The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
suggesting that it could apply to some gifted children but not others. Only five teachers accepted the
myth without question.
While the majority of the teachers in the current study did not subscribe to the myth, in some
cases, it was those with the personal experience of giftedness and the greatest insight into the
socioemotional characteristics of gifted students who were more likely to agree with it. Conversely,
there were many teachers with low levels of knowledge about social and emotional characteristics of
gifted students who nevertheless rejected the myth entirely.
While Bain, Choate and Bliss (2006) found considerable support for the myth among
education undergraduates, the participants in the current study were practising teachers, many of
whom were drawing on years of experience as an educator. However, both studies might suggest
that knowledge and understanding do not necessarily go hand in hand. Where the undergraduates
were able to display accurate perceptions regarding some aspects of gifted students’
socioemotional development, they still held on to the misconception that gifted students were more
at risk socially and emotionally. Similarly, in this current study, there was a minority of teachers who
had considerable insight into the social and emotional characteristics of gifted students but who still
subscribed to the myth. Although the literature (Cross, 1997; Neihart, 1999; Robinson et al. 2002)
tells us that it is the quality of the educational ‘fit’ that has more impact on social and emotional
development of gifted students than the affective characteristics themselves, it seems that in the
minds of some of these participants it is hard to separate the two.
However, other participants referred to the myth as a stereotype, and recognised that the
educational fit was important in determining the gifted students’ well-being. In particular, Ursula from
Kingfisher Independent School seemed to share the recognition that, while gifted children often
possess personality characteristics that have the potential to bring them into conflict with their
environment, it is the responses to those characteristics and how well the environment matches their
needs that may cause problems (Clark, 2008; Cross, 1997; Neihart, 1998).
I think it’s not the giftedness that would cause that. I think it’s the way the giftedness may be
perceived by others or may be perceived by their own families. (Ursula)
Several teachers suggested that such a misconception could arise because teachers tended
to remember negative experiences more than positive ones. Amanda and Byron, in particular,
suggested that teachers tended to spend more time discussing students who had problems rather
than those who were coping well. This phenomenon has previously been reported in the literature
(Gagné & Gagnier, 2004; Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2005) and seems to be one reasonable
explanation for how the myth has arisen. A teacher in the Dutch study admitted that he only noticed
the accelerated students with problems, not the successful accelerants who were functioning well
(Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2005), while Gagné and Gagnier (2004) suggested that
opponents of early entry watched very carefully for the effects of acceleration, ready to highlight any
maladjustment as proof that such strategies were dangerous.
Several teachers expressed the opinion that parents had more of a role to play in fostering
healthy social and emotional development among students than teachers did, pointing out that
children were only at school for five hours a day and there did not need to be a school solution for
every concern. This view also has support in the literature, with Chessor and Whitton (2008, p. 15)
suggesting that ‘parenting is more important than teaching in dealing with social and emotional
problems.’ Similarly, Nancy, at Black Swan State School, also recognised the importance of a
supportive home environment in minimising any possible socioemotional issues, identifying a parallel
with special education.
I don’t know if they’re more at risk than anyone else, but I think that lack of identification can
lead to a greater risk, because if there’s no understanding at home, if there’s no understanding
at school, then that’s – they can be ... but that’s no more than a child who hasn’t been
identified with a disability. (Nancy)
Another perspective shared by some of the teachers was that a child’s giftedness would
actually have the effect of limiting their possibility for social and emotional problems. It was
suggested that a gifted student’s greater maturity coupled with high intelligence gave them an
advantage in social situations as they know how to play the game to fit in (Charlotte). Although both
Charlotte and Frances gave similar examples in describing how gifted children are able to fit in
socially and therefore not likely to suffer from social or emotional problems, Neihart (1998) would
suggest that this demonstrates how gifted children learn to give up some of their true self in
exchange for social acceptance. This practice may promote social well-being but could also lead to
14 Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.