THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF THE …...7.2.3 The gifted child’s perception of their relationship with their teacher.175 7.3 The Role Parents Play in the Development of SEWB

THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL

WELL-BEING OF THE GIFTED

CHILD AND PERCEPTIONS OF

PARENT AND TEACHER SOCIAL

SUPPORT.

Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott

BA, H Dip. Ed, BA Hons. (Psych), BEd Hons.

MEd (Educational and Learning Support),

MEd (School Guidance and Counselling)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2018

i

Keywords

emotional needs, gifted, gifted and talented, primary school, social-emotional well-

being, social needs, social support.

ii

Abstract

Research suggests that social-emotional well-being (SEWB) is a fundamental

building block for the healthy development of all children (Colangelo & Davis, 2003;

Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg & Schellinger, 2011; Peterson & Morris, 2010;

Schonert-Reichl & Hymel, 2007; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Silverman & Golon,

2008). As such, educational policy within Australia calls for a whole school

approach to meet the educational and social-emotional needs of all students

(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008).

However, research comparing intellectually gifted children to their chronological age

peers as well as their mental age peers note differences in functioning, but the results

are inconsistent. Gifted children may behave similarly to either their chronological

age or mental age peers in specific domains yet entirely differently to either in others

(Lehman & Erdwins, 2004). In light of this inconclusiveness, it is difficult to

determine whether gifted children are hindered or helped by their giftedness, and

indeed individual differences are likely to be experienced by individual children.

However, it can be concluded that gifted children as a group may experience unique

social-emotional challenges related to their giftedness which could thwart their

optimal development and require support from their parents and teachers in coping

with stressors.

Despite research that highlights the needs of gifted children, Australian

empirical research has focused mainly on the cognitive needs of gifted primary

school children and differentiation of the curriculum, as has the majority of

international research (Cross, 2011; Kennedy, 1995; Lamont, 2012; Moon, Kelly, &

Feldhusen, 1997; Tieso, 2007). However, as humans, we are both thinking and

feeling beings; empirical research is therefore needed to explore the social-emotional

needs of gifted primary school-aged children. Due to the limited contexts in which

primary school-aged children find themselves, the unique social-emotional needs of

gifted children are predominantly supported by parents and teachers (Wellisch,

Brown, & Knight, 2012). As a result, this study explored the factors which influence

a child’s social-emotional well-being, and the social support parents and teachers

provide to foster the social-emotional needs of gifted children both individually and

iii

through their partnership, through exploration of the perspectives of the parent,

teacher, and gifted child.

This study used a mixed methods approach, comprised of two phases, to

achieve these outcomes. A sample of 76 parents, 32 primary school aged children,

and 19 teachers participated in phase one. Children in this study were considered

gifted if they had been assessed as such through psycho-educational assessment,

were performing in the top 10% of similar age peers or were engaged in extension

opportunities. Furthermore, gifted children who were underachieving were also

considered. Parents and teachers within Australia completed a demographic form as

well as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a brief screening

measure of emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. Gifted primary school

children also completed the SDQ to determine their self-report perceptions compared

to those of parents and teachers. Through the generation of online integrated score

reports for related participants, the SEWB of gifted children could be compared and

contrasted. In addition, comparisons were made between the groups of parents,

teachers and gifted children, using Microsoft Excel across individual questions of the

subscales of the SDQ. Furthermore, these children completed a Child and Adolescent

Social Support Scale (CASSS) to determine the types of support they receive from

their parents and teacher, as well as the importance gifted children place on the

various types of support. These scores were calculated manually according to manual

instructions, and frequency ratings were tabulated in Microsoft Excel to make

comparisons. Statistical analysis was facilitated through the use of IBM Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23.

Phase two involved case studies whereby interviews were undertaken with

participants who self-nominated in phase one. Eight parents and two teachers

engaged in one-on-one interviews with the researcher to investigate their role in

supporting the gifted child’s SEWB, both individually and through the parent-teacher

partnership. Seven gifted children were interviewed individually to determine how

they perceive their SEWB is supported through the behaviours of parents and

teachers. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure

accuracy. The comparison of data occurred both within and across all cases while

being categorised according to themes identified within the literature review, creating

new categories where needed. Data from both phases were combined to gain an

iv

understanding of the extent to which parents and teachers can support a gifted child’s

SEWB.

The current study provided insight into the most dominant difficulties

experienced by gifted children in Australia, which included challenging peer

relationships, controlling one’s emotions as well as feelings of being different from

peers. Furthermore, worry was added as an internal factor which may influence a

gifted child’s SEWB. Secondly, the difficulties associated with the parent-teacher

relationship and the impact this has on the gifted child has been investigated. Gifted

children have made suggestions to both their parents and teachers which could foster

their SEWB through the creation of a supportive environment. These suggestions

included spending more time with parents and the need for a fun learning

environment with better behaviour management practised by the teacher. The current

study has made suggestions to facilitate best practice through an increased

understanding of gifted primary school children’s social-emotional needs and opened

avenues for future studies.

.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................. v

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

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... xi

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................ xiii

Statement of Original Authorship .................................................................... xiv

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ xv

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Rationale ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Aims and Research Questions ........................................................................ 3

1.3 The Importance of Parents and Teachers in the Development of SEWB ...... 4

1.4 Research Outline ............................................................................................ 6

1.4.1 Phase one. ................................................................................................ 6

1.5 Significance of this Study ............................................................................... 8

1.6 Synopsis of the Chapters ................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2: Concept Clarification and Theoretical Framework .............................. 11

2.1 Concept Clarification ................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Clarifying the concept of giftedness. ..................................................... 12

2.1.2 Clarifying the concept of SEWB. .......................................................... 16

2.1.3 Clarifying the concept of social support. ............................................... 19

2.2 The Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 22

2.2.1 Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model. ................................................. 22

2.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 29

Chapter 3: Literature Review ................................................................................. 30

3.1 The SEWB of Gifted Children ..................................................................... 30

3.1.1 The social-emotional vulnerability debate. ............................................ 31

vi

3.2 Social-Emotional Experiences of the Gifted Child ..................................... 40

3.2.1 Internal factors. ..................................................................................... 41

3.2.2 External factors. .................................................................................... 53

3.2.3 Summary. .............................................................................................. 58

3.3 The Role Schools and Teachers Play in the Development of SEWB in Gifted

Children ............................................................................................................. 59

3.4 The Role Parents’ Play in the Development of SEWB of their Gifted Children

........................................................................................................................... 60

3.5 The Parent-Teacher Relationship ................................................................ 62

3.6 Conclusion and Implications ....................................................................... 64

Chapter 4: Research Design .................................................................................. 69

4.1 Research Design .......................................................................................... 70

4.1.1 The mixed methods approach. .............................................................. 72

4.2 Methods ....................................................................................................... 73

4.2.1 Phase one. ............................................................................................. 73

4.2.2 Phase two. ............................................................................................. 82

4.2.3 Comparing and contrasting data. .......................................................... 89

4.3 Reliability and Validity ............................................................................... 90

4.4 Ethics ........................................................................................................... 92

4.5 Perceived Limitations .................................................................................. 93

4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 94

Chapter 5: Quantitative Results............................................................................. 96

5.1.1 Participants. ........................................................................................... 96

5.1.2 Instruments used in Phase One ........................................................... 101

5.1.3 Procedure. ........................................................................................... 103

5.2 Statistical Assumptions.............................................................................. 104

5.2.1 Research question one. ........................................................................ 104

5.2.2 Research question two. ....................................................................... 110

vii

5.2.3 Research question three. ...................................................................... 113

5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 114

Chapter 6: Qualitative Results: The Gifted Child’s Social-emotional Well-being116

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 116

6.2 Participants ................................................................................................. 116

6.3 Procedure .................................................................................................... 117

6.4 Analysis of Interview Data ......................................................................... 123

6.5 Major Themes: Social-Emotional Experiences of the Gifted Child ........... 124

6.5.1 The influence of internal factors. ......................................................... 125

6.5.2 The influence of external factors. ........................................................ 152

6.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 167

Chapter 7: Qualitative Results: The Role Parents and Teachers Play in Developing

a Child’s SEWB ................................................................................................... 169

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 169

7.2 The Role Schools and Teachers Play in Developing SEWB ..................... 169

7.2.1 The teacher’s insight into the gifted child’s self-concept. ............. 170

7.2.2 Parental perception of the support provided to their child by the

teacher. 171

7.2.3 The gifted child’s perception of their relationship with their teacher.175

7.3 The Role Parents Play in the Development of SEWB ............................... 177

7.3.1 The parent’s insight into the child’s self-concept. ............................... 178

7.3.2 The gifted child’s perception of seeking support from parents about their

concerns. ....................................................................................................... 179

7.4 The Parent-Teacher Relationship ............................................................... 181

7.4.1 Children’s perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship. ............ 183

7.4.2 Parents’ perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship. ................ 183

7.4.3 Teachers’ perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship. ................... 186

7.4.4 Relationships with school in general. .................................................. 188

viii

7.4.5 Parents and teachers working together to improve SEWB. ................ 190

7.5 Parents’, Teachers’ and Gifted Children’s Advice ............................... 192

7.5.1 Advice to a new teacher. ............................................................... 192

7.5.2 Advice to another parent of a gifted child. .................................... 193

7.5.3 Advice from gifted children to their parents. ................................ 195

7.5.4 Advice from gifted children to their teachers. .................................... 196

7.6 Conclusion ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 8: Discussion .......................................................................................... 201

8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 201

8.2 Phase One .................................................................................................. 201

8.2.1 Research question 1. ........................................................................... 202



8.3 Phase two ................................................................................................... 213



8.4 Implications of this study .......................................................................... 239

8.4.1 The SEWB of gifted primary school children in Australia. ................ 239

8.4.2 Parents’ and teachers’ social support of the gifted child. ................... 248

8.4.3 Final remarks. ..................................................................................... 252

8.5 Limitations ................................................................................................. 253

8.6 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 254

8.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 256

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 260

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 297

Appendix A An approach email .................................................................. 297

Appendix B Flyer ......................................................................................... 299

ix

Appendix C Parent Survey ........................................................................... 300

Appendix D Gifted Child Survey ................................................................. 307

Appendix E Teacher Survey ......................................................................... 313

Appendix F Permission to use the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire318

Appendix G Phase Two Parent Information and Consent Form .................. 319

Appendix H Phase Two Gifted Child Information and Consent Form ........ 322

Appendix I Phase Two Teacher Information and Consent Form ................. 326

Appendix J Parent Semi-structured Interview Schedule .............................. 329

Appendix K Gifted child Semi-structured Interview Schedule .................... 330

Appendix L Teacher Semi-structured Interview Schedule ........................... 332

Appendix M Codebook ................................................................................. 333

x

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. An outline of Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent...14

Figure 2.2. SEWB: The influences and the impact of general well-being ................18

Figure 2.3. Factors influencing social support ...........................................................20

Figure 2.4. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model within this study .......................24

Figure 2.5. The theoretical framework of this study ..................................................28

Figure 3.1. The vulnerability vs. resiliency debate ....................................................32

Figure 3.2. Internal and external factors impacting upon the SEWB of gifted

children...............................................................................................40

Figure 4.1. An integrated research design .................................................................71

xi

List of Tables

Table 1.1 An Overview of the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method Research

...............................................................................................................8

Table 4.1 Subscales of the SDQ .......................................................................77

Table 4.2 CASSS Score Correlations with the SDQ by Grade Level ..............79

Table 5.1 Number of Participants per Grouping from each State or Territory in

Australia .............................................................................................96

Table 5.2 Ages and Genders of Gifted Children, Arranged by Rater: Parent,

Teacher, and Gifted Child...................................................................97

Table 5.3 Gifted Children’s Access to Differentiation Opportunities, According

to Parents ............................................................................................98

Table 5.4 Years Teaching Experience of Teacher Participants ........................99

Table 5.5 Categorising SDQ Scores for four to 17-year-olds ........................101

Table 5.6 Descriptive Statistics of the SDQ Arranged by Rater: Parent,

Teacher, and Gifted Child ................................................................105

Table 5.7 Australian Means and Standard Deviations Compared to this Study

...........................................................................................................108

Table 5.8 Descriptive Statistics of the CASSS: Total of Each Type of Support,

as Reported by Gifted Children .......................................................110

Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics of the CASSS: Total of Each Type of Support’s

Level of Importance, as Reported by Gifted Children .....................111

Table 5.10 Spearman’s Correlations of the Child’s Overall Difficulties to their

Support .............................................................................................113

Table 6.1 An Overview of the Parents who participated in Phase Two of this

Study, the Interviews .......................................................................118

Table 6.2 An Overview of the Gifted Children who participated in Phase Two

of this Study, the Interviews ............................................................119

xii

Table 6.3 An Overview of the Gifted Children’s Results for the SDQ and

CASSS who participated in Phase Two of this Study, the Interviews

...........................................................................................................120

Table 6.4 An Overview of the Teachers who participated in Phase Two of this

Study, the Interviews .......................................................................121

Table 6.5 An Overview of the Internal Factors that Influence SEWB ...........125

Table 6.6 An Overview of the External Factors that Influences SEWB ........152

xiii

List of Abbreviations

AAEGT Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and

Talented

CASSS Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki,

Demaray & Elliot, 2000)

DMGT Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

NSECHR National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research

SDQ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997)

SEWB Social-Emotional Well-Being

SPSS IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

Version 23

xiv

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: QUT Verified Signature

Date: 30 April 2018

xv

Acknowledgements

The journey undertaken in my PhD is comparable to gifted children actualising

their talents according to Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent.

Just as Gagné describes positive environmental influences interacting with

intrapersonal catalysts in the developmental process, I too have been supported in my

journey towards completion of this thesis. Therefore, I am eternally grateful to those

who have both guided and supported me.

To begin with, I would like to thank Dr Amanda Mergler who has shared this

journey from initial conceptualisation until my final oral presentation. Your belief in

me even when I did not believe in myself has helped me overcome my self-doubt and

other chance factors which may have otherwise thrown me off my course. I could

always count on your encouragement to keep me moving forward, both personally

and professionally.

Furthermore, Adjunct Professor Jim Watters, who joined my journey soon

after confirmation, thank you for your guidance. Your knowledge of giftedness and

thought-provoking comments have steered me to explore concepts I may not have

considered. Your passion for learning has inspired me to see my PhD not as a

destination but as a milestone in a journey of life-long learning.

I am also eternally grateful to the participants of this study – gifted children

and their parents and teachers. It was difficult to find people who were willing to

give of their time and contribute to this study but those who did, have facilitated this

study and subsequently contributed to the knowledge and understanding of gifted

children. I can only hope the gift of volunteering your time comes full circle and

enriches your journey as more people become aware of the social-emotional needs of

gifted children.

In reaching participants, I received help from the Australian Association for

the Education of the Gifted and Talented and their various state and territory

associations, primary schools, and individuals and organisations who work with

gifted children, their families, and teachers. To those who were willing to assist me,

thank you. As you will be receiving a copy of this work, I hope to reciprocate your

xvi

support by providing you with insight and understanding of the social-emotional

well-being of gifted children.

Last, but not least, my family. My children, Kady and Trent, have opened my

eyes to the needs of gifted children through their journeys which motivated me to

explore this topic. My husband, Alastair, who has listened to countless hours of me

talk about my research and then still motivating me to continue when I felt

overwhelmed by the task at hand. And finally, my parents, Mom and Dad, thank you

for the instilling in me the value of education and the desire to always learn more.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter outlines the rationale for undertaking this study exploring the

social-emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted primary school-aged children in the

context of Australia. As parents and teachers play a fundamentally important role in

the everyday experiences of these children, their impact and perceptions were also

explored. The research questions posed to achieve the aims of this study are

presented, and a brief research outline is provided. The chapter concludes with an

outline of the remaining chapters of the thesis.

My passion and interest in researching this particular area were spurred by

my circumstances. As a teacher, with a Masters degree in educational differentiation,

I have spent more than a decade educating children with special educational needs

involving barriers to learning. However, as a parent of academically gifted children, I

have come to know the barriers to learning brought about by ability and the social-

emotional difficulties which gifted children face. This has highlighted for me my

lack of understanding around gifted children as both a teacher and a parent. Through

my exploration of the research already undertaken in the field of giftedness, it was

noted that much focus had been placed on cognitive functioning and little focus had

been placed on well-being. I have always had a personal interest in mental health and

have studied Psychology, including a Masters degree in School Guidance and

Counselling; hence I have focused my research on social-emotional well-being to

both bridge the gap in the research and appease my interest.

Despite my professional and personal interest in this area, my bias as a

researcher was kept in check. This was achieved through the processes I employed to

ensure reliability and validity, such as working with my supervisors on the

quantitative and qualitative results to ensure my findings were consistent with the

data. Furthermore, it is only through an accurate reflection of the research topic that

the social-emotional needs of gifted children can be acknowledged.

1.1 Rationale

A child's SEWB is fundamental to their overall development. According to the

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012), children with high levels of

SEWB display greater confidence and self-worth, have better relationships, and

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

possess the tools necessary to persist and overcome challenges to succeed in life. In a

meta-analysis of 213 school-based social and emotional learning programs, including

270,034 children from kindergarten to Grade 12, Durlak et al. (2011) noted that

improved social and emotional skills were also associated with improved attitudes,

behaviour and academic performance. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the

focus has shifted away from managing health deficiencies towards health promotion

and SEWB has been highlighted as a necessary component to overcome the burdens

associated with poor mental health (Graham & Fitzgerald, 2011). However, as shown

in greater detail in the literature review spanning multiple decades of research, the

social-emotional needs of gifted children may often deviate from their peers.

Furthermore, it is highlighted that the parents and teachers of gifted children are

fundamental in supporting the needs of these children.

It is essential to consider these transactional relationships between the gifted

child, and their parents and teacher within the scope of SEWB as gifted primary

school children are dependent upon the caring relationships with their parents and

teachers to foster their holistic development and resilience to adversity (Wellisch et

al., 2012). Therefore, parents and teachers require knowledge of the social-emotional

development of gifted children to encourage positive development, as their needs

may deviate from the typical child. Comparison studies between gifted children and

their chronological peers as well as between gifted children and their mental age

peers have shown an inconsistent pattern of results. On the one hand, gifted children

are seen as advantaged while on the other, giftedness is associated with higher

difficulties. An empirical study conducted in Brazil by Pontes de França-Freitas, Del

Prette and Del Prette (2014) compared the social skills of 269 gifted children with

125 peers, aged eight to 12-year-olds. These children completed the Social Skills

Rating System and Social-demographic Questionnaire to determine a picture of

social behaviours about demographic characteristics. The results revealed that gifted

children, compared to their peers, had a more elaborate social skills repertoire in all

categories, including responsibility, assertiveness, self-control, problems avoidance

and expression of positive feelings, with the exception of empathetic skills. In direct

contrast, an empirical study undertaken in New Zealand by Morawska and Sanders

(2008) whereby 278 parents of gifted children completed the Strengths and

Difficulties Questionnaire found that parents reported gifted children to display


higher emotional symptoms and peer difficulties compared to typical peers.

Observing the different outcomes of the research undertaken by Pontes de França-

Freitas et al. (2014) and Morawska and Sanders (2008), exploring the perceptions of

gifted children and parents respectively, has particular relevance to this study, in

which the perceptions of gifted children, their parent and teachers are compared.

To date, much research has focused on the academic needs of gifted children

(Davis & Rimm, 2004; Garvis, 2014; Gross, 2004b). Furthermore, research focusing

on social-emotional needs within the international context has focused predominantly

on adolescents (Blackett & Hermansson, 2005; Chau, 2009; Coleman & Cross,

2014). Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the outcomes of international

research would be similar in Australia due to the possibly changed environment

brought about through different cultural norms and values which impact the

measurement of SEWB (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012).

Furthermore, a different definition of giftedness (discussed in detail in section 2.1.1)

may be used in Australia at this moment influencing educational policy and

impacting on the unique educational offerings and opportunities available to gifted

primary school children. In addition, it is unsure whether or not research detailing the

strengths and difficulties of adolescents is comparable to the experiences of primary

school-aged children due to the different developmental stages in which the

individuals find themselves. Consequently, there exists a void in the literature

focusing on the SEWB of gifted primary school children in Australia, mainly from

the perspective of the gifted child themselves.

1.2 Aims and Research Questions

The aims of this study were twofold: firstly, to determine the strengths and

weaknesses of the gifted primary school child’s SEWB through a comparison of the

self-perceptions of gifted children with their parents’ and teachers’ perceptions; and

secondly, to document perceptions of the gifted child’s social support so as to make

recommendations for best practice. The research questions used to guide this study

were:


Research question 1: What is the gifted child’s perception of their social-

emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their teachers’ and parents’

perceptions?

Research question 2: How do gifted children perceive the social support their

parents and teachers provide in relation to the importance they place on that support?

Research question 3: Is there a correlation between the level of parent and

teacher social support gifted children perceive and the child’s SEWB?

Research question 4: What are the internal and external factors which

influence SEWB, as articulated by primary school-aged Australian children, their

parents and teachers?

Research question 5: How do parents and teachers of gifted children perceive

their role to support the SEWB of the gifted child both individually and through their

partnership?

1.3 The Importance of Parents and Teachers in the Development of SEWB

Parents are instrumental in shaping their child’s development through the

creation of an environment for their child to develop and for well-being to persist.

From an evolutionary perspective, humans are the only social species with an

attachment-instinct system. This ensures that through the early care of the infant,

usually undertaken by parents, an adaptive functioning in social relationships occurs

(Leuzinger-Bohleber, 2014). Despite the pivotal role parents are seen to play, little

research has explored positive parenting practices, but have focused on punitive

parenting practices, noting difficulties which affect the child’s development (Bobbitt

& Gershoff, 2016; Huang, Kim, Sherraden & Clancy, 2017; Kim & Kim, 2017).

However, a small-scale exploratory study was undertaken by Cloverdale and Long

(2015) which explored ways in which parents believed their child’s SEWB could be

promoted. However, a need for support was noted. It seemed as if services, to both

help include their child within the community and provide parents with guidance,

were either lacking or unknown to participants or perceived negatively, being

stigmatised for use by children with difficulties.

Through the work of Shatkin and Belfer (2004), whereby data were collected

from international databases, it was determined that mental health difficulties were


experienced by 10 to 20% of children, which may impact on the child’s

development, educational achievement, and their ability to live a fulfilling life.

Similarly, 14% of Australian children and adolescents were identified as

experiencing mental health difficulties (Sawyer et al., 2001). The prevalence of

mental disorders and the health-related quality of life of 4,509 four to 17-year-olds

was determined in Sawyer et al.’s study through parent reports on standardised

assessments. In addition, adolescents self-reflected on their experiences. Of the 14%

identified, only a quarter had received professional services within the last six

months, the majority of which received school-based services. As a consequence,

schools were identified as appropriate sites for addressing and supporting children

through universal, selective, and indicated interventions to help large numbers of

children with mental health problems as well as those at risk of developing problems;

this task is undertaken by teachers. In their roles, teachers spend vast quantities of

their time interacting with and shaping a child’s development. Consequently,

teachers are considered a focal point in this study as they are tasked with

implementing the policy within the school’s culture in their daily practices. However,

in 2013-14, a second study of more than 6, 000 Australian families was undertaken

to determine the emotional and behavioural development of children and young

people aged four to 17 years of age. It was found in comparision to Sawyer et al.’s

(2001) first study that the overall prevalence of mental health disorders has remained

relatively stable; whilst the prevalnce of ADHD and conduct disorder has declined,

the prevalence of major depressive disroder has increased. In contrast to the original

study, the second study noted that “teachers are not meantal health professionals and

should not be expected to diagnose and treat mental disorders” (Goodsell et al., 2017,

p. 13). This approach is further supported by Australian research undertaken by

Powell and Graham (2017), futher suggested this may be a difficult task due to ad

hoc policies, opposing discourses and conflicting implications for best practice.

The approach used within this study of focusing on parents and teachers and

their relationship with the gifted child is deemed relevant as primary school-aged

children, due to the vast number of hours they spend between home and at school,

depend heavily on parents and teachers to nurture their development. Although, in

light of Goodsell et al. (2017) and Powell and Graham’s (2017) research, neither


parent nor teacher are anticipated to be mental health professionals capable of

treating disorders but are rather seen as offering support to the child.

1.4 Research Outline

A sequential mixed methods approach, utilising both quantitative and

qualitative research was undertaken to provide insight into the perceptions and self-

perceptions of the gifted child’s SEWB from the perspectives of parents, teachers,

and gifted children. Furthermore, the support gifted children perceive themselves to

receive from parents and teachers was explored. As such, two phases of research

were undertaken, firstly a quantitative phase, followed by a qualitative phase. Using

the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) (SDQ) allowed for the

collection of quantitative data about a broad range of gifted children across Australia

regarding their psychological attributes. These data were used as a baseline from

which to compare and contrast gifted children to their peers through the use of

norms. Furthermore, the quantitative data informed the semi-structured interviews

whereby more detailed accounts were included and understanding gained through the

use of case studies. The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki,

Demaray & Elliot, 2000) (CASSS) was used in a similar manner whereby gifted

children’s perceptions of social support from parents and teachers were quantified,

and an explanation sought for these behaviours in the one-on-one interviews

conducted in phase two.

1.4.1 Phase one.

The first phase involved collecting quantitative data from gifted primary school

children across Australia and their parents and class teachers. These participants

were sought through advertisements in newsletters and social media sites of various

Australian state and territory gifted associations with whom the parents of gifted

children may be affiliated, as well as primary schools, and professionals and

organisations who provide services to parents and teachers of gifted children. To

address research question one, What is the gifted child’s perception of their social-

emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their teachers’ and parents’

perceptions?, information was gathered through a quantitative questionnaire, namely

the SDQ, to determine the social-emotional strengths and weaknesses of gifted

primary school children in Australia. Results were scored using integrated score


reports whereby each child’s self-report was compared to reports of their particular

parent and teacher. Comparisons were also made between groups; namely parent,

teacher or gifted child, to determine whether trends exist. IBM Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23 was used to assist in the analysis of the data

collected to gain insight into the gifted child’s SEWB based on the perceptions of

gifted children and their parents and teachers.

In addition, the gifted child was asked to complete the CASSS. This scale

aimed to gain insight into the child’s social relationships from their perspective and

the type of support they believe parents and teachers provide, thereby addressing

research question two, How do gifted children perceive the social support their

parents and teachers provide in relation to the importance they place on that

support?. Research question three, Is there a correlation between the level of parent

and teacher social support gifted children perceive and the child’s SEWB? was

determined through analysis of the results obtained from the SDQ and the CASSS.

1.4.2 Phase two.

During phase one of the study, teachers, and families, living in Western

Australia, were encouraged to self-nominate to participate in the second phase; the

aim was to conduct interviews to gain information-rich qualitative data.

Consequently, a qualitative multiple case study method was used to elicit data

through face-to-face, one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with participants. The

data collected were transcribed and later analysed making use of coding techniques

to determine patterns and themes.

Parents and teachers were asked to reflect on the behaviour and their support of

gifted children to answer research question four, How do the internal and external

factors, as articulated by primary school-aged Australian children, their parents,

and teachers, influence SEWB? Children were asked to provide additional insight

into their behaviour as well as particular behaviours of parents and teachers which

support their SEWB; supporting research question five, How do parents and teachers

of gifted children perceive their role to support the SEWB of the gifted child both

individually and through their partnership?. Through this mixed methods approach

and the integration of data collected in both phases, the aims of this research were

addressed, firstly to determine the social-emotional strengths and weaknesses of


primary school-aged gifted children and secondly to ascertain gifted children’s

perceptions of parent and teacher social support to inform best practice. This two-

phase research, based on Creswell’s (2012) explanatory sequential mixed method

design, is summarised in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

An Overview of the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method Research

Research

Questions Sampling Data Collected Data Analysis

Phase One

1,2,3

Criterion and

network sampling

n: P=76, C=32,

T=19

Demographic

information – P/T

SDQ – P/T/C

CASSS - C

Integrated score report -SDQ

Scored according to manual and

frequency ratings tabulated - CASSS

SDQ and CASSS coded in Microsoft

Excel speed sheets, exported to SPSS

for analysis

Phase Two

4,5

Subsample of phase

one participants who

volunteered

n: P= 8, C=7, T=2

Audio-recorded semi-

structured interviews

– P/T/C

Verbatim transcription, making

supplemental analytic memos

Colour-coding themes by hand,

assigning categories in line with

literature review, adding new

categories as needed

Note: P=Parent, T=Teacher, C=Child, SDQ=Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, CASSS=Child

and Adolescent Social Support Scale, SPSS=Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

1.5 Significance of this Study

Social-emotional well-being is essential for “developing resilience, forming

healthy relationships, improving academic performance, coping with stressful life

events, being successful and productive in the workplace, learning thinking skills for

problem-solving and decision making, and infusing interest and challenge into the

curriculum” (Greene, 2004, p. 31). These skills allow individuals to flourish within

and beyond school.

However, as gifted children’s social-emotional needs may deviate from their

chronological age peers, be that to advantage or disadvantage the child, a deeper


understanding of the gifted child’s particular needs is needed. Regrettably, there is

limited research focusing on the SEWB of gifted children, particularly within

Australia. This study helps develop this knowledge base through both theoretical and

substantive contributions. Theoretically, this study will contribute to a better

understanding of the gifted primary school children in Australia’s SEWB in relation

to international research and research of adolescents. Substantively, this study will

provide original insights into the factors which influence a gifted child’s SEWB and

ways in which parents and teachers can better support gifted children, through the

voice of the gifted child.

1.6 Synopsis of the Chapters

Chapter 1 has provided the rationale and aims of this study as well as a brief

outline of this program of research. The significance of this study, including its

theoretical and substantive contributions, was discussed.

Chapter 2 clarifies the central concepts relevant to this study, namely

giftedness, SEWB, and social support. The interrelationship between these concepts

and the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model is explored

to illustrate the interdependent, dynamic interactions between the gifted child and

their immediate environments, with particular emphasis on the relationships with

their parents and teachers.

Chapter 3 provides a review of the literature relating to the SEWB of gifted

children and explores the internal and external factors which influence the gifted

child’s SEWB. Furthermore, the role played by parents and teachers as well as

parent-teacher relationships are discussed.

Chapter 4 describes the mixed methods methodology and research design

applied in the current study. Considerations for each phase are explored including the

selection of participants, choice of data sources, as well as the management and

analysis of data.

Chapter 5 presents the analysis and findings of the quantitative data collected

during phase one of this study to address research questions one, two, and three. The

statistical procedures undertaken to explore the outcomes of the SDQ and the CASSS

provide insight into the interrelationship between parents, teachers, and gifted

children both in relation to perceptions of SEWB and social-support.


Chapters 6 and 7 present the analysis and findings of the qualitative data

collected during phase two of this study, whereby the results obtained from the one-

on-one semi-structured interviews with parents, teachers, and gifted children are

discussed in relation to research question four and five. Firstly, the SEWB of gifted

children is reflected upon from the perspectives of gifted children as well as their

parents and teachers, connecting these findings with the internal and external factors

identified in the literature. Thereafter, Chapter 7 explores the parent-teacher

relationship.

Chapter 8 draws on the quantitative and qualitative findings to determine the

extent to which teachers and parents are supporting the SEWB of gifted children

through their perceived social support and the implications thereof. Furthermore, the

theoretical and substantive contributions made by this study are discussed, and

suggestions are made for further research.

Chapter 2: Concept Clarification and Theoretical Framework 11

Chapter 2: Concept Clarification and

Theoretical Framework

Chapter 2 begins by clarifying the central concepts relevant to this study,

namely giftedness, social-emotional well-being (SEWB), and social support.

Research focusing on giftedness has spanned more than a century, despite this, a

single definition does not exist, and therefore it is necessary to understand the

meaning of giftedness and how the construct is conceptualised within the current

study. Consequently, the concept of giftedness is defined from the perspective

proposed by Gagné (2013) through his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and

Talent (DMGT), one of the most widely accepted approaches to conceptualising

giftedness within Australia.

SEWB is a component of well-being, examining specifically how a person

thinks and feels about themselves and others and their resilience and coping skills.

Through the work of Hamilton and Redmond (2010), it is shown that SEWB can be

explored from two domains, the individual and the environmental.

Lastly, the concept of social support is explored through Tardy’s (1985) Model

of Social Support. The five main aspects of social support, namely direction,

disposition, description/ evaluation, content, and network are explored. However, the

meaning of social support is also construed from the work of Malecki and Demaray

(2002), who built upon Tardy’s model to develop the Child and Adolescent Social

Support Scale (Malecki et al. 2000) (CASSS), a quantitative measure of perceived

social support.

The theoretical understanding of these concepts fits well within the framework

of this study, Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) bioecological model. Through

Bronfenbrenner’s model, the influence of the interdependent dynamic interactions

between the gifted child and their immediate environments is explored, with

particular emphasis on their relationships with parents and teachers, and the support

they provide.

12 Chapter 2: Concept Clarification and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Concept Clarification

2.1.1 Clarifying the concept of giftedness.

Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) was used to

frame giftedness. This approach to defining giftedness is deemed necessary as

Gagné’s framework influences educational policy within Australia and therefore

shapes educational provisions for gifted children in schools as well as the

interactions of parents and teachers of gifted children.

Gagné (2013) defines giftedness as the possession and use of untrained natural

ability or aptitude in at least one area of mental functioning including intellectual,

creative, social and perceptual or physical ability including muscular and motor

control; which when expressed places the child in the top 10% of age peers, also

referred to as children of high potential. This ability could develop over time through

the interaction between environmental and intrapersonal factors to advance into a

particular talent focusing on academic, technical, science and technology, arts, social

service, administration/ sales, business operations or games, and athletics and sport.

However, difficulties in the developmental process may result in natural abilities or

gifts not developing into particular skills or talents. For children to be considered

talented, their level of performance acquired through systematically developed

competencies should be within the top 10% when compared to their chronological

age peers, who would have accrued similar learning in the given task or activity.

This is an opportune moment to consider how the concepts of gifted and

talented are often used in society. There is a tendency towards referring to children

with potential who may display high levels of performance in at least one area as

being gifted and talented, whereby the words are considered synonyms or as a

catchphrase. In keeping with Gagné’s theory, the concepts of gifted and talented are

not interchangeable as giftedness corresponds with high potential, while talent

implies high achievement (Gagné, 2015); principally, the terms are differentiated, as

gifts are natural abilities, while talents are developed skills. Gifted children are

inherently intrinsically motivated to master the domain in which they are highly able,

“unless social and emotional factors interfere” (Winner, 2000, pp. 162), for example,

the child may have inadequate coping mechanisms to face daily challenges or

experience difficulties in relationships with others. Therefore, as a consequence of


environmental and intrapersonal catalysts, as noted in Figure 2.1, all talented

children are gifted, but not all gifted children are talented; highlighting the need for

gifted children to develop favourable internal factors as well as experience positive

influence from external catalysts. These influences are what Gagné refers to as the

developmental process whereby gifts are nurtured, and talents emerge through

activities, progress, and investment.

The talent development process may be considered a systematic pursuit over

time through a structured program of activities that result in a specific excellence

goal (Gagné, 2010). This requires the child to gain access to programs within a

specific learning environment in which they are required to make an investment in

the process of time, mental energy and or funding from their caregivers. What

defines this process from the typical child is the pace at which the gifted child

progresses towards the defined goal of excellence. Hereby, the developmental

process from a gift towards talent development is dependent upon intrapersonal

(internal) and environmental (external) catalysts. A diagrammatic overview of the

interrelationship between these internal and external catalysts on the developmental

process of a gifted child’s progression from abilities to talents is shown in Figure 2.1.

Intrapersonal factors which may promote or inhibit talent development include

the child’s physical and mental traits as well as their goal-orientated processes such

as awareness, motivation, and volition. Environmental influences include the cultural

milieu and home and school surroundings; people of significance including parents,

teachers, and peers; and the child’s engagement in quality activities and appropriate

programs (Gagné, 2013). Gagné exemplifies the importance of a supportive

environment to not only enhance the development of ability into talent but also

promote active and healthy social-emotional development. There is an overlap in

Figure 2.1 of environmental and intrapersonal influences as environmental influences

are often constrained by the willpower of the individual. Lastly, chance plays a

pivotal role in determining the amount of control children have over the development

of gifts to talents based on the influence and intensity of positive and negative

catalysts. In essence, gifts develop into talents when there are a positive and dynamic

interplay between a child’s gifts, intrapersonal and environmental catalysts and the

developmental process.


Figure 2.1. An outline of Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Adapted from

Gagné, 2015)

Furthermore, it should be noted that according to Gagné’s DMGT, being gifted

does not imply an all-encompassing quality, permeating all facets of one’s existence

but rather a potential for performing at a high level in one or more areas of

functioning when compared to others of the same age, experience or within a

particular environment. For example, a gifted child may excel at school yet

experience difficulty tying their shoelaces. This having been said, it should be

cautioned that being gifted does have an influence across domains of human activity

and endures throughout life, thus gifted individuals show distinct differences in their

thinking, social-emotional characteristics, educational needs and developmental

possibility (Dai & Chen, 2013, Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011 ). For

example, an academically gifted child may become annoyed with their peers in a

drama class who do not seem to memorise their lines with the same dexterity.

Despite giftedness permeating various domains and facets of being, due to the nature

and limited scope of the present program of research, the focus is on children who


are identified as academically gifted. This narrowing of the concept of giftedness,

despite the broadening of the definition of giftedness, is due to the focus on gifted

children within a primary school environment where intellectual gifts are considered

of higher relevance than abilities in other domains.

Gagné’s model of talent development at the most basic level may suggest that

with positive intrapersonal characteristics and the provision of appropriate

environmental input, all gifted children would move through the developmental

process and emerge as talented and capable of performing in the top 10%, without

cognisance of underachievers. Wellisch and Brown (2011) raised this concern;

Gagné (2011) agreed that underachievers required an alternative pathway, without

which they would remain underserved in schools which equate giftedness with

achievement. In response, Wellisch and Brown (2012) proposed a model to bridge

the gap between giftedness and development through early gifted identification,

intervention, monitoring and further progression. This is important to mention as

these measures relate directly to a child’s motivation, skills, and abilities, as well as

their socio-emotional status which is of relevance to this study.

Although Gagné’s DMGT is used within the context of this study, it should be

remembered that at this moment in time, there is no consensus on what it means to be

gifted. Considering a monograph undertaken by Subotnik et al. (2011) whereby the

definition of giftedness is explored, it is noted that some considered giftedness as an

ability trait which separates the gifted from their peers; in contrast, others believe

giftedness to be a misnomer and outstanding achievement a consequence of

opportunity and practise.

Defining complex ideas in any field is a difficult task, but not being able to

provide a definition definitively may attribute further difficulties in providing people

with the necessary understanding of the concept which is required for them to

appreciate the nature and needs of the individual entirely. As such, children in this

study shall be identified as intellectually gifted should they have been assessed as

such through psycho-educational assessment, or have been identified as performing

academically in the top 10% of their age peers or engage in extension activities

designed for performance at a level comparatively higher to what is expected of

similar aged children. Furthermore, children who were assessed as gifted but

underachieving in the classroom were also considered.


2.1.2 Clarifying the concept of SEWB.

Although social-emotional well-being is a highly discussed current topic, this

has not always been the case. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argue that prior

to World War II, psychology had three primary goals: to alleviate mental illness;

make people’s lives more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing

high talent. However, the post-war focus shifted to mental illness and the assessment

and treatment of the individual. Psychology has consequently focused on pathology,

and as a result, we know more about the negative aspects of human experience (fear

and depression, learning difficulties) than the positive aspects (happiness and

courage, giftedness). Learning difficulties may be viewed as a problem, worthy of

exploration to alleviate struggle, whereas giftedness may be perceived as a privilege

(Winner, 2000). In essence, negative emotions and experience may be perceived as

requiring immediate attention, as they may be a reflection of immediate danger or

problems. Consequently, from an evolutionary perspective, people may be compelled

to “stop, increase their vigilance, reflect on their behaviour, and change their actions

if necessary” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 13), to overcome barriers and

ensure the development of the individual. However, with giftedness, this may be

viewed as a gift or privilege that is in itself rewarding to the individual, and therefore

not deserving of additional research, attention or resourcing.

Positive psychology has existed since the philosophical writings of Aristotle on

virtue and what it means to live a good life; however, it was Seligman’s Presidential

Address at the 107th

Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association

in 1999 which established the formal shift towards positive psychology as a holistic

and integrated body of knowledge (Linley, 2009). Since then, there has been a

change in the point of focus in psychology from rehabilitation to building positive

qualities. Positive psychology does not view intervention as a response to difficulty,

but rather nurturing optimal development (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Therefore it is essential that we come to understand how best to foster these virtues

in children and amplify their strengths rather than only focusing on repairing

weaknesses. It implies shifting focus from the negative to the positive side of the

spectrum, from pathology to well-being which is often a difficult task as there is a

higher inclination to focus on negativity as opposed to positivity. In turn, positive

experiences may be taken for granted and could be overlooked, despite being


fundamental to our being. According to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, (2000, p. 5),

we should be more mindful of the valued experiences of “well-being, contentment,

and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future) and flow and

happiness (in the present)”. This is easier to do when one is aware of the value and

meaning of well-being.

Furthermore, from an educational perspective, teachers are tasked with the duty

of educating children holistically, an expectation outlined in the Melbourne

Declaration. The Melbourne Declaration describes directions and objectives for

Australia-wide education which acknowledges the significant changes in the world

that are placing demands on education. Education should endow the “knowledge,

understanding, skills and values to take advantage of the opportunity and face the

challenges of the era with confidence” through the promotion of amongst others

social-emotional development and well-being (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 4). This

document is merely one of many in both Australia and internationally which focus on

whole-of-child reporting and well-being (ACARA, 2017; Durlak et al., 2011; Elias et

al., 1997; National Research Council, 2012).

Within this study, the broader concept of well-being needs clarification and

then more particularly SEWB. Succinctly, the World Health Organisation (2014, p.

1) defines well-being as “a state of well-being in which an individual realises his or

her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of daily life, can work

productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” SEWB is

part of this broad concept. Concisely, SEWB is “the way a person thinks and feels

about themselves and others”, and their resilience and coping skills in dealing with

daily challenges (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012, p. 8). This

coincides with a positive psychology perspective where the focus is on being

resilient in the face of adversity and positively thriving, to improve overall well-

being.

Hamilton and Redmond (2010) propose two separate yet interrelated domains

of SEWB: the individual and the environment. This approach is similar to Gagné’s

DMGT, with its focus on the role of intrapersonal and environmental catalysts on the

developmental process of gifts to talents. Furthermore, both these concepts

complement Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, whereby the relational interplay

between various contexts and the individual’s subjective experience can be


demonstrated with cultural norms and expectations taken into consideration.

According to Hamilton and Redmond (2010), within the individual domain, internal

and relational characteristics are considered including the ability to experience,

manage, and express emotion; regulate one’s behaviour; and possess resilience,

confidence, and persistence in learning. Furthermore, others’ emotions should be

understood, social skills and empathy fostered and relationships with others

maintained. In comparison, the environmental domain includes family, school, and

community. The family can impact on the child’s SEWB through the quality of

relationships between members as well as expectations imposed on the child. School

and community influences include relationships with significant adults and peers and

support programs and activities. This interrelationship is illustrated in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. SEWB: The influences and the impact of general well-being (Adapted from Hamilton and

Redmond, 2010)


Morawska and Sanders (2009a) argue on the basis of their research findings

that social and emotional needs are difficult to separate. Children learn social

interactions through a series of messages, which are sent, received and responded to,

while at the same time enveloped in emotional content. Thus, SEWB can be seen as

an interrelated concept, whereby environmental factors interact with social-emotional

characteristics (Rimé, 2007). SEWB follows a developmental pathway, and age-

appropriateness is, therefore, important to consider as highlighted by LeBuffe,

Shapiro and Naglieri (2009, p. 5); social-emotional skills are “the ability of children

to successfully interact with other children and adults in a way that demonstrates an

awareness of, and ability to manage emotions in an age- and context-appropriate

manner” which may become more complicated when considering gifted children

who often display asynchronicity (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012).

This argument is further supported by Morawska and Sanders (2009a) who assert

gifted children often experience this process of social-emotional development in an

amorphous rather than linear pattern, with greater awareness of their emotional

functioning. This difference in the gifted child’s social-emotional development may

result in unique behaviours, which may cause apprehension or result in

misunderstanding from parents and teachers. To facilitate a more accurate

understanding of the gifted child, the factors that influence their social-emotional

distinctiveness is explored in Chapter 3.

2.1.3 Clarifying the concept of social support.

As was shown through each of the concepts discussed thus far, relationships

are not only important to people but vital to one’s own personal development.

Furthermore, as is further argued through the use of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological

model (1992), people do not exist in a vacuum, and who we are and what we become

is influenced by our interactions with people in our environment. Therefore, our

growth and development are dependent upon the social support we receive

interacting with individual factors.

Cobb, a physician, brought the notion of social support to the fore in his

Presidential Address (1976) to the Society for Psychosomatic Medicine, where social

support was implied by a person believing they were cared for and loved, esteemed

and valued, and belonging to a network. Although not new concepts, the positive

effects of social support differentiated the term. Cobb argued that through person-


environment interaction, social support protected the individual from pathological

states; although it was not considered a panacea. From this beginning, various

operational definitions of social support developed, as each author began the process

of understanding social support anew as opposed to building on previous

methodologies. These ideas were consolidated by Tardy (1985), a researcher with an

interest in the effects of interpersonal communication and personal relationships on

health and well-being, and the measurement of communication processes, who stated

that there are five main aspects of social support; direction, disposition, description/

evaluation, content, and network, as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Factors influencing social support (Adapted from Tardy, 1985)

Direction implies that social support is both given and received. In this study,

the social support the gifted child believes to receive from their parents and teacher is

explored. Disposition refers to the availability of support or the use of support

provided, termed enactment. Through the administration of the CASSS, a brief

measure of perceived social support, to gifted children, the availability of support


was determined. It was possible through the qualitative phase of this study to gain

insight into the use of support. Description and evaluation are two distinct features of

social support. Evaluation determines whether or not people are satisfied with their

support, as opposed to merely describing the support they receive. This study aims to

achieve both description and evaluation of social support. Network implies

unidirectional interactions between people which may include family, friends,

neighbours, and community – the list is exhaustive, as is later shown through

Bronfenbrenner’s model. However, this study focuses exclusively on the reciprocal

relationships between the gifted child, their parents, and teacher.

Lastly, content varies from situation to situation, as the type of support

someone requires changes in different situations. Tardy’s model uses the four

categories developed by House (1981): emotional, instrumental, informational and

appraisal support. Emotional support refers to the provision of trust, empathy, and

love; it implies caring. For parents this includes demonstrating an understanding of

their child, listening when the child speaks and showing pride in the child’s

achievements. Teachers show emotional support through caring for the child and

treating them fairly, as well as accepting the child’s questioning. Instrumental

support is shown through helping people financially (not a consideration for

teachers) or through one’s time commitment. Parents can help the child practice

activities, ensure the child has items they may need and working through decisions

together. For teachers, instrumental support includes spending time with the child to

overcome difficulties and support their optimal learning. Informational support

implies the provision of advice. Parents provide informational support by making

suggestions and offering advice to solve problems. Teachers provide an explanation

on how to do things, assist in overcoming difficulties and supporting problem-

solving through the provision of information. Appraisal support is found in

evaluative feedback. For parents and teachers this includes acknowledgement of

achievement and support of difficulties, in addition, parents may provide rewards.

Tardy’s framework forms the basis of the CASSS, which is used within this

study to assess the social support received by gifted children from their parents and

teachers, accordingly the definition used within this instrument is of relevance.

According to Malecki and Demaray (2002), social support may be considered as an

individual’s perception of support from people in their social network, which


enhances their functioning and buffers them against adversity. This fits well with the

development of resiliency and coping and an ability to express emotions and

empathy, which defines SEWB.

2.2 The Theoretical Framework

In keeping with Gagné’s model, gifted research and educational practice

cannot focus exclusively on the gifted child’s natural abilities and interpersonal

qualities in developing academic competencies; environmental considerations are

necessary. Consequently, whether a gifted child can develop their talents depends on

both intrapersonal and environmental catalysts facilitating the development of gifts

into talents. This fits well with the two domains (individual and environmental)

which influence SEWB as described in the work of Hamilton and Redmond (2010).

