640936

research-article2016
JEGXXX10.1177/0162353216640936Journal for the Education of the GiftedLaine et al.

Article
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
2016, Vol. 39(2) 151­–167
Finnish Teachers’ © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Conceptions of Giftedness sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0162353216640936
jeg.sagepub.com

Sonja Laine1, Elina Kuusisto1, and Kirsi Tirri1

Abstract
This article presents two independent studies of Finnish teachers’ conceptions of
giftedness and considers whether it is a malleable or fixed quality. The first qualitative
study examined elementary school teachers’ (N = 212) conceptions via inductive-
oriented content analysis, whereas the second study measured teachers’ (elementary
n = 184, secondary n = 279) conceptions with a quantitative approach. According to
teachers’ open-ended definitions, giftedness was seen to be multidimensional and a
characteristic that differentiates the person from others. Giftedness was also described
via cognitive, creative, and motivational features of the gifted. Furthermore, the two
independent studies suggest quite different views on how Finnish teachers understand
the developmental nature of giftedness: The first indicates that the developmental
nature of giftedness was not frequently mentioned, whereas the second found that a
malleable view of giftedness (i.e., a growth mindset) was dominant. Thus, this article
highlights a need for in-depth and mixed-methods research designs to study how
teachers see the developing nature of giftedness.

Keywords
giftedness, teachers, conceptions, mindset

Over the past several decades, “What is giftedness?” is a question that has been asked
by various scholars who have offered many theories and models. However, there is no
consensus among researchers on a specific definition (Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska,
Coleman, & Cross, 2010; Balchin, Hymer, & Matthews, 2009; S. M. Moon & Rosselli,
2000; Pfeiffer, 2002; Ziegler & Raul, 2000). Ambrose et al. (2010) stated that the field
is fragmented in two ways. First, the field relies on competing models, in which par-
ticular conceptions of giftedness are promoted, instead of relying on theories that can

1University of Helsinki, Finland

Corresponding Author:
Sonja Laine, Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, FI-00014, Finland.
Email: sonja.laine@helsinki.fi

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

152 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

be tested. Second, there is little connecting practice and theory, meaning that practice
is only rarely based on theory (Ambrose et al., 2010). It can be questioned whether or
not coherence should be sought (Dai & Chen, 2013). According to Dai and Chen
(2013), conceptions of giftedness can and should be assessed in a particular culture
and practice. These cultural conceptions are meaningful as they influence who and
which abilities are seen as gifted (Freeman, 2005).
Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and particularly of gifted children have been
one of the key areas in the research on giftedness and gifted education. Given the lack
of consensus and the fragmentation of the field, it is important to assess how those who
are supposed to identify and consider gifted students’ needs see giftedness. Two inde-
pendent studies were conducted to investigate Finnish teachers’ conceptions of gifted-
ness to gain a more comprehensive picture. The purpose of this research was to
increase knowledge about how teachers in Finland, an egalitarian culture, see gifted-
ness (Study 1), and to further investigate whether it is seen more as a fixed or mallea-
ble quality (Study 1 and Study 2). The research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: What are Finnish teachers’ primary conceptions of

giftedness?
Research Question 2: Do Finnish teachers understand giftedness as a fixed or mal-
leable quality?

Rationale for Studying Teachers’ Conceptions of

Giftedness
The importance of studying teachers’ conceptions of giftedness has traditionally been
explained by the key role teachers play in nominating gifted students for gifted pro-
grams (Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992; Lee, 1999; Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson,
2010) and in identifying and supporting gifted children in typical classroom settings
(T. R. Moon & Brighton, 2008; Persson, 1998). How teachers conceptualize gifted-
ness can ultimately affect whether or not they see a student as gifted (Hany, 1997) or
whether or not gifted students’ needs are taken into consideration in the school setting
(De Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Megay-Nespoli, 2001; T. R. Moon & Brighton, 2008).
Teachers’ views about gifted children have been studied with both quantitative and
qualitative methods. For example, in research conducted through interviews, Lee
(1999) found that teachers conceptualized giftedness via excellence, potential, rarity,
behavior, innate ability, motivation, and asynchrony. In another study, it was found
that teachers see giftedness mainly through cognitive and motivational features, with
social behavior and personality traits playing a minor role (Endepohls-Ulpe & Ruf,
2005). Furthermore, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, and Dixon (2007)
found that gifted children are often seen as quick learners, who are self-motivated,
independent, and creative, and work and understand at a level above the average.
Research into how teachers in Finland see giftedness has been limited. The scarce
research has focused mainly on teachers’ attitudes toward giftedness and gifted educa-
tion (Ojanen & Freeman, 1994; Tirri, Tallent-Runnels, Adams, Yuen, & Lau, 2002).

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 153

Laine (2010) examined how giftedness and gifted children are discussed in the Finnish
print media. Results indicated that giftedness is seen as multidimensional. Also, intra-
personal and environmental factors were recognized as essential in talent develop-
ment. Moreover, conceptions of gifted children were quite diverse, and their possible
problems in both school and social life were discussed frequently. Furthermore, gifted
students’ motivation and willpower, need for support, learning, and expertise were
also mentioned (Laine, 2010).

