The Psychopedagogical Dimension Of Promoting Talents - An Observative Study

Abstract

The psycho-pedagogical issue of talent promotion is a field of current interest for different categories of teachers, students preparing for the teaching career, counsellors, parents, pupils, decision-makers. Until recently, the general assumption assumed by most countries was that talented children have no special needs or difficulties in order to succeed in school and life. Talent nurturing and management became a challenge for teachers. Unfortunately, the support for initial and in-service teacher training for gifted education is yet insufficient. In this context, we consider it important to know the opinion of master candidates in the domain of educational sciences regarding the usefulness, content, strategies for stimulating/realizing talent promotion in the present Romanian school, as well as the causes that support or complicate these approaches. The present study was conducted in the second semester of the academic year 2017-2018. The research method was a questionnaire applied to 71 master candidates at the Innovative Strategies in Education master study programme from Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacӑu, Romania. The purpose of this observative study is to identify the master candidates' perception of this issue with a view to ensuring a higher convergence between their professional training interests and the content studied during the master program. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the answers was relevant to the need for a minimal initial/continuous training in the psycho-pedagogy of high abilities (PPHA) for teachers.

Keywords: Gifted/talented educationteacher trainingteaching strategiesprofessional development

Introduction

The aim of meeting the educational and developmental needs of all students is generally claimed as a priority for educational national systems, educators and society collectively. This aim also addresses the specific needs of gifted students. Maximising these students’ talent development is directly linked to the continued society prosperity and growth, which depends on the creative potential of its people. An education program specially designed for meeting these students’ cognitive, emotional and social needs is very complex and challenging, due to the heterogeneity of talented population’s characteristics. In all European countries, provisions for gifted and talented students across the entire educational system was heavily influenced by the political climate of the time. In Romania, since the Spiru Haret form of Education, started in 1898, educational policies reflected in educational Laws that included different issues addressing able pupils (Haret, 2012). Most of them are related to administrative measures, like the legal frame of organizing special programs or classes by academic subjects for pupils with above average school records. The incentives for international academic Olympiad winners, acceleration of studies (two school years during one year) or, early entry in the first school year, based on psychological evaluation of intellectual abilities (Cretu, 1995). The current Romanian Law of Education (Law no. 1/2011) has an entire article concerning the provisions for talented students from school: the National Centre for differentiated education (belongs to the National Ministry of Education); Non-formal programs  (excellence centres, different competitions including the national academic Olympiads, summer camps, symposiums, etc.); grants; differentiated and personalised curriculum in schools (enrichment, mentoring, acceleration). Until recently, the general assumption informally assumed by most countries was that talented children have no special needs or difficulties in order to succeed in school and life. During the last decades there has been a gradual grow of interest on provisions for talented people, not only in schools but also in industrial companies. Talent nurturing and management became a challenge for those who see the linkage between people with high abilities and prosperity of societies. Unfortunately, the support for initial and in-service teacher training for gifted education is yet insufficient or neglected in this current challenging context.

Problem Statement

The European educational policies, including the Romanian case, have not enough specifications on teacher training for gifted and talented education, despite the research evidence on its high significance to the talented students’ success in school and later, in their professional careers. Forster discusses the evidence that supports effective implementation of gifted and talented policy and provisions coming from both administrative and practitioner levels, where training and support for teachers is a vital aspect for effectively meeting the needs of gifted and talented students (Forster, 2005).

Educators who have participated in professional development programs on talented students have appropriate teaching skills, positive perceptions, attitudes and improved confidence in their ability to meet the needs of gifted and talented students, in contrast to those who have not engaged in any training in this area (Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010; Lassig, 2009).

A large-scale European wide research report was published by Monks and Pfluger (2005) which provides information about gifted education in 21 European countries. The report examines also the status and systems of teacher training in the field of gifted education.

The conducted research found out that only 9 out of 21 countries (Austria, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) provide some formal programs of teacher training in this field.

