This article presents two independent studies of Finnish teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and considers whether it is a malleable or fixed quality. The first qualitative study examined elementary school teachers’ (N = 212) conceptions via inductive-oriented content analysis, whereas the second study measured teachers’ (elementary n = 184, secondary n = 279) conceptions with a quantitative approach. According to teachers’ open-ended definitions, giftedness was seen to be multidimensional and a characteristic that differentiates the person from others. Giftedness was also described via cognitive, creative, and motivational features of the gifted. Furthermore, the two independent studies suggest quite different views on how Finnish teachers understand the developmental nature of giftedness: The first indicates that the developmental nature of giftedness was not frequently mentioned, whereas the second found that a malleable view of giftedness (i.e., a growth mindset) was dominant. Thus, this article highlights a need for in-depth and mixed-methods research designs to study how teachers see the developing nature of giftedness.
AmbroseD.VanTassel-BaskaJ.ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 453–478.
2.
BalchinT.HymerB.MatthewsD. (2009). Introduction: Reflections on the road ahead. In BalchinT.HymerB.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. xx–xxiv). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
4.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CopenhaverR. W.McIntyreD. J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151–153.
7.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J. (2014). School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 94–103.
8.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168.
9.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B.SiegleD. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
10.
De WetC. F.GubbinsE. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33, 97–108.
11.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
12.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
13.
DweckC. S. (2009). Self-theories and lessons for giftedness: A reflective conversation. In BalchinT.HymerB.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 308–316). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
DweckC. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67, 614–622.
15.
EloS.KyngäsH. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.
16.
Endepohls-UlpeM.RufH. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16, 219–228.
17.
EricssonK. A.NandagopalK.RoringR. W. (2009). Toward a science of exceptional achievement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172, 199–217.
18.
FreemanJ. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GagnéF. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21, 81–99.
20.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
21.
HanyE. A. (1997). Modeling teachers’ judgment of giftedness: A methodological inquiry of biased judgment. High Ability Studies, 8, 159–178.
LaineS. (2010). The Finnish public discussion of giftedness and gifted children. High Ability Studies, 21, 63–76.
27.
LeeL. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and talented young children. High Ability Studies, 10, 183–196.
28.
LevensteinR.ThompsonC.FarringtonC. (2014, April). Developing and validating measures of noncognitive factors in middle and high school students. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
29.
Megay-NespoliK. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23, 178–182.
30.
MönksF. J.PflügerR. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
31.
MoonS. M.RosselliH. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 499–521). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
32.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447–480.
33.
MugnyG.CarugatiF. (1989). Social representations of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
National Board of Education. (2011). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden muutokset ja täydennykset 2010 [The amendments and additions to the national core curriculum for basic education 2010] Tampere, Finland: Tampereen Yliopistopaino.
35.
OjanenS.FreemanJ. (1994). The attitudes and experiences of head teachers, class teachers, and highly-able students towards the education of the highly able in Finland and Britain (Research Reports of the Faculty of Education No. 54). Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu.
36.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: Author.
37.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/eag-2011-en
38.
PerssonR. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of high ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9, 181–196.
39.
PfeifferS. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal for Applied School Psychology, 19, 31–50.
40.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233–235.
41.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SiegleD.MooreM.MannR. L.WilsonH. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337–360.
43.
Speirs NeumeisterK. L.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479–499.
44.
SternbergR. J.ZhangL. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 88–94.
45.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176–188.
46.
SubotnikR. F.RobinsonA.CallahanC. M.GubbinsJ. E. (2012). Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
47.
TirriK. (Ed.). (2007). Values and foundations in gifted education. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
48.
TirriK. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40, 1–10.
49.
TirriK.KuusistoE. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 84–96.
50.
TirriK.Tallent-RunnelsM. K.AdamsA. M.YuenM.LauP. S. Y. (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.
51.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2005). Domain specific giftedness: Applications in school and life. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
52.
YeagerD. S. (2008). Adolescent mindsets and the education of ethical sensitivity. In TirriK. (Ed.), Educating moral sensibilities in urban schools (pp. 63–78). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
53.
YeagerD. S.DweckC. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 302–314.
54.
YeagerD. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2012). An implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84, 970–988.
55.
YeagerD. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.TirriK.NokelainenP.DweckC. (2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after remembered and hypothetical peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1090–1107.
56.
ZieglerA.RaulT. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11, 113–136.