A Developmental View of Giftedness

The idea that giftedness is a fixed way of being is one of the myths in the field (Reis
& Renzulli, 2009). Rather, giftedness should be seen as developmental, a potential that
can be developed further with appropriate levels of intrapersonal and environmental
factors such as motivation, support, time, effort, and personal investments and choices
(Reis & Renzulli, 2009). This developmental view is extensively supported by many
theories of giftedness (e.g., Cross & Coleman, 2014; Gagné, 2010; Gardner, 1999;
Renzulli, 2005; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2012), and it is deemed
crucial, as without proper support, time, effort, and personal investments, the potential
does not develop into high-level performance (Gagné, 2010; Reis & Renzulli, 2009).
Therefore, teachers, parents, and other educators play an important role in the process
by which potential is developed further into talent (Gagné, 2010).
Gifted students need to be supported and challenged to develop. Optimal environ-
mental factors such as support and opportunities are needed for persons to truly maxi-
mize their potential (Reis & Renzulli, 2009) or to develop their gifts (Gagné, 2010).
Gifted children also need to learn how to work toward their goals (Dweck, 2009) and
how to concentrate (Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Motivation and effort are
required because these are the most influential factors in achieving a high level of
performance (Reis & Renzulli, 2009). Furthermore, psychosocial skills such as persis-
tence and exertion need to be taught to gifted students (Subotnik et al., 2012).
To study teachers’ conceptions of the developmental aspect of giftedness, Dweck’s
theory of mindsets has been chosen as a theoretical framework. Mindsets are beliefs
that people have about their most basic qualities and abilities (Dweck, 2000). With a
growth mindset, people believe that basic qualities and abilities are malleable and can
be changed. However, people with a fixed mindset believe that basic qualities and abili-
ties are static and cannot be changed. Researchers have suggested that mindsets play a
vital role in students’ learning outcomes and success (Dweck, 2000). Students who had
a fixed mindset emphasized performance goals (“looking smart”), whereas students
with a growth mindset emphasized learning goals (“becoming smart”). A fixed mindset
leaves students vulnerable to negative feedback and can lead to avoidance of challeng-
ing learning opportunities, whereas a growth mindset helps students to take risks and
see possible failure as a learning opportunity (Dweck, 2000). Similarly, it has been
found that students with a growth mindset have higher achievement during challenging
school transitions, and their completion rates in demanding school courses are higher
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Furthermore,

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

154 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

research has indicated that aggression and stress levels are lower and school perfor-
mance higher among adolescents with a growth mindset (Yeager, Trzesniewski, &
Dweck, 2012; see also Yeager, Trzesniewski, Tirri, Nokelainen, & Dweck, 2011).
Mindsets have been found to be very stable, but changeable through intervention
(Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2012; Yeager, 2008; Yeager et al., 2011). Therefore,
educators have a crucial role to orient students to the idea of increasing their abilities
through effort (Dweck, 2009). “The great teachers believe in the growth of the intellect
and talent, and they are fascinated with the process of learning” (Dweck, 2006, p. 188).
Thus, it is important that teachers’ mindsets are examined as their teaching and feedback
styles are assumed to play an essential role in supporting and creating the mindset of the
students. However, mindsets of educators have been studied relatively little as most of
the studies have concentrated on mindsets of children and students (Dweck, 2000).
Furthermore, few studies have examined teachers’ and parents’ views on the malleability
of academic competences. These studies have been based on the theory of social repre-
sentations of intelligence (Kärkkäinen, 2011; Kärkkäinen & Räty, 2010; see also Mugny
& Carugati, 1989), which is close to Dweck’s theory. Kärkkäinen’s and Kärkkäinen and
Räty’s studies have found that Finnish teachers’ and parents’ conceptions of the mallea-
bility of a child’s academic competences tended to follow a self-serving attribution pat-
tern: If the child considered himself doing well at school, then educators tended to
perceive his competences as being stable, as though the child was close to maximum
potential. If the child considered himself doing poorly in school, then educators were
willing to perceive him as being capable of improvement (Kärkkäinen, 2011; Kärkkäinen
& Räty, 2010). These studies imply that attitudes of Finnish teachers and parents do not
especially support the development of high-achieving students. Kärkkäinen’s and
Kärkkäinen and Räty’s results also indicate that educators’ attitudes might be fixed,
especially regarding high-achieving students. This might indicate that those gifted stu-
dents who are high achieving might not be treated in a growth mindset way in which
hardwork, effort, and challenging tasks are valued and supported.

