The effect of individual teachers’ content knowledge on the identification of gifted students

The effect of individual teachers’ content knowledge

on the identification of gifted students

Annelies Judson, Catherine Rawlinson, and Frauke Meyer

Introduction

Take a moment to think of a student who you have taught and who you perhaps considered to be gifted in one or more domains. What gift or gifts did this student display? In what ways did the student’s giftedness manifest itself? Did you identify the student through your school’s identification procedure? What information did you use to formally identify this student?

These are some of the questions that teachers may ask themselves when identifying gifted students. Identification of giftedness is a key step in providing effective educational experiences for gifted learners. Therefore, the development and utilisation of effective strategies for the identification of gifted students is an important task for schools. However, identification is far from a simple process, involving a range of interrelated factors; thus identification of giftedness is not always accurate (Davis, Rimm & Siegle, 2014; Moltzen, 2011). A number of factors appear to influence which students are identified as gifted, including:

•student ethnicity (Bevan-Brown, 1999; Pendarvis & Wood, 2009)

•student socioeconomic status (Bevan-Brown, 1999; Endepohls-Ulpe & Ruf, 2005; McBee, 2006)

•the classroom or school composition (Lee, 2009; Meissel, Meyer, Yao, & Rubie-Davies, 2017; Ready & Wright, 2011)

•student twice exceptionality—having both gifts and learning difficulties (Ng, Hill, & Rawlinson, 2016)

•practitioner knowledge about giftedness and gifted education (Lee, 1999; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011).

The research outlined in this article considered a further potential factor that may influence which students are identified as gifted: teachers’ perceived personal ability in different domains.

New Zealand definition of giftedness

Many countries focus their identification of giftedness on academic ability (Davis et al., 2014; Education Bureau, 2008; Florida Department of Education, n.d.). However, the New Zealand Ministry of Education guidelines explicitly ask schools to create a “multi-categorical” definition of giftedness. Thus, teachers are expected to identify giftedness in not only traditional academic or intellectual skills, but also in a wide range of other domains, including the arts, sport, and leadership (Ministry of Education, 2012). For schools that have adopted a multi-categorical definition of giftedness, this means teachers are required to identify giftedness in their students across multiple curriculum and noncurriculum domains. This represents a huge ask for teachers. To further complicate matters, the specific definition of the construct of giftedness, and what domains are to be considered, is a decision that the Ministry of Education encourages each individual school to develop. Definitions of giftedness therefore vary between schools.

Research by Riley and Bicknell (2013) highlights that students are not identified equally in all the domains of giftedness, even at schools that do have a multi-categorical definition.

The possibility that teachers’ content knowledge impacts on their ability to identify gifted learners does not appear to have been considered in depth in the literature. The research outlined in this article questioned whether there may be a link between teachers’ content knowledge and identification of giftedness in specific domains. The following research examined whether different levels of teachers’ content knowledge in various domains may contribute to this discrepancy.

Teacher judgement

Giftedness in any domain is manifested by a student’s performance, or potential, or both. A gifted student will excel, or have the potential to excel, in that domain. Potential and/or performance can be determined in a number of ways, and the Ministry of Education recommends that schools use multiple methods to identify giftedness. However, teacher identification is the most common means by which students in New Zealand are identified as gifted (Ministry of Education, 2012). At the primary-school level, this means that the classroom teacher is often the main person who identifies a gifted student. Accurate judgement of student ability is therefore a key aspect of effective identification.

Unfortunately for gifted students, several international studies (not specific to gifted education) have shown that teachers’ judgements are not always in line with the actual attainment of the students they are judging (e.g., Arkoudis & O’Loughlin, 2004; Davison, 2004; Johansson, Strietholt, Rosén, & Myrberg, 2013; Meissel et al., 2017; Südkamp, Kaiser, & Möller, 2012; Wiggins & Wiggins, 2008). If teachers’ judgements of students’ ability are not always accurate, it is possible that some gifted students are not being identified as gifted as their teacher has not judged their performance or potential to be outstanding enough.

