Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite growing research in gifted education, myths about giftedness remain widespread among educators and may hinder appropriate support for gifted learners. In this study, data were collected from 562 participants (60.7% female, 39.3% male), including preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers in teacher education, using the newly developed, psychometrically validated the Rapid Assessment Test of Individual Misconceptions about Giftedness (RATIMAG) instrument. This study aimed to investigate how demographic variables affect educators’ beliefs about myths about giftedness. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed significant group differences based on age, education level, academic department, training in gifted education, and occupational role. Gender was not associated with belief differences. Findings emphasize the importance of sustained, role-sensitive training throughout the educator career cycle. While conducted in Türkiye, the study raises broader questions about the persistence of giftedness myths across cultures and suggests directions for improving educator preparation and policy in gifted education.

Keywords

gifted education educator beliefs myths about giftedness teacher training professional development cross-role comparison RATIMAG misconception research

Introduction

Despite significant advancements in gifted education research, persistent myths and misconceptions about giftedness influence how educators perceive, identify, and support gifted learners. These myths—such as the belief that gifted students will succeed without help, that they excel in all domains, or that a single test score can definitively identify giftedness—can result in educational neglect and missed opportunities. Misconceptions of this kind affect teaching practices and undermine equitable access to gifted education services.

Early models of giftedness emphasized innate intellectual ability, as measured by IQ tests (Robinson et al., 2000). However, theories beyond this approach have shown that giftedness cannot be explained entirely by IQ test results. For example, Renzulli’s (1986) Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness defines giftedness as the interaction of above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment. Afterwards, Ziegler’s (2005) Actiotope Model frames giftedness as the result of adaptive interactions between an individual and their environment over time. More recently, contemporary perspectives underline the developmental, contextual, and dynamic nature of giftedness (Sak, 2023). Despite these theoretical developments, outdated conceptions remain influential, especially when educator preparation does not adequately address them.

Teachers hold subjective beliefs in addition to the knowledge they possess, and these beliefs are important for understanding teachers’ behaviours and their consequences. Teachers choose teaching goals and approaches based on their beliefs (König, 2012). While some ideas are correct, others are misconceptions that persist despite contradicting established scientific evidence (Siegel, 2025). A study by Asberger et al. (2021) emphasizes that assumptions about education are intricately linked to individual attitudes and values, making it more ambitious to overcome these beliefs. In this study, “belief” refers to teachers’ general cognitive frameworks, whereas “myths” and “misconceptions” refer to inaccuracies that contradict scientific evidence.

Teacher beliefs are a broad field that expresses educators’ explicit or implicit assumptions about pupils and teaching. Beliefs are formed through personal experiences; they are personal rather than universal, and these beliefs cannot be changed through persuasion (Pajares, 1992). Implicit beliefs influence educators’ behaviours and experiences without individuals being aware of them (Fives & Buehl, 2012). Attitudes are behavioural pattern that shapes thoughts and behaviors in different situations, and the attitudes that most strongly shape behaviors are the most difficult to change (Howe & Krosnick, 2017). Subjective and objective theories are also points that need to be mentioned in order to understand attitudes.

Subjective theory holds that something helps a person only if they desire it, enjoy it, care about it, or if it correlates with their positive attitude. However, objective theory argues that some things improve our lives regardless of our interests, likes, and cares. Subjective theories are consistent with the individual’s own experiences, but objective theories are knowledge-based and defend universality (Heathwood, 2014).

Research examining the influence of educators’ perceptions on student behavior and academic performance began in the 1960s. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated the Pygmalion effect when educators anticipated intellectual advancement in their students, those students show improved intellectual progress. Subsequent research has demonstrated that educators’ views and instructional practices significantly influence students’ learning processes and academic achievement (Shulman, 1987). In addition to these studies, further studies have demonstrated that teachers’ behaviours substantially affect students’ academic performance (e.g.,Asbury et al., 2023; Klug et al., 2025; Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008; Patterson et al., 2016; Richardson, 1996). The mindset theory explains how teachers’ beliefs about intelligence shape their educational process (Dweck & Yeager, 2019).

The growth mindset theory emphasized that human abilities are not fixed but can be developed over time (Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Teachers’ beliefs are important because they filter the information they bring into the classroom, frame learning problems, and guide teaching behaviours, and thus influence teaching practices (Fives & Buehl, 2012). The study by Fives and Buehl (2012) proposes that teacher beliefs in the literature share five common characteristics: (a) their implicit and explicit nature, (b) their stability over time, (c) their situational or generalized nature, (d) their relationship to knowledge, and (e) their existence as individual propositions or larger systems. Furthermore, the COACTIV model developed by Baumert and Kunter (2013) is a theoretical framework for teachers’ professional competence. This model identifies pedagogical content knowledge, professional beliefs, motivational orientations, and professional self-regulation skills as essential components influencing teaching quality. Research by Baumert and Kunter (2013) shows that professional beliefs also influence teaching practices and the quality of teaching processes. Moreover, although the TEDS-M research focused solely on teacher candidates’ the mathematical knowledge, it is important research in revealing the importance of the knowledge possessed by teachers (Laschke & Blömeke, 2013 as cited in Laschke, 2013). A cross-cultural study conducted in Taiwan and Germany using the TEDS-M revealed that teacher candidates’ professional knowledge differed across cultures, with Taiwanese teacher candidates performing better than their German teacher candidates. This finding is consistent with the results of large-scale assessments of student achievement (Laschke, 2013). Moreover, the study by Rubie-Davies and Hattie (2024) demonstrates that teachers’ beliefs, including adherence to stereotypes and the perceptions of all students as equal, influence their expectations of students, with variations in these beliefs significantly affecting student outcomes.

Besides these differences in theories about gifted individuals, neuromyths -misconceptions about the brain and learning-indicate that educators’ myths about giftedness encompass a broad range of areas and that these myths need to be exposed. One of the most famous neuromyths about education is that there are visual, auditory, and kinesthetics learning styles, and that educational environments are designed for students’ learning styles (Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021). There are also common neuromyths, such as “differences in hemispheric dominance (left brain, right brain) may help explain individual differences among students”, “we only use 10% of our brain”, and “learning problems associated with developmental differences in brain function cannot be remediated by education” (Macdonald et al., 2017).

Research consistently shows that educators’ beliefs about giftedness significantly impact their identification practices, instructional strategies, and attitudes toward gifted students (El Khoury & Al-Hroub, 2018; Subotnik et al., 2011). Significantly, various demographic and professional factors shape these beliefs. For example, gender has links to differing attitudes, with some studies showing more positive beliefs among female educators (Özcan, 2016), while others suggest the opposite or find no significant effects (Hoogeveen et al., 2005; Lassig, 2009). Age also plays a complex role. While younger teachers may be more open to inclusive or progressive practices (Kaya, 2019), other research suggests that older educators may hold more informed or nuanced views due to experience (Portešová et al., 2014).

Educational attainment is more consistently associated with fewer myths. Teachers with graduate degrees are often better informed about the nature and needs of gifted learners (Katırcı & Erdoğan, 2020; Sak, 2011). Similarly, training in gifted education—whether it occurred and for how long—has been shown to positively impact teachers’ understanding and attitudes (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Sözel, 2019). Departmental background can also influence beliefs: educators trained in special education or psychology may hold more accurate or differentiated views than those in general education (Opoku et al., 2023; Özcan, 2016).

