This article was downloaded by: [University of Wollongong]

On: 26 March 2015, At: 05:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

High Ability Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Primary school teachers' criteria for

the identification of gifted pupils
a

Martina EndepohlsUlpe & Heike Ruf

Institut fr Psychologie , Universitt KoblenzLandau , Germany

Published online: 19 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Martina EndepohlsUlpe & Heike Ruf (2006) Primary school teachers'
criteria for the identification of gifted pupils, High Ability Studies, 16:02, 219-228, DOI:
10.1080/13598130600618140
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

High Ability Studies

Vol. 16, No. 2, December 2005, pp. 219228

Primary school teachers criteria for

the identification of gifted pupils
Martina Endepohls-Ulpe* and Heike Ruf

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Institut fur Psychologie, Universitat Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Which are the characteristics leading teachers to judge a child as gifted? To answer this question
384 German primary school teachers were asked to describe a gifted child in their own words as
well as on a 90 item rating scale. A total of 192 teachers, who declared they had never instructed a
gifted child, described a fictitious child; the other teachers described a child they had instructed.
Only in a small group of persons in the two subsamples of German primary school teachers do the
results show evidence of negative stereotypes concerning gifted children. Furthermore, the results
point to the fact that gifted underachievers, children with low achievement motivation and gifted
girls are at risk to be overlooked.

Issue and conception of the study

If even scientists seem to have difficulties finding a consensual answer to the
question of what giftedness is and what the criteria for identification of gifted persons
are (Ziegler & Heller, 2000), it is not an astonishing fact that laymen stick to exotic
or at least unrealistic images of giftedness (Winner, 1996).
Which images of the characteristics of highly gifted pupils do teachers have? Are
the criteria they apply for the identification of gifted pupils more realistic than those
of laymen due to their professional approach to the topic?
Former studies on teachers identification criteria for giftedness show performance
in school as a central factor for judging a pupil as gifted (Hany, 1991; Rost &
Hanses, 1997). But characteristics and behaviour, which can be subsumed under the
term intelligence as well as features which are to be classified into the ranges of
creativity and achievement motivation also seem to be relevant for the judgements
(Dahme & Eggers, 1988; Hunsaker, 1994; Sahin & Duzen, 1994; Hany, 1995,
1997; Endepohls-Ulpe, 2003, 2004).
Considering the current state of research, in the end, one can notice that some
issues remain unclear. Depending on the method of data collectionopen-ended
*Corresponding author. Institut fur Psychologie, Universitat Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz,
Universitatsstrae 1, 56075 Koblenz, Germany. Email: endepohl@uni-koblenz.de
ISSN 1359-8139 (print)/ISSN 1469-834X (online)/05/020219-10
# 2005 European Council for High Ability
DOI: 10.1080/13598130600618140

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

220 M. Endepohls-Ulpe and H. Ruf

questions vs. rating scale descriptionscontradictory results are gained concerning
the relevance of social behaviour as a criterion for identification. When analysing free
descriptions of gifted children negative (Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992) or
extremely positive (Persson, 1998) aspects of social behaviour appeared as central
elements of the interviewees concepts of giftedness, whereas social behaviour was of
no importance when analysing rating scale descriptions (Busse et al., 1986a,b;
Dahme & Eggers, 1988). Dahme and Eggers (1988) did not even find any
importance of features from the field of social behaviour in open-ended descriptions
of gifted pupils done by secondary school teachers. Nevertheless, it remains unclear
in the latter study what is hidden in the high number of answers that could not be
classified.
In the few studies that compare the statements of teachers with experience and
without experience in teaching gifted children, discrepancies concerning the
opinions about social behaviour and the assumed connection of intelligence,
motivation and achievement at school can be found between the two groups.
Teachers with experience in teaching gifted children seem to see those children in a
more realistic way (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2003) and describe them in an even more
positive and more concise manner (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2004) than do teachers without
experience.
Particularly in the primary school sector, there is little data on the topic, and the
results of studies available differ from the results of studies conducted in the
secondary school sector. Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992), for example, found
features from the field of social behaviour appearing as relevant criteria for the
identification of gifted children in their whole sample, but teachers from the primary
school sector listed more negative features than teachers from the secondary school
level did.
In order to clarify some of the deficits mentioned above the aim of the present
study was to find the answer to the following questions:
1. Which are the criteria that primary school teachers apply for the
identification of gifted pupils when they give them independently of
predetermined rating scales?
2. Are there any differences between the free descriptions given by teachers who
have already taught a gifted child and those given by teachers who have to
make their judgment merely on the basis of stereotypical images?
3. Are there any differences between the results of open-ended questions and
the results of rating scale descriptions?

