Research highlights teacher autonomy as crucial for the intellectual growth of gifted students, as well as the inherent strains that accompany the fulfillment of such unique needs. Yet, the intersection of autonomy and strain in the education of the gifted remains underdeveloped. This study addresses this gap by exploring the lived experiences of six mathematics teachers through a phenomenological design, using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The study found five key areas where specific facets of autonomy and strain appeared in tandem: display of mathematical gifts, pedagogical adjustments, curricular attunements, gifted skill development, and capacity building efforts. Our findings suggest that these two phenomena coexist and form a symbiotic connection, potentially driving innovation, fostering professional growth, and enhancing the educational experience for gifted learners. We discuss that effective instruction for this distinct group of learners demands adeptly balancing the empowerment derived from autonomy with the strategic management of strains.
AltıntaşE.OzdemirA. (2015). Evaluating a newly developed differentiation approach in terms of student achievement and teachers’ opinions. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 15(4), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.4.2540
2.
AyvazÜ.DurmuşS. (2021). Fostering mathematical creativity with problem posing activities: An action research with gifted students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40(2), Article 100846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100846
3.
BarbierK.StruyfE.DoncheV. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs about and educational practices with high-ability students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109(3), Article 103566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103566
4.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115
5.
BorlandJ. H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of the “new philosophy of science” for the field of the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400406
6.
BrevikL. M.GunnulfsenA. E.RenzulliJ. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003
7.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215
8.
ChamberlinM. T.ChamberlinS. A. (2010). Enhancing preservice teacher development: Field experiences with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 381–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300305
9.
ChapinS. H.O’ConnorC.AndersonN. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn grades K–6. Math Solutions.
10.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
11.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson Education Press.
12.
DimitriadisC. (2012a). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A review of practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211433200
13.
DimitriadisC. (2012b). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organisational provision. Educational Review, 64(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598920
14.
FungD.KutnickP.MokI.LeungF.Pok-Yee LeeB.MaiY.TylerM. (2017). Relationships between teachers’ background, their subject knowledge and pedagogic efficacy, and pupil achievement in primary school mathematics in Hong Kong: An indicative study. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2016.11.003
15.
GabrijelčičM.KonradS. (2019). Analyzing teachers’ competencies in regular classroom practice with gifted students in Slovenia. In VodopivecJ.JančecL.ŠtembergerT. (Eds.), Implicit pedagogy for optimized learning in contemporary education (pp. 166–183). IGI Global Scientific. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5799-9.ch009
16.
GarvinN. M. (2007). Teacher autonomy: Distinguishing perceptions by school cultural characteristics unpublished PhD thesis (publication no. 3255863). University of Pennsylvania ProQuest dissertations publishing.
17.
GavinM. (2024). Curriculum considerations for developing mathematical talent in elementary students. Education Sciences, 14(7), 796. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070796
18.
GreenesC.TeuscherD.RegisT. P. (2010). Preparing teachers for mathematically talented middle school students. In SaulM.AssoulineS.SheffieldL. J. (Eds.), The peak in the middle: Developing mathematically gifted students in the middle grades (pp. 77–91). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003234128-8
19.
HemmlerV. L.KenneyA. W.Dulong LangleyS.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.SiegleD. (2023). Elementary teachers’ perceptions and reported enactment of autonomy from prescribed pacing guides. Journal of Education, 204(3), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574231190935
20.
KahveciN.AkgulS. (2019). The relationship between mathematical creativity and intelligence: A study on gifted and general education students. Gifted and Talented International, 34(1–2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2019.1693311
21.
KamarulzamanM.KamarudinM.SharifM.EsratiM.EsratiM. Z.YusofR. (2022). Impact of differentiated instruction on the mathematical thinking processes of gifted and talented students. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 9(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v9i4.4253
22.
KarsentyR.FriedlanderA. (2008). Professional development of teachers of mathematically gifted students: An agenda under construction. In LeikinR. (Ed.), MCG5 proceedings (pp. 454–456). University of Haifa Press.
