Masters Dissertation

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of
A critique of evidence-based approaches in gifted and talented education
Master of Teaching
(EDUC 7557)
Luke Day
Teaching dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Teaching
(EDUC 7557)
The University of Adelaide
Luke Ross Day

a1628568
BSc, Dip. Lang. (German)
Supervisor: Associate Professor Mathew A. White PhD

School of Education
mathew.white@adelaide.edu.au
Submitted: 26th October, 2018
Word Count: 17,750

Declaration
I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award
of any other degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution
and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or
written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In
addition, I certify that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in
my name, for any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution
without the prior approval of the University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner
institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree.
I acknowledge that copyright of published works contained within this thesis
resides with the copyright holder(s) of those works.
I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on
the web, via the University’s digital research repository, the Library Search and also
through web search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to
restrict access for a period of time.
I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision
of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Signed: Luke Day
Date: 26th October, 2018

Abstract
Gifted and talented education supposedly caters to students who demonstrate a high
level of ability, or potential, which in turn can be developed into exceptional competencies.
Without consistent identifying procedures, there are students globally, who are never given
the opportunity to realise their potential. The world may have lost the likes of a Sigmeud
Freud, a Stephen Hawking, a Nelson Mandela, or several other incredible talents of high
impact from any particular field. There is no exact definition or model for gifted and
talented education and there is no consensus from the literature on what giftedness actually
is. This study adopted Françoys Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
2.0, which describes the development of gifts into talented. Eighteen other models,
discovered from the literature, were examined as a way to refine the definition. A
significant issue with gifted and talented education is the level to which educators are
differentiating pedagogical strategies for gifted students, within regular classrooms. This
study sought to address this issue through a comprehensive literature review, which
followed a specific process within the methodology to ensure viable research. Sources from
the literature were strategically selected based on specific criteria. The methodology
adopted a thematic approach, and through modes of a scholar educator, the relevant sources
were grouped into themes for further synthesis, analysis and evaluation. The research
discovered that there is no national policy and no government funding contributing the
field. Instead, every Australian state and territory have their own policy or guidelines.
These appear to only be implemented at the discretion of each school. There are many
barriers to the success of gifted students in Australia. The Australian culture is one of these
with the presence of a phenomenon known as tall poppy syndrome. Teacher bias and
attitudes towards enrichment strategies is the other. Attitudes for providing a more
advanced education to some students, but not others can vary between educators. There are
also heavy ethical implications on who deserves this label of “gifted”. This study resulted
in the recognition of serious gaps in the literature. Firstly, despite each policy emphasising
the need to differentiate for gifted students, there is little in recommendations for doing so.
Secondly, there are no measurement strategies within the field. Lastly, there is no definitive
model and no model which directly correlates to practice, which causes confusion as to
which is the correct approach to take to gifted education. There is no universal definition
for giftedness. The definition adopted for this study was critically evaluated and questions
were asked regarding moving in and out of the “gifted” category. This study came to the
conclusion that Australian educators are probably not equipped well enough to provide the
appropriate learning experiences. Recommendations were made for future research in order
to resolve this critical issue. Gifted education matters. If children with exceptional
academic abilities are not motivated and inspired in the school environment, they may
underachieve which prevents possible benefits to future society.

Acknowledgments
Firstly, I would like to thank and acknowledge Associate Professor Mathew White
for supervising me throughout this study. His guidance and support has enabled me to
complete this dissertation by correspondence. Mathew always made himself available for
online, zoom discussions and was always positive and encouraging with his feedback. His
recommendations in terms of deadlines, key areas to focus on and overall structure played
a key role in the production of this dissertation.
I would also like to thank Ally from Kai Lounge, who provided me with a lot of
coffee. She always welcomed me into her cafe in my small hometown of Moore. Her deck
was such an easy place to work and it always put me in a good state of mind.
Lastly, I would like to thank Emma, who was always happy to read and help
structure sentences. She also gave me a lot of inspiration from her 15 years of teaching
experiences. I wish her all the best with her upcoming Masters of Education degree.
Date: 26th October, 2018

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................v
List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .....................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1 Introduction......................................................................................................1
1.1 Background and rationale of the study ....................................................1
1.1.1 What is gifted and talented education ..........................................5
1.1.2 Why gifted and talented education matters.................................7
1.1.3 Who warrants gifted and talented education services ................8
1.1.4 How are services for gifted and talented education provided....1
1.2 Research issue.............................................................................................3
1.3 Purpose of the study...................................................................................3
1.4 Research question ......................................................................................4
1.5 Line of argument ........................................................................................4
1.6 Significance .................................................................................................5
1.7 Limitations ..................................................................................................6
1.8 Definitions ...................................................................................................7
1.9 Concluding summary.................................................................................8
Chapter 2 Methodology .....................................................................................................9
2.1 The scholar-educator .................................................................................9
2.2 A thematic approach................................................................................10

2.3 Search criteria ..........................................................................................11
2.4 Analysis of the library of literature ........................................................14
2.1 Concluding summary...............................................................................17
Chapter 3 Literature Review ..........................................................................................18
3.1 Defining Gifted and Talented Education ...............................................18
3.1.1 A historical overview of the literature. ......................................19
3.1.2 Intelligence testing .......................................................................22
3.1.3 Twice-exceptional learners ..........................................................24
3.1.4 Domain specific abilities ..............................................................25
3.1.5 Talent development ......................................................................31
3.2 Policies in Gifted and Talented Education ............................................46
3.2.1 An international approach ..........................................................46
3.2.2 An Australian national approach ...............................................51
3.2.3 An Australian state and territory approach ..............................53
Australian Capital Territory ......................................................56
New South Wales..........................................................................58
Northern Territory ......................................................................60
Queensland ...................................................................................63
South Australia.............................................................................63
Tasmania .......................................................................................66
Victoria..........................................................................................67
Western Australia ........................................................................67
3.2.4 Funding .........................................................................................68

3.3 Perspectives on Pedagogy in Gifted and Talented Education .............70
3.3.1 Parents’ perspectives ...................................................................70
3.3.2 Students’ perspectives .................................................................73
3.4 Teachers and Teaching in Gifted and Talented Education .................75
3.4.1 Equality, equity and fairness ......................................................75
3.4.3 Teaching differentiation of pedagogy.........................................76
Chapter 4 Critiques of Gifted and Talented Education ...............................................77
4.1 Analysis and synthesis .............................................................................77
4.2 Findings and evaluation ..........................................................................80
4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................82
4.4 Gaps in the literature ...............................................................................83
4.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................83
4.6 Personal insights.......................................................................................84
4.7 Concluding remarks ................................................................................85
References .........................................................................................................................87
List of Abbreviations
ACARA: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.
ACT: Australian Capital Territory.
AITSL: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
APST: Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
CED: Contextual, Emergent and Dynamic model.
DMGT: Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent.
DMNA: Developmental Model of Natural Abilities.
EAP: Education Adjustment Plan.
GATE: Gifted and Talented Education.
GERRIC: Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre.
ILP: Individual Learning Plan.
IMTD: Integrative Model of Talent Development.
IQ: Intelligence Quotient.
MGIM: Multifactorial Gene-environment Interaction Model.
MMG: Munich Model of Giftedness.
NSW: New South Wales.
SA: South Australia.
SA TfEL: South Australian Teaching for Effective Learning.
UMG: Universal Model of Giftedness.
UNSW: The University of New South Wales.
WA: Western Australia.

List of Figures
Figure 1. A paradigmatic approach to gifted education through interactions of
key components ..........................................................................................4
Figure 2. A flowchart illustrating the obtainment of sources used within the
study. .........................................................................................................13
Figure 3. Classification of IQ scores from the Stanford-Binet test. .....................23
Figure 4. The Three-Ring Conception as a definition of giftedness ....................27
Figure 5. Mönks Multifactor Model of Giftedness ................................................29
Figure 6. Munich Model of Giftedness ...................................................................30
Figure 7. Universal Model of Giftedness ................................................................31
Figure 8. S.J. Cohn’s model of giftedness (Cohn, 1981). ......................................32
Figure 9. Gagné’s original Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent .......33
Figure 10. Tannenbaum’s Sea Star of Giftedness ...................................................34
Figure 11. Piirto’s pyramid of talent development .................................................36
Figure 12. Ziegler’s Actiotope Model of Giftedness ................................................37
Figure 13. Gagné’s revised Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent 2.0...39
Figure 14. The Contextual, Emergent and Dynamic Model of Giftedness ...........41
Figure 15. The Talent Development Mega Model ...................................................42
Figure 16. Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.............................43
Figure 17. Gagne’s most recent Integrative Model of Talent Development .........45
Figure 18. A schematic of the approach to gifted and talented education in
ACT ...........................................................................................................57
Figure 19. An adaptation of the Maker model for differentiating pedagogy in
gifted and talented education ................................................................. 62
Figure 20. South Australian Teaching for Effective Learning Framework .........65
Figure 21. Distribution of gifted vs. non-gifted students within the Australian
education system. .....................................................................................85

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background and rationale of the study
“They [gifted and talented learners] may … be at significant risk of underachieving
and/or not completing secondary education, unless appropriate curriculum is provided to
engage and challenge their abilities and develop their talents” (SA Department of
Education, 2016).
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)
acknowledges that gifted students “… vary in terms of the nature and level of their abilities;
there is no single homogeneous group of gifted and talented students” (ACARA, 2015a;
White, 2018). ACARA go on to explain that these gifted students of varying levels “… are
entitled to rigorous, relevant and engaging learning opportunities …” (ACARA, 2015a).
Educators of these students are responsible for providing these learning opportunities by
differentiation of the curriculum. Who are these gifted students? What makes them
different from other students? How can their learning needs be provided for? There is no
universal consensus to the answers of these questions and there is no consistency between
the varying models defining giftedness, policies or with any approaches to teaching
practices (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, & Dixson, 2019).
Françoys Gagné argues that giftedness and talent are developmental and are
independent of each other (Gagné, 2018). Gagné’s approach is adopted in Australian
education and so, for the purpose of this dissertation, students defined as gifted and talented
will be referred to as simply gifted, until such a talent is developed. Gifted students deserve
a differentiated curriculum, with advanced teaching strategies, in order to develop these
talents.
All students have a right to be provided with opportunities to realise their individual
potential as a way to satisfy the purpose of education (Gonski et al., 2018). Why is there
teacher bias towards gifted education? What is the purpose of education, if not to support
and educate all students, irrelevant of their abilities? This dissertation explores a vast
majority of the notions of giftedness and talent as a way for determining appropriate ways
to educate gifted students.
The key purpose of education is to provide the skills needed to meet the future
demands of society, allowing for economic growth and stability. A stable economy will
only be possible if modern day students receive an education, providing them with
knowledge and skills for various occupations (Gonski et al., 2018). In 2016, approximately
3.8 million students attended a total of 9414 Government, Catholic and Independent
schools in Australia (ACARA, 2015b). Students need to be able to think independently for
changing economic demands. This requires adapting for occupations that do not yet exist
by applying higher order thinking skills. Students must be prepared for a complex and
rapidly changing world. It is predicted that as technology evolves, current routine, manual
and administrative duties will slowly become more automated. In order to meet the needs
of a technologically advancing society, students will require more problem solving and
innovative thinking skills, which are to be taught and developed throughout the 9000+
current Australian schools (Gonski et al., 2018).
David Gonski’s (2018) report “Through Growth to Achievement: Report of The
Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools” describes statistically
2
that Australian education is lagging behind other countries in the key learning areas of
Literacy, Science and Mathematics (Gonski et al., 2018). Strategies must be implemented
in modern-day teaching practices to prevent any further decline and as a means for
maximising the learning growth of each student for optimum achievement. Gonski’s report
proposes three priorities that are crucial to these strategies:
1. Deliver at least one year’s growth in learning for every student every year.
2. Equip every child to be a creative, connected and engaged learner in a rapidly
changing world.
3. Cultivate an adaptive, innovative and continuously improving education system
(Gonski et al., 2018).
In order to meet these priorities, the report made 23 recommendations with an
overarching focus on teacher differentiation strategies for individual student learning
(Gonski et al., 2018). These recommendations, in line with the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers (APSTs) by Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL), provide guidance as to how pedagogical strategies need to be flexible.
There is no specific mention of the needs of gifted students in the APSTs, however
differentiating for their needs is covered by “Standard 1: Know the students and how they
learn”. APST 1.5 describes that teachers must differentiate their teaching pedagogical
approaches to cater to the specific learning needs of students of any ability (Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014). Gagné’s definition states that 10% of
these wide range of learners are the students labelled as gifted. 10% equates to a large
number of intellectually and physically gifted students, all of whom need a specialised
education to achieve significant outcomes for the benefit of Australia (Gagné, 2012; 2018).
3
Dai and Chen (2013) provided a novel perspective to the perception of gifted
education, describing a paradigmatic approach as illustrated in Figure 1: A paradigmatic
approach to gifted education through interactions of key components. This approach
describes the relationship between “what” gifted education is, “why” it is important, “who”
warrants gifted services and “how” services are provided to cater for their needs. “What”
defines those who are gifted by characteristics and behaviors. “Why” gives purpose to
providing advanced educational services in addition to regular education. “Who” describes
those who warrant those services as well as their specific learning needs. “How” is the
deliverance of these services and is a result of the interaction of the what, why and who
components (Dai & Chen, 2013).
Figure 1. A paradigmatic approach to gifted education through interactions of key
components (Dai & Chen, 2013).
4
1.1.1 What is gifted and talented education
Gifted and talented education supposedly caters to students who demonstrate a high
level of ability, or potential, which in turn can be developed into exceptional competencies.
There is no exact definition or model for gifted and talented education and there is no
consensus from the literature on what giftedness actually is (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-
kubilius, & Dixson, 2018). The literature presents a huge amount of varying angles towards
gifted and talented education. This dissertation will briefly explore 18 different models and
theories in chapter 3.1. This still does not cover every novel approach to the field. Gagné’s
Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) 2.0, is a model describing talent
development from a gift, corresponding to a potential. For the purpose of this study,
Gagné’s (2007) DMGT 2.0 will be adopted as the primary model for definition purposes.
This model is one of the more comprehensive models from the literature proposing the
processes of talent development, which describes all aspects, including chance,
environmental and intrapersonal factors as well as many other aspects within these factors
(Gagné, 2012). Gagné has revised this model recently to include a genetic foundation
aspect, which is discussed in later chapters. The 2007 model illustrates how gifted and
talented are two individual concepts and should not be used interchangeably as synonyms,
which is common throughout the literature. Gagné’s model takes advantage of the
distinction between the two terms by defining each individually.
 “GIFTEDNESS designates the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities,
called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual
at least among the top 10% of age peers” (Gagné, 2012; 2018).
5
 “TALENT designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed
abilities, called competencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human
activity to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age
peers who are or have been active in that field” ( Gagné, 2012; 2018).
The notion of talent development was established in the early 1980’s. Prior to this,
the field of gifted and talented education had a main focus on abilities or intelligences, as
opposed to achievements as outcomes. Overall, giftedness and what this represents has
evolved from an initial attempt to measure intelligence through to developing talents as
follows:
1. Intelligence testing.
2. Twice-exceptional learners.
3. High ability in specific domains.
4. Talent development.
The foundations were set by Binet in terms of intelligence testing. His research,
along with his Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, led to the development of the Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Scale (Kaufman, 2013; Terman, 1916). This has undergone many
revisions (currently in its 5th) and is incorporated today, in some cases, as means for gifted
identification (Silverman et al., 2010). From the measuring of intelligence, it was observed
that there were individuals who showed intelligent traits, yet they may not achieve well on
an intelligence test. Gallagher first proposed the term twice-exceptional which represented
those who require support on both ends of an intelligence scale – outstanding intelligence
and learning difficulties (Siegle, 2015). This broadened the field of gifted education, as it
indirectly suggested that one could have exceptional intelligence, but not in all areas. There
6
were gifted individuals that demonstrated high ability in specific domains, as opposed to
all areas of life. From here, the concept of talent development arose as a way of exposing
competencies in specific domains from individuals. There are currently many proposed
models which accompany those by Gagné and which have undergone revisions in an
attempt to illustrate the developmental processes of achievement (Worrell, Subotnik,
Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018).
1.1.2 Why gifted and talented education matters
Gifted students are the key to a successfully innovative society. After exposure to
advanced instructional strategies and enrichment of the curriculum, they can achieve
significant accomplishments, making them possible society leaders (Young & Balli, 2014).
A study of gifted 12 year olds found that a substantial proportion of the students, progress
through their post-school lives into highly successful careers. This study showed that by
age 40, 37% had earned doctorates, 9% held patents and a large majority were high-level
leaders in major organisations (Makel, Kell, Lubinski, Putallaz, & Benbow, 2016). There
are multiple reasons as to why gifted education matters. The benefits of developing
exceptional potentials in individuals far out way the negatives. Nations want to stay ahead
of each other. Gifted education is the key to this. It is these gifted individuals that stand out
in society, using creativity and innovation for novel practices. Unfortunately, the
Australian culture acts as a barrier in the development of competencies from gifted
individuals (Merrotsy, 2017). A phenomenon known as “tall poppy syndrome” is evident
in Australia. This is where individuals who exceed in any given domain are not able to
fully excel as their capabilities would allow because their peers and general environment
do not allow it (Walsh & Jolly, 2018). All gifted students must overcome a number of
7
barriers, such as tall poppy syndrome, to develop competencies within the education
system. Educators must ensure that they are differentiating pedagogy and providing all
necessary support, in order for these future leaders to learn to utilise key innovative traits
such as creativity, motivation and higher order thinking (Dai & Chen, 2013).
1.1.3 Who warrants gifted and talented education services
Identifying who warrants the gifted and talented label is extremely important, in
order to provide support for advanced development to the appropriate students. Without
consistent identifying procedures, there are students globally, who are never given the
opportunity to realise their potential. The world may have lost the likes of a Michelangelo,
a Sigmeud Freud, a Stephen Hawking, a Nelson Mandela, or several other incredible talents
from any particular field (Maree, 2018). Identification methods are no longer singularly
determined from standardized testing. However, in some cases, testing is a vital aspect.
The identification methods need to be both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative results
could include analysis of school grades or standardized test results. To accompany this
aspect, there should be a high level of observational (Steenbergen-Hu & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2016). Teacher observations of a student’s demeanor and school life is critical.
A teacher should know best how a student learns and applies that knowledge learnt. The
teacher also can observe how that student interacts with their peers (SA Department of
Education, 2016).
However, the attitude and bias of the individual teachers has a huge effect on the
identification of gifted individuals, because teachers have varying opinions about gifted
education (Lassig, 2009). How is it fair for a gifted individual to be identified and receive
the necessary support if their teacher simply doesn’t believe in a gifted educational
8
approach? From Gagné’s model, that is an aspect of chance towards that student’s talent
development. It is a level of chance that should not be a problem, yet it is. Parental
observations and approach to their child’s education plays a vital role on their development.
Parents can observe key signs during the early years such as early signs of walking and
talking, which act as key indicators of giftedness (SA Department of Education, 2016).
The SA Department for Education and Child Development have released a
checklist to assist parents and educators with key observations of key characteristics of
giftedness from the child in their early years (SA Department of Education, 2016). Table
1, illustrates a number of characteristics of gifted and talents individuals which can be
observed for official identification. A gifted and talented individual may not display all of
these characteristics (NT Department of Education, 2017). Identification can be subjective
based on observations, yet it shouldn’t be. There needs to be a consistent, formal process.
All children learn differently and have different learning needs which is why such
a variety of strategies need to be incorporated for identification. Some of the most gifted
individuals, such as those labelled as twice exceptional, may not perform well during
testing, yet observations may clearly identify them.
9
Table 1. Possible characteristics of a gifted student (NT Department of Education,
2017).
Intellectual traits Personality traits