Method
Sample and measuring instrument
The sample consisted of 384 teachers from randomly chosen German primary
schools, 317 female, 67 male, mean age 43 years. As a measuring instrument, a

Primary school teachers criteria 221

questionnaire developed by Busse et al. (1986a,b) and Dahme and Eggers (1988),
adapted for the primary school sector, was used. The questionnaire included two
open-ended questions and a list of 90 five-step Likert items concerning the
characteristics of highly gifted pupils. The teachers either had to describe a child
they had taught and identified as gifted or alternatively had to state which criteria
applied to a gifted child in their opinion.

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Analysis of data
The open-ended questions were subjected to a content analysis. In a first step, the
authors analysed the answers to the open-ended questions independently, and in a
second step, they discussed occurring discrepancies until an agreement was reached.
Methodical details and results of the analysis of the rating scale descriptions have
already been published (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2003, 2004).
Results
A total of 192 of the interviewees described their idea of a gifted child; 192 described
a child they had taught and identified as gifted. Sixty of the children identified as
highly gifted were female, 132 were male.
Indicators for giftedness mentioned by teachers with and without experience in teaching a
gifted child

N
N
N

On the whole, 2447 different features were mentioned; the main emphasis (41%)
in the whole sample was put on features related to the field of cognition (see
Table 1).
Features from the field of motivation were also frequently mentioned (33%) in the
total sample.
Features from the field of social behaviour and other personality traits played a
minor role.
Table 1. Frequency of the main categories

Category

Physical maturity
Cognitive features
Motivational features
Social behaviour
Personality traits

Total

With experience

Without
experience

2447
14
1012
811
380
230

100
0.6
41.4
33.1
15.5
9.4

1069
7
397
405
172
88

100
0.7
37.1
37.9
16.1
8.2

1378
7
615
406
208
142

100
0.5
44.6
29.5
15.1
10.3

p* U-test

n.s.
,0.001
n.s.
n.s.
,0.05

222 M. Endepohls-Ulpe and H. Ruf

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Features from the field of physical maturity were rarely mentioned.

Concerning the cognitive area, the features that were mentioned the most frequently
were a good intellectual grasp on the one hand and features related to the childs
thinking or processing capacity on the other hand (see Table 2). Good results at
school and intelligence in general were also frequently mentioned, as well as
creativity and verbal skills (vocabulary, articulateness, elaboration of language use),
early reading and writing abilities and a good general knowledge.
Concerning the field of motivation, the interviewees mainly named a thirst for
knowledge, an interest in extracurricular subjects, the fact that the child is bored
when s/he does not get any challenging tasks and the ability to work independently
(see Table 3).
Concerning the field of social behaviour, only a few features were named by more
than 10% of one of the subsamples: being a loner or outsider, a lack of discipline and
general deficits in social behaviour (see Table 4).
Discrepancies between the answers of teachers with and without experience in teaching gifted
children (see Table 14)

The teachers with experience in teaching a gifted child named significantly more
cognitive features as criteria for identification than teachers without experience.
Table 2. Cognitive features mentioned by more than 10% of one subsample
Teachers with
experience

Good intellectual grasp

Good memory
Intellectual power
Ability to recognise logical
connections and relations
Ability to transfer learning
Problem solving abilities
Logical reasoning
Good results at school
Intelligence
Large vocabulary
Articulateness
Excelling peers concerning
elaboration of language use
Creative/imaginative
Early reading and writing
abilities
Good general knowledge

Teachers without
experience

p*

n5192

n5192

71
17
18
22

37.0
8.9
9.4
11.5

78
34
24
30

40.6
17.7
12.5
15.6

n.s.
,0.05
,0.05
n.s.