Research Context: The Finnish School System

The Finnish school system includes preschool education (up to the age of 6), basic
education (9-year comprehensive school, with an optional 10th year), upper secondary
level education (upper secondary school and vocational education), and higher educa-
tion. Comprehensive school has two levels. At the elementary school level (Grades
1–6), teaching is uniform for all and is generally given by a class teacher with the
exception of foreign languages, which are taught by specialized foreign language
teachers. Teachers at the lower secondary school (Grades 7–9) are specialized subject
teachers, as are the teachers in upper secondary education; the latter represents the
rather academic general education tradition (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013).
The Finnish school system provides an interesting context in which to examine
teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. First, the nature of the Finnish school system is
egalitarian, where the main principle of education is to maintain equality, manifested
in taking care of the weakest students, such as children with learning difficulties (Tirri

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 155

& Kuusisto, 2013). The practical implementation of this principle is that education is
free at all levels because the government finances public sector educational institu-
tions; thus, only a small minority of schools in Finland are private (Tirri & Kuusisto,
2013). Furthermore, regarding giftedness and gifted education, this principle has led
to a situation in which there are no definitions of giftedness or identification criteria
(Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). Furthermore, gifted students are mainly taught in mixed-
ability classrooms. The principle is that teachers should choose teaching methods in a
way that considers students’ individual characteristics, needs, and interests (National
Board of Education, 2011). Teachers, therefore, should differentiate their teaching to
take into account the needs of different students. Even though gifted students are not
explicitly mentioned in the national core curriculum for basic education, it can be
understood that they are included. In other words, all students in Finland, including
gifted, should be educated with particular attention given to their individuality. There
are also other possibilities for gifted students such as early entrance, grade skipping,
and summer camps (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). However, the fact that these options
exist does not guarantee that they are used regularly in practice. Furthermore, in
Finland there is no mandatory training for teachers on the subject of gifted students.
Nevertheless, the Finnish educational system has a distinct structure: Teachers at all
levels receive academic professional training, and an educational program that focuses
on differentiation is standard from kindergarten on (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). In this
respect, the Finnish educational system is highly developed in terms of gifted educa-
tion, even though it is not often acknowledged as such (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005).
Second, Finland’s success in the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) rankings has been notable, as Finnish students have scored extremely well in
science, mathematics, and reading (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development [OECD], 2004, 2011). According to the PISA studies, Finland’s students
have been the highest achievers in Europe and scored among the top three countries in
these subjects (OECD, 2004, 2011; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). However, the most recent
PISA results revealed that Finnish students’ skills in all of these areas have declined; the
decline was most notable in mathematics (Kupari et al., 2013). Finland’s notable success
in the PISA rankings, together with the egalitarian nature of its school system, provides
a very interesting context in which to examine teachers’ conceptions of giftedness.

Study 1
The first study was qualitative, with conceptions of giftedness among elementary
school teachers evaluated using inductive-oriented content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs,
2008). The qualitative approach made it possible to find the primary conceptions of
giftedness that exist among Finnish teachers.

Method
Participants.  The sample consisted of 212 elementary school teachers, of whom the
majority was female (77%). Most of the teachers were experienced teachers, as they

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

156 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

had taught for more than 20 years (n = 85, 40%), 10 to 19 years (n = 71, 34%), and 5
to 9 years (n = 29, 14%). The participants came from all six mainland regions of Fin-
land: Southern Finland (n = 62), Southwestern Finland (n = 29), Western and Inland
Finland (n = 48), Eastern Finland (n = 37), and Northern Finland and Lapland (n = 36).
Most teachers (n = 112, 53%) worked in rural towns (population below 15,000), of
which half worked in very small towns (population below 5,000). Thirty percent (n =
64) worked in medium-sized suburban cities, and only 17% (n = 36) worked in larger
urban cities (population more than 100,000).

Procedure.  Randomly selected municipal education administrators (from all six of Fin-
land’s mainland administrative agencies; n = 161) received a letter of invitation to
participate in the study. Of these, 54 responded positively and consented to be involved
in the research. The administrators were then asked to send an information letter
together with a response request and an Internet link to the questionnaire to all elemen-
tary school principals in their respective municipalities, who in turn forwarded the link
to the schoolteachers in their region. After that, the administrators received three
reminders about the study. Participation was voluntary.

Instrument. The respondents completed a four-part questionnaire. The first part

requested different background information. This part also included basic questions
about teachers’ knowledge regarding giftedness and gifted children. First, teachers
were asked where they received their knowledge on giftedness (i.e., courses, lec-
tures, professional literature, professional periodicals, newspapers, digital media
[e.g., TV or Internet], nowhere, somewhere else). Second, they were asked to rate
their opinions on a Likert-type scale (1 = I completely disagree, 9 = I completely
agree): “I feel I have enough knowledge of giftedness and gifted students,” “I feel I
have enough knowledge of gifted education,” “I would like to get more information
about giftedness and gifted students,” and “I would like to get more information
about gifted education.”
This study focused mainly on the second part of the questionnaire, which consid-
ered the teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. The main data here were the teachers’
responses to the following task: “We all have our own definitions of what giftedness
is. Write your own definition of giftedness into the box below.”
The purpose of the third and fourth parts was to clarify the teachers’ attitudes and
practices vis-à-vis gifted education. However, these parts were not included in this
study’s analyses. It took approximately 30 to 60 minutes to answer the questionnaire.

