functionality of curricula system of pre- and basic education] (pp. 47-71). Jyväskylä, Finland: The Finnish Education Evaluation Council. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/37805/978-951-39-4169-7_nro_53.pdf?sequence=1
Tallent-RunnelsM.TirriK.AdamsA. (2000). A cross-cultural study of teachers’ attitudes toward gifted children and programs for gifted children. Gifted and Talented International, 15(2), 103-115.
36.
Teacher’s Professional Ethics and Ethical Principles. (2010). Helsinki, Finland: Trade Union of Education in Finland OAJ.
37.
ThunebergH.HotulainenR. (2006). Contributions of data mining for psychoeducational research: What self-organizing maps tell us about the well-being of gifted learners. High Ability Studies, 17, 87-100.
38.
TirriK. (1997). How Finland meets the needs of gifted and talented. High Ability Studies, 8, 213-222.
39.
TirriK. (Ed.). (2007). Values and foundations in gifted education. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
40.
TirriK. (2011). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33, 59-64.
41.
TirriK. (2012). What kind of learning environment supports learning of gifted students in science? In ZieglerA.FischerC.StoegerH.ReutlingerM. (Eds.), Gifted education as a life-long challenge: Essays in honour of Franz J. Mönks (pp. 13-24). Muenster, Germany: Lit Verlag.
42.
TirriK.NokelainenP. (2006). Gifted students and the future. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 55-66.
43.
TirriK.NokelainenP.MahkonenM. (2009). How morality and religiosity relate to intelligence? A case study of mathematically talented adolescence. Journal of Empirical Theology, 22, 70-87.
44.
TirriK.Tallent-RunnelsM.AdamsA.YuenM.LauP. (2002). Cross-cultural predictors of teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education: Finland, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 112-131.
45.
TirriK.TellaS. (1997). Educational innovations in Finland as identified by some Finnish decision-makers. To appear in UljensM. (Ed.), European identity in change. Proceedings of the conference on European identity in change in Vaasa, May 10–11, 1996.
46.
TirriK.TolppanenS.AkselaM.KuusistoE. (2012). A cross-cultural study of gifted students’ scientific, societal and moral questions in science. Educational Research International, 1-10. doi:10.1155/2012/673645
47.
TirriK.UusikyläK. (1994). How teachers perceive differentiation of education among the gifted and talented. Gifted and Talented International, 9, 69-73.
UrbanK.SekowskiA. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Europe. In HellerK.MönksF. J.PassowA. H. (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 779-795). London, England: Pergamon.
50.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.
51.
VartiainenJ.AkselaM. (2012). LUMA science education centre. In NiemiH.ToomA.KallioniemiA. (Eds.), Miracle of education (pp. 263-272). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
52.
VitikkaE. (2010). Pedagoginen ulottuvuus opetussuunnitelman arvioinnin näkökulmana [Pedagogical dimension in evaluating curricula]. In KorkeakoskiE.SiekkinenT. (Eds.), Esi- ja perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmajärjestelmän toimivuus [The functionality of curricula system of pre- and basic education] (pp. 23-38). Jyväskylä, Finland: The Finnish Education Evaluation Council. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/37805/978-951-39-4169-7_nro_53.pdf?sequence=1
