Study

last updated:June 2007

How can we identify gifted and talented students?
Gifted and talented children are usually defined (eg. OFSTED, 1998 – see Further Reading) as those who either demonstrate exceptionally high–level performance or have potential that has not yet been recognised. The review highlighted three main approaches to identifying gifted and talented students:

• nomination
• testing
• combined approaches.

Nomination is the most common method of identifying gifted and talented students in mainstream education in England. (Nomination is discussed in the next section of the RfT).

Testing
The review described three types of tests used to identify gifted and talented students:

• intelligenct tests, and
• creativity tee tests
• achievemensts.

Intelligence (or IQ) tests are not used in mainstream schools in England although they are used in other countries. They have been criticised for concentrating solely on academic talent related to analytical reasoning and reading comprehension. One critic (Sternberg, see Further Reading) argued that individuals possess blends of different types of intelligence, such as academic or practical, that could not be identified using an IQ test alone.

Standardised achievement tests aim to indicate students’ current levels of achievement across specific talents and abilities. They have been criticised for their failure to challenge the most gifted students. Like intelligence tests, achievement tests do not fully address the needs of students with reading and language difficulties, and culturally diverse educational backgrounds. Similarly, achievement tests only make an assessment of the child’s current understandings, not of what the child has the capacity to achieve in the future.

Creativity measures are also used to identify gifted and talented pupils. Tests of creative thinking focus more on pupils’ potential and offer broader definitions of giftedness that might otherwise be based too closely on purely academic considerations.

Combined approaches
The review suggested that a combination of approaches may be the best way to identify gifted and talented students. This resonates with approaches for identifying giftedness described in other sources (eg. OFSTED, 1998 – see Further Reading), including:

focusing on particular aptitudes rather than general indicators of achievement

• interacting with pupils to uncover non–obvious talents
• watching out for motivation and interests as clues to potential
• consulting colleagues
• consulting the pupils themselves, and
• talking to parents and carers.

OFSTED proposed that teachers should make identification systematic within the school so that it is continuous, rather than relying on specific tests at a set time of year. This could involve teachers using the outcomes of particular tasks set for pupils.

Which groups of people are involved in nominating gifted and talented students?
The review found that many schools make use of nomination to identify and select gifted and talented students. Nomination can be by:

• teachers
• parents
• peers, and
• students nominating themselves.

Teachers
Teachers are often involved in identifying and nominating gifted and talented pupils, but the approach can be limited in its success because of the potential for:

• bias against culturally diverse learners
• teachers having a stereotyped picture of what a gifted and talented student is like. Teachers who are untrained in identifying gifted and talented pupils may tend to nominate high achieving, hard–working, conformist pupils, and
• focusing on attainment aspects of giftedness rather than less accessible indicators of giftedness like creativity.

Parents
The review found that parents tended to be more successful than teachers in identifying giftedness, particularly in young children’s reading and communication skills, but there was the potential for some parents to over–rate their child’s talents.
Pupils

Increasingly, schools have sought to involve students in their own learning. In three studies of peer nomination, one of which was large-scale, researchers found that students’ judgments were accurate. Other studies suggested that students’ judgments of their peers’ abilities becomes less reliable the younger they were and that students younger than eight years were unable to make objective judgments about the abilities of their classmates.

Self-nomination
The reviewers found relatively little research investigating the effectiveness of self–nomination as an identification strategy. But the literature does acknowledge that students should be able to take a part in identifying themselves in order for them to
understand their own potential. It was also recognised that self-nomination could be useful where peer pressure may cause students to hide their abilities and talents.

You may like to read a case study that explores ways of identifying gifted and talented students, which were designed particularly to identify underachieving gifted and talented students and students for whom English was an additional language.

What other student behaviours might indicate giftedness?
Behaviours indicating giftedness may not be readily observable, for a number of reasons. For example, students may not have had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their ability or they may hide their ability in order to 'fit in' with their peer group. Looking for positive indications of giftedness may be helpful in the identification process, but students who do not ‘tick the boxes’ may still be missed.