Analysis.  The data were analyzed using content analysis. The purpose of content analy-
sis is to make replicable and valid inferences from a text (Krippendorff, 2004). The unit
of analysis can vary from words to entire interviews (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The analy-
sis unit for this study was the aggregate statements that the teachers gave to the follow-
ing directive: “Write your own definition of giftedness in the box below.” The length of
the aggregate statements varied from a few words to eight sentences. The analysis was
carried out in an inductive-oriented manner as all the codes were derived from the data

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 157

(Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Thus, the purpose was not to test theory, but rather to reveal dif-
ferent conceptions that are present in teachers’ definitions of giftedness. The ATLAS.ti
program was used to help with the analysis process.
The analysis process had three phases. First, all aggregate statements were reduced
to codes (see Example). Codes were created based on the data, and every time a new
topic emerged, a new code was created. The coding phase included multiple readings
of the data.

Example: “A gifted person learns new matters easily and creates new ideas in his or her
own area of giftedness. He or she is eager to learn new facts.” (aggregate statement)

●  learning with ease (code)

●  creating new
●  giftedness in some particular area
●  desire to learn

Second, the codes were clustered in subcategories and main categories. The first
author coded the data. To increase the reliability of the categorizations, the third author
categorized 10% of the data. Both the interrater reliability (agreement of two research-
ers) and Cohen’s kappa were calculated. Interrater reliability was calculated to be .93.
Cohen’s kappa was calculated to be .789, higher than .6, which is considered a good
value (Cohen, 1960).

Results
As part of the background information, we asked elementary school teachers some
basic questions about their knowledge considering giftedness. Almost half of the
teachers (n = 100, 47%) had not participated in any course or lecture about gifted-
ness. Most of them had received information about giftedness from professional
literature (n = 155, 73%) and professional periodicals (n = 154, 73%). Furthermore,
we asked their opinions about the levels of their knowledge by using Likert-type
scale statements ranging from 1 (I completely disagree) to 9 (I completely agree).
Those responses indicated that many of the teachers felt they had insufficient knowl-
edge of giftedness and gifted children (n = 101, 48%). Significantly, more knowl-
edge was highly desired, with 82% (n = 173) wanting to know more about giftedness
and gifted children, and 89% (n = 188) wanting information about gifted education.
Overall, their attitudes toward gifted education were positive, as 87% (n = 184) felt
that developing gifted education would be an important task in the future.
A total of 586 quotes of giftedness were found and coded under 75 different codes.
The mean number of codes per teacher was 2.82 codes (SD = 1.48), and most often
giftedness was described using two to three codes (n = 114, 56%). Only very rarely
(n = 9, 4.4%) did the statement include six or more codes. Eighteen percent (n = 37)
of the teachers described giftedness using only one code. Furthermore, four teachers
did not define giftedness at all, and five stated that it was difficult to define. Then,

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

158 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

Table 1.  Frequencies of the Subcategories and Main Categories.

Number Number of Number of teachers

Main category + subcategory of codes quotes referring to category
Giftedness as a phenomenon 28 323 161
1. Multidimensional 6 155 103
2. Difference from others 5 104 95
3. Fixed 5 35 35
4. Malleable 4 15 11
5. Other 8 14 12
Characteristics of the gifted person 47 263 129
1. Cognitive features 14 128 92
2. Creative features 5 63 52
3. Motivational features 9 40 31
4. Personal strength 8 16 13
5. Success 2 7 7
6. Other 9 9 7
Total 75 586  

codes were categorized under 11 subcategories and these under two main categories
(see Table 1). The number of teachers who referred to the particular subcategory is
also presented in Table 1.
As can be seen in Table 1, teachers’ conceptions were classified under two main
categories based on whether the conceptions dealt with giftedness as a phenomenon
(n = 323) or described characteristics of the gifted person (n = 263). Next, the results
will be presented more specifically based on this classification. Codes with the most
referrals per subcategory are presented in more detail, and the number of quotes of
each subcategory and each presented code is shown in parentheses.

Giftedness as a phenomenon.  First, giftedness was seen as multidimensional (n = 155),

meaning that there are different areas in which giftedness can occur (n = 59). Some of
the teachers listed these different areas, although some just acknowledged their exis-
tence. Furthermore, it was more typical to see giftedness as domain-specific (n = 72)
rather than domain-general (n = 21).
Second, giftedness was seen as difference from others (n = 104). The difference
was made compared with the average (n = 30), others in general (n = 15), normal (n = 11),
or age group (n = 8). It was also expressed that giftedness is a special kind of knowl-
edge, ability, and skills (n = 40). These were categorized under this subcategory
because saying that there is “something special,” means that it is something different
from the knowledge, ability, or skill of others. This example illuminates the definition
that includes codes that were classified under these two subcategories described above:
“Giftedness is something that is higher than normal skills. It can be expertise in a very
narrow sector. Giftedness can occur in all human areas of skills and knowledge (math-
ematics, linguistic, music, sports, etc.)” (Female, 36 years old).