As such the need to look beyond the characteristics of the gifted child towards

the influences within their environment is highlighted. Consequently, a systems

theory perspective is used as a framework for this study. Accordingly the reciprocal,

inter-connectedness between the gifted child and their environment, with a particular

focus on their parents and teachers, is acknowledged. Furthermore, parallel with

positive psychology, when considering well-being, systems theory has emerged as a

reaction to a positivist worldview where observable cause-effect linear relationships

are seen as insufficient to describe the complexity of human development based on

individual differences and different contextual situations (Patton & McMahon,

2006). Hereby this study draws attention to the uniqueness of individuals and the

interrelationship between the person and their context or environment. Therefore, the

theoretical framework of this study values the whole, where the system is more than

the sum of the individual parts, dynamic and continuously adapting to maintain

equilibrium as changes within the person and their context are engaged in an

interrelated reciprocal recursive process termed a “synergistic effect” (Bar-On, 2009,

p. 568). In this study, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model is used to illustrate the

systemic relationship between the gifted child’s SEWB and their environment, with a

particular focus on the support from parents and teachers.

2.2.1 Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model.

The components of systems theory are related to Bronfenbrenner’s

bioecological model as a structure is provided to perceive the systems interrelating


with reciprocity. Bronfenbrenner places a strong focus on the process-person-

context-time (PPCT) interrelatedness. Both he and Morris (1998) state that human

development occurs through increasingly more complex reciprocal interactions

between the individual and their environment, these are referred to as proximal

processes. Furthermore, the “form, power, content, and direction of the proximal

processes” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p.996) vary as a result of both the

individual and their environment. Although human development occurs throughout

an individual’s life journey, this study focuses on the primary school years. During

this period, development occurs due to the mutual accommodation “between an

active, growing human being, and the changing properties of the immediate settings

... as this process is affected by the relations between these settings, and by the larger

contexts in which the setting are embedded” (Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p.188).

Therefore, in this study, the process refers to the typical activities and interactions

that gifted children have with parents and teachers. These processes were determined

through the surveys administered in phase one and the interviews conducted in phase

two.

When considering the contribution a person makes to this model, both

biological and genetic factors are brought to the fore. Personal characteristics of the

individual include demand, resource, and force characteristics. Demand

characteristics include the physical appearance of the individual, which may

influence first impressions. Thereafter, resource characteristics are considered, which

includes attributes such as mental and emotional capabilities as well as social and

economic resources. Lastly, force characteristics, related to temperament, motivation,

and persistence are contemplated. Depending on an individual’s personal

characteristics they can have a subtle to a dramatic impact on their environment.

Demographic data were collected about parents, teachers and gifted children, with

particular emphasis on their resource characteristics, to understand how personal

characteristics influence the proximal processes in this study. Therefore, it was an

essential consideration that this study also kept in mind the characteristics of the

participants and did not merely focus on the context in which they find themselves.

According to Bronfenbrenner (1992), the person-context design is imperative to

ensure characteristics of both the person and the environment are taken into

consideration. Although the context is of vital importance in understanding


development, characteristics of gifted children were an important consideration, to

prevent viewing the child as an “empty organism” (Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p. 189).

The child themselves, through their actions, generates patterns of continuing

environmental feedback, creating complex interactions over time. As demonstrated

through the literature review, both internal and external factors impact on the gifted

child’s SEWB and these factors influence the dynamic relationship between the

gifted child and the subsystems of which they are a part. Therefore, the internal

characteristics of the gifted child should be considered in their interactions with

others as these factors influence how the child interacts with others and the world in

which they live, resulting in feedback which may be dissimilar to that type of

interaction that would occur with a non-gifted child.

Figure 2.4. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model within this study (Adapted from Bronfenbrenner,

1992)

The context or environment in which an individual finds themself includes four

interrelated systems. The micro-, meso-, exo- and macrosystems to which the

individual belongs were originally considered by Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 3), “as a

set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls” as illustrated


in Figure 2.4. For the primary school-aged child, with limited mobility between the

systems due to their dependence on adult supervision, the immediate settings would

include the school and home. As such the role of the parents and classroom teacher

from each setting was of greater importance than factors from the broader context,

such as the educational climate of the school and perceptions of gifted people within

society in general. Bronfenbrenner’s model has been criticised by Vélez-Agosto et al.

(2017) for incorporating the concept of culture within the macrosystem. Vélez-

Agosto et al. (2017) note when considering Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory,

Weisner’s ecocultural theory and Rogoff’s transformation of participation

perspective the central role played by culture in everyday actions and the immediate

context culture provides for human development. Consequently, culture may be

considered an integral part of the microsystem as children are socialised in everyday

activities that define age appropriate daily activities, routines and pathways.

However, culture also transforms systems beyond the microsystem in a reciprocal

manner, playing a dominant role in public policy informing processes, context,

persons and time. In terms of this study, the implications of this criticism are

negligible, due to the narrow scope and the strong framework determined by Gagné’s

definition of giftedness whereby it has been indicated that educational policy

influences the gifted child’s experiences and practise within the classroom.

Bronfenbrenner (1992) views the microsystem as referring to the patterns of

activities, roles and interpersonal relations experienced by the child in a particular

setting such as home or school, with particular material and physical features of other

persons who have particular characteristics of temperament, personality, and systems

of belief. He proposes that this is unlike most daily interactions, where parents and

teachers hold the balance of power in interactions with children. The reciprocity in

any interaction contributes to cognitive and social development as the balance of

power shifts towards the child over time.

Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s model I propose that the mesosystem refers to

the processes taking place between two or more settings in which the gifted child

operates. The process of significance was the home-school relationship, as these are

the predominant settings in which primary school-aged children spend their time. As

stated by Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 3), the child’s academic development does not

rest solely on their interaction with their teacher but is influenced by “the existence


and nature of ties between the school and the home” and whether these settings

encourage positive, supportive links. Therefore the developmental potential of the

child is increased when the culture and climate of the school support and enable

parents-teacher relationships and facilitate communication around the special needs

of gifted children.

The exosystem, of this study, when viewed according to Bronfenbrenner's

model, relates to the processes between two or more systems, one of which does not

directly relate to the gifted child, but which may impact indirectly on their well-

being. For example, the stereotypical attitudes towards giftedness held by the work

colleagues of parents, within the neighbourhood, mass media, government agencies

and policy regarding gifted children.

The macrosystem, while extensive, encompasses the belief system prevailing

in the micro-, meso- and exosystems of a given culture and is essential to

acknowledge when considering all other interactions and the impetus by which they

are driven. Parents and teachers, consciously and subconsciously draw from this

repertoire, which includes economic, social, educational, legal and political systems

in their dyadic interactions with the gifted child. Although these subsystems are not

explored in great detail, they have a compounding influence on both teachers’ and

parents’ interactions with the gifted child. After all, development is defined as

“processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active,

evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in

its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a

fairly regular basis over extended periods of time” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,

p. 996). The focus of this study is on the interactions of parents and teachers with

gifted children, as according to Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, and Karnik (2009),

children use these interactions to interpret the world and their place within it. This

understanding is supported by Kauffman and Sternberg (2008) and is dependent on

how intelligence is characterised and valued by significant adults in the child’s

background. One of the outcomes of this study, is to highlight the unique social-

emotional needs of gifted children to both parents and teachers, as it is anticipated

that change within one member within the relationship (the teacher or parent), could

result in change in the other (the gifted child) according to the systems theory

approach of Bronfenbrenner.


Lastly, time should also be considered. When considering human development,

time plays a crucial role. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) argue that time is

comprised of three subfactors: micro-time (what occurs during one specific

interaction), meso-time (ongoing activities within the individual’s environment) and

macro-time or the chronosystem which encapsulates specific historical events which

shape an individual’s development. The chronosystem comprises of three interacting

components over time; the developing person, the changing environment, and their

proximal processes, which is also reflected in Gagné’s model by the developmental

process. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, a longitudinal study is not a viable

option for this study and is, therefore, a limitation of this study. However, it is

anticipated that through the literature review spanning decades, the development of

SEWB in gifted children over time is more fully understood.

In summary, according to Tudge et al. (2009) for research to be guided by the

bioecological theory, it requires aspects of the process-person-context-time model.

The person in this study is the gifted child, although each child is a unique

individual, as a group they present particular characteristics which may deviate from

the expected age-appropriate norm, hence initiating and requiring a different style of

interaction, the process. The context includes both the home and school

environments (microsystem) and the way in which they interact (mesosystem), as

these are most dominant for a primary school-aged child; however, cognisance is

further given to factors which impact upon the child indirectly from the exosystem

and macrosystem. Finally, time was considered within the inter-relationship of the

various sub-systems.

In the current program of research, cognisance is made of the expansive

influences, which may shape a child’s development. Children do not display their

potential through the results of their individual ability or effort in isolation, but rather

in response to the collective support of interacting components within the system.

The focus falls on the nurturing process of one’s naturally-derived ability. Through

this connectedness to and collaboration with others such as parents and teachers, the

social-emotional development of children is nurtured (Yuen & Fong, 2012) and as a

consequence, their exceptional ability is displayed in the process of talent

development (Ziegler, Stoeger, & Vialle, 2012). However, despite the expansive

influences, the focus falls on the three main components of the school-home triangle,


namely the gifted child, their parents and their class teachers, as these are of

significance due to the ongoing and frequent nature of their interaction within the

primary school years (Hébert & Hammond, 2006). In light of the bioecological

model, these processes can actualise genetic potential (Bar-On, 2009), this is of

significance with regard to developing the academic potential of gifted children as is

supported by Gagné’s DMGT as well as the development of well-being. Through

child-teacher-parent interactions, gifted children come to think and feel about

themselves and others as well as develop resilience and coping to face daily

challenges. This integrated approach is visualised in Figure 2.5. It should, however,

be remembered, as noted in Gagné’s DMGT, chance also plays a role in the

development of any child. Therefore, despite similar individual and environmental

experience, the outcome is never the same for everyone.

Figure 2.5. The theoretical framework of this study.


2.3 Chapter Summary

The concepts of giftedness, SEWB, and social support as understood within

this study were explored both in isolation and how they relate to each other and

within the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model. Chapter

3 makes reference to the research done to date to provide an awareness of the

particular characteristics which influence the gifted child’s SEWB as well as explore

the role parents and teachers play with regard to developing SEWB.

30 Chapter 3: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Literature Review

A review of the literature relating to the social-emotional well-being (SEWB)

of gifted children is presented in this chapter. Firstly, the debate between the gifted

child as vulnerable versus resilient is discussed. This provides insight as to the

rationale for considering the social-emotional needs of gifted children as unique and

highlights the necessity for parents and teachers to be aware of these needs.

Thereafter, both internal and external factors, as noted by Hamilton and

Redmond (2010), which influence SEWB, are explored from the perspective of

gifted children. Internal and external factors play a vital role not only in the

development of SEWB but also, as was shown by Gagné (1985, 2013) for ensuring

the child’s gifts are nurtured towards talent development, which is deemed necessary

for gifted children to reach their full potential and flourish.

Lastly, the roles of parents and teachers of gifted children are considered

within Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model which places emphasis on the

synergistic interaction between the various parties.

3.1 The SEWB of Gifted Children

Academically gifted children are not homogenous by nature. They have

varying degrees of ability across multiple domains, which may or may not be

developed and hence observed as talent within the classroom and in their daily lives.

Similarly, their social-emotional skills and needs differ. Individuality can be

understood in relation to Gagné’s model, whereby varying intrapersonal,

environmental and chance factors influence the developmental process and outcomes

for each gifted child. However, despite the diversity of each gifted child as an

individual, there are common characteristics which emerge as a result of their view

of the world, their view of themselves and other special needs associated with being

gifted (Schmitz & Galbraith, 1985). As such, Neihart and Betts (1988) through their

observations, interviews and review of the literature, have developed six profiles of

gifted children, which aim at providing teachers and parents with information to

better understand and support the feelings, behaviour and needs of gifted children. In

addition, preliminary studies undertaken by Shaughnessy et al. (2004) of Korean,

Chapter 3: Literature Review 31

American, Finnish and Slovakian gifted students indicate that there are personality

factors, according to the 16 Personality Factor Test 5th

Ed. (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell,

1995) that are more likely to characterise gifted children.

3.1.1 The social-emotional vulnerability debate.

Over time, there has been an ebb and flow between two contrasting notions of

social-emotional resiliency and vulnerability, supported by empirical and theoretical

evidence (Gross, 1993; Peterson & Ray, 2006; Wellisch et al., 2011). On one hand,

giftedness is seen to enhance the resiliency of the individual due to a higher cognitive

capacity for enhanced understanding of self and others, while on the other, giftedness

has been shown to increase vulnerability to adjustment problems due to heightened

sensitivity resulting in greater stress and alienation (Neihart, 1999; Morawska &

Sanders, 2008). This literature review aims to capture the movement over time

between vulnerability and resilience.

More than a century ago, Lombroso (1895) proposed the gifted to be

vulnerable, characterised by degeneration and psychoses as exaggerated development

in intellect was at the expense of other areas. Lombroso’s ideas were strongly

founded in anthropology and were undermined by poor sampling techniques and

bias, with a strong focus on criminology. In contrast, Terman et al. (1947) revealed

through their longitudinal studies of 1,528 high-IQ children that gifted individuals

were better adjusted due to a lower incidence of mental illness and fewer adjustment

problems. These studies aimed at showing that gifted children were superior in

health, physique and social adjustment. However, the study was not without criticism

as the gifted children selected were teacher-nominated according to specific criteria.

Personality and social-emotional adjustment were assessed by teachers according to

a variety of scales; hence teachers may have experienced a halo effect whereby they

assessed the gifted children in a more favourable light. In addition, the research only

entailed children from professional, middle-class families, excluding gifted children

from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds who may be disadvantaged in terms of

educational provisions and opportunities impacting on their adjustment. Vialle

(1994) also criticised Terman due to his bias against women and certain ethnic

groups in his studies, whereby he stated women and non-white races had inferior

intellectual ability; however, this thinking was popular at the time due to the culture

of society. Furthermore perspective and interpretation may be subject to dispute, for


example, when considering solitude, Terman et al. (1947) believed gifted children

preferred being alone, in this way creating a more positive outlook, rather than

attributing solitude to loneliness which has negative connotations. Despite the

limitations of these studies, gifted children were perceived by many to be resilient.

However, in 1981 when Dallas Egbert, a gifted high school student, committed

suicide, the focus shifted, once again to the vulnerability of gifted individuals

(Neihart, 1999). Subsequently, the term social and emotional needs of the gifted

became accepted, and research in this area increased.

Figure 3.1. The vulnerability vs. resiliency debate.

It would seem through an analysis of the literature that the outcome of the

gifted child being resilient or vulnerable was dependent upon the manner in which

the research was conducted, especially with regard to the sourcing of participants.

For example, participants were often gained through teacher referrals which may

have resulted in a misrepresentation of the gifted population as those children who do

experience social-emotional difficulties may not have been recognised as gifted

because their challenges are the primary focus within the classroom. In addition,

some data were obtained from psychologists, which although providing insight into


the types of difficulties gifted children may face, may also provide a skewed

perception of the number of gifted children who experience social-emotional

difficulties. Furthermore, studies have explored a range of age groups; however, due

to developmental differences at various stages, what is true in kindergarten, for

example, may be irrelevant in early adulthood. To illustrate, the difficulties of a 4-

year-old trying to access mental-age peers who are eight is no longer an obstacle for

a 24-year-old approaching 28-year-olds. As such it is difficult to generalise

outcomes, and a comparison group would be required to determine if the behaviour

of concern is similar in non-gifted age-peers. Thus despite the wealth of research

conducted in this field, there is still more work to be done to develop a more accurate

understanding of the social-emotional needs of gifted children, not only to settle the

debate discussed and illustrated in Figure 3.1, but more importantly to develop

support structures which best meet the gifted child’s needs.

3.1.1.1 Researching the vulnerable gifted child.

Numerous authors have reported studies suggesting that gifted children are at

higher risk than their peers of developing social-emotional problems (Benbow &

Stanley, 1996; Dauber & Benbow, 1990; Gross, 1993; Hollingworth, 1930; Janos,

Fung & Robinson, 1985; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Peterson & Ray, 2006). From

the earliest works of Hollingworth (1930), based on observations over an extended

period, children under the age of 12 in particular with exceptionally high IQs were

considered to have a unique set of social-emotional difficulties. These difficulties

related to adjustment, asynchronous development and interactions with peers,

brought about by conformity in the learning environment and difficult peer

interactions and exacerbated by their limited ability to access people of similar

intellect successfully.

Backing this argument, and supporting the theoretical framework of this study,

the educational environment supporting the gifted child is now considered. It has

been shown by various researchers, including Hollingworth (1930), Kim (2016),

Shernoff (2013) and van der Meulen et al. (2014) that children achieving scores

within the top 1% of IQ assessments (approx. IQ 135 and above) have differences

not only in ability but also in the educational environment required to support

optimal development. Without challenge and interest, school may become “an

effortless existence” (Hollingworth, 1930, p. 152). Lubinski and Benbow (2000)


support Hollingworth’s assertions in their paper whereby they review the optimal

development of exceptional talent, using the theory of work adjustment, concluding

that psychological pain occurs when the individual’s needs are not met, and the

rewards mediated by the environment are incongruent. This is similar to Shernoff’s

(2013) statement whereby an optimal growth environment is one characterised by

high task challenges and expectations for mastery, combined with motivational and

emotional support. Hence placing children in learning environments in line with their

abilities and interests has multiple advantages. For example, the curriculum

progresses at an appropriate rate resulting in more learning and improved motivation.

Furthermore, indirect benefits such as a social milieu that support the child’s love for

learning and peer support rather than ridicule are experienced (Benbow & Stanley,

1996). Interestingly, in a retrospective Swedish study, 92% of gifted adults reported

primary school to be the most challenging time in their schooling (Persson, 2010).

Therefore, the gifted child’s vulnerability increases when there is a weak fit with

their environment.

The need for a good fit with one’s environment has been reported in numerous

studies (Cohen, Duncan, and Cohen, 1994; van der Meulen et al.; Kim, 2016;

Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011). Cohen et al. (1994) compared classroom

relationships of fourth to sixth graders, with a mean age of 10.75, participating in a

supportive, non-competitive intellectual enrichment pull-out program. Gifted

children who participated in the program, when compared to non-gifted classmates

demonstrated higher social competence and a valued position within the peer group.

Similar positive outcomes were determined in a study undertaken by van der Meulen

et al. (2014) of 89 gifted children, aged eight to eleven, with a mean age of 9.51, in a

pull-out “Day a Week School” program in Amsterdam. Parents and teachers

indicated the one day a week program had a small positive effect on the children’s

self-concept, scholastic competence, and behavioural conduct. These outcomes are

consistent with the meta-analysis undertaken by Kim (2016) and Steenbergen-Hu

and Moon (2011) considering positive effects of pull-out and acceleration programs

respectively, in relation to social-emotional aspects. Kim examined 26 research

programs between 1985 and 2014, noting enrichment programs to have a positive

impact on both academic achievement and social-emotional development, with a

large effect size for a combination of summer and academic year programs in terms


of social-emotional development. Steenbergen-Hu and Moon explored 38 studies

conducted between 1984 and 2008, noting acceleration had a positive impact on

gifted children’s academic achievement, while slightly positive effects were noted

for social-emotional development. However, teacher attitude towards acceleration

and full-time ability grouping for gifted children may not support these approaches.

In an Australian study undertaken by Gallagher, Smith and Merrotsy (2011), related

to gifted primary school children, teachers were shown to have favourable attitudes

towards ability grouping and acceleration however they had concerns regarding

implementation in that they associated social difficulties with acceleration and

refrained from ability grouping based on egalitarianism.

Furthermore, as previously suggested and pertinent to primary school gifted

children is the role of peer interactions and play. Hollingworth (1930) through her

extensive work with gifted children ascertained that gifted children, even when

placed in a conducive learning environment might encounter difficulties in peer

interactions. For example, a younger child placed amongst older mental-age peers

may be vulnerable and bullied. This observation was confirmed even when children

were placed with similar-aged peers (Peterson & Ray, 2006). Through a retrospective

study whereby 432 gifted eighth-grade American children, identified by schools,

reflected on their school experiences from kindergarten through to eight-grade,

Peterson and Ray reported that gifted children experience teasing about their intellect

starting in kindergarten and peaking in sixth-grade, a time when the sense of

belonging is becoming important. Of particular interest to this study is that parents

and teachers are often unaware of the bullying situation as gifted children do not

always share this information. Therefore awareness is needed. According to Peterson

and Ray (2006), 16% of participants in eighth-grade were considered bullies, a

number which had grown since kindergarten. This is concerning because neither

being a victim or a bully enhances an individual’s outcome. A limitation of Peterson

and Ray’s study is the lack of a comparison to non-gifted children; hence it is

uncertain whether or not gifted children are considered vulnerable or resilient by

comparison to children in general.

Feelings of being different from peers were noted in a study by Lee,

Olszewski-Kubilius, and Thomson (2012) whereby gifted children displayed greater

academic self-concepts than their peers, however as conforming became more


important with age, being different became more difficult with each passing year.

Similarly, another study of 271 American elementary school gifted children (of

similar age to the children in this study), undertaken by Janos et al. (1985) found that

37% of gifted children conceptualised themselves as different from their peers, often

due to feelings of superiority. This was also noted in an American study of 54 highly

gifted children in Grades two to five undertaken by Gallagher (2015) in which three

children, ranked within the lowest 10% of social acceptance by peers, felt superior to

their peers and would reject their requests for help. These researchers noted that

superiority does not equate to improved psychological well-being or enhanced social

experiences, as associated behaviours may be subject to punishing behaviours from

others. Furthermore, feelings of difference resulted in a lowered self-esteem as gifted

children lacked the skills required to diminish the gap between their intellectual and

interest differences between themselves and their peers. It was a recommendation of

Janos et al.’s research that gifted children require increased psychological support to

improve their personal and social development. Both Janos et al. and Hollingworth

perceived these difficulties faced by gifted children to be a matter related to

childhood and recommended that children require a supportive environment through

these challenging years.

3.1.1.2 Researching the resilient gifted child.

In contrast, an opposing group of researchers perceive the gifted child to be as

well-adjusted, if not more resilient than their non-gifted peers due to their enhanced

cognitive capabilities enabling a greater understanding of self and others (Jacobs,

1971; Ramaseshan, 1957; Wellisch et al. 2011). Terman’s first studies in 1925,

which focused on middle-class children as well as the use of teacher checklists to

support the notion that gifted children excel in all areas, were criticised due to

teachers experiencing the halo effect, whereby students are perceived as superior in

all areas due to their superior academic ability. Through the empirical research

undertaken by Ramaseshan (1957) as part of a doctoral thesis, three groups of

American adolescents were compared – highly gifted, moderately gifted and non-

gifted; matched by age, grade level, and gender. Adolescents’ self-reports were

compared to teacher perceptions using the Washburne Social Adjustment Inventory.

The results supported Terman’s findings; gifted children have a better social

adjustment, with little difference between moderately and profoundly gifted children.


The similarity in SEWB in highly gifted adolescents, when compared to moderately

gifted adolescents, was reiterated in research by Gallucci (1988), of participants in a

summer enrichment program, rated by counsellors, parents, and teachers on the Child

Behaviour Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Furthermore, according to

parent reports of 80 Australian and New Zealand families, studied by Wellisch et al.

(2011), gifted children do not display as many cognitive or physical developmental

difficulties nor do they pose more behavioural problems. Hence in light of this study,

when considering various research studies conducted, parents, teachers and gifted

children themselves have reported gifted children to be more resilient.

A limitation of these research studies lies in children being referred to the study

or gifted programs by teachers. Children who may be experiencing social-emotional

difficulties may not have been included in the sample as these difficulties may be

hindering their functioning and veiling their natural ability, thereby excluding

underachieving children from the population of all gifted children. Furthermore, as

many studies have used gifted programs to identify groups of gifted children, it may

hold true that children in specialised programs are better adjusted than those who are

in mainstream classrooms, as was shown in the meta-analysis of Kim (2016) and

Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2011) previously discussed. However, when considering

the environment, the work of Chan (1988) exploring upper primary gifted and non-

gifted children in Western Australian schools, needs to be considered. It was found

through exploring the self-perceptions of 378 children that gifted children perceive

themselves as more competent than their non-gifted peers in cognitive and general

self-worth, but not in physical and social areas. However, when comparing gifted

children in full-time versus part-time extension programs, those in full-time

programs had lowered cognitive and physical competence compared to children in

part-time programs, although general self-worth perceptions were similar. Chan

suggests that these deflated perceptions of competence may actually be more realistic

due to the child’s lack of opportunity to display superiority in their school work.

Furthermore, more appropriate peer comparisons were made, and there was an

increase in the child’s knowledge base; whereby long-term academic success may

have been improved. This is supported by Kitsantas, Bland and Chirinos (2017) who

noted through an empirical study that gifted programs meet both the academic and

social-emotional needs of gifted children.


A plausible reason proposed for the misconception that gifted children are

more vulnerable, was attributed by Jacobs (1971) to parents’ and teachers’ confusion

with regard to personal characteristics as “the gifted child’s curiosity, persistence,

purposefulness, and sensitivity frequently irritates adults and takes on the appearance

of disobedience, inattention, and instability” (p. 195). Through the use of Rorschach

Techniques with 20 gifted and 20 non-gifted children during pre-school and at the

end of kindergarten, it was found that gifted children displayed personality

characteristic reflective of an older non-gifted child. However, adults often perceive

the gifted child as being less mature, which results in interaction more appropriate to

a less mature child, causing a negative response in the gifted child and the cycle

continues, resulting in a decrease in the gifted child’s ability to achieve. This

disaffectionate perception of gifted children has not changed over the decades as

indicated in a study undertaken by Geake and Gross (2008), of 377 teachers

undertaking professional development in gifted education in Australia, Scotland and

England. In their study it was noted that teachers perceived gifted children to be

social misfits who are disrespectful of authority, elitist, insensitive to others, socially

isolated and antisocial leaders.

Therefore it appears that gifted children may indeed be more resilient due to

factors including enhanced cognitive abilities, a greater understanding of themselves

and others, fewer physical and behavioural difficulties as well as enhanced feelings

of general self-worth. However, the role played by parents and teachers as well as

educational provision also needs to be considered as their understanding and

interaction with the gifted child can influence the child’s outcome.

3.1.1.3 Inconclusive results.

Research comparing intellectually gifted children to their chronological age

peers as well as their mental age peers note that there is less difference in functioning

when compared to mental-age peers (Lehman & Erdwins, 2004). However, patterns

are inconsistent. Gifted children may behave similarly to either their chronological

age or mental age peers in specific domains yet completely differently to either in

others. Furthermore, gifted children themselves may fail to acknowledge their

emotional needs as they may assume that due to their ability to overcome intellectual

problems logically, they should be capable of overcoming emotional obstacles, in the

same manner, consequently concealing their true feelings from significant others


(Delisle & Galbraith, 2002). By denying and concealing their difficulties, gifted

children may delude themselves or rationalise their behaviour.

According to Walsh, Kemp, Hodge and Bowes (2012) and Schmitz and

Galbraith (1985), various factors are considered contributors to the inconclusive

nature of research in this area; these include definitions of giftedness, culture, sample

bias and size, placement, the age of subjects, over-generalisation, the use of

standardised measures with gifted children, syllogistic reasoning, type and level of

ability and the comparison group. Furthermore, one cannot assume that a

characteristic or trait is either positive or negative, it depends on the way in which it

is channelled, and therefore the gifted child’s environment and interactions with

significant others are of relevance. In addition, research often fails to highlight the

level and area of the ability of the gifted participants. These factors may influence the

way in which the gifted child experiences a situation and the impact it has on them.

Furthermore, there is a vast array of gifted programs and educational settings which

vary in “length, duration, focus, student identification procedures, teacher

qualifications, and quality”, consequently having a varied influence on the

educational provisions which support gifted children (Schmitz & Galbraith, 1985, p.

11). In addition, a lack of concern for the social-emotional needs of gifted children is

echoed in the field of gifted education and research, where emphasis has been placed

on achievement outcomes with little attention being directed to important outcomes

such as “happiness, well-being and life satisfaction” (Moon, 2003, p. 16). Therefore,

due to the inconclusiveness of the research, the SEWB of gifted students remains a

priority.

In light of this inconclusiveness, it cannot be ascertained with certainty whether

or not gifted children are hindered or helped by their giftedness. However, Moon

(2002) concluded that gifted children as a group might experience unique social-

emotional challenges related to their giftedness which could thwart their optimal

development and require support and understanding in coping with stressors. In light

of this study, the emphasis is therefore not on the deficits or advantages of being

gifted from a social-emotional perspective but rather on differences required to

bridge the gap between needs and support. Consequently, the current study will

explore not only the gifted child’s SEWB from an Australian perspective, focusing


on primary school aged children, but also explore ways in which these differences

are being bridged within the mainstream classroom.

3.2 Social-Emotional Experiences of the Gifted Child

Following a review of the literature, Robinson (2008) concluded that the

primary social needs of gifted children are no different to those of other children;

however, gifted children are almost always out-of-step with their age peers, creating

unique differences which can impact upon their SEWB. When considering clinical

and mental health issues in counselling gifted children, the needs of the gifted child,

which arise due to their giftedness, can be categorised as internal or external (Cross

& Cross, 2015). Those that arise internally are as a result of the characteristics of

giftedness; strengths, such as increased sensitivity, become possible weaknesses of

being overly critical of self. In contrast, external factors arise due to the gifted child’s

interaction with the environment which may result in discordant relationships with

others and difficulty coping with particular situations. Although characteristics of

giftedness are not inherently problematic, they may become an obstruction to SEWB

when combined characteristics become patterns of behaviour (Webb, 1994). This

approach fits well with Gagné’s theory whereby internal and external catalysts

influence the development of gifts to talents. More so, Hamilton and Redmond’s

(2010) approach to SEWB from individual and environmental domains is

demonstrated. It is necessary to explore both the internal and external factors, as seen

in Figure 3.2, to fully understand the experiences a gifted child may be encountering.


Figure 3.2. Internal and external factors impacting upon the SEWB of gifted children

3.2.1 Internal factors.

Being gifted creates its own set of social-emotional needs based on the

characteristics of the particular child. This is often determined by, among others,

their domain of talent, their degree of giftedness as well as other personal

characteristics. This section explores how the internal makeup of the child and more

specifically the child’s distinct cognitive abilities, impact upon the gifted child’s

SEWB. These factors impact to varying degrees in each child, however, they all

influence the way in which the gifted child interacts with their environment and the

people of significance within it, resulting in dynamic interactions between the gifted

individual and others, which further shapes their development and SEWB through a

myriad of external factors.

3.2.1.1 Asynchronous development.

Theorists and researchers have noted the uneven development of gifted

children in terms of their internal processes including intellectual, affective and

motor development as well as the child being out-of-step with their social context in

various ways (Akin, 2005; Delisle, 1992; Kline & Meckstroth, 1985; Peterson, 2006;

Thomas & Ray, 2006; Webb, 1994). Asynchrony means being out-of-sync both

internally and externally due to uneven development. Akin (2005) describes the

gifted child’s social, physical, emotional, and cognitive development to not

correspond with each other, and with the exception of physical development, the

gifted child may not correspond to their age-peers either. The experience of

asynchonicity varies for each gifted child and is further exacerbated in the twice-

exceptional. In general, gifted children are more mentally advanced than their

chronological peers, yet their physical abilities and emotions are more in relation,

this creates disequilibrium within the child (Silverman, 2002). Hence a gifted child

may appear to be many developmental ages at once, depending on the situation

(Tolan, 1989), which according to Akin (2005) can result in frustration and anger.

For example, a child with a mental age of a ten-year-old, yet the physical and

emotional development of a six-year-old, experiences a disparity between their

physical maturity to perform tasks at the standard they envisage. As such, the child

capable of Mathematics above their year level, with immature penmanship, is teased.


Due to a lack of emotional maturity, they resort to physical displays of behaviour in

response to the negative comments and may be seen as infantile; however, this

behaviour may be appropriate for a non-gifted six-year-old who is not expected to

have mastered emotional regulation and behavioural control. These negative

emotional outbursts may be compounded by their own high level of frustration, due

to the gap between their potential and the work produced. Through her clinical work,

Hollingworth (1930) concluded that difficulties are most pronounced between four

and nine years of age; as the difference in development between a child of six and

nine years is far greater than between children aged 16 and 19, where the gap

between mental age compared to social and physical development is more easily

bridged. Furthermore, according to Silverman (2002), this difficulty tends to increase

as IQ increases, and also when there is a vast discrepancy between strengths and

weakness such as when considering the twice-exceptional child who is gifted with a

learning or developmental disability. This is illustrated in case study research

conducted by Moon, Zentall, Grskovic, Hall, and Stormont-Spurgin (2001) with 18

children with AD/HD, gifted, and gifted with AD/HD, it was found that gifted

children with AD/HD are cognitively advanced. However, their social, emotional and

motivational development lags behind that of their age-peers, creating a vast gap

between their potential and their ability to fulfil their talent development.

This child-centered approach is not new; it builds on the insights gained

previously from Hollingworth as well as Dabrowski (1964). However, years on,

according to Gross, Urquhart, Doyle, Juratowitch, and Matheson (2011), based on

104 interviews as well as surveys with principals, gifted and talented coordinators,

parents and older gifted children; social-emotional maturity is an important

consideration when considering acceleration, especially early entry, and grade

advancement. However, they point out that there is limited consensus on the

definition of social-emotional maturity and the criteria for each age group.

Furthermore, through the interviews conducted it was revealed that a more in-depth

understanding was required to appreciate asynchronous development to support

gifted children in understanding their emotional responses. Asynchrony has been

seen as a way to describe the experiences of the gifted child, the Columbus Group

(1991) for example, a group of parents, educators, and psychologist defined

giftedness as asynchronous development due to their experience with highly to


profoundly gifted children. They have upheld this definition and still believe

giftedness to be linked to advanced cognitive ability and heightened intensity which

combines to create experiences which deviate from the norm (Gifted Development

Center, 2017).

3.2.1.2 Highly perceptive.

According to Delisle and Galbraith (2002), many gifted children are highly

perceptive to stimuli, including sounds, sights, smells, touches, tastes, movements,

words, patterns, numbers, physical phenomena and people. These sensitivities, often

termed intensities, allow the gifted child to find complexity in the world, which is

both meaningful and interesting. However, a deep, rich experience can also have a

downside, “to him (sic), a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a

tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death”

(Delisle & Galbraith, 2002, p. 64). The vulnerable vs. resilient debate continues

when considering sensitivities, there are positive experiences of perceptiveness,

empathy, and imagination in contrast to overreactions to situations and the early

appearance of fears.

These experiences have been categorised by Dabrowski (1964) as part of the

Theory of Positive Disintegration, based on his exploration into the lives of eminent

adults. This theory is used by some to identify gifted children and by others as a way

to understand gifted children. There is a debate about the value of Dabrowski’s

theory, both for (Ackerman, 1997; Gross, Rinn & Jamieson, 2007; Kitano, 1990;

Lewis, 1992) and against (Jennaway & Merrotsy, 2011). Winkler and Voight (2016)

conducted a meta-analysis to determine the existence and strength of the giftedness-

overexcitabilities relationship. On analysis of 12 studies, which compared gifted and

non-gifted populations, it was found that gifted students have higher scores than non-

gifted students on each of the domains. However, when comparing gifted to non-

gifted, at a 95% confidence interval the gifted children had higher scores indicating a

positive correlation between gifted children and overexcitabilities but the effect size

for social (ES=0.22) and emotional (ES=0.19) overexcitabilities, are considered

small; differences in imaginational (ES=0.36) and intellectual (ES=0.55)

overexcitabilities are medium and psychomotor (ES=0.17) differences were not

statistically significant. Although Winkler and Voight acknowledge limitations to

their meta-analysis, it is still suggested that overexcitabilities could be used for


intervention purposes, as opposed to the identification of gifted children and are thus

used as a platform to explore the gifted child’s interaction with their environment and

the support they require, both with regard to positive and negative experiences,

which will form the focus of this study within the domains of intellect, emotion,

imagination, sensation and psychomotor ability.

Intellectual overexcitability is displayed through a passion for learning, a

capacity for analytical thinking, enjoyment of meta-analysis, prolonged focus on

academic tasks, and enjoyment of detailed planning and intense curiosity or

precociousness which may be perceived as threatening by teachers and not

understood by peers. This may lead to boredom and underachievement with routine

tasks as noted in the study undertaken by Persson (2010) in which children reported

giving up in response to their boredom rather than a preoccupation or high level of

involvement with interests, tasks, materials, and questions which was achieved

through placement in an appropriate environment (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross,

2004; Eddles-Hirsch, Vialle, Rogers, & McCormick, 2010; Kulik, 1992). Therefore,

they ruminate over thoughts of interest and look for and enjoy the complexities of the

world. This preoccupation may result in people and duties being neglected and the

child’s resistance to interruption may be perceived as the child being stubborn.

Furthermore, others may feel that the gifted child is isolating him or herself from

their environment.

Children with emotional overexcitability are especially sensitive to the feelings

of others and respond intensely to their own feelings, “nearly everything matters and

it matters that it matters” (Kline & Meckstroth, 1985, p. 25). According to Clark

(2008), this tremendous empathy, compassion, idealism, and awareness of global

issues, as well as fairness, justice, and responsibility towards self and others, can

impact upon the gifted child’s well-being; high sensitivity becomes a burden. Clark

further argued that strong moral maturity does not go hand-in-glove with emotional

maturity; hence, gifted children may become overwhelmed. Heightened empathy

may result in the gifted child being aware of the emotional hardships of others; this

may result in an experience of overwhelming feelings of frustration and helplessness

as they are unable to implement the changes necessary in the world to overcome the

problems and atrocities faced by others. In contrast, despite their compassion, gifted

children may not take kindly to double standards, such as differentiation, equal


treatment is considered fair, which according to Clark may result in the gifted child

challenging authority in an attempt to restore order.

Children may seem to be perpetually on the move, involved in games or talking

away frantically, to satisfy psychomotor overexcitability. Others may engage in

nervous-type habits such as tics, drumming or nail-biting. In research conducted by

Tieso (2007), supporting the work of Ackerman (1997), when analysing the

quantitative data collected from gifted children aged five to 15 in American

enrichment programs and their parents, the highest score obtained was for

psychomotor overexcitability, making this possibly the best predictor of giftedness in

school-aged children. It is, therefore, important to note when these behaviours occur

to prevent an incorrect diagnosis, as they are often associated with Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder. In contrast, gifted children would predominantly display

these types of behaviour when they are experiencing frustration due to the low level

of incoming stimulation being presented to them, and therefore these behaviours act

as a form of stimulation.

Imaginational and sensual overexcitability tend to have fewer data available in

the literature and are therefore mentioned briefly. Imaginational overexcitability is

related to invention and fantasy, sometimes blurring the line with reality; as well as

daydreaming. Children with a sensual overexcitability have a heightened awareness

of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and oral. They either love or hate a

particular sensation, for example, the seams of socks may be intensely annoying

while listening to the same piece of music repeatedly is soothing.

3.2.1.3 Feeling different.

Through a 25 year review of studies of gifted children within the school

environment, Coleman, Micko and Cross (2015), attribute feelings of difference to

differences in ability and motivation. They argue that gifted children learn faster,

understand more deeply are more engaged in topics of interest and often exhibit

asynchronous development. Motivation is more pertinent to older children who

display a commitment to a particular area, whilst considered as an accompaniment to

high ability in younger children; the effects of which being similar to intellectual

overexcitability.


Gifted children tend to display greater academic self-concepts than their peers

do, as was found in the research of Lee et al. (2012) in their research of 1,526 gifted

American adolescents who had participated in academically gifted programs.

Although having a good academic self-concept is positive, gifted children, like

others, also acknowledge their limitations by contrast to peers and the impact of this

divergence from the norm, either positive or negative, intensifies as the need to fit in

intensifies with each passing year of primary school. Hence, even positive

experiences may be negatively evaluated by the gifted child as their difference to

peers is noticed. For example, in an Australian study conducted by Gross (2004a), of

60 children who were reading on entering school, forty of these children had

significantly moderated their reading ability or had stopped reading in class within

two weeks to match the level of their age-peers. The remaining children who

continued to read did so because their teachers facilitated their development. This

was considered significant as in research undertaken by Garces-Bacsal and Yeo

(2017) whereby 125 gifted ten to twelve-year-old children in Singapore were

surveyed to determine their level of recreational reading. They found that the

children could be classified as high or low avid readers. High avid readers saw

reading as meaningful in providing an escape to fantasy and relief from stress.

Feelings of difference impact negatively on both self-esteem and peer relationships

(Morawska & Sanders, 2009b), leading to feelings of discomfort or a lack of

confidence in social situations as well as difficulties forming and maintaining

relationships with others (Lee et al., 2012). This may begin early in life, as

comparisons are made between the gifted child and others; it becomes difficult to

find a niche to slot into.

Recent attention has focused on the social comparison processes in the

development of a gifted child’s self-concept, the perception of self. In early

childhood when the child is relatively ego-centric, comparisons are based on how

they have personally made progress, for example, last month I could not ride a

bicycle and now I can, this provides a sense of accomplishment. However, with age,

comes the ability to compare oneself with peers and norm-referencing begins around

age seven. However, many gifted children are norm-referencing before starting

school (Gross, 2004b). According to Leyden and Shale (2012), self-concept forms

the foundation of social-emotional development. This implies that the gifted child’s


comparisons with peers help shape their self-concept (Pyryt, 2008). As gifted

children develop their self-concept at an earlier age, they may be subject to peer

pressure from an earlier age, often experiencing conflict between their need to

achieve and their need to connect with others. These difficulties are often displayed

through isolation from peers, conformity pressures which result in deliberate and

unintentional talent hiding, anxiety and depression, daily frustrations in school and

life situations, resistance to authority, drug and alcohol dependency in adolescence

and even suicide (Delisle, 1992; Landrum, 1987; Neihart, 2002; Rimm, 2002;

Silverman, 2002).

Furthermore, gifted children are often called upon to wear the label of “gifted”

and achieve accordingly (Davis & Rimm, 2004). Labelling can have positive

outcomes for students who are fully integrated into the culture of the school as was

found in the survey undertaken by Berlin (2009) in which 66, sixth to eighth-grade

public school students participated. Positive perceptions of being labelled gifted were

held by students as this allowed access to advanced curricula opportunities and better

teachers. However, they also reported negative experiences of increased workload

and higher expectations, both from self and from others. Stereotyping of gifted

students was not considered as an aspect by students within this study, which is in

contrast to other literature; Berlin reasons this is due to the culture of the school,

which highlights in terms of the current study the importance of mesosphere

interactions as described in Bronfenbrenner’s model. In research conducted by

Coleman and Cross (2014) whereby 15 gifted adolescents in a summer program were

interviewed, being gifted was perceived as a negative experience by many students,

as people treat gifted children differently it was considered necessary to camouflage

their differences. This links back to the work of Gross (2004a), already mentioned,

on children entering formal schooling. Although there is no research detailing

primary school children, one could assume a similar situation occurs between school

entry and adolescence. In addition, parents and teachers often shy away from talking

about giftedness due to social stigma (Coleman & Cross, 2014). These mixed

messages, which downplay achievement and ability may further result in gifted

children denying expression of their true being (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002).

Despite being labelled gifted, some gifted children may have difficulties with

self-acceptance of their label and may often struggle with ‘imposter’ syndrome,


wondering whether or not they are as capable as others believe. This experience may

be heightened through others’ expectations for the child to continually display skills

of a high calibre and their need to prove their ability, hence draining the energy

required for routine tasks of adjustment, leading to further frustration and isolation

(Buescher & Higham, 1990). Some children are not told that they are gifted in an

attempt to hide their difference. However, this can have the opposite effect of

confusing the child as to their own noted differences. For example, children have

been led to believe that their curiosity and ease of understanding are reasons for

concern, leading to self-doubt and even a perception that they may not have fully

understood the work presented by the teacher. Clark (2008) argues that although it is

not necessary for a child to know their IQ score, they should come to know the

behaviours associated with giftedness so that they can better understand their own

being and adapt their expectations of themselves accordingly.

3.2.1.4 Self-expectation and perfectionism.

Perfectionism is considered to be a combination of thoughts and behaviours

associated with high expectations of one’s performance. The origin of one’s

perfectionism depends on one’s standpoint. Some authors such as Dunkley,

Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, and Winkworth (2000) believe perfectionism to be

inborn and the pressure to maintain and achieve high standards stems from within the

individual. Others, including Madjar, Voltsis and Weinstock (2015) believe

perfectionists have perfectionist parents who are more focused on performance than

on learning. Similar blame is placed on teachers with high expectations who place

pressure on children to perform (Schuler, 2002). Perhaps the viewpoint of Hewitt and

Flett (1991) should, therefore, be considered. They take the stance that perfectionism

is a three-dimensional construct, comprised of socially prescribed, other-orientated

and self-orientated perfectionism. Both socially prescribed and other-orientated

perfectionism are related to external factors which impact on the gifted child and are

only mentioned for clarification; self-orientated perfectionism, an internal factor, is

discussed. Socially prescribed perfectionism refers to the child perceiving their

significant others as having excessively high expectations for them. They feel

obliged to meet these expectations to please others. Should they fail to meet these

expectations, the child may develop avoidance and passive-aggressive tendencies,


anxiety and learned helplessness. Others-orientated perfectionism implies the child

requires others to meet their excessively high standards.

Christopher and Shewmaker (2010) undertook a study of 240 gifted children,

aged seven to 14 years, in which the relationship between perfectionist tendencies

and emotional issues was explored. Through the administration of the Child and

Adolescent Perfectionism Scale which measures self-orientated and socially

prescribed perfectionism; they found that 43.5% of children experienced self-

orientated perfectionism, while 14.6% exhibited characteristics of socially prescribed

perfectionism. Therefore, they tend to have high expectations of themselves, can

perceive an ideal and have the desire to achieve just that (Blackett & Hermansson,

2005), resulting in the child being critical of their own work (Clark, 2008) due to

their high intelligence, self-analytic ability and perfectionism (Reis & Moon, 2002).

Should they fail to meet the high expectations they set for themselves in their

attempts to achieve perfection, this may result in self-judgement, self-doubt, and self-

criticism. Excessive self-criticism can result in anger and disappointment in oneself

as well as depression and anxiety. The potential shortcomings of a project may also

be envisaged by the gifted child; therefore, they may fail to engage in an activity if

they sense a perceived risk of failure (Blackett & Hermansson, 2005). Avoidance of

these potential problems, and therefore avoidance of risk-taking, may result in

underachievement.

Furthermore, perfectionists often believe achievement and self-worth are one

and the same; therefore achievement and worth become intertwined. When gifted

children experience excellence, they feel capable yet when they do not achieve high

standards; they feel ashamed (Callard-Szulgit, 2010). To compound matters,

perfectionists do not take the time to savour their success, preferring to ruminate over

relative failure. In addition, girls tend to associate their success with fortune or effort,

whilst their failure is attributed to a lack of ability (Reis, 1998). As a result, they

experience high levels of anxiety.

There are many negative connotations, held by people in general, associated

with perfectionism and the intense frustration and paralysis for those who experience

it. Perfection is an impossibility for any human to achieve and therefore by being a

perfectionist; the gifted child is setting themselves up for intense failure as well as

impacting negatively on their self-esteem, relationships, creativity and health (Delisle


& Galbraith, 2002). There is a fine line between perfectionism as a crippling quality

where gifted children spend vast quantities of time and effort to achieve their goal

and then fail to meet their own expectation and that which provides positive energy

to achieve (Blackett & Hermansson, 2005). Perfectionism can be perceived as

healthy. Without the high standards set by the gifted child, they would not commit to

the long hours of practice and single-minded focus to achieve success (Robinson,

2008). Perfectionism may be considered “the passion that leads to extraordinary

creative achievement – an ecstatic struggle to move beyond the previous limits of

one’s capabilities and a component of the drive for self-actualization” (Silverman &

Golon, 2008, p. 214). Schuler (2000) found healthy perfectionists to show a strong

need for organisation, acceptance of mistakes, and enjoyment of high expectation,

positive means of coping with perfectionism and acknowledgement of effort.

Perhaps, it is best to use the term, “pursuit of excellence” which implies “taking

risks, trying new things, growing, changing – and sometimes failing” (Delisle &

Galbraith, 2002, p. 64).

Perfectionism impacts not only the gifted child internally but also extends

externally into their peer relationships; hence their internal characteristics influence

their external being. As gifted children have high expectations not only of themselves

but also others, they may evaluate others harshly, resulting in a display of intolerance

towards the behaviour of others. This may affect interpersonal relationships as the

gifted child may be perceived as acting in a superior manner and being too critical of

the other children (Silverman, 2012).

3.2.1.5 Relationships with peers.

People need people and building strong social, interpersonal relationships

through teamwork are qualities valued within schools, the workplace, and society.