17
16
22
36
26
5
14
7

8.9
8.3
11.5
18.8
13.5
2.6
7.3
3.6

32
26
27
27
23
25
41
21

16.7
13.5
14.5
14.1
12.0
13.0
21.4
10.9

,0.05
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
,0.001
,0.001
,0.01

22
15

11.5
7.8

23
45

12.0
23.4

n.s.
,0.001

25

13.0

46

24.0

,0.01

*Level of significance of x2 test (Pearson): category * experience in teaching a gifted child.

Primary school teachers criteria 223

Table 3. Motivational features mentioned by more than 10% of one subsample

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Teachers without
experience

Thirst for knowledge

Interest in extracurricular
subjects
Quick working pace
Bored by lack of challenge
Independence

Teachers with experience

p*

79
46

41.1
24.0

68
37

35.4
19.3

n.s.
n.s.

17
66
38

8.9
34.4
19.8

27
45
39

14.1
23.4
20.3

n.s.
,0.05
n.s.

*Level of significance of x2 test (Pearson): category * experience in teaching a gifted child.

N
N

The proportional amount of namings related to the field of motivation is definitely

higher for teachers without experience, nearly as high as the amount of namings
related to the field of cognition.
Teachers with experience named more features from categories belonging to the
field of processing capacity (memory, intellectual power, ability of transfer
learning) and significantly more features from the field of verbal skills
(vocabulary, articulateness, elaboration of language use). Moreover, they
mentioned early reading and writing abilities as well as a good general knowledge
more frequently than teachers without experience.
Concerning the field of social behaviour, only minor differences between the two
subsamples appeared when regarding single features. Considering how often
teachers with experience and teachers without experience mentioned clearly
negative and clearly positive social qualities and behavioural traits, one can notice
that teachers with experience named more positive features (p,0.01). There was
no difference concerning negative social behaviour.

Table 4. Features from the field of social behaviour mentioned by more than 10% of the
subsample
Teachers without experience

Outsider/loner
Lack of discipline
General deficits in
social behaviour

Teachers with experience

21
23
28

10.9
12.0
14.6

13
11
22

6.8
5.7
11.5

p*

n.s.
,0.05
n.s.

*Level of significance of x2 test (Pearson): category * experience in teaching a gifted child.

224 M. Endepohls-Ulpe and H. Ruf

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Comparison of free descriptions vs. rating scale descriptions

Contrasting with the results of Busse et al. (1986a,b) and Dahme and Eggers (1988)
in the secondary school sector, a factor analysis of the rating scale descriptions of
gifted children by primary school teachers yielded only one single factor for the three
fields of intelligence, motivation and achievement at school (Endepohls-Ulpe,
2004). This means that the interviewees had perceived these three fields as a unit
and had considered them as strongly related. Similarly, in the free descriptions, there
was a positive correlation between the frequency of cognitive and motivational
categories (r (Pearson)50.167, p,0.01).
On the level of specific categories, there were a lot of parallels to mean ratings of
corresponding items of the questionnaire. Several features that were named
frequently in the free descriptions had been rated as fitting well or fitting fairly
well in the rating scale descriptions, as, for example: good intellectual grasp, good
memory, problem solving abilities, logical reasoning, intelligence, excelling
peers in elaboration of language, creativity, thirst for knowledge, early reading
and writing abilities, interest in extracurricular subjects and independence.
Concerning the field of social behaviour, the analysis of the free descriptions gives
interesting additional information on the results of the rating scale descriptions.
More than 10% of the teachers without experience named being an outsider, lack
of discipline and general deficits in social behaviour as characteristics of a gifted
primary school child, whereas the mean ratings of the corresponding items in the
ratings scales were neutral.
Some of the features that were named frequently in the free descriptions do not
have corresponding items in the rating scale descriptions. This is true for some
categories from the field of processing capacity (intellectual power, recognising
logical connections and relations, ability to transfer learning) as well as for good
results at school and for categories from the field of verbal skills (vocabulary,
articulateness). In addition, the categories general knowledge and quick working
pace do not have corresponding items.
On the other hand, some of the items that were considered as very characteristic
for a gifted child in the rating scale descriptions do not appear in the free descriptions
at all, as, for example, is honest or likes to read. Presumably, these features are
rather correlates of the ideas of a gifted child than characteristics of a gifted child.
Discussion
Similar to the results found by Dahme and Eggers (1988) in the secondary school
sector, the results of the survey conducted in the primary school sector show that the
core of the teachers concepts of giftedness lies in the field of cognition.
Free descriptions of gifted children show that teachers with experience in teaching
a gifted child obviously have a much more precise concept of giftedness in the
cognitive area than teachers without experience.
The results of the free descriptions and the rating scale descriptions show several
parallels. These are the importance of features from the fields of intelligence,