23.
KurnazA.EkiciS. (2020). BİLSEM tanılama sürecinde kullanılan zeka testlerinin psikolojik danışmanların ve bilsem öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Çocuk Ve Medeniyet, 5(10), 365–399.
24.
KutnickP.FungD.MokI.LeungF.LiJ.LeeB.LaiV. (2017). Implementing effective group work for mathematical achievement in primary school classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 957–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10763-016-9729-7
25.
LaineS.TirriK. (2015). How Finnish elementary school teachers meet the needs of their gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108185
26.
Leana-TaşcılarM. Z. (2021). Özel yetenekli bireylerin tanılanması. In KöksalM. S.BarınM. R. (Eds.), Özel yetenek ve BİLSEM’ler (pp. 137–163): Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
27.
LeikinR. (2011). The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1–2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1211
28.
LeikinR. (2021). When practice needs more research: The nature and nurture of mathematical giftedness. ZDM–International Journal on Mathematics Education, 53(7), 1579–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01276-9
29.
Linn-CohenR.HertzogN. B. (2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(2), 227–259. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-677
30.
MahlerD.GroßschedlJ.HarmsU. (2018). Does motivation matter?–The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students’ performance. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0207252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207252
31.
MannE. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
32.
MarshikT.AshtonP.AlginaJ. (2017). Teachers’ and students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11218-016-9360-Z
33.
MatheisS.KellerL.KronborgL.SchmittM.PreckelF. (2020). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029
34.
MiedijenskyS. (2018). Learning environment for the gifted—What do outstanding teachers of the gifted think?Gifted Education International, 34(3), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754204
ReisS. M.RenzulliS. J.RenzulliJ. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
37.
ŞahinH.ZorluA. (2022). Türkiye’de özel yetenekli bireyleri tanılama süreci ve tanılamada kullanılan yöntemler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 51(233), 863–885. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.788454
38.
SheffieldL. J. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K—8 pupils. Corwin Press.
39.
SheffieldL. J. (2017). Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students. ZDM–International Journal on Mathematics Education, 49(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0814-8
40.
SiegleD.GubbinsE.O’RourkeP.LangleyS.MunR.LuriaS.LittleC.McCoachD.KnuppT.CallahanC.PluckerJ. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
41.
SingerF. M. (2007). Beyond conceptual change: Using representations to integrate domain-specific structural models in learning mathematics. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228x.2007.00009.x
42.
SingerF. M.SheffieldL. J.FreimanV.BrandlM. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39450-3_1
43.
SmedsrudJ.Nordahl-HansenA.IdsøeE. (2022). Mathematically gifted students’ experience with their teachers’ mathematical competence and boredom in school: A qualitative interview study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 876350. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876350
44.
SmirnovaP.PeskovV. (2022). World experience in identifying metacognitive competencies of a teacher in the course of professional development and work with gifted children. Acta Biomedica Scientifica, 7(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.29413/abs.2022-7.1.16
45.
SriramanB. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics?Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
46.
ThomasD. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research?Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435
47.
VangriekenK.GrosemansI.DochyF.KyndtE. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
48.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
49.
VellaJ. (2024). In pursuit of credibility: Evaluating the divergence between member-checking and hermeneutic phenomenology. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 20(7), 665–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.04.001
50.
WaldenS. L. (2014). The experiences of gifted education teachers’ working with gifted students: A case study (Publication No. 3623478) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. Capella University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
51.
WechslerS. M.BlumenS.BendelmanK. (2018). Challenges on the identification and development of giftedness in South America. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 97–112). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-007
52.
ZieglerA.StoegerH.HarderB.BalestriniD. (2013). Gifted education in German-speaking Europe. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 384–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213492247
53.
ZubovaS. P.LysogorovaL. V.KochetovaN. G.FedorovaT. V. (2021). Olympiad potential for identifying mathematical giftedness in elementary schoolers. In: SHS web of conferences. 117, p. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111702005