Through their research, Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2014), suggest that a decrease in

positive social relationships is related to an increase in morbidity, highlighting the

need for close human interaction. Although relationships are based on reciprocal

interactions between the individual and others, factors stemming from within the

gifted child, although difficult to definitively separate, which may influence their

interactions with others are discussed in this section. For example, being in the top

10% of the population in terms of intellectual ability narrows the scope of a like-

minded peer group (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002), hereby a child’s giftedness can be


seen as having an impact on developing relationships with others. The pioneering

work of Terman et al. (1926) reported American gifted children in Grade 3 to 8 to be

more solitary, with a third to half of the gifted children falling below the lower

quartile of the control in terms of sociability. This is often attributed to the gifted

child’s intellectual level being more advanced than chronological-age peers making

social adjustment difficult. These difficulties are exacerbated the more highly gifted

a child is (Gross 2002b), consequently putting these students at greater risk of not

developing social well-being due to social isolation as highly gifted children are

considered ‘out of sync’ with school, friends, and family. Furthermore, Gross (1989)

highlights a lack of shared experience and interests, and a more sophisticated verbal

sense of humour (Gross, 2004b). Hereby, gifted children risk being perceived as a

know-all (Lee et al., 2012).

The child’s mental age also influences friendship expectations as gifted

children expect different behaviours and qualities of friendship from their peers,

often at a much earlier age than would be expected. For example, gifted children may

seek a close, stable and trusting friendship based on unconditional acceptance, while

chronological age-peers are engaged in games with fleeting play partners (Gross,

2002b). These results are replicated in Wellisch et al.’s (2012) research, which

investigated the experiences of eleven primary school aged gifted children as

described through the mother’s narratives, living in Sydney, Australia. In this study,

misunderstandings between gifted children and their peers were reported. The first

theme revolved around the gifted child’s strong sense of justice which is also

described by Peterson and Moon (2008) as a high need for fair play, complicated

rules, and higher expectations. The second theme, an external factor, was the

outcome of these issues, whereby the gifted child was rejected by their peers, and in

some instances bullied. They suggested that gifted children need ability-grouped

educational programming to satisfy educational outcomes and facilitate SEWB;

through shared interests, values, and goals, which are of greater importance to the

gifted child in building a friendship, an approach supported by Plunkett and

Kronberg (2007).

These difficulties are displayed in various ways. Isolation from peers (Pfeiffer

& Stocking, 2000), either through rejection (an external factor) or the gifted child

withdrawing from an unsatisfying social environment, can lead to being perceived


by others as unapproachable (Robinson, 2008). Porter (2005) notes that isolation

does not imply loneliness, solitude may be preferred as previously noted by Terman;

nor does the presence of others mean that the child is not lonely, as they may not be

receiving the social intimacy they desire. Over half of all gifted children are

introverts (Silverman, 2012). Introverted children usually have good social skills and

may enjoy social engagements. However, they may become tired from constant

engagement with others (Olsen Laney, 2002), due to their high level of emotional

overexcitability. As found by Peterson (2006), children may not feel valued due to

their lack of social engagement, impulsiveness, and extroversion, which are often

admired within society. Some cultures, the western in particular, value extroversion

and often believe according to Henderson (2011, p. 1), that “introversion, sensitivity,

and childhood shyness are problems that need to be fixed”, whereby children may be

shamed and forced into behaving in ways deemed more appropriate within society.

As the child’s social identity is devalued, they may become self-conscious or further

inhibited.

Other difficulties include, gifted children displaying conformity pressures;

whereby they are aware of their need to consciously monitor their social behaviours

to conform to peer expectation (Rimm, 2002) which results in hiding talents, anxiety

and depression, daily frustrations in school and life situations, and resistance to

authority (Cross, 2012; Schuler, 2013; Smith, 2006). As reported by Gross (1989),

the difficulties gifted children experience in forming friendships with appropriate

peers is most apparent before age ten. As children grow, so too do their mobility and

ability to seek out like-minded friendships. It is crucial that this difficulty is not

perceived as the gifted child lacking in social skills but rather as the gifted child

lacking in appropriate peers with whom to utilise their skills. However, this does not

imply that post-age ten, gifted children’s social acceptance or their peer interactions

improve as many gifted adolescents may also resort to drug and alcohol dependency

and even suicide in an effort to overcome the difficulties they face in their social

adjustment (Sawyer et al., 2001). According to Clark (2008), it is vital to focus on

the social interaction of gifted children with their peers and not merely the social

adjustment to others. Gifted children who perceive being different have their unique

nature degraded and may resort to developing a self-esteem which they project to the

world as the person they perceive to be likable, trading-off their true essence. A low


self-esteem is associated with higher levels of anxiety, more frequent psychosomatic

symptoms, reduced effectiveness and additional destructive behaviour as a result of

children feeling unworthy of love and unable to achieve laudable accomplishments;

whereas a higher self-esteem results in a sense of independence, inquisitive

behaviour, assertiveness, a stronger internal locus of control and self-trust which

together result in a higher level of functioning (McKay, 2000).

3.2.2 External factors.

Wellisch et al., 2012, in previously mentioned research, noted that qualities

which differentiate a child as gifted are often misconstrued by others in their daily

interactions resulting in the gifted child being regularly misunderstood. Being

misunderstood in various contexts has a multiplier, rather than additive effect, which

not only heightens negative emotions but also results in reduced social-emotional

adjustment. Peers, family, and teachers may not understand giftedness leading to

unrealistic expectations of the gifted child as well as jealousy and resentment

towards them (Clasen & Clasen, 1995; Rimm, 2002; Silverman & VanTassel‐Baska,

1983). The mismatch between external age-appropriate expectations and the child’s

actual ability, within the conforms of expected behavioural and social norms

(Gomme, 2001), may result in the accepted norms being debased. Furthermore,

people may make the mistake of expecting the same heightened ability across all

spheres of the child’s development placing an additional burden of expectation on

the child.

The qualities of giftedness further bear the connotations imbued upon them

through society and perpetuated through the misinformed and sensationalistic media.

Condon (2008, p. 181) noted how feeling misunderstood results in emotions in the

gifted child such as “sadness, depression, dissatisfaction, abandonment, loneliness,

irritability, insecurity, confusion, and annoyance along with feelings of being

attacked, devalued and unappreciated.” This not only impacts upon the gifted child

but further robs society of potential greatness. If as a universal society, as

characterised through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, we would like to grow

to achieve the outcomes of a great nation as envisaged by the Australian government,

we need to understand our collective responsibility towards gifted children better.


This section will explore the impact external factors have on the gifted child

including the child’s understanding of their self-worth through external expectation

as well as educational conformity and learning with peers.

3.2.2.1 Understanding of worth through external expectation.

As parents and teachers anticipate a particular level of performance from the

gifted child, it becomes more difficult for the child to exceed expectation, and their

achievements are taken for granted with little appreciation for the quality of

performance or effort involved (Clark, 2008). In this way, the bar of achievement is

continually inadvertently raised, making it progressively more difficult for the gifted

child to meet external expectation. The responses of significant others influence a

gifted child’s understanding of their own worth and some children only feel valued

through external recognition when they are achieving; this impacts negatively on

their social development (Gomme, 2001). Furthermore, as was found in research

undertaken by Lee et al. (2012) of 1,526 gifted adolescents who had participated in

academically gifted programs, many gifted children have a lower social self-concept

than academic self-concept; therefore, by damaging their academic self-concept,

their social self-concept is further lowered.

Gifted children are often only rewarded for their achievements, unlike their

peers whom they perceive as being rewarded and loved for other qualities. However,

according to Speirs Neumeister (2007), this may be as a consequence of parents and

teachers having higher expectations due to their awareness of the gifted child’s

capabilities. Regardless, this may increase the gifted child’s need to perform, and

they channel more energy into achieving as they fear that without achievement, they

are not loved and valued for the person they are (Schmitz & Galbraith, 1985). It has

been further noted that unhealthy female perfectionists in particular place unrealistic

pressure on themselves across every aspect of their lives, not only in their schooling,

placing great value on their need to meet the expectations of their parents and

teachers (Reis, 2002). By focusing on external rewards to boost self-esteem, children

are merely fed lumps of sugar, neither nutritious or effective over the longer term,

depriving them of learning, mutually supportive relationships, autonomy, self-

regulation as well as diminishing their physical and mental health due to stress

(Crocker & Knight, 2005). As such, parents and teachers need to be mindful that

gifted children need to be recognised for other attributes and abilities unrelated to


being academically gifted (Clark, 2008). Furthermore, the gifted child needs

acknowledgement for the process of learning with which they engage and tasks

differentiated to meet the abilities of all children within the classroom. This sets a

problematic precedent within the classroom where the sensitive, gifted child notices

other children being rewarded for what they consider, substandard work and

behaviour, yet they may fail to gain the same recognition because the focus has not

been on differentiated learning goals. It may seem that other children are recognised

for merely existing, yet the gifted child may feel they are not valued for the person

they are beyond their high academic achievement. Perhaps the focus for all children

should be on “what they want to contribute, create, or accomplish and what they

need to learn or improve in themselves to do so” (Crocker & Knight, 2005) so that

the goal is larger than themselves.

3.2.2.2 Educational conformity and learning with peers.

As most school curricula are based on age-norms, academically gifted children

may experience a mismatch between their ability and the challenge of the classroom.

This creates an acute problem as children attend school for an average of six hours

per day, 200 days per year (Robinson, 2008). If the curriculum experienced by the

child is beneath their level of ability, the brain tends to inhibit the release of

neurochemicals needed for optimum learning (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,

2008). Gifted children require challenging and complex learning experiences and

opportunities so that they may reconceptualise existing knowledge and generate new

knowledge through the learning process. Due to the extraordinary volume of

information, the gifted child can retain with relative ease compounded with advanced

comprehension; they may experience impatience with peers in an age-appropriate

classroom, who still need to acquire this information, which may involve much

repetition by the teacher. The situation could lead to poor interpersonal relationships

with peers as well as a tug-of-war over knowledge between the teacher and the

know-it-all gifted child who may have a tendency to dominate discussions, whereby

the child may be ignored at times due to their advanced ability and knowledge

(Wellisch et al., 2012). Furthermore, the basic daily routine may bring about stress

and frustration within the gifted child due to the tedious experience of schooling

(Blackett & Hermansson, 2005). This may result in depression and hopelessness as

they consider years of the same poor educational experience (Robinson, 2008).


Coleman et al. (2015) have investigated the gifted child’s difference in ability

and motivation compared to their peers, which often does not match their same age

peers, with higher levels of dedication, persistence and motivation. They noted that

gifted children generally have intrinsic motivation and prefer to work independently,

which may also be displayed as being strong-willed as the child may resist taking

direction from others. This is in contrast to the approach used in many classrooms,

where group work and peer tutoring are encouraged. It is therefore a challenge for

gifted children to work cooperatively within mixed ability groups where they are

often called upon to take responsibility to assist less capable learners, often resulting

in the gifted child becoming impatient with others who process information less

proficiently and are satisfied with achieving at a level the gifted child considers to be

mediocre (McRae, 2002). Furthermore, taking advantage of the gifted child’s

advanced moral reasoning and sense of empathy and assigning them to the role of

peer tutor may be considered exploitation, communicating to the gifted child that

they are worthy only if they help others. In addition, this approach limits the gifted

child’s time to develop their own skills (Porter, 2005). Gifted children enjoy having

control over their accomplishments, which is not always possible on group projects

or when others perceive that their success was obtained with minimal effort.

In an Australian study conducted by Gross (1997), on the motivational

orientation of gifted children, it was found that gifted children were more task-

orientated focusing on the mastery of strategies as opposed to the desire for high

grades and peer relations. This task or goal-directed behaviour, compounded with

intensity to pursue an interest and achieve perfectionism may result in the gifted

child wanting to engage in activities for longer than is desired, accordingly being

perceived as uncooperative and stubborn (Clark, 2008). The sheer enjoyment of the

process of learning may be in contrast to many teachers’ outcomes-based learning

frameworks where recognition is given to the end result. In addition, this situation

may place pressure on the gifted child to work in a manner incoherent with their

preferred learning style and may expose them to further less-than-adequate peer

interactions. It is interesting however to note, that in later research by Gross (1998)

where gifted children were ability-grouped the need to work independently

diminished and a cohort effect developed. The gifted children bonded with their

intellectual peers as they worked towards achieving the outcomes of the task.


According to Clark (2008), a small percentage of gifted children are egocentric

and may become accustomed to being the best, academically within their classrooms,

producing work worthy of praise by all with little effort. This may result in the gifted

child becoming disrespectful of the work of others and the amount of effort other

children may require to produce the desired results. As a consequence, the gifted

child may develop poor study habits and academic skills. Many gifted children are

not familiar with having to work persistently at tasks, which are challenging to

master them nor do they regularly experience failure in their academic tasks, this

may result in what Terman (1915) dubs ‘habits of sub-maximum efficiency’. Hence

gifted children are denied the opportunity to develop the skills required to meet the

challenges of the school curriculum and develop an effective repertoire of strategies

to manage negative affect and coping skills to handle new problems in the future

(Keiley, 2002). As a result, their academic resiliency is hampered (Kitano & Lewis,

2005). This is echoed in the words of Rimm (1986, p. 34), “Each time we steal a

student’s struggle, we steal the opportunity for them to build self-confidence. They

must learn to do the hard things to feel good about themselves.” Should the

unchallenged gifted child at a later stage be challenged with high order thinking or be

grouped within a cohort of similar ability peers, they may experience a sudden loss

of power, which may result in anger and frustration as they may no longer be the

best in the group and may need to work much harder to gain recognition (Gross,

2004b).

Furthermore, people seem to laugh or show concern when things do not seem

to be going as well, this ranges from those who seem to gain delight in having found

something the child is not good at, to well-meaning individuals who show concern

for adversity by trying to find a reason for a seemingly sudden lack of ability and

those trying to make light of the situation (Peterson & Lorimer, 2012). Consequently,

the gifted child may avoid doing things they may feel they will be criticised for

attempting. Therefore, a child may require assistance in developing risk-taking

behaviour to meet these challenges as excessive self-criticism can result in anger and

disappointment in oneself, compromising socio-emotional development (Blackett &

Hermansson, 2005).


3.2.3 Summary.

In essence, risk and resilience may be determining factors in understanding a

gifted child’s SEWB. Resilience refers to the child’s ability to achieve social-

emotional competence despite adversity and included internal personality

characteristics, coping strategies as well as environmental factors (Kitano & Lewis,

2005). Adversity may stem from within the individual as well as environmental

influences, which may provide either protection from harmful circumstances or

heighten vulnerability. For the gifted child, risk factors include inadequate

educational placement; lack of access to intellectual peers with similar interests,

abilities, and motivation; internal asynchronies as well as intensity and over-

excitabilities which heighten the experiences within the child’s environment.

Protective factors which gifted children may have included a superior problem-

solving ability, intellectual curiosity, concern about moral issues, sense of humour

and self-efficacy (Neihart, 2002). However the single most decisive outcome across

all studies, to provide protection to vulnerable children has been the relationship

between a child and a caring adult who provides both acceptance and support. As

children spend the majority of their time with parents and teachers, the current study

explored the support provided by these people in the lives of gifted children.

When questioned through research, gifted children express their need for the

significant adults in their lives, namely parents and teachers, to be aware of their

stress, sensitivity and social struggles in particular (Peterson & Moon, 2008) and

acknowledge that they require support to cope with these factors (Chan, 2002). In

spite of this desire to have those close to them understand their needs, gifted children

acknowledged that they were unlikely to share their concerns with adults outside of

the research context and have a tendency to hide, deny or control emotions, in an

effort to protect a positive social image or a belief that they should resolve their

problems independently. It may also be difficult to recognise the child’s difficulties

as they may be hidden as focus falls on high academic performance, few disciplinary

transgressions and high involvement in activities (Peterson & Wood, 2017). Parents

and teachers need to show understanding of the gifted child’s needs to facilitate the

child’s ability to confide in them (Chau, 2009), displaying compassion, nonjudgment

and respectful curiosity regarding the child’s experience of being gifted (Peterson &

Wood, 2017). Therefore, taking these concerns into consideration, an effective


approach to supporting the social-emotional needs of gifted children would be to

reduce risk factors, enhance protective factors and promote personal qualities known

to promote SEWB within a positive transaction between the gifted child, their

families and the community, by parents and teachers scaffolding their development.

3.3 The Role Schools and Teachers Play in the Development of SEWB in Gifted

Children

Schools should prepare all children for life providing them with the skills and

opportunities they need to grow and flourish in the society of the future. As such, the

culture of a school should not only be supportive of the educational plans and

policies in place but also reflect their goodwill with regard to gifted students. Unlike

children in the minority at the opposite end of the intellectual quotient bell curve, it is

not legislated for schools to provide a differentiated approach in their dealings with

gifted children. Furthermore, in western society, it seems as if the focus falls onto the

cognitive aspect of the individual, with little focus on the social-emotional needs, as

highlighted by Subotnik et al. (2011) in their monograph outlining the successful

development of talent.

It has been acknowledged, across the globe, that SEWB of children is

necessary to succeed in a “multicultural, emotionally demanding, economically

changing and target-driven culture” (Leyden & Shale, 2012, p. v). As parents,

educators, policymakers, and societal agencies contemplate ways in which to

promote SEWB in all children, theoretical and empirical attention has shifted

towards school-based promotion of these needs to overcome the escalating negative

behaviour associated with a lack of skills. Schools are considered to be in a

favourable position to provide these skills due to the regular and consistent access

they have to children in their formative years (Brown, Corrigan, & Higgins-

D'Alessandro, 2012). However, due to the tug-of-war between social-emotional and

academic needs and the funding and time constraints thereof, the primary business of

proving an academic education is often the principal focus. This is despite the

significant cost to the economy of mental health disorders. More than an estimated

$8.5 billion was spent on mental health-related serviced in Australia during 2014-

2015, an increase from previous figures (AIHW, 2017). As such, the effects of

engaging children in programs which build their strengths and resiliency through

proactive preventative means, as opposed to reactive treatment models, which can


provide an educational and economic advancement over an extended period of time

needs to be acknowledged. There is a growing trend to provide SEWB programs

within schools for all children. The primary outcome being that “children feel safe,

valued, confident, and challenged, where they have the social, emotional, and

academic skills to succeed, where the environment is safe and supportive, and where

parents are fully engaged” (Brown et al., 2012, p. 334).

Therefore, the holistic development of learners has gained importance and

personal and social development is found at the core of the curriculum. However, as

highlighted by Leyden and Shale (2012), despite the prevailing culture of the school

and the top-down approach to educational policy and procedure, the individual class

teacher has the most significant influence on the child’s cognitive and social-

emotional outcomes. As students, parents, administrators and educational

departments demand greater accountability, teachers are under considerable pressure

to meet these outcomes. Teachers are therefore no longer merely responsible for the

academic development of the children in their care but need to provide children with

the skills necessary to make strong friendships and meet new challenges both now

and in the future. This is a challenge for teachers who are considered key to

educational change and school improvement. In an empirical study undertaken by

Blazar and Kraft (2017) in the United States, 310 fourth and fifth grade teachers and

their classroom practice was investigated to determine the multidimensional nature

of teaching, it was found that teachers can and do develop attitudes and behaviours in

their students that influence long-term success and not only academic achievement.

Therefore, as proposed in the research undertaken of 126 Australian primary school

teachers by Lassig (2015), further teacher training and school-wide involvement in

gifted education is required to overcome negative attitudes and beliefs towards

giftedness.

3.4 The Role Parents’ Play in the Development of SEWB of their Gifted

Children

For many parents of gifted children, having a child that is labelled gifted is

difficult to accept. In the 1920s, advanced performance in children was viewed with

great suspicion to the extent that “a child prodigy was thought to become an adult

imbecile” (Clark, 1997, p. 125). Therefore, parents would take action to discourage

their child’s precocious behaviour. Although this mindset has shifted dramatically,


the parents of gifted children may still downplay or hide their child’s abilities. In

contrast, other parents are overcome by their child’s potential and live vicariously

through them (Gomme, 2001). One of the most significant difficulties parents of

children at either extreme of the intellectual quotient bell curve are faced with is

overcoming the notion of not raising a typical child (Dettmann & Colangelo, 2004;

Levy & Plucker, 2003).

It is vital to articulate, that the parents of gifted children, very similarly to

teachers do not deliberately make a conscious effort to create difficulties for their

gifted children. Parents have been reported to be one of the most important

influences in a child’s life offering support and encouragement (Freeman, 2001).

Raising children involves “… identifying and nurturing their strongest qualities, what

they own and are best at, and helping them find niches in which they can best live

out these strengths” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 6). However, problems

arise because parents primarily lack knowledge and understanding of gifted children

as well as support to parent appropriately. Furthermore, some may also be attempting

to cope with their own unresolved issues, often which include being gifted

themselves (Webb, 1994). Although it would be anticipated that the effects of having

a gifted parent would improve the parent-child relationship, by providing

understanding and therefore improved support, in many instances the child’s

development may actually be hindered. This may be as “it is hard to help one’s child

resolve issues one has not yet resolved for oneself” (Tolan, 1992, p. 9). Although

there is limited research in the area, according to Schader (2008), when looking at

the parents of gifted children, parents tend to be more intelligent, independent, self-

sufficient, critical, assertive and persistent than parents of the general population,

which may have ramifications within the parent-child relationship. Few studies have

explored the stress and resilience factors in raising a gifted child. Renati, Bonfiglio

and Pfeiffer (2016) provide preliminary insight, noting parents in Italy to not only

face parenting challenges faced by all parents but also unique concerns related to

their gifted child’s psychosocial and intellectual development which are unique

sources of parenting stress, which may be exacerbated by weak support networks for

parents from the school, neighbourhood and their own peers. Subsequently,

alternative sources of support should be sought to enhance the parent-child

relationship as, according to Levy and Plucker (2003), healthy parent-child


interactions lead to a more optimal socio-emotional adjustment. Parents provide

valuable environmental conditions and interactions, which facilitate the growth and

development of all children, regardless of ability; research indicates that the

influence of home is far greater than that of schools (Tan & Neihart, 2010). Parents

are a child’s first teacher and continue to influence a child throughout his or her life.

A child can overcome an inadequate teacher for one year, perhaps even a few

throughout their school career, but parents provide a lifetime of opportunity or

vulnerability (Schauer, 1976).

3.5 The Parent-Teacher Relationship

Parents are advantaged in that they witness a period of rapid and highly visible

development in the early years covering a broad range of both cognitive and affective

behaviours within a small family setting. In comparison, primary school teachers

who, despite spending on average 25 hours per week with a child, are only shown a

glimpse of a child. This snapshot is further blurred by the child’s need to moderate

their behaviour to conform within the classroom of which they are one of the many

members (Gross, Macleod, Drummond & Merrick, 2003). Thus, despite their lack of

training in the field of gifted education, the intimate knowledge a parent has of their

child should be acknowledged. Furthermore, as parents have travelled a long journey

with their child, and continue to do so long after the year spent in a particular

teacher’s classroom, they can be valuable pillars of support for teachers and a link

between year levels. For this partnership to be productive, parents and teachers need

to listen to each other and focus on outcomes in the best interests of the child

(Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013).

Parents and teachers need to establish channels to collect and share information

between home and school (Schader, 2008). There is little research noting the

partnership relationship between parents and teachers of gifted children. In a

Canadian study by Penney and Wilgosh (2000), the parent-teacher relationship was

explored from the perspective of each. These parents of gifted children highlighted

five themes, including instructional programming, teacher competencies, curriculum

needs, parental involvement and problematic behaviour. Instructional programming

refers to parents experiencing greater satisfaction with challenge programs however

they perceived a lack of support and funding for these initiatives. Parents seem to

experience a range of perceptions, both positive and negative, with regard to the


competency displayed by their child’s teacher. The curriculum must highlight the

necessity for gifted children to have a differentiated program which meets their

particular learning needs. However, parents expanded this need for diverse learning

through their involvement both within and outside of school to provide additional

opportunities for their children. Artificial boundaries imposed by schools which

hinder a parent’s engagement within the school setting were also noted. Lastly,

parents acknowledged the emotional responses of their child and the sometimes

negative impact teachers had through teacher-child interactions.

Penney and Wilgosh (2000) found that teachers focused on the identification of

giftedness and the responses of parents to this news. They also explored funding

issues, which although beyond the control of the individual teacher, impact on the

manner in which they are able to adjust the classroom program to meet the

differentiated needs of all learners. Although teachers perceive themselves as making

an effort to develop positive parent-teacher relationships, they reported instances

where parents preferred to liaise directly with the administration and made unrealistic

demands, resulting in communication issues. Furthermore, partnerships in education

and the impact of parent-teacher relationships on children as well as the effects on

children to be successful were concerns raised by teachers.

Furthermore, the Penney and Wilgosh (2000) study found that parents and

teachers experience shared issues. These concerns included a lack of funding;

making it more difficult for teachers to provide differentiated learning experiences to

meet the diverse needs of the children in their care. As a consequence, gifted children

were often expected to work independently so that teachers could focus on children

with learning difficulties. There was also concern that gifted children were required

to complete a curriculum of skills they have already mastered in keeping with

mandated government requirements. Teachers appealed that parents should lobby

government, rather than individual teachers who felt their hands were tied, to make

changes. Although parents sought more individualised programs, teachers were

concerned about the time it takes to complete the necessary documentation as well as

the further burden of then also being accountable to parents, in addition to

administration. Both parents and teachers valued good communication channels;

however, it appeared that artificial boundaries prevented many parents from being

involved. Teachers believe this may be a form of protection to prevent parents from


criticising them further. Of particular relevance to this program of research is the

stance parents and teachers take with regard to the emotional responses of the gifted

child. Parents perceived these responses of withdrawal, aggression, and other

behavioural difficulties, as a consequence of the misalignment between the gifted

child and the educational setting and curriculum. In contrast, teachers attributed these

behaviours to internal pressure from the child or external pressure from the parents to

achieve academically. Lastly, both parents and teachers acknowledged the child as

being caught in the middle. Parents felt that by making demands for the school to

meet their child’s needs, there would be repercussions and teachers felt that

conflicting parent-teacher relationships result in a weak relationship between the

child and the school as a whole.

It is essential for parents and teachers to be aware of the issues faced by each

other as this would facilitate a better understanding of the challenges faced by each

and an improved working relationship. As noted by Campbell and Verna (2007) in

their research of gifted children, children prosper when their academic home climate

matches the academic culture of the school. Furthermore, parents and teachers of

gifted children require a working relationship of empathy and respect, and this is

only possible through an understanding of the unique challenges each faces as a

consequence of having a gifted child in his or her midst.

Referring to Bronfenbrenner’s model (1992), it should be noted that parents

and teachers hold the balance of power in interactions with children and therefore the

activities, and interpersonal relations experienced by the child at home or school are

often guided by these significant adults. Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner indicated that

as the developmental potential of the child increased parent-teacher relationships

were positive. Considering the factors addressed within the literature review within

the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner, the current study explores, from an

Australian perspective, the parent-teacher relationships of gifted primary school

children and the bearing these have on their ability to provide the child with social

support.

3.6 Summary and Implications

The social-emotional growth of gifted children is vital not only for the

development of their intellectual ability but also of the ways in which that ability is


used (Clark, 2008). This study aims to explore the SEWB of primary school children

as the child is not only stepping from the confines of his or her family into the

educational environment but is also forming friendships and peer relationships. At

this stage, according to Gardner (2011), the child becomes increasingly socially and

norm-governed, in an effort to be a representative member of their community.

Children begin to make sense of whom they are as a person, based on where they and

others perceive them to fit within the group (Gross, 2004b).

When considering the Triadic Model of Identity Formation (Côté & Levine,

2016), there are fundamental social and psychological processes at three levels:

social identity, personal identity and ego identity; these enable people to both form

and maintain an identity. At the social level, people are influenced by cultural factors

and social roles, pressured to fit into the available objective identities over which

there is little control, for example, gender or being gifted. At the personal level

people find a fit between their social identity and their idiosyncrasies, as such one is

an individual within the confines of society, for example engaging in a particular

activity. At the ego level, people’s particular mental processes can influence their

sense of continuity, strongly influenced by one’s mental health as well as the

validations received from others. In terms of the current study, a gifted child

experiences possibilities and limitations for identity formation based on social

customs, parents and teachers will only validate the behaviour of the gifted child

consistent with their own norms. These behaviours are then internalised or modified

to seek validation; herby identity is formed, maintained and changed through a

continual process. Difficulties occur when there is a mismatch between the child’s

self-definition and the identity prescribed by others and society, highlighting the

need for greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of gifted children not

only from parents and teachers but also within the broader community.

Much research to date focuses on the SEWB of adolescents as this is deemed a

critical period. Although adolescents experience rapid personal, social, spiritual and

emotional development, this should not distract away from the needs of children

prior to entering the teen years (Waters, Lester & Cross, 2012). In the twenty-first

century world that thrusts growth and development on children at younger ages,

children are being faced with some of these challenges at an earlier age. Furthermore,

the child could be better equipped to face the challenges of adolescence entering the


period with positive SEWB. This is especially pertinent when considering that young

people in Australia who encounter mental health problems are more likely to be

bullied (Waters et al., 2012), as well as experience suicide ideation, and participate in

risky behaviours such as substance abuse (Sawyer et al., 2001).

This is further supported by Bronfenbrenner’s notion that the characteristics a

person displayed at a given time are “a joint function of the characteristics of the

person and of the environment over the course of that person’s life up to that time”

(Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p. 190) and therefore the “developmental outcomes of today

shape the developmental outcomes of tomorrow” (Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p. 191).

Furthermore, as noted by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) poor

social-emotional development results in poor academic performance, continued

physical aggression, mental health issues, and antisocial behaviour. Therefore,

preventative measures need to be put in place to reduce the need for intervention at a

later stage. Hence it can be seen that gifted children who are trapped in homes and

classrooms that do not recognise, value or reward their talents, develop problems.

However, an atmosphere of caring, strength-orientated accommodations and student-

centred learning leads to positive developments (Mann, 2006).

Lastly, a child’s SEWB are equated with greater confidence and self-worth,

better relationships, well-developed problem-solving skills, and the persistence to

overcome challenges and succeed both academically at school and in life (Greene,

2004). A favourable childhood results in better outcomes for the individual, family,

community, and nation as the child impacts on the systems within their proximity.

This approach is beneficial to not only the child but future generations as the child is

better equipped to provide a supportive environment for their own children to meet

their social-emotional needs better. Hereby not only impacting on future family

systems but also added societal value by preventing outcomes such as “crime,

intolerance, mental health problems disengagement and social immobility” (Jarvela,

2011, p. 88).

As a child's SEWB is integral to their health, development, and well-being;

children with high levels of SEWB are more likely to successfully navigate the

physical, intellectual and social challenges of childhood (Fowler, 1990). As has been

shown through the literature review, spanning multiple decades of research, the

social-emotional needs of gifted children may often deviate from the norm.


Furthermore, it has been highlighted that the parents and teachers of gifted children

play a pivotal role in supporting these divergent needs. To date much research has

focused on the academic needs of gifted children; moreover, that research has

predominantly been conducted within an international context as well as focusing

mainly on adolescents. Therefore there exists a void in the literature focusing on the

SEWB of gifted primary school children. This study attempts to provide insight to

diminish the gap.


Chapter 4: Research Design 69

Chapter 4: Research Design

Chapter 4 explores the design and methodology of this study. An explanatory

sequential mixed methods approach was used to maximise the benefits and overcome

the obstacles imposed by both quantitative and qualitative research when used

independently (Chessor & Whitton, 2007; Creswell, 2012). Considerations for both

phases of the mixed methods study are explored including the selection of

participants, data sources, as well as the management and analysis of data.

Furthermore, ethical considerations and perceived limitations are taken into account.

The following research questions were addressed in the two phases of this

study to gain an understanding of the perception of a gifted child’s social-emotional

strengths as well as the support provided by parents and teachers to develop the

gifted child’s SEWB.

Research question 1: What is the gifted child’s perception of their own social-

emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their parents’ and teacher’s

perceptions?



support?

Research question 3: Is there a correlation between the level of parent and teacher

social support gifted children perceive and the child’s SEWB?

Research question 4: What are the internal and external factors which influence

SEWB, as articulated by primary school-aged Australian children, their

parents and teachers?

Research question 5: How do parents and teachers of gifted children perceive their

role to support the SEWB of the gifted child both individually and through

their partnership?

Research questions one, two and three were addressed in phase one of this

study. This involved an online, quantitative survey comprised of demographic

questions and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) (SDQ),

which were completed individually by teachers and parents. The gifted child also

70 Chapter 4: Research Design

completed an online survey which included the SDQ as well as the Child and

Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki et al., 2000) (CASSS).

Research questions four and five were addressed in phase two, whereby

qualitative one-on-one interviews were held with gifted children, their parents, and

teacher, from which explanatory case studies were developed.

Data collected were envisaged to provide an understanding of the gifted child’s

SEWB from the perspectives of the gifted child, their parents, and their teacher.

Furthermore, insight into the gifted child’s experience of support from parents and

teachers was gained, with that determining behaviours that promote the development

of SEWB. In addition, information was gathered regarding the parent-teacher

relationship in supporting the child’s SEWB. With this new understanding, insights

could be gained that allow for school environments and home circumstances that

more accurately support the gifted child’s social-emotional development and well-

being, and strengthen the partnership between educators and parents of gifted

children.

4.1 Research Design

A research design may be referred to as “the plan of action that links the

philosophical assumptions to specific methods” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p.

4). Therefore, in relation to this study, the research design shows how

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, is linked to mixed methods research through

the synergistic relationship between interrelated components. In keeping with this

systems perspective, the methodology, conceptual framework and research design of

this study are figuratively described as a jig-saw puzzle, Figure 4.1. Just as each

piece of a puzzle interlocks with many others to form a holistic picture, greater than

the sum of its parts, so too do the various components of the methodology and

research design merge to form research worthy of contribution not only in answering

the research questions posed but also in adding to the knowledge and understanding

base in which it is found. Furthermore, each puzzle piece has both an inverted and

protruding edge whereby they are both influenced by and have an influence on the

other pieces, respectively. Despite the interrelatedness of each of the pieces, which

symbolise synergy, each component is discussed separately for simplicity.


Figure 4.1. An integrated research design

In quantitative research closed-ended information is sought through various

instruments; the data gathered are statistically analysed to answer research questions.

By comparison, qualitative research explores open-ended questions which are

answered through observations, images and in the participant's own words. These

forms of data are later analysed to form themes or categories of information which

reflect the research question posed (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Using

quantitative and qualitative research impacts on the manner in which data are

collected, the researcher’s perspective and the final outcome of discovery versus

proof (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994), this study makes use of a mixed methods

approach. According to Creswell (2014) mixed methods research, also termed

multimethod, synthesis, integrating and mixed methodology, draws on the respective

strengths of measurement and analysis of variables and the value-laden processes

which underlie them to create a complete understanding of the research problem.

This approach strengthens the quality of the data collected and analysed as well as

research outcomes; with the qualitative component explaining the results of the


quantitative component of this study and seeking additional avenues for future

research and development. Consequently, the process of utilising a mixed

methodology facilitates the understanding of data at a more detailed level (Creswell,

2014).

4.1.1 The mixed methods approach.

In a mixed methods research design, three issues are brought to the fore:

implementation, integration, and priority. Implementation refers to the order in

which either quantitative or qualitative methods are used in the study - be it

concurrently, in succession or in parallel. Integration refers to the phase of the

research process in which quantitative and qualitative data are mixed or connected.

Priority determines which method, either quantitative or qualitative, is given higher

priority (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006).

An explanatory sequential mixed method was used in the implementation of

this study, whereby quantitative data were initially collected, after which qualitative

data were sought to provide more detail to further explain the results (Creswell,

2012). The results gathered through these two methods of data collection and

analysis were thereafter compared and contrasted with previous research explored

through the literature review and new insights noted.

Through this two-phase method of data collection, a general picture of the

research problem, namely the social-emotional strengths and weaknesses of the

gifted child as well as their perception of parent and teacher social support, was

painted through analysis of the quantitative data collected, which was further refined

through the qualitative study providing depth to the initial data collected via the

integration of these two methods through analysis and discussion of the research

findings. As such, priority was not given to either form of data collection, and each

phase was only integrated after both quantitative and qualitative data had been

collected and analysed. Through this approach, an insight which may not have been

gleaned from the literature review alone was obtained, whereby the case studies

provided an in-depth explanation of the quantitative data collected. An example

would be the discrepancy between the children’s self-reports of conduct difficulties

compared to perceptions of teachers in the SDQ undertaken in the quantitative first


phase of this study which was explained during the second qualitative phase through

discussions with information-rich participants.

4.2 Methods

This section describes the explanatory sequential mixed methods design used

in this study, whereby qualitative data were collected in phase one followed by

qualitative data in phase two. The data collected in phase two were from a subsample

of participants who volunteered to engage in interviews in phase two.

4.2.1 Phase one.

A brief outline has been provided to demonstrate the methodology employed to

address research questions one, two and three. In this section, the participants, data

sources, and methods of analysis are discussed.

4.2.1.1 Participants.

The quality of research is not only dependent upon the methodology and

instruments used but also on the sampling procedure followed (Cohen, Manion &

Morrison, 2011). This study makes use of three different groups of participants:

gifted primary school children in both public and private schools, their class teachers,

and their parents; across all states and territories within Australia. As it would be

difficult to obtain information from each and every related parent, teacher, and gifted

child in primary schools across Australia due to expense, time and accessibility

issues; a sample of the population was selected. Due to the precise focus of this study

and to answer the research questions posed, criterion sampling, a form of purposive

sampling, was required to ensure appropriate data were collected (Palinkas et al.,

2015). Criterion sampling implies that participants are selected due to their

particular characteristics to provide the information needed (McMillan, 2012). The

criteria to participate in phase one of this study included: being a member of the

parent-teacher-gifted child grouping within Australian primary schools. Determining

participants for this study was dependent upon firstly identifying a gifted child,

which in this study, based on Gagné’s definition, could be through psycho-

educational assessment, or performance in the top 10% of their age peers, or

placement in extension activities; however, underachieving children were also

included.


Parents were recruited through the Australian Association for the Education of

the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT), and their state and territory affiliates, primary

schools, parenting magazines and social media pages as well as through

professionals and organisations who provide services to parents of gifted children

and/or teachers. This broad approach aimed at capturing a large target population,

including gifted children who are well-adjusted as well as those in need of support.

All organisations were emailed an approach email (Appendix A). Through a flyer

(Appendix B) distributed by these organisations, parents of gifted children were

targeted to participate in the study. Furthermore, it was anticipated that a snowball

effect might occur as parents shared this study with other parents of gifted primary

school children. This type of sampling may be referred to as network sampling which

implies participants recommend others whom they know meet the desired

characteristics (McMillan, 2012).

Parents who were willing to participate in this study completed the online

survey (Appendix C), discussed this study with their gifted child and provided them

with the link to the child’s survey (Appendix D). In addition, parents approached

their child’s teacher and provided them with the link to the teacher’s survey

(Appendix E). Although dependent upon parent referral to the program, teachers

were at liberty to determine their own informed consent to participate in the study, as

through the use of the online survey parents were unaware whether or not their

child’s teacher participated in the study. In this way, teachers personally provided

informed consent to voluntarily participate based on their right to freedom and self-

determination without repercussion or negative impact on the parent-teacher

relationship (Cohen et al., 2011). This recruitment approach did pose difficulties as it

could not be determined with accuracy whether or not the sample is representative of

the population. However, through the use of a mixed methodology, results were later

clarified through the case studies.

4.2.1.2 Data sources.

Parents were the target point of contact, and they were requested to engage

their child and their child’s teacher in the survey. Parents generated a unique code

comprised of four letters and four numbers. It was suggested to use the first two

letters of a child’s name and surname and their day and month of birth. These codes

were then passed on to the teacher and gifted child so as to link related participants.


As such, related parents, teachers and gifted children were linked without the need

for further identification, therefore participants’ privacy was protected. Parents with

more than one primary school aged gifted child were required to submit a survey for

each child individually. Furthermore, each child and their teacher were asked to

complete a survey.

Parent and teacher online surveys were comprised of demographic questions

and the SDQ. Gifted children completed the SDQ and the CASSS. A survey provides

a quantitative description of behaviours, attitudes, characteristics or opinions of a

population through analysis of a sample of that population (Creswell, 2012).

Furthermore, it circumvents obstacles through the economy of the design as well as

the rapid turnaround in the collection of a large quantity of data (Creswell, 2014).

This study used an electronic survey, which respected the copyrights of the

questionnaires and facilitated the distribution of the survey to maximise the potential

for participation. Furthermore, the self-reporting survey enabled participants to

access the survey at their convenience and in their preferred surroundings, remaining

scattered across Australia (Cohen et al., 2011).

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (1997): There are three participant

versions of the SDQ, namely parent, teacher, and child; allowing for the perspective

of each participant group to be obtained. Parent and teacher response forms are

identical, and these participant groups completed the version that assesses their

responses based on four to 10-year-old children. A self-report questionnaire is also

available for children, aged between 11 and 16. In research conducted by Muris,

Meesters, Eijkelenboom, and Vincken (2004), it was found that the scale provided

useful information about children as young as eight years old. Considering the

advanced cognitive development of gifted children, the SDQ was deemed suitable

for use with the primary school-aged children in this study. As the primary school

years span both these age groups, for simplicity, the four to 10-year-old version was

used. This would not seem to impact upon the outcomes as there is merely a change

in wording on seven items, for example, the 4-10 SDQ version reads, “Shares readily

with other children, for example, toys treats and pencils”, while the 11-17 SDQ

version queries, “Shares readily with other youth, for example, books, games, food”.

This level of difference was considered negligible when considering the aims of this

study.


The SDQ covers both positive and negative psychological attributes which

give an indication of the individual’s functioning, over the last six months, in terms

of five subscales which include emotional symptoms, conduct problems,

hyperactivity/ inattention, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviour. The

breakdown of items into the five scales is seen in Table 4.1. Each subscale consists

of five items, and of these 25 items, 10 measure strengths, 14 measure difficulties,

and one is considered neutral – “gets along better with adults than with other

children”. While this item is considered neutral, this question may be of particular

relevance to gifted children, due to references made in the literature review that

gifted children may get along better with older children or adults. For each question,

participants are required to respond according to a 3-point scale of “not true”,

“somewhat true”, or “certainly true”.

The SDQ is considered a psychometrically sound measure of overall child

mental health problems and has been used in studies globally (Goodman, Lamping,

& Ploubidis, 2010), being translated into multiple languages and normed for

Australia, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Italy, German, Japan, Sweden and the United

States of America. The SDQ was determined as an appropriate measure of SEWB in

this study as it is supported as the most appropriate tool by the Children’s Headline

Indicators, a set of measures intended to direct and evaluate policy development on

fundamental issues related to children’s health, development and well-being; which

were endorsed by the health, community and disability ministers in 2006 (Australian

Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012).

Hawes and Dadds (2004) studied the psychometric properties of the SDQ

using a large community sample (n=1,359) of Australian children aged four to nine

years old. Moderate to strong internal consistency was shown across all subscales

and support was found for the five-factor structure of the measure. Adequate validity

was evident in the relationship between the subscales, while correlations between the

subscales, teacher ratings, and diagnostic interviews demonstrated good external

validity (p<0.01). Total scores on the SDQ were associated with concurrent treatment

status and scores over a 12-month period were stable. Although 12 months is a long

time to ordinarily utilise for test-retest reliability due to maturation, environmental

changes and the like, high values were obtained for the sample: hyperactivity,


r=0.77, conduct problems, r=0.65; emotional symptoms, r=0.71; peer problems,

r=0.61, prosocial, r=0.64, total difficulties, r=0.77. It is a copyrighted document; as


Table 4.1 Subscales of the SDQ

Subscale and item

number

As noted in SDQ-P/T As noted in SDQ-C

Emotional Problems Subscale

3 Often complains of headaches I get a lot of headaches

8 Many worries I worry a lot

13 Often unhappy, downhearted I am often unhappy

16 Nervous or clingy in new situations I am nervous in new situations

24 Many fears, easily scared I have many fears

Conduct Problems Subscale

5 Often has temper tantrums or hot

tempers

I get very angry

7* Generally obedient I usually do as I am told

12 Often fights with other children I fight a lot

18 Often lies or cheats I am often accused of lying and cheating

22 Steals from home, school or elsewhere I take things that are not mine

Hyperactivity Subscale

2 Restless, overactive I am restless

10 Constantly fidgeting or squirming I am constantly fidgeting

15 Easily distracted, concentration wonders I am easily distracted

21* Thinks things out before acting I think before I do things

25* Sees tasks through to the end I finish the work I am doing

Peer Problems Subscale

6 Rather solitary, tends to play alone I am usually on my own

11* Has at least one good friend I have one good friend or more

14* Generally liked by other people Other people my age generally like me

19 Picked on or bullied by other children Other children or young people pick on me

23 Gets on better with adults than other

children

I get on better with adults than with people my

own age

Prosocial Subscale

1 Considerate of other people’s feelings I try to be nice to other people

4 Shares readily with other children I usually share with others

9 Helpful if someone is hurt I am helpful if someone is hurt

17 Kind to younger children I am kind to younger children

20 Often volunteers to help others I often volunteer to help others

*Negatively scored items


such, permission was gained via email to make use of an online version (see

Appendix F).

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (2000): The CASSS is a screening

and self-report measure used to assess the perceived social support of children in

Grades 3 to 12 from multiple sources. Children indicate, in separate sections, the

extent to which they feel each item reflects the support they receive from parents and

teachers. Although no time frame is indicated within the CASSS, as it was

completed after the children completed the SDQ in which they considered the past

six months it might be anticipated that a similar time frame would have been

considered. For each question, children rate both how often they receive the support

described and how important the support is to them. How often is rated on a 6-point

scale from 1 = never to 6 = always, the importance they give to each item is rated on

a 3-point scale from 1 = not important to 3 = very important. Hereby comparisons

can be made to determine whether or not there are discrepancies between how often

a particular type of support was received compared to the importance of that support

to the individual. A very different picture is created between a child who does not

frequently receive a particular type of support yet places importance on the support

versus a child who does not place importance on that type of support.

There are 12 items pertaining to each of the five subscales or sources of

support. However, this study only explores the support from parents and teachers.

Within the CASSS manual (Malecki, Demaray & Elliot, 2014) it is stated that for the

parent and teacher subscales, factor loading ranges from 0.747 and 1.254 (p<.001 for

all items), indicating all items are important to the model. The chi-square test of

model fit was found to be significant, and all other models fit statistics, including

Comparative Fit Index, Tucker-Lewis Index, Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation and Standardized Root Mean Residual, fell in the adequate to good

range.

Analysis undertaken by Malecki and Demaray (2002) shows that scores can

be used reliably as indicators of perceived social support in children. Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient scores were calculated for the Total CASSS frequency score by

grade, indicating an excellent level of reliability. When considering the importance

scores, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scores for each of the subscales also


demonstrated good to excellent reliability, ranging from .79 to .98 across Grades 3 to

6 (Malecki et al., 2014). Test-retest reliability tests were undertaken with the CASSS,

approximately eight to 12 weeks apart within the same academic year. A medium

correlation of .45 and .48 was achieved for the parent and teacher subscales

respectively.

The validity of the CASSS has been established via Pearson Correlations with

several assessments; of particular relevance to this study is that of the SDQ self-

report measure, which is shown in Table 4.2 (Malecki et al., 2014). Both Grades 3-5

and 6-8 have been included as this study spans both groupings.

Table 4.2 CASSS Score Correlations with the SDQ by Grade Level

CASSS Overall Scores

SDQ index scores Grades Parent subscale Teacher subscale

Emotional symptoms index

3-5 -.16 -.14

6-8 -.15** -.01

Conduct problems index

3-5 .08 -.08

6-8 -.27** -.21**

Hyperactivity. Inattention index

3-5 .01 -.01

6-8 -.01 .01

Peer problems index

3-5 .01 .01

6-8 .19 .75**

Prosocial behaviour index

3-5 -.04 -.08

6-8 .27** .32**

Total emotional/ behavioural problems index

3-5 -.02 -.10

6-8 -.16* -.08*

Note. * p<.05, **p<.001


4.2.1.3 Data analysis.

SDQ: The SDQ was scored via an online scoring system. Through this online

tool, data from teachers, parents, and the gifted child were entered and an integrated

score report generated, through which members of the same related grouping were

compared. Reports provide scores for six categories, namely, overall stress,

emotional distress, behavioural difficulties, hyperactivity and concentration

difficulties, difficulties getting along with other children, and kind and helpful

behaviour. Quantitative data obtained from the SDQ were compiled in Microsoft

Excel spreadsheets before being statistically analysed using IBM Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23 to determine the gifted child’s perception

of their SEWB compared to the perceptions held by their parents and teachers. Using

descriptive statistics, means, variances, and distribution of data were investigated. As

skewness and kurtosis were evident, non-parametric tests were used.