Exceptional reasoning ability Insightful
Intellectual curiosity Need to understand
Rapid learning rate Need for mental stimulation
Complex thought processes Perfectionism
Vivid imagination Need for precision/logic
Early moral concern Excellent sense of humour
Passion for learning Sensitivity/empathy
Powers of concentration Intensity
Analytical thinking Perseverance
Divergent thinking/creativity Acute self-awareness
Keen sense of justice Nonconformity
Capacity for reflection Questioning rules/authority
1.1.4 How are services for gifted and talented education provided
Differentiating pedagogical strategies for gifted students, that is, those students who
possess outstanding aptitudes for the development of competencies, is a major challenge
for classroom teachers (Gagné, 2012). There are many policies and programs in place for
gifted and talented students worldwide, however there are students in mainstream
classrooms that may not have been identified or who are not economically or
geographically privileged enough to receive resources or special program admittance for
development (Henfield, Woo, & Bang, 2017). Gifted education in the literature mainly
focuses on what it means to be gifted by varying models defining the term. Multiple
methods and procedures for identifying students as gifted are also covered adequately.
However, there appears to be less in the literature about how classroom teachers approach
gifted education and how they should be differentiating their pedagogical strategies for
those students who are trapped in a general school setting. These are students who may be
unable to attend specialised schooling or programs for reasons that may include
socioeconomics or geographical availability.
A problem encountered in differentiated teaching is finding a way to teach, so that
each student has the opportunity to excel to their full potential (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013).
How does a teacher allow for a more enriched and superior school experience for the gifted
student in a mainstream classroom, yet not give that same treatment to other non-gifted
students? It is a controversial area that will be explored as an aspect of this study. This
research examines the literature to synthesise a definition of giftedness as a way to further
explore how these students learn and how they can be best supported through differentiated
teaching strategies.
It is essential that there are Government policies in place to support and develop
gifted students. These policies must be implemented by schools and teachers. While each
Australian state and territory education departments have their own policies for gifted
education, there is no nationally funded program and thus no federal funds allocated
(Kronborg, 2018). Each state policy encourages the use of curriculum differentiation and
enrichment. These policies, providing provisions and support, are only sometimes
implemented by schools as there is a common attitude that gifted students will perform
well regardless of advanced teaching strategies (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
2
1.2 Research issue
The issue with gifted education in Australia, is that there is no national policy for
developing gifted children. The state policies in place are also only implemented in some
cases. There is not enough exposure, which is vital, as it is the Australian society,
particularly parents, who can impact teachers’ attitudes and ultimately pedagogy
(Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017). Overall, the issue that this study has
examined is that of teaching gifted students in mainstream classrooms so that they can
realise and achieve their full potential. It is these students that have either not been
identified or cannot access a specialised gifted education. Every gifted child without an
opportunity to excel is one more person who cannot influence the Australian society as
positively as their potential may allow.
1.3 Purpose of the study
The aim of this research is to investigate the literature chronologically as a way of
examining all varying angles of giftedness throughout history. From this research,
consistent and reliable methods for identification can be explored. Upon examining a more
critiqued method for identification, a definition of giftedness in schools can be synthesised
by incorporating view points on the matter from a history of the literature. By using this
novel definition as well as identifying methods, the ultimate objective of this study can be
investigated. That being, exploring practical ways for teachers in mainstream classrooms
to better differentiate their pedagogical strategies for gifted students who do not receive the
necessary services to realise their full potentials.
3
1.4 Research question
This study poses the following research question:
 To what degree are Australian educators’ equipped to provide evidence-based
learning experiences to gifted students?
1.5 Line of argument
It is argued that gifted and talented education in Australian schools is not fully
appreciated. While there is some recognition, there is little consistency between state
policies and procedures and little consistency in the level of differentiating pedagogical
strategies by classroom teachers. The researcher is of the opinion that current Australian
educators are not provided with the necessary resources and professional training to
provide for gifted learners. They are also time-poor and could be teaching up to 150
students each school term, all with different learning needs and demands. While a large
majority of Australian educators acknowledge that there are gifted students within their
classrooms and that they require a more challenging and enriching curriculum, they simply
do not have the time or resources to provide for them in a mainstream, school education
setting.
Gonski’s recent report statistically shows how Australian education is lagging
behind other nations in all main subject areas (Gonski et al., 2018). These current statistics
suggest that it is unlikely any ground-breaking innovations will come out of Australia. This
could potentially change with advanced differentiation and enrichment of the curriculum
for gifted students in classrooms, in order for each student to realise their potential. The
review of the literature will test this line of argument and investigate means for
4
improvement by exposure of practices and suggestions of classroom strategies for
providing support by teaching differentiation.
1.6 Significance
It is anticipated that this study will make a contribution to the field of gifted
education by covering a number of areas that are limited in the literature:
 Why are there gifted children in mainstream classrooms as opposed to specialised
programs?
 How can teachers differentiate for gifted students?
 How can teachers differentiate for twice-exceptional students?
 How can teachers provide these differentiated strategies so that every child receives
fair treatment?
Whilst this study will examine and derive evidence from many international papers,
there is an overarching Australian focus. Australian studies describing the provision for
gifted students are limited in comparison to other countries in the literature. Even though
there are programs and policies in place at an Australian state and territory level, there are
many gifted students who either may not have been identified or who are not provided the
resources such as admittance into a gifted program (Siegle & Mccoach, 2018). It is
essential that these students receive the differentiation to meet their learning needs so that
they have every opportunity to excel and provide excellence for their society in their own
unique ways. The justification for this project is its value to current teaching practices
within Australian gifted and talented education, as well as closing gaps within the literature,
to be further discussed.
5
1.7 Limitations
Whilst this study is comprehensive, covering many aspects of gifted and talented
education, there are a number of limitations that need to be considered. The study
recognises that gifted and talented education is a large, multi-faceted field and that it is not
practical to explore all of them within this dissertation. Some of the many areas of research
include definitions, identification processes, Indigenous perspectives, ethics, policies,
funding, approaches by schools and teachers, support services, acceleration,
differentiation, pedagogical styles, bias, perspectives, fairness, equity, religion plus many
more. For the purpose of this study, the research within the dissertation will been limited
to several facets.
 Definitions
 International approaches
 National policies
 Parent and student perspectives towards pedagogy
 Equity and fairness
 Teacher attitudes and bias
 Differentiation by pedagogy
Other issues such as methods for identification, ethics and gifted students from
minority groups, will be raised, but not to the extent as the other facets listed. This will
enable the dissertation to comprehensively examine the issues of gifted and talented
education, through modes of a scholar-educator, to address the research question:
6
Following systematic review of the areas mentioned, the final critique in the
concluding chapter, will raise questions for further research and extensively discuss gaps
within the literature. The key theoretical and conceptual points of the gaps will be identified
and clarified, within the final chapter, as means to further advance the field.
1.8 Definitions
There are key terms used throughout this dissertation which may have multiple
interpretations or unique meanings. For the purpose of this study, the key terms, in relation
to the field of gifted and talented education, are described for clarity and an easier
understanding of the text.
 APTITUDE is an exceptional, natural ability to learn and understand by reasoning
(Gagné, 2012; Liu & Waller, 2018).
 COMPETENCE is the mastery of developed skill or knowledge abilities (Gagné,
2018).
 DOMAINS include structured areas of activities with their own symbol system,
such as mathematics, music and literacy or set of sensorimotor skills such as
painting, dancing and sports (Liu & Waller, 2018). Domains may also be organised
into types of intelligences or ways of thinking.
 EMINENCE is the label for gifted individuals who are at the apex of the talent
development trajectory. These are the gifted individuals with fully developed
talents (Worrell, Subotnik, & Olszewski-kubilius, 2018).
 FREE-RIDER EFFECT refers to individuals, when working with a group
towards a mutual goal, taking advantage of the contribution of other people, to gain
7
the maximum outcome with minimum personal effort (French, Walker, & Shore,
2011).
 “GIFTEDNESS designates the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities,
called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual
at least among the top 10% of age peers” (Gagné, 2012, 2018).
 “TALENT designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed
abilities, called competencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human
activity to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age
peers who are or have been active in that field” (Gagné, 2012, 2018).
 TALL POPPY SYNDROME is a phenomenon describing how individuals are
prevented from becoming exceptionally, high-achieving by their peers if they
believe they are becoming too immodest or different from the group (Walsh &
Jolly, 2018).
 TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL refers to students who exhibit both exceptional ability
but also a disability. These two traits may mask each other so that neither is
recognised or addressed (Baldwin, Baum, Pereles, & Hughes, 2015).
1.9 Concluding summary
This chapter has given a brief summary of the field of gifted education by a
paradigmatic approach adopted by Dai and Chen (2013). It has provided the foundation as
to why gifted education can be controversial despite its importance to society and to the
gifted students’ themselves. The next chapter describes the approaches taken through
modes of a scholar-educator, to research this field, targeting the posed research question.
8
Chapter 2
Methodology
The foundations of what gifted education provides and why it is important was
established in the previous chapter. This next chapter describes how the relevant
knowledge for this study was sought through the practises and inquiry modes of a scholar-
educator in order to address the research question:
2.1 The scholar-educator
The methods of research for this study were carefully designed, through modes of a
scholar-educator, to ensure valid and reliable findings for synthesis, analysis and
evaluation. Professor John Hattie, demonstrates modes of a scholar-educator through a
synthesis of over 500,000 studies, in his research on visible learning and understanding
student achievement through variables that matter (Hattie, 2003; 2009). He demonstrates
the importance of effect-sizes and how critical the role of research design plays in this. For
his research on visible learning, more than 800 meta-analyses were examined, which
included 52,637 studies, involving 240,000,000 students (Hattie, 2009).
As a scholar-educator, evidence was gathered from the literature selected, to inform
of current pedagogical approaches and current policies, data was observed to inform
decisions, and theory was critiqued to inform professional practice. Overall, by gathering
sufficient evidence from viable research, teacher bias can be mitigated and the need for
differentiating teaching strategies in gifted education can be promoted.
2.2 A thematic approach
The research methodology organised the library of obtained literature under
relevant themes as well as by journal contribution and Australian contribution. Both
quantitative and qualitative studies were incorporated into this review. The thematic
approach adopted is similar to that by Cao, Jung and Lee’s (2017) review which categorised
their library of literature under their main themes as well as by journal contribution (Cao,
Jung, & Lee, 2017).
Gifted and talented education must first be defined by exploring the history and
development of the field. The perspectives and attitudes to gifted education are also to be
examined to investigate teacher willingness to differentiate strategies. These pedagogical
strategies will be based on current practices and policies world-wide. The varying
approaches can be compared to determine appropriate methods for teachers to differentiate
for gifted students depending on the resources and funding at hand. The literature review,
presented in chapter 3, seeks to answer the research question through the exploration of
four main themes.
 Theme 1: Defining gifted and talented education
 Theme 2: Policies in gifted and talented education
 Theme 3: Perspectives on pedogogy in gifted and talented education
 Theme 4: Teachers and teaching in gifted and talented education
10
The sources retrieved for this study were categorised into each theme. The researcher
subjectively determined which theme each source came under. In most cases, the abstract
of the source was sufficient in the decision and in other cases, the entire source was
analysed as a way for selecting the appropriate theme.
2.3 Search criteria
There was a specific process, through modes of a scholar-educator, with the
selection of resources from the literature, as illustrated in Figure 2: A flowchart illustrating
the obtainment of sources used within the study. An initial search was undertaken for the
general terms “gifted education” and “gifted and talented education”. This was entered
through the databases ERIC, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and The University of Adelaide
Library Search. A wide variety of sources returned from the search. These were explored
and papers of interest were added to a library for later reviewing. More refined searches,
for papers published since 2010, were then performed using key search terms such as
“gifted minority” and “gifted pedagogy” as a measure of directing the literature towards
the question to be investigated. A large number of the returned sources were added to the
exisitng library. Reference lists from the sources gathered so far were then explored to find
further credible sources. As a way of focusing in on gifted education in Australia, specific
Australian gifted journals were targeted. The targeted journals that were examined were
Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, The
Australian Educational Researcher and Gifted and Talented International. Up to date, the
library of relevant literature consisted a total of 201 sources. These publications included
journal articles, book chapters, dissertations, state government reports and websites of
11
organisations. This library was reviewed and further refined, through modes of a scholar-
educator, based on the following criteria:
 The source must be peer-reviewed.
 The source must be published since 2010. However, the search was broadened to
provide a further historical and cultural context to the field (Dai, 2018) as
demonstrated in chapter 3.1.
 The source must have a key focus towards one of four main themes.
Based on the criteria, the library of 201 gathered sources was cut down to 154,
which were ultimately used to address the research question by a comprehensive review.
12
Figure 2. A flowchart illustrating the obtainment of sources used within the study.
2.4 Analysis of the library of literature
The 154 sources, identified as being relevent to the research, were analysed and
classified into various groups. This allowed for observation of the contribution of
Australian papers, contribution of journals and how all of the sources were distrubuted
across the four main themes.
Table 1 shows that only 22.7% of the total resources are from Australian research,
despite the fact that several Australian education journals were targeted for sources. This
research is aimed at gifted education in Australia but despite the low percentage of
Australian research used, international research was predominantly examined as a way
forward for gifted education in Australian classrooms.
Table 1. Contribution of Australian sources to the library of relevant literature.
Australian International Total