Another critical factor is the professional role. Preservice teachers often bring idealism and openness but may lack concrete knowledge or experience (Troxclair, 2013). In-service teachers, by contrast, operate within institutional routines that may reinforce or challenge myths depending on their training and context. University lecturers, particularly those engaged in teacher preparation or gifted education research, are expected to hold more evidence-based beliefs. In evidence-based learning, university lecturers play a key role (Diery, 2021). Additionally, university lecturers who are also practitioners are not only considered consumers of research but also producers of research, emphasising that they support evidence-based practice by providing empirical findings to support it (Georgiou et al., 2020; Smith, 2020;). In addition to research indicating that university lecturers have a positive attitude toward evidence-based learning, research also shows that more experienced lecturers, particularly those with a background in research and teaching, tend to be more positive attitude than those with less experience (Diery et al., 2020). However, they may also lack classroom-level engagement with gifted learners. These distinctions suggest that educators’ occupational identities significantly shape how giftedness is conceptualised and acted upon (Siegle et al., 2010).

This issue is especially salient in Türkiye, where national policies and cultural narratives jointly shape educators’ views of giftedness. Over the past decades, the Turkish Ministry of National Education has revised its official definitions, moving from a narrow IQ-based classification to broader concepts such as “special talent” (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1974, 2006, 2013). Nevertheless, cultural ideals that emphasize traits like practical intelligence, leadership, and verbal wit—reflected in national folklore figures such as Nasreddin Hodja or Keloğlan—continue to influence public and professional beliefs (Demirel & Sak, 2011; Sak et al., 2015). However, enduring misconceptions can be understood as informational gaps and entrenched belief systems resistant to change. From the perspective of conceptual change theory (Posner et al., 1982), such myths represent stable but scientifically inaccurate conceptions that persist until learners are cognitively and emotionally motivated to restructure their thinking. Educators’ beliefs are based on personal experiences, cultural narratives, and institutional discourses (Gee, 2014; Sternberg, 2007). In this view, altering myths about giftedness is both a cognitive and a systemic challenge.

While previous research has examined individual educator groups or isolated variables, few studies have conducted a systematic, comparative analysis of how myths about giftedness are distributed across different educator roles and demographic profiles using a validated, myth-specific instrument. To address this gap, the present study investigates how preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers in Türkiye endorse common myths about giftedness. It further explores how these beliefs are associated with gender, age, educational attainment, departmental background, and training experience.

Related Scales Thoughout the Literature

Several scales have been developed to measure beliefs and attitudes toward gifted individuals. Although the scale Opinions towards Gifted Education (OGE) developed by Gagné and Nadeau (1985) in the 1980s is widely used in the field of gifted education, a recent review by Gagné (2018) emphasises that this scale has psychometric weaknesses and needs to be updated. In the study by McCoach and Siegle (2007), OGE was used as a measurement tool; it was observed that special education teachers had lower attitudes toward gifted students. Moreover, research by Troxclair (2013), using OGE, revealed that teacher candidates hold myths, particularly regarding elitism, ability grouping, and acceleration. Moreover, in a study by Heyder et al. (2020), teachers expressed positive attitudes toward the benefits of inclusive education but showed negative attitudes regarding professional competence in working with students requiring special education.

Furthermore, a study conducted by Asbury et al. (2023) concluded that teachers’ field-specific ability beliefs negatively affect their interest in the subject and their attitudes toward teaching competence. Moreover, in a recent study conducted by Klug et al. (2025), the researchers investigated whether teacher candidates’ attitudes toward giftedness differed depending on whether they were in a verbal or a mathematical field. This study found intra-individual differences in preservice teachers’ beliefs about mathematical and verbal abilities, as well as inter-individual differences in their beliefs about mathematical talents. However, this study did not find the same to be true for beliefs about verbal talents. These studies typically use scales that focus on attitudes and beliefs. The Rapid Assessment Test of Individual Misconceptions About Giftedness (RATIMAG) used in our study is a 20-item test that measures knowledge of myths and misconceptions. RATIMAG provides a complementary contribution to the literature because it is conceptually different from attitude and belief scales.

The Current Research

Despite increased awareness of gifted education, persistent misconceptions about giftedness remain common among educators. While theoretical advances have challenged traditional IQ-based definitions, these perspectives are not always reflected in everyday professional beliefs. Prior research suggests that educator characteristics such as professional role, training, educational background, and age can influence the extent to which educators endorse myths about giftedness. Research conducted by Uzunboylu et al. (2024) among teachers found that male teachers had a more positive attitude toward educating gifted students than female teachers. Following gender, another variable whose possible effect on educators’ view of myths is analyzed is age. The study by Opoku et al. (2023) with preservice teachers, they found that participants aged 26 or older had more positive attitudes towards gifted individuals than participants aged 18–25 years. Similarly, in study by Kaya (2019) with classroom teachers, participants aged of 22–30 had more positive attitudes toward gifted students than those aged 31+. These findings suggest that age may play an important role in modifying educators’ beliefs about giftedness. However, few studies have comparatively examined how these beliefs are distributed across key educational groups, particularly using validated instruments explicitly designed to measure misconceptions.

To address this gap, the present study investigates how myths about giftedness are perceived among preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers in Türkiye.

Research Aim and Questions

This study examines the extent to which educators in Türkiye endorse common myths about giftedness and how these beliefs vary across different demographic and professional variables.

Main Research Question

• To what extent do preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers differ in their beliefs about myths of giftedness?

Sub-Questions

• Do beliefs about giftedness myths vary by gender?

• Are there differences in myth endorsement across age groups?

• Does educational level predict belief in myths?

• Are there differences based on participants’ departmental background?

• Do participants who received training in gifted education differ from those who did not?

• Does the length of gifted education training (e.g., 1–5 years vs. 5+ years) affect beliefs?

• How does occupational role (preservice teacher, teacher, lecturer) influence beliefs?

This study is among the first to systematically explore these questions using a psychometrically validated measure to target common misconceptions about giftedness internationally.

Method

Research Design

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional design to examine differences in beliefs about giftedness myths across educator groups in Türkiye. The focus was on how misconceptions varied by occupational role and demographic factors, using a psychometrically validated self-report instrument.

Participants

Participants were recruited through professional networks and institutional contacts in schools and universities across Türkiye. A total of 562 individuals participated in the study, including 164 preservice teachers, 291 in-service teachers, and 107 university lecturers in teacher education. In the research, the majority of preservice teacher participants (n = 106) indicated that their highest degree was “high school” (as they had not yet graduated from university). A smaller group (n = 58) had previously earned an bachelor’s degree and master`s degree but were enrolled in teacher preparation programs. Therefore, all 164 teachers were classified as pre-service teachers. Participants were diverse in age, gender, education level, academic department, and prior training in gifted education. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample. Participants in physical education (n = 17), visual arts education (n = 13), and digital teaching and learning (n = 8) were grouped under the miscellaneous category due to small sample sizes that did not allow for meaningful statistical comparisons.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N = 562)

Variable	Category	n	%
Gender	Female	341	60.7
Gender	Male	221	39.3
Age group	18–25	153	27.2
	26–32	113	20.1
	33–40	141	25.1
	41–48	81	14.4
	49+	74	13.2
Education level	High school	106	18.9
	Bachelor’s Degree	269	47.9
	Master’s Degree	99	17.6
	PhD or Higher	88	15.7
Department	Primary school Education	133	23.7
	Preschool Education	74	13.2
	Special Education	63	11.2
	Science Education	59	10.5
	Mathematics Education	44	7.8
	Gifted Education	36	6.4
	Psychology	31	5.5
	Social science Education	30	5.3
	Turkish Language Education	29	5.2
	Foreign Language Education	26	4.6
	Miscellaneous	37	6.6
Training on giftedness	Yes	131	23.3
Training on giftedness	No	431	76.7
Years of training	1–5 years	75	57.3
Years of training	More than 5 years	56	42.7
Occupational role	Preservice Teacher	164	29.2
	In-service Teacher	291	51.8
	University lecturer	107	19.0

Instrument

We employed the Rapid Assessment Test of Individual Misconceptions about Giftedness (RATIMAG) (Ercan & Ziegler, 2025), a newly developed 20-item instrument to capture the most widely discussed myths in the giftedness literature. Beliefs about giftedness myths were measured using the RATIMAG knowledge test.