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 159

Third, teachers’ definitions also revealed their views about whether or not gifted-
ness is seen as fixed or malleable. Giftedness was more often seen as fixed (n = 35), as
it was addressed that giftedness is innate (n = 24), things come naturally (n = 4), and
training is not needed (n = 4). Malleable (n = 15) aspects were less present, as it was
only infrequently mentioned that giftedness is something that can be developed (n =
8). Similarly, giftedness as a potential (n = 3) and gifted persons’ need for support (n =
3) were mentioned only a few times. These two examples illustrate how the categories
of innateness and malleability appeared in teachers’ definitions:

● Giftedness is a natural ability in some specific area. Giftedness can occur in social
skills, arts, sports, and, of course, in languages and mathematics. (Female, 32 years old)
● The name tells it all; it is a gift, an innate quality, that a person can and needs to
develop further. (Male, 43 years old)

Characteristics of the gifted persons.  In their definitions of giftedness, teachers described

gifted persons’ characteristics, and often included gifted persons’ cognitive features (n =
128). It was stated that for gifted persons, learning is easy (n = 39) and fast (n = 19).
Application of acquired knowledge (n = 19), understanding (n = 12), intelligence (n = 6),
and the use of earlier knowledge in the learning process (n = 6) were also cited, among
others. Second, creative features (n = 63) were addressed. Gifted persons were described
as being creative (n = 25) and innovative (n = 7), creating and thinking about new things
(n = 17), and being creative in solving problems (n = 11). Third, gifted persons were also
seen as exhibiting motivational features (n = 40) such as being interested (n = 12), enthu-
siastic (n = 5), willing to know and learn (n = 5), curious (n = 4), and motivated (n = 4).
These statements illustrate the definitions used to describe gifted behavior:

● Giftedness is that you are interested, and that you have skill to learn new facts and
skills fast and broadly. (Female, 30 years old)
● A gifted person can solve problems possibly in a new, innovative, and individual way.
The person can also perform a task without special training. (Female, 41 years old)

Fourth, under the subcategory personal strength (n = 16), teachers described gifted
children as independent (n = 4), courageous (n = 3), open-minded (n = 2), and ques-
tioning (n = 2); they also stated that they do not need instruction (n = 2). Fifth, in some
definitions, gifted students were also described as successful (n = 7). There were sev-
eral minor characteristics teachers mentioned that did not fall under the above-men-
tioned subcategories. For example, brilliantness, dexterity, self-respect, and respect for
others were also mentioned in the teachers’ responses.

Study 2
The second quantitative study examined Finnish teachers’ conceptions of the malle-
ability of giftedness utilizing Dweck’s (2000, 2006) theoretical framework and
instrument. The data were gathered from teachers who taught in comprehensive or

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

160 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

upper secondary schools to see whether teachers believe that giftedness is fixed or
malleable.

Method
Participants.  The sample consisted of 463 Finnish teachers, the majority of whom were
female (n = 350, 75%). The teachers were elementary school class teachers (n = 184,
40%) and lower and/or upper secondary school subject teachers (n = 279, 65%). The
subject teachers were teachers of science (n = 68, 15%), social science (religious edu-
cation, history, philosophy, psychology; n = 68, 15%), languages (n = 66, 14%), and
other subjects (e.g., art, physical education, home economics, crafts; n = 77, 17%). In
the sample, 13% (n = 61) were novices with 1 to 4 years of experience. Most of the
teachers were experienced and had taught for more than 20 years (n = 176, 38%), 10
to 19 years (n = 136, 29%), or 5 to 9 years (n = 90, 19%).

Procedure.  We approached 370 principals via email in seven Finnish urban cities
(Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa in the Helsinki metropolitan area; Tampere and Jyväs-
kylä in central Finland; Joensuu in eastern Finland; and Oulu in northern Finland).
We asked them to forward an invitation to their teachers to complete an online sur-
vey. The survey included background questions (gender, school level where teacher
works, taught subjects, teaching experience) and five instruments that measured
teachers’ moral sensitivities and implicit theories. The results of the latter instrument
are presented in this study. Teachers were also asked to write their contact informa-
tion as a sign of willingness to be interviewed later. Only 11 principals in three dif-
ferent cities informed us that they had forwarded the questionnaire. However, we
know that a few principals from four other cities also informed their teachers about
the study, because the 83 teachers who offered their email addresses represented all
seven cities.