Total 35 119 154
% 22.7 77.3 100
The contribution of journals are shown in Table 2. It is key to note that 52.6% of
resources came under the category of “other” which included all non-journal articles and
historical defining primary papers. The American journal Gifted Child Quarterly is the
highest contributing journl, with publications used making up 9.1% of the total literature.
The thematic organisation of the literature is represented in Table 3. The main
theme of focus was “defining gifted and talented education” which had 36.4% of sources
contributing to it. Sources relating to the other three themes were evenly distributed at
19.5%, 20.7% and 23.4%.

In searching for publications, there was a key focus on the most recent research.
Table 2 and Table 3 show the year of publication of the sources chosen for the study. From
the literature selected, there is a much greater emphasis on more recent studies, with 25
publications from 2018, 18 publications from 2017, 21 publications from 2016 and 17
publications in 2015. In total, this equates to 53% of the chosen literature being published
within the last four years. Finding recent studies was a specific focus in an attempt to direct
this research around the most recent findings.
15
Table 2. Contributions of journals to the library of relevant literature.
The
Australian The
Journal for Gifted and Australasian Journal of
Gifted Child Gifted Child Roeper High Ability Journal of Australian
the Education Talented Journal of Advanced Other Total
Quarterly Today Review Studies Teacher Educational
of the Gifted International Gifted Academics
Education Researcher
Education
2018 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 16 25
2017 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 7 18
2016 0 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 8 21
2015 1 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 17
2014 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 10
2013 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10
2012 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 7
2011 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 10
2010 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 5
< 2010 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 25 31
Total 14 11 10 10 9 7 4 3 3 2 81 154
% 9.1 7.1 6.5 6.5 5.8 4.5 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.3 52.6 100
Table 3. Distribution of the library of relevant literature across the four main themes of the study.
3. Perspectives on 4. Teachers and

1. Defining 2. Policies Total
pedagogy teaching
2018 5 10 2 8 25
2017 1 4 4 9 18
2016 7 3 5 6 21
2015 5 1 6 5 17
2014 1 3 5 1 10
2013 4 4 2 0 10
2012 2 1 2 2 7
2011 4 1 3 2 10
2010 1 1 1 2 5
< 2010 26 2 2 1 31
Total 56 30 32 36 154
% 36.4 19.5 20.7 23.4 100
2.1 Concluding summary
This chapter has described the theoretical framework adopted for the study. As a
scholar-educator, a thematic approach was undertaken, similar to Cao, Jung and Lee’s
(2017) review, to categorise the final library of gathered sources into the four main themes.
In the next chapter, the four themes will be comprehensively researched to form the
literature review. This review will examine and dissect gifted and talented education in
Australia, which in turn will lead to answering the question:

Chapter 3
Literature Review
In the previous chapter, the methodology of refining a library of viable sources for
reviewing was described, through the practises and inquiry modes of a scholar-educator.
The outcome was summarised in “Figure 2. A flowchart illustrating the obtainment of
sources used within the study.” The refined library of literature was reviewed for this
current chapter, in order to address the question:
For the purpose of this dissertation, the literature review is broken up into four key themes:
 Theme 1: Defining gifted and talented education
 Theme 2: Policies in gifted and talented education
 Theme 3: Perspectives on pedogogy in gifted and talented education
 Theme 4: Teachers and teaching in gifted and talented education
Overall, these themes provide the relevant background information to gifted and
talented education in order to understand how teaching practices can be influential to
students of high potential. This dissertation will now systematically summarise, synthesise,
analyse and evaluate the literature, as it seeks to address the question posed.
3.1 Defining Gifted and Talented Education