Table 5. Frequency of the namings of different categories in the free descriptions and means of the ratings of corresponding items on the questionnaire
(15fitting well, 55fitting not at all)
Teachers without
experience
% (n5192)

Teachers with
experience
% (n5192)

Good intellectual grasp

Good memory
Intellectual power
Ability to recognise logical
connections and relations
Ability to transfer learning
Problem solving abilities

37.0
8.9
9.4
11.5

40.6
17.7
12.5
15.6

8.9
8.3

16.7
13.5

Logical reasoning
Good/outstanding results at
school (in general)
Good/outstanding results in the
subject of mathematics
Good/outstanding Results in the
subject of German
Intelligence
Large vocabulary
Articulateness
Excelling peers in elaboration of
language
Creative/imaginative
Early reading and writing abilities

11.5
18.8

Good general knowledge

Thirst for knowledge

Teachers without
experience
M (n5195)

Teachers with
experience

Item or group of items in the

factor analysis

M (n5191)

1.40
4.30

1.23
4.61

1.51

1.61

14.5
14.1

1.29

1.48

4.2

9.4

1.93

1.61

3.1

6.8

2.23

1.80

13.5
2.6
7.3
3.7

12.0
13.0
21.4
10.9

1.40

1.21

3.95

4.51

11.5
7.8

12.0
23.4

2.05
2.06

2.03
1.98

13.0
41.1

24.0
35.4

1.49

1.42

Has a good intellectual grasp

Poor memory
No corresponding item
No corresponding item
No corresponding item
Finds unusual ways to solve
problems
Can think logically
No corresponding item
Extraordinary achievement in
mathematics
Extraordinary achievement in
German
Is intelligent
No corresponding item
No corresponding item
Shows weaknesses concerning
verbal or communicative skills
Is creative
Could read and write before
he/she started school
No corresponding item
Is eager to gain new knowledge

Primary school teachers criteria 225

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Category

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Category

Teachers without
experience
% (n5192)

Interest in extracurricular
subjects

Quick working pace

Bored by lack of challenge
Independence
Outsider/loner
Lack of discipline
General social deficits

24.0

8.9
34.4
19.8
10.9
12.0
14.6

Teachers with
experience
% (n5192)
19.3

14.1
23.4
20.3
6.8
5.7
11.5

Teachers without
experience
M (n5195)

Teachers with
experience

Item or group of items in the

factor analysis

M (n5191)

4.60

4.43

Has hardly any interests

2.07

1.89

2.03
2.03
2.86
3.19
2.87

2.44
1.72
3.48
3.65
3.19

Spends much time on a

particular hobby
No corresponding item
Feels bored by exercises
Is independent
Is an outsider in class
Shows a lack of discipline
Shows social deficits

226 M. Endepohls-Ulpe and H. Ruf

Table 5. (Continued)

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

Primary school teachers criteria 227

motivation and achievement at school and the fact that these factors are perceived as
being related.
Concerning the field of social behaviour, the rating scale descriptions show an
overall positive image of gifted children when the mean ratings of the total sample
are considered. However, the results of the open-ended questions hint at the fact
that for a small number of the interviewees, especially for teachers without
experience in teaching gifted children, negative behavioural characteristics form a
part of their image of a gifted child as well.
Looking at the answers to the open-ended questions, one may notice some
weaknesses of the rating scale, as it had originally been constructed to describe
pupils in the secondary school sector. In primary school, where the educational aims
are more general, where teachers do not only teach one subject and spend much
more time in one class, teachers might also recognise more and other characteristics
that distinguish gifted children from their peers. Moreover, the stage of verbal
development of primary school children differs from that of secondary school
students and acceleration concerning verbal development may be more obvious at a
minor age.
A noticeable aspect is the small number of girls that has been described by
teachers with experience in teaching a gifted child. A possible reason for this
circumstance may be that boys in general tend to behave differently: they are more
likely to react to boredom and lack of challenge by externalising behaviour. Girls, on
the other hand, rather tend to adjustment or withdrawal.
As a consequence of these results, the following issues should be emphasised in
the training and further education of primary school teachers:
1.
2.