In June 2006, Eurydice launched a working document, Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness in Europe. One chapter was dedicated to the situation of initial and in-service teacher training. The situation varies widely: in some countries, separate courses are devoted to the issue as a separate subject, while elsewhere it is integrated in other subjects, or no special related recommendations are drawn up because of the considerable autonomy granted to training institutions. Several countries have reported a growing interest on the part of teachers in gifted young people, and several legislative systems are being amended to offer gifted and talented pupils greater variety in educational provisions (Eurydice European Unit, 2006).

In an education policy focused research, Reid and Horváthová (2016) try to map and describe gifted education, teacher training programs and qualifications for teachers of intellectually gifted pupils in Slovakia, Austria, Belgium and Finland. The authors chose these countries because of very different perceptions of gifted education and teacher training. The article makes courageous recommendation for a sustainable European policy like the adoption of common terminology, understanding, principles and requirements concerning gifted education in Europe, including also, teacher training.

In Romania, there are few HE institutions which offer separate undergraduate or master courses in this field, like Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (since 1992), Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava (since 2011) and recently, Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau (since 2016).

Another report based on an international survey conducted by Freeman, Raffan and Warwick (2010), includes answers from over 850 international professional contacts from national and local levels across different continents. The main topics of the survey were cultural values underpinning programs, acceleration and enrichment, integration versus separation of provision, constraints faced by educators and practical solutions, links between identification, provision and success. All these topics are directly related to the teacher’s abilities to understand the talented student’s needs.

In general, little research has been conducted on how teacher training strategies could impact teachers’ beliefs and teaching behaviour in order to meet the gifted student’s needs. However, one strategy was found to be effective: encouraging students to make their attitudes and beliefs explicit so that their assumptions can be analysed (Correa, Hudson & Hayes, 2004; Miller, 2009). Baudson and Preckel (2016) found out that teachers considered gifted students more able, but less prosocial and more maladjusted than average-ability students. This finding reflects the process of stereotyping of gifted students by teachers, positively (seeing gifted students as superior in all respects) or negatively ( stigma of giftedness which sees gifted students as intellectually strong, but emotionally and socially inferior).

Research Questions

The research questions (RQ) play a guiding role both for the purposes of our research and its design and achievement. For our study, these are:

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of our study is to investigate the master students' perception of different aspects of the implementation of psycho-pedagogical strategies for the promotion of gifted students.

Research Methods

The dependent variable is represented by the concept of psycho-pedagogical strategies for the promotion of gifted students, which is concretized in the participants' response to characteristic aspects. The independent variables are: the level of education (preschool/primary/middle school/high school); professional experience (no professional experience/1-2 years/3-5 years/6-10 years/over 10 years); the environment in which they teach (urban/rural).

Findings

To highlight the results, we shall analyse the master students’ answers and group them according to our research questions. Regarding SO4 and items 4, 5, we shall perform a single final analysis, as the answers obtained correlate with all the research questions.

Conclusion

The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the answers is relevant to the need for a minimal initial/continuous training in the psycho-pedagogy of high abilities (PPHA) for teachers. Although half of them say they are familiar with this issue, the answers provided indicate serious shortcomings, confusions, extrapolations, inaccuracies. Therefore, for RQ1, our answer is rather negative, following the correlation of the data obtained here with the data from the other research questions. The respondents are interested in the topic, engage in formulating answers, strive to develop the required strategies. At the same time, their answers reveal a series of confusions, the tendency to address the problem either at a general and vague level, or restrictively, very narrowly, without making a fair discrimination between the concepts of promoting a high ability and non-formal/usually artistic activities through which some abilities may be exploited. Very few of the strategies listed/proposed by the master students were novel, most of them being references to interactive, heuristic methods used in the teaching process, or to specific methods of non-formal education. Thus, for RQ2, RQ3, our response is positive, but at relatively average level: numerous and thorough training approaches are required, directed towards the psycho-pedagogy of talent promotion.

The data obtained support the need for changes in educational policies and a need to apply consistently and realistically the legislative provisions regulating the field of PPHG in our country. Although there are several special regulations for this field, the teachers participating in the study have very little information about them, their answers comprising almost no reference to them. These aspects correlate, on the one hand, with the moment of the study (prior to the course on this issue in the Masters Program in Innovative Strategies in Education) and with the necessity of introducing this course in any academic curriculum in the fields of psychology, pedagogy.