• Characteristics and Needs of the Gifted (12 items): An example item is “Giftedness is a developmental construct.”

• Assessment and Achievements (3 items): An example item is “Gifted students may have problems finding educational and social environments that promote academic development.”

• Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects of Gifted Development (5 items): An example item is: “The gifted program is not an extension of the content considered important for gifted students. It is an “extra”.

Items were developed based on Treffinger’s (2009) list of 19 widely acknowledged myths about giftedness and refined through expert review and psychometric testing. The RATIMAG was developed through a rigorous multi-step process involving expert consultation, item vetting by authors of myth literature, and psychometric validation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a clear three-factor structure and high reliability for the full scale (α = .93) and each subscale (α = .95, .86, .75, respectively). The confirmatory factor analyses illustrates acceptable model fit, χ² (149) = 643, p < .001, χ²/df = 4.31,CFI = .931, TLI = .921, RMSEA = .071, and all factor covariances were positive and significant. The instrument was designed not as a comprehensive measure of gifted knowledge but as a practical tool to assess the prevalence of common misconceptions among professionals.

The questions used in this research are 5-point rating scale with the poles of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). Each item has one correct answer, with higher response values reflecting higher knowledge levels.

Procedure

The survey was administered online via Google Forms, with the survey link distrubuted through official institutional email lists, professional teacher associations, and controlled academic networks. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with informed consent obtained at the beginning of the questionnaire. Completion time was approximately 10 minutes.

Data Analysis

Preliminary tests for normality indicated that the data were non-normal. Therefore, non-parametric statistical analyses were used. Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted for comparisons between two groups, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were applied for comparisons involving more than two groups. When significant differences were found, post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Mann–Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction to control for multiple comparisons. The significance level was set at p < .05 for all analyses.

Results

This section presents the findings of the research questions. Since the midpoint of the RATIMAG questionnaire is 3.00, average values above this threshold indicate participants’ tendency to reject myths and align with scientifically accurate concepts regarding superior abilities. For example, M = 3.60 indicates a moderate level of myth rejection, whereas M = 4.48 indicates a high level of myth rejection, demonstrating a strong alignment with accurate information. These interpretations are based on the RATIMAG test items.

Do Beliefs About Giftedness Myths Vary by Gender?

To address Sub-Question 1, we examined whether male and female participants differed in their endorsement of myths about giftedness. As shown in Table 2, median scores were highly similar across all three RATIMAG subscales. Both groups demonstrated generally accurate beliefs, with average total scores indicating a moderate rejection of myths (M = 3.60, SD = 0.66 for females; M = 3.54, SD = 0.77 for males; scale range 1–5). Mann–Whitney U tests revealed no statistically significant gender differences for the Characteristics and Needs subscale (U = 36,785.5, p = .634, r = .02), Assessment and Achievements subscale (U = 34,737.0, p = .114, r = .06), or Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects of Gifted Development subscale (U = 34,950, p = .145, r = .06). Likewise, no gender differences emerged for the total RATIMAG score (U = 37,529.5, p = .936, r = .004). These findings suggest that gender does not play a meaningful role in shaping educators’ beliefs about myths of giftedness in this sample.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Subscale Scores by Gender

Subscale	Gender	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	Female	341	4.25	4.05	.81	3.91–4.50
CN	Male	221	4.25	3.94	.95	3.83–4.58
AA	Female	341	3.66	3.63	.92	3.00–4.33
AA	Male	221	3.66	3.46	1.03	3.00–4.00
PSE	Female	341	2.40	2.48	.76	2.00–3.00
PSE	Male	221	2.60	2.60	.82	2.00–3.00
TQ	Female	341	3.75	3.60	.66	3.50–3.90
TQ	Male	221	3.70	3.54	.77	3.45–3.95

Note. ICQ = Interquartile Range; CN = Characteristics and Needs of the Gifted; AA = Assessment and Achievements; PSE = Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects of Gifted Development; TQ = Total questionnaire score. RATIMAG = Rapid Assessment Test of Individual Misconceptions About Giftedness.

Are There Differences in Myth Endorsement Across Age Groups?

To address Sub-Question 2, we analyzed participants’ beliefs about giftedness myths across five age groups. As shown in Table 3, mean scores across groups reflected generally moderate rejection of myths, with total RATIMAG scores ranging from M = 3.40 (SD = 0.83) among participants aged 49+ to M = 3.64 (SD = 0.65) among those aged 33–40. A Kruskal–Wallis H test revealed significant differences on the Characteristics and Needs subscale, χ² (4) = 13.75, p = .008, η ² = .017, with post hoc analysis indicating that participants aged 33–40 endorsed fewer myths than those aged 18–25. A similar pattern was observed for the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale, χ² (4) = 16.53, p = .002, η ² = .022, where participants aged 26–32, 33–40, and 49+ scored significantly higher than those aged 18–25. No significant age differences were found for the Assessment and Achievements subscale (χ² (4) = 6.63, p = .157, η ² = .005) or the total RATIMAG score (χ² (4) = 4.97, p = .291,η ² = .002). These results suggest that age-related differences in myth endorsement are most evident in beliefs about developmental and social-emotional aspects of giftedness, with younger participants more likely to hold misconceptions.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Subscale Scores Across Participant Age Groups

Subscale	Age group	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	18–25	153	4.08	3.98	.76	3.83–4.41
	26–32	113	4.16	4.00	.93	3.91–4.50
	33–40	141	4.33	4.15	.79	4.00–4.58
	41–48	81	4.25	3.98	.92	3.83–4.58
	49+	74	4.08	3.83	1.04	3.66–4.58
AA	18–25	153	4.00	3.72	.88	3.33–4.33
	26–32	113	3.66	3.51	.99	3.00–4.00
	33–40	141	3.66	3.54	.96	3.00–4.00
	41–48	81	3.66	3.58	1.00	3.33–4.33
	49+	74	3.66	3.34	1.08	2.66–4.00
PSE	18–25	153	2.60	2.73	.82	2.20–3.20
	26–32	113	2.40	2.38	.77	1.80–2.80
	33–40	141	2.40	2.47	.77	2.00–2.80
	41–48	81	2.60	2.59	.70	2.20–3.00
	49+	74	2.30	2.41	.77	1.80–3.00
TQ	18–25	153	3.75	3.63	.64	3.50–3.95
	26–32	113	3.70	3.52	.73	3.50–3.85
	33–40	141	3.75	3.64	.65	3.50–4.00
	41–48	81	3.75	3.57	.73	3.45–3.95
	49+	74	3.75	3.40	.83	3.20–3.95

Does Educational Attainment Predict Beliefs About Giftedness Myths?

