Adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach, 91 students from Years 9 to 11, in gifted educational programs from three schools in Melbourne, nominated their inspiring teachers. Eleven teachers, who received the highest number of nominations, were invited to an interview and an observation of their teaching. The emerged theoretical construct was identified as “Opening new possibilities: Inspiring teachers of gifted and highly able students,” which is further explained through three main categories: Being a knowledgeable and passionate teacher, creating an academically safe learning environment, and teaching beyond and above the regular curriculum. In addition, the theoretical process was explained through three phases: Expanding knowledge and understanding, Fostering positive attitudes, and Encouraging students to take action. Contextual determinants were considered to analyze and report the findings: students’ developmental characteristics, school culture, curriculum, and gifted educational provisions. Findings are discussed in the light of existing literature, as well as study limitations and ideas for future research.
AndermanE. M. (2012). Adolescence. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Application to learning and teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 43–31). American Psychological Association.
3.
ArcherM. S. (2009). Introduction: The reflexive re-turn. In ArcherM. S. (Ed.), Conversations about reflexivity (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
4.
AssoulineS. G.Lipkowski-ShoplikA.ColangeloN. (2018). Acceleration and the talent search model: Transforming the school culture. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 333–346). American Psychological Association.
5.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
BrigandiC. B.GilsonC. M.MillerM. (2019). Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418
8.
ButlerR.ShibazL. (2014). Striving to connect and striving to learn: Influences of relational and mastery goals for teaching on teacher behaviours and student interest and help seeking. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.006
9.
CaetanoA. (2015). Defining personal reflexivity: A critical reading of Archer’s approach. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431014549684
10.
ChanD. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554098
11.
ChanD. W. (2011). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong student perspective. Roeper Review, 33(3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580499
12.
CharmazK. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 675–694). SAGE.
13.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
14.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
15.
CharmazK.HenwoodK. (2008). Grounded theory. In WillingC.Stainton-RogersW. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 240–259). SAGE.
16.
ChichekianT.ShoreB. M. (2013). Cognitive characteristics of the gifted: Reconceptualized in the context of inquiry learning and teaching. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 119–131). Prufrock Press.
17.
ClarkeA. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. SAGE.
18.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.
19.
CraigC. J.EvansP.VermaR.StokesD.LiJ. (2019). A tribute to ‘unsung teachers’: Teachers’ influence on students enrolling in STEM programs with the intent of entering STEM careers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1523390
20.
CreswellJ. (2016). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
21.
CreswellJ.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
22.
CroftL. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 558–571). Pearson Education.
23.
CrossT. L. (2014). Socio emotional needs. The effect of educational malnourishment on the psychological well-being of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 264–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514544032
24.
DealT. E.PetersonK. D. (1999). Shaping school culture. The heart of leadership. Jossey-Bass.
DiezmannC. M.WattersJ. J. (2002). The importance of challenging tasks for mathematically gifted students. Gifted and Talented International, 17(2), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2002.11672991
27.
EcclesJ. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–131). Guilford Press.
28.
EriksonE. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton.
29.
FeldmanK. A. (2009). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In PerryR. P.SmartJ. C. (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93–143). Springer.
30.
FrenzelA. C.Becker-KurzB.PekrunR.GoetzT.LüdtkeO. (2018). Emotion transmission in the classroom revisited: A reciprocal effects model of teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000228
31.
FrenzelA. C.GoetzT.LüdtkeO.PekrunR.SuttonR. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014695
32.
FrenzelA. C.GoetzT.PekrunR.WattH. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 507–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x
33.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
34.
FurrerC. J.SkinnerE. A.PitzerJ. R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom and everyday motivational resilience. National Society for the Study of Education, 116(13), 101–123.
35.
GagnéF. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(1), 5–19.
36.
GagnéF. (2018). Academic talent development: Theory and best practices. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 163–184). American Psychological Association.
37.
GallagherS. (2007). Reflections from the deep end: Primary school teachers’ experiences of gifted education. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 16(1), 20–29.
GraffamB. (2006). A case study of teachers of gifted learners: Moving from prescribed practice to describe practitioners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000204
HoogeveenL.van HellJ. G.VerhoevenL. (2012). Socio-emotional characteristics of gifted accelerated and non-accelerated students in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02047.x
42.
KassinS.FeinS.MarkusH. R. (2011). Social psychology (8th ed.). Cengage Wadsworth.
43.
KlassenR. M.BongM.UsherE. L.ChongW. H.HuanV. S.WongI. Y. F.GeorgiouT. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001
KronborgL. (2018). Cultivating teachers to work with gifted students. In JollyJ. L.JarvisJ. M. (Eds.), Exploring gifted education: Australian and New Zealand perspectives (pp. 82–94). Routledge.
46.
KronborgL.Cornejo-ArayaC. A. (2018). Gifted educational provisions for gifted and highly able students in Victorian schools, Australia. Universitas Psychologica, 17(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-5.gepg
47.
KronborgL.PlunkettM. (2013). Responding to professional learning: How effective teachers differentiate teaching and learning strategies to engage highly able adolescents. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 22(2), 52–63.
48.
KronborgL.PlunkettM. (2015). Providing an optimal school context for talent development: An extended curriculum program in practice. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2), 61–69.