3.1.1 A historical overview of the literature.
There have been copious amounts of research undertaken in the field of gifted and
talented education over the past century. From this, there have been multiple notions of
student giftedness and the development of many related terms throughout the literature.
There is now a clear distinction between an ability (interchangeable with the term gift) and
an achievement (interchangeable with the term talent) (Gagné, 2018). There are many
proposed models that have undergone revisions which attempt to illustrate the
developmental processes of reaching an achievement. Overall, notions of giftedness and
what these represent have evolved throughout the literature by four main concepts.
1. Intelligence testing.
2. Twice-exceptional learners.
3. Domain specific abilities.
4. Talent development.
Table 4 presents the concepts and models that have developed the notion of gifted
and talented in education. This historical overview covers from intelligence testing in 1905
to a comprehensive model which chronologically illustrates factors affecting the
development of gifts into competencies in 2018. Eighteen different models and theories
will be summarised, along with several other key contributors to the evolution of modern
day approaches to gifted and talented education.
19
Table 4. A historical overview of gifted and talented education in the literature
Contribution to gifted
Sub-chapter Year Author(s) Original source
and talented education
New Methods for the Diagnosis of the
Alfred Binet,
1905 Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale Intellectual Level of Subnormals (Binet &
Theodore Simon
Simon, 1905)
New Investigations upon the Measure of the
Alfred Binet, Revised Binet-Simon
1911 Intellectual Level among School Children
Theodore Simon Intelligence Scale
(Binet & Simon, 1911)
3.1.2.
Stanford-Binet Intelligence The Measurement of Intelligence (Terman,
Intelligence 1916 Lewis Terman
Scale 1916)
testing
Measuring intelligence: A guide to the
Lewis Terman, Revised Stanford-Binet administration of the new revised Stanford–
1937
Maud Merrill Intelligence Scale Binet tests of intelligence (Terman & Merrill,
1937)
Wechsler-Bellevue Measurement of Adult Intelligence
1939 David Wechsler
Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1939)
Some mentally defective
Leta Special Talents and Defects: their significance
1923 children have normal
Hollingworth for education (Hollingworth, 1923)
intelligence
Asperger’s syndrome
Die "Autistischen Psychopathen" im
1944 Hans Asperger symptoms seen in some
3.1.3. Twice Kindesalter (Asperger, 1944)
gifted children
exceptional
Twice exceptional = Children with developmental imbalances: A
exposure
1966 James Gallagher intellectually gifted + learning psychoeducational definition (Gallagher,
difficulties 1966)
Individuals with extraordinary
Providing programs for the gifted
1977 June Maker gifts can have cognitive or
handicapped (Maker, 1977)
physical disabilities
Table 4. continued…
Contribution to
Sub-chapter Year Author(s) gifted and talented Original source
education
Giftedness is high ability
Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report to
Sidney Marland singularly or in a
1972 the Congress of the United States by the U.S.
Jr combination of multiple
Commissioner of Education (Marland, 1972)
domains
What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition
1978 Joseph Renzulli Three-ring conception
(Renzulli, 1978)
Howard Multiple intelligences Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
1983
Gardner make up gifted individuals. Intelligences (Gardner, 1983)
3.1.4. Domain Robert Triarchic theory of Beyond IQ: A triarchic Theory of Human
1984
specific abilities Sternberg intelligence Intelligence (Sternberg, 1984)
Multifactor Model of Giftedness and gifted education (Mönks & Katzko,
1986 Franz Mönks
Giftedness 2005)
Identification, development and achievement
Kurt Heller and Munich model of
1986 analysis of talented and gifted children in West
Ernst Hany giftedness
Germany (Heller & Hany, 1986)
A Universal Model of Giftedness – an adaptation
Universal Model of
2016 J Jessurun of the Munich Model (Jessurun, Shearer, &
giftedness
Weggeman, 2016)
What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach
1981 Sanford Cohn Model
(Cohn, 1981)
Differentiated model of
Françoys Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a
1985 giftedness and talent
Gagné reexamination of the definitions (Gagné, 1985)
(DMGT)
Abraham Sea star model of Gifted children: Psychological and educational
1986
Tannenbaum giftedness perspectives (Tannenbaum, 1986)
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition
1993 Anders Ericsson Deliberate practice
of expert performance (Ericsson, 1993)
The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development: A
Pyramid model of talent
1994 Jane Piirto conceptual framework for considering talent
development
(Piirto, 2011)
3.1.5. Talent Actiotope model of
2004 Albert Ziegler The Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2004)
development giftedness
Françoys Building gifts into talents: Overview of the DMGT
2007 DMGT 2.0
Gagné (Gagné, 2012)
Contextual, emergent and
David Dai and Snowflakes, Living Systems, and the Mystery of
2008 dynamic model of
Joseph Renzulli Giftedness (Dai & Renzulli, 2008)
giftedness
Rethinking Expertise : A Multifactorial Gene-
Multifactorial gene- Environment Interaction Model of Expert
2016 Fredrik Ullein environment interaction Performance Rethinking Expertise : A
model (MGIM) Multifactorial Gene – Environment (Ullen,
Hambrick, & Mosing, 2016)
Françoys Integrative model of talent Academic talent development- theory and best
2018
Gagné development (IMTD) practices (Gagné, 2018)
21
3.1.2 Intelligence testing
In 1905, the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale was developed by Alfred Binet in
collaboration with Theodore Simon, both French psychologists. This scale was an attempt
to measure intelligence and was to be used for identifying French students in need of
special education. It has provided the foundation for many further intelligence studies.
Binet and Simon revised this scale in 1911 which included the determination of a mental
age by having more questions that were clustered to specific chronological age groups.
Lewis Terman, in 1916, was the first to implement IQ testing as a method for
identifying gifted students. He revised the Binet-Simon scale, producing the Stanford-Binet
test. This new, adapted test provided a better representation of the population by having a
broader age range and also was one of the first to produce an IQ score. This score was
determined by the ratio of Binet’s concept of a mental age to chronological age, multiplied
by 100. This IQ score was ultimately used to replace the notion of a mental age as
developed from the Binet-Simon 1911 revision.
For students to be labelled as “gifted” by Terman’s identification method, they had
to achieve above a cut-off IQ score of 130. He relied solely on this score. Terman had the
philosophy that being gifted only applies to individuals that achieve outstanding results
naturally. That is, one cannot become gifted. He believed that intelligence is an inheritable
trait and focused purely on identifying it in children so that they could receive the special
attention required (Kaufman, 2013).
The Stanford-Binet test was revised in 1937 by Terman in collaboration with
American psychologist, Maud Merrill. This revised version included a classification table
for interpretation as shown in Figure 3. IQ scores from the Stanford-Binet test are
22
categorised for interpretation. The classification extends below 70 to include morons,
imbeciles and idiots, however Terman distinguishes all those below the average as mentally
weak or feeble (Kaufman, 2013). The Stanford-Binet test is still used today and is currently
in its 5th edition, with the most modern revision occurring in 2003 (Silverman et al., 2010).
Figure 3. Classification of IQ scores from the Stanford-Binet test (Terman, 1916).
David Wechsler, a Romanian-American psychologist, developed the Wechsler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale in 1939. This scale is similar to the Stanford-Binet, but
incorporates standard deviations which allows for scores to be graphically represented as
a bell curve. Wechsler had similar principles to Binet, in that he viewed intelligence as a
way for an individual to cope and respond to their own environment. He did not view an
IQ score as a reliable indicator of intelligence. Clinicians who administer this test can
qualitatively understand how children respond when answering questions. This enabled the
production of separate index scores for verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning,
working memory and processing speed. The Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale is
currently in its 5th edition, last revised in 2014.
23
3.1.3 Twice-exceptional learners
In the early 1920’s, as Terman’s IQ test was making its way through schools to
identify gifted students, Leta Hollingworth, an American psychologist, was actively
researching educational strategies for the development of these exceptional students.
Opposing Terman’s view on intelligence, Hollingworth believed that environmental and
educational factors, along with a certain level of inheritability, played key roles in an
individual’s intelligence. Through her work of nurturing children from both ends of the
intellectual spectrum, Hollingworth noted that some mentally defective children actually
had normal levels of intelligence. In her 1923 book “Special Talents and Defects: their
significance for education”, she addresses how feeble-minded students, who can
demonstrate reasonable intelligence, are similarly worthy of a differentiated education
(Hollingworth, 1923).
In 1944, Asperger’s Syndrome was first described by Hans Asperger (Barahona-
Corrêa & Filipe, 2016). There was an immense amount of public interest regarding this
and it was not long before the realisation that some highly intelligent students were
showing symptoms. A common feature of both students labelled as gifted, along with
having Asperger’s Syndrome, are the fluctuating attentional processes. These students can
stay intensely focused for hours on a task of interest, but find concentration difficult for
others due to being engrossed by internal thought processes (Boschi, Planche, Hemimou,
Demily, & Vaivre-Douret, 2016). Other symptoms include pedantic speech content,
isolated areas of interest, ignorance to environmental and social demands all whilst having
excellent logical abstract thinking (Baldwin et al., 2015). Despite the evidence building
that students of high intellectual ability may have learning difficulties, such as symptoms
24
of Asperger’s Syndrome, the Binet-Simon test of intelligence was still a very popular way
to measure intelligence at this time. With this method for identification, there were students
in the education system that were not fully reaching their potentials, as their learning needs
were not catered for.
In 1966, American politician James Gallagher, published “Children with
developmental imbalance: a psychoeducational definition” in which he introduced the term
“twice-exceptional” to denote those students who are both intellectually gifted but also
express a type of disability. They therefore require two types of special learning needs
(Baldwin et al., 2015). It was obvious at this point that the identification of gifted students
needed to evolve to something more than a standardised intelligence test. By 1970, in
America, guidelines were put in place to meet the needs of both learning disabled and
gifted, by defining both individual fields. However, they were still not recognised as a
combined term. In 1977, June Maker published “Providing for the Gifted Handicapped”
which described individuals diagnosed as having both extraordinary gifts and either a
physical or cognitive disability (Maker, 1977). By now, the need to cater for twice-
exceptional students for both learning supports and advanced programming, had been
exposed and identified as essential in the education system (Baldwin et al., 2015).
3.1.4 Domain specific abilities
From the notion that it is possible for gifted individuals to have learning disabilities,
came the idea that an individual may be gifted within a specific domain. This is as opposed
to having an overall high level of intelligence. Through this recognition, students are
awarded the label of “gifted” if they are outstanding in particular fields, yet not necessary
all of them. In 1972, the field of gifted education broadened, as Sidney Marland Jr., the US
25
Commissioner of Education at the time, published a report that greatly increased public
awareness. This report defined gifted children to be those who demonstrated exceptional
ability singularly or in a combination of six domains (Marland, 1972):
1. General intellectual ability
2. Specific academic aptitude
3. Creative or productive thinking
4. Leadership ability
5. Visual and performing arts
6. Psychomotor ability
This definition extended the concept of being a gifted individual to being more than
just able to score highly on a standardised IQ test. It refers to students excelling in more
specific areas.
American Psychologist, Joseph Renzulli, in his 1978 article “What makes
giftedness?” argues that the Marland Report did not include motivational factors and that
in some cases, the six domains can be integrated within each other. Renzulli proposed the
“Three-Ring Conception” of giftedness based on a review of the characteristics of
accomplished adults. He argued that giftedness consists of the interaction among three
clusters of traits, as illustrated in Figure 4 (Renzulli, 1978):
1. Well-above-average ability
2. Task commitment
3. Creativity
According to Renzulli, no one trait is sufficient to warrant the label gifted but it
emerges from the interaction of all three. The interaction of these three traits brings about
26
exceptional performance in all aspects of education. Renzulli argues that giftedness is an
outcome defined by characteristics that contribute to real-world achievement. The
individuals that are excellent in consuming knowledge but do not apply it are denoted as
school-house giftedness. Whereas, creative-productive gifted individuals are those, by
Renzulli’s principles, that are truly recognised as gifted. These are the individuals that are
superior in producing knowledge and apply that knowledge to better society (Kaufman,
2013).
Figure 4. The Three-Ring Conception as a definition of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978).
From the early 80’s, cognitive psychologist Howard Gardener introduced a theory
of multiple intelligences which represent different groups of abilities. He proposed that
there are eight, in his 1983 paper “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences”
(Gardner, 1983):
1. Logical-mathematical
2. Linguistic
3. Visual-spatial
27
4. Bodily-kinasthetic
5. Musical
6. Interpersonal
7. Intrapersonal
8. naturalistic
Gardner described that being exceptional in at least one of these intelligences, make
up gifted students. In school however, Gardner says logical-mathematical and linguistic
intelligences are over-emphasised and that they do not reflect human cognition as a whole.
The theory of multiple intelligences emphasises a key change towards domain specific
conceptualisations of ability and giftedness (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al.,
2018).
Robert Sternberg, in 1984, proposed the “Triarchic Theory of Intellectual
Giftedness”, which describes giftedness as being made up of three different, interrelated
components:
 Analytical intelligence
 Creative intelligence
 Practical intelligence
Analytical intelligence is developed within the individual and is the ability to acquire novel
information and evaluate and critique it. Creative intelligence is a further utilises the
analytical intelligence to solve unique and unfamiliar problems. Practical intelligence is a
further extension by allowing the individual to practically deal with everyday problems
and accomplish set goals. Sternberg believed that some people are more gifted in an
individual domain as opposed to an overall general giftedness. The most intelligent
28
individuals are able to capitalise on their specific domain strength, whilst acknowledging
their weaker domains (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018).
In 1986, Mönks proposed the “Multifactor Model of Giftedness”. This model
illustrates how the definition of giftedness in Mönks’ view is exceptional achievements in
one or more domains. The model, as shown in figure 5, illustrates in a Venn diagram form
how three main personal characteristics; motivation, creativity and exceptional
achievements; all interact with each other. The environmental influences of school, family
and peers influence these traits and how they cooperate together (R. J. Sternberg &
Davidson, 2005).
Figure 5. Mönks Multifactor Model of Giftedness (Mönks & Katzko, 2005).
In 1986 Kurt Heller and Ernst Hany, developed the “Munich Model of Giftedness”.
This model at the time was critical in the identification and development of gifted and
talented children in West Germany (Heller & Hany, 1986). Through years of research, this
29
model has undergone revisions, leading to the proposal by Heller in 2004, of the “Munich
Model of Giftedness” (MMG). This newly revised model, as illustrated in figure 6, has a
high multi-dimensional approach. Giftedness revolves around four main, inter-relating
areas: Non-cognitive personality factors, environmental factors, talent factors, which in
this case refers to intellectual abilities, and performance areas, which in this case refers to
outcomes. There are many domains which influence each area and ultimately affect the
outcome as performance.
Figure 6. Munich Model of Giftedness (Jessurun et al., 2016).
In 2016, the MMG underwent a minor revision to form the “Universal Model of
Giftedness” (UMG), illustrated in figure 7, by Jessurun, Shearer and Weggeman (2016).
There were two major changes to this adaption. Firstly, the input domain was more
30
generalised into non-cognitive personality and environmental factors. Secondly, factors
from Gardner’s model of multiple intelligences were substituted in as components
contributing to talent factors (Jessurun et al., 2016).
Figure 7. Universal Model of Giftedness (Jessurun et al., 2016).
3.1.5 Talent development
The most established and modernised concept of giftedness, is that of developing a
talent from an identified potential. It is the outcome from these talents that define the gifted
individuals and it is these talents that are most beneficial to society.
In the 1985 paper “Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a Reexamination of the
Definitions”, Françoys Gagné discussed how previous definitions of the term “gifted and
talented”, make no distinct differences between “giftedness” and “talent”. The two terms
31
are used interchangeably. Gagné defines the terms as individual concepts and examines
Sanford Cohn’s model of giftedness in his paper which dissociates the two concepts. The
model, as displayed in figure 8, breaks down the term of giftedness into the domains of
intellectual, artistic and social. These domain are broken down further to describe various
forms of talent (Gagné, 1985).
Figure 8. S.J. Cohn’s model of giftedness (Cohn, 1981).
From Gagné’s review of Cohn’s model, along with Renzulli’s Three-Ring
Conception, Gagné proposed a “Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent” (DMGT).
As illustrated in figure 9, this model incorporates individual definitions for giftedness and
talent, whilst illustrating factors contributing to talent development. Gagné’s original
proposal for talent development describes how environmental, personality and
32
motivational factors act as the catalyst in developing abilities within specific domains to
talents in specific fields (Gagné, 1985).
Figure 9. Gagné’s original Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné,
1985).
In 1986, Abraham Tannenbaum’s “Sea Star Model of Giftedness” was proposed
and like Gagné’s DMGT, also emphasised that there is a difference between ability and
achievement, or gifts and talents. Unlike, Renzulli’s model which focuses on adult
achievement, Tannenbaum’s model is focused on highly able children and adolescents. He
defined gifted children to be those with exemplary potential towards various domains and
proposes that developed talents can only exist in adults (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-
kubilius, et al., 2018). Tannenbaum suggested that for a talent to emerge, the child of high
potential must have certain personality attributes as well as have special encounters with
33
the environment. As illustrated by his model in figure 10, the variables, which can be
described as dynamic and static, required for the emergence of excellence are (Gross,
2004):
 General ability
 Special aptitude
 Non-intellective requisites
 Environmental supports
 Chance
For a child’s high potential to be translated into exemplary talents, all five arms of
Tannenbaum’s sea star must be present and no one factor is more important than the other
(Gross, 2004).
Figure 10. Tannenbaum’s Sea Star of Giftedness (Tannenbaum, 1986).
34
Ericsson and colleagues (1993) propose in their publication “The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance”, that ability or potential, are not
important predictors of expert performance but rather, “deliberate practice” is. This is
defined as practice with a primary goal of improving skills towards a certain achievement
with adequate and immediate feedback. There must be total determination and motivation
from the individual to stay on track in accomplishing this goal. Erricsson’s proposal is
controversial to the notion of giftedness as it implies that anyone can be gifted by
dedicating a sufficient amount of deliberate practice for the development of a particular
talent (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018).
Jane Piirto first established her “Pyramid Model of Talent Development” in 1994.
This model as shown in figure 11, is represented as a pyramid, displaying four levels of
giftedness that are required for talent development. The base is represented as the genetics
of the individuals, as there is an aspect of genetic heritage. The contribution of genes along
provide the foundation and are the key to whether talent development is inhibited or
enhanced. Giftedness is made up of layers of attributes that rely on the prior level to
maintain stability. The genetics and hereditary traits are the foundation for giftedness.
Personality attributes make up the second level. The third level is a cognitive aspect of
minimum intellect. The final level is a calling for a talent which is influenced by outside
environmental factors such as chance, home, school, culture and gender (Worrell,
Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018). Piirto’s model has evolved through revisions
with a key focus on how creativity plays an integral part to the stability of the pyramid
(Piirto, 2011).
35
Figure 11. Piirto’s pyramid of talent development (Piirto, 2011).
36
2004 saw the development of Albert Ziegler’s “Actiotope Model of Giftedness”.
This model as illustrated in Figure 12, depicts giftedness as an interaction between the
individual person and their environment (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al.,
2018). The personal aspect consists of factors such as goals, motivation and the belief that
they can be successful. Combine this with the appropriate environmental factors such as
their social, educational and cultural settings, to have a gifted individual that can achieve
what is needed to reach the talent domain. All of the contributing factors interact to develop
talents in the form of actions (Ziegler, 2004).
Figure 12. Ziegler’s Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2004).
Gagné’s (1985) DMGT has undergone many revisions. In 2007, the model was
further refined to the “DMGT 2.0”, represented as figure 13. His model is widely
37
referenced in Australian education and adopted (but not necessarily implemented) in every
state and territory policy (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018). The main
emphasise with this model, similar to his 1985 model, is that gifts and talents are individual
constructs and should not be used together generically. There is a strong distinction
between potential (gifts) and achievement (talents). The talent, based on the model, is an
outcome of a long developmental process from outstanding natural abilities. This
development proceeds through a number of different components along with an aspect of
chance (Gagné, 2015):
 Natural abilities (Gifts in the top 10%)
 Environmental
 Intrapersonal
 Developmental process
 Competencies (Talents in the top 10%)
Gagné’s revised proposal for talent development describes how natural abilities are
organised into separate domains. These abilities can be developed into specific
competencies with an aspect of chance and through environmental an intrapersonal factors.
38
Figure 13. Gagné’s revised Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent 2.0 (Gagné, 2015).
39
In 2008 Dai and Renzulli proposed the “Contextual, Emergent and Dynamic Model
of Giftedness” in the publication “Snowflakes, Living Systems, and the Mystery of
Giftedness”. They argue that humans are dynamic and open living systems that are
influenced by three dimensions:
 Function
 Time
 Development
As shown by the model in Figure 14, the functional dimension shows how the
individual interacts with the environment. The developmental dimension refers to the
changes that occur to the individual as they interact with the environment over time. The
temporal dimension refers to the time over which these interactions take place (Worrell,
Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018).
40
Figure 14. The Contextual, Emergent and Dynamic Model of Giftedness (Dai &
Renzulli, 2008).
In 2011, Rena Subotnik proposed the “Talent Development Mega Model”, which
integrates the most commonly incorporated components from already existing models. The
overall notion of this model, as illustrated in Figure 15, is developing potential to eminence.
This is a flexible model that argues that giftedness is domain specific and a developmental
process as opposed to inheritable as other descriptions propose. This model is based on five
main principles (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2012):
1. Abilities can be developed.
2. Domains of talent have can be developed by multiple routes.
3. Opportunities must be provided to the gifted individual and taken by them.
4. Psychosocial variables, such as stress and anxiety, are determining factors in
talent development.
5. The aim of education is eminence.
There is a development process from potential, or ability, to eminence. There a
psychosocial, external and chance factors which could either inhibit or enhance this
process. The aim of education is eminence and eminence can be achieved within individual
domains.
This model has caused some controversy in the literature as it moves away from
the notion that giftedness is natural. This model describes giftedness as being an outcome,
which insinuates that anyone can become gifted, irrelevant of intelligence (Worrell,
Subotnik, & Olszewski-kubilius, 2018). Giftedness becomes what you do, not who you are
(Kaufman, 2013).
41
Figure 15. The Talent Development Mega Model (Subotnik et al., 2012).
In 2016, Ullen, Mosing and Hambrick added to the immense amount of gifted
literature with a newly proposed model called the “Multifactorial Gene-Environment
Model” (MGIM). This model is aimed at addressing expert performance, which can be
directly related to competencies from gifted individuals (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-
kubilius, et al., 2018). The MGIM is based around the deliberate practice theory proposed
by Ericsson and colleagues. There are many factors contributing to expertise as
demonstrated in Figure 16. From a foundation of biological and environmental factors,
expertise can be achieved. Deliberate practice is a key contributor to expertise and there
42
are individual’s aspects, such as abilities, personality, interests and motivations, which
influence the achievement outcome from deliberate practice. One cannot simply achieve
expertise through immense deliberate practice (Ullen et al., 2016).
Figure 16. Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model (Ullen et al., 2016).
Gagné’s most recent 2018 revision is the Integrative Model of Talent Development
(IMTD) which illustrates the development of talents from a biological foundation (Worrell,
Subotnik, Olszewski-kubilius, et al., 2018). This evolved model, as illustrated in figure 17,
integrates a newly proposed model by Gagné, termed the “Developmental Model of
Natural Abilities” (DMNA). The DMNA describes the development of gifts from the
biological foundations. The DMGT describes the development of these gifts into
43
competencies as proposed in DMGT 2.0. The IMTD uses the cognitive aptitudes from the
individual’s biological foundation, to act as a building block for the number of the
academic competencies to be developed for exceptional academic success. This model
describes how two large groups influence this developmental process, namely the
intrapersonal and environmental catalysts. Ultimately, Gagné’s most evolved model,
shows a chronological development of competency achievement from biological
foundations, to natural abilities (gifts) to competencies (talents) processed by
environmental and intrapersonal catalysts (Gagné, 2018).
44
Figure 17. Gagne’s most recent Integrative Model of Talent Development (Gagné, 2018).
45
Eighteen different models, along with supporting concepts, have been summarised
to demonstrate the evolution of gifted and talented education. With such a wide selection
of models to choose from, there could be confusion as how best to approach the field.
Adopting a particular model within a school can become political. Policies in gifted and
talented education will now be examined, to explore how these models have been adopted
world-wide, and for the purpose of this study, in Australia.
3.2 Policies in Gifted and Talented Education
As Theme 1 described, there are many notions describing gifted and talented
education. This can be a problem as there is little consistency to the paradigmatic approach
(who, what, why and how) as described in Chapter 1.1. There are different approaches to
gifted education world-wide, with the concept of giftedness being more significant in some
countries than others. There needs to be some consistency in denoting what gifted and
talented education is and who it affects through national and perhaps even international
policies, which in turn, must be implemented by schools and their teachers.
3.2.1 An international approach
For the purpose of this literature review, only some international philosophies to
gifted education will be examined and compared, with a key focus on teacher strategies for
differentiation of the curriculum. Each culture respects and acknowledges the notion of
gifted students differently. In cultures of egalitarianism, there is a general avoidance to
providing services to the “intellectual elite”, due to the dislike of classifying students based
on ability. There are also cultures that firmly believe that only students with learning
disabilities require help. By contrast, cultures that embrace gifted education, either
46
formally or informally, provide programs that prioritize commitment to engaging the
students with challenging enrichment of the curriculum, through teaching pedagogical
strategies. These programs may involve in-class differentiation, acceleration through year
levels, or further enrichment by in and out of school programs. Whatever the philosophy
of the field for each culture, the perception of and the approach to gifted education is either
extremely under-developed or very firmly provided for by programs and additional
services (Heuser & Wang, 2017).
The concept of gifted education is culturally determined from the norms, values
and priorities of the nation as a whole. With that in mind, the understandings of gifted
education have predominantly been developed in the United States and Western European
countries, and therefore, their worldview and values are reflected throughout a majority of
the formal definitions and models (Heuser & Wang, 2017). There are advancements in
gifted education outside of these Western cultures and therefore, this review will
incorporate perspectives from nations with varying educational systems: Cyprus, England,
Finland and Hong Kong. While there are key countries involved with the development of
the concept of giftedness, such as America, they were omitted for this particular section as
their perceptions are represented throughout this dissertation and this particular sections
aims to demonstrate the large differences between nations, globally. The countries selected
for examination were chosen at the discretion of the researcher. They were specifically
chosen after much inspection of literature to provide an informing comparison, between
four very different ideas of gifted and talented education.
The comparison between the four chosen countries are presented in Table 4. Cyprus
through cultural principles, believe that every child has their own unique talents. Issues
47
regarding gifted and talented education in Cyprus are silent and there is an important need
for a more culturally relevant approach to catering to the needs of students with exceptional
abilities (Ieridou, 2013). In England, there has been a push for initiatives to the gifted and
talented education field. Acceleration in government school is not allowed to maintain
“social progression” and there is no formal approach to teaching differentiation strategies.
The gifted students are catered for through out of class enrichment programs (Heuser &
Wang, 2017). In 2007, a national gifted and talented policy was introduced in England.
This was seen as big opportunity for acknowledgement of gifted students and for the
introduction of government funded gifted and talented programs. Brady and Koshy (2014)
researched the implementation of this policy and concluded that the opportunity was
hindered by negative teacher attitudes and reputation of elitism (Brady & Koshy, 2014).
Finland is world-renown for having a successful education system. However, due to
cultural values following the principles of “equal opportunity”, “education for all”, and
fairness through equality and equity; differentiation of curriculum for diverse and high-
achieving learners can be controversial (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). Yet, there are several
specialised secondary schools and high emphasis on opportunities given in cases for
acceleration and early tertiary entry (Heuser & Wang, 2017). The education system from
Hong Kong is leading the way in gifted education with a main focus on teaching
differentiation strategies (Heuser & Wang, 2017). The cultural aspects of most of the Asian
countries follow yin-cai-shi-jiao, which describes how each student should be educated
depending on their ability. This directly relates to differentiating for the diversity of student
needs. Differentiation strategies are based around Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception with
a large emphasis on creativity (Chan, 2018). There is a formalised definition regarding
48
multiple intelligences, established from the 1972 Marland Report. The funding towards
gifted and talented education is phenomenal. In 2008, the total number of beneficiaries was
approximately 8000 and the funding provided roughly HK$475 per capita. Following the
opening of pan-Territory Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (HKAGE) that year,
addition funding of HK$24 million per year was added. The number of beneficiaries
dramatically increased (Tommis, 2013).
These four nations approach gifted and talented education depending on cultural
factors and beliefs. Hong Kong is the only region, out of the four, that has a focus on
classroom differentiation, an agreed upon definition and an implemented government
policy coupled with millions of Hong Kong dollars in government funding.
49
Table 4. A comparison of four education jurisdictions and their approaches to gifted and talented education (Heuser & Wang, 2017).
Teaching differentiation Source for