To explore whether educational attainment was associated with beliefs about giftedness myths, we compared participants with high school, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. As shown in Table 4, mean total RATIMAG scores increased with education level, ranging from M = 3.46 (SD = 0.82) among bachelor’s degree holders to M = 3.78 (SD = 0.48) among PhD holders, indicating that more educated participants tended to reject myths more strongly. Kruskal–Wallis H tests revealed significant differences on the Characteristics and Needs subscale, χ² (3) = 37.94, p < .001, η ² = .063, with participants holding master’s or PhD degrees scoring significantly higher than those with only a high school or bachelor’s degree. Differences also emerged for the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale, χ² (3) = 12.73, p = .005, η ² = .017, and the total RATIMAG score, χ² (3) = 12.86, p = .005, η ² = .018. However, no significant differences were observed on the Assessment and Achievements subscale (χ² (3) = 6.14, p = .105, η ² = .006). These findings suggest that higher academic attainment is associated with more accurate conceptions of giftedness, particularly in its developmental and socio-emotional dimensions.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Subscale Scores by Participants’ Educational Attainment

Subscale	Education level	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	High school	106	4.08	3.97	.73	3.83–4.33
	Bachelor	269	4.16	3.85	1.00	3.75–4.50
	Master	99	4.33	4.19	.68	4.00–4.54
	Ph.D.	88	4.50	4.34	.61	4.16–4.66
AA	High school	106	3.66	3.64	.83	3.33–4.00
	Bachelor	269	3.66	3.43	1.09	2.66–4.33
	Master	99	3.66	3.64	.83	3.33–4.00
	Ph.D.	88	3.66	3.80	.81	3.33–4.33
PSE	High school	106	2.60	2.74	.77	2.20–3.20
	Bachelor	269	2.40	2.54	.85	2.00–3.00
	Master	99	2.40	2.39	.71	1.80–2.80
	Ph.D.	88	2.40	2.41	.62	2.00–2.80
TQ	High school	106	3.70	3.61	.62	3.50–3.90
	Bachelor	269	3.70	3.46	.82	3.35–3.95
	Master	99	3.75	3.66	.54	3.55–3.90
	Ph.D.	88	3.85	3.78	.48	3.62–4.05

Do Participants’ Academic Departments Influence Myth Beliefs?

To investigate whether participants’ academic departments influenced their endorsement of myths about giftedness, we conducted Kruskal–Wallis tests across 11 departmental categories. As shown in Table 5, overall, mean total RATIMAG scores varied little across groups, all falling within the moderate range of myth rejection (e.g., M = 3.52 to M = 3.77). A significant difference emerged only on the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale, χ² (10) = 22.02, p = .015, η ² = .022. Post hoc comparisons indicated that participants from primary school education scored significantly higher than those from the miscellaneous group, suggesting a slightly more accurate understanding of the social-emotional aspects of giftedness. No significant differences were found on the Characteristics and Needs subscale χ² (10) = 10.03, p = .438, η ² = .006, Assessment and Achievements subscale χ² (10) = 14.85, p = .138, η ² = .009, or the total RATIMAG score χ² (10) = 7.13, p = .713, η ² = .005. These results suggest that departmental training may selectively influence educators’ beliefs, particularly in child development and classroom practice domains.

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Subscale Scores Across Academic Departments

Subscale	Department	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	Primary school education	133	4.16	3.91	.92	3.83–4.50
	Preschool education	74	4.16	3.94	1.00	3.83–4.50
	Special education	63	4.25	3.98	1.04	3.95–4.58
	Science education	59	4.16	3.98	.88	3.83–4.50
	Mathematics education	44	4.16	4.00	.78	3.91–4.50
	Gifted education	37	4.33	4.32	.43	4.00–4.66
	Psychology	31	4.16	4.05	.67	3.91–4.41
	Social science education	30	4.29	3.99	.96	3.83–4.58
	Turkish language education	29	4.25	4.18	.56	4.00–4.50
	Foreign language education	26	4.20	4.04	.73	3.75–4.41
	Miscellaneous	36	4.33	4.16	.82	4.04–4.62
	Primary school education	133	3.66	3.51	.99	3.00–4.00
	Preschool education	74	3.83	3.56	1.07	3.00–4.00
	Special education	63	3.66	3.54	1.10	3.00–4.33
AA	Science education	59	3.66	3.56	.98	3.00–4.16
	Mathematics education	44	3.66	3.50	.84	3.00–4.00
	Gifted education	37	3.33	3.57	.60	3.33–4.00
	Psychology	31	3.66	3.74	.89	3.33–4.50
	Social science education	30	3.33	3.22	.89	2.66–3.66
	Turkish language education	29	4.00	3.65	.95	3.00–4.33
	Foreign language education	26	4.00	3.64	.93	3.00–4.00
	Miscellaneous	36	4.00	3.89	1.03	3.33–4.83
PSE	Primary school education	133	2.60	2.61	.74	2.20–3.00
	Preschool education	74	2.40	2.55	.82	2.00–3.20
	Special education	63	2.20	2.29	.68	2.00–2.70
	Science education	59	2.60	2.57	.84	1.90–3.00
	Mathematics education	44	2.60	2.63	.67	2.20–3.10
	Gifted education	37	2.20	2.12	.62	1.60–2.40
	Psychology	31	2.60	2.41	.69	1.80–2.90
	Social science education	30	2.50	2.58	.84	2.00–3.00
	Turkish language education	29	2.80	2.71	1.04	2.00–3.00
	Foreign language education	26	2.60	2.55	.62	2.00–2.80
	Miscellaneous	36	2.60	2.75	.96	2.20–3.00
TQ	Primary school education	133	3.70	3.52	.75	3.45–3.95
	Preschool education	74	3.75	3.53	.83	3.45–3.95
	Special education	63	3.75	3.49	.80	3.47–3.92
	Science education	59	3.75	3.56	.74	3.47–4.00
	Mathematics education	44	3.75	3.58	.60	3.55–3.90
	Gifted education	37	3.70	3.66	.26	3.45–3.80
	Psychology	31	3.75	3.59	.52	3.47–3.85
	Social science education	30	3.67	3.52	.78	3.40–3.90
	Turkish language education	29	3.65	3.73	.48	3.55–4.05
	Foreign language education	26	3.75	3.60	.60	3.50–3.90
	Miscellaneous	36	3.90	3.77	.75	3.52–4.15

Do Participants with Training in Gifted Education Differ in Their Beliefs?

To assess whether prior training in gifted education was associated with myth endorsement, we compared participants with and without such training. As shown in Table 6, both groups demonstrated generally moderate rejection of myths, with comparable total RATIMAG scores (M = 3.59, SD = 0.69 for trained; M = 3.57, SD = 0.71 for untrained). Mann–Whitney U tests revealed that participants with training scored significantly higher on the Characteristics and Needs subscale (U = 22,607.0, z = −3.46, p < .001, r = .14) and on the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale (U = 23,500.0, z = −2.92, p = .004,r = .12), indicating more accurate beliefs in these domains. No significant differences were found for the Assessment and Achievements subscale (U = 27,372.5, p = .595, r = .022) or the total score (U = 27,150.5, p = .507, r = .028). Although effect sizes were small, the pattern suggests that exposure to training in gifted education may improve educators’ understanding, particularly regarding developmental and social-emotional needs.

Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Scores by Prior Gifted Education Training (Yes vs. No)

Subscale	Training status	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	Yes	131	4.33	4.12	.88	4.00–4.58
CN	No	431	4.16	3.98	.86	3.83–4.50
AA	Yes	131	3.66	3.53	.97	3.16–4.00
AA	No	431	3.66	3.57	.97	3.00–4.33
PSE	Yes	131	2.20	2.37	.79	1.80–2.80
PSE	No	431	2.60	2.58	.78	2.00–3.00
TQ	Yes	131	3.75	3.59	.69	3.50–3.92
TQ	No	431	3.75	3.57	.71	3.45–3.95

Does Training Duration Influence Myth Beliefs?

To evaluate whether the duration of gifted education training influenced participants’ beliefs, we compared those with 1–5 years of training to those with more than 5 years. As shown in Table 7, average total RATIMAG scores were similar across groups (M = 3.54, SD = 0.71 for 1–5 years; M = 3.66, SD = 0.65 for 5+ years). However, participants with more than 5 years of training scored significantly higher on the Characteristics and Needs subscale (U = 1408.5, z = −3.23, p = .001, r = .28), suggesting a deeper understanding of giftedness as a developmental construct. No significant differences were observed for the Assessment and Achievements subscale (U = 2099.0, p = .996, r = .001), the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale (U = 1847.5, p = .238, r = .103), or the total RATIMAG score (p = .167). These results indicate that more prolonged exposure to gifted education content may enhance beliefs about the developmental needs of gifted individuals. However, effects do not appear to generalize across all domains.

Table 7.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Scores by Duration of Gifted Education Training

Subscale	Years of training	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
C	1–5 years	75	4.33	4.01	.87	4.00–4.50
C	>5 years	56	4.50	4.27	.88	4.20–4.75
AA	1–5 years	75	3.66	3.49	1.03	3.00–4.00
AA	>5 years	56	3.66	3.58	.90	3.33–4.00
PSE	1–5 years	75	2.40	2.47	.85	1.80–2.90
PSE	>5 years	56	2.20	2.23	.68	1.70–2.80
TQ	1–5 years	75	3.70	3.54	.71	3.50–3.85
TQ	>5 years	56	3.77	3.66	.65	3.57–3.97

Do Beliefs Differ by Occupational Role?

We compared preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers to assess whether professional role affected beliefs about giftedness myths. As shown in Table 8, all groups demonstrated moderate levels of myth rejection, with total RATIMAG means ranging from M = 3.48 (SD = 0.79) among in-service teachers to M = 3.78 (SD = 0.37) among university lecturers. Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed significant group differences on the Characteristics and Needs subscale, χ² (2) = 37.24, p < .001, η ² = .063 with university lecturers scoring significantly higher than both other groups. On the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale, χ² (2) = 17.92, p < .001, η ² = .028 preservice teachers scored higher than in-service teachers and lecturers. For the total RATIMAG score, χ² (2) = 7.93, p = .019, η ² = .011, university lecturers again outperformed in-service teachers. No significant differences were observed for the Assessment and Achievements subscale (χ² (2) = 5.90, p = .053, η ² = .007). These findings suggest that a professional role is associated with domain-specific differences in myth endorsement: university lecturers tend to hold more accurate beliefs about developmental aspects. At the same time, preservice teachers may be more attuned to social-emotional considerations.

Table 8.

Descriptive Statistics for RATIMAG Subscale Scores by Professional Role (Preservice Teachers, Teachers, Lecturers)

Subscale	Group	n	Median	Mean	SD	IQR
CN	Preservice	164	4.08	3.95	.81	3.83–4.41
	Teachers	291	4.16	3.90	.97	3.83–4.50
	University lecturers	107	4.41	4.39	.47	4.16–4.66
AA	Preservice	164	3.66	3.62	.90	3.33–4.00
	Teachers	291	3.66	3.44	1.07	3.00–4.33
	University lecturers	107	3.66	3.80	.72	3.33–4.33
PSE	Preservice	164	2.60	2.71	.81	2.20–3.20
	Teachers	291	2.40	2.55	.79	2.00–3.00
	University lecturers	107	2.20	2.31	.66	1.90–2.60
TQ	Preservice	164	3.70	3.59	.69	3.45–3.95
	Teachers	291	3.70	3.48	.79	3.40–3.92
	University lecturers	107	3.80	3.78	.37	3.60–4.02

Discussion

This study examined how myths about giftedness are distributed across different educator groups and demographic variables in Türkiye, using the newly developed and psychometrically validated RATIMAG instrument. As one of the first investigations to systematically assess prevalent misconceptions using a myth-specific scale across preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers, it offers a timely contribution to international gifted education research (e.g., Sak, 2011; Subotnik et al., 2011). The findings are significant because educators do not merely hold beliefs—they transmit them. Teachers influence how gifted students are identified and supported (Siegle et al., 2010), while university lecturers shape the conceptual frameworks of future educators (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011). If these professional groups endorse misconceptions, such as the belief that gifted learners thrive without support or that a single IQ score defines giftedness, such myths may become embedded in classroom practices and teacher training (Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Worrell, 2009). As the descriptive statistics show, participants moderately rejected myths; however, significant variation emerged based on age, educational level, departmental affiliation, training experience, and occupational role. In contrast, gender was not associated with variation in beliefs. The following sections discuss these findings in greater detail, considering how they align with or diverge from prior research and what they imply for teacher education and professional development.

Contrary to some earlier findings suggesting gender-based differences in educator attitudes toward giftedness (e.g., Jung & Lee, 2024; Özcan, 2016), our study found no significant gender differences in myth endorsement. This aligns with previous work by Hoogeveen et al. (2005) and Lassig (2009), who also reported non-significant or inconsistent gender effects. It may be that gender differences, when present, reflect culturally specific socialisation patterns or differences in professional development contexts—factors that may be less pronounced in our Turkish sample or adequately levelled by institutional training environments.

Age-related patterns, however, were more complex. Participants aged 33–40 endorsed significantly fewer myths on the Characteristics and Needs subscale than the youngest group (18–25), suggesting that greater life or teaching experience may contribute to more nuanced understandings of giftedness. At the same time, participants in the youngest group demonstrated comparatively lower myth endorsement on the Personality and Social-Emotional subscale than several older groups—a pattern also observed by Portešová et al. (2014). This apparent contradiction may reflect the differential emphases in teacher education curricula or generational shifts in gifted education discourse. While some studies suggest that older educators benefit from cumulative experience (Kaya, 2019; Krijan & Borić, 2015), others emphasize that younger educators may be more attuned to affective and inclusive perspectives due to recent pedagogical training (Cramond & Martin, 1987; Megay-Nespoli, 2001). Our findings indicate that age is not a unidirectional predictor of belief accuracy, but interacts with training exposure and possibly cultural narratives about giftedness.

This study, indicates a correlation between educational attainment and the accuracy of beliefs about giftedness. Participants with master’s or doctoral degrees were significantly less likely to endorse myths, particularly in the domains of characteristics, developmental needs, and social-emotional aspects, compared to those with lower levels of education. This finding aligns with previous research showing that advanced academic training often correlates with more profound and differentiated understandings of giftedness (Katırcı & Erdoğan, 2020; Sak, 2011). One likely explanation is that graduate-level education provides increased exposure to theoretical frameworks that emphasize the complexity and contextuality of gifted development (Renzulli, 1986; Ziegler, 2005). Furthermore, postgraduate education often fosters critical thinking and epistemic openness, which may help counteract simplistic or stereotypical conceptions (Heyder et al., 2018).