These aspects correlate with the moment of the study (prior to the course on this issue from the Master study program on Innovative Strategies in Education) as well as with the necessity of introducing this course in any academic curriculum in the fields of psychology, pedagogy.

Beyond the legal framework specific to the PPHA area, under the pretext of lack of time, lack of additional financial allocations specific to PPHA needs, educators find it difficult to customize, individualize or adapt the curricula to achieve differentiated education.

So, it means that the identification and nurturing of gifted students is a very difficult task for teachers without specific training. Beyond the legal, scientific and psychological aspects, teachers need to work at the same time on themselves: to engage in critical self-analysis and experience cognitive dissonance in order to perform in activities with gifted students.

References

1. Bangel, N.J., Moon, S.M., & Capobianco, B.M., (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54 (3), 209−221.
2. Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers' Conceptions of Gifted and Average-Ability Students on Achievement-Relevant Dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, (3), 212-225.
3. Correa, V. I., Hudson, R. F., & Hayes, M. T. (2004). Preparing early childhood special educators to serve culturally and linguistically diverse children and families: Can a multicultural education course make a difference? Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 323–341.
4. Crețu, C. (1998). Curriculum diferențiat și personalizat [Differentiated and personalized curriculum]. Iași: Polirom.
5. Crețu, C. (1997). Psihopedagogia succesului [Psychopedagogy of success]. Iași: Polirom.
6. Cretu, C. (1995). Politica promovării talentelor. Dreptul la o educație diferențiată [The policy of promoting talent. The right to a differentiated education]. Iași: Cronica.
7. Eurydice European Unit, (2006). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness in Europe. Working document. European Commission, Eurydice European Unit. Retrieved from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/Specific_measures_giftedness_EN.pdf. Accessed August 22nd, 2018.
8. Forster, J. (2005). Policy and practice: A twenty-year retrospective on gifted education in the Australian state of New South Wales. Gifted Education International, 19 (2), 182−196.
9. Freeman, J., Raffan, J., & Warwick, J. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents. CfBT Education Trust, An international survey, Research report Retrieved from http://www.joanfreeman.com/pdf/towereport.pdf
10. Haret, S. (2012). Raport asupra activității ministerului de Instrucție1898. In Operele lui Spiru C. Haret, vol. III.[Report on the activity of the Ministry of Education 1898-2. In the Works of Spiru C. Haret, vol. III.] Iași: Tipo Moldova.
11. Labăr, A. V. (2008). Managementul proiectelor de cercetare pedagogică. In C. Cucoş (coord.), Psihopedagogie pentru examenele de definitivare şi grade didactice. Ediţia a II-a. [Management of pedagogical research projects. In C. Cucoş (editor), Psycho-pedagogy for teachers exams. Second Edition]. Iasi:Polirom]
12. 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.
13. Law no. 17/2007 regarding the education of gifted young people, capable of high performance. Retrieved from http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/78725. Accessed August 4th, 2018.
14. Law no. 189/2009 for the approval of GEO no. 141/2008 amending Law no. 17/2007 regarding the education of gifted young people, capable of high performance. Retrieved from http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/lege_aprobare_oug_141_2008_modificare_educatia_tinerilor_supradotati_inalta_performanta_189_2009.php. Accessed August 4th, 2018
15. Law no. 1/2011. Romanian Education Law. Retrieved from http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/legea_educatiei_nationale_lege_1_2011.php. Accessed August 4th, 2018.
16. Monks, F. J., & Pfluger, R. (2005). Gifted Education in 21 European Countries: Inventory and Perspective. Radboud University Nijmengen, https://www.bmbf.de/pub/gifted_education_21_eu_countries.pdf. Accessed August 8th, 2018.
17. Miller, E. M. (2009). The Effect of Training in Gifted Education on Elementary Classroom Teachers’ Theory Based Reasoning About the Concept of Giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 33, (1), 2009, 65–105. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ856177.pdf. Accessed August 10th, 2018.
18. Reid E., & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher Training Programs for Gifted Education with Focus on Sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 66-74.