The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

undertaking the unit, with many comments
demonstrating that the supportive environment
and fostering of opportunities for self-reflection,
Literature Review
The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
contributed positively to the critical examination
of preconceived opinions and beliefs, allowing
for misconceptions to be overcome.
Research has illustrated that gifted or highly able students are generally cognitively and
affectively more advanced than their age peers (Knopfelmacher & Kronborg, 2003; Maker &
Schiever, 2010; Reis, 2001; VanTassel-Baska, 1998) with a concomitant difference in educational
needs. In particular these students have been found to require substantially differentiated learning
environments with curriculum and teaching that provides appropriate pace, depth and breadth, as
well as opportunities for collaboration with like-minded peers (Adams & Pierce, 2004;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; Knopfelmacher & Kronborg, 2003; Kronborg & Plunkett, 2006; Maker &
Schiever, 2010; VanTassel-Baska, 1998; Reis, 2001). Within Australia a range of school programs
and provisions have been developed in an attempt to meet the needs of gifted students (Plunkett &
Kronborg, 2007). Research illustrates the benefits of ability grouping, particularly when combined
with a differentiated curriculum delivered at an appropriate level and pace with the conceptual
complexity and abstraction that matches students’ abilities (Burney, 2008; Feldhusen & Moon, 1992;
Kronborg & Plunkett, 2006; Kronborg, Plunkett, Kelly & Urquart, 2008; Kulik, 2003; Neihart, 2007;
Rogers 2007; Tomlinson 2004; VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007; Wigfield, Eccles & Rodriguez,
2009).
Such provisions are not necessary or suitable for all learners (Gold, 1965), so an awareness
of the learning needs of gifted students on the part of the teacher would appear to be crucial
(Baldwin, 1993; Knopfelmacher & Kronborg, 2003; Plunkett, 2000; Sisk, 1975; Vialle & Quigley,
2002). In particular, teachers have been found to significantly influence gifted students reaching
their potential (Feldhusen, 1997; Mills, 2003; Smith & Chan, 1996); are critical for providing student
support (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 1993); are needed to facilitate significant learning (Sisk, 1975)
and have a strong and lasting influence over gifted students (Smith & Chan, 1996).
Yet the quality of teacher involvement is somewhat dependent on the opinions that teachers
hold and the concomitant attitudes they have developed in relation to gifted students. Davis and
Rimm (2004) argue that teacher attitudes are of such importance that examining them should be the
first step before any involvement in program development. Although the relationship between
attitudes and behaviours is not straightforward (Bohner & Wanke, 2002), there is some evidence that
teacher attitudes inform the development of an individual philosophy of education, which then
impacts on the way in which teachers structure curriculum and instruction (Adams & Pierce, 2004;
Goodson, 1992; Hativa, Barak & Simi, 2001; Kane, Sandretto & Heath, 2002).
There appears to be a substantive body of research supporting the difference that can be
made to teacher attitudes through dedicated study of giftedness (Plunkett, 2002). Some studies do
not differentiate between professional development and university study and in fact the two are often
treated singularly but the message is clear that professional learning about giftedness does make a
difference. Professional learning experiences have been found to improve teachers’ attitudes toward
the gifted and their ability to meet these students’ needs (Bangel, Moon & Capobianco, 2010;
Cashion & Sullenger, 2000; Dixon, 2006; Geake & Gross, 2008; Goodnough, 2001; Gubbins, 2008;
Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Lassig, 2009; Plunkett, 2002). Interestingly, Guskey (2000) argues that
notable improvements in teacher attitudes and practices “almost never take place in the absence of
professional development” (p. 4). This supports other studies that have found that professional
learning has a positive impact on a teacher’s ability to provide effective education for gifted students
(Croft, 2003; Kent, 2004; Robinson & Kolloff, 2006; VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007).
The need for teacher education relating to giftedness has been formally acknowledged in
Australia since the second Australian Senate Inquiry into the Education of Gifted Children (2001)
which concluded “…that better teacher training and better curriculum support are essential to dispel
myths about giftedness, and to ensure that teachers have the skills to differentiate the curriculum for
gifted children” (Senate References Committee, 2001, p.7). In the USA, a similar message has been
conveyed in a paper on Teacher Education Standards for the field of Gifted Education, where
VanTassel-Baska and Johnsen (2007) proposed that educators of the gifted should improve their
32 Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.