Interestingly, only one significant difference emerged when comparing participants across academic departments: those from primary education scored higher than those from the miscellaneous group on the Personality and Social-Emotional subscale. This limited departmental effect contrasts with earlier studies suggesting that educators trained in psychology, special education, or gifted education hold more accurate beliefs than those in general education (Opoku et al., 2023; Özcan, 2016). One possible explanation is that departmental influence may be diluted when curricular overlap exists or when the specific content of gifted education is absent from programs altogether. Alternatively, it may reflect institutional inconsistencies in how faculties embed giftedness-related topics. While educators in primary education may encounter more content related to child development, those in other departments may have less systematic engagement with affective or developmental frameworks.

Consistent with prior research, our findings highlight the importance of professional training in shaping educators’ beliefs about giftedness. Participants who had received training in gifted education were significantly less likely to endorse myths, particularly regarding the Characteristics and Needs of gifted individuals and their social-emotional development. Moreover, longer training duration (more than five years) was associated with even lower myth endorsement, especially on the Characteristics and Needs subscale, suggesting a cumulative benefit of extended engagement with the topic. These results echo those of McCoach and Siegle (2007) and Sözel (2019), who reported that educators exposed to structured learning opportunities or sustained practice with gifted students held more differentiated, evidence-aligned beliefs. In this study, the duration of education was examined through group comparisons; using a longitudinal pre-post design would allow us to obtain more generalizable results and better understand the effect of duration of education on myth beliefs.

Although the effect sizes observed in our study were modest, the pattern was consistent: increased exposure to gifted education, both in terms of whether training occurred and how long it lasted, was associated with more accurate beliefs. These results support calls for embedding gifted education more systematically within teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional development (Geake & Gross, 2008; Subotnik et al., 2011). Importantly, our findings suggest that short-term or one-off training may be insufficient to meaningfully shift deeply rooted misconceptions. Instead, longer-term engagement may be necessary to support conceptual change and foster a more sophisticated understanding of giftedness as a dynamic and context-sensitive construct (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). From a resource-theoretical perspective, belief revision may depend not only on exposure to new information but also on educators’ access to personal and contextual resources, such as critical reflection, domain-specific knowledge, and sustained social support (Veas et al., 2018).

Occupational role was a strong differentiator in participants’ beliefs about giftedness, with distinct patterns emerging across educator groups. University lecturers demonstrated the lowest overall endorsement of myths, particularly on the Characteristics and Needs subscale, suggesting a relatively advanced understanding of giftedness as a developmental construct. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that academic professionals—especially those involved in teacher training—are more likely to be familiar with contemporary theories of giftedness and less influenced by outdated or popularized notions (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Subotnik et al., 2011).

Interestingly, preservice teachers scored highest on the Personality and Social-Emotional Aspects subscale, outperforming in-service teachers and lecturers. This result may reflect a growing emphasis on emotional development and learner-centred pedagogy in current teacher education programs (Troxclair, 2013) or the influence of more recent curricular reforms that integrate inclusive perspectives. In contrast, in-service teachers consistently scored lower across domains, possibly indicating limited access to targeted professional development or entrenched instructional routines that reinforce traditional views (Cramond & Martin, 1987; Sözel, 2019).

Together, these findings suggest that occupational roles interact not only with knowledge access but also with training recency and professional context. While university lecturers may possess more abstract or theoretical knowledge, preservice teachers may be more receptive to current affective and inclusive frameworks. Meanwhile, between formal training and institutional practice, in-service teachers may benefit the most from updated, longitudinal interventions to unlearn persistent myths.

Taken together, the findings of this study underscore that, while myths about giftedness are moderately rejected across educator groups, significant variation persists, driven less by fixed personal attributes such as gender and more by dynamic, role-related and educational factors. The depth, duration, and context of professional exposure to gifted education shape beliefs. These patterns indicate the need for well-designed, evidence-based training programs integrated across all stages of the educator career cycle from initial teacher education to ongoing professional development. Moreover, the differences observed between preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and university lecturers highlight the importance of high standards in preparing teacher educators. Although this study was conducted in a single national context, its findings raise important international questions about the extent to which such myths are widespread in other educational systems and how cross-cultural differences in teacher preparation and cultural narratives may shape misconceptions. As Sternberg (2007) argues, conceptions of giftedness reflect broader societal values and institutional structures, and educators play a crucial role in reinforcing or challenging these norms. Addressing these gaps, within and beyond Türkiye, is essential for ensuring that gifted students are recognized, understood, and supported in ways consistent with contemporary research on giftedness.

The RATIMAG questionnaire used in our study reveals the myths held by educators. These myths should be interpreted in light of Gagne’s The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), Renzulli’s Three-Ring Concept of Giftedness, and Ziegler’s Actiotope Model. According to DMGT, individuals’ innate abilities can be developed through education and appropriate conditions. Educators’ myths about gifted individuals negatively impact this process. For example, myths such as that gifted individuals are a homogeneous group (Reis & Renzulli, 2009), that a single curriculum is sufficient for gifted individuals (Kaplan, 2009), that it is fair to teach all students at the same way (Cooper, 2009), and that the gifted constitute 3% or 5% of the population (Gentry, 2009). These myths inhibit the talent development process emphasized in DMGT, the interaction of superior intelligence, above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment in Renzulli’s Three-Ring Concept of Giftedness, and the adaptive interaction between giftedness, the individual, and their environment over time in Ziegler’s Actiotope Model.

Our findings indicate that myths about gifted individuals are prevalent among groups in Türkiye. In this case, it can be said that the failure to make a clear distinction between the concepts of “giftedness” and “talent” as emphasized in Gagné (2004) “The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT),” and instead expressing them with the same concept has led to shortcomings in teacher training and contributed to the spread of myths in the Türkiye sample. Indeed, the definition of gifted individuals in Türkiye is persons who exhibit significant differences from their peers in the same age group (Sak, 2007). This approach differs from identification methods in the Anglo-American sample. In the United States, policies vary by state; however, under the No Child Left Behind Act, gifted individuals are identified as those with high potential for achievement in specific academic areas, including superior ability, intelligence, and creativity (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002; Alsuwailimi, 2024).

Furthermore, in the European context, Finland has no regulations that define giftedness. They accept individual differences and allow schools to be designed according to the age and abilities of the students (Reid & Boettger, 2015). Moreover, in the Asian context, there is no definitive definition of giftedness in Malaysia. However, despite the disadvantage that academic achievement is the primary requirement at PERMATApintar High School, which is the first fully residential school for gifted students, the school environment is designed to incorporate the DMGT model (Yassin et al., 2012).

To sum up, our findings demonstrate the applicability of the DMGT, the Three-Ring Model, and the Actiope Model in the Turkish context. Our research shows that a lack of service-oriented training and theoretical knowledge leads teachers to embrace myths, which in turn hinder the development of students’ abilities. In the Turkish sample, as emphasized in the DMGT, the concepts of “giftedness” and “talent” should be redefined, with a clear distinction between them. The needs of gifted individuals should be identified, and in-service training should be provided to current teachers. Preservice teachers should be provided with more information about gifted individuals and their needs before they graduate and begin their careers. Our research should be evaluated as demonstrating the need for educational interventions are needed in the education of gifted individuals in Türkiye, and appropriate measures should be taken accordingly.