One factor that plays a part in making an accurate judgement about a student’s ability is teacher content knowledge. Content knowledge has been shown to have an impact on some aspects of teaching, such as how teachers represent and assess a subject (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Johannson et al., 2013; Limbrick, Buchanan, Goodwin, & Schwarcz, 2008), and extend students (Renner & Bell, 2016). There is evidence that teachers can make inaccurate judgements about students’ ability because of a lack of content knowledge (Clement, 1994; Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Kleickmann et al., 2012; Wiggins & Wiggins, 2008). This has particular relevance at the primary-school level. There are significant expectations for the content knowledge of teachers at the primary-school level in New Zealand, due to the generalist nature of their role and the wide range of curriculum levels that they teach (Education Council, n.d.; Ministry of Education, 2007). Research shows that teachers are unlikely to have equal levels of content knowledge and expertise across all domains (Stewart & Buntting, 2015). Furthermore, there is literature highlighting that New Zealand teachers have some misconceptions and/or insufficient knowledge in some subject areas, including writing (Limbrick et al., 2008), music (Russell-Bowie, 2009), science (Hedges, 2003), and phonological awareness (Carroll, 2006). Conversely, the benefits of strong teacher content knowledge have been discussed by New Zealand researchers in areas as diverse as dance (Renner & Bell, 2016) and mathematics (Craw & Haynes, 2007).

The above research suggests that variations in teachers’ content knowledge within and between subjects may impact upon their ability to judge student performance accurately across all parts of the curriculum. If teacher judgement is inaccurate in one or more domain, then it is possible that students gifted in these domains may not be identified, and therefore may not be given the opportunity to access extension and support programmes¹ to help them to make the most of their gifts and talents.

The research question

This study examined six New Zealand primary school teachers’ experiences and perceptions of identifying gifted students. It analysed teachers’ self-identified levels of ability in a particular domain and their perception of their own ability to identify giftedness in that domain. The specific question for the study was whether teachers’ perceived level of ability in a particular domain (e.g., mathematics, dance, or leadership) had an impact on their identification of students who were gifted in that domain.

Teachers’ perceived ability in a subject is distinct from teachers’ perception of their ability to teach that subject. As teachers, we all acknowledge that there are areas in which we have more expertise or confidence than others, even if we feel confident in teaching across the curriculum. Educational psychologist Lee Shulman (1986, 1987) was the first to make this distinction. He distinguished between a teacher’s subject or content knowledge (i.e., their knowledge about a subject itself, irrespective of teaching) and pedagogical content knowledge (their knowledge about a subject as it applies to teaching, including how best to represent different concepts to students). The two are related but distinct, and this research focused on the former.

Given that New Zealand primary school teachers have to teach a broad range of subjects across a number of different curriculum levels, then it is highly likely that they have varying levels of experience and expertise in the different subjects. This is also likely to lead to variable levels of perceived ability across those subjects. If teachers have varying levels of perceived ability in different subjects, then this may have an impact on their ability to identify gifted students in different domains. This research examined the following question: Did teachers’ perceived ability in a domain impact on their ability to identify gifted and talented students in that domain?

Methodology

This research was approved by The University of Auckland Ethics Committee and conformed to the university’s guidelines for ethical research. Six teachers from five different schools were interviewed. The teachers came from high decile or private schools from Wellington and Auckland. All were experienced teachers, ranging from 7 to 28 years in the profession. At the time of the interviews, the teachers were in classrooms ranging from new entrants to Year 8.

The semistructured interviews used a range of questions as prompts for the teachers to discuss their perceived ability in various domains, their experiences of identifying and working with gifted students, and their perception of how their personal ability affected whether they identified students as being gifted. Measuring actual teacher content knowledge was too involved for the scale of this study and so teachers’ perceived ability was used as a proxy for their content knowledge in a given domain. Interview questions included:

•Are there any areas that you feel you have a particular personal ability or maybe even consider yourself to be gifted or talented?

•Are there any areas that you feel less skilled in compared to others?

•Have you ever identified any gifted students in these areas?