Country Conceptualisation Acceleration allowed Enrichment by programs
strategies information
No formal definition.
No acknowledgement of children with special gifts. Teachers are expected to use an
Believed in the culture that (Ieridou,
Cyprus official textbook to teach each subject within a specific time frame. There is little
each child has own unique 2013)
room for differentiation or enrichment.
talent.
(Koshy,
To be gifted is to excel in Students can not be Out of class enrichment Pinheiro-
one or more subject area. accelerated or held back within in the school as Torres, &
England Not emphasised.
To be talented is to excel because of “social predominant gifted and Portman-
with more practical skills. progression”. talented provision. Smith,
2012)
To a certain extent. A
Not mentioned within
major concern is the strong Yes. There are selective
legislation but infered
values in place for equity secondary schools which (Tirri &
from practices. A large
Finland and equality and how the Yes. specialise in key areas Kuusisto,
emphasis on education for
society percieves such as Sport, Science, 2013)
all with equality and quity
differentiating to cater for Linguistics etc.
values.
diversity.
Yes. Through programs (Chan,
Giftedness is mulitple
within schools, out of 2018;
Hong Kong intelligences with a key Yes. Highly emphasised. Yes.
schools and by Tommis,
emphasis on creativity.
differentiating strategies. 2013)
50
3.2.2 An Australian national approach
Gifted and talented education in Australia is a controversial area. The gifted and
talented field seeks to provide an educational system that provides for highly exceptional
children, while avoiding claims that the system only provides for the privileged (Kronborg,
2018). Gifted education should not discriminate between individuals. It is aimed at catering
for high achieving students from any race, gender, ethnicity, community and
socioeconomic status (Park, Foley-Nicpon, Choate, & Bolenbaugh, 2018). The Australian
culture generally prevents individuals from excelling above the rest. This is a phenomenon
known as “tall poppy syndrome” and is where gifted individuals are brought back to a level
by their peers if they are too regularly outdoing them or are standing out from the group
(Walsh & Jolly, 2018). Australian songwriter, Tia Gostelow, has spoken of her experiences
with this phenomenon. She feels it is hard for Australians to accept that their peers are
succeeding around them and notes that tall poppy syndrome has plagued a lot of Australian
artists.
“There can become a lot of jealousy and bitterness sometimes; for me, that’s what I felt
like when I was in school. It really sucked” (Gostelow, 2018).
Couple the tall poppy syndrome with the negative attitudes of a school’s leadership team
towards gifted education and the barrier to becoming high-achieving is set firm (Kronborg,
2018). Even if the gifted individuals are lucky enough to have teachers willing to
differentiate teaching strategies for enrichment, is it fair to be giving some gifted students
a more advanced education than others? Within the Australian setting, for a gifted student
to excel they need to perform outside of the norm both academically, and socially and it’s
only up to chance as to whether they receive the necessary support (Gagné, 2012). The
51
overall stigma around gifted education in Australia needs to change so that these gifted
individuals do not have to fight to receive an advanced education which would allow them
to reach their full potential.
There is a national association for gifted and talented education in Australia which
is the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT). Each
state and territory have their own association affiliated with the AAEGT, each of which are
voluntary organisations. These act as resources to assist teachers with teaching gifted
students. Despite having a national association dedicated to gifted education, there is no
national policy and no national funding allocated to the field (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
The most recent senate inquiry was in 2001, which recognised the need for change
in multiple areas of gifted education. The need to identify students with high intellectual
potential, in order to provide the necessary opportunities to foster their talent development
and prevent underachievement, was made. The characteristics and needs of gifted
individuals were made clear, as was the fact that the current school system does not provide
the relevant support for successful development. The system at the time did not provide
opportunities for appropriate academic challenges or access to emotional support. The
inquiry recommended addressing these problems by educating pre-service and practicing
teachers on the characteristics of gifted individuals as a way to remove the negative
attitudes and the reluctance to cater to the advanced students’ needs. Despite these
recommendations made 17 years ago, current schools are not required to identify gifted
individuals. Teachers are also not required to undertake professional development in this
area (Jarvis & Henderson, 2015). Despite the acknowledgement, in 2011, of problems in
52
the field of gifted and talented education, there have been no productive legislative changes
to provide funding or support to the field (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
The lack of urgency for this change is evident by the most recent inquiry to the
senate being 17 years ago. Since this last inquiry, similar problems still exist within the
field. There have been at least eight newly proposed models and theories since this last
inquiry, suggesting the complexity of issues and confusion in approaches. Whilst this
dissertation has unraveled many findings within the gifted and talented education field,
models and policies demonstrates the need for a more challenging and enriching education
for gifted learners, but as described in chapter 3.4.4, there is much difficulty in directly
correlating the theory to practical strategies in a classroom.
3.2.3 An Australian state and territory approach
Although there is no national, Australian, gifted and talented policy in place, each
state has their own individualised policies, or in some cases, statements. An overview of
these policies and their recommended teaching methods are represented in Table 5. While
all policy statements emphasise that teachers should be differentiating delivery of the
curriculum via pedagogical strategies, they don’t describe ways to do so. In saying that
however, NSW provides a professional development package, NT provides guidelines with
models for differentiation and SA provide the TfEL Framework Guide. Unfortunately,
implantation of these policies are at the discretion of each school (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
Each policy defines the field by Gagné’s DMGT and have various recommendations for
teaching gifted individuals. The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b) acknowledges a
wider variety of the theories by including Tannenbaum’s sea star model and Renzulli’s
three ring conception (Kronborg, 2018). Ultimately, the policies, when implemented, aim
53
to assist teachers and parents with strategies for educational differentiation for gifted and
talented individuals. Nationally, identification of these students appears arbitrary with little
consistency across state policies (Walsh & Jolly, 2018). For gifted education to have a
positive effect in Australia, it is important that gifted students are widely accepted and that
identification and differentiation, by pedagogy in a mainstream classroom or by specific
programs, is consistent and reliable.
54
Table 5. Australian state and territory policies for gifted and talented education (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
Latest policy or Model(s)

State Teaching gifted students as per the policy or statement
statement adopted
 Teachers design ILPs.

(ACT
Australian Gagné’s (2007)  Principals are responsible for professional
Department of
Capital Territory DMGT 2.0 development of the staff.
Education, 2014)
 No direct instruction for how to differentiate.
 Teachers are to select and implement a wide variety

(NSW
New South Gagné’s (2007) of strategies for inclusion of a range of gifted and
Department of
Wales DMGT 2.0 talented students in their classrooms.
Education, 2004)
Gagné’s (2007)
 Teachers design EAPs.
(NT Department DMGT 2.0 and
Northern  Provision of Blooms Taxonomy, The William’s
of Education, Renzulli’s
Territory Model and The Maker Model as advice for
2017a) Three-Ring
instructional differentiation.
Conception
 Teachers are to differentiate the curriculum by
(QLD
Gagné’s (2007) delivering it at a level, pace and degree of
Queensland Department of
DMGT 2.0 complexity suitable for the gifted learner.
Education, 2018)
 Teachers are to work collaboratively to develop

ILPs.
(SA Department
Gagné’s (2007)  The TfEL Framework guide supports teachers in
South Australia of Education,
DMGT 2.0 differentiating the curriculum by pace, level and
2016)
grouping. It also provides guidelines for
enrichment and extension.
 Teachers are to differentiate the curriculum by