Conclusion

This study provides new insights into how myths about giftedness are distributed across different educator roles and demographic backgrounds in Türkiye. Using a validated, myth-specific instrument across a large and diverse sample offers robust evidence that beliefs about giftedness are not uniformly held, even among professional educators. Although gender was not a differentiating factor, beliefs about giftedness were associated with age, educational attainment, academic department, training experience, and occupational role. Importantly, our findings underscore that professional training, particularly when sustained over time, is critical in reducing misconceptions, especially in giftedness’s developmental and social-emotional domains.

The results speak to a broader need for systemic reform: to ensure that myths about giftedness are not perpetuated in teacher education programs, in-service training, or university instruction. Thus, we call for the development and implementation of rigorous, research-based training standards in gifted education at all levels of professional training.

Though our findings are grounded in the Turkish educational context, they also raise international questions about the prevalence and persistence of myths in other countries. Cross-national research is needed to better understand the cultural and institutional factors that shape educators’ beliefs about giftedness worldwide.

Limitations and Further Directions

While this study provides important insights into educators’ beliefs about giftedness, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, participants were recruited through convenience sampling within existing professional and institutional networks, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The occupational groups also varied in size, with notably fewer university lecturers than preservice and in-service teachers. These unequal group sizes may have influenced the power and stability of between-group comparisons. In addition, differences in sample size across departments (e.g., number of participants in the gifted education (n = 36) may have biased the results.

Second, non-parametric statistical tests were used throughout the analysis due to non-normal data distributions. While these tests are robust, they are generally less sensitive to detecting subtle effects than parametric alternatives. Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design precludes any conclusions about the developmental trajectory or long-term change in educator beliefs. Longitudinal studies would be needed to assess how beliefs evolve over time or in response to interventions.

Third, all data were based on self-reports, which may be influenced by social desirability, particularly in a context where participants know the “correct” stance on common myths. Future research may benefit from triangulating self-reports with qualitative interviews or classroom observations to better understand how beliefs translate into practice.

Fourth, while the RATIMAG instrument offers a focused and psychometrically validated assessment of myth endorsement, it does not capture the full range of knowledge, pedagogical skills, or practical responses related to gifted education. Expanding future measures to include application-oriented or case-based components could provide a more holistic view.

In addition, no correction for alpha error inflation was applied despite the number of statistical comparisons conducted. This decision was made in light of the study’s exploratory character, where the primary goal was to identify patterns in belief endorsement across diverse educator groups. Applying a conservative correction, such as the Bonferroni correction, in this context would have substantially increased the risk of Type II errors, potentially obscuring practically meaningful group differences. We complemented significance testing with effect size estimates and descriptive statistics to mitigate overinterpretation. Nevertheless, future confirmatory studies should consider using adjusted alpha levels to more conservatively control for multiple testing.

Finally, the study was conducted entirely within the Turkish education system. Although Türkiye presents a culturally rich and policy-relevant setting, national traditions, institutional structures, and sociocultural narratives also shape beliefs about giftedness. Future research should explore how myths about giftedness vary across countries, using the RATIMAG or comparable instruments in cross-cultural designs.

Taken together, these limitations offer productive avenues for future inquiry. Comparative international research, longitudinal intervention studies, and multi-method assessments will be crucial for building a more nuanced, globally informed understanding of how myths about giftedness emerge, persist, and can ultimately be transformed through high-quality educator preparation.

Footnotes

Merve Irem Ercan

Albert Ziegler

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Merve Irem Ercan was supported by the Study Abroad Postgraduate Education Scholarship (YLSY) awarded by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Merve Irem Ercan, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. She holds a Master’s degree in Special and Inclusive Education and researchers giftedness, teacher beliefs, and the development of assessment tools in gifted education. As part of her doctoral work, she is engaged in international projects examining misconceptions about giftedness and strategies for improving teacher education in this field. She is the lead author of the Rapid Assessment Test of Individual Misconceptions About Giftedness (RATIMAG). She has published in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to gifted identification and professional development for educators. Affiliation: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Email: merveirem.ercan@fau.de

Prof. Dr. Albert Ziegler, PhD, is Chair Professor of Educational Psychology and Research on Excellence at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. He is the Founding Director of the Statewide Counseling and Research Center for the Gifted. He has published approximately 450 books, chapters, and articles in the fields of talent development and educational psychology. He developed the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, which promotes a systemic conception of giftedness. In his research, his main interests are learning resources and effective learning environments, self-regulated learning, mentoring, and gifted identification. He is the immediate past Vice President of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA), and the Founding Chairman of the European Talent Support Network (ETSN). In 2017, he was appointed Director of the World Giftedness Center in Dubai. Affiliation: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Email: albert.ziegler@fau.de

References

Alsuwailimi

M. S.

(2024). Identification of gifted students in different global contexts: Literature review. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 17(60), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.21608/sero.2024.344238

Asberger

Thomm

Bauer

(2021). On predictors of misconceptions about educational topics: A case of topic specificity. PLoS One, 16(12), Article 0259878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259878

Asbury

Roloff

Carstensen

Guill

Klusmann

(2023). Investigating preservice teachers’ field-specific ability beliefs: Do they believe innate talent is essential for success in their subject? Teaching and Teacher Education, 136(2023), 1–10, 104367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104367

Baumert

Kunter

(2013). The COACTIV model of teachers' professional competence. In Kunter

Baumert

Blum

Klussman

Blum

Klusmann

Krauss

Neubrand

(Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (8, pp. 25–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_2

Cooper

C. R.

(2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach children the same way. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346947

Cramond

Martin

C. E.

(1987). In service and preservice teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100103

Demirel

Sak

(2011). Talent hierarchy: A research study on the social value of talent types. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 1(1), 61–76.

Diery

(2021). Teacher educators as central agents in an evidence-based practice agenda: An empirical study on their attitudes, professional challenges, and possible solutions. Doctoral Dissertation, Technischen Universität München.

Diery

Vogel

Knogler

Seidel

(2020). Evidence-based practice in higher education: Teacher educators' attitudes, challenges, and uses. Frontiers in Education, 62(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00062

10.

Dweck

C. S.

Yeager

D. S.

(2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166

11.

El Khoury

Al-Hroub

(2018). Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78592-9

12.

Ercan

M. I.

Ziegler

(2025). Development and validation of the rapid assessment test of individual misconceptions about giftedness (RATIMAG). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 67(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.2440/001-0019

13.

Fives

Buehl

M. M.

(2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers`beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In Harris

K. R.

Graham

Urdan

Graham

Royer

J. M.

Zeidner

(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (Vol. 2, pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019

14.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682

15.

Gagné

(2018). Attitudes toward gifted education: Retrospective and prospective update. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 60(1), 403–428. https://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/fileadmin/Redaktion/Journale/ptam-2018-4/02_PTAM_Q4_Gagne.pdf.

16.

Gagné

Nadeau

(1985). Dimensions of attitudes toward giftedness. In Roldan

A. H.

(Ed.), Gifted and talented children, youth and adult: Their social perspective and culture (pp. 148–170). Trillium Press.

17.

Geake

J. G.

Gross

M. U.

(2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704

18.

Gee

J. P.

(2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Routledge.

19.