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. This allowed links to be found between the teachers’ perceived personal ability in a subject and their experience of identifying or working with students who were gifted in that subject. This included both areas in which these teachers had higher levels of confidence, and areas of lower confidence. Thematic analysis also allowed the possibility of finding links within and between interviews that were beyond the research question but were still relevant to the identification of gifted students. For the analysis, the general inductive approach outlined by Thomas (2006) was used. Quotes of interest were highlighted within the transcripts, and assigned a category or categories. As more data that related to the same idea or concept were discovered, they were coded into the same category as the previous data. This drew together related pieces of data both within interviews and across different participants, and built up the data set. Five major themes emerged: (1) teachers’ confidence in various subjects; (2) knowledge about giftedness itself, and therefore how to identify it; (3) systemic influences on identification of giftedness; (4) knowledge of students as a group; and (5) knowledge of individual students. Peer debriefing clarified and confirmed the themes identified from the interviews.

Findings

The main focus of the study was on the relationship between teachers’ perceived level of ability in a domain and their experience of identifying students as gifted in that domain. Teachers also identified other types of knowledge that had an impact on their identification. A discussion of the results related to types of teacher knowledge is below. Furthermore, other issues that could potentially impact on the identification of gifted students were mentioned by many teachers. An overview of these follows, and may prove a fruitful area for further research.

Three types of knowledge were discussed by the teachers as having an impact on their identification of giftedness. These were content knowledge, knowledge about giftedness, and developmental/pedagogical knowledge.

Content knowledge

Teachers in this study reported a range of levels of perceived ability across the domains and subjects they taught. Most teachers indicated that they were more likely to identify a gifted student in a subject in which they perceived themselves to have a higher level of ability, and conversely less likely to identify a student in an area they had lower perceived ability. Many expressed sentiments similar to the participant who said she would “know what to look for” [Sarah] when identifying a student in her area of expertise. The reverse was also true: in an area in which they felt they had lower ability, teachers felt less confident in identifying giftedness.

For example, Rebecca, who was the longest serving teacher in this study at 28 years, noted that literacy was an area of considerable personal strength and that she was extremely confident in her ability to identify students gifted in literacy, However, in mathematics, an area of comparative weakness for her, she acknowledged that it was “probably harder for me to see” giftedness. She recognised a similar contrast in her ability in the arts, saying, “I’m a musician, so the music side of it’s easy. But the dance side of it isn’t my gifting (laughs). [...] The dance side of it would definitely be a gap.” When asked about whether she felt that her personal ability in a subject had an influence on her ability to identify gifted students in a subject, she responded that it “definitely” did.

Many of the teachers made some reference to the relationship between identification and provision for gifted students and how this related to their own knowledge of, or interest in, a subject. One participant felt this particularly strongly, saying, “I give them more opportunity if I know about the subject. So I talk to them about it, whereas if they were good at something else I wouldn’t talk to them about it. I wouldn’t notice” [Sarah].

The main focus of the study was on the relationship between teachers’ perceived level of ability in a domain and their experience of identifying students as gifted in that domain. Teachers also identified other types of knowledge that had an impact on their identification. A discussion of the results related to types of teacher knowledge is below. Furthermore, other issues that could potentially impact on the identification of gifted students were mentioned by many teachers. An overview of these follows, and may prove a fruitful area for further research.

Knowledge about giftedness

Five of the teachers discussed their professional knowledge of giftedness itself, and the way this impacted upon their perceived ability to identify gifted students. They commented, “I don’t think I know enough” and “you’re never sure if you’re doing the right thing” [Nicola]. Most teachers had some level of insecurity about their ability to identify gifted students in their classroom.

Four of the teachers specifically mentioned that improving their knowledge of giftedness had helped them to improve their ability to identify gifted students—although three of the four still felt they had more to learn in this area. Three of these teachers had completed formal professional development to further their knowledge of giftedness, and had worked collaboratively with other teachers as part of this professional development. One had undertaken her own professional development through readings.

Developmental/pedagogical knowledge

Five of the teachers described identifying students as gifted because they were exceptional in relation to their peers. Angela made a very explicit link between the identification of gifted students and her pedagogical knowledge:

I feel like I’m an experienced teacher at the level that I’m teaching at, and that I’ve definitely got a sense of what is an average student for that age, what’s a high achieving student, and what’s one that is of concern, and then you get these other ones that come in and they don’t quite fit those categories. And so I guess I base it on that.