Instrument.  In this study, we utilized Dweck’s (2000) instrument that measures the
beliefs of malleable versus incremental nature of intelligence. For this study, the word
intelligence was translated into Finnish with a word that means giftedness. Giftedness
was chosen, as in Finnish, intelligence has a very narrow meaning referring only to
high IQ; in other words, to logical-mathematic and linguistic intelligences. In this
study, intelligence was considered in line with Gardner’s (1999) multiple intelligences
theory, which is better captured with the Finnish word for giftedness (Laine, 2010).
The participants were asked to evaluate their attitudes toward four items: (a) “Your
giftedness is something very basic about you that you can’t change very much”; (b)
“You can learn new things, but you can’t really change how gifted you are”; (c) “No
matter how gifted you are, you can always increase your giftedness significantly”; and
(d) “You can always substantially change how gifted you are” (Dweck, 2000). Items
are connected to the idea of giftedness as being stable or malleable, which is the vital
difference between fixed mindset and growth mindset thinking. The items were rated
on a dichotomous scale of 0 (agree) and 1 (disagree). Afterward, the scale of Items 3

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 161

and 4 was reversed, 0 indicated a fixed mindset, whereas 1 indicated a growth mindset.
The four-item instrument had good reliability (Kuder–Richardson 20 coefficient =
.73) and as expected, the items correlated well (.148–.699; Cohen, 1988).

Results
Teachers’ responses were categorized as follows: Teachers who had chosen 0 on all
items or three of the items were coded as having a fixed mindset, teachers who had
chosen 1 on all items or three of the items were coded as having a growth mindset, and
teachers who had chosen half and half were coded as having a mixed mindset.
Utilizing chi-square analyses (see Table 2), no statistical differences were found
between female and male teachers’ mindsets about giftedness, χ2(2) = 1.911, p = .385;
between the elementary teachers’ mindsets and secondary teachers’ mindsets, χ2(2) =
2.011, p = .366; between teachers of different subject matters, χ2(6) = 1.577, p = .954;
or between teachers with different teaching experience, χ2(8) = 7.660, p = .467.
Therefore, it appeared that, regardless of educational background, most of the teachers
(n = 250, 54%) had a growth mindset about giftedness, one third (n = 140, 30%) had a
fixed mindset, and 73 teachers (16%) had a mixed mindset.

Discussion
This article presented the results of two independent studies that aimed to investigate
Finnish teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and to determine whether giftedness is
seen as a malleable or fixed quality. The first study examined qualitatively elementary
school teachers’ (N = 212) conceptions via inductive-oriented content analysis,
whereas the second study measured teachers’ (N = 463) conceptions with a quantita-
tive approach.
The first study found that elementary school teachers define giftedness via two
main categories: giftedness as a phenomenon and characteristics of the gifted person.
Giftedness as a phenomenon was seen by a majority of teachers as multidimensional,
meaning that giftedness could occur in different areas. Elementary school teachers
seemed to have internalized the idea that giftedness is something other than only high
IQ. The definitions were in line with the theories such as Gardner’s (1999) multiple
intelligence theory and Gagné’s (2010) differentiated model of giftedness and talent in
noticing giftedness in different areas. Furthermore, giftedness was seen as more
domain-specific than domain-general. This domain-specific notion of giftedness is
also supported in many theories and models of giftedness (e.g., Cross & Coleman,
2014; Gagné, 2010; Gardner, 1999; VanTassel-Baska, 2005), and it is sometimes
described as having “the most promise for promoting talent development in individu-
als at all stages of development” (VanTassel-Baska, 2005, p. 20). This result indicates
a positive message about Finnish elementary school teachers’ conceptions. Noticing
the multidimensional aspects of giftedness can be a critical element when the educa-
tion of the gifted is planned and differentiation is implemented in classrooms (Davis,
Rimm, & Siegle, 2014; Gardner, 1999).

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

162 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

Table 2.  Results of Chi-Square Analyses.

Fixed mindset Mixed mindset Growth mindset

about giftedness about giftedness about giftedness  

  n = 140 (30%) n = 73 (16%) n = 250 (54%)  

Gender χ2(2) = 1.911,
  Male (n = 113) 40 (35%) 16 (14%) 57 (50%) p = .385
 Female 100 (29%) 57 (16%) 193 (55%)
(n = 350)
Level χ2(2) = 2.011,
 Elementary 60 (33%) 24 (13%) 100 (54%) p = .366
teachers
(n = 184)
 Secondary 80 (29%) 49 (18%) 150 (54%)
teachers
(n = 279)
Secondary teachers χ2(6) = 1.577,
of different p = .954
subjects
(n = 279)
  Mathematics and 21 (31%) 13 (19%) 34 (50%)
science
(n = 68)
  Social science 18 (26.5%) 13 (19%) 37 (54%)
(n = 68)
 Languages 20 (30%) 12 (18%) 34 (51%)
(n = 66)
  Other (n = 77) 21 (27%) 11 (14%) 45 (58%)
Teaching χ2(8) = 7.660,
experience in p = .467
years
  1–4 (n = 61) 14 (23%) 9 (15%) 38 (62%)
  5–9 (n = 90) 31 (34%) 16 (18%) 43 (48%)
  10–14 (n = 74) 27 (37%) 10 (13.5%) 37 (50%)
  15–19 (n = 62) 18 (29%) 6 (10%) 38 (61%)
  More than 20 50 (28%) 32 (18%) 94 (53%)
(n = 176)