CASSS: The CASSS was scored by manually entering data from the surveys

into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and allocating each frequency rating a score, for

example never = 1 and always = 6, while not important = 1 and very important = 3.

By firstly summing the scores for items one to three, it was determined how often a

child received emotional support, whilst items four to six indicated informational

support, items seven to nine specified appraisal support and items 10 to 12

enumerated instrumental support. Secondly, the importance of each type of support

for each child was also summed in a similar fashion. By looking at these results in

Excel, each child’s importance rating was compared to their frequency rating for

each type of support; participants who noted a subscale to be important, yet not well

supported were noted. Furthermore, teacher and parent support frequencies for each

child were compared to determine whether there were cases in which a child received

considerably better or worse support from either parent or teacher, these cases were

also noted (Malecki et al., 2014). The CASSS results were exported from the Excel

spreadsheets into SPSS to contrast the types of support gifted children received from

parents and teachers. Using descriptive statistics, means, variances, and distribution

of data were investigated. As skewness and kurtosis were acceptable, parametric tests

were used.

The importance ratings were compared to determine whether or not there were

discrepancies between how often a particular type of support was received compared


to the importance of that support to the individual. A very different picture is created

between a child who does not frequently receive a particular type of support yet

places importance on the support versus a child who does not place importance on

that type of support.

4.2.2 Phase two.

To supplement the quantitative data gathered and develop an integrated, more

comprehensive understanding of the data, qualitative techniques were used. In this

second phase, data collection, through the use of one-on-one interviews with

participants, focused on seeking an explanation for the results obtained via the

surveys as well as new insights to gain an in-depth understanding of the SEWB of

gifted children and their perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ social support. A

multiple-case studies design was used to collect and analyse the data to address

research questions four and five.

4.2.2.1 A case study.

A case study may be defined as an “in-depth exploration of a bounded system

based on extensive data collection” (Creswell, 2012, p. 465) by providing examples

of real people in real situations, within a particular space and time (Hancock &

Algozzine, 2016) allowing the researcher to focus on a case whilst maintaining a

holistic and real-world perspective (Yin, 2014). This approach is in keeping with

Bronfenbrenner’s emphasis on process-person-contact-time. In the current study, the

bounded system was the interaction among teachers, parents and academically gifted

children within Australian primary schools, focusing specifically on the SEWB of

gifted children and their perceptions of the social support provided by parents and

teachers. Parents, teachers and gifted children completed the surveys between mid-

June and mid-September 2016. This timing was deemed relevant to ensure parents,

teachers, and gifted children had an opportunity over the five to eight-month period

since the start of the school year mid-January to form adequate relationships. This

further allowed the researcher to access participants for interviews between October

and December 2016 whilst the related groupings were still connected within the

school year. In this way, both the subjective and objective experiences of teachers,

parents and gifted children are better understood as the qualitative data gathered are

explored within particular contexts and unique instances which may have gone


unnoticed through quantitative research alone. As such, the case study endeavours to

“explain, describe, illustrate and enlighten” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 289).

Consequently, the hallmark of case studies resides in the rich and vivid thick

descriptions of both objective and subjective perceptions which are portrayed in the

writing up of the report. Rich, thick descriptions are a detailed account in which

patterns of cultural and social relationships are contextualised (Holloway, 1997),

which is an advantage of making use of case studies to expose unique data which

may be hidden within the survey, thereby embracing unanticipated events and

uncontrolled variables not predetermined through the literature review. In contrast,

they may not be readily generalisable, although due to the mixed methods approach

used, the intent is only to illustrate the results of the surveys, expand on research

already conducted and seek new insights.

Furthermore, case studies are defined by geographical location, the

characteristics of individuals or groups as well as the participant’s function or role

(Cohen et al., 2011). Hence, the multiple case studies used in this study will reflect

the SEWB of gifted Australian primary school-aged children according to the

perspectives of the parent, teacher, and gifted child. Through a narrow descriptive

focus, of multiple cases, analytic generalisation based on previous research, explored

in the literature review, is used as a template to compare the empirical results of the

case study (Yin, 2009). Consequently, a real-life context is reflected, with the aim of

establishing generalisations about the broader population to which the participants

belong. To maintain research integrity it was, therefore, vital to avoid emphasising

the more sensational aspects leading to misrepresentation and represent the whole

case as opposed to selective reporting and provide a rigorous in-depth analysis.

This study makes use of an explanatory case study used to explain causal links

between phenomena to differentiate from the broad concept of case studies (Yin,

2014). In this way, an accurate description of the facts of a case is provided and

alternative explanations are considered before drawing conclusions based on credible

explanations linked to facts (Harder, 2010). At first, the current study followed an

outline focusing on the priorities to be explored as determined within the literature

review and the quantitative phase of data collection, however, the researcher

remained open to new discoveries during the process; whereby a platform for the

acquisition of richer, in-depth knowledge was provided. In addition, verbatim


snippets from interviews were used in discussing the findings to indicate both the

connection between the actual evidence and the researcher’s interpretation.

4.2.2.2 Participants.

Parents and teachers, living within the Perth metropolitan region, were

requested within the survey to self-nominate for participation in the second study.

Therefore participants in the second phase may be considered a sub-sample of the

participants of phase one. This helped capture a cross-sectional sample of gifted

students, fulfilling the objective of selecting information-rich participants from

which to “discover, understand and gain insight ... from which the most can be

learned” (Eddles-Hirsch et al., 2010, p. 61). This form of sampling was viewed as

most convenient based on time available and travelling costs. Although initially it

was intended to include ten related parent-teacher-gifted child groups through

purposive sampling via the survey, there were a limited number of people who

indicated a willingness to participate in phase two. As such only seven gifted

children, eight parents, and two teachers were involved in the case studies. Of these,

there were no complete related groups. Hence the current study moved away from

focusing on related groups towards individual participants as those who did

participate, provided information-rich insight and understanding around the research

questions being addressed from the perspectives of parents, teachers and gifted

children. However, at risk of being presumptuous, a lack of participation may also

indicate reality whereby people are too busy, overworked and overwhelmed, or lack

interest to make the time needed to participate. The difficulty of obtaining teachers

in particular who were willing to participate made researching their perspectives

more difficult, and without an accurate reflection of their perceptions it is difficult to

determine their position and how best to offer recommendations for best practice

both in terms of supporting the gifted child and in building a good working

relationship with parents.

Prior to engaging in interviews, participants each signed informed consent

forms; parents (Appendix G), gifted children (Appendix H), and teachers (Appendix

I), whereby it was clarified that participant identity would not be disclosed within the

writing of the research findings. As case studies typically provide a detailed

description of the setting or individuals followed by an analysis of the themes, it was

imperative that participants were not identified through the descriptions. The


confidentiality of participants’ identity was of paramount importance and participants

were reminded that their names would be withheld from all documentation and all

records and transcriptions. Names would, however, be recorded on a single sheet, for

the researcher, within which each participant is assigned a code for the duration of

this study such as T1 or P1 or C1, denoting a teacher, parent or gifted child

respectively, and the numeral isolating a particular related grouping of parent,

teacher, and gifted child. Participants were informed that all data were stored on the

QUT network, to ensure both security and that it was automatically backed up. All

paper data were stored under lock and key by the researcher, within their home

office.

4.2.2.3 Data sources.

Information was obtained from gifted children, parents, and teachers through

one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Interviews are considered an efficient way in

which to elicit and document, verbatim, the “perspectives, feelings, opinions, values,

attitudes, and beliefs” (Saldana, 2011, p. 32) of participants. Furthermore, they are

considered to be time-saving in collecting data as observation is difficult

compounded with the time it would take to make observations of multiple

interactions among gifted children and their parents and teachers. Unlike the survey,

semi-structured interviews allow participants to respond freely in a manner

preferable to them, while structuring the information sought, facilitating in-depth

discussion and further probing to more fully understand the perceptions. Therefore,

although data are traditionally interpreted after analysis, for an interview to be

successful, it is important that the researcher interprets statements made by the

participant during the interview process, through summaries and paraphrasing, to

ensure an accurate understanding is obtained, hence avoiding misinterpretation.

These face-to-face interviews, lasting approximately one hour each, were audio-

recorded and transcribed.

Specific procedures were applied to overcome potential limitations in this

method. For example, participants were fully aware of the purpose of this study so

that they provided accurate information rather than what they perceived to be the

most suitable response. Furthermore, it was noted that articulation abilities varied

and that some participants required encouragement to elaborate on their responses.

Therefore, when interviewing participants, the personal skills of the researcher were


of importance. Through the researcher’s display of rapport and empathy with

participants, through her sensitivity and professionalism, a trusting relationship

evolved through which participants were able to sincerely reflect their reality and

provide information-rich in-depth data. As suggested by Creswell (2014), the

researcher took cognisance of the potential power imbalance which may exist in an

interview situation and was mindful of how questioning could leave the participant

vulnerable and unsure of how their responses were interpreted and used. As such, the

creation of questions was a process which required careful consideration so that not

only the potential feelings of participants were considered but also so that the study’s

overarching research questions were answered.

Open-ended questions were therefore considered most appropriate for the

researcher to be able to probe deeper, clear up any misunderstandings and build

rapport to gain an accurate assessment of what the participant truly believes, whilst

remaining vigilant to unanticipated responses (Cohen et al., 2011). Interviews with

parents (Appendix J), gifted children (Appendix K) and teachers (Appendix L)

occurred in homes and classrooms respectively. The location and timing were

determined at the participant’s convenience, considering comfort and security;

providing an opportunity for participants to respond more freely, yet maintaining the

focus of the research questions. Predetermined questions, based on the literature

review and areas of interest noted in the results of phase one, were used to guide the

interview process, to increase the comprehensiveness of the data and support a more

systematic process of data collection (Cohen et al., 2011).

All sessions were audio-recorded for transcription. The benefits of doing so

included freeing the interviewer to focus on the content and creation of meaning

while merely jotting down notes and making observations of non-verbal aspects of

the interview which were lost through audio-recording. Furthermore, despite being

able to recall a summary of what was discussed during the interview process, it is

impossible to recall overlaps, in breaths, pauses in conversation; which may reveal

hidden features of the conversation (Silverman, 2010). As participants may have

initially felt uncomfortable recording the session consequently influencing their

responses, this process needed to be clearly outlined at the start of the session. It was

not only imperative to explain the process and ensure the participant was comfortable

in a distraction-free environment, but that the complexity of questioning increased


throughout the interview to minimise the anxiety experienced by participants who

may feel embarrassed or awkward due to the interview process.

In some instances, making a few notes during the session indicated to

participants that their input was noteworthy and they continued to provide a more

detailed account. Hence, field notes were made by the researcher both during and

after these sessions. Field notes are handwritten jottings of occurrences the

researcher deems noteworthy. Saldana (2011) recommends making observer

comments clearly visible; these are the researcher’s subjective interpretation, as the

study proceeds, these were revisited and revised for integration in the findings.

4.2.2.4 Data analysis.

As data analysis and interpretation are void if they do not reflect accurately the

data collected, due consideration for the process was required. Firstly, data were

prepared for analysis, whereby all audio-recorded data collected through the

interviews were electronically transcribed in a word-processing file for analysis.

Audio files and transcripts were named according to the group to which a participant

belonged, i.e. parent, teacher, or gifted child and the number they had been allocated

in phase one to identify related participants; hereby participants were de-identified.

Transcription occurred soon after the interview to ensure accuracy and overcome

obstacles associated with difficulties, should they have arisen, such as failing to

record or only recording part of the session. Furthermore, the recording was backed

up securely to ensure that “valuable, irreplaceable, and hard-earned data [were not]

irretrievably lost due to technical failure, human error, and unexpected

circumstances” (Saldana, 2011, p. 63). In addition, all field notes gathered were

transcribed.

By personally transcribing the recordings, notes were made as the researcher

started the process of analysis before more in-depth analysis began. Furthermore,

supplemental analytic memos were created, as advised by Saldana (2011).

Supplemental analytic memos are reflexive free writing, where the researcher’s

interpretations of the data are recorded.

Through inductive data analysis, patterns and constructs of human meanings

that capture the perceptions and support of SEWB of the gifted child were made. One

of the first steps was to determine patterns whereby trends were repeated within the


transcripts. Thereafter, categories were assigned to cluster similar ideas into

appropriate groups based on the internal and external factors which influence a

child’s SEWB as discussed in the literature review, as well as parent and teacher

support of the gifted child and interactions between them. Hence the understanding

gathered during the literature review was examined from a new perspective that of

parents, teachers, and gifted primary school children in Australia; making

confirmations, noting conflicting data and searching for new data. Furthermore,

insight into the findings made in phase one of the study was also sought. Finally, data

which did not correspond to these categories were highlighted and the larger

information-rich chunks of data were condensed by their unique features. According

to Saldana (2011), patterns and categories interact and interplay. Interaction implies

reciprocal connections whereby categories have an influence on each other, either

concurrently or influencing each other. Interplay refers to the structural and

processual nature of the categories, implying a hierarchy, taxonomy or sequential

order. To better understand these patterns and constructs, the transcripts were coded.

This implied the researcher working through the participant’s responses in transcripts

and the researcher’s field notes and assigning words or phrases that “symbolically

assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute” to data to

“capture a datum’s primary content and essence” (Saldana, 2009, p. 3). In a multiple

case study design, termed a collective case study (Creswell, 2012), data analysis is

performed at two levels: within each case and across the cases. The multiple cases

were examined simultaneously for comparisons and contrasts to be drawn among

them as suggested by Saldana (2011), based on the shared context in which the cases

within this study find themselves. Therefore, each case was analysed for themes,

hereafter, all the cases were analysed for common and different themes. Through this

process data collected from participants were contrasted with other members of the

related grouping as well as according to the participant group to which they belong to

determine if teacher, parents and gifted children as independent groups share similar

perceptions.

As suggested by Yin (2014), the high-quality analysis was ensured during this

phase, through adherence to four principles. Firstly, examining all evidence

presented to ensure that analysis did not become vulnerable to alternative

interpretation at a later stage due to data not being analysed in its entirety. Secondly,


all alternative interpretations were considered. Thirdly, the analysis has focused

sharply on the most significant aspects of this study to answer the research questions

posed. Finally, the literature review was considered when interpreting the results.

This approach, aimed at triangulation, helps to improve the validity of this study by

converging several perspectives of participants. Triangulation is characterized by the

authentication of information-rich evidence from different individuals, types of data,

and different methods of data collection (Denzin, 1978). Within this mixed methods

approach, data triangulation was achieved by comparing and cross-checking data

collected both from different sources in the two phases of the study as well as from

participants with different perspectives (Merriam, 2009). Despite the need to analyse

the data with rigour, it is imperative to ensure that the results speak for themselves as

opposed to being overanalysed, interpreted and judged by the researcher whereby

information is misrepresented through selective reporting. Furthermore, the

researcher remains mindful of the significance of events as opposed to frequency,

accordingly focusing on the quality and intensity of situations to truly understand the

dynamics of the situation and people’s interactions (Cohen et al., 2011). This

approach endeavours to ensure this study has reliability and validity.

4.2.3 Comparing and contrasting data.

The orientation adopted throughout this study, incorporating the theoretical

framework and fundamental assumptions of the research through to methodology

was based on a mixed methods approach, in this way integrating quantitative and

qualitative methods to answer the research questions. However, a mixed methods

approach is more than merely integrating two traditionally opposing research

methods, “it consists of merging, integrating, linking, or embedding the two”

(Creswell, 2012, p. 535). Through the quantitative data collected, results obtained

were used to understand the magnitude of trends of the perceptions held by teachers,

parents and gifted children across Australia with regard to the SEWB and social

support of gifted children. This was followed up by the qualitative research

component of case studies where a more complex picture of the situation was

developed.

Therefore, after the quantitative and qualitative data were independently

analysed and interpreted, it was necessary to include a subsequent stage to determine

how the qualitative data inform the quantitative data. This helped develop a complex


picture of the research conducted and the data became “mutually illuminating”

(Cohen et al., 2011, p. 24), in that both quantitative and qualitative data were

required to answer the research questions thoroughly. The process entails working

from the inside out, by continually expanding one’s understanding so that the data

obtained by addressing the previous research questions were contrasted to determine

themes that complement each other and those which show disparity. In doing so, the

aims of this research were explored firstly to determine the social-emotional

strengths and weaknesses of primary school-aged gifted children and secondly to

ascertain gifted children’s perceptions of parent and teacher social support to inform

best practice.

By this final stage of this study, an extensive quantity of data had been

collected and analysed, but not merged. Merging data implies that the researcher

overtly integrates or brings together the quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2007). Data can be merged during integration or during the analysis of

data. In this study, data were merged during the integration of data, as quantitative

and qualitative data were analysed separately and the two sets were brought together

during the interpretation stage. Whilst merging various forms of data, it was

important to bear in mind the concept of integration (Cohen et al., 2011). This

implies that although the quantitative phase of this study was based on the results

obtained by a larger sample of participants, the qualitative data obtained from a small

sample should be placed on equal footing due to the nature of the information-rich

participants and their ability to provide thick descriptions.

4.3 Reliability and Validity

To maintain research integrity, both the quantitative and qualitative methods

used within this study were developed and implemented, keeping the concepts of

reliability and validity and trustworthiness, rigour, and quality, respectively, in mind.

Furthermore, as a mixed methods research project, further validity requirements were

required. Achieving these outcomes is dependent on the researcher’s ability to draw

meaningful and accurate conclusions from all data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

In qualitative research, reliability refers to “the extent to which research

findings can be replicated” (Eddles-Hirsch et al., 2010, p. 205). This implies that

results should be consistent over time and across researcher methodology (Creswell,


2014). However, people are mobile, and the systems to which they belong and which

influence them are constantly changing. Therefore, consistency or dependability as

outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1985), and used by qualitative researchers, were

considered, implying that the results reflect the particular study, as there may be as

many realities as there are people. This was achieved through a detailed methodology

and description of cases as suggested by Yin (2014) as well as quality recording and

documenting so that others may draw meaning and significance (Patton, 2002).

Validity is achieved in quantitative research if the results presented by the

researcher and the perceptions of participants “is accurate, can be trusted, and is

credible” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 134); measuring precisely what was

intended. When considering qualitative research, validity is often defined by the

researcher using concepts such as quality, rigour, and trustworthiness (Davies &

Doss, 2002; Guba & Lincoln, 1985). Construct validity is demonstrated through

taking steps to ensure the data recorded reflects the reality of the participants. This

was achieved by making use of multiple sources of data over two phases, creating a

chain of evidence through quality audio-recording and verbatim transcripts.

Internal validity refers to the degree to which the research findings are

congruent with reality and for this reason, are based on the meaning of reality. Yin

(2014) identifies four techniques to determine the internal validity of research;

pattern matching, explanation building, addressing competing explanations and the

use of logic models which were used in analysing data. Another method of assuring

internal validity, as suggested by Cohen et al. (2011), which I used was triangulation.

However, triangulation is more than a test for validity but also to ensure the account

is rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

Triangulation, initially referred to by Foreman (1948), makes use of multiple means

of data collection, multiple theories or multiple methods to explain the richness and

complexity of human behaviour. However, although triangulation fits well within

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model through its consideration of the process-

person-context-time, it is not forceful in determining a holistic understanding; hence,

reference is made to the process referred to as crystallisation, a more persuasive

reasoning for interlocking data collection methods, thereby adding breadth and depth

to this study. A crystal is used as a metaphor to describe the process due to “ …

symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances,


transmutations, multi-dimensionalities, and angles of approach” (Richardson, 2000,

p. 392). Hereby, reflecting externalities and refracting within, illuminating subjective

perspectives of the framework from which the individual experiences their

worldview.

Through the use of a mixed methods approach, combining according to

Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) complementary strengths and nonoverlapping

weakness, the validity of the research was considered to meet representation,

integration, and legitimation criteria. Legitimation ensures the results are

“dependable, credible, transferable, plausible, confirmable and trustworthy” (Cohen

et al., 2011, p. 198). Strategies used in this study to achieve legitimation included

using two data collection techniques to minimise the weaknesses of each, using

meta-inferences to create a mixed worldview, and taking steps in both phases of data

collection to support validity.

4.4 Ethics

When considering the guidelines made in the National Statement on Ethical

Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR) this study was justifiable by its potential

benefit in filling the void that exists within our knowledge and understanding of the

SEWB of gifted primary school children and the support offered to these children by

their parents and teachers. Data collection commenced after ethical approval was

obtained from the Queensland University of Technology’s Human Research Ethics

Committee (HREC) (Approval number 160000030) and informed consent gained

from participants. Participants had the option to withdraw at any stage without

repercussion. Non-invasive data collection methods were selected, taking the time

required to participate in this study into consideration. Procedures were put in place

to treat all participants with due respect for cultural sensitivities, beliefs, and

perceptions. Furthermore, participants’ privacy was safeguarded, and anonymity and

confidentiality of identity ensured.

A primary ethical dilemma in any social research is the cost: benefit ratio,

where the potential benefits of research need to be considered in relation to the

personal costs to the individual participants. These concerns may stem from the

research topic, the context, the data collection procedures, the nature of participants,

the type of data collected and how the data were reported. (Cohen et al., 2011). When


scrutinising this study from the perspective of a participant, adverse outcomes were

minimal, the only foreseeable risk being an inconvenience. Although people hold

varied opinions about the social-emotional needs of gifted children, this was not

considered a highly sensitive topic. However, participants were provided with

contact information to access counselling services should they indeed have felt

distressed and in need of support after participating in this study.

As gifted primary school children formed a part of the parent-teacher-gifted

child grouping, special consideration was taken in conducting research with them as

by their nature children may be perceived as vulnerable. However, as argued by

Wright (2015) vulnerability is present in situations and not in people, and therefore it

was determined that this age group together with their parents were in a position to

understand what this study entailed and make an informed decision whether or not to

participate. There is, however, no guarantee whether children were coerced into

participating by their parents but it is anticipated that parents would act in the best

interest of their child. Furthermore, as the surveys were seeking their perspective, by

simply clicking their responses to items, this did not place a significant burden on

these children. When participating in the interview, children engaged with the

researcher in a safe environment, known to the child with their parents easily

accessible. Two parents did sit in on the interview. The researcher has similar-aged

children of her own, and extensive experience as a primary teacher thus has a good

understanding of the developmental stage and needs of the participants. In addition,

the researcher holds a Working with Children Card and Masters Degree in School

Guidance and Counselling.

Insight obtained during this study was also reported to professionals and

organisations which indicated their willingness to help recruit participants. Hereby

participants have clear access to the benefits of this study through the professionals

and organisations.

4.5 Perceived Limitations

From the outset of this study, a proportion of potential participants were

omitted as not all gifted children are as yet identified as such. Although in an ideal

world, the identification of all gifted children is beneficial to meet their needs best,

many parents and teachers remain unaware of a child’s giftedness. However, it is


anticipated that a wide range of gifted children was captured as participants were

sought from diverse areas and not only from gifted programs, which has been a

limitation in previous research.

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter provided an explanation of the research design and methods

considered suitable within the ethical guidelines to collect and analyse data to

address the research questions. An overview of the mixed methods approach was

provided together with an account of the two phases of research to be undertaken.

Phase one, the quantitative phase - based on two questionnaires, namely the SDQ-

P/T/C and CASSS. The focus of the SDQ was to determine the teacher, parent and

gifted child’s perception of the gifted child’s SEWB. The CASSS measured the

gifted child’s perception of the social support they receive from both parents and

teachers. The second phase focused on the qualitative component of this study. A

case study methodology was employed to gain a richer understanding of the gifted

child’s SEWB as well as exploring the partnership between parents and teachers as a

means of supporting the gifted child. Gifted children were also asked through

interviews to define parent and teacher behaviours which are supportive of their

SEWB. Lastly, the data gathered through both studies were compared to determine

whether or not parents and teachers are adequately supporting the development of

SEWB in gifted children.


96 Chapter 5: Quantitative Results

Chapter 5: Quantitative Results

As was outlined in Chapter four, an explanatory sequential mixed methods

approach was used in this study. In this chapter, phase one, the quantitative

component was examined; addressing the following research questions:

Research question 1: What is the gifted child’s perception of their own social-

emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their parents’ and teacher’s

perceptions?



support?

Research question 3: Is there a correlation between the level of parent and teacher

social support gifted children perceive and the child’s social-emotional well-being?

5.1.1 Participants.

A total of 76 parents, 32 gifted children, and 19 teachers across Australia

completed the first phase of data collection; the online survey, the responses per state

are represented in Table 5.1. The spread across the states and territories has been

compared to a Mensa study conducted by Thompson and King (2015) which had

similar responses with the exception of ACT and QLD. These differences may be

attributed to differences in exposure when advertising this study as well as the

snowball effect of sampling. Similarly, the Mensa report indicated a high number of

Mensan children per capita in WA and a lower number in TAS and NT.

The survey responses represented 76 parents, 19 teachers and 32 self-reports

of gifted children of which there were 14 complete related groupings (a gifted child

and their parent and teacher), 18 parent and child pairings, four parent and teacher

pairings, 40 isolated parent responses, and one teacher only response. It is anticipated

that in the instance of the teacher only response, the parents may have relayed the

unique code to the teacher for completion and failed to follow through themselves as

all unique codes were checked and no similar combinations were noted.

Chapter 5: Quantitative Results 97

Table 5.1

Number of Participants per Grouping from each State or Territory in Australia

Parent Child Teacher

Australian Capital Territory

(ACT)

0 0 0

New South Wales (NSW) 9 2 2

Northern Territory (NT) 1 0 0

Queensland (QLD) 32 14 9

South Australia (SA) 4 0 0

Tasmania (TAS) 0 0 0

Victoria (VIC) 5 1 2

Western Australia (WA) 25 15 6

5.1.1.1 Gifted children.

Primary school children were aged between three and 13-year-olds. Younger

participants already engaged in primary schooling were included in the study as

some gifted children had gained early school entry while 30% of parents in the

survey indicated their child had been accelerated. According to parent surveys, most

children were between eight and 11-year-olds (79%), with a mean age of 9.6 years.

There was a slightly higher representation of boys (55%). When considering the age

and gender of gifted children as reported by teachers, similar clustering is evident,

with a mean age of 9.5 years and a slightly higher representation of boys. Equal

numbers of gifted boys and girls self-reported, the mean age being 9.0 years. See

Table 5.2 for a breakdown of these data. This outcome is similar to the study

conducted by Thompson and King (2015) where there was a higher incidence of

active Mensan boy members.

As discussed in Chapter 2, children were eligible to participate in this study

by previous assessment of giftedness via cognitive assessments, performance in the

top 10% of their age peers or participation in extension programs. All participants

were asked whether or not a formal diagnosis of giftedness has been obtained via

cognitive assessments, and 68% of the participants indicated this has occurred.


Although 32% of participants were not formally identified as gifted through psycho-

educational assessment, due to the broader definition used by Gagné, children who

were engaged in extension activities and/ or who were performing in the top 10% of

their age cohort were also included.

Table 5.2

Ages and Genders of Gifted Children Arranged by Rater: Parent, Teacher, and Gifted Child

As reported by parent

n=76

As reported by teachers

n=18, plus 1 unknown

As reported by gifted

children n=32

Ages

in

years

Number

of girls

Number

of boys

Total Number

of girls

Number

of boys

Total Number

of girls

Number

of boys

Total

3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0

6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1

7 2 2 4 0 1 1 1 2 3

8 7 10 17 2 3 5 3 3 6

9 4 2 6 2 0 2 3 0 3

10 10 13 23 4 2 6 4 7 11

11 7 7 14 1 2 3 3 3 6

12 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1

13 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 34 42 76 9 9 18 15 17 32

Mean 9.5 8.9 9.2 9.4 8.6 9.0 9.5 9.4 9.5

A question on the survey probed what extension opportunities the

participating gifted children had access to. The results are indicated in Table 5.3,

whereby it is indicated that the majority of the children had multiple opportunities


whilst 18% of the children had no differentiation opportunities at all. No indication

of the value of these opportunities was obtained in the survey.

Table 5.3

Gifted Children’s Access to Differentiation Opportunities, According to Parents

Differentiation

In-class

differentiation

Pull-out program Year acceleration Subject

acceleration

Other

29 20 23 28 18

5.1.1.2 Parents of gifted children.

Sixty-eight (89%) of the 76 surveys were completed by mothers. The majority

of parents reported that they had engaged in training or sought support related to

gifted children with only 13% indicating no exposure to expert advice or guidance.

The majority of training and/or support was gained through personal reading (74%),

Facebook pages (47%) and parent groups (36%). Three parents (4%) indicated

specific educational training around gifted education as part of tertiary qualifications,

and two parents (3%) indicated having a Masters Degree in Gifted Education. In

contrast, when considering social-emotional issues or counselling in general, 59% of

parents had no previous training, while 26% had training as part of their

qualification, and 18%had exposure through professional development. It, therefore,

seems that parents may have a greater understanding about giftedness compared to

SEWB.

In general, the parents thought their child’s teacher provided good (42%) to

average (42%) support to their child, with only 16% of parents reporting poor

support. Similarly, parents considered their working relationship with their child’s

teacher to be good (51%) to average (33%), with only 16% of parents reporting a

poor working relationship. The parent was asked to complete the parent survey and

then provide the teacher with the teacher survey requesting their participation. It is

interesting to note that in the cases where parents indicated a poor working

relationship with the teacher, not a single teacher completed the survey. This raises

the question whether the teacher was given the survey and chose not to participate, or


whether the parent did not provide the teacher with the survey due to their weak

relationship.

5.1.1.3 Teachers of gifted children.

Eighteen of the 19 teachers (95%) who completed the survey were female.

Teachers were asked to provide their number of years teaching experience; the range

is shown in Table 5.4. Most (74%) teachers had a bachelor’s degree; the remainder

qualified at a master’s level. Eighty-four percent of teachers indicated that the child

they were related to in the survey was gifted.

Table 5.4

Years Teaching Experience of Teacher Participants

Years teaching experience

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14 15 plus

4 1 3 5 6

Five teachers (26%) reported having no training in gifted education, while the

majority (52%) had undertaken professional development in this area. One teacher

reported having a Masters degree specialising in gifted education. In contrast to the

parents surveyed, only two teachers (10.5%) reported no training in social-emotional

issues or counselling, the majority reporting professional development (58%) or

training as part of their qualification (32%).

Sixteen (84%) of the teachers knew the child in their class was gifted prior to

undertaking the survey, with only three being unaware – two of whom had no

training in gifted education. Of the 19 teachers, the majority (89%) indicated the

gifted child to be achieving.

Seventeen teachers (89%) reported having good working relationships with

the parent of the gifted child in their class, with only one indicating an average

relationship and one poor. Interestingly, in the case where the teacher indicated a

poor working relationship, the parent indicated the relationship was good.


5.1.2 Instruments used in Phase One

5.1.2.1 The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

The standardised Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997)

(SDQ) is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire for four to 17-year-olds which

provides insight into the child’s behaviours, emotions, and relationships. The SDQ

covers both positive and negative psychological attributes that give an indication of

the individual’s functioning, over the last six months, in terms of five subscales. The

subscales include emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity or

inattention, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviour. Each subscale

consists of five items, With the exception of five reverse-scored items, responses to

these items are noted on a 3-point Likert scale from 0 to 2, where 0 = “not true” and

3 = “certainly true”. To get a total score on each subscale, the items in that subscale

are added together. In addition, internalising and externalising scores can be obtained

by adding the total score on the emotional symptoms and conduct problems subscale,

and the hyperactivity and peer problems subscale respectively. To get a total overall

score for difficulties, all subscale scores, other than the prosocial subscale score, are

added together. The prosocial subscale score provides the total score for strengths.

Previous research has indicated Cronbach’s alpha for each of the subscales ranging

from .60 to .82 (Hawes & Dadds, 2004). The Cronbach’s alpha in this study on the

self-reported SDQ subscales ranged between .52 and .75, which indicated poor to

acceptable internal consistency. As the SDQ is a widely accepted tool, the poor

internal consistency reflected in this study may be attributed to a relatively small

sample, as such individual questions on each subscale will be explored whilst making

statistical assumptions.

It was anticipated that the SDQ would provide insight into the gifted child’s

SEWB by providing data about their ability to express emotions and understand

those of others in appropriate ways as well as illustrate the behaviours they display in

terms of their resilience and coping when faced with daily challenges. Furthermore,

similarities and differences between the child-parent-teacher responses would be

highlighted through the generation of an integrated report created online at

https://sdqscore.org/Amber. Scores were categorised, as in Table 5.5, to give an

indication of a child’s potential for experiencing difficulties. It is shown how the

cumulative score for each category, according to the particular participant, can


Table 5.5

Categorising SDQ Scores for four to 17-year-olds (YouthinMind, 2015)

Close to

average

Slightly raised* High* Very

high*

Parent completed SDQ

Total difficulties score 0-13 14-16 17-19 20-40

Emotional problems score 0-3 4 5-6 7-10

Conduct problems score 0-2 3 4-5 6-10

Hyperactivity score 0-5 6-7 8 9-10

Peer problems score 0-2 3 4 5-10

Prosocial score 8-10 7 6 0-5

Teacher completed SDQ


Emotional problems score 0-3 4 5 6-10

Conduct problems score 0-2 3 4 5-10

Hyperactivity score 0-5 6-7 8 9-10

Peer problems score 0-2 3-4 5 6-10


Child completed SDQ


Emotional problems score 0-4 5 6 7-10

Conduct problems score 0-3 4 5 6-10

Hyperactivity score 0-5 6 7 8-10

Peer problems score 0-2 3 4 5-10


*Low score for prosocial score

provide insight into the possible difficulties a child may face or the strengths they

possess. When considering the scores for emotional problems, conduct problems,

hyperactivity, and peer problems, the higher the score, the more difficulties the child


is perceived to experience. However, the higher the child’s prosocial score, the

greater their strengths.

5.1.2.2 The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS).

Gifted children completed the CASSS (Malecki et al., 2000). The CASSS is

considered a reliable and comprehensive tool to assess the perceived social support

of children and adolescents in Grade 3 to 12. The full assessment uses five subscales

each with 12 items; these subscales look at networks including, parents, teachers,

close friends, classmates and people in one’s school. In this study, gifted children

were only provided with the scales indicating teacher and parent support. On these

subscales (Appendix D), items 1-3 relate to emotional support, 4-6 informational

support, 7-9 appraisal support, and 10-12 instrumental support. Children completed a

frequency rating of parents and teachers engaging in various behaviours as indicated

on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 = never to 6 = always. In addition, children rate the

importance of that support to them from 1 = not important to 3 = very important. The

subscales of the CASSS were scored by summing the scores on the items, as were

the subscales of importance. Previous research has indicated good to excellent

reliability scores (Malecki et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha for the CASSS in the

current study was .91 for the teacher and parent support scales.

5.1.3 Procedure.

After ethical approval had been gained, parents were invited during the second

half of the school year to participate in this study, as described in section 4.2.1.1.

Parents, in turn, sought participation from their gifted child and their child’s teacher.

The timing of the delivery of the survey allowed members of the parent-child-teacher

groupings sufficient time within the school year to form relationships. Between June

and September, approximately the third term of the school year, participants engaged

individually with the online survey comprised of demographic questions and the

SDQ for parents and teachers and the SDQ and CASSS for children. This study used

a cross-sectional design, implying that data were collected at one point in time

(Cohen et al., 2011; Creswell, 2012), which may be considered a limitation in terms

of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework.


At the start of the survey, parents and teachers were provided with

information regarding the purpose of this study, the procedure and time

requirements, potential outcomes and possible risks, an offer to answer queries, and

the option to withdraw without prejudice. Thereafter, they provided their consent to

participate. The child was not provided with this information, as it was deemed more

efficient for parents to discuss this with their child. Therefore, by the child

completing the survey, it was considered that they were in agreement to participate.

5.2 Statistical Assumptions

Due to the electronic format, it was not possible for participants to

inadvertently miss questions and thus all participants completed all questions in each

survey, resulting in no missing data. Hence data screening was simplified. All data

were coded by the researcher and entered into Microsoft Excel, whilst recording

codes in a codebook (Appendix M) and were later imported into IBM Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23 data files.

5.2.1 Research question one.

The data gathered in the SDQ were used to explore research question 1: What

is the gifted child’s perception of their own social-emotional strengths and

weaknesses compared to their parents’ and teacher’s perceptions? As a starting point,

a comparison was made between each of the participant groups – gifted children,

parents, and teachers through the use of the integrated score report, generated

through data entry into the online scoring package, to determine large variances in

their perceptions of the child’s functioning in relation to each of the five subscales,

namely: emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and

prosocial behaviour as well as overall difficulties. Cases in which there were distinct

discrepancies were noted. Thereafter, parents, teacher and gifted child groupings

were compared; the child’s age and gender were also considered.

5.2.1.1 Comparisons on the SDQ among related group members.

Although SDQ scores are continuous variables, it is at times convenient to

categorise scores as a rough way of screening for disorders for which a four-fold

classification based on a large United Kingdom sample of four to 17-year-olds was

provided (see Table 5.5). Although this is a useful tool, its applicability to Australian


gifted children has not been determined. However, research was undertaken by

Mellor (2005) in Victoria, Australia, based on 910 seven to 17-year-old children

utilising the original three-band categorisation indicated that there was a high

correlation between the United Kingdom and Australian norms. The more recent

four-band classification is used here to provide a framework from which to interpret

the discrepancies between the members of the related groups in relation to the

scoring and classification process.

It was interesting to note that when the researcher compared the responses

provided within the parent-teacher-gifted child groups in which there were

discrepancies among the perceptions of the parents, teacher and gifted children;

parents tended to rate children as experiencing greater internalising difficulties,

especially in relation to peer problems; while children self-reported more difficulties

with externalising problems. Furthermore, the high level of peer problems reported

by parents in these groups is highlighted as one would expect teachers and the

children themselves to have greater insight into peer interactions which

predominantly take place in the school setting. Although these discrepancies only

account for approximately 13% of related participants in this study, these children

were looked at more closely in the CASSS to determine the level of support they

perceived they received from their parents and teachers. Considering there is a

mismatch in the perception of their strengths and difficulties, a void may be created

as one cannot support a difficulty one does not acknowledge, conversely, a child may

not be aware of the extent of their difficulties if they are well-supported.

5.2.1.2 Comparisons on the SDQ among parent, teacher and child groups.

Due to difficulties in this study in gaining participation from all three members

of related groups, comparisons were also drawn between parent, teacher, and gifted

child groups. Using descriptive statistics created through SPSS, as indicated in Table

5.6, the means, variances and distributions of the data were examined. Skewness and

kurtosis were evident in the data as analysed using the Shapiro-Wilk (1965) test for

normality. It was concluded that the distribution of the sample was non-normal;

hence nonparametric tests were used when exploring the outcomes of the SDQ.


Table 5.6

Descriptive Statistics of the SDQ Arranged by Rater: Parent, Teacher, and Gifted Child

Emotional

problems

score

Conduct

problems

score

Hyper-

activity

score

Peer

problems

score

Prosocial

score

Externa-

lising

SDQ

Interna-

lising

score

Total

difficulty

score

Possible

range

0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-20 0-20 0-40

Parent-reported n=76

Mean 3.63 1.82 4.12 3.74 8.00 5.93 7.37 13.30

Range 0-10 0-7 0-10 0-9 0-10 0-17 0-17 0-31

std(X) 2.80 1.82 2.92 2.33 2.20 4.14 4.40 7.39

Skewness .51 .94 .24 .30 -1.41 .55 .29 .35

Kurtosis -.68 .28 -.82 -.73 1.97 .05 -.84 -.34

Teacher-reported n=19

Mean 2.11 .74 3.84 2.79 6.89 4.58 4.89 9.47

Range 0-6 0-4 0-9 0-6 1-10 0-11 0-10 0-17

std(X) 1.91 1.24 2.95 1.75 2.69 3.56 2.83 5.72

Skewness .63 1.54 .25 .29 -.84 .38 -.10 -.23

Kurtosis -.67 1.38 -1.14 -.38 -.01 -.96 -.44 -1.27

Child’s Self-report n=32

Mean 3.41 2.09 4.22 2.28 7.78 6.31 5.69 12.00

Range 0-9 0-7 0-8 0-6 1-10 0-15 0-15 1-28

std(X) 2.34 2.18 2.49 1.89 2.20 4.00 3.18 6.19

Skewness .46 .92 -.27 .52 -1.32 .41 .83 .35

Kurtosis .94 -.19 -.95 -.63 1.79 -.42 1.24 .03

The Kruskal-Wallis test by ranks, a nonparametric method for comparing two

or more independent samples of different sample sizes, was used to contrast the

parent, teacher, and child responses on the SDQ across all five subscales. Thereafter


a chi-square independence test was carried out to determine whether there was a

significant association. This study did not demonstrate any differences between

perceptions of the child on the SDQ by rater for emotional problems, χ2 (2) = 4.84, p

= 0.09, hyperactivity, χ2 (2) = .40, p = 0.82 or prosocial behaviour, χ

2 (2) = 3.39, p =

0.19. This means that teachers, parents and the children all viewed the children

similarly on these three areas. However, this study did demonstrate differences

between perceptions of the child on the SDQ by rater for conduct problems, χ2 (2) =

7.57 p = 0.02, and peer problems, χ2 (2) = 9.65, p = 0.01. Thus teachers, parents and

the children had significantly different perceptions of the child in these two areas.

The Mann-Whitney U test, a nonparametric post hoc test was then used to

establish where the differences found among the three groups (parents, teachers, and

children) was. As the test was carried out three times due to having three groups to

compare (parents and teachers, parents and children and teachers and children), a

Bonferroni adjustment was applied, testing each hypothesis at α=.05/3=.017.

Firstly, parents and teachers as raters were compared. The data revealed that

parents’ rating of their child on the emotional problems subscale (Mdn = 3) was

statistically significantly higher than the teacher group (Mdn = 2), U = 497, p = .04.

The effect size was small, r = .22 (Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, parents’ rating of

their child on the conduct problems subscale (Mdn = 2) was statistically significantly

higher than the teacher group (Mdn = 0), U = 453.50, p = .01. The effect size was

small, r = .27 (Cohen, 1988).

Thereafter, parents and children were compared. From these data, it can be

concluded that parents’ rating of their child on the peer problems subscale (Mdn = 4)

was statistically significantly higher than the children’s self-reports (Mdn = 2), U =

780, p = .01. The effect size was small, r = .28 (Cohen, 1988).

Subsequently, teachers and children were contrasted. From these data, it can

be concluded that teachers’ rating of their child on the conduct problems subscale

(Mdn = 0) was statistically significantly lower than the children’s self-reports (Mdn =

1.5), U = 182.50, p = .01. The effect size was medium, r = .35 (Cohen, 1988).

Finally, gender and age effects were explored on the SDQ; no significant differences

were found between these variables.


As there are subtle differences between the four-fold categorisation of the

SDQ between the three raters, to adequately understand the descriptive statistics of

the SDQ within this study, it is necessary to reflect upon the United Kingdom norms

provided in Table 5.7. It is shown that the parent mean for peer problems (3.74) in

this study, fell between slightly raised and high peer problems. The parent-reported

mean for emotional problems (3.63) is also slightly higher than the norm average,

leaning towards slightly raised emotional problems. The parent-reported means for

conduct problems and hyperactivity also fall within the upper limits of the average

band. Taking these four factors into consideration explains the slightly above average

total difficulties mean (13.3) reported by parents. In contrast, teacher-reported (2.79)

and children-reported (2.28) means all fall within the average range of the norms,

with the exception of peer problems, its mean leans towards slightly raised peer

problems.

These differences in means can also be seen when comparing these research

data to the Australian norms of seven to 17-year-olds in the study undertaken by

Mellor (2005), as shown in Table 5.7. However, when undertaking a Mann-Whitney

U test for parents, teachers, and children, the result is not significant at p<.05.

A limitation of this study in comparing the data collected with norms of the

general population is that children who display great difficulties may not be

represented in this study as their difficulties may be so severe that they may not have

been in a position to participate or may have been withdrawn from the primary

school environment. This assertion is supported by data collected during the second

phase of the study whereby two parents reported withdrawing their children from

school on occasion due to the distress they were experiencing.

When considering individual questions of the subscales, there were questions

which tended to stand out. Children, for example, self-rated overall within the

emotional problems subscale as worrying a lot and being nervous in new situations.

Parents and teachers also indicated higher levels of worrying compared to the other

questions. In the conduct problems scale, children self-rated a high degree of

displaying anger in comparison to the other questions. Similarly, parents reported

their child to often lose their temper whilst teachers reported a high incidence of

children fighting with others, not indicated by children or parents. In terms of peer


Table 5.7

Australian Means and Standard Deviations Compared to this Study

Mellor (2005) This study

Mean Standard

deviation

Mean Standard

deviation

Parent SDQ n=76

Overall stress 8.2 6.1 13.3 7.4

Emotional

problems

2.1 2.0 3.63 2.8

Conduct problems 1.5 1.6 1.82 1.8

Hyperactivity 3.1 2.4 4.12 2.9

Peer problems 1.6 1.9 3.74 2.3

Prosocial 8.3 1.7 8 2.2

Teacher SDQ n=19


Emotional

problems

1.4 1.7 2.11 1.9

Conduct problems 1.0 1.5 .74 1.2



Prosocial 7.8 2.1 6.89 2.7

Child SDQ n=32


Emotional

problems

2.4 2.0 3.41 2.3

Conduct problems 1.8 1.7 2.09 2.2



Prosocial 8.0 1.7 7.78 2.2

problems, gifted children (28%), as well as their parents (51%) and teachers (16%),

reported getting along better with older children, although deemed a neutral question,

this may impact on the child if they do not have access to older children.


5.2.1.4 Summary: Research question 1.

When considering the gifted child’s perception of their own social-emotional

strengths and weaknesses compared to their related parents’ and teacher’s

perceptions, there seem to be a few disparities overall. In general, when comparing

perceptions between groups of parents, teachers and gifted children using the SDQ as

a means of screening for difficulties, gifted children are perceived most positively by

their teachers. In contrast, their parents tend to perceive gifted children to experience

more difficulties, particularly in relation to emotional and peer difficulties. Children

themselves reported perceptions of heightened levels of conduct difficulties,

although also noted by parents, teachers seemed less aware of these difficulties.

5.2.2 Research question two.

The data gathered from children answering the CASSS addressed research

question 2: How do gifted children perceive the social support their parents and

teachers provide in relation to the value they place on that support? Through analysis

of the data collected, the emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental

support gifted children perceive their parents and teachers to provide and the value

they place on the support was determined. Thereafter, gender and age differences

were explored, and comparisons are drawn between the participants in this study and

the norms. Finally, individual cases were explored to identify unique experiences.

5.2.2.1 Support gifted children perceive they receive as noted by the CASSS.

The descriptive statistics of means, variances and distributions of the data were

examined. Skewness and Kurtosis were within an acceptable range. Hence

parametric tests were used.

When considering the types of support gifted children perceive to receive

from parents, children reported similar scores among all types, the highest being

informational support (13.63), the lowest appraisal support (12.72), results are shown

in Table 5.8. Regarding the support gifted children perceived to receive from their

teachers, the highest was emotional support (14.34), the lowest instrumental support

(12.66). A one-way ANOVA analysis indicated no significant differences between

the types of support provided by parents and teachers as perceived by the children.


Table 5.8

Descriptive Statistics of the CASSS: Total of Each Type of Support, as Reported by Gifted Children

Emotional

Support

Informational

Support

Appraisal

Support

Instrumental

Support

Possible range 6-18 6-18 6-18 6-18

Parents Only n=32

Range 6-18 6-18 6-18 6-18

Mean 13.34 13.63 12.72 13.00

Standard deviation std(X) 2.77 3.09 3.06 3.32

Skewness -.19 -.19 -.02 .02

Kurtosis .05 -.46 -.53 -1.10

Teacher Only n=32

Range 7-18 7-18 6-18 6-18

Mean 14.34 13.87 13.12 12.66


Skewness -.55 -.64 -.32 -.38

Kurtosis -.82 -.87 -.83 -.57

Thereafter the level of importance of each type of support as perceived by

gifted children was considered. This analysis was necessary as a different outcome is

determined if a child is lacking in a type of support but does not value that support

compared to a child who places value on the type of support. For example, a child

who values appraisal support and does receive much appraisal support may feel

discouraged, while a child who does not value appraisal support may not be

bothered. The results are shown in Table 5.9.

When considering the level of importance of each type of support gifted

children perceive to receive from parents, children reported similar scores, for

informational, instrumental and, appraisal support; however, emotional support was

rated as most important, which was ranked as the second highest type of support they

receive from their parents. Children ranked the level of importance of each type of

support from teachers almost identically to parents’ level of support. A one-way


ANOVA analysis indicated no significant differences between the level of

importance of the types of support provided by parents and teachers as perceived by

the children. Gender and age effects were also explored on the CASSS, no significant

differences were found between these variables.