(TAS
Gagné’s (2007) delivering it at a level, pace and degree of
Tasmania Department of
DMGT 2.0 complexity suitable for the gifted learner.
Education, 2017)
Gagné’s (2007)
Victoria NA  No direct instruction for how to differentiate.
DMGT 2.0
 Teachers are to identify students using a provided
(WA Department checklist.
Western Gagné’s (2007)
of Education,  Teachers are to differentiate by enrichment,
Australia DMGT 2.0
2011) extension and acceleration.
55
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT policy places a large majority of the responsibility to catering for gifted and
talented education on the school principal. These responsibilities include:
 Ensuring established measures for identification which are effective and equitable.
 Ensuring that there are appropriate provisions and teaching strategies in place for
educational development.
 Communicating the processes to parents, teachers, students, the community and the
appropriate professionals.
 Ensuring that a gifted and talented liaison officer is nominated within the school.
There use of ILPs are incorporated at the discretion of the principal. These are provided
for gifted students if the student is identified as being twice exceptional, has undergone a
full grade acceleration, or at the request of their parent.
The ACT policy provides a flowsheet, represented as Figure 18, which is to be used to
provide advice for processes in identifying and providing the necessary opportunities for
gifted students. It is not a flowchart that must be implemented (ACT Department of
Education, 2014). This flowchart appears to be quite subjective as to the identification of
students, as well as to which students have to undergo specific processes to receive the
necessary support.
56
Figure 18. A schematic of the approach to gifted and talented education in ACT (ACT Department of
Education, 2014).
57
New South Wales
The most recent gifted and talented policy in NSW is a 2004 version, however it is currently
under revision (Walsh & Jolly, 2018). Unlike the great reliance on principals for
appropriate gifted education, as with the ACT policy, the NSW policy has more of a focus
on the school communities as a whole in gifted education. The school community has
responsibility for:
 Identification of the gifted students.
 Fostering a collaborative home-school environment for support, by channeling
appropriate communication methods.
 Providing and evaluating gifted and talented programs.
 Providing opportunities for staff development.
 Providing provisions to gifted students.
The policy states that the teachers themselves, have the responsibility of selecting and
implementing appropriate strategies to gifted and talented students within their classroom
(NSW Department of Education, 2004). The policy does not however, provide advice as
to ways for a teacher to do this.
There are many specialized schools and programs in NSW currently, to cater for gifted
students. There are 25 high schools which have a virtual stream to allow for gifted students
from rural and remote locations to connect by computer technologies. The students can
remain enrolled in their home school while participating in more advanced learning for
specialized subjects. NSW have 75 primary schools which offer specialized high-achieving
classes and is the only Australian state to do so (Kronborg, 2018). NSW may have the
58
oldest current policy amongst all the states and territories, but it may provide some of the
best support through these selective schools and programs.
To accompany the 14 year old NSW policy, the University of New South Wales (UNSW)
has a gifted education research, resource and information center (GERRIC), which has
developed a professional development package for teaching in gifted education. Refer to
the GERRIC website (UNSW, 2004) for a full copy of the package. It consists of six
modules which aim to professionally develop educators in the field of gifted education.
Each of the six modules covers a particular aspect (UNSW, 2004).
1. Understanding giftedness
2. The identification of gifted students
3. Social and emotional development of gifted students
4. Understanding underachievement in gifted students
5. Curriculum differentiation for gifted students
6. Developing programs and provisions for gifted students
The module of most interest to this study is Module 5. This module contains teaching
strategies and methods for curriculum differentiation for optimum learning experiences for
gifted students in the regular classroom. It is an extensive module covering many aspects,
however one of the sections of interest describes some strategies that teachers can
implement for differentiation of the curriculum. Differentiation of the curriculum
incorporates four main areas, which are further described in Figure 19.
 Content modification: Involved more abstract, complex and varied content.
 Process modification: Involves higher order thinking, open-endedness, group
interactions, critical thinking whilst promoting creativity and imagination.
59
 Product modification: Involves real world problems, with real world audiences
and requires real deadlines.
 Learning environment modification: Involves being more flexible and
encouraging intrinsic learning in a non-judgmental learning environment
(MacLeod, 2004).
These professional development modules by GERRIC are a terrific step forward for gifted
education, covering all aspects including defining the field to applying differentiation
strategies for student academic and social development (UNSW, 2004).
Northern Territory
The NT policy is extensive in covering all the appropriate aspects to gifted education and
refers to Renzulli’s three ring conception as well as Gagné’s DMGT. The policy (NT
Department of Education, 2017b) is to be read in conjunction with the guidelines and
procedures document (NT Department of Education, 2017a). Within the guidelines and
procedures, the roles to gifted education are distributed across all levels of an educational
system. It is up to the teachers to identify the students and plan and implement educational
programs to meet their needs by the development of Educational Adjustment Plans (EAP).
There is a large emphasis on highly able Indigenous students and twice exceptional
learners. The document provides guidelines on how to identify students by checklists.
There are individual checklist for parents of young and primary children as well as
checklists for teachers to help identify underachieving students and intellectually gifted
Indigenous students.
Once identified, it is up to the teacher to provide extension and enrichment by
differentiating instructional strategies in order to:
60
 Provide opportunities to learn at a faster pace.
 Offer multiple view points for the students who differ in abilities, knowledge and
skills.
 Allow for student-directed learning.
 Offer different approaches to what students learn, how they learn it and how they
express what they have learnt (refer to Figure 19: The Maker model for
differentiating instruction in gifted and talented education.).
Attached to the guidelines are models to assist classroom teachers with differentiating their
instructional strategies to provide the optimal learning environment. There is a focus on
Blooms Taxonomy (refer to theme 1) as well as the Maker model, which as illustrated in
figure 16, can assist teachers with the content, process, product and learning environment
modifications for curriculum differentiation (NT Department of Education, 2017a). This is
the model used for teacher professional development in the NSW GERRIC module 5.
61
Figure 19. An adaptation of the Maker model for differentiating pedagogy in gifted and talented education (NT Department of
Education, 2017a).
62
Queensland
The provision of the curriculum to gifted learners in Queensland is determined by a
collaborative team which consists of people with a range of expertise in the field from
within the school. The policy statement titled, “Curriculum Provision to Gifted and
Talented Students”, states that in the cases of rural schools, there may be people working
across a cluster of different schools. The document contains a recommended process for
gifted student identification as well as the recommended process for accelerating a student
through a subject, through a year level, or radically through multiple year levels (QLD
Department of Education, 2018). The document acknowledges that some gifted students
may require access to a higher year level curriculum (Kronborg, 2018). The policy
describes how teachers should apply curriculum differentiation so gifted students can learn
at an accelerated pace, use higher order thinking and can develop strategies through
challenging material. There is mention of curriculum differentiation, but little mention of
how teachers can carry this out effectively (QLD Department of Education, 2018).
South Australia
Gifted and talented education is South Australia is comprehensively covered in the
literature and its policy is the most extensive in Australia, covering all aspects of gifted
education. It emphasises that gifted learners can make huge contributions to their schools
and society if developed appropriately within the education system (SA Department of
Education, 2016) and provides recommendations for identifying students, noting the
importance of identifying as early as possible (Kronborg, 2018).
The policy provides a list of the roles that teachers have in gifted and talented education:
 Undertake professional learning.
63
 Be familiar with gifted and talented concepts and appropriate methods for
identification (SA Department of Education, 2016).
 Undertake reflective practice based on South Australian Teaching for Effective
Learning (SA TfEL) framework (Atkin et al., 2010).
 Provide a differentiated curriculum at a level that challenges the learners.
 Collaborates with all parties involves in the production of ILPs.
 Report outcomes by assessment and the formal reporting processes (SA
Department of Education, 2016).
The policy directs the reader to the SA TfEL, illustrates as Figure 20, to assist teachers
with educating for diverse learning needs (SA Department of Education, 2016). This
framework provides four domains and how differentiation in each contributes to effective
learning.
1. Learning for effective teaching.
2. Create safe conditions for rigorous learning.
3. Develop expert learners.
4. Personalise and connect learning (Government of South Australia, 2011).
Jarvis and Henderson (2015) reported low rates of teacher professional development
regarding the field. They found that within 81% of South Australian schools, less than a
third of practicing educators, have completed any kind of professional development
relating to teaching gifted students. This is despite the expectation that schools have of
their teachers to differentiate the curriculum in classrooms (Jarvis & Henderson, 2015).
There is now an online professional development program that is aimed at “training the
teachers” in gifted and talented education and higher order thinking (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
64
Figure 20. South Australian Teaching for Effective Learning Framework (Government of South Australia, 2011)
65
Tasmania
The Tasmanian department of education acknowledge that there are a variety of different
levels of giftedness within schools and that every student’s learning needs must be catered
for. There are students who are highly gifted, mildly gifted, twice exceptional and gifted in
specific domains or subject areas but not others. The Tasmanian Policy introduces gifted
and talented education by stating that Tasmanian Government schools provide enrichment
opportunities to challenge and engage gifted and talented students with their learning.
Available options for extended learning and enrichment include (TAS Department of
Education, 2017):
 Teachers varying the pace and extend the level of challenge in every day
classroom tasks.
 Gifted students having access to online gifted enrichment courses and other in or
out of school programs.
 Students can be accelerated for a number of courses from within the curriculum.
 Students can have external mentors that are professionals in a particular field of
interest.
Each school should have a full time curriculum officer to ensure that the extended learning
opportunities and enrichment as stated from the policy are implemented appropriately. The
state government also offers a 2-day professional learning course for schools to assist with
the establishment of gifted programs. School having completed this professional learning
are able to receive government seed funding (Walsh & Jolly, 2018). Overall, the Tasmanian
policy has a much stronger approach to providing programs for gifted students. It does
mention that all levels of giftedness must be catered for by differentiation of the curriculum.
66
But there is a much greater emphasis in the provision of programs such as online courses,
external mentoring, a variety of competitions and government funding to support schools
with established gifted programs following professional development (QLD Department
of Education, 2018).
Victoria
Peter Merrotsy of the University of Western Australia critiques gifted and talented
education in Australia in the 2017 publication “Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness
and Talent in Australian Education”. He states there is no current Victorian policy and that
there is no mention of Gagné’s definition. According to Merrotsy, gifted children are
provided for through programs and four specialist, selective-entry, secondary schools
within the state (Merrotsy, 2017). Teachers are still expected to provide for gifted students
by differentiation within their mixed-ability classrooms, yet this is rarely happening
according to experiences of pre-service teachers (Kronborg, 2018). Whilst there is no
recent policy, State Government Victoria published a directions paper in 2013 titles “New
opportunities for the gifted and talented”, in which Gagné’s definition is adopted (VIC
Department of Education, 2013).
Western Australia
The Western Australian policy has a strong emphasis on the roles of the principals and it
is their responsibility as to whether any policies are implemented (Walsh & Jolly, 2018).
They must verify that teachers are making the appropriate adjustments to their teaching
strategies for gifted students to achieve the optimum outcome from their education. The
policy recommends enrichment, extension and acceleration as modes of differentiation but
does not give advice on how to perform these. There are several specialised schools and
67
extension programs. For primary, gifted students unable attend these, there is also online
gifted programs available. These allow for more challenging content as well as for the
students to interact with similar students online (Kronborg, 2018). Merrotsy describes
confusion surrounding the definitions and that the methods for identification are
subjectively up to the teachers who are only supplied with a self-referenced checklist for
guidance (Merrotsy, 2017).
Most gifted students will undertake learning in regular classrooms and therefore it
is essential that the curriculum is differentiated accordingly. Teachers should provide
enrichment, extension and acceleration opportunities as part of their differentiation
strategies, as suggested by their state or territory policy (Kronborg, 2018). A limitation to
simply providing a differentiated approach however, is lack of funding. As discussed in
“Chapter 3.2.1 An international approach”, funding can be a contributing factor to success
in the field.
3.2.4 Funding
It is essential that there are Government policies in place to support and develop
gifted students. These policies must be implemented by schools and teachers. While each
Australian state and territory education departments have individualised policies for gifted
education, there is no nationally funded program and thus no federal funds allocated
(Walsh & Jolly, 2018). Education policy-making comes down to social policy. If social
needs as a whole do not stress for gifted education funding, then it will not be a national
priority (Gallagher, 2015).
Australian schools have the option as to whether they implement their state policy.
Independent schools use this as an advantage by developing their own policies as a way to
68
attract academically talented students. Each state policy encourages the use of curriculum
differentiation and enrichment. They also acknowledge that there is the potential for
underachievement and that gifted students may be learning disabled and come from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. These policies, providing provisions and support, are only
sometimes implemented by schools as there is a common attitude that gifted students will
perform well regardless of advanced teaching strategies (Walsh & Jolly, 2018). Social
policy, community attitudes and ethical implications regarding differentiating for the
“elite” all play a key role as barriers in gifted education. As part of this, parent and gifted
student perspectives on pedagogy will be summarised, synthesised, analysed and evaluated
next.
69
3.3 Perspectives on Pedagogy in Gifted and Talented Education
3.3.1 Parents’ perspectives
Most parents are highly involved within their child’s school communities and have
strong opinions on how their child ought to be taught. Some parents are even involved with
the governance of the school via participation with the school committee. Parent opinions
and decision-making are essential as they may impact schools directly, ranging from
teaching pedagogy to the hiring and firing of staff in some instances. A parent’s perspective
and understanding of giftedness is vital in satisfying cultural needs for future policy
direction. All children need constant support and encouragement but sometimes, parental
help becomes an overwhelming pressure that is detrimental to the developmental success
of that child. Teachers perceive parents of gifted students as competitive and grade-
orientated. While teachers have their opinions of the parents, the parents have their own
opinions on pedagogy. They develop these opinions from feedback from their child, from
their child’s school but also from reflections of their own personal school experiences
(Saunders-Stewart, Walker, & Shore, 2013).
A study by Young and Bali (2014), interviewed parents of gifted students, all of
whom believe that special provisions should be in place for gifted students. However, there
were mixed views on whether their child should attend a specialised gifted school or
program as opposed to remaining in mixed-ability classrooms. All parents from the study
believed that the gifted children will benefit academically by being with like-minded
individuals, through acceleration, special programing or schools. However, some parents
believe that by removing their child from mainstream schooling, they will not develop
70
essential social skills. One parents says, “I wanted her to understand there are people who
are lower or right at grade level or even higher than her” (Young & Balli, 2014). By
contrast, there are also parents who think that their children develop socially in these
special programs as they are able to interact with like-minded individuals (Wardman,
2014). Those preferring regular schooling, believing that the social aspect of a wide range
of individuals, is just as important and beneficial for their child’s development as their
academic progression. Therefore, there must be differentiated teaching in order for these
gifted children in regular schooling to develop both academic and socially in the
mainstream setting.
Parents describe some pedagogical strategies which they believe is best to enhance
and enrich their child’s learning. These include having projects with fewer parameters to
allow for more imagination and creativity from their child. They believe that having less
restrictions is the key to differentiating for these gifted individuals. The main focus of this
paper by Young and Bali was how group work is perceived. The results indicated that
although some parents consider group work as necessary, they express concerns about the
conditions set by the teacher. That is, they feel their child is pressured into taking total
responsibility and taking on an unfair contribution of the work referred to as the “free- rider
effect” (French et al., 2011). A key aspect of pedagogical differentiation is enrichment and
finding ways for the gifted student to continue learning at a challenging level when they
are ahead of the rest of the class. One parent quotes, “The good teachers recognise that this
kid can get it really quick, so they don’t keep droning on about the same thing. Let him get
it, do it, and let him do something else” (Young & Balli, 2014). Parents also express
concern for the bad teachers. These are the teachers that give more of the same type of
71
assignments to gifted students than to non-gifted, rather than differentiating. Parents find
this unfair, saying their child is not being enriched or challenged, but rather has a higher
workload than other students of non-challenging content. Parent participants agreed that
teachers need to assign more projects that will foster above-average ability and deeper
knowledge of concepts for gifted children. Another parent’s perspective on the matter or
differentiating for enrichment is that they believe that some classroom teachers become
frustrated and annoyed by the students that fly through all of their work and then become
bored. Some parents then believe that teachers view the bored students as disrespectful,
when all they need is some challenging extension and enrichment (Young & Balli, 2014).
A parent of a “non-gifted” student notes the opposite with her daughter’s teacher.
That is, she believes the teacher provides much too challenging mathematics homework to
her daughter. She believes that the teacher is teaching to the gifted students within that
classroom but without a level of differentiation. In doing so, this teacher is pushing all the
“non-gifted” students too hard (Young & Balli, 2014). There is a fine line between
providing every student with work at a challenging level and not overwhelming them.
However, this is essential for engagement and to cater task commitment, by Renzulli’s
definition. The main goal from teachers is to engage every student, so that the students
enjoy learning and are motivated to do so.
One of Renzulli’s three conceptions of giftedness is task commitment. One parent
describes how her gifted child can become fixated with doing particular tasks, such as their
homework, when she is doing something that she wants to do. When this particular student
is not engaged, she finds it harder to finish but breaks up the tasks into blocks and commits
to keeping to her schedule. This parent sees the drastic differences in the way her child
72
approaches tasks when engaged and emphasises how important it is for teachers to maintain
engagement (Young & Balli, 2014). Several parents pointed out that gifted students are the
future leaders for society and that teachers must find pedagogical strategies to differentiate
for these students amongst their non-gifted peers, in order to maintain engagement and
ultimately prevent boredom (Young & Balli, 2014).
3.3.2 Students’ perspectives
Is being labelled as “gifted” actually an enabling term? Being labelled, in general,
results in children perceiving themselves differently than if not labelled (Berlin, 2009). To
be “gifted” sounds highly beneficial. Yet, there can be many negatives aspects to the label
that may affect a gifted student’s education and wellbeing (Coleman, Micko, & Cross,
2015). A 2009 study testing this notion discovered that gifted students perceived their label
as positive in terms of personal growth in academia, but as strongly negative in terms of
social relations with others (Berlin, 2009).
Some Australian educators see social benefits of group work in the classroom,
whilst gifted students, in some cases believe otherwise (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2013).
This is similar to the opinions of some twice-exceptional learners. Some twice-exceptional
learners described collaborative work as beneficial, and other acted as a barrier to their
learning (Walker & Shore, 2015). This is to be expected as all students are different and
have different styles of learning. However, an overall consensus from the literature
suggests that gifted students do not prefer to work alone, depending of course, on the
distribution of group work (Walker & Shore, 2015). Student’s ranked working with
students of equal ability as their first choice, indicating an awareness of the “free-rider
effect”. This refers to individuals, when working with a group towards a mutual goal,
73
taking advantage of the contribution of other people, to gain the maximum outcome with
minimum personal effort (Walker, Shore, & French, 2011). Gifted students especially
thrive when they are given a choice in regards to their learning (Walker & Shore, 2015).
There appears to be mixed views from gifted students within the literature regarding
to attending specialty gifted schools, programs and varying teaching strategies. Every
gifted student is different, has unique personalities and traits and have their own unique
styles of learning. This is not so dissimilar to all the “non-gifted” students. Some gifted
students would much prefer to stay in a regular classroom for a variety of reasons. The
main reason that stands out is the social advantages. Most students appear to prefer staying
with friends from groups of mixed-abilities (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2013). One student
thinks it would be good to go to a GATE school but he wouldn’t like to go without his
friends (Young & Balli, 2014). Some of the more egoistic gifted students prefer the mixed
ability classroom as they like being the smartest students. One student says he feels proud
when other students ask him for help (Young & Balli, 2014).
74
3.4 Teachers and Teaching in Gifted and Talented Education
3.4.1 Equality, equity and fairness
All children deserve the right to be taught to a level that challenges them as a way
to encourage learning for the development of success. There is constant debate about
whether the level of differentiation in gifted education is fair. A majority of cultures follow
an “education for all” principle, in which every student deserves the right to an education
and to have all the necessary opportunities presented to them. However, the issue around
gifted education is that it may seem that gifted students receive a more advance education
with more opportunities to develop than non-gifted students. There are then the ethical
implications as to who is identified as gifted and why non-gifted students do not meet the
same criteria. Why do gifted children get a more advanced education with more attention
than the non-gifted children? In education, fairness is not necessarily the same as equality.
Education needs to demonstrate equity, in which every student from any level of ability
receive the necessary opportunities to excel to the best of their ability. In the case of gifted
students, differentiation of the curriculum is necessary to provide this. It is not fair to teach
all students the same way (Cooper, 2009).
It can be a subjective matter, which makes it highly controversial, as to who
receives the varying levels of differentiation. Students have individual learning differences
which must be respected by educators. Another barrier that may prevent success of gifted
students is with the educators themselves. Every teacher has a bias in the classroom and
every teacher demonstrates a particular attitude towards providing a more advanced
education to only some students within their classrooms.