Second, giftedness was seen by many as difference from others. Teachers were
comparing students while they were determining giftedness. This is in line with the
theories such as Gagné’s (2010) model and Sternberg and Zhang’s (1995) pentagonal
implicit theory of giftedness. Both conceptions emphasize the need for some compari-
son against peers when identifying giftedness. Giftedness was also understood through
characteristics of the gifted person, and especially through cognitive features.
Furthermore, creative and motivational characteristics were described frequently.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 163

These results are in line with the findings of earlier research (Endepohls-Ulpe & Ruf,
2005; Persson, 1998; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007).
The results of the first study indicated that elementary school teachers’ main con-
ceptions of giftedness are in keeping with earlier research and theories of giftedness.
When considering the second research question, only 11 teachers in the first study
defined giftedness as a malleable quality, eight teachers mentioned explicitly the
developmental aspects of giftedness, and three wrote that gifted students need support
to develop themselves. Overall, giftedness was more often described as fixed.
The second study with quantitative methods explored only the malleable versus
fixed view of giftedness. More than half of the Finnish teachers (54%) in the second
study supported the malleable view of giftedness; that is, they had a growth mindset.
Thirty percent understood giftedness as a fixed quality and 16% had a mixed view. The
last category implies that malleable and fixed views can be simultaneously present
(Dweck, 2006). Overall, the developmental quality of giftedness was present in quite
different ways in the two independent studies of this article. This might be due to the
diverse samples, context, and methods (see “Limitations” section). It is also possible
that highly educated Finnish teachers (Tirri, 2014) know on a general level that gifted-
ness, as well as other qualities, can be developed (Study 2). However, when teachers
define and write the statements themselves (Study 1), the general knowledge does not
transfer and only the visible and easily detected characteristics of giftedness are
brought up. It should also be noted that the teachers’ written definitions were quite
short and simplified constructions (Study 1). This might indicate that most teachers
have just written the first thoughts that came to their mind or it may be in response to
the survey method or the question used in this study, as teachers were asked to give
their definitions of giftedness. Thus, the results might be different, if a different kind
of question or method were used.
We should also acknowledge that the general educational atmosphere in Finland with
its emphasis on equality makes it difficult for teachers to take a stand on issues related to
giftedness (Tirri, 2007). This atmosphere and the lack of special training for teachers in
gifted education can explain conflicting and superficial conceptions, which have not
been fully developed. Teachers in Study 1 quite unanimously corresponded that they
wished to receive more knowledge regarding giftedness and gifted children. Thus, both
pre- and in-service teacher education programs need to develop methods of providing
teachers more knowledge about giftedness and the developmental nature of giftedness.

Limitations
There are limitations that need to be discussed as the two studies had different sam-
ples, contexts, and methods. The sample of the first study included only elementary
school teachers, and the second study had both elementary and secondary school
teachers. Even though the second study found no statistically significant differences
between teachers of different school levels, the results of the first study represent only
elementary school teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and it is possible that secondary
school teachers have different views.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

164 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

The two studies also differed in terms of contexts. The first study was introduced to
the respondents as a study about giftedness, in which teachers’ conceptions and gifted
education practices were asked with open-ended questions. The second study was
introduced as a study about teachers’ attitudes to ethical and intercultural issues in
which the modified Dweck (2000) instrument was part of a longer online survey. This
difference might have had an impact on what kind of teachers responded. For example,
teachers who participated in the first study seemed to be generally very positive toward
giftedness and gifted education, and this might indicate that teachers with negative
attitudes did not respond. Furthermore, teachers of the second study might or might
not have taken the questions about giftedness as seriously as the teachers in the first
study would have as they knew that the study was about giftedness.
In addition, the most salient difference was regarding methodological approaches. To
increase the trustworthiness of the two studies, their methods and analytical processes
have been described in as much detail as possible. Especially in the first study, a demon-
stration of the qualitative analysis was given to assist the reader, and examples of the
teachers’ original statements were included to give an impression of the nature of the
data. The interrater reliability was calculated to increase the reliability of categorization.
Nevertheless, the data of the first study were short texts that participants had produced
by themselves. Therefore, it is plausible that with in-depth interviews, a more accurate
and versatile knowledge about teachers’ views on developmental aspect of giftedness
might be gained. In addition, the quantitative instrument with four items provided a
limited view of conceptions of giftedness. Furthermore, it is argued that items on
Dweck’s instrument are relatively easy and can provide overly positive results
(Levenstein, Thompson, & Farrington, 2014). Therefore, there is a need for more in-
depth research to untangle teachers’ views about the developmental aspects of gifted-
ness. A sample of both elementary and secondary school teachers in a mixed-method
study would provide a rigorous understanding of teachers’ conceptions about the malle-
ability of giftedness, and how the conceptions of teachers with different mindsets differ.
Nevertheless, the two studies of this article provide a unique way of studying giftedness
as they explored teachers’ conceptions and the developmental view in them with Dweck’s
theoretical framework. This provides an up-to-date (see Subotnik, Robinson, Callahan,
& Gubbins, 2012) approach in the field of giftedness that calls for further investigation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular,
firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 33, 453–478.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 165