Table 5.9

Descriptive Statistics of the CASSS: Total of Each Type of Support’s Level of Importance, as Reported

by Gifted Children

Emotional

Support

Informational

Support

Appraisal

Support

Instrumental

Support

Possible range 3-9 3-9 3-9 3-9

Parents Only n=32

Range 6-9 3-9 3-9 4-9

Mean 7.56 6.75 6.75 6.69


Skewness .02 -.49 -.34 .15

Kurtosis -1.05 .90 .01 -.93

Teacher Only n=32

Range 5-9 5-9 4-9 4-9

Mean 7.69 7.25 6.84 6.94


Skewness -.74 .00 .29 -.11

Kurtosis -.10 -.61 -.78 -.83

When considering each type of support and the questions posed, some areas

seem less supported than others. For example, when considering emotional support,

children perceived that their parents were more inclined to show that they were proud

of their child than they were to show understanding. Interestingly, almost half the

children indicated low levels of being rewarded for doing well, of which roughly

40% of these children did not value rewards. The question which received the lowest

level of support as perceived by the children was parents telling them nicely when

they made mistakes. Considering instrumental support, almost a third of the children


indicated that their parents helped to practise activities as almost never to some of the

time, only one indicating that this was not important. When looking more closely at

the support children perceive teachers to provide, a third of the children place a low

value on the teacher making sure the child has what they need to learn. Other areas

teacher support was perceived as low by the children included telling them nicely

that they had made a mistake and providing feedback on tasks, both part of appraisal

support.

5.2.2.3 Cases of interest.

When looking more closely at each of the participants, there were some who

stood out. For example, C36 rated their parent support as low across the board,

whereas their teacher rated more positively at providing support; to a lesser extent

C39, C48, C67, and C69 also rated the support from their parents less favourably. In

contrast, C10, C19, and C25 rated their teacher more negatively compared to their

parents in terms of providing support. C25 and C67 both participated in the second

phase of this study, which will provide further insight into these relationships.

5.2.2.4 Summary: Research question 2.

When considering how gifted children perceive the social support their parents

and teachers provide in relation to the value they place on that support, it seems that

the level of support and the value they place on the support is very similar for both

parents and teachers, with emotional support ranking of highest value. There are no

significant age or gender differences. There were some children who received

different levels of the types of support from either their parent or teacher; however,

no child within this study reported low levels of support from both parent and teacher

across all types of support.

5.2.3 Research question three.

Research question 3: Is there a correlation between the level of parent and

teacher social support gifted children perceive and the child’s social-emotional well-

being?

As nonparametric measures were used when considering the SDQ,

Spearman’s correlation was used to determine the strength and direction of the gifted

child’s perception of their overall difficulties experienced compared to their


perception of overall parent and teacher social support. The results are indicated in

Table 5.10, where n=32.

Table 5.10

Spearman’s Correlations of the Child’s Overall Difficulties to their Support

Spearman’s rho Overall difficulties Overall parent support

Overall difficulties

Overall parent support -.17

Overall teacher support -.07 .57**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There is no significant correlation between the gifted child’s perceived level

of social support from their parents and teachers and their self-reports of overall

difficulties. However, there is a significant positive correlation between parent and

teacher social support, in that children who perceive their parents as supportive also

perceive their teachers as supportive, rs = .57, p = .01.

Furthermore, previously it was noted that some related groups of parents, teachers

and gifted children differed notably on the results of the SDQ and CASSS, these

groups were compared by looking through the data; C48 and C69 standout in both

groups. Both children perceived the support from their parents to be lower than that

from their teachers. When looking at the SDQ, which was only completed by parents

and the gifted children, P48 rated their child’s SEWB more negatively whereas C69

self-reported their SEWB to be lower than perceived by their parents. Unfortunately,

neither parent nor child participated in phase two of this study.

5.3 Chapter Summary

This chapter portrays the outcomes of the quantitative phase of this study.

Utilising SPSS, nonparametric tests were used to analyse the SDQ. Overall, gifted

children are perceived most positively by their teachers. In contrast, their parents

tend to perceive gifted children to experience more difficulties, particularly in

relation to emotional and peer difficulties. Children themselves reported perceptions

of heightened levels of conduct difficulties, although also noted by parents, teachers

seemed less aware of these difficulties.


Using parametric tests on SPSS it was found that the level of support and the value

gifted children place on the support, determined through the CASSS, is very similar

for both parents and teachers, with emotional support ranking of highest value.

Furthermore, there are no age or gender differences.

When considering both the SDQ and the CASSS, there is no correlation

between the gifted child’s perceived level of social support from their parents and

teachers and their self-reports of overall difficulties.

There were, however, cases of interest within this study which may not share

the same statistical experiences reflected here, these cases have been noted. The

cases which did participate in the second phase of this study were carefully analysed

to gain a more holistic picture of the experiences these children encounter on a daily

basis. In addition, other cases which form part of the qualitative results are also

discussed in Chapters six and seven.

116 Chapter 6: Qualitative Results: The Gifted Child’s Social-emotional Well-being

Chapter 6: Qualitative Results: The Gifted

Child’s Social-emotional Well-being

6.1 Introduction

Case studies were used to “explain, describe, illustrate and enlighten” (Cohen

et al., 2011, p. 289), supplementing the quantitative data collected through the

surveys and creating a more detailed in-depth understanding of the research area.

Families and teachers who completed the survey in phase one were asked to self-

nominate to participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews, each participant

forming a case within the multiple case study. As such, rich, thick descriptions of

both objective and subjective perceptions were obtained from participants to answer

the following research questions:

Research question 4: How do the internal and external factors, as articulated

by primary school-aged Australian children, their parents and teachers, influence

SEWB?

Research question 5: How do parents and teachers of gifted children support

the SEWB of the gifted child both individually and through their partnership?

These two questions are explored over two chapters. Chapter six begins with

a description of the case study participants in this second phase of data collection

followed by the analysis of interview data. To maintain the structure of an

interwoven system, the internal and external factors that contribute to a child’s

SEWB, as discussed within the literature review, were used as a framework from

which to explore the area. Thereafter, the role played by parents and teachers in

developing gifted children’s social-emotional experiences are explored in Chapter 7.

6.2 Participants

Eighteen parents and five teachers volunteered within the survey to participate

in the second phase of data collection. Only eight parents (six mothers, two fathers)

and seven children (four girls, three boys) followed through with the interview, as

Chapter 6: Qualitative Results: The Gifted Child’s Social-emotional Well-being 117

did two female teachers. Unfortunately, there was no one compete related grouping

of a parent, teacher and gifted child. Although some prospective participants found it

difficult to schedule a time for an interview due to other commitments, it was unclear

why some participants did not contribute as their communication ceased. Despite

participant numbers being lower than initially anticipated, rigorous analysis of the

semi-structured interview questions, both within related pairings and between groups

of parents, teachers, and gifted children, has ensured valuable data pertaining to the

SEWB of gifted primary school-aged children were gained.

This section provides a brief outline of a subsample of participants who

contributed to phase two of the data collection and the groupings to which they

belong. Data were also provided for participants in phase one who did not contribute

in phase two where they were part of a related parent-teacher-gifted child group who

did participate (for example, grouping 65, where the child, parent, and teacher

completed the questionnaire in phase one, but only the teacher participated in the

interview in phase two). This dataset was included to provide a more holistic

understanding of who the participants were and how they related to other members of

their related grouping. Information is presented in tables to facilitate understanding

and is based on information supplied by participants in the survey in phase one; they

are separated into the parent (Table 6.1), gifted child (Tables 6.2 and 6.3) and teacher

(Table 6.4) groupings for ease of comparison. Furthermore, results for each

participant relating to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997)

(SDQ) based on either the parent or teacher’s observations of the child, or the child’s

self-report as well as the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki et al.,

2000) (CASSS) results, based on the gifted child’s perception of the support

provided to them by their parent and teacher are also included.

6.3 Procedure

As described in Chapter four, participants who had volunteered to engage in

phase two of this study were contacted via email and a mutually convenient time and

location agreed upon to undertake the interview. All participants signed a consent

form describing the study and the requirements of their participation as well as

expected benefits and risks, as well as detailing their rights. Participants were

referred to as Tn or Pn or Cn, denoting a teacher (T), parent (P) or gifted child (C)


respectively; followed by the related grouping number (n) to which they belong to

ensure confidentiality of identity. Although there were no complete groups of a

parent, teacher, and gifted child, all participants were coded in this manner to ensure

uniformity. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, including

filler words and utterances, noting changes in voice and punctuating where the

speaker paused, by doing so the researcher’s personal perspectives did not influence

the reporting making the data more reliable, and displays of subtle features in the

conversation gave insight into the manner and emotion with which the message was

conveyed (Silverman, 2006).

Ch

apte

r 6: Q

ualitative R

esults: Th

e Gifted

Ch

ild’s So

cial-emo

tion

al Well-b

eing

119

Table 6.1

An Overview of the Parents who participated in Phase Two of this Study, the Interviews

P1 P18 P19 P25 P27 P32 P46 P65 P67

Parent

Mother Mother Mother Father Mother Father Mother Mother

Did not participate

in the interviews.

Mother completed

the interview, but Father completed

the survey

Knowledge of gifted children

Personal reading Personal reading,

parent groups, Facebook pages

and within qualifications

Personal reading

and Facebook pages

None Previous

experience as older children

gifted

Personal reading Personal reading Personal reading,

parent groups, and Facebook pages

None

Knowledge of social-emotional well-being

Professional

development

Within

qualification

None None None Completed a

mental health

course for research purposes

Within

qualifications

None

Believes child’s teacher’s support to be

Good Average Poor Poor Poor Poor Average Good Average

Believes working relationship with child’s teacher was

Good Good Poor Average Average Average Average Good Average

SDQ outcomes, as perceived by the parent, which deviate from the average range

Overall stress, emotional distress,

and behavioural

difficulties as slightly raised,

difficulties getting

along with other children as high

and kind and

helpful behaviour

as slightly low.

Difficulties with getting along with

others as high.

Emotional distress indicated as

slightly raised.

Difficulties getting along with

others as very

high.

Emotional distress very high, overall

stress high.

Hyperactivity and concentration

difficulties, as

well as difficulties getting along with

others, are slightly

raised.

Slightly raised score for

hyperactivity and

concentration difficulties and

very high for

difficulties getting along with other

children.

All within average range

All within average range

Hyperactivity and concentration

difficulties

indicated as high, kind and helpful

behaviour as

slightly low.

12

0C

hap

ter 6

: Qu

alitative Resu

lts: The G

ifted

Ch

ild’s So

cial-emo

tion

al Well-b

eing

Table 6.2 An Overview of the Gifted Children who participated in Phase Two of this Study, the Interviews

C1

Declined interview.

C18

Mother stayed for the interview.

C19

Mother stayed for interview

and child

eventually sat on her lap.

C25 C27

Did not complete the

survey due to

emotional distress at the

time,

participated in the interview.

C32 C46 C65

Did not participate in the

interviews.

C67

Child’s gender Female Male Female Female Female Female Male Male Male

Family position

(obtained during

interview)

Eldest daughter

of three children,

parents suspects all children may

be gifted.

Eldest of three

sons, others also

considered gifted.

Eldest of two

daughters.

Eldest, younger

brother also

gifted.

Youngest, three

older gifted

siblings.

Youngest, older

brother also

gifted.

Only child.

Youngest, has an

older gifted

sister.

Age and school level

8-year-old in Year 3 at a

Montessori

school (chosen to allow C1 to work

at her own level

and with older

children)

11-year-old in Year 6 at a state

school

8-year-old in Year 3 at a state

school

1- year-old in Year 6 at an

independent

school.

8-year-old in Year 5 at an

independent

school – accelerated.

11- year-old in Year 6 at a state

school.


independent

school -accelerated.

11-year-old in Year 5 at the

School of the

Air.


independent

school.

Identified as

intellectually

gifted through

Cognitive

assessment

(highly gifted)

Participation in

gifted/ talented

programs, performance

within the top

10% and through the parent’s

personal

observations

Cognitive

assessment

(highly gifted)

Cognitive

assessment

(moderately gifted),

participation in

G&T programs and personal

observations

Cognitive

assessment

(highly gifted)

Cognitive

assessment; she

was twice-exceptional with

working

memory difficulties and

possibly hearing

deficits

Cognitive

assessment

Cognitive

assessment

Personal

observations and

performance in top 10%.

Subsequently

cognitively assessed

(moderately

gifted). Considered to be

underachieving

and twice-

exceptional

Extension

opportunities

In-class

differentiation&

pull-out program

In-class

differentiation&

pull-out program

Pull-out

program once a

week

In-class

differentiation&

pull-out program

Year

acceleration

Subject

acceleration

In-class

differentiation

Subject

acceleration

None

Ch

apte

r 6: Q

ualitative R

esults: Th

e Gifted

Ch

ild’s So

cial-emo

tion

al Well-b

eing

121

Table 6.3

An Overview of the Gifted Children Results for the SDQ and CASSS who participated in Phase Two of this Study, the Interviews

C1

Declined interview.

C18

Mother stayed for the interview.

C19

Mother stayed for interview and

child eventually

sat on her lap.

C25 C27

Did not complete the survey due to

emotional

distress at the time,

participated in

the interview.

C32 C46 C65


interviews.

C67

SDQ – self-

reported, areas which deviate

from the average

range

All scores within

the average range

Difficulties

getting along with others was

indicated as high

Emotional and

behavioural difficulties as

well as overall

stress indicated as slightly raised

Getting along

with others as very high and

behavioural

difficulties as slightly raised

Emotional stress

and behavioural difficulties were

slightly raised,

overall stress high and

hyperactivity and

concentration difficulties very

high

Difficulties


slightly raised

Difficulties


slightly raised

Kind and helpful

behaviour self-reported as

slightly low

CASSS – child’s

perception of

parent’s social support,

analysed in

chapter five

Believes parent

to be supporting

her well.

Informational,

appraisal and

instrumental support are low –

appraisal support

was not important to the

child.

Emotional and

instrumental

support is low, rated as

important to the

child.

Emotional

support was

slightly lowered, while important

to the child.

Emotional and

appraisal support

are slightly lowered, yet

important to the

child.

Appraisal

support was low,

yet important.

Informational

and instrumental

support was low, despite a high

need for this

support.

All four types of

support low,

informational support was not

important to the

child.

CASSS – child’s

perception of

teacher’s social support,

analysed in

chapter five

Believes teacher

to be supporting

her well.

Appraisal support

was low but not

important.

Despite their

importance to the

child, all four forms of support

are low.

Despite their

importance to

the child, all four forms of support

are low.

Low instrumental

support, however

the need for support was

indicated as low.

Instrumental

support was low,

although important to the

child.

Emotional and

informational

support was lowered, yet

important to the

child.

Emotional and

appraisal support

was considered low, and of

importance to the

child.


Table 6.4

An Overview of the Teachers who participated in Phase Two of this Study, the Interviews

T1 T32


interviews

T65

Teacher’s gender Female Female Female

Years teaching

experience

11-14 years 15 plus years 1-3 years

Highest qualification Bachelors Bachelors Bachelors

Training in gifted

education

None Professional

development

Professional

development

Training in SEWB None Professional

development

Completed Psych I

Aware child was

gifted

Aware C1 was gifted

and considers her to

be achieving

Aware C32 was gifted,

but twice-exceptional

and considers her to be

underachieving.

Aware C65 was gifted

and believes him to be

achieving

Working relationship

with parent was

Good Good Good

SDQ outcomes,

perceived by teachers,

which deviate from the

average range

All scores within the

average range

Hyperactivity and

concentration difficulties

were scored slightly

raised, overall stress

scored high, difficulties

getting along with peers

as very high and kind

and helpful behaviour as

very low.

Difficulties getting

along with others was

slightly raised.

Other During the interview

focus often shifted to

experiences with other

gifted children, she

seemed troubled about

a gifted boy who had

just left her class

moving to another

school.


6.4 Analysis of Interview Data

Through inductive data analysis, themes, and relationships between perceptions

of the participants were made; both in relation to confirming the understanding

gathered during the literature review as well as in search of new and conflicting data.

Furthermore, insights gained through the first phase of this study were also explored.

While personally transcribing the recordings of each participant, notes were made

alongside the text as the researcher started the process of analysis, by recording first

impressions during preliminary exploratory analysis, before more in-depth analysis

by hand began. As transcription was completed soon after the interview, fundamental

insights triggered further probing into emerging themes, for example, differentiating

peer interactions into friends, classmates and group work as there seemed to be

different dynamics in each.

Transcripts were then re-read once all interviews had been completed and any

new insights added before considering research questions four and five. As suggested

by Creswell (2014), parts of the text were colour coded, and text segments were

allocated under relevant code headings. The colour coding helped to highlight

comments made by participants which may be applicable across multiple themes,

without the need to remove them from context.

The internal and external factors that influence a child’s SEWB, according to

Hamilton and Redmond (2010) as discussed in section 3.2 in the literature review,

were used as a framework for interpreting research question four, whereby pattern

matching logic, as suggested by Yin (2009), resulted in comparisons being drawn

between empirically based patterns and that predicted in the literature review. As

such, previous research, focused predominantly on adolescents and from an

international perspective, was compared and contrasted from a new perspective that

of the gifted primary school child in Australia. Furthermore, data that did not

conform to these categories resulted in unexpected categories being created, for

example, new situations and change. This approach ensured all data was attended to

although, categories received varied attention, for example, peer interactions

dominated, while perfectionism was hardly mentioned. When considering research

question five, all data relating to the way in which members of groupings perceived


each other were collated into themes, for example, children’s perceptions of the

parent-teacher relationship. This was achieved by comparing answers to the

questions asked during the interviews as well as unsolicited comments made by

participants.

Data analyses were performed at two levels: within each case and across the

cases resulting in cross-case syntheses (Yin, 2009). As multiple case studies were

used, it was necessary to firstly analyse data collected from members of the same

related group before being contrasted with members of other related groups, making

use of techniques such as pattern matching, explanation building, and addressing

rival explanations as suggested by Yin (2014), so as to draw conclusions of similarity

or contrast from multiple perspectives; hereby cross-case synthesis was achieved.

6.5 Major Themes: Social-Emotional Experiences of the Gifted Child

Although ideas expressed by participants were interrelated, the data collected

were discussed under separate themes for simplicity to explore the social-emotional

experiences of gifted children, taking both internal and external factors into

consideration, and well as exploring the support provided to foster the SEWB of the

gifted child by parents and teachers. The results discussed in this section were drawn

from one-on-one interviews conducted with parents (Appendix J), gifted children

(Appendix K) and teachers (Appendix L). In addition, comments made by parents

and teachers to the open-ended questions in the survey were also included.

As previously mentioned, SEWB refers to the way a person thinks and feels

about themselves and others, and their resilience and coping skills in dealing with

daily challenges (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012). In this study, the

experience of SEWB was explored systemically from the perspective of the gifted

child themselves, as well as the perceptions of their parents and teachers. Linking

back to the literature review; so that, internal and external factors which influence a

child’s SEWB were explored to obtain an Australian perspective at the primary

school level. These internal factors influence each child to varying degrees.

However, they all influence the way in which the gifted child interacts with their

environment and the people of significance within it, which further shapes their

development and SEWB through a myriad of external factors.


6.5.1 The influence of internal factors.

In this section, internal factors, as discussed in the literature review, which

influence the gifted child’s SEWB, were considered, including asynchronous

development, being highly perceptive, feeling different, self-expectation and

perfectionism, as well as peer relationships. As such, data gathered from multiple

case studies were explored by firstly making comparisons between related cases,

secondly between cases and finally with the literature review. These factors are

summarised in Table 6.5.


Table 6.5

An Overview of the Internal Factors that Influence SEWB

Asynchronous development

Affective

development

The majority of the children were considered exceptionally considerate, the downside being self-sacrificing.

Motor development Noted in the twice-exceptional child (mismatch between ability and written output) and radically accelerated

child (physical expectations at school of peer group).

Highly perceptive

Sensual

overexcitabilities

Three children displayed aversions to certain foods and activities close to their skin. Several children withdrew

from/ after school and disliked noisy environments. Positive experiences for two oldest girls who engage in the

arts.

Emotional

overexcitabilities

Scary book or movie scenes easily upset three children. Six children were angered by injustices, although few

displayed physical signs of aggression. Although change was difficult for four children, most resorted to logical

reasoning accepting change as a process, with a little initial hesitation. Being task focused made changing

activities difficult for three children.

Imaginational One child reported books to be scarier than the related movie due to imagination; five children were avid

readers. The younger girls seemed to enjoy playing dramatic games.

Psychomotor

overexcitabilities

Three parents reported a lack of intellectual stimulation to result in physical difficulties – one sensual

overexcitabilities, the other two noted tics and obsessive-compulsive behaviours. Another parent also

mentioned sleeplessness as a challenge.

Intellectual

overexcitabilities

Families noted a deep curiosity, a love of learning and knowledge, deep thinking and questioning, and intense focus. The teachers also noted these behaviours. An adverse outcome was often children being bored with the

pace of the class.

Relationships with peers

Likeable but only a

few close friends

All children had friends, but there were few close friendships and interactions outside of school. Only two

children mentioned best friends.

Selecting friends Although well liked, the gifted child may not reciprocate being definitive when choosing friends.

Shared interests There was a lack of shared interests and understanding between the gifted child and their peers, especially the

boys who primarily were not sport orientated. One child did have many interests in common but did not invite

friends home. Three children noted participating in activities outside of school where they had access to others,

of varied ages, with similar interests.

Timeout from others Gifted children tended to be more independent and introverted, not being dependent on peers. Two children

seemed to need time away from others to reset.

Engaging with older

children or adults

All participants reported good relationships with older children and adults. Only two parents reported that at

times there was a downside of interacting in with older people.

Moving school Both a parent and a child reported changing schools to make forming friendships difficult, leaving friends

behind and trying to break into existing circles. A teacher also noted the difficulty a new child was having

moving into friendship groups.

Bullying Two parents and one child brought up bullying. A third parent made a further mention, but in this case, another

gifted child was the bully.

Self-expectation and perfectionism

A strong work ethic was reported, where children had high expectations of themselves and the work they

produced. For two children this resulted in procrastination or giving up in fear of making a mistake.

Feeling different

Only one child directly mentioned feeling different, although others alluded to it. Parents felt their child might

be different to others due to their thinking in particular, which influences behaviour.


6.5.1.1 Asynchronous development.

Asynchronous development implies the uneven development of gifted children

in terms of their internal processes including intellectual, social, emotional, and

motor development (Akin, 2005). As previously mentioned in Chapter three,

asynchrony is more pronounced in twice-exceptional children (Silverman, 2002).

The results of this study indicated varying degrees of asynchronicity, particularly in

terms of intellectual differences, discussed in section 6.5.2.3.

Asynchrony with regard to motor development was primarily noted in C67,

who was considered twice-exceptional. His mother relayed in her discussion when

asked about his resilience and coping with everyday situations, “I think the anxiety

comes from frustration about the difference between his ability and his output.” The

child’s statement regarding his feelings about being excluded from extension

programs, “It just makes me feel like sad ... like, I got the brains, it’s just the only

thing I don’t have is handwriting.” affirmed the mother’s perspective on the

difficulties her child faces due to this mismatch. Another physical mismatch

mentioned by P27 when discussing challenges her child faces at school was radically

accelerated C27:

“The sport teacher refused to make any allowances for the fact that she is the

size of a six-year-old and she is with 11 and 12-year-olds but we are not going

to make any concessions. So she wouldn’t get her the lower basketball hoops,

when they did hurdling she was expected to go over the hurdles with the big

kids, so I was constantly up at the school saying but you don’t understand, you

are making this difficult, you are wanting her to fail.”

Although the child’s motor skills were age-appropriate, her advanced

cognitive development and subsequent acceleration have resulted in a disparity

between the child and her ability to physically meet the expectations of children in

her year level. In addition, C27 also had allergies which were not always

accommodated within the classroom environment.

Both P67 and P27 had approached the school to overcome the difficulties

experienced by their children in this regard. P27 had been successful in finding ways

around these difficulties as she believed, “you can’t just say there are only two

alternatives.” In contrast, P67 did not seem to have made headway:


“Well, I have called a meeting with the principal, learning support teacher and

the teacher ... Seems like they have even less interest... The principal at one

point commented that maybe he is just one of those bright people who struggle

through school and will do well later in life... Yeah maybe, but I feel I need to

do everything I can to help him through school, he has a long journey ahead of

him still and in my opinion, it is only going to get more difficult for him with

an ever-increasing workload. The learning support teacher reckons he is above

the ability of kids she teaches so she cannot help him, underachieving just

doesn't seem to be something people need to worry about.”

Parents in this study also described a child who was “considerate” (P46),

“empathetic” (P32), and “kind” (P27), which constitutes part of their affective

development, often considered to be more advanced than their peers. Supporting this,

T65 described the gifted child in her class as “very caring and thoughtful towards

others.” An example was provided by P18 when she described the characteristics of

her child that stand out to her:

“I’m sometimes often surprised by how compassionate he is and I think that’s

quite unusual to have that in a child... he thinks of, you know, us and his

brothers far more than he thinks of himself sometimes too, you know, a

ridiculous level and I sort of have to always try tell him, like you had your

rights, you have your, and is um, a very unusual child in that I think more than

most children he’s very, very caring, and he’s very self-sacrificing like if he’s

eating a biscuit and there’s like one bite left, he’ll give half a bite to his

brothers or he’ll give the last bite to his brothers even, he’s a very, very

compassionate child and sometimes it perplexes me how to teach him that he

has a right to have his share of things without fighting that out of him because

obviously, it’s a somewhat good trait, so that balance is difficult.”

Likewise, being self-sacrificing was further mentioned by P27 when

describing her daughter, “not for one minute would I not want her to be a kind

person, but what I find is that she is often thinking more about other people, than she

is thinking about herself.”

In contrast, P67 reported, when describing her child:

“He is not always helpful...he is, maybe not as in your face as some kids are,

but if he is asked to do something, consider it done. Also, he doesn't feel he


should always help people, sometimes they need to ask the teacher for help

because she is more qualified and sometimes you can only give them a little bit

of help because they need to help themselves ...”

Motor asynchronous development most significantly influenced the twice-

exceptional child as was anticipated in the literature review. Although it could be

argued that C27’s acceleration led to the difficulties she experienced in sport at

school, she also experienced difficulties related to allergies, which may imply

differences of any type could influence a child’s development. Furthermore, these

differences seemed easier to accommodate at home compared to within the school

environment. In addition, five children were also reported by both parents and

teachers to have advanced affective development and to be very considerate towards

others, often to their own detriment. Only one child was not considered by their

parents to be helpful. However, this child was not displaying negative behaviour but

preferred referring others to more suitably qualified sources of help, he would assist

when asked to or in an emergency.

6.5.1.2 Highly perceptive.

As discussed in Chapter three, according to Delisle and Galbraith (2002), it

was noted that gifted children are often considered to be highly perceptive. This

perceptivity influences the way in which they experience the world, both physically

and emotionally; influencing their interactions with others. As discussed in the

literature review, gifted children may display overexcitabilities – psychomotor,

sensual, emotional, intellectual, and imaginational. Although no direct questions

were asked about overexcitabilities, when parents were asked about the types of

things that may make their children feel unhappy or scared, the focus fell on issues

which may be interpreted as overexcitabilities according to Dabrowski’s Theory of

Positive Disintegration. This is consistent for all parents except P25 and P46, both of

whom referred to interactions with others. However, mention was made for both

these children elsewhere during the interviews, indicating they too experienced

overexcitabilities. In keeping with Winkler and Voight’s (2016) meta-analysis, as

discussed in the literature review, the influence these behaviours have in

relationships with others, and the support required was of importance in this study.


Sensual overexcitabilities refer to an expanded and enriched sensory experience

(Piechowski & Miller, 1995). This may include sensitivity to smells, tastes or

textures as well as an appreciation of beauty and the arts. P1 reported her child to

have issues with sensual overexcitabilities;

“She has some sensory integration issues and so she hates cutting her nails,

washing her hair, having a shower, um, anything, you know, that is sort of

close to her skin, used to be dressing, that’s not so bad anymore but certain

clothes, so some sorts of things will put her in a really foul mood.”

They supported their child by providing a distraction, such as allowing her to

read while cutting her nails. However, the parent felt that these issues had eased:

“It’s like it’s disappeared um, I don’t, we did do some research into um trying

to get her intellectually stimulated enough to see that would settle down some

of the sensory integration issues and the emotional issues and we found cello,

like doing cello has really helped that because it seems to use up a bit more of

her brain.”

Similarly, P19 also reported C19 to have sensitivities related to clothing and

food, “which are always a little bit of a challenge to work with, but she ... enjoys ...

you know, it’s just something we live with.” C19’s surroundings also became

overwhelming at times:

“It’s just when it’s just too much sensory stuff it tends to be more ... too much

noise, too many crowds, sort of everything accumulating on top of her, she

gets very overwhelmed from those sorts of things ... um ... or if too much detail

is given to her, so you give her a very long list of instructions, she just doesn’t,

she gets very stressed out.”

In these situations P19 reported she would physically withdraw by walking

off or retaliate by shouting back. C67 was also reported to withdraw as a result of

sensory overload, which influences the time shared with friends, this is discussed in

section 6.5.1.3. P19 described the accommodations made for C19 to better assimilate

into the classroom:

“Well, you see the teachers, finally are aware of it and they’ll get her to ... go

get a drink of water or something so she is out of the classroom just to reset

um, she does some stretches as well at her desk so there’s a physical thing to


stop her from hunching over and bring her upright and move around a bit and

that tends to help her reset ... it’s getting better as the classroom is not quite as

noisy, you know they are sort of more structured now, it’s not as bad as it

was.”

However, there was a discrepancy between the parent and teacher’s view of

the situation, whereby the parent indicated that the teacher “thinks that there is an

underlying issue,” despite various assessments being undertaken. When the parent

was questioned as to what she believed the teacher was looking for, she responded,

“I think she is just expecting to see um, a weakness or something, whereas, the

overexcitabilities of gifted children isn’t a problem, it’s the way they are.”

As will be discussed in section 6.5.2.3, all the boys in this study when

describing learning with peers, also reported talking within the classroom to affect

them negatively. P27 described her child’s physical sensitivity when discussing her

resilience and daily coping skills:

“...she can’t enter a swimming pool because she can’t methylate the chlorine

out of her body, it gets into her skin, she can’t get it out properly. So she can’t

swim. And for all of first term at school they do swimming lessons. She can’t

do it. Does she whinge and cry? No she doesn’t, she gets happy with a book,

that’s emotional intelligence, that’s resilience.”

Furthermore, sensual overexcitabilities can also be positive experiences, such

as in the case of C25 and C32, who both enjoyed music and performance and

drawing respectively. Their parents provided opportunities to pursue these activities

outside of school.

Imaginational overexcitabilities include vivid fantasies and dreams, a good sense of

humour, magical thinking, and creative inventions (Piechowski & Miller, 1995).

Considering imagination-related overexcitability, P27 shared how her child needed

comforting at times:

“She’s got a fierce imagination, so sometimes when she is reading a book, like

the last three or four nights, she has been reading ‘The Thickety’ and it’s very

scary and so she won’t go upstairs by herself so she needs all the lights on and

she’ll call downstairs hhhh ... and I’ll say it’s okay ... So, that makes her

scared, the imagination runs riot.”


C27 also mentioned another book and how she felt it was “scarier than the

movie;” adding that the content gave her nightmares. When questioned whether other

things made her scared, C27 responded, “Um... not really.” She had an obsession

with the series, and even when describing her friends at Mensa she stopped to

describe the game developed around the book; whereby children assumed characters

from the story, she also played it at school.

P67 relayed a few times that people have commented about her child’s

“mature sense of humour.” Similarly, when C67 was asked how his parents and

teacher would describe him, the first thing he said was, “He’s funny ... he is good at

jokes.” Furthermore, both C67 and C18 listed being “funny” as a characteristic when

asked to describe their ideal teacher.

Psychomotor overexcitabilities imply a person’s level of energy (Piechowski &

Miller, 1995). According to Bainbridge (2017), this may also be displayed as rapid

and/ or compulsive speech, competitiveness, nervous habits and tics, sleeplessness

and the physical expression of emotion (considered in the next section when factors

which cause anger are discussed).

Similar to P1’s explanation of how playing cello had helped her daughter

overcome heightened sensory difficulties; P18 and P67 believed a lack of intellectual

stimulation led to psychomotor overexcitability. P18 describes:

“I think a lot of his traditional schooling that he has had, he has been very,

very bored and I think a lot of this stuff he develops because um, he doesn’t

want to do the wrong thing, and shuffle in his seat or you know, so it’s just

something to sort of keep him occupied, you know. So he has developed a lot

of tics so that, things he does just to while he is thinking about something he

can do something else and it sort of stimulates him, when he’s really, what’s

going on in the classroom doesn’t stimulate him at all.”

As a consequence, P18 described C18 as:

“He’s always been quite a quirky child, he’s always gone through these really

quite weird stages, you know like for instance, you know, you’ll know he’ll get

into a habit of licking his lips and he’ll do it until they get red, or, and then

they’ll just pass... I think hopefully they are just things that he will overcome.”


Similarly, C67’s parents also reported psychomotor overexcitability in

response to the classroom environment;

“Well, he has an anxiety disorder which results in him picking at his skin ... It's

not nice. Although I have been teaching him to rather do other things than pick

at his skin because there have been times when he has been off school because

of huge wounds that just wouldn't heal and couldn't be covered due to their

size, so he has other fidgets... I think the anxiety comes from frustration about

the difference between his ability and his output.”

P1 noted three times during the interview that her child experienced

sleeplessness. This influenced not only the child’s functioning as she would become

angry when tired, but also other members of the family whose sleep was also

disturbed as “she’s always stayed up, and just got up continuously.” Sleeplessness

was also experienced by C1’s sibling (also gifted). Hence the children used

melatonin:

“...which has helped massively on getting them to sleep, it hasn’t helped them

sleep through the night, unfortunately, but it has helped to, to quieten down

enough to actually get to sleep at night because that was something that was

taking hours and hours for her, like it could take three or four hours for her to

get to sleep...”

Emotional overexcitabilities are the breadth and depth of emotional life. This

includes feelings, attachments, and compassion (Piechowski & Miller, 1995).

Bainbridge (2017) describes these traits to include: extreme emotions, a deep sense

of responsibility, feelings of inadequacy or inferiority, shyness, heightened sense of

justice, problems adjusting to change, need for security and a physical response to

emotions. Although as discussed in the previous section, that enhanced affective

development results in admirable qualities such as empathy and compassion, three

parents reported their gifted child’s emotional responses to situations to be excessive.

For example, P67 recalled her child’s response when watching a television program:

“There was some Australian history program, like a documentary... that

showed people being whipped, this resulted in him leaving the room in tears

and sobbing, we tried to console him but then it became about us being bad

parents for allowing him to see it... He is okay watching aggression in movies


because he has explained he understands the difference between reality and a

movie. We don't watch the news much in our house. It's just too hectic.”

P67 stated she preferred to give her child details in a gentler manner. He

would generally move away and have some alone time, and P67 only intervened if it

was a big issue. P1 also noted, “it used to be movies, but it’s not so much anymore,

she didn’t... she is quite good at self-regulating so if a book or a movie was too scary,

she’d stop and move away from that straight away.” P18 described her child as an

“emotionally soft kid,” however, she believed his teacher this year had exposed him

to things he would have not ordinarily been exposed to, such as physical punishment;

which she felt had built resilience. She acknowledged:

“It’s helped probably to toughen him up a bit ... but it’s been a hard lesson I

think, but um, you know, I think life’s pretty hard so, you sometimes need to

have a bit of that in your life.”

When parents were asked about their child expressing feelings of anger, the

most common cause according to the parents in this study were injustices (P1, P25,

P32, P46, P67); other causes included interrupting tasks they were focused on (P19),

when the child was stressed or tired (P1, P25) and sibling discourse (P1, P18 – both

the eldest of their family). Although most parents reported a ‘low-level’ (P46) or

‘stewing anger’ (P18), resulting in the child withdrawing rather than dealing directly

with the problem, only a few physical displays, such as clenched fists (P19, P27) and

yelling (P27) were mentioned; most spoke light-heartedly about their child

displaying anger. Anger was not always considered in a negative light, for example,

P32 believed it was important for his daughter to be able to show her emotions:

“To be able to stand up to people and not buckle under just because they’re

older or bigger or whatever. So you try to sort of make her be independent, but

also try to, try to, um, not take away the confidence in herself.”

Injustices seemed to occur from the child’s perspective, “She doesn’t like

injustice, um, but having said that she’s usually only looking at it from her side, so,

it’s not fair to her” (P1). Therefore, injustice may be viewed as:

“It’s things where, it’s not going according to the script, so if it’s a structured

script and it doesn’t go according to script perfectly because other people


around her don’t understand their role they don’t follow the script 100% that

makes her, that makes her angry” (P25).

Although the script may be known to the gifted child, other members of

society may not be as aware of them, which caused upset and required conversation

around the situation, for example, P46 accounted:

“Injustices will make him feel um, angry, um this is not, this is not a big deal

but and it’s just like low-level anger but if he is supposed to be, senior belt at

taekwondo, which means he gets to do all the talking and all the rest it, but if

the main instructor, forgets or overlooks or doesn't follow through, maybe once

okay, but if it starts to be a pattern, then he just gets low-level angry about,

‘We didn’t do it, we didn’t do it again, it was my turn, or it’s not fair’.”

Parents predominantly left their child to cool off and then spoke to them in an

effort to reason with them “so I know you feel like this and it’s okay to feel like this

but really it’s ... And then again in the scheme of things where does this all, where

does this all fit?” (P46). P67 explained:

“It is difficult to try and reason with him, which is what I try to do. Usually,

with some time to himself, he recalibrates and returns in a better frame of

mind. I also try and prepare him for situations which I think may upset him,

and call upon his better judgement while he is still in a place to reason.”

P67 added:

“It doesn't take much to get him going. I sometimes feel like I stir him a bit

just to get him to relax and not take everything so seriously. I think it also

takes him a while to calm down once he feels he has been slighted.”

P25 also acknowledged that his daughter was easily provoked and therefore

they “structure her day going into her life or going into school or what have you, we

probably, we probably should spend more time structuring how she’d

‘decompressurise’ at the end of the day.” Although the child had access to facilities

to relax in, the parent believed their support through the process could be improved.

For children with emotional overexcitabilities, adjusting to change can be

difficult due to the secure attachments they may develop to people, places, and

things. Furthermore, new situations are fraught with new stimulation and the


unknown. Parents were asked to describe their child’s response to new situations and

change; children responded with varying degrees of concern, often needing to

intellectualise the scenario.

P46 did not place concern on her child’s ability to confront new situations;

although previously he may have been distressed, he now acknowledged that new

situations were just a process, “understanding that the nerves are there and then by

doing whatever it is he needs to do, those nerves will go.” She had always supported

him to try new things and helped him to understand some nerves are to be expected.

P1 also reported a similar situation, “she can have some initial um, hesitation, and

then more and more, she’s quicker and quicker to get over that and once she is, she

just goes ahead... Um, so generally, she’ll try almost anything.” Her positive attitude

may have been attributed to the parents themselves, “the main thing is that we show

her that we make mistakes and that we fail, and that then you just keep trying...”

Other children required more assurance, particularly in social situations. P18

described her child:

“I think he is very confident, into the school work and intellectually, and

things like that, but I think he... questions himself in terms of social situation,

so I think he finds a bit of a frightening social situation because he had times in

life, where he’s felt, you know, on the outer and not, not felt he can fit in with

anyone, whether it is true or not, I don’t know, but he felt like that and I think

he, that scares because he feels, it’s something he’s not good at.”

They worked with him and provided scaffolding for him to cope. P25 also

believed:

“In most cases when she gets to these situations she’s actually, if it, if it is

structured and she has had time to sort of think it through in her mind and she’s

got, she’s been able to play out scenarios and options, she actually handles it

really well. She’s quite resilient and um and she’s all business. She goes

through the motions, is very serious, she applies her mind and gets it done.”

However, the ability to think it through escalated as the structure became less

familiar, such as when joining new interest classes:


“A lot of these times when we’re going to these things it seems to be, and she’s

picked up on this as well, that there’s people that have been there since they

were born so they sort of institutionalised in, in the class and they have been

going there for years ... so having to enter that, it’s got a minefield of um,

uncertainty, new personalities, will there be any friends there, is it too much

stress... so it’s not, it’s not spontaneous, it’s, it’s very um, it’s almost like

scenario testing. What are the possible scenarios that could happen? So, I think

she like plays it through her head and asks a lot of questions testing what if this

happens, what if that happens? Um, just to, just to either validate or disprove

um what’s playing through her mind. A lot of the time, I think the stuff she

dreams up or thinks about, potentially would never ever happen but she plays it

through almost like a chess game.”

These thoughts may relate to imagination overexcitabilities, whereby an

endless number of im/possible options need to be considered. Similarly, P27 also

reported the need to intellectualise new events:

“She doesn’t like doing new things unless I have created a framework for her.

If I create the framework, even if it is something she has never done before,

she’ll go happily and do it. If I did not do that she feels as though it is too,

too... there are too many unknowns, she doesn’t like the unknown.”

P19 verbalized her child to “be quite withdrawn and quiet, she will keep to

the back, wait until she is sure of herself before she’ll go out there and do it but once

she’s comfortable, she’s off and running.” She was supported by her parent staying

with her and introducing her to adults who are reassuring.

When considering adjusting to change, which was one of the worries on the

poster taken from the book “The Worry Tree” (Musgrove, 2012), shown to children

during the interviews; two of the three children in Year 6 mentioned that they would

be moving to high school shortly. For C18 the size of high school and volume of

homework were a concern, whilst looking forward to “advanced Science, English,

and Maths.” To support this transition, his parents arranged for him to attend the

parent orientation as well, he described the situation: “There were only other parents,

and me. My parents, some other parents and me – no other kids.” C25 explained that

to cope with change, “I try and make like they don't get to me as much as they do ...”

and was, therefore, looking to “think about the positives” of having “more kids to


talk to.” This was interesting as her parent indicated that change from a social

perspective was more difficult for her.

Resistance to changing activity was mentioned by various parents; this may

be due to either difficulty with change or intense focus on the task with which they

are engaged. P19 reported, “You know she doesn’t get angry at a lot of things it’s

normally if it’s interrupting whatever she’s doing or what she wants to do ...” P32

noted when describing his child attending Art classes, “It was always an argument to

get her there and then there was always an argument to get her home again.”

Similarly, P67 reported when asked about her child’s adjustment to new situations:

“He is really a homely child and doesn't enjoy going out much; even going to

the beach seems to be difficult for him. He would not want to go and moan and

groan before we left, but... Once we got there he has a great time, then we have

to listen to him complain all over again when we have to leave (laughs), he

now will often suggest places we should go and things to do...”

P67 was unsure whether the improvement could be attributed to maturity or

the child having more opportunities for downtime as they “can be a pretty full on

family at times,” but were spending less time on outings due to other commitments

over the weekends. C67 noted his dislike of change although he said changes in his

life revolved around moving schools and home a few times:

“I don’t like change, like I don’t like going to new schools, because all my

friends were like back at the one school, or I don’t like changing where I live,

like I used to live in X and now I live in Y, and lots of my friends were in X.”

Hence change for C67 moved back to the topic of friends. Interestingly, when

children were asked to consider the worries on “The Worry Tree” poster; options

included friends, school, change, family, illness and lost things; they focused on

friends, school, and change. The worries associated with friends and school are

discussed in section 6.5.2.3.

Intellectual overexcitabilities refer to intense and accelerated activities of the mind,

not necessarily academic achievement. Bainbridge (2017) describes qualities such as

deep curiosity, a love of learning and knowledge, deep thinking and questioning, and

intense focus. Children in this study who displayed these behaviours had experienced

them both as positive and negative experiences. Intellectual overexcitability


influences the child’s experience within the classroom, as noted by P18, “I think that

he thinks very deeply, and um he gets bored very easily.” C67 also noted he felt

bored, as did C25 when describing the classroom environment, “If I’m going too

slow and I get so bored with the stuff.” This discussion will be expanded in section

6.5.2.3. Depending on one’s position, the intense focus could be viewed either

positively or negatively. C1 may have neglected duties due to her intense focus on

reading as described by P1 in discussion around things that could make her child

angry:

“She feels like activities of daily living, like brushing your teeth, getting ready

for school, or doing your cello practice and that sort of thing, eating your

breakfast gets in the way of her reading so when I’m actually telling her to put

her book down, which sounds terrible, but she’ll get really angry with that, so

we’ve put structures in like you have to get all these things done in the

morning before you can read, same at night.”

However, T1 when describing C1 compared to her classmates saw this

focused approach as commendable:

“She’s got this patience and perseverance that I’ve not seen in that many

children so yeah, until she finishes something she, will persist, even if

everyone else goes to snack or even if there is something really exciting

happening, she doesn’t budge, until she finishes what she has started, or what

she has set her mind to, it’s not that I have told her that you must finish it, it’s

all intrinsic her motivation, yeah, she amazes me.”

This study indicated being highly perceptive could be experienced as either

positive or negative. Although some parents felt “it was something we live with”

(P19), in many instances parents and teachers had put procedures into place in an

effort to overcome these barriers; whilst others seemed to be more difficult to

surmount.

6.5.1.3 Feeling different

As discussed in the literature review, many gifted children are norm-

referencing before starting school (Gross, 2004b). According to Pyryt (2008), a

child’s comparisons with peers helps shape their self-concept which as per Leyden

and Shale (2012) forms the foundation of social-emotional development. Coleman et


al. (2015), attributed feelings of difference to differences in ability and motivation;

Lee et al. (2012) noted gifted children display greater academic self-concepts than

their peers do. Furthermore, feelings of difference impact negatively on both self-

esteem and peer relationships (Morawska & Sanders, 2009b), resulting in a

generalised feeling of concern or lack of competency in social situations and

difficulties establishing and maintaining relationships with peers (Lee et al., 2012). A

similar situation was noted in this research.

No direct question was asked about feelings of difference to avoid pre-

empting that gifted children may feel different. The gifted children in this study, with

the exception of C25, who said, “me and my friends are very, very different,” did not

explicitly report they felt different to their peers, however, differences were primarily

noted when considering their ability and behaviour in the class, discussed in section

6.5.2.3. Interestingly, C32 noted this when comparing herself to her peers and how

they were different, “how they act in class sometimes and how much work they do in

class.” Furthermore, these factors, amongst others, may influence friendships, for

example, C27, when asked what was good about going to Mensa, replied, “Well

otherwise, um, I don’t make like that many friends because they don’t understand the

way I think.” This is discussed in greater detail in section 6.5.1.5.

Four parents mentioned at points in their interview that their child was

different. P1, whilst discussing her child’s lack of sleep, mentioned the difficulties

experienced “because her mind and her body and her physiology is different in some

regard.” P18 commented, “They’re just normal kids but in some ways they’re

different because they’ve travelled, because they’ve done a lot of things, they view

the world differently.” When P25 considered how his child would think of herself, he

said,

“I think that she thinks that she's very different and because of that when she

compares herself to other people around her the way she thinks the way she

reacts to circumstances and that can be then sometimes difficult because she is

then seen to be or feels like she's different to everyone else around her.”

P25 tried to normalise the situation for C25 by noting that everyone is unique

in his or her own way. In contrast, besides for general love and support, P18 believed

gifted children needed to build resilience and accept that they are not like their peers:


“What I am saying is, to some extent they have to accept that they’ll never be

really like a lot of their peers and that’s just... and I think in order, you know,

sometimes you know, that you have to accept that and you know, so I, I

suppose, I don’t really try and shelter them from that and that is something that

they have to accept, that they are often going to be the odd one out or the one

that sticks out, or the one that thinks differently and it’s not necessarily a bad

thing, sometimes it can be a bad thing, sometimes it can be a good thing and

you’ve got to learnt to accept that.”

At times, the gifted child’s differences were conveyed to the child by their

parents. For example, P19 explained the breakdown in her child’s relationship with

the teacher by explaining to her child: “she doesn’t understand the way your brain

works, it’s different from other kids.” Comments such as these from parents would

influence the way in which gifted children perceive themselves. However, it was

difficult to determine how much their self-perception was determined by their own

feelings of difference from their peers, or their parents’ perceptions of such

difference. Regardless, the gifted children may have felt different.

6.5.1.4 Self-expectation and perfectionism.

As noted in chapter three, perfectionism is considered to be a combination of

thoughts and behaviours associated with high self-expectation; perceiving an ideal

and having the desire to achieve just that (Blackett & Hermansson, 2005), often

resulting in the child being critical of their work (Clark, 2008). Furthermore, the

gifted child may fail to engage in an activity if they sense a perceived risk of failure.

