Teachers' Perceptions of the

Socioemotional Development of
Intellectnally Gifted Primary Aged
Students and their Attitudes towards
Ability Grouping and Acceleration
Selena Gallagher; Susen R. Smith; and Peter Merrotsy
Abstract
This qualitative multi-site case study sought to examine the current educational provisions in place for
intellectually gifted primary school students in Queensland and to consider how the beliefs and attitudes of
primary school stakeholders were reflected In the production of their school gifted education policies. Attitudes
and perceptions of principals and teachers at four Queensland primary schools are reported in this article. The
major findings indicated that while reported attitudes towards acceleration and ability grouping were fairly
positive overall, educators are still concerned about the possible adverse effects of grade-skipping on students'
social and emotional development, and the connotations of elitism associated with full-time models of ability
grouping. However, teachers' knowledge and awareness of the affective characteristics of gifted students did
not appear to influence their attitudes or beliefs regarding acceleration and ability grouping.

Keywords: Gifted students; teacher attitudes; acceleration; ability grouping.

Introduction
Years of research have established that
gifted
students
require
differentiated
educational provision in order for their unique
academic and social needs to be met, and that
two of the most effective strategies for
educating gifted students are ability grouping
and acceleration (Colangelo, Assoullne, &
Gross, 2004; Gross, 2006a, 2006b). However,
despite an apparent preponderance of evidence
supporting the use of acceleration and ability
grouping with gifted students, It appears that
some educators are reluctant to use these
strategies because of entrenched beliefs about
their potentially damaging consequences (Bain,
Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007; Colangelo,

Assouline, & Gross, 2004). While most states'

departments of education current pollcles on
the education of gifted and talented students
are research-based and support the use of
ability grouping and acceleration with gifted
students (for example, NSW Department of
Education and Training, 2004; Department of
Education, Training and the Arts, 2004),
stereotypical myths surrounding the social and
emotional development of gifted students and
the use of these strategies persist (Clark, 2008;
Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002). The
beliefs associated with these myths may hinder
acceleration and grouping provisions in
practice.

Socioemotional development of gifted students

Schools have long been concerned with more than just the cognitive development of
children. Whlle academic goals have always been a primary concern, there ls recognition that
schools also have a responsibility to foster students' social and emotional development, in order that
they may be effective and well-functioning contributors to society (Battistich, Watson, Solomon,

Gifted and Talented International - 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.

11

The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Lewis, & Schapps, 1999). In fact, according to Geake and Gross (2008), some teachers rate social
ability higher than academic ability when describing the attributes of an ideal student.
Evidence generally supports the view that there is a positive correlatlon between children
who are gifted and children who are advanced socially and emotionally (Howley, Howley, &
Pendarvis, 1995), but there are some dissenting views (Freeman, 2006). Studies report that most
gifted students are at least as well adjusted and mature as typical students, and in some cases may
have superior social and emotional development
(Clark, 2008; Douthitt, 1992; Neihart, 1999).
However, while gifted children are a diverse group, they tend to share some common affective
characteristics
that have the potentlal to bring them Into conflict with their social environment
(Kitano, 1990; Webb, 2001). Additionally, some characteristics of giftedness such as Intensity and
overexcitability or superstimulatability
can sometimes be misinterpreted as ADHD or other similar
disorders (Webb, 2001). Similarly, gifted children can appear to lack appropriate soclal skills when
they struggle to get along with their age-peers while any apparent dlfflcultles may disappear when
they have the opportunity to interact with intellectual peers (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Valpied, 2005).

Teachers are often concerned about possible social and emotional problems of gifted
children and may make educational decisions that are detrimental academically In order to attempt
to favour social development (Halsted, 2002; Yoo & Moon, 2006). Many educators believe that the
social and emotional needs of the student should take precedence over their academic needs, not
recognising that the two are Inextricably linked, and also not considering that falling to provide for
gifted students' intellectual needs only compounds any socioemotional issues (Halsted, 2002;
Valpied, 2005; Vialle et al. 2001). A recent survey study by Bain, Choate and Bliss (2006) examining
the perceptions of teacher education undergraduates of the social and emotional development of
gifted children found that the majority believed that the gifted were at greater risk for emotional
stress and relationship problems than other children. It is also commonly assumed that the more
highly gifted a student Is, the greater the potential for social and emotional problems, but this Is not
supported by the research (Gross, 2006b; Neihart, 1999). Beliefs such as these may contribute to
educational decisions that are not In the best Interests of the gifted child (Bain, Choate, & Bliss,
2006), particularly when making decisions regarding ability grouping and acceleration (Valpled,
2005).