3.4.3 Teaching differentiation of pedagogy
“… children took less and less risks because they were afraid of failure. This
attitude may promote good grades but does not foster creativity. On the contrary, generally
in alternative pedagogy, teachers do not use grades. So children are less afraid of taking
risks” (Besançon, 2013).
Every child has a unique learning style and preference. Educators must distinguish
between the styles of every child and respond accordingly to the specific learning style of
each student. In the case of gifted students there are many differentiating and enrichment
options available. By enrichment of the curriculum, educators are providing more varied
content through additional and modified content, while maintaining regular classroom
content (Preckel, Rach, & Scherrer, 2016).
An inquiry-based, student-focused approach to learning has proven to be beneficial.
This approach provides students with more freedom to think for themselves, which in turn
fosters creativity. Examples of inquiry-based instruction involves having students pose
questions and gather data as a way to solve problems (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2013). The
more parameters that are forced onto gifted students, the less they can explore beyond the
criteria, which ultimately stifles their motivation and creativity (Young & Balli, 2014).
Group work could be a strategy worth implementing by teachers, to meet individual
student needs. However, this would need to be strategically instructed as some gifted
students are negatively impacted by this cooperative learning as described in “3.3.2:
Student perspectives’”. Teachers can influence the effectiveness of group-work by having
an increased awareness of the free-rider effect by modifying marking systems, to account
for the differing contributions (Walker & Shore, 2015).
76
Chapter 4
Critiques of Gifted and Talented Education
4.1 Analysis and synthesis
This dissertation, through the literature review presented in chapter 3, has
comprehensively analysed several facets of gifted and talented education. There is much
controversy within the field regarding how it should be defined and whether practice should
be altered for it. Chapter 3.1 systematically analysed 18 models and theories along with
several other aspects contributing to the development of the field. As a scholar-educator,
with no prior knowledge of formal approaches to gifted and talented education, the vast
complexity of the field did not present obvious solutions in how to practically approach
differentiating for gifted students. Table X represents a number of strengths and limitations
for three of the more prominent models to gifted education: three-ring conception, sea star
model of giftedness and the DMGT 2.0. The DMGT 2.0 is adopted by all Australian states
and territories, the three-ring conception is widely used in America as well as in GERRIC’s
modules, from UNSW, for professional development alongside the sea star model of
giftedness. The synthesis of these prominent models will provide a clearer understanding
of gifted education generally, for Australian educators.

Table X. Strengths and limitations of three prominent models with gifted and talented education.
Model Strengths Limitations
 All three traits must interact together for a student to

be gifted. This causes ambiquity towards exceptional
students who clearly don’t express one trait.
Renzulli’s (1978)  Gifted students may bebecome bored in classrooms
Three-Ring A simple approach to identifying gifted and talented students. and then demotivated towards task commitment. This
Conception no longer makes them gifted but is due to the
schooling system.
 How can this be applied to teaching practice in
classrooms?
Tannenbaum’s Addresses relationship between ability (gift) and achievement  All five areas have an equal role in the development of
(1986) Sea Star (talent). high achievements from high abilities.
Model of  How can this be applied to teaching practice in
Giftedness Identifies the role of the child and the role of the environment. classrooms?
Addresses relationship between ability (gift) and achievement  Only applies to students in the top 10% of aged peers
(talent).
Gagné’s (2007) in a particular domain.
DMGT 2.0 Identifies the role of the child and the role of the environment.  How can this be applied to teaching practice in
Provides catalytic factors for development of talents. classrooms?
Within the limitations of the three models presented in table X are that there is no
direct correlation between how the models can influence teaching practices. The models
are extensive, demonstrating the interaction of many traits of giftedness which vital for
gifted student identification. However once identified, based on the models, what next?
Gagné’s developmental model is the best approach to practice as it states catalytic factors
resposible for talent development. But these factors are still not directly applicable to
teaching pedgaogical strategies in classrooms.
In the case of Renzulli’s three-ring conception, if the interaction between the three
traits; creativity, task commitment and abover average general ability; is what makes
giftedness, then what of the students who don’t express one of the traits? For example, if a
student with outstanding intellectual ability is highly apathetic, lacking any interest with
the task at hand, what does that make them? Same goes, for a student with little creativity,
yet who is very successful with outstanding abilities and motivation towards task
commitment. Renzulli’s model is a good way for identifying students, whom Gagné would
classify as talented. The model is not a developmental model, but rather a model which
students can move in and out from in terms of being gifted and talented. The three
characteristics of this model could be traits that one could work towards, rather than to
have simply adopted.
Tannenbaum’s sea star of giftedness model distinguishes between ability and
achievement and emphasises key factors equally contributing to giftedness. Like Renzulli’s
model, this model presents aspects that must all be prevalant for the individual to be termed
gifted. Also, like Renzulli’s model, is that this model doesn’t offer practical approaches for
teaching gifted indiduals. It is a model that would be more useful in the identification
stages. Howver there are more factors that play a role, and hence more factors that can be
focused on when providing support to a gifted child.
Gagné’s model, whilst appears to be the most beneficial to developing talents out
of the three, only defines gifted individuals to be within the top 10% of peers from within
that students age group, within a particular domain. Why is this such a definite cut-off
percentage? What about the other 90% of students? Are they not worthy of the label gifted
until they can break into the top 10%, irrelevant of their traits? To add some perspective,
10% of students are three students in a class of 30. By saying gifted students are thos
ranking in the top 10% of their peers, is like saying that in a class of 30, the top 3, are
gifted, whether they demonstrate traits, such as those by Renzulli or Tannenbaum’s models
or not.
Each of the three models are exceptional, in terms of defining gifted and talented
education and what it mean to be a gifted individual, however none can directly influence
teaching differentiation. Whilst, the model could provide inspiration for approaches to take
in developing a gifted individual from a non-gifted individual, it is difficult for a teacher
to alter the catalytic factors that affect talent development. There needs to be better
guidelines for teaching practices of gifted indivuals and they need to be widely
implemented.
4.2 Findings and evaluation
Gifted and Talented education is a multi-faceted field. There are copious amounts
of research published within the literature, with many varying approaches to defining the
field. With so much research to examine and analyse, it is difficult to find a common
consensus to what gifted and talented education is, which therefore makes it difficult for
80
understanding the best approaches for differentiating pedagogy for gifted students. In
saying that, a benefit of having such a wide variety of models and approaches is that the
field is always advancing towards the optimal approach for these students. This is evident
by chapter 3.1: A historical overview of the literature, where all the developments
throughout the field lead to the most modern approach which is talent development and
striving to achieve eminence.
Nationally, in Australia, there are conflicting opinions and attitudes towards a
specialised education for gifted students. Why should one student receive a more enriched
education when another student does not? It is very subjective as to who receives the extra
support. This directly relates to the argument for fairness in education – equity vs. equality,
as chapter 3.4.1 discussed. All students should be provided with every service needed to
be successful. If all students are provided the same services, as would be the case in an
equal environment, some students will be under provided for and some over-provided. A
phenomenon known as tall poppy syndrome acts as another barrier to the gifted students
within the Australian society. There are many factors that negatively impact gifted
education. These are barriers that must be overcome, in order for gifted students to more
easily realise their true potential and develop their appropriate talent in any particular
domain.
There is no Australian national policy. AAEGT acts as a national organisation,
voluntarily run with affiliations from each state. This organisation provides a wide range
of online resources to assist teachers with differentiating their pedagogical strategies
(AAEGT, 2018). Each state and territory have their own policies, along with guidelines,
for recognizing and teaching gifted students. These are comprehensively investigated in
81
chapter 3.2.3 and as illustrated by table X, recommendations for how teachers can
differentiate the curriculum are minimal in a majority with the exception of NT, SA and
NSW. Despite there being little instruction on how to differentiate, there is a huge emphasis
on the need to differentiate in each policy. These policies are only implemented by choice
at individual schools. Although there is no consistent policy across the nation, benefits to
the field are that, at minimum, the recognition that gifted students must be challenged
through a differentiated and enriching curriculum. Detriments are that once again, there is
little consistency between guidelines and the importance of the field appears to be lost
through the lack of action for change. Australia needs a national policy that is strictly
implemented, describing the most practical approaches for teachers to support gifted
students in their classrooms.
4.3 Limitations
This dissertation has explored a wide number of facets from within gifted and
talented education, however there are many that have been omitted. Identification of gifted
students is one of the most important aspects to the field and whilst it was indirectly covered
through the examination of models, identification methods were not comprehensively
broken down or synthesised from the literature. This was a choice made, as a scholar-
educator, in order to maintain focus on answering the question posed by the research:
Where “gifted student” is mentioned, it is assumed that the student has been identified
through appropriate methods.
82
4.4 Gaps in the literature
The study, through systematically reviewing the literature, has exposed a number
of gaps within the field of gifted and talented education.
 There is no agreed upon universal definition (Worrell et al., 2019) with the
conflicting representations and theories causing confusion. Education systems
world-wide have adopted different models.
 There appears to be no direct correlation between these theoretical models and how
an educator should alter teaching practices.
 There are differing educator attitudes and bias which need to be addressed in
providing recommendations for differentiating practices.
 Whilst there is an overarching consensus that educators must differentiate for gifted
students, there are some, but not enough, provisions on how to.
 Government guidelines – national policy
 Measurement
 Practice
 Definitive model
 Bias
 Cultural (distasteful to Australian
4.5 Recommendations
From the gaps exposed from within the literature, along with important facets of
gifted and talented education, which this study did not comprehensively explore, future
research questions are suggested:
83
1. How and in what ways can the multiple perspectives towards gifted and talented
education be refined to a universal consensus for a more consistent approach to
identification?
2. To what extent can international gifted and talented policies assist Australia in
creating a national policy to provide reliable identifying and practical approaches?
3. To what degree can educating the educators, through professional and pre-service
development, influence gifted and talented practices?
4.6 Personal insights
The education system in Australia demands huge amounts from its teachers. Yet, it
is essential that educators meet the APSTs, in particular for gifted and talented education,
“Standard 1.5: Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across
the full range of abilities” (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014).
If every educator in Australia is doing this, then all gifted students should have the support
and opportunities to realise their individual potentials.
Figure X: Distribution of gifted vs. non-gifted students within the Australian
education system, is a representation of gifted students in Australia, based on Gagné’s
definition of giftedness. 90% of students fall under the category of non-gifted. What type
of education provision do they receive? How does a student progress into the gifted circle
and if they do, do they replace another student? Ethical implications of identifying one
student over another are huge as it raises questions over “education for all” and “equal
rights to educational opportunities”. Gagné’s definition infers that giftedness can arise by
moving into the top 10%. This may occur through hard-work and improvement or simply
by a gifted student’s dropout from the category. The definition raises many questions.
84
Future polices and guidelines must incorporate strategies to minimise these ethical
implications through equity.
Figure 21. Distribution of gifted vs. non-gifted students within the Australian
education system.
4.7 Concluding remarks
This dissertation has sought to address the question:
85
Based on the findings, analyses and evaluations, the answer to this question is that
Australian educators probably are not equipped well enough to provide the appropriate
learning experiences. Some educators would be exceptional at the career and will
differentiate for all types of students’ needs, irrelevant of their label. Yet, there are so many
barriers prevent gifted students from excelling. A major barrier is the tall poppy syndrome
phenomenon. The field needs a universal consensus and policy providing practice
recommendations. But most importantly, education students need to be further developed
in the field of gifted and talented education, prior to beginning the profession.
Gifted education matters. If children with exceptional academic abilities are not
motivated and inspired in the school environment, they may underachieve which prevents
possible benefits to future society. Society needs gifted students to develop and become
leaders by utilising their creative and innovative minds. It’s important to remember
however, that these gifted students are still children and deserve to have a childhood where
they can grow up in an environment feeling safe and loved. Having an exceptional potential
can become a terrible burden. Parents can come to have a much greater expectation from
their child rather than see their future possibilities. Sometimes there is too much focus on
achievement, rather than on the process to getting there.
86
References
AAEGT. (2018). AAEGT - Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and
Talented. Retrieved from http://www.aaegt.net.au/
ACARA. (2015a). Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved from