P1 noted when asked about her child’s expectations, that C1’s self-

expectations would be higher than the expectations of others of her as she was really

hard on herself. To overcome this, they had focused on the activity rather than the

child and C1 had become more accepting of making mistakes whereas in the past she

refused to try in fear of failure. Children also reported high self-expectations. C25

had noted that she dominates group work, discussed in section 6.5.2.3, to ensure she

achieved good grades. When asked what she would do if the project were not for

grades, she responded, “I’d still try and do it because I feel embarrassed when I

present something that doesn't meet my standards.” C46 had a similar response, “I

don’t need the teachers and people thinking that I can’t get stuff done.”


P19 when discussing accommodations needed at school mentioned that an

area they were working on was C19 “being a bit of a perfectionist;” she repeated

work if not done to her expectation or focused on the wrong importance such as

being meticulous about the colour being used as opposed to completing the task. This

often resulted in incomplete work being completed at home. This is similar to P32

who reported, “She contemplates a whole lot of different options before she even

starts something, it slows her down.” Later P19 mentioned perfectionism caused C19

to become upset when she did not master a skill quickly, because she did not face

challenges too often, “when she has to work hard it’s quite a challenge.”

6.5.1.5 Relationships with peers.

As noted in Chapter three, gifted children may find it difficult to find a like-

minded peer group due to their different ways of thinking and interests, friendship

expectations, and atypical gender behaviour patterns (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002).

This may result in a smaller social network or the child withdrawing, which need not

be a problem if the child prefers solitude rather than trading their true identity to

conform to the group. However, the development and maintenance of close

relationships as well as belonging to groups is one of three primary psychological

needs, according to Self-determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), the other two

being competence and autonomy. Mutually supportive interactions are not only

desirable for most people but are essential for adjustment and well-being. In this

study, the children were reported to be likeable, yet they reported few friends, the

evidence to be presented shows that this may have been due to the gifted child’s

strict selection criteria, a lack of shared interests, the need for alone time and an

interest in engaging with older children and adults. The gifted children in this study

had access to peers within their class, beyond the classroom and at venues outside of

school.

a. Likeable, but only a few close friends.

A clear distinction needs to be drawn between being friendly and having

friends. It was reported that although a child may be well-liked by their peers, five of

the gifted children in this study had a minimal number of “proper friendships” (P19),

or as referred to by C27, “my friend-friend.” Three parents (P27, P46, and P67),

when asked about their child’s friendships, reported there were general friends but no


specific best friends and few to no play dates after school (P27, P25, P32, P46, P67).

P46 reported that her child had felt “genuine unhappiness” regarding his lack of

friends.

When asked about the help she may need from her parents, C25 raised

concerns over her popularity. As C25 was nearing adolescence, the peer group was

significant (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Popularity is peer-perceived; being

popular is correlated with enhanced self-perceptions, increased belongingness, and

lower chances of exclusion (Cillessen, Schwartz & Mayeux, 2011). This statement

by C25 gave insight into her experiences as well as the mismatch between the child’s

understandings of friendship qualities compared to her peers:

“I’m popular in a way that everyone knows me as I’m nice and they can come

and play with me, and they can have fun, and they can come talk to me and

they can be in a group with me and I’ll listen to their ideas but that’s not how

kids think of popular in our school.”

The lack of connection to one’s peers may be painful for the child whose peer

interactions are described by his parent as being “compatible with them on a certain

level but not fully, so he’s never been able to share his full personality with anybody

and I think it has always made him feel a bit disengaged with people” (P18). This

was reiterated in C18’s description of his friends:

“Ah, I have a few friends, but there’s not much (tentative)... like I talk with

them and sitting next to me and around in class, we do class work together and

stuff but I talk with them and that’s about it, I don’t really play with them

much...”

Forging friendships was described as a “very slow process” (P19) that needs

on-going guidance, as described by P46:

“Talking about friendships and how do you keep those friendships going and

this, we have not really focused too much on it because I thought we had that

under control from last year, so I guess that we just, as a skill, we just let it

lapse and now he just, I suppose floats, or seems happy enough to just fit in

wherever he thinks he fits in.”


P1 and P32 mentioned their child having a best friend. P32 believed his

child’s best friend could be a bad influence, a sentiment also shared by the child. It is

unsure why C32 perpetuated this friendship. However, it was noted that when C32

experienced some mild bullying, this child had come to her rescue. When asked

about her child’s best friends, P1 shared:

“The ones that she gets along with, um her best friends, um, the one’s hot-

headed and she’s quite hot-headed, and one of her other ones is, is very

intelligent and so I think they get that stimulation from each other.”

When T1 was asked if there was a difference in the relationship between C1

and her classmates compared to her best friend, T1 responded, “Yes, yes! Like C1

does, she has a very different relationships with her, with her classmates and she has

best friends who are not in the class but she, I see her on the playground with them –

so she yeah, morphs into a different person.” When asked about the child in her

class’s friendships, T65 noted that the child had one close friend, yet their interaction

was gender atypical:

“You know the other boys at this school, you know they sort of rough-and-

tumble and run around and they, they’ll sort of bounce from one thing to the

next, whereas these two are a little bit more withdrawn and they enjoy talking

about books together, but it’s sort of like they are both different, they are just

both together being different.”

It was interesting to note that P27 mentioned that of the two girls her

daughter plays with, her daughter believes the one to be gifted, “out of all the kids at

school that’s the only child that C27 has ever said that about. She thinks like me, C27

said, she doesn’t think in straight lines, she thinks in spirals.” P19 also noted that a

few of her child’s friends were also gifted.

The gifted children in this study had friendships of varying quality and often

only a few in numbers. Parents and teachers seemed more aware of the disconnection

between the gifted child and their peers and the need for friendships to be supported;

most children were able to express positive accounts with their friends.


b. Selecting friends.

Friendship is reciprocal; hence despite parents generally reporting their child to

be liked by their peers, there were discrepancies as to how much the gifted children

liked their peers, and five of the gifted children appeared mere acquaintances. C25

echoed these sentiments, “Okay, they get along with me (giggles) um ... I don’t really

relate to them.” Similarly, P18 thought that although peers may have like her child,

he did not reciprocate as he did not see them as friends:

“I think he had a lot more friends really, you know, like he walks through

school and everyone seems to know him and like him. But I don’t think he

recognises the friendships that he has because he feels in himself, and he

always has, even, all through school, a disconnection to other kids and I think

that’s because he is intellectually quite advanced and I think that he has always

felt that he can’t, um, like when he talks to someone else that he feels that there

is not an understanding there in that regard.”

This sentiment was reiterated by P1, as she believed her child to be “definitive

about whom are her friends and just who are just colleagues at school and

acquaintances.” P46 added that her son would not “have friends, for the sake of it, if

they're not the people I actually want to be friends with.” This may have left some

children, according to P19, to “play on her own and be in her own world.”

Five of the gifted children in this qualitative study had strict selection criteria due

to the values they place on friendship and the mental connection they expect a friend

to make with them. Although peers may have been friendly towards the gifted

children, they may have disengaged and not welcomed interaction, treating peers as

acquaintances.

c. Shared interests.

Having shared interests facilitates conversation as well as the games children

play. Although gifted children within this study often reported adjusting to the norms

of the group, they were excluded, or friendship options decreased when they did not.

P19 felt that children may be negatively perceived as being in parallel play, as

opposed to developmentally appropriate co-operative play; however, they are

actually not interested in what their peers are doing. P18 believed her child might


have disengaged due to the lack of shared understanding with his peers due to his

intellectual advancement; in addition, his varied life experiences may have created a

gap between the child and his peers. P27 mentioned a similar situation:

“They seem to be two, maybe two and a half years older than her, they still

don’t want to discuss things in the complex depth that she wants to discuss

them and, she’s frequently disappointed, so I have found that, what I have tried

to do is, encourage her to um, enjoy their company but realise that ... there’s

limitations and she might not find a group of friends that she truly, truly um,

feels comfortable with until she goes to uni, if she goes to uni.”

Of the three boys interviewed, only one considered himself sporty. C67

acknowledged during the interview that he made a concerted effort to be sporty and

improve his skills as he saw value in doing this; opposed to being academic, people

would perceive him in “a good way.” The other two considered themselves more

academic. This may be considered as gender atypical within a society where sport

participation rates in children are higher for boys than girls (Australian Bureau of

Statistics, 2009). According to research undertaken by Conry-Murray (2013), there

are social consequences for defying gender norms, and possibly for non-sporty boys,

this means fewer peer interactions. As previously mentioned, T65 also noted that the

gifted child in her class preferred reading. P18 relayed one of her child’s previous

teachers has tried to intervene to support the child:

“She actually ran a chess club, really unbeknownst to him specifically to help

him because he was at a stage where he wasn’t really um socialising well and

making friends and um, she ran the chess club to try and find people like, who

weren’t playing footy.”

The girls, in particular, enjoyed playing dramatic or fantasy games, such as

dragons or “fairies or elves who like dragons ...” (C19), and singing. C27 had written

out the rules for the game she played with her two friends, based on a book she had a

particular interest in due to her connection to the characters, “I get to play Peregrine

again, because I find it really interesting and there’s a girl in the book who can

actually talk to plants, it so cool (stressed).” The parent saw this game as a good

outlet for her daughter’s obsession with the book although she has noted that the

group who played the game has reduced in numbers with the introduction of the

rules, however, this was not viewed negatively by the parent.


C25 contemplated the lack of interests between her and her friends, “me and

my friends are not alike – at all, but we’re still friends for some reason, it’s ... I don’t

even know how we relate. It’s really weird.” Similarly, P18 explained how C18 is

“more of a stick to the rules type of kid,” whereas his friend was opposite which

helped C18 be less rigid however overtime that friendship has waned as they were

very different people. Shared interests may only be part of an elaborate labyrinth

which forms the foundation of friendship. P67 reported that although her child was

social and had many shared interests with his peers, he did not welcome his friends

into his home to share in these activities. Subsequently, the parents engaged him in

organised activities outside of school which he enjoyed. The approach was echoed by

P25 and P27. P25 believed this provided his child with exposure to older children

with shared interests, in a safe environment, which the child agreed she enjoyed.

To summarise, due to different interests and the heightened complexity gifted

children may assign to games, the number of like-minded peers may be reduced. To

be included in games, gifted children needed to adjust to the majority. The boys who

were not as focused on sport felt more excluded from the group to the point that one

boy was purposefully improving his skills to enhance the way in which others

perceived him. In contrast, reading may be considered a more appropriate pastime

for girls as one of the dramatic games played by a group of girls revolved around a

book. Parents may enrol their gifted child in structured programs outside of school;

although these activities may be positive experiences, these peer interactions were

limited to within the program.

d. Timeout from others.

In addition to a lack of shared interests in activities, P19 reported her child

needed timeout from the schooling process, at playtime “she would go off and be by

herself because that was quiet and she could think and reflect to herself;” due to her

introverted nature and the need to restore balance and overcome sensory overload

before returning to the noisy and busy classroom environment. P19 felt that this had

improved as the classroom had become less interactive and more focused on quiet

work; her child had also bonded with a few other children through parent

involvement to engage other children in play dates outside of the school

environment. P67 also mentioned that school might be an overwhelming experience


for her child who cocooned himself, “he literally gets home and goes to his room, he

closes the curtains and wraps himself up in his sheets,” he needed this timeout and

did not want to invite his friends to his home. P25 also noted his daughter was

introverted and therefore it was necessary to “create environments in a structured

way that she can interact with people in a safe sort of manner.”

Furthermore, P25 felt that as C25 was a “very independent person, she's not

having, she is not feeling the pressure to have to interact with people.” This

sentiment of independence was shared with P1, “she’s not dependent on friends.”

Likewise, T65 noted that the gifted child in her class seemed isolated, “He is pretty

happy to wander around by himself, and then sort of poke his head in every now and

then, and see what different groups are up to.”

In summary, parents reported their children to be more introverted and happy

to enjoy time away from their peers either as a sensory break or to reflect on their

own thoughts and feelings.

e. Engaging with older children and adults.

Although P1, P18, P19 and P25 all mentioned that friendships had improved

over the primary school years, as, “other children in her year group are now at a level

that she can interact with, so she interacts better with them so they’ve sort of met up”

(P19), there was also an inclination towards engaging with older children and adults.

For C25, having access to older children was an advantage of moving into

high school, she currently has some high school friends and said, “I get along with

them more than the Year 6s.” Likewise, P18 believed that through the GATE (Gifted

and Talented Education) high school program, “the chances that he is going to find

that person that he, that he can um, you know, feels like he gets along with is far, far

greater.” Accessing an older age group of friends provided an outlet for five gifted

children. In general, when asked about their child’s interactions with older children

and adults, parents indicated that their gifted child “has always found them

interesting and she has always gravitated towards older children” (P1), they

interacted well with a “different dynamic to her friends” (P19). P21, in the survey

under the open-ended question, mentioned that her child’s one-year acceleration had

resulted in him feeling “happier socially” as he felt “different to the other kids in his


previous year group.” This was supported by P47, in the survey, that her child

“sometimes feels a bit sad and lonely because his friends don’t think in the same way

as he does, i.e. were not as analytical and mature.” P18 saw this interaction as a

positive quality within her child, “they’re not shy at all about things like that, and

they don’t feel, even if they don’t fully understand what we’re saying they feel that

they can contribute and that their opinion is, you know, well-regarded.” P25 noted

that his child was mature in her thinking and behaviour and “it’s like she never had a

childish stage.”

T1 was aware that the gifted child in her class was friends with “her peers,

some are, a couple are older, that is because they meet outside of school as well, they

have the same interests.” However, she would play with anyone, not just her

intellectual peers. In contrast, T5 in the survey commented that the child in her class

“is at times socially behind his peers. He will make immature actions that are

different to his peers. For example, will shake his bottom at peers to ‘catch up’ in

chasey etc,” it was noted, that he had been accelerated; however, he still had

“friends, and fits in socially within the class.”

Older children may have also been accepting, as noted by P19 and reiterated

through P27’s observations of C27’s radical acceleration. Although the older

children had been welcoming, P27 felt it was necessary to encourage her child to find

her voice as she believed that physically bigger, older children may be intimidating

at times. This was supported by P67 who noted a downside of spending time with

older children was not only picking up their inappropriate language but also the

difficulty her child encountered from time to time when they enforced the rules of

their games – often giving him a subservient role due to his younger age, which did

not sit well with him. Although she reported adults to comment on “his sense of

humour and knowledge of things they wouldn't imagine a child to know about,” he

did tend to become annoyed with adults who put children down and would often

confront them, “just because you're older doesn't mean you will be immune from

being treated the same way you treat him.”

Parents reported their children to gravitate towards older children and adults,

which was also mentioned by C25. Although there were many positives including

shared interests, common understanding, and social advancement; there were also


negative moments where older and bigger children asserted themselves or children

might have been exposed to factors beyond their years.

f. Moving school.

Another factor which may have influenced two gifted children’s access to the

peer group was moving school. Gifted children may have moved school due to

moving house or due to parents seeking better schooling placement for their child.

P46 mentioned how it had been difficult for her child to make friends as “a lot of the

kids have already been friends for a long time and I know that those friendships have

already been there and have been established,” which made it difficult to break into

the friendship circles. When looking at the Worry Tree Poster, C67 indicated that

change was a worry, particularly moving school or house because he felt he had to

leave his friends behind. He reported having moved schools five times. In addition,

T1 spoke of a gifted child in her class, who had only recently moved to the school,

who enjoyed the company of others but lacked the skills necessary to integrate with

the group. Moving schools means making new friends, which could be difficult,

especially when considering the other factors already influencing a gifted child’s

peer relationships.

g. Bullying.

Although not an interview question, the topic of bullying was directly

mentioned by two parents, two children and one teacher. According to the national

definition for Australian schools, bullying may be defined as “an ongoing misuse of

power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that

causes physical and/or psychological harm” (Safe and Supportive School

Communities Working Group, 2017). In addition, there was mention of fighting

between friends, although C32 added they “usually get into a lot a fights but then get

back to friends within a day.” Although some arguments centred on the games being

played, arguments also arose because of a friend’s control over “who is choosing the

games that we are playing mostly and who we are friends with” (C32), and a lack of

logical argument, “You went to go get a drink without me, now you’re not my best

friend anymore” (C25).

https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/SiteInformation/Pages/About-us.aspx

https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/SiteInformation/Pages/About-us.aspx


Parents reported, “some very mild bullying, by today’s definitions” (P32) to

“quite a bit of bullying” (P18), while the teacher commented positively, “they are all

very friendly, we don’t have any bullying issues or anything like that.” C27 reported

that another child was a bully but never indicated whether this behaviour was

towards her or others. When presented with the Worry Tree Poster, C25 reported a

school worry; she felt bullied by peers:

“They just start rumours ... and they always call me the teacher’s pet ... and

they say no teacher hates me and teachers always love me and even if I’m not

good at the schoolwork, I’ll find a way to get an A.”

P18, whilst describing her child’s interactions with his peers, reported:

“He also experienced quite a bit of bullying um when he was younger but I

think it was more like 50% of people, probably kids, being a bit aggressive to

him but um, but it was also that he had a very recessive personality so that

things that other children would have been able to overcome, he just couldn’t

overcome or he took too much to heart because he is quite a sort of sensitive

boy.”

P27 also believed her child experienced a case of bullying whereby items

such as the child’s laptop, lunch bag and the like were deliberately and repeatedly

hidden away from her by another gifted child. This raised the question as to the role

gifted children may play as bullies themselves.

Although not a question, the topic of bullying was mentioned by children,

parents, and teachers. Incidents focused on psychological harm but varied in terms of

intensity and extent; highlighting the need for gifted children to have coping skills.

However, gifted children are not only the victims, as it was also reported that they

might be the bully.

h. Summary.

Although it was reported that most gifted children are well-liked, they seemed

to have a small number of close friends, and at times their peer interactions were

perceived as being different. These differences were brought about by factors such as

a lack of shared understanding, interests, ability, life-experiences, and the gifted

child’s introverted nature. Many of the gifted children were not dependent on


friendships and were definitive about whom they would befriend. Other factors

which may have influenced relationships with peers included moving school and

having to re-enter formed friendship groups, and a need to take a sensory break from

the schooling process. Without close friends, gifted children disengage from their

peers and are unable to share themselves fully. In an effort to overcome these barriers

the majority of parents had intervened and either coached their children with regard

to relationships or engaged their children in structured activities where they could

interact with people of similar interests and abilities as well as mingle with older

children and adults. Five participants mentioned that the child had experienced

bullying, one of which was by another gifted child.

6.5.2 The influence of external factors.

As discussed in Chapter three, external influences are often based on age-

appropriate behaviours according to social norms. In this section, external factors

that influence the gifted child’s SEWB are discussed, including external expectation,

educational conformity and learning with peers; a summary is presented in Table 6.6.

The bearing of both positive and negative responses from others can influence a

child’s understanding of themselves, permeating all facets of one’s being, as

described by P18 when asked how her child felt about himself:

“I think he um, expects too much of himself um, maybe because he’s been

recognised at a young age for being um, intellectually sort of doing well and

having a great vocabulary, doing good writing, I think maybe um, he um, he

has very, very high expectations of himself and um yeah. Like you know, he’ll

do something like spill some juice or something, and um you know, to be

truthful, he is a little bit, he’s quite a clumsy kid (laughs) but what I’m saying

is, he will beat himself up about it and I’ll say, look it happened, clean it up

and let’s get on with it and but I think in his head, I would imagine, in his

head, he calls himself an idiot, he’s very, I think he is quite negative about

himself um, I try to sort of counter that, try to explain to him that it is

important to tell yourself positive messages but um, I don’t know if that’s

because when he was like, you know, with social problems, rejected by other

people, who felt like because he can’t kick a football he’s not worthy or

worthy of their friendship.”


Table 6.6

An Overview of the External Factors that Influence SEWB

Expectations

Parent

expectations

Most parents reported not always being supportive when providing

feedback on a daily basis, focusing on the negative, although they

knew they needed to be more sensitive and constructive. One parent

explicitly reported focusing on the task and not the child.

Children reported parents to congratulate them on positive outcomes

and to be supportive in adverse times.

Teacher

expectation

The teacher reported feedback to be positive, encouraging reviewing

mistakes and seeking clarification. Children reported classroom

rewards to focus on behaviour, three being rewarded through a lucky-

dip system, which received mixed reviews from being a fun game of

chance to unjust. There seemed to be limited feedback related to

schoolwork, even when asked.

Educational conformity and learning with peers

Different

abilities

Parents and teachers reported the children to consume and retain

information at a faster pace, with a broader knowledge base and more

in-depth understanding, displaying a conscientious work ethic.

Children reported acceptance to being teased by peers for differences.

Parents felt focus fell on children with barriers to learning, often

supported by children.

Different

behaviour

expectations

The twice-exceptional children showed a greater acceptance of peers’

behaviour. The biggest difference children noted, which caused much

frustration, was their peers’ behaviour, especially talking which

disturbed them and often resulted in the teacher becoming angry.

Group work Satisfaction depended on who was in the group, the contribution they

made, and the project. The majority took responsibility for the group

ensuring an outcome to meet their high expectations.

Academic

extension

Twice-exceptional child was frustrated that he is excluded. Parents felt

the extension programs could be improved. Children enjoyed the

classes although they did not like missing their regular class. Five

children in the qualitative phase had extension opportunities outside of

school.

6.5.2.1 Parents’ expectations.

When parents are warm and responsive with reasonable expectations, their

children tend to have better outcomes (Rudasill, Adelson, Callahan, Houlihan &

Keizer, 2013). This study did not aim to determine the parents’ expectations of their

child but rather focused on the feedback the child received based on those

expectations, which relates to appraisal or informational support when considering

the CASSS.


When considering appraisal support, regarding evaluative feedback, the

breakdown in parent’s expectation, reported within this study, stemmed not from the

child but from the parent’s approach (P32, P46, and P67). When parents were asked

whether there were factors they needed to consider when giving their child feedback,

P46 replied, “It doesn't usually come out constructively, so it will come out me just

going straight to ‘that is not right, that's not good enough’, overlooking the

positives.” P32 reported, “There’s the theory – I know the theory about how one

should do it, but it does with me involve a lot of yelling.” However, he drew on the

positives of this experience, “She can take a real hammering from me, verbally, and

just keep standing up to me... that might be good.” P27 acknowledged that it was

important for her to be “in the right headspace” when supporting her child, a

common theme amongst parents when considering giving their child feedback.

Even parents who were more supportive in their feedback process, providing

informational support through advice, focused on inadequacies or shortcomings in

their child, opposed to admiring positive attributes. P25 noted that when providing

his daughter with feedback, generally not related to school work but rather “the

softer things in life,” to prevent C25 feeling like there was something wrong with her

for needing the guidance, he had a particular approach:

“The way I normally do it is weave it into a um a story or topic of the day or

something that happens that just to reinforce why you need to think or why you

have these coping skills and what do you, what do you use them for.”

P19 did not criticize often but did “talk to her about it, I think I’m just a

conscientious person ...that, I always try and put a positive spin on it.” This was

reiterated by P27:

“I often think that people don’t see anything wrong with her, that I only see the

things that she is good at but I acknowledge that she has some weaknesses or

shortcomings in areas, we all do, we all have them. Um, I want them to be

sensitively dealt with.”

Being sensitive seemed important as P67 noted her son “doesn’t enjoy being

put under the microscope,” although he did appreciate people acknowledging his

difficulties, he preferred people highlighting his strengths. Regardless, P67

acknowledged that she did not always do this herself.


P1 had a slightly different approach to the other parents whereby she would

“praise the activity” and not the child; she believed this was important to stop C1

internalising:

“They think I’m really smart and so if I actually keep trying at something and I

failed, then they’re going to work out that I’m not, she’s very much got that

fear of failure, or she used to – she’s worked through that.”

The children were also asked during their interviews to describe the feedback

they received from their parents. When giving positive feedback or appraisal support

for something the child had achieved, the children reported their parents tended to

receive the news at the dinner table (C25, C27, C46) and responded with “well done”

(C19, C25, C67) and there was a feeling of being “proud of myself” (C32). It was

noteworthy that so many participants (almost half) shared the news at the table. This

was similar to a study undertaken in New South Wales, Australia, where it was found

that almost half their sample of 7,556 children never or rarely ate dinner in front of

the television (Hardy, Mihrshahi, Drayton & Bauman, 2016). Furthermore, research

undertaken by Eisenberg, Olson, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, and Bearinger (2004) in

America of 4,746 adolescents found that eating family meals may enhance the well-

being of adolescents. Parents were happy for their child, and two children may have

received a reward or treat such as a family restaurant dinner (C25, C18). C25

reported enjoying the treat “because they acknowledge that you’re actually alive,”

supported by C46 as “some small things don’t really get mentioned;” this relates to

the literature review whereby achievements are taken for granted and it becomes

difficult for the child to exceed expectation (Clarke, 2008). Only C67 wanted a

physical reward; he stated, “I am happy that they said well done, but if I’ve achieved

something really good I should at least get like a prize or something.”

When children considered the feedback they received from their parents

when the situation was unfavourable, parents were reported to be proactive,

providing support and scaffolding, “usually my mum and dad will say how I can fix

it and how I can make it better” (C32), hereby providing informational support.

Although C25 reported that she might be reluctant to tell her parents “because I think

they’ll be upset with me ...” she added that “they help you through it, it’s not like a

negative zone” (C25).


When comparing the parent and children’s perceptions of parent feedback,

parents generally rated themselves more negatively than their children did. Perhaps

the differences arose from the way in which the questions were framed. Children

were asked about their parents’ responses when they had achieved something either

good or bad, whereas parents were asked about feedback in general. The children

may not have viewed daily parent criticism and support as feedback, whereas they

were focused more specifically on an event.

6.5.2.2 Teachers’ expectations.

Although teacher insight was limited, it is hoped that many teachers would

respond as did T1, “... feedback, you know it has to be positive,” encouraging the

child to review their mistakes and seek clarification if needed.

Considering feedback to children within the school environment, children

were asked about the reward system in their class, to gain an understanding of the

child’s perception of their worth through external expectation as well as gain insight

into the appraisal support provided by teachers. C46 indicated that he had “intrinsic

motivation” and therefore was not dependent upon a system, however, he still

appreciated positive feedback; “I know what I’ve done obviously, but someone else

telling me, yeah that’s really nice.” Similarly, when C25 was asked whether she

would change her behaviour for rewards, she replied, “I’d still be the same, I’d still

do stuff, I’d just probably feel a little bit better when I do the stuff ... that somebody

actually acknowledges.”

C19 felt special when she received a “piece of paper” to go into the weekly

draw, although she did not usually win a prize she believed “it’s a game of chance

and sometimes it’s a little fun ... watching your classmates and near mates get up to

get a prize.” C18 saw the loophole in the game of chance, but the effect was minimal,

he relayed, “I’m not too worried about it, I’m not too bothered about it. There is

enough to worry about.” Later when asked about his worries, friends were top of his

list. In contrast, C25 did not enjoy reward through chance and had drawn attention to

the system in an effort to get rewarded as she felt despite going into the draw it was

unfair that she was repeatedly not lucky enough to be rewarded. Furthermore, C25

felt the well-behaved children were overlooked, and the talkative are rewarded for an


improved behaviour, moreover believing others are rewarded for progress, not

necessarily good work:

“You’re now the king of the class because you can be quiet and shut your

mouth for five minutes, look at that everyone, he is now going to get an award

and you’re sitting there ... and you’re like seriously, I’ve been quiet for five

periods ... would you like me to get one?”

This was similar to the feelings shared by P67 and her child’s difficulties with

injustices in the class: “He has been angered by teachers giving awards to kids who

don't always do the right thing but when they do they are rewarded for their once-off

effort. He doesn't see the need to provide special treatment.” Similarly, C67 noted

despite the loopholes in his class reward system; he felt it did motivate children to do

better. Likewise, C32 liked her class reward system for behaviour and felt “it’s pretty

good, and it does get more behaviour.”

When considering the types of rewards received, three received tokens or

tickets for chance-draws. The value of the material rewards provided were limited for

both trivial and higher-priced items, for example, C18 relayed, “I got a remote

control helicopter, which we have not used in a very long time, and I also

conveniently got, there was a cushion, a got a board game, we’ve never played.” The

rewards provided short-term gratification; however, the influence of rewards on the

child’s behaviour was not determined.

C46 described his class not having a reward system but rather people being

penalised for poor behaviour. Likewise, C27 reported they had no rewards system.

However, she did express difficulty in not receiving adequate feedback, from her

teachers, even when asked, she felt, “annoyed because you should know if we were

doing something right or not right, otherwise we could be doing it wrong and if you

try to change it could be really hard.” In contrast, C18 noted when describing what

teachers did, “Well they give you questions and you answer them, and then they

correct you if you’re wrong and congratulate you if you’re right.” Furthermore,

although C25 wanted her teacher to recognize her behaviour to acknowledge that she

was not “slacking off,” she was accredited during lessons; the teacher:

“normally goes around the whole classroom and she has a quick look um... If

you’re really good at colouring or whatever, which is usually me (said with a


laugh), she’d get your work and go up to the front of the classroom and she

would be - this person has done really well, you can see that they really

trying.”

It seemed as if evaluating presentation is important in this case, and the

process and content may not receive adequate feedback. As with parent feedback,

children were not asked directly about the feedback they received on an ongoing

basis; the focus was aimed at particular events. However, few children indirectly

mentioned feedback when asked about what their teacher did to help them learn,

which may indicate ongoing feedback was limited.

Although most of the children have a reward system at school, often

focused on behaviour, there were mixed feelings about the worth of these

systems. Even intrinsically motivated children enjoyed rewards. Hence the

rewards may not be valued as rewards in themselves but rather an affirmation

of competence, hereby fostering intrinsic motivation. However, rewards lost

value when there were double standards.

6.5.2.3 Educational conformity and learning with peers.

In addition to the differences between gifted children and their peers with

regard to friendship, there were differences between the gifted children and their

peers within their classroom relations. As discussed in the literature review, curricula

are often based on age-norms, and therefore due to the gifted child’s advanced

ability, the daily school routine can be an unrewarding experience, impacting on not

only the child but also their relationships with their teacher and peers. As was noted

by Rogers (1986), gifted children are more intrinsically motivated and prefer to work

independently, unless ability-grouped whereby a cohort effect develops (Gross,

1998). This study noted differences in ability and work ethic as well as behavioural

expectations. Interestingly, as noted by C25 in the section on different abilities and

C27 in the section on group work, gifted children may not highlight their abilities nor

draw attention to the difficulties of their peers in comparison, hence the actual

discrepancy between the gifted child and their peers and the influence this has may

be hidden in the classroom.


a. Different abilities.

Considering the gifted child’s academic abilities in the classroom, P18

mentioned the rate at which her child “consumes” and retained information as well as

being a voracious reader having “read like every book of Harry Potter and he’s read

books you know that are really quite even beyond his age group quite easily.” C18

mentioned when asked to describe where he fits in within his class, “Ah... probably

at the smarter end of the... being and this is being modest (laughs).” Likewise, P67

added, “basically he is a sponge that takes in so much around him; he just knows so

many things and has such a desire to know stuff.” Similarly, T65 noticed that the

gifted child in her class “definitely has a bigger knowledge base than all the other

students in the class, so when he does answer questions, he is able to explain things

with a deeper understanding than a lot of the others.” However, having these abilities

may result in both positive and negative outcomes, depending on the child’s

experiences.

C18 considered his classmates; “you also got smart people and, and then

you’ve got other people which are like average mostly,” he acknowledged that his

peers “think I’m smart and they’re cool, like we’re, they like me and hence being

friends.” In contrast, C25 saw her peers being aware of her ability:

“Everyone thinks I’m amazing at everything, like at Maths everyone thinks I

am amazing – I’m not good at maths, like I’m so much better at English and

music and sport, to be honest, I’m not that good at sport, but I’m better than

Maths at sport, because I can do most of the stuff.”

However, the outcome was adverse for C25:

“If they say I'm good ... and you can't ... I didn’t’ say that ... I don’t ever, my

friends always like, you’re always good at everything, I’m like ‘don’t say that’,

its ... I feel bad because they feel bad because they are feeling bad because they

think they’re not good at it and if they think they are not good at it they will

always praise you and then when you get something wrong, um... they won't

help you they’ll think you should be able to pick it up.”

Hence, C25 shied away from praise from peers and did not want to draw

attention to her abilities as she believed that you would be teased if you always put


up your hand to answer questions. Likewise, C27 mentioned, “kids tease those kids

about the way they think or something like that.”

Just as gifted children may be viewed as different by their peers due to their

ability, gifted children may also view their peers as being different. C27, although

radically accelerated, viewed her classmates as lacking competency and receiving

more help from the teacher; asked to describe them she said:

“Well there is G and I don’t think she’s a very good speller because she always

has to ask, she always has to ask the teacher for help... and um, because the

teacher uses up enough time on G and A, because A, they are not very good

spellers, same as R.”

In the same way, P67, whilst discussing her relationship with her child’s

teacher, reported her child to become annoyed with his classmates:

“There was an incident during a speech where he seemed to become irritated

with some kids in the q and a afterwards; she (the teacher) believes this is

because he had used words which the other children did not understand.”

Four parents also felt, as expressed by P18, that “in some ways, such children are

more disadvantaged than disabled children in the services available to them.” This

sentiment was expressed by three other parents too during the interviews where no

question provoked a comparison. P46 felt “there’s too many kids in the class, they

can't cater for your very gifted child, when children who slide down here, you know,

who can't cope.” Similarly, when C46 was asked about one-on-one time with his

teacher, he replied, “Uh, me personally no, but other people, yes.” When asked if he

wanted more time, he said, “Not necessarily, no.” P19 felt that a diagnosis would

have provided a child with more support and teachers would have been more willing

to accommodate:

“They get more time, they get more ... and the teachers are willing to be more,

um, they will accommodate them, they’re faster to accommodate, so because

C19 doesn’t have a ... problem, you know an educational issue, is just that she

is above, all the other kids, they don’t, they won’t give her one-on-one time

with EAs (Educational Assistants) or tutors, they won’t give her, you know,

extra work or they don’t create a program for her, whereas if she were on the

other end of the scale and struggling to the point of failing, well, every


intervention under the sun is available and they would be working with all

those things.”

For P25, it seemed:

“Almost like variation to the mean is not, is not tolerated and the system

doesn’t accommodate. The only time it seems to accommodate it and maybe

this is a moral thing because of Australia is, is when you’re on the low end of

the scale and they try to up, uplift the disadvantaged, if you like, as opposed to,

to the norm.”

Although not a question, in addition to advanced academic abilities, numerous

participants mentioned a superior work ethic. P1 and P25 both attributed their child’s

work ethic “diligent, hard-working um, very methodical, deliberate, intense” (P25) to

their attitude, “she always works, gets through all the work um, and gets onto those

extra jobs and I’ve watched her in there, she is so conscientious” (P1). C25 also saw

herself as hardworking and attributed success to attitude, even if faked; she believed

her peers could do this too:

“They’ll definitely be able to step up their grades. And attitude is also the main

thing ... like just having a good attitude towards a thing, like even if you fake

that you like it ... like, ‘Ah yay, we have to do library’ – I don’t really like

library because it’s boring .”

The children were aware of each other’s differences, in some cases, children

were accepting, while in others these differences may have resulted in teasing or

frustration. Furthermore, parents expressed concerns that their child’s differences in

ability had a negative influence on the support they were provided at school. In

addition to enhanced abilities, attitude towards learning was also crucial for a few

participants who described the child’s commendable work ethic.

b. Different behavioural expectations.

C32 and C67 (both twice exceptional) showed greater acceptance of their

classmates’ behaviour in general. However, C67 still labelled some peer behaviour as

weird, “I have a few weird kids in my class... Well, there’s this group of about four

boys in my class, they don’t really get in trouble but they are like weird, and they eat

lunch in the toilets...” C46 viewed his classmates as “all right, so long as they are not


angering the teacher so much that they keep the whole class in for detention,” he felt

disillusioned by this as, in his opinion, the teacher did not ask for much. Differences

in behaviour were also noticed, P67 relayed that the “chatty girls” in the classroom

had made C67 angry, as he prefers to work in silence. C67 confirmed this:

“Well I like to make it like silent when we’re doing our work but I sit next to,

like this girl, whose um ... very annoying (change in voice)... she talks all the

time, she stares at her friends, she passes notes...”

C18 also described his classmates as “some kids that don’t stop talking”, and

C46 believed the noisy classmates to be a problem; “mostly the boys, they’re so

loud, and the Art teacher tells them over and over just to shut up and then gradually

we lose, we just lose so much recess and so much of our time.” Interestingly, all

three boys in this study preferred a quiet working environment.

Five of the gifted children in this study considered themselves to behave

more in line with the rules and expectations in the school environment when

compared to peers; this had resulted in children feeling despondent and annoyed at

times.

c. Group work.

There were varying recounts of group work. P19 reported “if she’s interested

she’ll be more than happy to work with people,” and C19 added, “we get to have fun

as a group.” It would have been interesting to have probed deeper into what the child

considered interesting as this may relate to Gross’ (1998) work, previously

mentioned, whereby a cohort-effect occurs when ability-grouped. However, most

participants tended to be more negative about group work. For example, C18 stated

he would have preferred to work alone than in a group as “doing things with other

people isn’t as easy as, I don’t find it as easy as doing things myself.” C46 eloquently

articulated three factors which influence enjoyment of group work, which rings true

for three other children in the research, “it depends on who’s in the group, um what

the people in the group contribute and what the project is.” P1 relayed in relation to

group work:

“Apparently she works very well and we do get to sit in and watch the class

once a term for an hour and she does seem to co-operate with everyone, um


she does get a little bit bossy um, but yes there are never any problems, they

always seem to come to a decision and work through it so she doesn’t seem to

have problems with that.”

T1 reported the gifted child in her class to have “good control though, she is

very firm and um, she deals with them with some authority” when working with

challenging peers, which the teacher encouraged from time-to-time to develop

leadership skills. It does, however, seem that this teacher provided skills and

scaffolded through a multistep process, taking the responsibility from the child to

solely manage her peers. In contrast, P67 did not believe her child would work well

in a group “with kids who don't work well,” and felt the need to manage the

behaviour of other children to be added pressure. This difficulty not only affected

him in the classroom but also on the sport’s field, where “He has issues with his

teammates who don't always follow the rules or make good choices, this drives him

mad, so there's discussion around that.” His parents supported him by acknowledging

the situation; they hoped he would build resilience to cope with this better in the

future.

A role of leadership or responsibility was a common theme, C46 felt

accountable for the group:

“Because if, if it doesn’t get done, I don’t need the teachers and people

thinking that I can’t get stuff done, I can get stuff done and I will get stuff done

(sounds very determined) but if people just are ruining it, then I can’t.”

To redirect his peers:

“I just stop them doing what they’re doing. And say, ‘Hey – you’ve got to be

focused, this isn’t going to be finished’ and then because all the boys, like

lunch and playing soccer-it’s their life so, you just say, ‘We will be kept in at

lunch’, and then pfff (indicated with hands motion the work being done).”

Similarly, C25 felt the need to organise the group, because “at least I know it

will turn out okay.” Furthermore, like C46, she took responsibility for completing the

work to meet teacher expectation:

“Because every time they do it I have to do it all again... Because the teacher

never likes the way they do it (laughs) because like, the teacher says rule your


lines with a ruler and then they just do it free-handed, ...and I have to sit there

and rub it all out and rule it all again because the teacher wants us to do it

again ...so at the end of the day there is no point in getting them to do anything

beside hold the sticky tape – it’s like you hold the sticky tape, you hold the

scissors.”

In contrast to the children who take control of group work, T65 reported the

gifted child in her class to be “happy to participate and do everything and the things

that he is asked; he is sort of in his own little world in a way enjoying it all by

himself.”

In a similar way to the other children who felt their peers do not make a high-

quality contribution to group work, C27 felt held back by the group because other

members worked at a slower pace:

“I like group work but sometimes um, it’s a bit annoying because the other

kids, you have to wait for them, sometimes if you are the other kid, you are too

slow for the others, you feel like ‘wait for me’ or ‘hurry up’ ... I’m saying

hurry up, in my head, I never really say it out loud... um, because it might

embarrass the other person.”

Similarly, when T1 was asked about the gifted children in her class being able

to choose partners for group work, it seemed as if they preferred working with others

of similar ability. When questioned why C1 may do that, T1 responded, “Like she

can’t be bothered with wasting her time, yeah, like, she likes to get on with the task.”

Discussion around group work tended to focus on negative experiences

predominantly because the gifted child often took on a role of responsibility, not

necessarily leadership, but accountability for organising their peers and ensuring the

outcome of the project was of a high standard, be this of the teacher’s or their own

expectation.

6.5.2.4 Academic extension.

In an effort to support the child’s intellectual stimulation, the interviewed

children, with the exception of the two twice-exceptional children, at the time of this

study were engaged in some form of academic extension. P67 reported her child felt

frustrated when describing his resilience and coping with daily activities, that he was


not included in the weekly session at his school. C67 confirmed this as he believed

extension would fill a gap in his regular classroom experience, “because it is

supposed to be a bit more challenging than the work that we actually get and I do not

have challenging work at all.” Considering the difficulties gifted children faced as a

result of educational conformity and learning with peers, the influence of academic

extension on the gifted child’s SEWB was considered. The academic extension was

described by C46 as “a place where you get taken away from class, um to do

something more – advanced.” P19 described their school’s program:

“It is a group of similar thinking kids, so they’re all on um, those kids thinking

outside the box and they work through things that aren’t school work so they

discuss philosophy, and thinking, metaphysics and all that kind of stuff, she

loves it, it’s just a place for her brain to be able to work and they just go with

the flow rather than the classic school work which is complete the task,

complete the task, complete the task.”

There seemed to be various ways in which children were selected for

extension programs, and P19 reported the gifted and talented teacher to be open to

various options. In contrast, other programs may be focused on performance. C67

compared his performance to others who attend extension and believed he was more

capable but thought his limitations prevented him from participating which “makes

me feel like sad ... like, I got the brains, it’s just the only thing I don’t have is

handwriting;” the program activities he mentioned do not necessarily require those

skills. Similarly, P29 noted in the survey that “gifted programs are focused on good

students, not high intellectual capability” and gifted children who had a good general

knowledge are often excluded.

P19 was disappointed that more children did not have exposure to academic

extension and saw value in the one hour per week extension opportunity presented,

however, she also felt that, “if you’re saying we have a gifted and talented program,

it needs to be ... bigger and better.” This was supported by P25 who felt the academic

extension program was “not really stretching those kids that far that it’s, that it’s

meaningful,” and that alternative ways needed to be found to “push the limits.” In an

effort to extend C27, the school created research opportunities where she could sit in

the library, reading books and answering questions. This did not sit well with P27,

who considered the time as a “profoundly distressing year,” she said:


“I mean there is only so much time a child can sit by themselves and read a

book and answer questions, they need to be taught. I, I, I mean you’re a

teacher, I want you to actively teach my child and we are paying a lot of

money for her not being engaged by a teacher.”

Other parents shared these sentiments. P18 felt that this experience had not

helped her child to achieve better results and that “he would do well” regardless of

this opportunity. Furthermore, extension classes began too late, and funding was

diminishing:

“When he first started in Year 5, it was really, really, really good and fulfilled

a lot of um like challenging thoughts and that for him and unfortunately the

program ... but the funds have gone out of it and it’s becoming more just like

school - and to be truthful, I think a lot of his traditional schooling that he has

had, he has been very, very bored.”

P38 and P47 in the survey commented that they personally extend their child

outside of school in activities such as music lessons and informal conversations

around topics such as social equity, politics, and poverty; P38 noting that it was

recommended by a previous teacher to “get him into extracurricular extension

programs.” Other parents were also seeking external activities such as P27 engaged

her child with external tutors for chess, Mathematics, and English. P67 and P25 also

enrolled their children in structured learning environments for sporting and arts

programs respectively. This approach brought the gifted children fulfilment, it “is

something that makes him feel happy as he is engaging in new ideas, thinking deeply

and forming opinions” (P47). P66 and P73 noted in the survey that their children

attended one day per week extension school with trained teachers and support staff,

they believed the mentors, tutors, and private teachers to be of great value.

Considering the children’s views on extension; C27 loved the advanced work

she did with her tutors, “I love Maths, especially algebra... and substitution;”

although when she compared extension Maths to class work, she noted “a strange

thing about it is I always make simple things hard and hard things easier for myself.”

C18 said that he enjoys the classes but he also misses class work and it interrupts

projects where he felt he let the group down when he was not there. When presented

with the Worry Tree poster, C18’s school worry related to extension: “My PEAC


(Primary Extension and Challenge) comes exactly across my Chinese, then I have to

do Chinese on a different day and then I end up missing sport. Which despite me not

being the greatest at, I still enjoy.” This concern was supported by C46 who also

liked extension but felt, “AE really chips away at everything (emphasised) that we

are doing in the class,” because:

“You do sometimes get a bit behind in um, in, the other stuff that you do, that

you are meant to be doing in um class. But it’s okay because I normally catch

up, but um yeah, it is, sometimes it is annoying because you’ve really got to,

you’ve got to keep up.”

From these accounts, extension within the school environment although well-

intended did not always reach all children nor fulfil their needs. It may bear

negatively on the child’s day by removing them from the activities their peers are

engaged in, despite the children enjoying the class. Participants spoke more

favourably about extension opportunities outside of the school environment.

6.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter provided an outline of the participants involved in phase two of

this study and the procedure undertaken to both gather and analyse data. The data

were reviewed from the perspective of internal and external factors which influence

the gifted child’s SEWB. Briefly, in relation to research question four, the data in this

study indicated that children displayed behaviour as suggested in the literature

review, which was predominantly described from an international context. A solid

focus, within this Australian perspective, fell on the difficulties which gifted children

may experience interacting with peers, both during play and whilst learning. Chapter

seven explores the influence of the parent-teacher relationship on the gifted child’s

SEWB.

Chapter 7: Qualitative Results 169

Chapter 7: Qualitative Results: The Role

Parents and Teachers Play in Developing a

Child’s SEWB

7.1 Introduction

Following from Chapter 6, this chapter will explore the perceptions of each

group, namely, gifted children, parents, and teachers to determine the role parents

and teachers are believed to play, both individually and through their relationship, in

the development and support of social-emotional well-being (SEWB) in the gifted

child. These relationships are deemed most important as due to the limited contexts,

namely home and school, in which primary school-aged children find themselves, the

unique social-emotional needs of gifted children are predominantly supported by

parents and teachers (Wellisch et al., 2012). Furthermore, advice is sought from the

various groups to influence best practice. Hereby research question five was

addressed: How do parents and teachers of gifted children support the SEWB of the

gifted child both individually and through their partnership?

7.2 The Role Schools and Teachers Play in Developing SEWB

Although Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) is a

widely accepted framework of giftedness within Australia, the face of giftedness

varies, from the underachiever to the achieving to the accelerated. Likewise,

teachers’ and parents’ knowledge of giftedness varies. A parent of an underachiever

themselves questioned, “Is my kid really gifted when he doesn't achieve straight A's

on his school report?” (P67). Amongst the gifted children who were performing well

at school, some parents may have shied away from the word gifted during their

interview, “I sort of don’t really use that term and don’t really like to label them as

such, you know, because they do have weaknesses too and they’re not good at

everything” (P18). P18 later added, “it just happens to be, that my boys are... do very

well academically.”

170 Chapter 7: Qualitative Results

Hence, if parents who had journeyed with their child since their first breath

were still coming to understand giftedness, it is to be expected that teachers would

require training and development in this area, to not only identify but also overcome

negative connotations and support gifted children (Geake & Gross, 2008; Lassig,

2015). Both teachers interviewed referred to a “real gifted child” (T65) and

“genuinely gifted” (T1). T1 described “genuinely gifted” children as “fabulous you

know, with everything, but I, they are just like out of the box, you just can’t, there’s

no comparison, so yeah, so talented at so many things.” Although T1 also

commented that “everyone is gifted,” in his or her own way, she would look for signs

in those truly gifted such as “bright and obviously they, they are more mature in their

thinking.”

As what teachers think, believe and do within their classroom influences the

education children receive (Hargreaves, 1995), the lens through which a teacher

views a child and their giftedness have implications for the way in which they

interact with a child, the academic opportunities presented, and the support provided

(Blazar & Kraft, 2017).