For example, in one school-based study (Rule, 2006 – see Further Reading) the researcher looked at the behaviours underachieving, gifted, students might display. These behaviours included:

• Challenging the relevance of the topic area, or being critical of the teaching and learning styles in the classroom. (Possible meaning:  ‘I can’t learn like that, I like doing things differently’).
• Liking to be seen as outspoken and provocative in class discussions (Possible meaning: ‘I’m not given any opportunities to develop my own ideas and to be original’).
• Coming alive in class discussion, but showing a total lack of effort in written work.  (Possible meaning: ‘I easily remember things the teacher says and things I have read in books so I don’t see the point of having to write them down as well’).
• Wanting to discuss the work with friends and the teacher when they should be writing. (Possible meaning: ‘I want to follow my own agenda’ or ‘I want to slow this lesson down and discuss it in more detail and complexity’).
• Saying they don’t know the answer to questions even if they do. (Possible meaning: ‘I deliberately underachieve in an effort to gain acceptance from peers’).

A common complaint of students in the study was that they felt they were unable to define the scope and format of their work and were unable to choose a method of working they liked in order to meet the learning outcomes of the lesson.

Three students felt they were punished for asking awkward questions when they felt they were seeking alternative ways of working. One student admitted he was openly critical of class activities and questioned their relevance.

The study suggested that teachers did not always distinguish between learning and work done. For example, four out of five able male underachievers in the study said they saw no point in making notes and writing down factual information they could remember, when their teacher expected them to write down the information.

Fourteen Year 8 students in the study kept a tally of lessons for two weeks to identify the degree of challenge they faced in their work. They rated about half of their lessons as frustrating due to lack of challenge or slow pace. In the absence of intellectual challenge, these students responded in a variety of different ways. The most worrying response was when students created their own challenge in the form of activities that distracted the class from their learning.

We report in more detail on this work in the case study section.

How did schools meet the needs of gifted and talented students?
The review suggested that strategies for meeting the needs of gifted and talented students fall into two main approaches – special and inclusive. Advocates of inclusive approaches believe that all pupils have needs that schools are required to meet. Critics of the inclusive approach refer to the rigidity of regular classrooms – as perceived by some teachers – as a reason for removing and educating gifted students separately. In this RfT we describe approaches to educating gifted and talented students that fall into both these categories.

The review found that increasingly schools are adopting approaches that support in-class enrichment or extension of learning. You may like to read a case study showing how a school used an inclusive approach for differentiating the learning of all students including the gifted and talented ones.

Research uncovered by the review suggested that gifted and talented students are more successful in differentiated classrooms because their teachers are able to plan and implement learning approaches based on each student’s own level of readiness and needs. These students can then be supported and moved forward in their learning through the application of teacher skills and knowledge that is educationally relevant to the student. The review identified a number of approaches to extend and enrich learning for gifted and talented students, including:

• mentoring
• distance learning
• differentiation
• curriculum compacting (spending less time on some parts of the curriculum in order to make time for new areas – see next sections), and
• grouping practices.

Overall, in relation to mentoring, or other coaching activities, the review found some evidence for positive impact on students. Evidence from other sources supports the effectiveness of such programmes and you may like to read a case study that shows the positive effects of peer coaching.

Very few studies examined distance learning programmes for gifted and talented students. But there was some evidence to suggest that such approaches provided highly able students with a complementary programme of acceleration and extension.

We discuss differentiation, curriculum compacting and grouping practices in the following sections of the RfT.

How are curricula differentiated for gifted and talented pupils?
Research findings from the review suggest that gifted and talented students’ learning is enhanced when teachers use differentiated approaches to their learning. The review highlighted two distinct types of differentiation:

• enrichment, and
• acceleration.

The aim is to provide increased opportunities for pupils to widen their experiences by:

• personalising students’ learning in normal lessons, and/or
• including a range of additional activities that go on outside the normal classroom situation.

Enrichment involves increasing the breadth and depth of specific curriculum areas and subjects that the student is already following as part of their normal curriculum. Teachers created opportunities for enrichment by modifying the content, method and/or learning context of subjects.