Ability grouping
Ability grouping has strong support in the research literature (Adams-Byers, Whitsell, &
Moon, 2004; Chessor & Whitton, 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Karns, 1998; Goldring, 1990;
Gross, 1997; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1998) and has been found to have academic benefits for students
at all levels of ability, but especially so with gifted students (Rogers, 1998). When gifted students are
grouped by ability and given a differentiated curriculum in response to their ability, they perform
slgniflcantly better than equally gifted students In a mixed ability setting (Gross, 2006a; Kulik, 1992;
Rogers, 2002). Grouping gifted students together has not been found to cause any detrimental
effects to the social and emotional well-being of either the gifted students, or their typical peers
(Gross, 2006b).
Despite this, many teachers express a reluctance to use ability grouping strategies with
gifted students (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007; Lewis & Milton, 2005; Plunkett, 2000), citing
common concerns, including that ability grouping Is elitist, that it will not have any effect on
achievement, that It will cause gifted students to have an Inflated opinion of themselves, and that
gifted students should be kept in the regular class as role models and to learn to relate to a wide
range of people (Gross, 1997).

Acceleration
Research consistently reports achievement benefits for all forms of acceleration (Kulik, 2004;
Rogers, 2004), while finding no evidence of social or psychological harm (Colangelo, Assouline, &
Gross, 2004). In a meta-analysis of studies on acceleration, Kulik (2004) concluded that acceleration
has clear achievement benefits for gifted students and that no other educational Intervention works
as well for gifted students. In response to concerns about the possible social or emotional Impact of
acceleration, many studies have been conducted to assess any psychosocial implications, although
many of these focus retrospectively on older students and much of the research Is American. The
situation is also complicated by the diversity of gifted students and the medley of accelerative
options available to them, as well as the imprecise nature of finding comparison groups and
selecting a measure of social or emotional adjustment (Robinson, 2004). However, in a

12

Gifted and Talented International - 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.

comprehensive review of the research literature, Robinson (2004) concluded that there is no
research evidence to support the concern that gifted children who are younger than their classmates
will experience social or psychological problems. Most forms of acceleration have been shown to
have little or no effect on measures of socialisation (Rogers, 2002). Despite the apparently
overwhelmingly positive research evidence in support of acceleration for gifted students, it is still not
a popular option among teachers and educators (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007; Plunkett, 2000;
Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989).

Method and context

The data reported in this article form part of a larger case study Involving four Queensland
primary schools (Gallagher, 2010). The focus of this article is on the knowledge and attitudes of the
teachers and prlnclpals, while the perspectives of students and parents are reported elsewhere
(Gallagher, Smith & Merrotsy, under review). The findings In relation to early entry to school have also
been previously reported (Gallagher, Smith & Merrotsy, 2010). One of the aims of this study was to
examine teachers' knowledge and understanding of the socioemotlonal development of gifted
students and any possible relationship with the attitudes and beliefs of those teachers towards the
use of ability grouping and acceleration for gifted students. For this purpose, a qualitative multi-site
case study approach was chosen. Case study research has been an established part of the gifted
education research landscape for many years (Gross, 1993, 2004; Holllngworth, 1942), but has rarely
been applied to the investigation of attitudes towards acceleration and other gifted education
provisions.
This case study was set within a single educational region of Queensland with a mixture of
coastal and hinterland towns. Of the four schools that participated In this study, three were public
primary schools serving grades Prep to Year Seven (Heron Haven, Black Swan and Pelican Point)
and one was an Independent school that serves students from Prep to Year 12. (Kingfisher). Thirty
teachers participated in the current study. Six of these participants were principals or deputy
principals, four were designated gifted education teachers and the remainder were classroom
teachers from grades Prep to Year Seven. Twelve of the participants were male, and eighteen were
female. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Examples of Interview questions Included:
How are gifted children catered for In your schooV classroom?
What can you tell me about the social or emotional characteristics of giftedness?
How do you feel about acceleration of gifted students?
How do you feel about ability grouping of gifted students?
The data collection for the present study took place during the latter half of 2008 and the
beginning of 2009, during a period of renewed Interest in gifted education in Queensland. Data
analysis involved a two-step process: a deserlptlve level to convey an understanding of the holistic
case in context; and a thematic level of analysis that looked at the data in their entirety, in order to
highlight implicit connections therein (Merriam, 1998). Pseudonyms are used throughout for
Individual participants and schools.

Results and Discussion

Socloemotlonal development
Across the four schools, the level of knowledge and understanding of the social and
emotional development of gifted students was generally fairly low. Those teachers who had
encountered giftedness within their own families were generally able to offer much deeper Insights
than those without the benefit of such personal experience. Insightful comments from some of the
respondents highlighted some of the well-known affective characteristics of gifted students, such as
a mature sense of humour, a highly developed sense of justice, perfectionism and a desire to
question authority. Teachers with more limited knowledge tended to present a narrower view of
social or emotional development and focused mainly on potential classroom management concerns.
Comments suggesting that boredom may lead to gifted students becoming the class clown or
having behaviour problems were typical.
However, despite the relatively low levels of knowledge and understanding, most of the
teachers In this study were not taken in by the myth that gifted students were more at risk for social
and emotional problems. Many rejected the myth out of hand, while some expressed mixed feelings,

Gifted and Talented International -26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.

13