Balchin, T., Hymer, B., & Matthews, D. (2009). Introduction: Reflections on the road ahead. In
T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to
gifted education (pp. xx–xxiv). New York, NY: Routledge.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an interven-
tion. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper
Review, 14, 151–153.
Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (2014). School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 37, 94–103.
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual
clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168.
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.).
Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
De Wet, C. F., & Gubbins, E. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33, 97–108.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House.
Dweck, C. S. (2009). Self-theories and lessons for giftedness: A reflective conversation. In T.
Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to
gifted education (pp. 308–316). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the
schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67, 614–622.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62, 107–115.
Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification
of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16, 219–228.
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2009). Toward a science of exceptional
achievement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172, 199–217.
Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives.
In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80–97).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21, 81–99.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Hany, E. A. (1997). Modeling teachers’ judgment of giftedness: A methodological inquiry of
biased judgment. High Ability Studies, 8, 159–178.
Kärkkäinen, R. (2011). Doing better? Children’s and their parents’ and teachers’ perceptions
of malleability of the child’s academic competences (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Eastern Finland, Joensuu). Retrieved from http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-
952-61-0420-1/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0420-1.pdf
Kärkkäinen, R., & Räty, H. (2010). Parents’ and teachers’ views of the child’s academic poten-
tial. Educational Studies, 36, 229–232.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

166 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 39(2)

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kupari, P., Välijärvi, J., Andersson, L., Arffman, I., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E., & Vettenranta, J.
(2013). PISA12 ensituloksia [PISA 2012 preliminary results]. Helsinki, Finland: Opetus- ja
kulttuuriministeriö.
Laine, S. (2010). The Finnish public discussion of giftedness and gifted children. High Ability
Studies, 21, 63–76.
Lee, L. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and talented young children. High Ability
Studies, 10, 183–196.
Levenstein, R., Thompson, C., & Farrington, C. (2014, April). Developing and validating mea-
sures of noncognitive factors in middle and high school students. Paper presentation at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Megay-Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of
academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23, 178–182.
Mönks, F. J., & Pflüger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and
perspective. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Mönks, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent
(pp. 499–521). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Moon, T. R., & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447–480.
Mugny, G., & Carugati, F. (1989). Social representations of intelligence. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
National Board of Education. (2011). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden muutok-
set ja täydennykset 2010 [The amendments and additions to the national core curriculum for
basic education 2010] Tampere, Finland: Tampereen Yliopistopaino.
Ojanen, S., & Freeman, J. (1994). The attitudes and experiences of head teachers, class teachers, and
highly-able students towards the education of the highly able in Finland and Britain (Research
Reports of the Faculty of Education No. 54). Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s
world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Education at a glance:
OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/eag-2011-en
Persson, R. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of high ability in
an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9, 181–196.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising
solutions. Journal for Applied School Psychology, 19, 31–50.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single
homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and
experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233–235.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for
promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Siegle, D., Moore, M., Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service
and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337–360.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007).
Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving
diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479–499.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016

Laine et al. 167

Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit
theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 88–94.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward
for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176–188.
Subotnik, R. F., Robinson, A., Callahan, C. M., & Gubbins, J. E. (2012). Malleable minds:
Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs:
University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Tirri, K. (Ed.). (2007). Values and foundations in gifted education. Bern, Switzerland: Peter
Lang.
Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 40, 1–10.
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 36, 84–96.
Tirri, K., Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Adams, A. M., Yuen, M., & Lau, P. S. Y. (2002). Cross-
cultural predictors of teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education: Finland, Hong Kong, and
the United States. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 112–131.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain specific giftedness: Applications in school and life. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). Boston,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Yeager, D. S. (2008). Adolescent mindsets and the education of ethical sensitivity. In K.
Tirri (Ed.), Educating moral sensibilities in urban schools (pp. 63–78). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe
that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 302–314.
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). An implicit theories of personal-
ity intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion.
Child Development, 84, 970–988.
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Dweck, C. (2011). Adolescents’
implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after remembered and hypothetical peer con-
flicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1090–
1107.
Ziegler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness.
High Ability Studies, 11, 113–136.

Author Biographies
Sonja Laine works as a doctoral student at the Department of Teacher Education at the
University of Helsinki, Finland. Her main research interests are gifted education, teachers’ con-
ceptions of giftedness, and teachers’ mindsets.
Elina Kuusisto, PhD, works as a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Teacher
Education at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She is also a visiting professor at the University
of Vienna, Austria. Her research interests include gifted education, moral and religious educa-
tion, and teacher education.
Kirsi Tirri, PhD, is a professor of education and research director at the Department of Teacher
Education at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She is also a visiting scholar with the Stanford
Center on Adolescence, CA, USA. Tirri was president of the European Council for High Ability
(ECHA) for the years 2008 to 2012 and the president of the SIG International Studies at
American Educational Research Association (AERA) for the years 2010 to 2013.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on June 1, 2016