As strategies that separate out individual pupils from the mainstream class run the risk that the students may feel isolated from their peers, increasingly, emphasis is being placed on the provision of enrichment activities within the classroom. Enrichment activities that form part of classroom learning may be designed to increase variety and/or pace of learning. They may also include using higher order thinking skills, developing students’ enquiry and problem solving skills, and encouraging student independence and intellectual risk–taking.

You may like to read a case study that shows how teachers aimed to enrich boys’ writing.

In addition to in–class interventions some schools engaged students in activities outside the classroom such as field trips, independent research projects, summer schools and artistic, creative, and cultural events. You may like to read a case study about the benefits students believed they had gained from science enrichment activities.

Whilst there is an increasing focus on teachers using enrichment to enhance the learning of all students in normal classroom situations, it is also carried out in the context of withdrawal groups, selective classes or ability groups for gifted and talented pupils. (See later sections of the RfT.) The reviewers found evidence that students were motivated by the social learning opportunities provided by working with other gifted and talented students.

We explore acceleration strategies in the next section of the RfT.

What does accelerated learning involve?
While enrichment involves increasing the breadth and depth of specific curriculum areas and subjects that the student is already following as part of the normal curriculum, acceleration refers to strategies that involve structuring the learning process in a way that leads to accelerated attainment or performance for gifted and talented students.

The main approach to acceleration involves the early introduction of concepts, topics and ideas and the presentation of lessons at a faster pace for gifted and talented students than for other students. For example, a number of schools in England enter students for their Key Stage 3 national tests a year early (aged 12–13 years instead of 13–14 years) and use what would otherwise be the final year of the key stage for covering the first year of the next qualification, the GCSE.  This enables the students to complete their GCSE examinations a year early and so make an early start on their next qualification (A level).

A meta-analysis of studies on a variety of acceleration programmes showed that, overall, gifted and talented students are equally or more successful academically in accelerated programmes when compared with similar students in non–accelerated programmes. But teachers have expressed concerns that early learning in some subject areas, such as English literature, may involve students tackling issues that require a greater degree of emotional maturity than they may have at the time. You can read more about teachers’ (and students’) views of acceleration in case study 6.

Acceleration can involve compressing or compacting the curriculum for a whole group of students by removing elements of the curriculum they already understand or are judged to be capable of understanding quickly. The review cites suggestions that this may be up to 40–50% of content for some subjects.  At the individual student level, curriculum compacting could be regarded as a type of personalised learning and could offer individual targeted students in normal classes the opportunity for increased challenge and progression.

Another approach to accelerated learning, described elsewhere, is based on Vygotsky’s idea that learners can be supported in reaching a level of understanding and reasoning in advance of what they would achieve if left to themselves. This approach to learning became a feature of a number of ‘cognitive acceleration’ programmes in England including Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) and Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics Education (CAME). The aim of the programmes was to intervene actively at key points in students' cognitive development, thereby 'accelerating' their levels of thinking. The researchers who initiated and designed the CASE project and evaluated its outcomes, believe that 'It is not what pupils learn, but how they learn it that matters. How they learn depends on their cognitive processing capability, and intervention in the process by which this capability develops is the route to fundamentally improved life chances in the population of learners'.

The CASE programme was extensively evaluated in relation to short and long–term effects on pupils, and significant gains in students’ attainment were found on a large scale. You can find out more about the CASE programme in our RfT ‘Improving learning through cognitive intervention’.

What grouping practices do schools use to support the learning of gifted and talented students?
Schools and teachers have often tried to group students in ways they perceive to be most conducive for the learning of gifted and talented students. Common grouping practices include:

• grouping by ability or attainment
• cooperative learning groups, and
• cluster grouping.

Whilst there have been claims that grouping by ability has positive effects on the achievement of both gifted and non–gifted students, other evidence suggests that the main benefits lie in the enhanced pacing of lessons. When mixed–ability groups proceed at the same pace and cover the same curriculum there is little difference in learning outcomes.

Benefits of ability grouping may derive more from the fact that students like being with peers of similar ability and, possibly, interests to their own. But critics of ability grouping argue that such grouping strategies may be detrimental to the education of other students. Ability grouping practices are also criticised for failing to anticipate the potential of students from lower socio–economic groups and ethnic minority groups. We discuss aspects of ability grouping in detail in our earlier RfT on 'Grouping pupils and students'.