7.2.1 The teacher’s insight into the gifted child’s self-concept.

Teachers were asked how they thought the gifted child perceived themselves

and their self-concept. According to Anderson (2011, p. 1308), self-concept may be

considered “an organised set of perceptions, cognitions, or evaluations that one holds

about their abilities and characteristics.” T1 reported that some gifted children felt

good about themselves due to a positive disposition and influence on others resulting

in the child feeling “empowered;” however, this was not true for other gifted children

whom the teacher believed were unhappy due to parental expectation and difficulties

interacting with peers. Both teachers interviewed mentioned gifted children who do

not seem to fit in with the broader classroom group, despite having positive qualities.

T1 noted that another gifted child she taught possibly felt inadequate and had

a poor self-concept. The teacher believed this might have been due to “very poor

parenting and high expectations from the parent,” as well as the child spending time

alone due to poor peer connections. T65 noted that the gifted child in her class

seemed different to his peers:


“In terms of his behaviour outside the classroom and socially, he is probably

more (sigh), he likes to be involved a lot and he likes to make sure others are

involved, he is very caring and thoughtful towards others, he doesn’t always

see that he comes across as a little bit different or odd, and other kids don’t

respond to him as much, they may not include him as much, but he doesn’t

seem to notice that at this stage.”

Although the child seemed unaware, this different behaviour was a concern

which had been discussed with the parent when looking towards the future. In

addition, the teacher reported encouraging him to get involved in the group in an

effort to integrate the child.

In this study, teachers noted two keys areas which may negatively influence

the child’s SEWB. Firstly, the child’s difference to peers or inability to interact well

with others and secondly, parental expectation placed on the child.

7.2.2 Parental perception of the support provided to their child by the teacher.

From the parents’ perspectives, teachers provided a mix of support to their

gifted children; however, positive comments were few. Comments made by parents

with regard to the teacher’s support of their child generally focused on educational

provisions; the lack of educational rigour and the ability of teachers to meet their

child’s differentiated needs. Despite the focus of this study being SEWB, SEWB was

viewed more as a consequence of educational opportunity. It is unsure whether this

interpretation was due to the primary role of a teacher being to educate academically

and therefore less attention was subsequently placed on SEWB. Most parents

interviewed believed teachers did not adequately provide the gifted child with

informational, appraisal or instrumental support; and emotional support even less so,

which is in contrast to the children’s perceptions noted in the Child and Adolescent

Social Support Scale (Malecki et al., 2000) (CASSS).

P38, in the survey, mentioned how schooling had been an up-and-down

experience, as some teachers had allowed the child to work ahead while others did

not. The effect of this discrepancy was also noted by P26 in the survey:

“She does not allow him to accelerate/ differentiate in his learning. She teaches

at the current level and his work and effort is poor. His previous teacher he


started the year with allowed him to progress and hence his grades and his

efforts to class work and assessments were of a higher standard.”

Furthermore, P20 and P62 both through the open-ended question on the

survey, relayed how despite having a good teacher this year, time was needed as

“three years of terrible teachers have taken their toll” (P62), “my son is just starting

to get his feet again and build a relationship with his new teacher” (P20 – three-

quarters of the way into the school year). Although some children may have

perceived their teachers (both past and present) to be good, others had a mix, and

some, as phrased by P27 (based on a past teacher) “have been dangerous and they

have been very destructive to her, her socially, emotionally er, educationally.” Poor

support and understanding may result in children being removed from school by their

parents, as indicated by P27:

“This is just destroying her um, and we got to I think it was Tuesday of that

second week and it, there was just no let up, it was just getting worse, if

anything, so I pulled her out of school.”

Both C27 and C19 were removed from school for a period of a few weeks,

other children changed schools as noted by T1 and C67, or were completely removed

from school, as noted by P58 in the survey:

“He had poor support and poor understanding from his teacher. He developed

a number of behavioural issues at school so we removed him from formal

schooling ... we are still ironing out some remaining effects but the passion and

love for learning has returned, thank goodness.”

The most positive account came from P1 who reported the support provided

by her child’s teacher to be good. Interestingly, T1 had indicated no training in

giftedness in the survey. When describing her relationship with her child’s teacher,

P1 declared:

“Um, she’s great, I love her! I’ve asked for my next child to go into her class

when C1 goes up, so um, she’s fantastic, don’t know what to say, just every

time we have to go in every term and sit for an hour and watch the class, and

every time I go in I think I just have so much admiration for her... we can

discuss anything that we need to but to be honest she’s so proactive that if


there’s any issue she’ll normally mention it to us before we’ve even got to the

point of saying something.”

Furthermore, C1 was able to work at her own level both individually and in

groups, with the teacher facilitating as needed. This approach had seemingly fostered

intrinsic motivation in C1 and “she’s flourished.” When the parents undertook an IQ

assessment for their child, the teacher was receptive to the results:

“She just runs with it, I mean she didn’t need it, she was already doing it all

right anyway I think, I just think she’s got a very good awareness of where

each child is in their development and how to work with it so, it’s great.”

Likewise, P32 acknowledged that his child’s teachers had received the

information from professionals and “they’ve both been very good saying this

explains a huge amount of stuff.” In contrast, according to P46, mentioning that your

child was gifted to a teacher may be negatively construed because “they don't know,

they’re not trained, they, I feel like they might be rolling their eyes, if you sort of go,

‘because he’s gifted’ ... they might think ‘hmmm, of course he is, he’s gifted’.”

Similarly, P67 noted, the teacher had not been “outright mean,” she tried “but despite

the pages and pages of info from the various professionals I feel the crux of how to

best help him is not being addressed.” P19 felt similar, “they won’t give her one-on-

one time with EA’s or tutors, they won’t give her, you know, extra work or they

don’t create a program for her.” Comparable thoughts were noted by P47 in the

survey, the “teacher is kind and acknowledges the need for extension but does not yet

have the capability to cater for my son’s academic needs in the classroom,” this was

supported by P46:

“They should but I can't see how they can, do anymore for gifted children, if

they have the provisions to go off and do AE (Academic Extension) then I feel

like, I don't know what else I can ask them to do, if they give him academic

extension, I feel, well, they’re trying what?”

P27 and P67 also felt that teachers should be doing more but there were no

provisions, and the outcome “it’s lip-service.” P5, in the survey, blamed a lack of

experience for her child’s graduate teacher’s “little understanding of the complex

nature of GT students and their divergent thinking.” Likewise, P27 told a story where

her child had been placed in a class where the teacher was gifted:


“She was gifted and she was accelerated a year at school herself, they made

the mental connection that if she was a gifted person, she would be able to

relate to C27, but we didn’t want her to relate to C27 as a gifted person, we

wanted her to relate to C27 as a teacher.”

Teachers had high expectations placed on them by parents, after all as

expressed by P27, “if the happiness with the teacher is there, the rest will follow.”

P19 felt that “we work with what we get,” she detailed the qualities she was looking

for in a teacher for her child:

“I’m looking for a teacher who’s ... got some experience with, gifted kids, um,

and a teacher who will work outside the box and put that extra effort into

those kids that need it... who is probably a little bit more on the ball with new

products, new technologies, new teaching techniques, so I would like

someone who is quite young and enthusiastic, someone who really is ...you

know, their, their passion for teaching is still there and wanting to get the best

out of their kids.”

Interestingly, according to P46, children may not always bring home

concerns regarding school or the teacher:

“Nothing comes home, nothing is a concern, I suppose, well it’s a concern that

I would like him to be doing more and be doing this and this and this for him,

but she’s ... all the boxes are ticked, I suppose, so I can't really go in there and

just stamp my feet and be like give me more and what are you doing for him?”

Furthermore, P46 may have judged teacher support based on the parent

believing the teacher had the same understanding of the child:

“When you read a school report from the teacher and they say all of the correct

things and everything else, and you think ...yeah but then again, he is probably

already ahead of probably whatever it is she's trying to do...”

The majority of parents believed their child’s teacher provided inadequate

support to their child; with concerns focused on a lack of advanced academic

content. Interestingly, parents’ high academic expectations were considered by T1 as

a factor that negatively influenced the child’s sense of self. As parents’ base their

perceptions of the support provided to the child by the child’s teacher on their


expectations and second-hand information from their children, children were asked

directly for their perspective of teacher support.

7.2.3 The gifted child’s perception of their relationship with their teacher.

As discussed in Chapter four, to determine the social support teachers offer

children, the direction, disposition, description, and evaluation of the teacher-child

relationship needed to be considered. These factors were considered to determine

whether support was given and received within the teacher-child relationship, the

type of support available to the child as well as the child’s perception of the teacher’s

support in meeting their needs.

7.2.3.1 The teacher-child relationship.

From the child’s perspective, the children interviewed all reported getting

along with their teacher. However, when questioned as to why, it seemed as if the

children were earning teacher approval and acceptance through their behaviour: “I

don’t get punishment much because I have not performed punishable behaviour”

(C18) and “I’m not naughty, she doesn’t like the naughty kids in class” (C46), “I

don’t get in trouble at all so, um, we get along very well” (C67), and C25 added that

independence and helpfulness were valued, “because I try my hardest and ... I help

her and I put stuff up in the classroom and I don’t ask her everything, like I work

things out for myself.” The children in the study accepted their teacher’s rules and

thought they were simple to follow, “They don’t ask much.” (C46).

C27 reported that she gets along with her teachers because she liked the

subjects they teach, “Um, I like Maths and Mr T likes Maths and the same thing for

Mrs H because she likes English and I like English.”

Overall, children were conforming to ensure teacher acceptance, as noted by

C25 when discussing the difference between her relationships with teachers that

other children perceive to be strict, “they’re always nice to me, all the time, because I

am nice to them and I follow their rules and nobody gets hurt, it’s not that hard.” C27

also reported liking strict teachers.


7.2.3.2 Helping children learn.

Children in the study were asked what their teachers did to help them learn to

gain insight into instrumental (shown through one’s time commitment) and

informational support (the provision of advice); the response, “she teaches us” (C67),

as C18 explained:

“It’s just the same kind of thing any other teacher does... nothing that I can

think of, specifically” – “Well they give you questions and you answer them,

and then they correct you if you’re wrong and congratulate you if you’re right

(spoken robot-like) and they give you information and you may have questions

with that and stuff like that... that is literally the definition of teaching.”

C32 added, “trying to keep everybody learning and on task and everything.”

Whilst talking about teaching; the majority of the children spoke about Maths

lessons, but it seemed as if “the other groups actually get to have fun with it, we only

do worksheets”(C25), which “keeps us going and learning a bit of stuff” (C19);

preferring fun activities to written work. C46 said:

“We used to have a relief teacher called Mr B, and he, he was really fun, he’d

find a fun and exciting way to um, to incorporate what we were learning into

like a fun activity, we did rotations and stuff, um now we’ve just kind of got,

we’ve just kind of got, to get our workbook out, write notes, pre-test, test, so

it’s not as involved.”

C25 felt similar, “sometimes, when the teacher just gives me a bunch of

worksheets and she doesn't really, well they don't really explain it to the class.”

However, for C46 the teacher got “the message across well enough, it’s not

necessarily the teacher, but the ways.” Although the words “bored” and “boring”

came up in much of the conversation with children and parents, parents reported that

their children would refrain from communicating this to their teacher, so as not to

offend, as relayed by P27:

“She’s a bit of a people pleaser ... because she knows what it feels like if she is

let down so she doesn’t want to let another person down. Um, so she is not, she

has never gone to a teacher and said, ‘I’m not learning anything. That’s so

easy; I knew how to do that when I was four.’”


Beyond general teaching, C25 reported that her teacher would “explain to the

whole class why and she doesn’t really get that frustrated if you really don’t get it

she’ll keep on going over it for you.” In contrast, C46’s teacher explains to a point

and then, “If she has already said something though, and then, someone asks blah,

blah, blah – even if they haven’t been in the room she just (hand motion – finished

with it)”. In neither class was there individual time given to students. In contrast, C32

(twice-exceptional) was able to access some one-on-one time with the teacher to

explain concepts, “how to do work ...and stuff like that,” this was similar to C27 but

her teacher spent time with the “not very good spellers;” C27 accepted less-able

students and believed, “I learn best by myself;” in contrast her mother wanted her to

have access to teaching.

This study found that gifted children were engaged in learning activities that

were not perceived as stimulating. Consequently, children felt bored, although this

may not have been voiced at school. Children reported varying amounts of additional

support available within the classroom, such as additional instruction and one-on-one

time. However, this support was aimed at learners with barriers to learning, as

mentioned previously by parents.

7.3 The Role Parents Play in the Development of SEWB

The findings suggested that children do not always display the same behaviour

at home as they do at school, hence parents may support very different behaviours to

teachers. Multiple parents reported that their children would not, for example,

display anger at school, thus teachers may not have come to appreciate the feelings

experienced fully and behaviours demonstrated by the children in their class. Only

the parents of the two twice-exceptional children (P32, P67) in this study mentioned

that their children had shown anger at school, both of which seemed out-of-character,

and both in response to other children who had either called them names or taken the

first punch in a physical altercation. These parents also reported a high level of

frustration experienced by their children due to the gap between their outcome and

ability. Furthermore, school environments are focused on academic education, which

is not the primary goal in a home; therefore one would anticipate a shift in focus.


7.3.1 The parent’s insight into the child’s self-concept.

Parents were asked how they thought their child thought about themselves; five

parents responded that their child had a positive self-concept and felt good about

themselves. Parents reported that they encouraged these thoughts by setting daily

goals, as well as speaking about issues relating to self-esteem and being you. P46

reported telling C46, “You are you! And wow, you’re just pretty amazing, being you

and you have to really remember, all of the stuff that makes up you and why, you

know, you are so good.”

Furthermore, three parents acknowledged that their child “doesn’t describe

herself the way I would like her to describe herself.” P27 suggested that her child

may describe themselves as kind, gentle and able to learn quickly whereas the parent

may not have placed value on these characteristics. Similarly, P18 reported that her

son often saw the opposite of what the parents did, “he beats himself up a lot, I think

he, um, like even though he does really, really well, and he actually has quite a lot of

friends, he sort of sees it the opposite” and therefore may have had many negative

self-messages. As mentioned previously, in section 6.5.1.3, P25 reported his child

felt different.

There was a relationship between the child’s feelings of self both inside and

outside of school, whereby they influenced each other. P19 reported:

“(Sigh) In general I think she’s quite happy with herself, she knows that she is

a little bit unique, it’s not something we don’t talk about ... um, but when it’s

been spoken about in negative ways, her teacher, particularly this year can be a

little bit ... well over the first two terms was very negative, and she felt very

down about herself and she, she did use words which were truly sad to hear,

‘I’m a sloth’- because she’s slow, things like that and I just kind of go ah ...

it’s, it’s ... it was tough. So we probably had about six months with her

struggling with her self-worth, she definitely felt down about herself at school,

so ... thankfully she has enough things outside of school, to make things

positive, she’s been doing sports and things like that ... where she is getting a

lot of praise, it sort of overrode the negativity of school.”

P67 felt:


“He's probably got a pretty good self-concept most of the time, he probably

only really gets worked up with his school work where working hard just never

seems to be enough to get the nod for the extension he so desperately wants.”

To support C67 his parents focused on the times he was victorious and the

process involved, adding that one cannot be good at everything. P67 added:

“Fingers crossed these lessons role over into other areas of his life. Probably

easier said than done though... Despite what I try and instill with him that

being noticed as the best and achieving top results is not the be all and end all,

it is still what is important out there.”

C67 had realised that he could achieve better in the realm of sports, and

despite not being naturally talented, had found his hard work in this area had shown

results. Being validated outside of school has a compensatory effect, but P46 relayed

that more important than the feedback from anyone, anywhere, was what you felt

about yourself:

“You need to feel proud of what you're doing because I can tell you all the

time, and at taekwondo you can get all the sticky tape on your tags and

everything else, but if you don’t feel it, then there's nothing that we can, that

we can say, so I say to him, you should feel proud of yourself.”

Although parents generally reported that their children felt good about

themselves, there were situations which may have impacted negatively on the child,

both from the actions of others and the child’s interpretation of the situation or

themselves. Overall, the negativities experienced could be minimised provided the

child was supported in other domains.

7.3.2 The gifted child’s perception of seeking support from parents about their

concerns.

Children were asked about the support their parents provided when they were

unhappy; few sought help directly from their parents, with the exception of C27.

When C27 was worried, because of the nightmarish content of the books she enjoyed

reading; she called to her mother for help; however, this response was related to fear

in a threatening situation requiring immediate action. In contrast, other gifted


children such as C46 reported taking responsibility for working through their

negative emotions, only seeking help when required:

“So if it’s a school issue, I’d probably talk to my parents and my teacher. Um,

sometimes I talk to my teacher first, because I know, I know what to do.

Sometimes, occasionally I might go to my parents for a bit of advice, um

normally they suggest the same thing as I was kind of thinking and then I

could sort it out with my teacher.”

Similarly, C36 reported she would choose to go to her room when angry,

often due to family interactions, she would “usually just lie down and think about it

and if I’m angry with my dad, then I’ll go to my mum and try to get a hug or

something.”

C18 seemed bothered by his mother’s intervention:

“Mum will try help me more than I want, and then, and then I get all messed

up about it, and I get angry even though I probably should let her help me, and

then, we’ll probably end up working it out together.”

Both C25 and C67 reported not telling their parents about their worries, C25

relayed:

“When we need help, if we tell them because sometimes it’s very hard to tell

them ...things ...as we just don’t ... we’re not able to tell them. Because we’re

like ... ahh, they’ll say this, we’ve got thoughts in our head and we’ll be like

they’ll say this or they will not help us or they’ll think that we are stupid or

they won't believe us and when we need help we won't actually ask most of the

time and then we’ll all store it up and then like one day we’ll unleash it on our

parents and they have to sort it all out and help us, that day. It’s very

frustrating.”

C25 described that when she has approached her parents for help with school

work, her mother seemed annoyed that she could not recall doing the work

previously. When C25 shared her worries with her brother, he said, “Well you just

need to suck it up and you need to ask the teacher.” The teacher’s response did not

resolve the issue, “I’ve tried talking to the teacher, it just doesn’t work.” Working

together in the parent-teacher partnership is unsupportive according to C25, “Like

you can ask your parents which they can go to the teacher and the teacher will do


nothing, so sometimes when people think they’re helping they’re not doing anything

– they just make more people know about it.” Hence, C25 may have felt alone with

her difficulties. In contrast, C67 felt he did not have any problems for which he

needed help. Although earlier in the year when he tried to resolve a playground issue,

he felt that neither his teacher nor his parents heard his side of the story, “I just got in

trouble straight away,” which frustrated him.

Gifted children may not always seek help from their parents. Consequently,

parents may be unaware of the challenges their child faces, and therefore support

may be low. Although working through one’s difficulties can be a positive stress

management and coping mechanism; it was also reported that other children do not

share their discontent because it may reflect negatively on them and/or they had felt

dissatisfied with the level of support received in the past.

7.4 The Parent-Teacher Relationship

As primary school children spend a significant amount of time between home

and school, the relationship between the adults who support them in these

environments was a focal point on this study. However, to effectively bridge the gap

between home and school, the relationship between parents and teachers is of

significance. Looking at the parent-teacher relationship, the common denominator,

the child was the starting point; do parents and teachers see the same person? C25,

when describing a secret thought she would like to plant in her teacher’s head, said

that her teacher should not take sides, her reasoning being:

“She doesn’t know everything about us she doesn't go out, she’s not our best

friend, she not in our family, she doesn’t live next door to us, so she doesn’t

know everything about us, besides what she sees at school and most times, the

kids at school they are either being really nice and they won’t ... unleash their

true selves on their school.”

Whether or not parents and teachers see the same child was posed to the

children during the interview stage with mixed results. C18, C46, and C67 (all boys)

reported being the same or similar. Their parents agreed, however, P67 and P18

mentioned some differences. P67 noted a difference between home and school was

that “he doesn't bring his friends home (laughs), and I get to see the bright spark as

he doesn't have to write out his thoughts.” P18 added:


“He has a lot more responsibility at school and sometimes it surprises me how

well he steps up to those responsibilities, whereas at home, you know, as most

kids are, they tend to sort of lean a bit more on their parents.”

C27 could not decide if she was different or the same. Similarly, P27 after

much deliberation decided her child would be the same. C19 reported being “more

calmer” at home where she “doesn’t really have to worry about anything;” while P19

believed her to be happy at both home and school because she has friends.

Other children tended to show differences between home and school. C32

believed she behaved better at school “it feels natural to behave at school,” while she

gets into trouble at home for too much screen time as well as being “a bit sneaky and

cheeky.” P32 noted that his daughter has many personalities. C25 believed she was

better behaved at school, because she was “a little bit nicer to people” as “I don't get

angry as quickly, I have a little bit more patience but I suppose I keep all ... when I

get angry I unleash it on my family at home.” She would not have done this at school

because she would have been in trouble and teased. This sentiment was echoed by

P25 who believed his child “is more free at home when there is nobody watching

what she’s doing and she can de-mask.” He relayed how the school environment

evoked stress in his child and that she needs to decompress at home. P1 also believed

her child would be seen as “extremely conscientious, she’s very intrinsically

motivated,” goal-orientated, neat and independent at school, whereas she can relax at

home. She also had a temper towards her brothers at home which she would not

display towards her peers. However, P68 in the survey commented that her child

whom she described as a “super smart kid, very well-behaved at home,” was “bored

and being naughty at school.”

The majority of children in this study seemed to be well-behaved at school,

some of which behaved the same at home, while others were more relaxed at home

and showed their true emotions. Those who did display more negative qualities at

home were not considered badly behaved, and their parents used many positive

adjectives to describe them.


7.4.1 Children’s perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship.

Children were asked to judge whether their parents and teachers would be

friends; results were mixed, two indicated yes while the others signalled no. This

question was believed to provide insight into the way in which the child perceived

their parent and teacher interacting.

C32 believed her mother and teacher would both enjoy chatting, while C27

believed her mother and one of her teachers would be friends as they had things in

common and were good at similar things, she was unsure of the second teacher.

C46 supposed not but declined from giving a reason. C18 suggested “75, 80,

77.5% chance, of no.” C67 remarked that they would be friendly but not friends; he

thought his father and teacher would not be friends because “Ah, well my dad’s a

boy, he’s more sporty, the teacher is not very sporty.” Furthermore, unlike his

teacher, C67 described his mother as, “a nerd.” Likewise, C25 said no as she

believed:

“My mum and my dad are a little bit more mature than my teacher and my

teacher um, is ... when she was in school she always tells us these stories when

she has time, um ... that she was always the popular girl in school and (high

pitched giggle) my mum and my dad, they are more into actually trying your

hardest, this is one of my dad’s quotes, ‘You either do it for real or you don’t

do it at all.’ – my teacher she can do it half way – that’s what she’ll do, so I

don’t think that they’ll be friends or really like each other.”

The majority of the children tended to view their parents and teachers as not

being friends but friendly often because of different interests, personality, and values;

which was similar to the child’s relationships with peers. These factors may have an

influence on the parent-teacher relationship and their shared understanding.

7.4.2 Parents’ perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship.

Parents were asked to reflect upon the working relationship they had with their

child’s teacher, although there was a range of responses from extremely positive to

negative, the majority tended towards negative relationships. Only P1 responded

whole-heartedly positively; this was also one of the two teachers who were willing to

participate in this study. P1 reported, “She’s great, I love her! .... I just the have so


much admiration for her.” She felt the teacher was proactive, they shared similar

values, and the parent had no hesitation in approaching the teacher to discuss

anything. From here we moved to relationships considered “polite and go through the

pleasantries when I do see her, but I wouldn't say we have a meeting of the minds”

(P67) towards “not somewhat standoffish but tense” (P25).

P27 currently had a teacher she thought positively about; having moved from

a situation where she felt the teacher was “destroying” her child. She believed that

“communication is key” and her child was aware of the parent’s continued dealings

with her teacher, which the parent views positively. P46 had met with the teacher

three times over the course of the school year, all school related. During the first

meeting the teacher took notes and displayed a good sense of the child:

“She’s, given me back at the time what it is that I’ve needed so no more, no

more, and no less... I don’t even know if it's a relationship, I, I don't really

know, I'm just, it’s like I'm just trusting, not necessarily believing, but trusting

that she doing what she needs to do.”

For others such as P67, the parent and teacher could not agree on how best to

help the child:

“She kind of gets where he is but I don't feel she does everything she could to

facilitate his learning, feel like it is lip service... Also, some things she feels are

good for him I disagree with... It just seems contradictory.”

The parent had provided the teacher with various reports from professionals

but felt they had been disregarded. P67 added:

“I do understand he is not the only kid and definitely not the only one with

special needs and time is limited and all that, but I really would like to see

extra input without me having to be the one to nag or take him somewhere else

to do it.”

Similarly, P25 understands the teacher’s dilemma with so many children in

one classroom but felt the deliberate efforts made to engage with the teacher and

provide assessments has only resulted in some changes, as the teacher or system did

not accommodate individuals. Likewise, P19 felt her child was not accommodated

because she was not struggling, only advanced.


Other parents had escalated their concerns to the principal, P32 felt partly that

he got along better with them and others such as P11, who noted in the survey, that

the teacher was not interested in the parent’s thoughts because “he is the expert.”

Although P18 believed the teacher gave the child what he needed, she would rather

approach the principal as parents, in general, were scared to approach the old-school

teacher who may have disagreed and who would not be directed. P19 reported a

similar situation:

“I believe it’s the teacher, she’s an older teacher who’s been teaching for a

long time, in the same school, in the same year level, has been no changes, um

and I think the changes within teaching over the timeframe has, she hasn’t

changed with, so, she’s, she is a very intelligent woman who has a lot of

knowledge, that she, she doesn’t work well with kids outside of the box.”

This teacher would not be led by parent input. When the parent had been

forceful, the teacher had shouted at the parent; this resulted in communication

occurring via the principal. This parent also acknowledged the large number of

children in the class and the difficulties the teacher must face addressing all their

issues, as well as the limited funding available to support the teacher, a situation P32

did not envy. C19 was aware that her parent did not like her teacher, her parent

stated, “She doesn’t like her teacher either ... she knows that she doesn’t get her

either and that’s what we say to her, she doesn’t understand the way your brain

works, it’s different from other kids;” in the child’s interview, C19 described her

teacher as “growly.” As a consequence, P19 felt that C19 went from loving school to

“I don’t really want to go to school,” and missed numerous days.

Parents reported a range of perceptions of their relationship with their child’s

teacher from extremely positive to negative. The majority of parents in this study

reported negative experiences due to a breakdown in communication between

parents and teachers, at times resulting in the principal being included.

Disagreements focussed on educational provision and the discrepancy between

parent expectation and teacher delivery, although parents did acknowledge teacher

limitations due to limited resources and time available. However, a shared

understanding of how to support the child was also lacking, especially with old-

school style teachers.


7.4.3 Teachers’ perceptions of the parent-teacher relationship.

Only two teachers were willing to be interviewed, and both reported good

working relationships with the parents of the gifted child in their class. T65 did

articulate her initial feelings of intimidation based on the comments made to her by

the previous teacher:

“I think before when I didn’t have them I was a little bit intimidated by them,

they are a family of very high achievers and um, um, really intelligent people

um, so I was a little bit worried that I wouldn’t be able to help the student in

the way that they wanted, but when I um, we all ended up actually, myself, the

student and his mum on school camp together and just chatting with her, she, I

just realised she’s more approachable than I first thought and you know,

hearing things from another person’s perspective, this previous teacher really,

really got me a bit worried that I wasn’t going to be able to help him but um

yeah, I find them, it’s been normal really, the same as anybody else to just be

able to talk to them and maintain a relationship.”

She described the previous teacher as “much older and a bit more traditional,

um, and I think I’ve been a bit more lenient in working with this student and his

mother, um, to be aware of what they want as well.” With the transition between

teachers, the child, “is just a happier person now, he is not getting sick as much, and

he’s not um, stressed and worried.”

T1 placed value on having good working relationships with parents, which

she felt empowered teachers. She believed she was open to communication and

encouraged meetings which she felt benefitted the child. She felt that the majority of

parents of gifted children in her class shared her understanding and expectations. She

noted that working with parents was beneficial as “they also know their children

quite well.” T11, in the survey, echoed the value of open communication to discuss

barriers and achievement.

However, when T1 considered another gifted child in her class, not

participating in this study, the teacher felt she had a poor relationship with his

parents, she felt mistrusted, helpless and challenged. Although the child was always

her primary concern, she felt that she could not always be honest with his parents as

they did not agree on what was best for the child. The teacher noted that the most


significant difficulty stemmed from the integrated experience of holistic development

she was trying to provide and the specific focus of the parents on acceleration,

individualised curriculum, and accommodation of the child’s interests to the point

where the parent was providing learning materials to the teacher for her to focus on

in class. An example provided was the parent wanting more difficult calculations

with larger numbers while the teacher wanted to focus on problem-solving, an area

she believed the child could grow in, rather than more of what the child was already

good at. Furthermore:

“They wanted to learn valencies and God knows what else, the periodic table,

and... it had no relevance at this stage (Year 3), and it’s great to have that

knowledge, I don’t deny that, those things that you know, sort of just having

all that knowledge, isn’t helpful when you’re not ready to apply it.”

T12, reported in the survey that the parent of a gifted child in her class was

aware that she felt “very strongly that high-achieving students are potentially as

vulnerable as low-achieving students,” but appreciated the high number of students

the teacher has in her care and hence the difficulty to support each child as much as

required. The lack of support from the school as a whole was also mentioned by T1

who felt in a bind as her primary focus was to cater to the child, “but being a private

school we are ending up catering to the parent.” When she considered her concerns

about a new child, also gifted, joining her class, she shared, “I’m just worried about

the parents, you know, what their expectations are, because a child, most of the

children are happy... in the class.” Furthermore, she felt under pressure from

management:

“Promises are made, they are not delivered, it’s all the buck stops at me, so

that is not real, the expectation is, is um, too high, it’s yeah, we can’t. But in

saying that we do meet all expectations so yeah, but it’s never enough.”

T1 also expressed her frustration with limited resources and budget and felt

parents needed to investigate school more thoroughly:

“We don’t have the resources see, even if he wanted more time with the

specialist teacher – there is no, it’s not budgeted for, yeah so really, so they

would benefit, I believe in other, some schools, like C for example, I’ve heard,

it’s also a Montessori school it has a unit for curriculum support, a separate


unit that is quite well established and then you know children like this can be

extended, in a more thorough way if you like (laughs) so, so more support is

always useful.”

Although teachers viewed their working relationship with parents more

positively, teachers acknowledged that some relationships could be complicated. T65

reported “a much older and bit more traditional teacher” had not had the same results

working with a family as she had. Through her more flexible approach, she reported

the child had improved well-being. Teachers felt relationships can be strained due to

the pressure placed on them not only by parental expectations but also by

management and the system which did not always support teachers.

7.4.4 Relationships with school in general.

Parents felt it was tiring telling teachers every year that their child was gifted

(P46), and for many “school is very restrictive and slow-moving” (P6, survey).

Through the survey, P61 explained how she had been fighting for five years for

acceleration and support for her child. She felt that the teachers and principal were

condescending towards her and oblivious to her child’s needs. Finally, the child had

been reluctantly grade-skipped into the class of a teacher with a Masters in Gifted

Education and the parent commented that she “can’t speak highly enough of her.”

Fighting for acceleration as well as the word ‘battle’ was mentioned by

parents during the interviews; it paints a different picture to advocating. Parents, such

as P67, never felt that their voice was heard and felt that they had failed their child

by not being “that (emphasised) parent, always at the school, moaning and

demanding,” rather picking their battles. It seemed a fine line to walk as P27 also felt

she had disappointed her child by going overboard. Parents felt frustrated and

overwhelmed (P67) and mentally tied up as P27 described:

“The downside to all my negotiations with the teacher ... it’s been incredibly

time-consuming and there have been a number of times where I have said to

her (C27) that I can’t help you, I’m writing an email or I can’t help you, I have

to ring the school. And I don’t like doing that and most parents don’t (laughs),

so it has taken time away from my relationship with her, my downtime with

her ... um, the other negatives, um, I think she has seen me far more exhausted

probably and I’ve been a tired, cranky mum this year because I have been just


overwhelmed with just what I have had to try and sort out. Um, there’s been

very little, I’ve been, there’s been very little spontaneity from me this year, it

just, I’ve been doing what I’ve had to do because what I’ve had to do has been

so enormous so there’s been nothing left for me to say, ‘Let’s go and have a

bike ride,’ or ‘Let’s go and,’ I’m just too tired. So that’s a negative as well.”

Furthermore, parents asserted that the lack of support educationally had an

adverse effect on their child. In the survey P13 mentioned how her child had become

disengaged from learning, being left to daydream all day, she believed the “teachers

loved it because she was no work at all.” P18 had written how the system forced their

child to become “introverted or act up as in some ways like all mental phenomena”

due to little understanding and recognition. P67 said her child was bored and upset

because of lack of extension, which she frequently discussed during the interview.

P17 and P56 had moved schools in an effort to find schools which were more

supportive of the child’s social-emotional needs. P56 revealed her child had

developed “anxiety and depression when school social network fell and academically

needs not being met.” P49 has now resorted to homeschooling as she felt that “gifted

and twice gifted children are ignored and misunderstood. There’s no government

funding, so no interest/ opportunity/ support for these children.” Children were often

moved in a quest to find a more suitable environment. However, T1 felt that many

gifted children “come from other schools, dissatisfied,” and bring with them

behavioural and social problems. She wondered if perhaps parents were making

exceptions and allowing poor behaviour because their child was gifted.

For the majority of families of gifted children, the school system as a whole

seemed unsupportive. Parents reported how starting each year involved having to

relay information once again to a teacher and in some cases battling for periods of

time to obtain access to what parents perceived as more suitable schooling, often at

the expense of the child’s educational experience and SEWB. This indicated that

parents viewed educational provision as an essential focus, although short-term;

however, over a period of time, the bearing on SEWB became more apparent.

Furthermore, children may move school as parents search for more suitable options,

the brunt of change placing additional burdens not only on the family but also on the

shoulders of the next teacher to not only move forward but repair damage done in the

past.


7.4.5 Parents and teachers working together to improve SEWB.

Parents and teachers were asked more specifically about the interventions they

may be working on together with regard to SEWB; it seemed a grey area, with focus

falling predominantly on educational outcomes.

P32 noted that their working relationship focused on overcoming the child’s

barriers to learning. P18 felt her child was resilient; due to life experiences he had

developed coping skills and therefore had no severe difficulties, so no input was

necessary. P25, P19, and P67 felt issues were not being addressed and P27 assumed

the teachers were wary of discussing resilience with her due to past disagreements

with the school psychologist; whereby the parent believed the psychologist had told

members of staff that her child was not resilient. However, P27 noted that her child

was often excluded due to being younger, as well as allergies and health issues; yet

she worked around the difficulty, she did not “whinge and cry,” hereby displaying

resilience.

For the majority of the parents interviewed, there was a mismatch in

understanding between themselves and their child’s teacher. P19 noted that C19

found the school environment boring due to its repetitive nature which resulted in

work taking a long time to complete due to her child’s lack of motivation.

Furthermore, C19 became upset and gave up quickly if she was unable to master a

concept quickly. Hence work came home – “I don’t think they’re necessarily

working on resilience with her.” P25 believed his child’s teacher lacked

understanding:

“I think the teacher has interpreted at face value some of the behaviours that

she has seen and therefore taken some weird actions ...so, an example going

back to being an introvert, um ... very, very friendly and that type of person,

she's done some weird strategies where she has forced her on other people to

be their friend and what have you, which then, she brings that baggage home.”

P67 had explained her child’s anxiety disorder to his teacher which she

believed can be attributed to the frustration he experienced between his ability and

his output. It was easily visible to the teacher as he picked his skin, yet the parent felt

there had been no additional support or understanding, so she had encouraged her

child to try self-advocating. Similarly, P27 encouraged her child’s teacher to “discuss


things with C27; I put it in emails or face to face. I say if there is something that

needs to be discussed, or talked about you must include her in the conversation,” in

particular in relation to project and task management, an area she was concerned

about as high school approaches for this radically accelerated little girl.

T1 believed the Montessori school environment created a good platform from

which the gifted child in her class could develop:

“We have all the skills, basically life skills, yeah and all the executive

functioning skills that they can take with them wherever they go, so it’s not

just about skill, knowledge and academic skills, it’s just these other skills,

which will, which make them able to, which help them, um, learn in any

situations, so she, in terms of her learning will have no problem, and socially,

she is quite a settled child, so she is able to adjust and because of her, you

know, great personality, others are drawn to her, so she won’t lack friends, so

yeah. But actually, not for this other child, it’s very opposite.”

In contrast, another child in her class, who was also gifted, lacked this

balanced functioning. The teacher stated that the parents had been unhappy with the

child’s educational provisions and had repeatedly moved schools leaving the child

with gaps in his learning and denying him the chance to settle down and form social

bonds. The school principal equated this to “child abuse in many senses because,

yeah I mean, they are not thinking about his well-being at all.” When asked how the

teacher felt about the situation, she replied, “I feel that the child will be the one to

suffer, that’s, that’s the worst thing I feel, I feel for him because you know they

didn’t give him a chance to settle.”

Although gifted children were often resilient and therefore no intervention

was needed, in cases where intervention was required, the majority of parents felt

that teachers were falling short in supporting their children. Similarly, in direct

contrast, teachers may hold parents accountable for the child’s lack of well-being.

Two parents in this study also reported placing partial accountability onto the

shoulders of their children to advocate for themselves and take responsibility for

developing their own well-being. This may seem like a vicious cycle but fits well

within a systems theory framework as cause-and-effect are convoluted.


7.5 Parents’, Teachers’ and Gifted Children’s Advice

This section focuses on the advice teachers would offer new teachers, as well

as advice parents of gifted children, would offer to other parents of gifted children.

Furthermore, gifted children have provided advice to both their parents and teacher

to better support their SEWB.

7.5.1 Advice to a new teacher.

Teachers were asked what advice they would offer to a new teacher in terms of

supporting gifted children. Although both teachers stated that the strengths and

weaknesses of each child should be considered, the focus fell on educational

provisions to ensure the child was adequately challenged and catered for to prevent

problems arising.

As this was the first time T65 had taught a gifted child, she relayed:

“I was a bit nervous about um, the prospect of doing that and making sure I

was on the right track and um just keeping him challenged, um but... as I got to

know him, I definitely felt a bit more comfortable.”

She advised other teachers: “I think just being open to trying new things

would be the main thing when dealing with gifted children.”

T1 in her interview suggested:

“I would say, get to know the child and their abilities really well first and build

a relationship with the child and the parents and I’d say cater to the child in

the... best way you can but maybe if you can’t maybe get help from outside.”

She believed that a child would exhibit problems if not engaged at the right

level:

“If they are not catered to appropriately the they... there is a level of, you know

say behaviour problems, emotional problems and other problems that may – if

they are not well engaged, that’s what I’d say, you have to engage them at just

that um, the right um, level, otherwise they are not going to yeah, yeah, if it’s

too hard or too easy, they’re going to lose interest, so it should be that perfect

balance, that perfect level, which they are learning and not stagnating.”


Both teachers believed it best to get to know the child well first. Thereafter it

was suggested that one was open to trying alternative things and finding the correct

working level for the child as remaining rigid may not only result in the child

stagnating but also emotional and behavioural difficulties.

7.5.2 Advice to another parent of a gifted child.

Parents were asked to provide advice to a friend who had recently discovered

their child was gifted; the intent was to determine the role parents play in the life of a

gifted child, and changes they may have needed to make. The approach varied,

although the parents did acknowledge that this would depend “on their personality”

(P46) and the fact that “kids can be so different, and they also seem to change over

time, from being happy to absolutely miserable” (P67). P32 replied tongue-in-cheek,

“None – I haven’t worked it out myself.”

P1, P19, and P27 all recommended undertaking a full assessment. P1

explained, “there’s two situations, there’s gifted children who are just flourishing and

doing fine and there’s no problem, but then there’s those that are having either,

sensory integration or emotional things, sleep issues or accommodation of...” P27

affirmed this by adding that if “your child is happy and you have only found this out

by accident or curiosity ... just tuck that piece of information away and use it when

you need to use it.” She acknowledged that others might have had a different

experience, but for her gifted “is the most god-awful can of worms you are opening

... exposing your child and yourself to a world that no one else has to encounter.”

P67 agreed, “It’s not like people welcome your gifted child with open arms.” P18

shared this sentiment:

“The road is very hard and long, I think in, I don’t think that um Australian

society in general, I think they have a lot of tall poppy syndrome, I think

anyone who is, uh academically successful, will always be cut down by

people.”

P46 agreed, she suggested to parents “probably don’t go around telling too

many people, because I don’t think anyone is really interested or wants to hear.” She

explained that it was best “to push your own barrow,” keeping the teacher informed,

but with no expectation because they either do not know or are not trained.

Essentially, P46 summarised the journey – “do it yourself, cope with it yourself.”


Only P19 suggested advocating for your child and stated, “You’ve got to be

in there, at the school –‘What are you doing for my child?’” This implied much

responsibility fell on the parents’ shoulders, and they needed to “battle through as

best you can” (P32). As such, P18 suggested, making your child “more resilient and

recognising that you’re always going to be outside the box, and, and learn to live

with it.” By providing “a good home life, a good support system,” she believed the

gifted child would do well – this was the encouragement, love and listening P32

promoted children to need.

P32 also suggested undertaking personal reading on giftedness. There were

mixed feelings regarding joining gifted and talented associations and support groups.

P1 and P32 suggested joining associations, and P19 recommended talking to

someone. P67 suggested making “a friend with another parent of a gifted child, that

you get along with on a personal level, they will get where you are;” although she

warned “good luck” finding support, as she believed support groups are “hard at

times.” She reported:

“There are posts (on Facebook) that go - I don't mean to brag but DD or DS

achieved this or that amazing ... My kids are gifted, but they are not always the

best and acknowledged for everything they do, it does leave me feeling

miserable and ... Probably like a fraud, or disappointed in my kids... Or myself,

maybe I should fight more for academic advancement, or spend more time

paying for advanced tuition so they can be doing uni maths in primary school.”

Other parents also commented about some parents of gifted children being

considered to be “pushing, pushing, pushing” (P32) and “about the marks” (P27).

P19 suggested engaging the child “in the things they are passionate about and

with other gifted kids,” in contrast P46 described her experience with groups

arranged for gifted children as “pigeonholing” her child, furthermore, they “didn't

like some of the personalities of the children” at the gatherings.

Interestingly, both parents of the twice-exceptional children in this study,

suggested that children should “be kids, and have fun” (P67) – being a gifted child,

was still being a child and they should be afforded a childhood, not always busy

turning “them into little adults” (P32). P32 offered advice to other parents of gifted


children, “encourage the kids, love them, listen to them, but just remember they are

kids – give them a childhood and let them grow up later.”

From the findings, the advice parents would provide would depend on the

situation in which a family found themselves, as some gifted children may be

flourishing whilst others are floundering and frustrated. Parents recommended in the

latter situation in particular that a full assessment would be useful. However, all but

one parent, who suggested advocating for your child, reported that one should be

careful about sharing information that your child was gifted as it was not always

welcomed by others. Groups designed for parents and gifted children also received

mixed reviews as gifted children are diverse and families have varied values and

agendas, for example, there was a difference between pushing children to achieve

and allowing them to be children.

7.5.3 Advice from gifted children to their parents.

Children were presented with a magic wand question, asking what they would

change to make their parents perfect; it seemed as if a more relaxed atmosphere was

important to children. C27 remarked on her mother’s “short temper.” C25 also

expressed that more patience from her parents would be welcomed as there was a

need to respond quickly and to be doing the right thing at the right time. C67 would

have liked less screaming from his mother and a reduced need for speed; “I mean

like they actually give me a chance to react.”

Advice offered to parents in showing care for their children included,

showing love through “housekeeping and cooking dinner, and that, that in itself is

caring” and telling your child you love them (C18) and spending time together

having fun, playing (C19) and gardening (C27). This was supported by C32, who

volunteered that being understanding, kind, and easy to talk to were important; ideas

to show this include:

“Going to favourite places, um and favourite restaurants or anything, or um,

sometimes ask her if there might be anything bothering her at school or if she

is going alright with her friends and um, ask her if she wants to help you cook

if you cook.” (C32)

C27 agreed that parents should “play games with them when you have the time,

don’t always be busy like going on computers and stuff.” C25 believed togetherness


to be more important than the activity you engage in, repeated in C19’s words of

“spending time with mum.” P32 acknowledged himself when contemplating

spending time with his daughter, “it’s the old cliché about the husband busts his guts

at work, works for stupid hours to earn money to make life better while the life

disappears from underneath him...”

C67 felt that children should not be forced to do things such as learn on

holiday, by visiting museums, and that parents should take into consideration a

child’s likes. C18 also mentioned family holidays, and how travelling and exploring

together brought the family closer; “We go travelling a lot, but that was an event that

has brought us closer together as a family.” Other ideas included, “my parents

appreciate me for what I am” (C46), keeping their word (C67), “acknowledge that

they’re (the child) there” and helping them (C25).

Most of the ideas suggested by the children revolved around giving children

emotional and instrumental support in terms of a parent’s time – nothing of material

value was sought, as described by C46, “I don’t think it’s a physical thing, I think it’s

just kind of like, kind of like, just a vibe.” No children mentioned additional

educational opportunities either, and C67 actually requested not to learn on holiday.

In contrast, throughout much of this study when interviewing parents focus fell on

improved educational provision as a means to enhance a child’s SEWB.

7.5.4 Advice from gifted children to their teachers.

To achieve one of the aims of this study with regard to making

recommendations for best practice in terms of supporting gifted children’s SEWB

within the school environment, three questions were asked within the interview. One

was regarding planting a secret thought in their teacher’s head; another was to

provide their teacher with feedback and finally, children were asked about changes

they would make to a typical day.

Children were asked if they could plant a secret thought in their teacher’s

head that would change the way they thought about them, what it would be; the

responses were varied but predominantly focused on changes in their teacher so that

the child may be seen and heard and treated accordingly. C19 wished that her teacher

would “Stop growling at the class” and that she could have stayed with her favourite


teacher. C25 responded that she felt ignored because she did not always put up her

hand to answer questions to avoid teasing from peers, but then when she did “she’ll

see you with your hand up but she won’t actually pick you, she’ll pick somebody

else.” C32 wished her teachers would acknowledge that when she was talking in

class “it’s usually about, like asking someone what’s happening or um, just trying to

help them or they are just trying to help me.” C27 reported that her teacher was a

“doubter,” a word she learnt from her mother. C27 believed that “they should believe

in gifted kids because um, different teachers aren’t as flexible as other teachers” and

they should acknowledge that gifted children “think differently, and they are cleverer

and sometimes other kids don’t really understand their thoughts” in essence, teachers

need to “be flexible and sometimes, well, not let other kids tease those kids about the

way they think or something like that.” In contrast, C67 wanted his teacher to know

he was sporty; he also wanted his peers to acknowledge his ability as he believed this

would improve their perception of him.

Children also provided their teachers with feedback on how they could

improve; the responses focused primarily on behaviour management and improving

the learning experience. Both C25 and C32 mentioned that they felt their teacher

categorised children “into different boxes” (C25) and would take sides; they did not

like these judgements, for example, C32 wanted the teacher to be “able to tell which

student would lie and tell the truth.” Being treated fairly can be seen as providing

emotional support. C18 and C67 both reported their teachers shouted, hence lacking

in appraisal support, C67 relayed for “screaming, she got an A+” although C18 did

not mind as “it’s part of his system” and “usually because it’s not directed at me.” To

enhance the learning experience, C27 felt the teacher could read “with emotion, she

has like a flat voice and she just speaks normal” and C67 alleged the spelling work

he received was insufficient “because we only do sounds, and the sounds are like ch,

s ... and I’m like in Year 5.”

The needs of the children varied when asked how they would change a

typical day at school; focus fell on organisation and the learning experience. Ideas

included “a better seating plan” (C67) to manage the poor behaviour of other

students, similarly to C18 who enjoyed the quiet. C46 would alter the eating times as

he tended to get hungry quickly. C25 would like to “mix up the subjects a bit” for


variety and ensure the right pace of teaching and C19 wanted more fun activities,

discussed in section 6.5.2.3.

Interestingly, when children were asked to describe attributes of their

favourite teacher, ideas relating to emotional and informational support were

mentioned. Three responses (C18, C19, C67) included a teacher being seen as fun

and using educational games to facilitate learning; “firstly, he teaches Science- which

I love and secondly he is really funny and fun and he ... he gets lessons done and you

don’t feel like you’re doing much work” (C18); which indicates the type of

informational support needed through the establishment of interesting and

meaningful learning environments. C18 and C27 also preferred teachers of subjects

they enjoyed, although it may not be a prerequisite as C67 noted, despite enjoying

sport, it was not the teacher who made sport one of his favourite subjects, but his

own interest. Other qualities focused on the teacher’s emotional support such as

being considerate including being “nice and gentle” (C19) and showing

“understanding about my allergies and stuff” (C27). Structure was also welcomed,

“everything was really well organised, he was really on, on, on track, he, he, did

everything he said he was going to do, a really genuine guy” (C46), consequently

forming a relationship of trust. Furthermore, structure and rules may have provided a

framework for emotional support (C25):

“And that’s always the teacher, the one that loves you the most, and wants to

look after you. Everyone puts it along like they are rude and that they are

mean...just because the teacher actually likes us and wants to look after us and

she doesn’t want us to get hurt. So there has to be rules.”