Gentry

(2009). Myth 11: A comprehensive continuum of gifted education and talent development services: Discovering, developing, and enhancing young people`s gifts and talents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346937

20.

Georgiou

Mok

S. Y.

Fischer

Vermunt

J. D.

Seidel

(2020). Evidence-based practice in teacher education: The mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs and practical knowledge. Frontiers in Education, 5, 559192. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.559192

21.

Heathwood

(2014). Subjective theories of well-being. In Eggleston

Miller

D. E.

(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism (pp. 199–219). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cco9781139096737.011

22.

Heyder

Bergold

Steinmayr

(2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493

23.

Heyder

Südkamp

Steinmayr

(2020). How are teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion related to the social-emotional school experiences of students with and without special educational needs? Learning and Individual Differences, 77, 1–11, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101776

24.

Hoogeveen

Hell

J. G.

Verhoeven

(2005). Teacher attitudes toward academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900103

25.

Howe

L. C.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600

26.

Jung

J. Y.

Lee

(2024). Teacher attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education: The typologies of attitudes and their predictors. Exceptional Children, 91(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241271135

27.

Kaplan

S. N.

(2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 257–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346934

28.

Katırcı

Erdoğan

D. G.

(2020). Determination of attitudes and awareness levels of classroom teachers for gifted students according to some demographic variables. Journal of Family, Counseling and Education, 5(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.32568/jfce.710831

29.

Kaya

N. G.

(2019). Determination of attitudes and opinions of classroom teachers about the education of gifted students. Education and Science, 44(199), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7978

30.

Klug

Hamader

K. C.

Rogl

(2025). Do student teachers have domain-specific beliefs about talent? An intra- and inter-individual comparison. Education Sciences, 15(8), 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081022

31.

König

(2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs: Current and future research. In König

(Ed.), Teachers' pedagogical beliefs. Definition and operationalisation, connections to knowledge and performance, development and change (pp. 7–14). Waxxman. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:21030

32.

Krijan

I. P.

Borić

(2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and differences in attitudes regarding the years of teaching. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(1), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i0.1490

33.

Laschke

(2013). Effects of future mathematics teachers´ affective, cognitive and socio-demographic characteristics on their knowledge at the end of the teacher education in Germany and Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 895–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9423-y

34.

Laschke

Blömeke

(2013). Teacher education and development study: Learning to teach mathematics (TEDS-M). Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Waxmann.

35.

Lassig

C. J.

(2009). Teachers' attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0012

36.

Macdonald

Germine

Anderson

Christodoulou

McGrath

L. M.

(2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16, 1314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314

37.

Maggioni

Parkinson

(2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9081-8

38.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719

39.

Megay-Nespoli

(2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554092

40.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı . (1974). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Regulations about children with special needs].

41.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı . (2006). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [The policy of special education].

42.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı . (2013). Özel yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı (2013-2017) [Strategic Plan on Gifted Education (2013-2017)].

43.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 . (2002). https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1

44.

Opoku

M. P.

Nketsia

Amponteng

Mprah

W. K.

Kumi

E. O.

(2023). Attitudes and self-efficacy of preservice teachers toward teaching gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231162673

45.

Özcan

(2016). Predictions and attitudes towards giftedness and gifted education. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(1-2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2016/15.01-2.14

46.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307

47.

Patterson

M. M.

Kravchenko

Chen-Bouck

Kelley

J. A.

(2016). General and domain-specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice and practicing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59(2016), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.004

48.

Plunkett

Kronborg

(2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 1(2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587

49.

Portešová

Š.

Budíková

Juhová

(2014). Myths about gifted learners from the perspective of teachers. The New Educational Review, 37(3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.14.37.3.18

50.

Posner

G. J.

Strike

K. A.

Hewson

P. W.

Gertzog

W. A.

(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207

51.

Reid

Boettger

(2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.18355/PG.2015.4.2.158-171

52.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. 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(4), 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346824

53.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge University Press.

54.

Richardson

(1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). Macmillan.

55.

Robinson

N. M.

Zigler

Gallagher

J. J.

(2000). Two tails of the normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study of mental retardation and giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(12), 1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.12.1413

56.

Rosenthal

Jacobson

(1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211

57.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Hattie

J. A.

(2024). The powerful impact of teacher expectations: A narrative review. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 55(2), 343–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2393296

58.

Sak

(2007). Giftedness and the Turkish culture. In Phillipson

S. N.

McCann

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (1st ed., pp. 283–310). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003064435-10

59.

Sak

(2011). Prevalence of misconceptions, dogmas, and popular views about giftedness and intelligence: A case from Turkey. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.622942

60.

Sak

(2023). Identification and education of students with gifts and talents based on the fuzzy conception of giftedness. Education Sciences, 13(6), 562–661. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060562

61.

Sak

Ayas

M. B.

Sezerel

B. B.

Opengin

Ozdemir

N. N.

Gurbuz

S. D.

(2015). Gifted and talented education in Turkey: Critics and prospects. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(2), 110–132.

62.

Shulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 53(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

63.

Siegel

S. T.

(2025). Educational myths debunked. Insights into the development, implementation, and evaluation of a course for university faculty. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 20(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.21240/zfhe/20-1/03

64.

Siegle

Moore

Mann

R. L.

Wilson

H. 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(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300303

65.

Smith

(2020). Expansive learning for teacher educators-the story of the Norwegian national research school in teacher education (NAFOL). Frontiers in Education, 5, 43. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00043

66.

Sözel

H. K.

(2019). Evaluation of teachers' instructional attitudes of talented individuals. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty (AUJEF), 3(1), 40–54.

67.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29(3), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554404

68.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrel

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Association for Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

69.

Torrijos-Muelas

González-Víllora

Bodoque-Osma

A. R.

(2021). The persistence of neuromyths in the educational settings: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–18, 591923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923

70.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2009). Guest tutorial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346950

71.

Troxclair

D. A.

(2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.740603

72.

Uzunboylu

Akcamete

Sarp

Demirok

(2024). Evaluation of primary school teachers’ attitudes towards gifted children and their education. South African Journal of Education, 44(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v44n4a2555

73.

Veas

Castejón

J.-L.

O'Reilly

Ziegler

(2018). Mediation analysis of the relationship between educational capital, learning capital, and underachievement among gifted secondary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218799436

74.

Worrell

F. C.

(2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346828

75.

Yassin

S. F.

Ishak

N. M.

Yunus

M. M.

Majid

R. A.

(2012). The identification of gifted and talented students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55(2012), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.540

76.

Ziegler

(2005). The Actiotope model of giftedness. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.024

77.

Ziegler

Stoeger

(2017). Systemic gifted education. A theoretical introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217705713

Who Believes the Myths? Educator Misconceptions About Giftedness Across Roles,Training,and Experience

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Related Scales Thoughout the Literature

The Current Research

Research Aim and Questions

Main Research Question

Sub-Questions

Method

Research Design

Participants

Instrument

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Do Beliefs About Giftedness Myths Vary by Gender?

Are There Differences in Myth Endorsement Across Age Groups?

Does Educational Attainment Predict Beliefs About Giftedness Myths?

Do Participants’ Academic Departments Influence Myth Beliefs?

Do Participants with Training in Gifted Education Differ in Their Beliefs?

Does Training Duration Influence Myth Beliefs?

Do Beliefs Differ by Occupational Role?

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations and Further Directions

Footnotes

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Author Biographies

References