The review referred to collaborative group working as a strategy for enhancing the learning of gifted students. Evidence highlighted in the review suggested that such groups frequently used gifted students as mentors or tutors for the remainder of the group with limited impact on their own learning. However, whilst not explored in the review there is recent evidence that mentoring benefits both the mentor and the student mentored. For example, you may like to read about a paired spelling approach that helped both students involved in the activity. (See Further Reading)

There is also evidence that for group work to be successful the task has to be structured and students need to be trained in rules for effective dialogue. In the case study section we present two vignettes that illustrate different ways this can be achieved. The first shows how a group of teachers structured group work in order to create effective discussion between students. The second focuses on one specific kind of structured collaborative activity that teachers used to develop all their students’ thinking. You can read about these approaches in case study 7.

To find out more about structuring group work and supporting effective dialogue you might like to read our RfT on ''Raising achievement through group work'.

Cluster grouping involves placing students in ability groups for particular activities, with students remaining as part of the class at other times. The review identified a number of benefits, including the following:

• Cluster grouping is cost effective, and does not need additional personnel.
• Students are clustered with their intellectual peers.
• High achieving students can be placed with teachers who are trained for, and are interested in, meeting their needs. For example, they may engage students in thinking skills, design or creative activities that draw on a range of skills, knowledge and understanding.

What view of ‘pedagogy’ underpinned gifted and talented education?

The reviewers found two main elements prevailing in the UK:

general acknowledgement that effective teaching was not mechanistic rule-following, but incorporated creative qualities that resided in the teacher, and
recognition of specific characteristics of teacher effectiveness, including:
          o sharing objectives with students that were clarified and reviewed at the end of the lesson
          o a classroom climate characterised by high expectations and teacher enthusiasm
          o whole class interactive teaching that involves dialogue for learning and not just a series of closed questions and answers
          o immediate feedback to students
          o opportunities to practice and apply what has been taught, and
          o variety in teaching strategies.

The reviewers found that in England, gifted and talented practitioners emphasise teaching behaviour rather than learning behaviour. Increasingly, however, teachers are analysing and looking to build on what students know already, the ideas from everyday life they bring to lessons and their alternative conceptions relating, for example, to science. You may like to read a previous RfT about how science teachers aimed to build this approach into their lesson planning.

What other ways did the review identify for supporting gifted and talented students?
As well as describing how schools responded to the needs of gifted and talented students, the review referred to a number of specific national and international initiatives aimed at supporting gifted and talented students, including:

• The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY)
• London Gifted and Talented
• World Class Arena.

NAGTY was established by the UK government to develop, implement, promote and support educational opportunities for gifted and talented children and young people aged up to 19, as well as providing support for parents and educators. It is recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of expertise that continues to develop work in the field through research and development.

One of its key components, the Student Academy, provides extra challenge for students through:

• a year-round programme of short courses delivered by experts at locations across the country
• summer schools offering a lengthier, in-depth, focus on one subject in a university environment
• online study groups, hosting Internet-based learning guided by academic specialists
• discussion fora, and
• information resources.

Another sub-body, the Professional Academy leads, supports, and informs teachers and educators in relation to improving existing provision for gifted and talented students. The Academy conducts an extensive research programme that aims to gather robust evidence on policy and practice in the education of gifted and talented youth, with a focus on effective pedagogy.

London Gifted and Talented is part of London Challenge, a government initiative to raise aspirations and standards in education. The project aims to combat disadvantage and to offer opportunities for teachers, pupils and parents to work together to improve the learning of gifted and talented students in London.

World Class Arena is an international initiative developed by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) that is designed to identify and assess gifted and talented students around the world. It has a focus on mathematical and problem solving skills, particularly for upper primary and lower secondary school pupils.

You can find out more about these initiatives in our Further Reading section.

How was the review conducted?
The reviewers adopted a systematic approach to searching, selecting and analysing the literature. Empirical studies and theoretical articles, with the potential to inform the review, were identified through searching a range of sources, including:

• university library catalogues
• electronic databases, including the British Education Index (BEI), the Australian Education Index (AEI), the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), and the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC)
• gifted and talented resources published through gifted and talented organizations, and
• government documents and educational reports.