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-
talented-students/
ACARA. (2015b). National Report on Schooling in Australia. https://doi.org/https://doi-

org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1057/9781137518132
ACT Department of Education. (2014). Gifted and talented students policy.
Asperger, H. (1944). Die “Autistischen Psychopathen” im Kindesalter. Archiv Für

Psychiatrie Und Nervenkrankheiten, 117(1), 76–136.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01837709
Atkin, J., Barratt, R., Dutton, S., Foster, M., Green, C., Leaker, J., … Tompson, L.
(2010). South Australian Teaching for Effective Learning Framework Guide, 88.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers.
Baldwin, L., Baum, S., Pereles, D., & Hughes, C. (2015). Twice-Exceptional Learners.
Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515597277
Barahona-Corrêa, J. B., & Filipe, C. N. (2016). A concise history of asperger syndrome:

The short reign of a troublesome diagnosis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(JAN), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02024
Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s All a Matter of Perspective : Student Perceptions on the Impact
of Being Labeled Gifted and Talented. Roeper Review, 3193(31), 217.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177580
Besançon, M. (2013). Creativity, Giftedness and Education. Gifted and Talented

International, 28(1–2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). New Methods for the Diagnosis of the Intellectual Level
of Subnormals. The Development of Intelligence in Children, 42–43.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1911). New Investigations upon the Measure of the Intellectual
Level among School Children. The Development of Intelligence in Children, 274–
329.
Boschi, A., Planche, P., Hemimou, C., Demily, C., & Vaivre-Douret, L. (2016). From
high intellectual potential to asperger syndrome: Evidence for differences and a
fundamental overlap-A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(OCT).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01605
Brady, M., & Koshy, V. (2014). Reflections on the implementation of the Gifted and
Talented policy in England, 1999–2011. Gifted Education International, 30(3), 254–
262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413486862
Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment in Gifted Education: A Review of
the Literature From 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics,
1932202X1771457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572
Chan, D. W. (2018). Gifted education in Asia. In APA handbook of giftedness and talent.
(pp. 71–84). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-005
Cohn, S. (1981). What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach.
Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-Five Years of Research on
the Lived Experience of Being Gifted in School. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322
Cooper, C. (2009). Myth18: It is Fair to Teach all Children the Same Way. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 283–285.
Dai, D. Y. (2018). Dai (2018) a history of giftedness- a century of quest for identity.
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three Paradigms of Gifted Education: In Search of
Conceptual Clarity in Research and Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–
168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315732
Ericsson, A. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert

performance.
French, L. R., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2011). Do gifted students really prefer to
work alone? Roeper Review, 33(3), 145–159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580497
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a Reexamination of the

Definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628502900302
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a Reexamination of the

Definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112.
88
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628502900302
Gagné, F. (2012). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0,
(February).
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: a best practices model. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-
9366-9
Gagné, F. (2018). Academic talent development- theory and best practices. APA
Handbook of Giftedness and Talent.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000038-011
Gallagher, J. J. (1966). Children with developmental imbalances: A psychoeducational

definition.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brien, L., … Roberts, M.
(2018). Through Growth to Achievement.
Gostelow, T. (2018). “It really sucked”: Tia Gostelow talks tall poppy syndrome and
developing Thick Skin. Retrieved from
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/news/musicnews/tia-gostelow-tall-poppy-syndrome-
thick-
skin/10329064?fbclid=IwAR38swWA8JeU8N0QOiwbP57x1abvV3E9rCMkuPxyK
k7CVUMkOSOnh6Zcww8
Government of South Australia. (2011). South Australian Teaching for Effective

Learning Review Tools handbook.
Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Gifted and Talented Education Professional Development

Package for Teacher. Childhood A Global Journal Of Child Research.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper
presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER
Research Conference. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER)
Teachers Make a Difference, What Is the Research Evidence? Distinguishing Expert
Teachers from Novice and Experienced Teachers.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949002300106
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning for Education ’ S Holy Grail.
Heller, K., & Hany, E. (1986). Identification, development and achievement analysis of
talented and gifted children in West Germany.
Henfield, M. S., Woo, H., & Bang, N. M. (2017). Gifted Ethnic Minority Students and
Academic Achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 3–19.
89
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216674556
Heuser, B. L., & Wang, K. (2017). Global dimensions of gifted and talented education :
the influence of national perceptions on policies and practices. Global Education
Review, 4(1), 4–21.
Hollingworth, L. (1923). Special Talents and Defects: their significance for education.
The Macmillan Company.
Ieridou, A. N. (2013). The need for a culturally relevant approach to gifted education:
The case of Cyprus. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 323–345.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213493535
Jarvis, J. M., & Henderson, L. (2015). Current practices in the education of gifted and
advanced learners in South Australian schools. Australasian Journal of Gifted
Education, 24(2), 70–86.
Jessurun, J. H., Shearer, C. B., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2016). A Universal Model of

Giftedness – an adaptation of the Munich Model. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 113–
128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108184
Kaufman, S. (2013). Ungifted - Intelligence Redefined.
Koshy, V., Pinheiro-Torres, C., & Portman-Smith, C. (2012). The landscape of gifted and
talented education in England and Wales: How are teachers implementing policy?
Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 167–186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2010.509514
Kronborg, L. (2018). Gifted Education in Australia and New Zealand. In APA Handbook
of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 85–96).
Lassig, C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: the importance of professional
development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2),
32–42.
Liu, W. M., & Waller, L. (2018). Identifying and Educating Underrepresented Gifted
Students. In APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 417–431).
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-027
MacLeod, B. (2004). Core Module 5: Curriculum Differentiation for Gifted Students.

Gifted and Talented Education: Professional Development Package for Teachers.
Makel, M. C., Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Putallaz, M., & Benbow, C. P. (2016). When
Lightning Strikes Twice: Profoundly Gifted, Profoundly Accomplished.
Psychological Science, 27(7), 1004–1018.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735
Maker, J. (1977). Providing Programs for the Gifted Handicapped.
90
Maree, J. G. (2018). Gifted education in Africa. In APA Handbook of Giftedness and
Talent (pp. 131–142). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-009
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report to the Congress of the
United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education.
Merrotsy, P. (2017). Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent in Australian

Education. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, (02), 2–5.
https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2017.0014
Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In Conceptions
of giftedness (pp. 187–200). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.012
NSW Department of Education. (2004). Policy and implementation strategies for the
education of gifted and talented students.
NT Department of Education. (2017a). Guidelines and Procedures, 1–16.
NT Department of Education. (2017b). Policy - Gifted and Talent Education.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2017). Blending Research-Based

Practices and Practice-Embedded Research: Project Excite Closes Achievement and
Excellence Gaps for Underrepresented Gifted Minority Students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 61(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701836
Park, S., Foley-Nicpon, M., Choate, A., & Bolenbaugh, M. (2018). “Nothing Fits
Exactly”: Experiences of Asian American Parents of Twice-Exceptional Children.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758442
Piirto, J. (2011). The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development: A conceptual framework for
considering talent.
Preckel, F., Rach, H., & Scherrer, V. (2016). Self-concept changes in multiple self-
concept domains of gifted students participating in a summer residential school.
Gifted and Talented International, 31(2), 88–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2017.1304781
QLD Department of Education. (2018). Curriculum provision to gifted and talented

students.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978a). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Kappan,

92(8), 81–88.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978b). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 60(3), 180–184.
SA Department of Education. (2016). Policy - Gifted and talented children and students.
SA.
91
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2013). How do Parents and
Teachers of Gifted Students Perceive Group Work in Classrooms? Gifted and
Talented International, 28(1–2), 99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678406
Siegle, D. (2015). Dr. James Gallagher’s Concern for Gifted Learners Beyond
Academics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 58–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214565554
Siegle, D., & Mccoach, D. B. (2018). Underachievement and the Gifted Child.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-036
Silverman, W., Miezejeski, C., Ryan, R., Zigman, W., Krinsky-McHale, S., & Urv, T.
(2010). Stanford-Binet and WAIS IQ differences and their implications for adults
with intellectual disability (aka mental retardation). Intelligence, 38(2), 242–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.005
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). Gifted Identification and the Role
of Gifted Education: A commentary on “evaluating the Gifted Program of an Urban
School District Using a Modified Regression Discontinuity Design.” Journal of
Advanced Academics, 27(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16643836
Sternberg, R. (1984). Beyond IQ: A triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness. Conceptions of

giftedness (Vol. 2). Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zSZtfDP3t-
MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA98&dq=((%252522self-estimat*%252522+OR+%252522self-
assess*%252522+OR+%252522self-concept*%252522+OR+%252522Self-
Description+Questionnaire%252522+OR+%252522self-
apprais*%252522+OR+%252522
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(4), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456079
Tannenbaum, A. (1986). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.
TAS Department of Education. (2017). Gifted and talented students in Tasmanian

Government schools.
Terman, L. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence.
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration
of the new revised Stanford–Binet tests of intelligence.
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96.
92
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212468066
Tommis, S. (2013). Gifted education in the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 259–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213492701
Ullen, F., Hambrick, D., & Mosing, M. (2016). Rethinking Expertise : A Multifactorial
Gene- Environment Interaction Model of Expert Performance Rethinking Expertise :
A Multifactorial Gene – Environment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(March 2016),
427–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000033
UNSW. (2004). GERRIC. Retrieved from https://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/about-

us/gerric/
VIC Department of Education. (2013). New opportunities for the gifted and talented.
WA Department of Education. (2011). Gifted and Talented Guidelines.
Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015). Myth busting: Do high-performance students

prefer working alone? Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 85–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2015.1137461
Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & French, L. R. (2011). A theoretical context for examining
students’ preference across ability levels for learning alone or in groups. High
Ability Studies, 22(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.576082
Walsh, R. L., & Jolly, J. L. (2018). Gifted Education in the Australian Context. Gifted
Child Today, 41(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517750702
Wardman, J. (2014). Full-Year Acceleration at High School: Parents Support the Social
and Emotional Challenges of their Children. Gifted & Talented International,
29(1/2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2014.11678429
Wechsler, D. (1939). Measurement of Adult Intelligence.
White, M. (2018). Gifted and Talented Education: A Review of the Literature for
Catholic Education, (October).
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-kubilius, P. (2018). Talent development: a

path toward eminence. In APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 247–258).
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2018). Gifted
Students. Annual Review of Psychology, (July 2018), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted
Students. Annual Review of Psychology, (July 2018), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
93
Young, M. H., & Balli, S. J. (2014). Gifted and Talented Education (GATE). Gifted
Child Today, 37(4), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514544030
Ziegler, A. (2004). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Conceptions of Giftedness, (6),

411–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.024
94

Masters Dissertation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Masters Dissertation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

Luke Ross Day

Supervisor: Associate Professor Mathew A. White PhD

Submitted: 26th October, 2018

Word Count: 17,750

institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree.

I acknowledge that copyright of published works contained within this thesis

resides with the copyright holder(s) of those works.

restrict access for a period of time.

of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Signed: Luke Day

Date: 26th October, 2018

underachieve which prevents possible benefits to future society.

a key role in the production of this dissertation.

Date: 26th October, 2018

List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures .....................................................................................................................x

1.1 Background and rationale of the study ....................................................1

1.1.1 What is gifted and talented education ..........................................5

1.1.2 Why gifted and talented education matters.................................7

1.1.3 Who warrants gifted and talented education services ................8

1.2 Research issue.............................................................................................3

1.3 Purpose of the study...................................................................................3

1.4 Research question ......................................................................................4

1.5 Line of argument ........................................................................................4

1.6 Significance .................................................................................................5

1.7 Limitations ..................................................................................................6

1.8 Definitions ...................................................................................................7

1.9 Concluding summary.................................................................................8

Chapter 2 Methodology .....................................................................................................9

2.1 The scholar-educator .................................................................................9

2.2 A thematic approach................................................................................10

2.4 Analysis of the library of literature ........................................................14

2.1 Concluding summary...............................................................................17

Chapter 3 Literature Review ..........................................................................................18

3.1 Defining Gifted and Talented Education ...............................................18

3.1.1 A historical overview of the literature. ......................................19

3.1.2 Intelligence testing .......................................................................22

3.1.3 Twice-exceptional learners ..........................................................24

3.1.4 Domain specific abilities ..............................................................25

3.1.5 Talent development ......................................................................31

3.2 Policies in Gifted and Talented Education ............................................46

3.2.1 An international approach ..........................................................46

3.2.2 An Australian national approach ...............................................51

3.2.3 An Australian state and territory approach ..............................53

Australian Capital Territory ......................................................56

New South Wales..........................................................................58

Northern Territory ......................................................................60

Western Australia ........................................................................67

3.2.4 Funding .........................................................................................68

3.3.1 Parents’ perspectives ...................................................................70

3.3.2 Students’ perspectives .................................................................73

3.4 Teachers and Teaching in Gifted and Talented Education .................75

3.4.1 Equality, equity and fairness ......................................................75

3.4.3 Teaching differentiation of pedagogy.........................................76

Chapter 4 Critiques of Gifted and Talented Education ...............................................77

4.1 Analysis and synthesis .............................................................................77

4.2 Findings and evaluation ..........................................................................80

4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................82

4.4 Gaps in the literature ...............................................................................83

4.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................83

4.6 Personal insights.......................................................................................84

4.7 Concluding remarks ................................................................................85