The developmental/pedagogical knowledge of the teachers had an impact on their identification because it helped them to know what was typical for that age group, and therefore what was exceptional. However, some teachers struggled to articulate what they felt made the difference between the high achievers and the gifted, or questioned whether simply high achievement constituted giftedness.

Systemic influences on identification

The teachers also discussed external factors that they felt impacted on their ability to identify gifted students. They mentioned three broad systemic influences which occurred at the classroom, school, and government level.

Classroom-level influences on identification included the teachers’ knowledge of the students as individuals—seen by the teachers as a key aspect of their role as primary teachers. The participating teachers felt their knowledge of individuals helped them to identify students’ gifted behaviours. In some cases this was a knowledge of the student’s interests and skills, and in other cases it was an understanding of personality or learning style which helped teachers to look past behaviours that would otherwise define the student as unruly or difficult. School-level influences on identification included school policies (such as the identification procedures used) and the socioeconomic context of the school. Government-level influences centred around the impact of national educational priorities—an area that may well change since the recent announcement of increased funding for gifted education.

While the systemic influences on identification were not the focus of the study, it was interesting to see the way in which these different factors were perceived by the teachers as impacting their identification. This aspect has potential for further study or consideration.

Implications

While the scale of the study was small, it revealed three aspects that seem to have implications for the identifica­tion of gifted students in our classrooms.

First, teachers noted a link between their perceived ability in a domain and their likelihood of identifying a student as gifted in that domain. This is not to say that the teachers would not be able to identify giftedness across all areas. The scope of this study did not include an analysis of which students these teachers had identified, and whether their identification was accurate. What this research showed was that these teachers didn’t feel equally as capable at identifying students in all domains. This is an important finding, as it suggests that students with gifts in different areas may be more or less likely to be identified as gifted by a classroom teacher according to what those gifts are. This is particularly relevant in the primary-school context, where students are often taught by one teacher for most, if not all, of the day and generally for a whole year, leaving the sole responsibility of identification to that teacher.

Secondly, professional learning appeared to have a positive effect on teachers’ confidence in identifying gifted students. Some of the teachers were very experienced classroom teachers, but despite their years of experience they still commented on having improved their knowledge in the area of gifted education through personal research, formal professional development, and informal collaborative work with colleagues. This shows that experience is not enough for teachers to gain confidence in gifted identification—professional development is also important. The way in which teachers accessed professional development varied between teachers, which suggests that schools could provide or support teachers in different ways to improve their knowledge.

Thirdly, some teachers struggled to articulate what they felt made the difference between high achievers and gifted students. A strong understanding of what constitutes giftedness, according to the school’s definition, is important to support teachers’ confidence in identification. Teachers’ confidence in identifying gifted students is linked to the earlier identified importance of professional development, but it also highlights the importance of clear communication within the school as to how their gifted identification and programme works.

Recommendations for teachers and schools

The Ministry of Education handbook, Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting Their Needs in New Zealand Schools, available as a download on TKI, offers practical advice to help schools to create strong identification procedures. In addition to the advice in this Ministry document, the results of this research also highlight the following.

First, teachers in the study expressed a lack of confidence in their knowledge about giftedness. The handbook recommends that schools should have a clear definition of what constitutes “giftedness” in their particular school context and that schools offer appropriate professional development. A school’s definition of giftedness should include in which domains students may be identified as gifted, and what marks a student as gifted compared to their peers. Formal professional development was also noted as beneficial by the teachers in this study.

Secondly, teachers may have varying levels of perceived ability and content knowledge in different domains. In light of the results of this study, schools could consider ways to make the identification process more collaborative. A collaborative approach to identifying giftedness could help to mitigate discrepancies in identification when students have gifts and talents in domains in which their teachers have lower levels of confidence. Such an approach is recommended by the Ministry of Education but is not always practised in New Zealand schools. Classroom teachers could actively seek advice or support from colleagues. This collaboration would be a way of utilising the professional knowledge, the curriculum knowledge, and the experience of teachers with a stronger understanding of gifted education. They could also work together with other professionals (e.g., sports coaches), parents, and the community when identifying gifted students.

