The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

involvement is a motivational state applied when individuals seek to demonstrate ability to others
and leads to a negative pattern of affect, cognition, and behavior, while task involvement is a
motivational state when individuals do not seek to demonstrate their ability to others and it is related
to positive achievement-relevant affect, cognition, and behavior.
Although the positive effects of mastery goals were predominant in the research related to
the goal construct, Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996) noticed that research on lack of attention to the
potential positive, adaptive behaviors were led by the performance approach goals, and thus, they
proposed a trichotomy of the performance goal construct, by keeping the mastery goal intact as
introduced by Dweck and by dichotomizing the performance goal into two independent ones,
namely a potentially adaptive performance goal, where students seek to receive recognition by
others, and a maladaptive performance avoidance goal, where students try not to fail. In later work
Elliot (Elliot, 1999) proposed a 2X2 model of the achievement goal with a dichotomization of the
mastery goal construct into a mastery approach goal and a mastery avoidance goal. Mastery–
approach goals were described as a strive to develop one’s skills and abilities, advance one’s
learning, understand material, or master a task, while mastery–avoidance goals as a strive to avoid
losing one’s skills and abilities (Elliot, 2005). This categorization led to the reconceptualization of
goals and motives in a less expansive way (Thrash & Hurst, 2008) and human motivation was
described under the “approach–avoidance” distinction defined as follows: “Approach motivation
may be defined as the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior toward, positive
stimuli (objects, events, possibilities), whereas avoidance motivation may be defined as the
energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior away from, negative stimuli (objects, events,
possibilities)”( Elliot, 2008, p. 8).
Research on the goal orientation of high achieving students is rather variable. Some studies
have shown that gifted students prefer learning or task involvement goals over performance ego
involvement goals (Clinkenbeard, 1989; Schunk & Swartz, 1993), as well as self referenced task
information than social comparison (Ruble & Flett, 1988), yet there is evidence that suggests that
high- achieving students spent more time on normative comparison information than low-achieving
students in the control group (Butler, 1992). Such findings have led to the conclusion Dai, Moon, &
Feldhusen (1998) that, especially for talented people, Elliot’s 2x2 model (Elliot, 1999) is preferable by
stating “it is almost inconceivable that so many talented people opt to undertake many years of hard,
sometimes tedious, work in professional training programs without some prospect of financial and
status rewards in mind” (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen,1998, p. 53).
Before proceeding to the (limited) literature concerned with gifted students, let us take a brief
look at the Greek educational system. The Greek system of compulsory education consists of: one
year of kindergarten, six years of elementary and three years of secondary school (Gymnasium).
Then, students can choose between general and vocational post-compulsory education (general or
vocational Lyceum). The overwhelming majority of Greek students choose the general postcompulsory
education (Eurydice/Eurybase, 2008/9). The Greek educational system (in accordance
with the overall political system) has a hierarchical structure with a top down direction in decision
making (Saiti, 2009), and thus, it constitutes a closed system, not easily amenable to change and
innovation (Alahiotis & Karatzia-Stavlioti, 2006; Ifanti, 2007; OECD, 1994).
At the summit of the pyramid is the Ministry of Education, which oversees the administration
of all schools in the country through its Central and Regional Services (Eurydice/ Eurybase, 2008/9).
In such an educational system, it might be assumed that any changes introduced by the Ministry of
Education would be implemented in schools. However, the lack of long term planning, the frequent
change of ministers of education with subsequent changes in policies as well as political
administrators, plus a lack of a coherent theoretical framework of any innovations (Kassotakis, 2010;
Saiti, 2009) have resulted in the formation and implementation of traditional and intuitive implicit
theories by Greek teachers in the classroom.
In this framework, gifted education in Greece is (more or less) nonexistent. Although in the
law for special education there is a mention for the recognition of “children who have one or more
intellectual abilities and talents developed to a much higher degree than the expected for their peer
group” as children with special needs, and a “Guide for the students with exceptional abilities and
talents” has been published since 2004. In reality, there are no accepted identification methods, no
special schools for the gifted, no special classes, no acceleration provisions, and, more important,
no provisions for curriculum differentiation for the integrated education of the gifted and talented,
since the centrally designed National Curriculum and teachers’ traditional intuitive implicit theories
promote an “one for all” instruction.
Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011. 133