The reviewers created and used a template to classify and explore the research in relation to key themes including:

• identification of gifted and talented students
• inclusive/special provision, and
• differentiated approaches to teaching and learning.

In addition to requiring the research to cover one of the key themes, the reviewers also assessed the quality of empirical studies and the impact of interventions on students. Theoretical work was judged for suitability in terms of its relevance to the main foci of the review.

Implications
Teachers may like to consider the following implications of the findings of the review:

• The review highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for identifying gifted and talented students. Would it be helpful for you and your colleagues to revisit approaches you use for doing this and to try out other approaches singly or in combination? For example, rather than rely on test results, you could set up extension activities and observe how students tackle them.You may find it helpful to try approaches separately on the same group of students and then compare the results. (You may find case study 1 a useful starting point).
• The review highlighted the importance of teachers identifying what students know, can do already and may be capable of assimilating quickly in order to personalise learning for their students. For example, you might like to explore the idea of constructing diagnostic tests, which we featured in a previous RfT on 'Learning science'. Such tests aim to uncover what students know, understand and can apply in relation to particular topics. Would you find it helpful to work with colleagues to design and implement the tests?
• Inclusive approaches to the education of gifted and talented students are underpinned by the belief that all students have learning needs to be met and have something to contribute. Would you find it helpful to ask a colleague to do some close observation of particular students to help you unpick the experiences of specific gifted and talented students? You may find it helpful to read our earlier RfT about 'Effective talk in the primary classroom'.
• The review suggests that students may be gifted and talented in different ways, such as academic, practical and creative. Do you provide activities that enable a wide range of students to become engaged in ways that reflect the specific skills they have, such as artistic/creative, academic, researching, practical, numerical? Would it be helpful to work with colleagues to design activities that appeal to differently gifted and able students?

Leaders might like to consider the following implications.

• The review findings suggest that gifted and talented students do not always benefit from collaborative group working, although it does not give details of the circumstances. Could you do more to support collaborative learning in your school by, for example, releasing teachers to plan structured group work together and encouraging them to reflect on the impact of the changes they make on the learning of gifted and talented students? (You may find it helpful to look at case study 7 about building effective group-work)
• The review suggests that asking students to nominate peers who they consider to be gifted and talented may be a helpful approach for children over the age of eight years. Could you do more to support students in the process of identifying gifted and talented peers, by, for example, making it a focus of whole–school development planning or connecting it with pupil voice work? (You can read about engaging with pupils’ views in our earlier RfT on pupil voice)
• The review suggests that in–class enrichment strategies are less likely to have negative side effects, such as social isolation, that acceleration strategies might have. Would it be helpful to begin a process of staff development in enrichment strategies, perhaps asking staff who already use, for example, thinking skills approaches, to coach other members of staff?

Gaps in the research   
Gaps that are uncovered in a piece of research have a useful role in making sure that future research builds cumulatively on what is known. But research also needs to inform practice, so practitioners’ interpretation of the gaps and follow–up questions are crucial. We think four kinds of studies would usefully supplement the review project findings:

• large-scale longitudinal studies that use control groups to evaluate programmes aimed at promoting the learning of gifted and talented students
• studies that help further to define the characteristics of gifted and talented students across different age groups and subject areas
• research that explores and evaluates different ways of involving gifted and talented students in cooperative group-work
• research and development studies that create and evaluate complex, multi–faceted tools for identifying gifted and talented students from minority ethnic backgrounds.

What is your experience?
Do you have any evidence about initiatives aimed at identifying and/or promoting the learning of gifted and talented students? Do you have action research or enquiry based development programmes running that explore, for example, structured collaborative group learning?  We would be interested to hear about examples of effective initiatives promoting learning for gifted and talented students, which we could perhaps feature in our case study section.

Your feedback
Have you found this study to be useful? Have you used any aspect of this research in your own classroom teaching practice? We would like to hear your feedback on this study. To share your views with us pelase email: research@gtce.org.uk