Finally, teachers who lack confidence in a subject may be less likely to give students opportunities to show the extent of their skills in that area. The Ministry suggests that a responsive environment can be an effective way to give opportunities for students to show their potential or ability in a range of areas. Setting up lunch time, after school, and in-class opportunities for children to work with teachers and members of the community who have expertise in a range of different areas would increase the chance of children’s gifts and talents to be noticed.

Ultimately, in order to best support gifted students, the message from the classroom teachers in this study emphasised the importance of drawing on the expertise of many people when identifying gifted learners.

Note

¹This research was conducted using the terms gifted and talented and cites literature that uses both terms. The Ministry of Education now uses the single term gifted to describe students who display exceptional abilities in a particular domain.

References

Arkoudis, S., & O’Loughlin, K. (2004). Tensions between validity and outcomes: Teacher assessment of written work of recently arrived immigrant ESL students. Language Testing, 21(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt285oa

Bevan-Brown, J. (1999). Special abilities: A Māori perspective. Gifted Education International, 14, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949901400110

Carroll, J. (2006). Phonological awareness: Investigating the phonological awareness knowledge of New Zealand primary schools’ educators. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (3), 44–49.

Clement, R. (1994). The readiness of primary schools to teach the national curriculum in art and design. Journal of Art & Design Education, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1994.tb00353.x

Craw, J., & Haynes, M. (2007). Subject knowledge enhances the documentation of young children’s mathematical learning. Early Childhood Folio, 11, 26–30.

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson.

Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing, 21(3), 305–334. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt286oa

Education Bureau. (2008). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://resources.edb.hkedcity.net/gifted/ge_resource_bank/files/Policy/policy/policy_E_Mar08.pdf

Education Council. (n.d.). Practicing teacher criteria. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/practising-teacher-criteria

Endepohls-Ulpe, M. E., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Gifted education. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/academics/exceptional-student-edu/gifted-edu.stml

Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190107

Hedges, H. (2003). The case for teachers’ science subject knowledge. Early Childhood Folio, 7, 2–7.

Johansson, S., Strietholt, R., Rosén, M., & Myrberg, E. (2013). Valid inferences of teachers’ judgements of pupils’ reading literacy: Does formal teacher competence matter? School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(3), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.809774

Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2012). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112460398

Lee, L. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and talented young children. High Ability Studies, 10(2), 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813990100205

Limbrick, L., Buchanan, P., Goodwin, M., & Schwarcz, H. (2008). Improving students’ writing: The impact of teacher knowledge and student-focused practice. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (2), 34–38.

McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111.

Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2015). The national administration guidelines (NAGs). Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/nags/

Moltzen, R. (2011). Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (3rd ed.). Auckland: Pearson.

Ng, S., Hill, M. F., & Rawlinson, C. ( 2016 ). Hidden in plain sight: The experiences of three twice exceptional students during their transfer to high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656257

Pendarvis, E., & Wood, E. W. (2009). Eligibility of historically underrepresented students referred for gifted education in a rural school district. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903200403

Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L., (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1–2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587

Ready, D. D., & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions of young children’s cognitive abilities: The role of child background and classroom context. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 335–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210374874

Renner, S., & Bell, D. (2016). Joining in the dance: What can be learned from high self-efficacy teachers about teaching dance? Curriculum Matters, 12, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0013

Riley, T., & Bicknell, B. (2013). Gifted and talented education in New Zealand schools: A decade later. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 18(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.21307/apex-2013-006

Russell-Bowie, D. (2009). What me? Teach music to my primary class? Challenges to teaching music in primary schools in five countries. Music Education Research, 11(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802699549

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: A conception of teacher knowledge. American Educator, 10(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Stewart, G., & Buntting, C. (2015). Teachers, curious minds, and science education. Curriculum Matters, 11, 98–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.18296/cm.0006

Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Wiggins, R. A., & Wiggins, J. (2008). Primary music education in the absence of specialists. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 9(12), 1–27.