3.

4.

Intelligence, good achievement at school and a high level of motivation do

not necessarily appear as a unit.
Social behaviour is not an indicator for giftedness, neither in a positive nor
in a negative sense. When looking for gifted children, teachers should also
have an eye on the socially inconspicuous, well-adapted children, especially
girls.
Diagnostic competence in identifying gifted children must be related to
different stages of development. In the primary school sector, obviously, the
traits which may indicate giftedness are different from those in the
secondary school sector.
Personal experience in teaching gifted children obviously results in more
precise and realistic concepts of giftedness. Deliberate contact with gifted
children and training in teaching the gifted should therefore definitely be
part of primary school teacher training.

References
Busse, T. V., Dahme, G., Wagner, H. & Wieczerkowski, W. (1986a) Factors underlying teacher
perceptions of highly gifted students: a cross-cultural study, Educational and Psychological
Mearsurement, 46, 903916.

Downloaded by [University of Wollongong] at 05:04 26 March 2015

228 M. Endepohls-Ulpe and H. Ruf

Busse, T. V., Dahme, G., Wagner, W. & Wieczerkowski, W. (1986b) Teacher perceptions of
highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany, Gifted Child Quarterly, 30,
5560.
Copenhaver, R. W. & McIntyre, D. J. (1992) Teachers perceptions of gifted students, Roeper
Review, 14(3), 151153.
Dahme, G. & Eggers, R. (1988) Lehrerkriterien zur Identifikation hochbegabter Schuler,
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 35, 188201.
Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2003) Primary school teachers describe gifted pupils: stereotypes versus real
experience, in: Organising Committee of the 15th Biennal World Conference for Gifted
Education (Eds) Gifted 2003: a celebration downunder. Conference Proceedings of the 15th World
Conference for Gifted and Talented Children, Adelaide, Australia, 15 August 2003 (CD).
Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2004) Wie stellen Grundschullehrerkrafte sich hochbegabte Schuler/innen
vor?der Einfluss personlicher Erfahrung in der Unterrichtung Hochbegabter, Psychologie
in Erziehung und Unterricht, 51, 126135.
Hany, E. A. (1991) Sind Lehrkrafte bei der Identifikation hochbegabter Schuler doch besser als
Tests? Eine Untersuchung mit neuen Methoden, Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 38,
3750.
Hany, E. A. (1995) Teachers cognitive processes of identifying gifted students, in: M. K. Katzko
& F. J. Monks (Eds) Nurturing talent: individual needs and social ability (Assen, The
Netherlands, Van Gorcum), 184198.
Hany, E. A. (1997) Modeling teachers judgment of giftedness: a methodological inquiry of biased
judgment, High Ability Studies, 8(2), 159177.
Hunsaker, S. L. (1994) Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: teachers see it, then they dont,
Roeper Review, 17(1), 1115.
Persson, R. S. (1998) Paragons of virtue: teachers conceptual understanding of high ability in an
egalitarian school system, High Ability Studies, 9(2), 181196.
Rost, H. D. & Hanses, P. (1997) Wer nichts leistet, ist nicht begabt? Zur Identifikation
hochbegabter Underachiever durch Lehrkrafte, Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und
Padagogische Psychologie, 29(2), 167177.
Sahin, N. & Duzen, E. (1994) The gifted child stereotype among university students and
elementary school teachers, in: E. A. Hany & K. A. Heller (Eds) Competence and
Responsibility. The Third European Conference of the European Council for High Ability (vol. 2)
(Seattle, Hogrefe & Huber), 367376.
Winner, E. (1996) Gifted children: myths and realities (New York, Basic Books).
Ziegler, A. & Heller, K. A. (2000) Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective,
in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. F. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 322.