LambM.WedellM. (2013). Inspiring English teachers: A comparative study of learner perceptions of inspirational teaching. British Council-Brand and Design.
51.
LassigC. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0012
52.
LazaridesR.BuchholtzJ.RubachC. (2018). Teacher enthusiasm and self-efficacy, student-perceived mastery goal orientation, and student motivation in mathematics classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.017
53.
LempertL. B. (2010). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In ByantA.CharmazK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245–264). SAGE.
54.
LongJ. F.HoyA. W. (2006). Interested instructors: A composite portrait of individual differences and effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate32005.11.001
55.
MalaurentJ.AvisonD. (2017). Reflexivity: A third essential “R” to enhance interpretive field studies. Information & Management, 54, 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.01.007
56.
McGueyG.MooreL. (2015). The inspirational teacher (2nd ed.). Routledge.
MillsC. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teachers’ background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700404
59.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K.PetersK. (2015). The motivational theory of role modelling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000059
60.
MusserP. M.CaskeyM. M.SamekL. L.KimY. M.GreeneW. L.CarpenterJ. M.CasbonJ. (2013). Imagine a place where teaching and learning are inspirational: A decade of collected wisdom from the field. Middle School Journal, 44(4), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2013.11461859
61.
Oxford Dictionary. (2015). Inspiration. In BradberyJ. (Ed.), Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (9th ed., p. 814).
62.
PatrickB. C.HisleyJ.KemplerT. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600093
63.
Pfitzner-EdenF.ThielF.HorsleyJ. (2015). An adapted measure of teacher self-efficacy for preservice teachers: Exploring its validity across two countries. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 28(3), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000125
PiirtoJ. (2000). The Piirto Pyramid of talent development. Gifted Child Today, 23(6), 22–29.
66.
PlunkettM.KronborgL. (2019). Teaching gifted education to pre-service teachers: Lessons learned. In SmithS. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia Pacific (pp. 1–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_67-1
67.
RetelsdorfJ.ButlerR.StreblowL.SchiefeleU. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations for teaching: Association with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001
68.
RosemarinS. (2009). Who is the best teacher? Do different kinds of students have different preferences?Gifted Education International, 25(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940902500107
RowleyJ. (2012). Professional development needs of teachers to identify and cater for gifted students. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 75–80.
71.
RussoJ.HopkinsS. (2019). Teaching primary mathematics with challenging tasks: How should lessons be structured?The Journal of Educational Research, 112, 198–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1440369
72.
SavickasM. L. (2016). Reflection and reflexivity during life-design interventions: Comments on career construction counseling. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 97, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vb.2016.09.001
SchiefeleU. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In WigfieldA.WentzelK. (Eds.), Handbook on motivation at school (pp. 197–222). Routledge.
75.
SchiefeleU.SchaffnerE. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005
76.
ShavininaL. V. (2009). Scientific talent: The case of Nobel Laureates. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 648–670). Springer.
77.
SpoonR.RubensteinL. D.ShivelyK.SithK.AscolaniM.PottsM. L. (2020). Reconceptualizing professional learning within the gifted field: Exploring the instruct to innovate model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(3), 193–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220933001
78.
StoryC. (1985). Facilitator of learning: A micro ethnographic study of the teacher of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628502900403
79.
SubotnikR.Olsewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
80.
SullivanP.AskewM.CheesemanJ.ClarkeD.MornaneA.RocheA.WalkerN. (2014). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2
81.
ThomasJ. (2011). In search of the optimal learning experience: Flow theory and its implications for talent development. TalentEd, 27, 31–38.
ThornbergR.CharmazK. (2012). Grounded theory. In LapanS.QuartaroliM.RiemerF. (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (pp. 41–67). Jossey-Bass.
84.
ThrashT.ElliotA.MaruskinL.CassidyS. (2010). Inspiration and the promotion of well-being: Tests of causality and mediation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017906
85.
ThrashT.MoldovanE.OleynickV.MaruskinL. (2014). The psychology of inspiration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12127
86.
ThrashT. M.ElliotA. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.871
87.
ThrashT. M.ElliotA. J. (2004). Inspiration: Core characteristics, component processes, antecedents, and function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 957–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.957
88.
TirriK. (2017). Teacher education is the key to changing the identification and teaching of the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 210–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318996
89.
Van PraagL.StevensP. A. J.Van HoutteM. (2017). How humor makes or breaks student-teacher relationships: A classroom ethnography in Belgium. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.008
90.
VanslambrouckS.ZhuC.LombaertsK.PhilipsenB.TondeurJ. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002
91.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.HubbardG. (2016). Classroom-based strategies for advanced learners in rural settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 285–310.
92.
van TilburgQ. P.IgouE. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9
93.
VialleW.QuigleyS. (2002). Does the teacher of the gifted need to be gifted?Gifted and Talented International, 17, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413486577
94.
VialleW.TischlerK. (2009). Gifted students’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective teachers. In WoodD. (Ed.), The gifted challenge: Challenging the gifted (pp. 115–124). NSWAGTC Inc.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ.EcclesJ. S. (2012). Motivation in education. In RyanM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 464–478). Oxford University Press.
98.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). Academic Press.
99.
WileyK.HébertT. P. (2013). Social and emotional traits of gifted youth: A critical analysis of research. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 593–607). Prufrock Press Inc.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