Of highest importance to gifted children is having a teacher who creates a fun

learning experience, offers understanding and gentleness as well as a structured

environment of care and safety. These children did not mention receiving appraisal

support in the form of rewards nor place demands for more teacher time or

provisions in the form of instrumental support.

7.6 Chapter Summary

The role schools and teachers, as well as parents, play in the development and

support of SEWB in gifted children was explored to answer research question five.

In many cases, exactly what constitutes a gifted child was questioned, and there was


a breakdown in terms of parents and teachers agreeing on how best to meet the gifted

child’s needs. Much attention fell on academic provisions, while SEWB seemed a

grey area and a by-product of the learning experience. Emerging from the data, there

are five key findings:

1. Gifted children are not homogeneous. Some have a good self-concept, while

others do not.

There were two groups of gifted children according to teachers, those with a

good self-concept and those with a poor self-concept. These differences were

attributed to difficulties with peer interactions and parents’ high expectation;

although there was an acknowledgement that appropriate educational provision was

necessary to prevent other difficulties. It was recommended to get to know the child

well and then trying alternative ideas at the correct working level for the child.

2. Parents do not view their working relationship with their child’s teacher as

positively as what teachers do; children are aware of this.

Although the teachers viewed their working relationship with parents more

positively than parents did, they acknowledged that some relationships were

complicated. The majority of parents rated the support provided by their child’s

teacher poorly; focus fell on the lack of advanced academic provision and the

inflexibility of old-school teachers. Similarly, children reported unstimulating

learning activities and felt bored; in addition, there were limited opportunities to

access additional support. Although gifted children are often resilient, in cases where

intervention was required, parents felt that teachers fell short of supporting their

children.

The majority of the children acknowledged a weak bond between their

parents and teachers, seeing them as friendly but not friends. Due to insufficient data,

it was unclear whether this was solely the child’s perspective or whether it had been

tainted by comments made by parents. Regardless, this weakened bond influences

school outcomes for the child (Dawson & Wymbs, 2016).

3. Children would like their teachers to improve behaviour management in the

classroom and create a fun learning environment.


When considering how children related to their teachers, children were well

behaved to ensure teacher acceptance and children reported being better behaved at

school than at home. Children recommended teachers improved behaviour

management and created a fun learning experience in a safe environment. Children

also wanted to be understood and acknowledged for who they are.

4. Children would like to spend more time engaged with their parents.

When children considered how best parents could support them, a parent’s

time was significant, not additional educational opportunities, which was a prime

focus for parents. Children sought to engage in fun, non-pressurised activities such as

cooking, gardening and merely being together enjoying a meal or visiting a park.

Two children were explicit in that they did not want to spend time learning with their

parents, merely time with them.

5. Children need to feel understood and acknowledged by both parents and

teachers.

Despite parents generally reporting that their children felt good about

themselves, there were situations which may have impacted negatively on the child,

building resilience with support. However, gifted children may not have always

sought help from their parents, leaving parents unaware of the challenges they may

be facing. Parents may have also felt alone as discussing your gifted child was not

always welcomed, even within groups designed around giftedness.

The quantitative results discussed in Chapter five as well as the qualitative

outcomes explored in Chapters six and seven, were merged and a discussion

undertaken in Chapter eight to address the aims and implications of this study in

determining firstly, the social-emotional strengths and weaknesses of primary

school-aged gifted children, and secondly, to ascertain gifted children’s perceptions

of parent and teacher social support to inform best practice.

Chapter 8: Discussion 201

Chapter 8: Discussion

8.1 Introduction

The aims of this study were twofold: firstly, to determine the strengths and

weaknesses of the gifted primary school child’s SEWB through a comparison of the

self-perceptions of gifted children with their parents’ and teachers’ perceptions; and

secondly, to document perceptions of the gifted child’s social support so as to make

recommendations for best practice. The current study was considered significant as

high levels of SEWB are equated with greater confidence and self-worth, better

relationships, well-developed problem-solving skills, and the persistence to

overcome challenges and succeed both academically at school and in life (Greene,

2004; Peterson & Morris, 2010; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). Through the literature

review it was demonstrated that the social-emotional needs of gifted children might

deviate from the norm (Moon, 2002; Robinson, 2008; Webb, 1994), furthermore, the

role parents and teacher play in supporting the primary school-aged child was

highlighted (Penney & Wilgosh, 2000; Tan & Neihart, 2010). However, there is

limited Australian data available in this area; therefore, the current study makes both

theoretical and substantive contributions to the knowledge base.

Five research questions guided the current study, which was explored through

two phases of data collection. This final chapter will explore the most salient

outcomes of each research question whilst considering the aims of this study: firstly,

to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the gifted primary school child’s

SEWB through a comparison of the self-perceptions of gifted children with their

parents’ and teachers’ perceptions; and secondly, to document perceptions of the

gifted child’s social support so as to make recommendations for best practice.

Limitations of this study and recommendations for future research are also

addressed.

8.2 Phase One

Phase one (quantitative surveys) sought to determine the social-emotional

strengths and weaknesses of gifted primary school children in Australia through the

use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) (SDQ).

202 Chapter 8: Discussion

Furthermore, the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki et al., 2000)

(CASSS) was used to determine the type of social support made available to gifted

children by parents and teachers as well as the value gifted children place on types of

support. The first research question asked was, “What is the gifted child’s

perception of their own social-emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to

their teachers’ and parents’ perceptions?” Thereafter a second research question

was asked, “How do gifted children perceive the social support their parents and

teachers provide in relation to the importance they place on that support?” To

determine whether or not support was determined by the child’s level of SEWB, a

third question was posed “Is there a correlation between the level of parent and

teacher social support gifted children perceive and the child’s social-emotional well-

being?”

8.2.1 Research question 1.

Research question 1 considered the gifted child’s perception of their own

social-emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their teachers’ and parents’

perceptions. As a group, gifted children’s perceptions of their own social-emotional

strengths and weaknesses compared to parents’ and teacher’s perceptions indicate

few disparities overall, whereby only 13 % of the related groupings in this study

indicating large discrepancies among the perceptions of the parents, teacher and

gifted children.

In general, when comparing parents, teachers, and gifted children’s

perceptions in this study using the SDQ as a rough means of screening for

difficulties, gifted children were perceived most positively by their teachers. In

contrast, their parents tended to perceive gifted children to experience more

difficulties, particularly in relation to emotional and peer difficulties; although

statistically significant, the effect size was small. The high level of peer problems

reported by parents in these related groupings is worthy of note as one would expect

teachers and the children themselves to have greater insights into peer interactions

which predominantly take place in the school setting. Children themselves reported

perceptions of heightened levels of conduct difficulties, although also noted by

parents, teachers seemed less aware of these difficulties. The difference in children’s

and teachers’ perceptions were statistically significant, with a medium effect size.


Increased emotional difficulties and peer problems reported by parents within

the current study is supported by Australian research undertaken by Morawska and

Sanders (2008) aimed at describing children’s behavioural and emotional adjustment,

and the factors contributing to these difficulties. In their study, the SDQ was

completed by 409 parents (also predominantly mothers) who reported their gifted

children, aged between two and 16 years (mean age of 8.49), to experience emotional

difficulties and peer problems. Their research did not, however, include teacher or

child perceptions. Therefore additional research is necessary to delve deeper into the

discrepancy noted in the current study between parent, teacher and child perceptions

of peer problems. Furthermore, Morawska and Sanders (2008) noted that these

difficulties were not only related but had a significant impact on the child’s

functioning.

Difficulties with peer interactions, both within and outside the classroom,

were identified as a problem for some gifted children within the literature review and

within the current study. Many of these factors were confirmed as being applicable to

gifted Australian primary school children in the current study. These difficulties arise

due to asynchronous development (Akin, 2005; Hollingsworth, 1930), a lack of

shared interests with other children, and a difference in ability and motivation

(Coleman et al., 2015; Gross, 1989) which results in decreased opportunities with

other children, and being perceived as different (Coleman & Cross, 2014).

Furthermore, gifted children distance themselves from others as they do not feel their

peers meet their expectations (Peterson & Moon, 2008; Wellisch et al., 2012) or

because they feel superior to others (Janos et al., 1985). Ultimately these factors

could lead to social isolation (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000; Terman et al., 1926) and

bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006). Likewise, it was noted that gifted children could be

emotionally sensitive (Kline & Meckstroth, 1985) and according to Clarke (2008),

this heightened sensitivity can become a burden.

According to Holder and Coleman (2015), children’s friendships are

associated with positive well-being, as such close friendships are associated with

improved happiness, life satisfaction, and self-esteem as well as less loneliness,

depression, and victimisation; both in the present and into the future. Therefore it can

be shown that friendships support SEWB and the characteristics noted previously by

Greene (2004), as well as their resilience and coping when facing daily challenges


(LeBuffe et al., 2009). Therefore, as was noted by Morawska and Sanders (2008),

peer difficulties have a bearing on emotional difficulties. However, further studies

are required in this area to determine the causal relationship between peer

relationships and emotional well-being, as research to date has focused primarily on

adults. Research focused on children may have a different outcome based on context

(home and school), age, gender, expectations and the quality of friendships due to the

different types of friendships adults and children have, for example, children do not

have romantic relationships and adults do not tend to have imaginary friends.

In Australian research undertaken by Healy, Sanders and Iyer (2015), of 215

non-gifted primary-school-aged children, parenting influences the development of a

child’s social competence, emotional control, and friendships. They believe it would

be beneficial to engage in family-based intervention including skills such as

friendship and play strategies, emotional regulation, positive thinking skills and

conflict problem-solving. Through parental involvement in intervention, the child’s

development can be scaffolded over an extended period of time as well as improve

their facilitative parenting skills. Facilitative parenting implies parental warmth and

responsiveness, promoting suitable independence, supporting a child’s friendships

and coaching social problem-solving skills. Although the current study did not look

at parenting skills, whether or not gifted children perceive their parents to provide

appropriate social support is explored in research question 2.

In contrast, teachers generally only engage with a child over the period of a

year, when that child is in their class, however, their contribution is no less

important. Farmer, McAuliffe Lines and Hamm (2011) explore the use of a metaphor

how ‘the invisible hand’ of the teacher can be used to guide peer experiences. Within

the classroom, they propose teachers are the authority on society’s rules and

expectations by reinforcing and providing guidance where appropriate. These

relationships may also act as models for peer interactions. Furthermore, teachers

facilitate students’ social interactions, opportunities, and peer dynamics by

structuring activities to meet their social and behavioural needs.

Hereby, based on a review of the literature, it can be seen that both

friendships and emotional competency, are not only interrelated but are also

necessary to develop SEWB in gifted children. As was noted in the current study,


gifted primary school children in Australia may experience difficulties in these areas.

Therefore, both parents and teachers need to be aware of these issues and have

strategies in place to support the child’s development such as the family-based

intervention and teacher guidance in shaping peer interactions in class as previously

discussed; in addition to being warm, caring and supportive in their interactions with

the child.

Within the current study, children reported a higher incidence of conduct

disorders. While parents provided similar ratings of conduct disorders as the

children, the teachers seemed unaware of these issues in the gifted children. This

finding is reflected in the work of van der Meulen et al. (2014), where parents and

teachers of 89 gifted children, with a mean age of 9.51, in Grades 3 to 5 in

Amsterdam completed questionnaires, including the SDQ, before and after engaging

in a one day a week school for the gifted. Although results of the child’s self-reports

on the SDQ are not provided in van der Meulen et al.’s study, the results revealed

that parents indicated a higher incidence of conduct disorders than teachers. On

inspection of the conduct problems scale in the current study, children self-rated a

high degree of displaying anger in comparison to the other questions. Similarly,

parents reported their child to lose their temper often. It was also indicated by

children and parents within the interviews undertaken that the child’s behaviour may

not be the same within the two environments, with children displaying more

appropriate behaviour at school to meet expectations, which could explain why

teachers seemed unaware. However, the qualitative data are explored in greater detail

in phase two.

Of particular interest in van der Meulen et al.’s (2014) study is the finding

that engaging in a one day a week school for the gifted program had a small positive

effect on the children’s self-concept, scholastic competence, and of particular

relevance to the current study - behavioural conduct. In the program, gifted children

were removed from the mainstream classroom for one day per week, continuing for

the remainder in their regular classrooms. Children, parents and teachers completed

questionnaires exploring both SEWB and academic functioning before the start of

the program and after 10 to 12 sessions. It would seem from their research that a one

day a week program may have an influence on the conduct behaviours, and

especially anger, gifted children within the current study reported, hereby supporting


the need for appropriate programming for gifted children to develop favourable

SEWB.

When looking more specifically at individual questions on each of the

subscales of the SDQ in this study, there were questions that tended to stand out.

Firstly, children for example self-rated overall within the emotional problems

subscale as worrying a lot and being nervous in new situations. Parents and teachers

also indicated higher levels of worrying compared to the other questions. Worry was

not indicated as a factor in the literature review. However, the word anxiety is

scattered throughout literature describing the vulnerable gifted child. Consequently, a

question was added to the qualitative phase to gain a greater understanding of worry

as experienced by gifted children.

Furthermore, teachers reported a high incidence of children fighting with

others, in the conduct problems scale, not indicated by children or parents. This was

an interesting finding as much literature focuses on gifted children displaying more

prosocial behaviour in comparison to their peers. However, it would be unreasonable

to assume this always to be the case, especially considering that it has been noted

that gifted children may also be bullies. However, during the qualitative phase no

additional information was obtained from teacher supporting this statement,

admittedly the sample was small. Therefore, additional insight into this finding on

the SDQ is required to determine not only validity but also the impact this on

relationships and the reasons behind the fights.

Lastly, in terms of peer problems, many gifted children, as well as their

parents and teachers, reported getting along better with older children. The need for

gifted children to interact with older children and adults was noted by Gross (2002b)

in her report of Australian research whereby, for example, moderately gifted children

would have perceptions of friendship similar to children of average ability, at least

two years older. Although deemed a neutral question because getting along with

older children has no direct bearing on the child’s friendships with peers, this may

impact on the child if they do not have a good connection with their peers and lack

access to older children with whom they enjoy engaging; reducing the child’s

opportunities to form close relationships with like-minded peers. Additional findings


obtained during the qualitative phase of the current study are discussed in section

8.3.1.

The current study indicated that the gifted child’s perception of their own

social-emotional strengths and weaknesses compared to their teachers’ might be

worse whilst better than parents’ perceptions. Parents reported higher levels of

emotional and peer difficulties, whilst children report higher levels of conduct

difficulties. However, studies have not compared perceptions of parents, teachers and

the gifted primary school child using the SDQ; hence the current study provides

initial insights as to what may be expected within the Australian context, yet due to

the small sample size, additional research would be required to confirm these

insights. Research question four will provide greater insight into the internal and

external factors that influenced the SEWB of the gifted children in the current study.


When considering how gifted children perceive the social support their parents

and teachers provide in relation to the importance they place on that support, it seems

that the level of support and the value they place on the support is very similar for

both parents and teachers, with emotional support ranking of highest value. This

implies children both receive and value similar types of social support from both

parents and teachers, with emotional support being most important to the children.

No gender or age differences of statistical significance were noted within the current

study. However, there is a discrepancy as to whether or not gender plays a role in the

outcomes of other studies in which the CASSS has been utilised with gifted children

to determine their perceived social support. For example, research undertaken by

Rinn, Reynolds, and McQueen (2011), of 217 gifted Grade 5 to 10 students attending

summer camps, yielded no age or gender differences. In contrast, research

undertaken by Rueger, Malecki, and Demaray (2008) of 246 students, with a mean

age of 12.42, did indicate age and gender difference. These studies, however, have

tended to focus on older children (this study’s upper limit was Grade 6, with a mean

age of children completing the CASSS being 9.5) and have also included the other

subscales of the CASSS such as peers, furthermore, the specific focus of the research

has also been varied, hence additional research in this area is required. It should be

noted that the CASSS is designed for children from Grade 3 upwards; the youngest

participant to complete the CASSS in this study was aged six years, which may be a


little younger than preferred. However, no age differences were noted in this study

and due to the advanced academic ability of the intellectually gifted child, this may

not have been an issue.

There were some children who received different levels of the types of

support from either their parent or teacher. There were five cases of interest who

indicated low parent-high teacher support and three cases in which high parent-low

teacher support was indicated. However, no child within the current study reported

low levels of support from both parent and teacher across all types of support. The

majority of studies which have made use of the CASSS have compared the social

support provided by multiple groups; therefore comparison with the current study is

made difficult in this instance. In contrast, the current study examined more closely

the types of support parents and teachers are perceived by gifted children to provide

and the value these children place on these types of support. A similar approach was

used by Malecki and Demaray (2003) in a study of 263 non-gifted Grade 6 to 8

American adolescents. Through their research internal consistency and test-retest

reliability were determined as such, the scores of the types of support can be

interpreted as reliable and valid indicators.

Gifted children within the current study reported receiving similar types of

support from their parents, the highest being informational support and the lowest

appraisal support. Similarly, in research undertaken by Malecki and Demaray (2003),

emotional and informational support were highly reported. In their research,

informational support was rated as most frequently received from teachers. It is

possible that parents of gifted children within the current study, in comparison to

parents of non-gifted children, take on a more dominant role in providing their child

with information or advice; however, it is unclear whether this could be in relation to

providing advanced learning opportunities or advice in daily settings. The level of

importance gifted children in the current study placed on each type of support from

parents received similar scores for informational, instrumental, and appraisal support;

however, emotional support was rated as most important, which was ranked as the

second highest type of support they received from their parents. Both the current

study as well as the research undertaken by Malecki and Demaray (2003) indicated

the value children and adolescents, respectively, place on emotional support. This

finding is not surprising considering the vital role parent support plays in the


development and adjustment of children, (Demaray, Malecki, Davidson, Hodgson &

Rebus, 2005). The current study provides greater knowledge of gifted primary school

children’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as awareness of the support they seek,

which empowers parents to support their child more effectively.

A lower level of appraisal support from their parents was reported by gifted

children in the current study. Appraisal support is associated with providing

evaluative feedback to others, although mention is also made within the CASSS of

the child being rewarded. This result may have therefore been biased as a number of

children indicated a low need for being rewarded. This may be a reflection of not

only the intrinsic motivation which many gifted children tend to display (Rogers,

1986) but also a reflection of family values where rewards are not valued, which was

again indicated by the children during the interviews whereby only one child sought

tangible rewards. Gifted children may, therefore, have different appraisal support

needs. Wu and Elliot (2008) compared gifted and non-gifted Taiwanese adolescents’

preferences for types of rewards. They found that gifted adolescents preferred

competition rewards more and non-gifted adolescents preferred chance rewards.

Further research into the appraisal support of gifted primary school children is

needed especially with regard to how, as a consequence, gifted children interpret

their worth and the impact this has on their SEWB.

Regarding the support gifted children in the current study perceived to

receive from their teachers; the highest was emotional support and the lowest

instrumental support. These findings are similar to the research of Malecki and

Demaray (2003); however, in contrast to their research whereby children rated

information support from teachers as most important, children in the current study

ranked emotional support as most important. It seems as if gifted children within the

current study may be seeking caring and listening from their teachers, possibly

because they receive a high level of informational support from parents or possibly

the classroom environment is a weak source of information. In addition, children in

primary school may still seek nurturing, caring and fair treatment from their teacher

whereas the adolescents within Malecki and Demaray’s study sought information.

Malecki and Demaray (2003) do further note that emotional support was a significant

and sole individual predictor of a student’s social skills and academic competence,

indicating that teachers within their study were relied on for emotional support.


Similar results, whereby emphasis was placed on emotional support were seen in the

research of Rueger et al. (2008).

Furthermore, in research undertaken by Tennat et al. (2015), whereby 796

non-gifted Grade 7 and 8 American students’ perceptions of teacher social support

were collected, emotional support from teachers was positively and significantly

related to grade point average and all the social-emotional variables in their study.

Therefore, it may be suggested that the children within the current study are

subconsciously aware of the social support they require from their teachers so as to

not only achieve academically but also to develop SEWB; fortunately, emotional

support was the highest form of support children reported receiving from their

teachers. In addition, according to Johnson (2009), emotional support fosters student

connectedness and encourages a positive attitude towards school. This may be

likened to the conceptual work carried out by Farmer et al. (2011), previously

discussed, whereby the teacher’s invisible hand guides classroom interactions.

Pianta (2009) also noted that children, who are attentive, engaged and who

display self-control might bring forth more emotional support from their teachers as

they have more positive, high-quality relationships. This may relate back to the

discussion around teachers in the current study being unaware of the gifted child’s

conduct difficulties as they may control their behaviour to ensure they display the

desired level of behaviour anticipated by teachers to foster their relationship in an

effort to receive emotional support which the children value. Consequently, more

research in this area would be required to determine whether or not these differences

are due to the age of the children in each study and the impact this makes on their

needs.

Instrumental support, the provision of material support or one’s time, was

perceived as being received the least by children in the current study, which is

consistent with the research undertaken by Malecki and Demaray (2003). According

to the research of Tennat et al. (2015), instrumental support can be associated with

improved basic mathematics skills; this is worthy of note considering many children

in the current study indicated during the interviews more negative experiences during

mathematics lessons. Perhaps, instrumental support was low for the gifted children in

the current study because they deemed the teacher not to be spending adequate time


in the provision of appropriate mathematics materials and opportunities for learning.

In addition, Suldo et al. (2009), through their mixed methods study of middle school

students, noted emotional and instrumental support to be related to SEWB in

adolescents, specifically a child’s sense of well-being. When compared to the current

study, the child’s sense of well-being may be compromised due to the lower level of

instrumental support. Therefore, it may be necessary for teachers to spend more time

with gifted children and provide them with material support to increase the level of

instrumental support being provided. Briefly, gifted children perceive the social

support their parents and teachers provide in relation to the importance they place on

that support to be similar, although there were exceptions. This does not imply

parents and teachers are providing support at the same level, but rather meeting the

child’s expectations of support to a similar extent. Research question five will

provide greater insight into the social support provided to gifted children by both

parents and teachers.


When considering whether or not there was a correlation between the level of

parent and teacher social support gifted children perceive and the child’s self-reports

of overall difficulties, the results of the current study indicated no significant

correlation between the gifted child’s perceived level of social support from their

parents and teachers and their self-reports of overall difficulties. This outcome seems

to imply that perceived social support does not impact on a child’s strengths and

difficulties, which is in direct contrast to the research undertaken exploring social

support. Although previous research, as discussed in research question 2, has

indicated different types of support from different support sources to influence a

child’s development in various ways, evidence has shown social support to be

valuable in developing healthy behaviours in children, as noted in the longitudinal

research of Demaray et al. (2005). The second explanation for this outcome may be

attributed to all children in the current study indicating good social support from

either a parent or teacher and in the majority of cases, both. Therefore it may be

assumed that a child may be receiving additional support from another source which

compensates for the lack of support they may receive from either a parent or teacher

or subsequently lacking in an area of development. In addition, from the perspective

of Bronfenbrenner, the current study did not take into consideration sources of


support beyond parents and teachers who too influence a child’s well-being. For

example, when considering the research undertaken by Malecki and Demaray

(2003), it was shown that for adolescent girls a much higher level of support across

all types was received from friends than from either parents or teachers; although this

was in direct contrast to boys.

However, there was a significant positive correlation when looking at the

social support the child receives from both parents and teachers, in that generally

children who perceive their parents as supportive also perceive their teachers as

supportive, with the exception of a few children who perceived the support from

either a parent or teacher to be more frequent. This is interesting as many parents

reported their child’s teacher to provide less than adequate support, which may

indicate children and their parents have different expectations of the teacher.

Research question five will explore the support given to gifted children by their

parents and teachers in greater detail, through the qualitative analysis. These findings

are slightly dissimilar to Rinn et al.’s (2011) research which utilised the CASSS to

explore the relationship between gifted adolescents’ perceived social support and

various sources. Firstly, in contrast to the current study, Rinn et al. explored

adolescents, secondly, they included friends and classmates; although, with the

exception of some, predominantly female, adolescents who tended to rate friends as a

wealth of support, the majority of children rated either high support from parents or

parents and teachers. The extensive difference being that five children in the

quantitative phase of the current study, rated teacher support as more frequent than

parent support, whereas the adolescents never rated teacher support more highly than

parents, only equal to; this difference may have been as a result of age differences.

However, considering the longevity of a child’s relationship with a parent, the impact

of poor parental social support on a child’s SEWB cannot be ignored and studies

which include friends as pillars of social support within the primary school should be

undertaken to determine if friends possibly offer more frequent support for younger

children as well. This would be particularly interesting considering the difficulties

reported in getting along with peers. However, this research would need to clearly

differentiate between “friends” and “classmates”, as classmates have been shown to

provide limited support to gifted children (Rinn et al., 2011).


8.3 Phase two

Phase two involved conducting one-on-one semi-structured interviews with

gifted children and their parents and teachers, living in Western Australia, to gain

information-rich qualitative data to address research questions four and five. This

multiple case study design explored the internal and external factors of SEWB of

Australian children within the framework utilised by Hamilton and Redmond (2010).

The fourth research question asked was, “What are the internal and external factors

which influence SEWB, experienced by primary school-aged Australian children?”

Furthermore, the parent-teacher relationship was explored. Analysis of this

relationship was deemed relevant as when considering Bronfenbrenner’s

Bioecological Model (1979), the developmental potential of a setting is increased

when supportive links with a primary dyad, such as parents, extend to other settings

such as school, facilitated through open communication channels. Hence research

question five asked, “How do parents and teachers of gifted children perceive their

role to support the SEWB of the gifted child both individually and through their

partnership?”


The SEWB experienced by primary school-aged Australian gifted children was

explored in relation to the internal and external factors which influence SEWB as

discussed in the literature review; similar results were achieved. During the

interviews, parents, teachers and gifted children provided insights into the child’s

SEWB. SEWB refers to the way a person thinks and feels about themselves and

others, and their resilience and coping skills in dealing with daily challenges

(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012). Internal factors influence each

child to varying degrees. However, they all influence the way in which the gifted

child interacts with their environment and the people of significance within it, which

further shapes their development and SEWB through a myriad of external factors.

Internal factors include; asynchronous development, being highly perceptive, feeling

different, self-expectations and perfectionism, and relationships with peers. An

additional category of worry was also added. Although worry was not indicated as a

factor in the literature review, the word anxiety is scattered throughout as a

consequence of the gifted child being perceived as vulnerable. Consequently, a

question was added to the qualitative phase to gain a greater understanding of the


experience of worry for gifted children. The external factors include; parents’ and

teacher’s expectations, educational conformity and learning with peers, as well as

academic extension opportunities.

Asynchronous development: In the current study asynchronous

development was reported mostly in relation to motor and affective development.

Firstly, in the current study, asynchronous motor development influenced most

significantly on the twice-exceptional child due to the child’s mismatch between

ability and written output. This finding is in line with the work of Silverman (2002),

who through her studies of over 6,000 gifted children over 35 years noted that motor

asynchronous development increased as IQ increased and when there was a vast

discrepancy between strengths and weakness such as when considering the twice-

exceptional child who is gifted with a learning or developmental disability.

Silverman’s (2002) notion of increasing IQ resulting in asynchronous motor

development was observed when considering another child within the current study,

whereby radical acceleration led to difficulties in sport at school. In this case, the

child was not physically able to make use of the same equipment as her peers due to

their advanced age and size. This finding is supported by the clinical work of

Hollingworth (1930) who concluded that difficulties are most pronounced in the

primary school years; as the difference in development between a child of six and

nine years is far greater than between children aged 16 and 19, where the gap

between mental age and physical development is more easily bridged. However, it

should be noted that the same child also experienced difficulties related to allergies

which also seemed difficult to accommodate within the school environment, this may

imply differences of any type are obstacles. This is supported by Mills et al. (2014)

who undertook an audit exploring the impact of teaching and learning in all

government schools in Queensland, Australia, with focus on the extent to which

classroom learning is differentiated to meet the needs of each individual student.

They concluded that differentiation is a complex concept and difficult to shift from

policy to the classroom, requiring greater clarification and teacher support to enact.

Secondly, both parents and teachers reported many children also possessed

advanced affective development and were very considerate towards others, often to

their own detriment. Silverman (1983) noted how when parents were asked to


describe their gifted child, the word most frequently used was sensitive. Although

this had multiple meanings including, being easily hurt and responding negatively to

criticism as well as responding to physical sensations; sensitive also referred to being

compassionate and empathetic, as noted in the current study. As a consequence,

according to Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (1964), gifted children

have the potential to follow ethical, compassionate pathways into adulthood;

unfortunately we live in a world which often values competition and power;

subsequently, Dabrowski (1979/1994), as cited in Silverman (1994) believed gifted

children were at risk of being destroyed by society. Ensuring the goals of gifted

education serve the needs of the child and not merely reflect the economic and

political needs of a country is vital, as Tannenbaum (1962) cautions against

dehumanising the development of gifted children not for their own benefit but for the

greater good of society. Putting the child first is also noted by Clarke (2008), as

immense empathy, compassion, idealism, and awareness of global issues can become

an overwhelming burden which impacts on the child’s SEWB. Therefore, a balance

between harnessing a gifted child’s empathy for the benefit of society and being

sensitive to the child’s emotions needs to be achieved.

Highly perceptive: The current study indicated being highly perceptive could

be experienced by the child as either positive or negative. Participants indicated

being highly perceptive in the following ways: sensual overexcitabilities especially

towards taste, touch, and noise; a vivid imagination and engagement in fantasy play;

anger related to injustices; intellectual overexcitabilities and a lack of stimulation

resulting in psychomotor overexcitability. Some parents and teachers had put

procedures in place to overcome these barriers; whilst others seemed to be more

difficult to surmount.

Firstly, the children in the current study experienced sensual

overexcitabilities including aversions to certain foods and activities close to their

skin, which as discussed in the literature review is to be anticipated. Delisle and

Galbraith (2002), noted gifted children to be highly perceptive of sounds, sights,

smells, touches, tastes, movements, words, patterns, numbers, physical phenomena,

and people allowing them to find complexity in the world. Although they too

cautioned that the intensity of these experiences might at times be challenging to

overcome. Similarly, several children, particularly the boys, disliked noisy


environments. Difficulties with noise, especially within the classroom environment

were also noted in a study undertaken by Tucker and Lu Hafenstein (1997) whereby

18 gifted children aged between four and six years old were assessed by their

teachers in terms of Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Furthermore, research

undertaken by Renati et al. (2016) of 49 Italian parents of gifted children also noted

the difficulties associated with classroom noise. In a study of the neural mechanisms

of auditory sensory processing undertaken by Liu, Shi, Zhang, Zhao and Yang

(2007) whereby 18 gifted and 18 non-gifted children aged 11.4 to 12.4 years in

Beijing underwent an electroencephalogram; the gifted children’s enhanced neural

function was attributed to a more spatially and temporally coordinated network,

faster neural processing speed and more neural activation functions. Although their

study highlighted a difference in auditory functioning in gifted children, the impact

this may have has not been ascertained. Therefore, the impact of a noisy environment

on gifted children requires further research. This is particularly relevant as a study

undertaken by Ashburner, Ziviani and Rodger (2008) whereby 28 children with

Autism Spectrum Disorder were compared to 51 peers (aged six to 10 years), it was

found that the children with auditory filtering difficulties had deficits in their

learning and attention and it appeared to be “very functionally disabling” (p. 570).

As a consequence of being highly perceptive, across various senses, three

children within the current study were reported to withdraw from interacting with

others both during and after school. In a meta-analysis undertaken by Dunn, Little,

Dean, Robertson, and Evans (2016), it was concluded that sensory processing affects

children’s participation as well as information processing, hence the highly

perceptive children in the current study may also be withdrawing as a consequence

although the impact this makes on their information processing has not been

ascertained and should be a consideration in future research. However, Dunn et al.

note that sensory processing influences the child’s participation in various contexts

depending on whether or not they are supported. This approach fits well within the

theoretical framework of the current study and implies that these difficulties can be

overcome provided parents, and teachers make appropriate accommodations within

the environment.

Secondly, imaginativeness was also reported to be heightened. The younger

girls in the current study seemed to enjoy playing dramatic games; pretending to be a


dragon for example or using a spoon for a telephone. This, according to Fromberg

and Bergen (2012) is not surprising considering pretend play is a significant play

form during childhood. Wilson (2015) conducted research whereby 34 children’s

play patterns were noted. Although aged between three and six years of age which is

slightly younger than the children in the current study, Wilson noted gifted children

to spend more time involved in dramatic, functional and solitary play than their

peers. Although solitary play may impact negatively on peer relationships, the

children in the current study did not seem to be hindered by their interest in fantasy

play. However, there is little to no research investigating the impact of fantasy play

on gifted primary school children. The benefits of fantasy play include strengthening

cognitive skills as well as social and emotional development, particularly in finding

one’s place in the peer group and can facilitate making friends. As primary school-

aged children get older, pretend play also builds trust and intimacy in relationships

(Fromberg & Bergen, 2012). As such primary school teachers should encourage

fantasy play through the provision of appropriate equipment and opportunities, so as

to facilitate the development of these skills, including creativity, and facilitate

friendships between gifted children and their peers.

Many children were also considered avid recreational readers; one reported

imaginational overexcitabilities, as books can be scarier than the related movie.

Considering titles mentioned by parents in the current study, it would seem that

many children are considered high avid readers who enjoy the fantasy component of

reading, as noted in the literature review in a study undertaken by Garces-Bacsal and

Yeo (2017). However, book or movie scenes easily upset three children, often

excessively. Although no comparison was made in the current study between gifted

children and their peers, the research of Derevensky and Coleman (1989), who

compared a group of 70 gifted students aged eight to 13 years of age with their peers,

noted gifted children to exhibit fear often and more intensely. Interestingly, when

considering gender differences, as noted in the research of Tippey and Burnham

(2009), of 287 gifted children aged seven to ten; girls’ fears included the dark,

strange sights and sounds, being kidnapped, dirt and animals; which resonated with a

girl in the current study who was afraid of strange objects she imagined in the dark

related to the book she was reading. Likewise, their study indicated boys were more

fearful of bodily injury, school failure, nightmares and imaginary creatures; a boy in


the current study had reacted emotionally when watching a documentary in which

people were harmed. As a consequence, consideration needs to be shown when

parents and teachers select books and movies for gifted children. Furthermore,

curriculum concessions may need to be made, or sensitivity shown should a child

react adversely to themes.

Thirdly, many children in the current study were angered by injustices,

although few children displayed physical signs of aggression. From the earliest

works of Terman and Hollingworth, gifted children have been characterised as

worrying about injustices, which Sword (2002) notes can lead to feelings of despair

and cynicism. However, in the current study, the feelings expressed seemed to be

more in line with anger. This could be explained as noted by Ersoy and Deniz (2016)

that gifted children have a higher level of self-control, empathy, and problem-solving

skills than their peers, hereby not acting out when angered. Furthermore, gifted

children are able to express their emotional responses taking the setting into

consideration, possibly indicating why higher levels of negative behaviour are

reported at home than at school. Hence parents may be aware of the conduct

difficulties gifted children experience as noted in the results of the SDQ of the

current study, as children are able to express themselves at home, where behavioural

expectations are lower.

Through the experimental longitudinal study undertaken with 196 non-gifted

students (mean age 11.11 years) by Pretsch et al. (2015), it has been shown that

injustices can impact on a child’s outcomes. Unfortunately, arbitrary privilege,

inequitable allocations of time and attention, and other unjust situations are

unavoidable. Although gifted children may be considered by some as beneficiaries,

they may also be considered as victims, perpetrators, and bystanders, which may lead

to negative emotions, such as the anger parents reported within the current study.

Therefore, according to Pretsch et al., it may be beneficial to admit that injustices do

exist to create a buffer against a drop in well-being. Although their research did not

focus on gifted children, gifted children are, according to the literature review

sensitive to injustices, therefore it can be anticipated that for gifted children the

acknowledgement of injustices would only be the start, precisely how to overcome

them would require consideration dependent on the reason for the perceived

injustice, which may require in-depth knowledge and understanding of giftedness.


According to Fiedler (1998), when children feel anger or are confronted with

expressing anger, they have different concerns. Some children believe their anger to

be uncontrollable and destructive, while others display empathy and are aware of the

impact their anger may have on others, hereby controlling their outbursts. As a

consequence, in maintaining peace, these children lose their sense of self; which is

particularly apt when acknowledging gifted children’s capacity for empathy (Ersoy

& Deniz, 2016) and in light of the children in the current study who refrained from

displaying physical aggression. Consequently, gifted children may resort to

intellectualising the difficulties experienced rather than dealing with emotional

responses. Anger as a negative emotion may also be avoided in an attempt to create

an ideal environment and be accepting of and accepted by others or to conform to the

clear boundaries, expectations, and consequences within the classroom. This

approach oversteps the boundary of self-control, which according to Saunders (2016)

is necessary to delay gratification, regulate social behaviour, mitigate mistakes and

make decisions. However, she also notes that a high demand for self-control impacts

on well-being; and is associated with poor self-perceived health and chronic illnesses

(Kerr & Schneider, 2008). Therefore if gifted children are to respond appropriately

and overcome the difficulties they face, they would require support to share their

feelings in a safe environment, especially considering as noted by Underwood

(1997), that anger is an emotion many children would try to mask due to expected

adverse reactions in response to anger as well as the decrease in support which may

occur as a result.

In addition, three parents reported a lack of intellectual stimulation to result in

psychomotor overexcitabilities, one related to sensual experiences, the other two

noted tics, and obsessive-compulsive behaviours. This is in line with the work of

Tieso (2007) who found psychomotor overexcitabilities to be the best predictor of

giftedness in children aged five to 15 in American enrichment programs. It was noted

that gifted children, in contrast to children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder, would predominantly display these behaviours when experiencing

frustration due to the low level of incoming stimulation being presented to them

within the classroom, hereby the behaviours act as a form of stimulation. Therefore,

teachers should be made aware to monitor these behaviours in children and


differentiate work to improve the level of intellectual stimulation the child is

receiving in an effort to curb the psychomotor overexcitabilities.

Lastly, many families noted a deep curiosity, a love of learning and

knowledge, deep thinking and questioning, as well as intense focus. The teachers

also noted these behaviours, seeing intense focus positively. Although the positive

outcomes suggested within the current study are supported in the work of Schmitz

and Galbraith (1985), they also noted how the gifted child’s intense focus may lead

to more negative outcomes as the children may appear stubborn and may isolate

themselves from others in the process, which were not indicated in the current study.

This may be due to the small sample of participants as well as a different focus

within the current study. However, a negative outcome noted within the current study

was the children’s boredom experienced due to the pace of the class. In a

retrospective study undertaken by Persson (2010) through an internet survey with

287 members of the Swedish branch of Mensa; it was found that primary school was

the most difficult time for 92% of participants. Difficulties reported included; being

punished for working too quickly or deviating from the teacher’s preferred method of

calculations, only rewarding the weaker students’ efforts, being perceived as a threat

to the teacher, underachieving in an effort to fit in socially, being used as an assistant

in the classroom, peer alienation and bullying. Only brief moments were noted

whereby programs or teachers offered intellectually stimulating initiatives. Many of

these ideas were expressed in the current study, however, often mentioned by

parents. It would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study to determine whether

perceptions of one’s experiences within primary school change. As such,

comparisons could be drawn between a sample of children while in primary school

and then later with their retrospective perspective as adults. However, to best

support current primary school gifted children, it is necessary for teachers to create

an environment that fosters the intellectual needs of gifted children and modify

lessons to challenge their learning and engage the children in their education in an

effort to overcome the difficulties experienced both with regard to learning and the

child’s interaction with peers.

Feeling different: In the current study, only one child directly mentioned

feeling different, although others alluded to it, particularly in reference to their

academic ability and behaviours. Parents felt their child was different to others due to


their advanced thinking, which influenced behaviour. According to Pyryt (2008), a

child’s comparisons with peers helps shape their self-concept which as per Leyden

and Shale (2012) forms the foundation of social-emotional development. As within

the current study, Lee et al. (2012) noted gifted children to display greater academic

self-concepts than their peers, however conforming becomes more important with

age, therefore, being different becomes more difficult. These difficulties are often

displayed through isolation from peers, deliberate and unintentional talent hiding,

anxiety and depression, daily frustrations in school and life situations, resistance to

authority, drug and alcohol dependency in adolescence and even suicide (Delisle,

1992; Landrum, 1987; Neihart, 2002; Rimm, 2002; Silverman, 2002). The outcome

is ominous; however, as the parents in the current study indicated awareness of their

child’s differences to their peers, it is anticipated that they would intervene or seek

help for their child.

Self-expectation and perfectionism: Perfectionism is considered to be an

amalgamation of thoughts and behaviours related to high self-expectations. In the

current study, all members of the parent-teacher-gifted child group reported a strong

work ethic, where children had high expectations of themselves and the work they

produced. For two children this resulted in procrastination or giving up in fear of

making a mistake. Perfectionism as noted by Speirs Neumeister (2007), through a

meta-analysis of previous research, has a high prevalence rate amongst gifted

children. This is a consequence of; the gifted child’s ability to perceive perfection in

their work, the lack of challenge creating an ideal of work needing to be perfect (both

in terms of content and appearance), and parents and teachers expressing greater

demands based on awareness of their ability. Whether or not perfectionism is

positive or negative cannot be assumed. Therefore it is necessary to look more

closely at the individual and the environment in which they find themselves. It is

essential, according to the findings suggested by Speirs Neumeister (2007) that gifted

children are challenged; experience a classroom environment that appreciates a

growth mindset; and the motivation behind the need to achieve (personal anxiety or

parent and teacher expectation) is acknowledged to prevent children experiencing

procrastination and fearing failure, as did children in the current study.

Relationships with peers: The gifted children in the current study have

friendships of varying quality and often only a few in number. Parents and teachers


seem more aware of the disconnection between the gifted child and their peers and

the need for friendships to be supported than what the children themselves do. Most

children were able to express positive accounts with their friends, but there were few

close friendships or interactions outside of school. Only two children in the current

study mentioned best friends. The finding of adults and children being out-of-sync in

terms of their understanding of the child’s friendships is supported by an analysis

undertaken in London by Vincent, Neal and Iqbal (2016) whereby children’s

friendships in three primary schools from the teacher’s perspective was explored.

However, in contrast, the adults in their study seemed to underestimate the

difficulties children faced in their friendships such as defining the fluidity of

friendship as natural compared to the emotive and major happening experienced by

the child. In addition, teachers were unaware of quieter exclusions and

marginalisation. If this were the case in the current study, parents and teachers might

be taken aback by reality. Thus the friendships of gifted children require closer

examination. To encourage friendships, as suggested by Vincent et al. (2016)

teachers should explore the topic of friendship with all children to facilitate open

conversation and create safe spaces for children to explore friendship, friend-making

and maintaining.

Although parents generally reported their child to be liked by peers, there

were discrepancies as to how much the gifted children liked their peers, and many of

the gifted children appeared mere acquaintances, not being dependent on peer

interaction; not reciprocating the level of intimacy shown by peers and being

definitive when choosing friends. In a study of German adolescents undertaken by

Zimmermann (2004) exploring the influence of attachment on friendships, it was

found that adolescents with secure attachment representations reported emotionally

close friendships, were integrated into larger social groups, displayed appropriate

emotional regulation in dispute with best friends and had low social anxiety when

compared to those with dismissing attachment representations. Furthermore,

Zimmermann noted that adolescents with dismissing attachment representations

considered themselves emotionally independent and did not value close friendships,

which may be the case for some of the gifted children in the current study. In their

research, it was suggested that this might be due to past experiences of rejection


resulting in children not expecting closeness or emotional support in friendships and

consequently experiencing friendships of lower quality.

Although, as established by Bowlby (1980), early parent-child bonds are

related to subsequent relationships with friends, there are also changes inherent in a

child’s cognitive, social and emotional development which interplay with this initial

bond (Pallini, Baiocco, Schneider, Madigan, & Atkinson, 2014). Therefore, a child’s

developmental path is not set in stone and parents and teachers can intervene by

making use of priming techniques, as suggested by Gillath, Karantzas and Selcuk

(2017) to enhance children’s sense of attachment security by changing their network

management and perceptions of social ties. Of particular interest in the work

undertaken by Pallini et al. (2014) was the notion of social interaction today

becoming increasingly more anonymous as intimacy is incompatible with

individualism within modern society. This may explain why teachers and parents

view the child’s relationships more negatively than what the children do as they are

making comparisons to their own childhood where community and intimacy were

evident in friendships; however, for the children, the current situation is the norm.

The findings in the current study whereby gifted children are seeking

friendships with children with whom they share conceptions and expectations of

friendships are in keeping with the empirical study of 700 children (both gifted and

non-gifted) undertaken by Gross (2002b). Furthermore, Gross noted that gifted

children are at a more advanced stage of friendship than their peers, due to their

asynchronicity, limiting the number of possible peers with whom to connect. It is

suggested that particularly in the lower primary stage, placing gifted children with

their chronological peers is likely to result in social isolation hence opportunities to

interact with like-minded peers need to be provided. Gallagher (2015), in an

American study of 54 highly gifted children in Grades 2 to 5, noted gifted children to

be well-liked by their peers. In their study, 52% of gifted children were rated in the

top quarter of their class in terms of popularity. However, perhaps the gifted child

does not feel a reciprocal connection to their peers as gifted children seek friendships

which offer support, closeness, warmth, trust, and kindness (Gross, 2002b), which is

an indicator of quality, not quantity.


In addition, as already discussed, some children also needed time away from their

peers at recess due to the need to restore balance and overcome sensory overload

before returning to the classroom environment and an introverted nature.

Furthermore, a lack of shared interests and understanding between the gifted child

and their peers was indicated, especially the non-sports orientated boys, this was also

found in Gross (2002b). Although gifted children within the current study often

reported adjusting to the norms of the group, they were excluded, or friendship

options decreased when they did not, which is to be anticipated, after all, if the

majority is playing a particular game, it is unlikely they will change to suit the

minority. Three children participated in activities outside of school to access others,

of varied ages, with similar interests which may be another avenue to access like-

minded peers.

Many parents in the current study have reported their children to gravitate

towards older children and adults. Although there are many positives including

shared interests, common understanding, and social advancement; there can be

negative moments where older and bigger children may assert themselves, or gifted

children may be exposed to age-inappropriate discussion and profanities. In contrast

to the current study, focus in previous research has been on the positive outcomes of

interacting with peers and adults, and there has been strong support for acceleration

to gain access to an appropriate peer group. Although with different concerns,

Freeman (2012), like the current study, also noted negative outcomes of children

interacting with older children and adults. Freeman’s beliefs were formed through

academic research, biographies and novels and her interactions with gifted people;

she states that adults who had been accelerated as children, held resentment for their

lost years of childhood; however, she has come under much criticism for the

comments made in the article. More research in this area is needed to determine

whether there is a greater good in accessing a like-minded peer group, and an

awareness of the obstacles which may arise.

Another factor which may have influenced some gifted children’s access to

the peer group was changing school, both leaving friends behind and trying to break

into existing circles. Research focusing on the impact of changing school has tended

to focus on academic attainment (Allen & Vacca, 2010; Sorin & Iloste, 2006),

friendship has not for the most been a consideration, and therefore additional


research in this area would be required. This is particularly relevant as some parents

and teachers within the current study indicated that gifted children might move

school repeatedly in an effort to find a more challenging learning environment. In an

Australian study of primary school children undertaken by Sorin and Iloste (2006) it

was determined that although there are positive impacts of moving school, there were

also negative impacts which hinder both learning and socialisation and may

determine whether a child ultimately completes high school. Moving a child is not a

simple solution and may place additional burdens on parents to purchase new

uniforms, relocate or make transportation more difficult; teachers need to spend

additional time supporting the new child to integrate them into the classroom and

close learning gaps. The movement of gifted children in search of a better fit with a

school demonstrates the importance of supporting gifted children, their parents and

their teachers to build a meaningful, supportive and productive working relationship.

Although not a question, the topic of bullying was mentioned by children, parents,

and one teacher in the current study. Incidents focused on psychological harm but

varied in terms of intensity and extent; highlighting the need for gifted children to

have coping skills. However, gifted children are not only the victims, as it was also

reported that they might themselves bully. Through a retrospective study of 432

gifted eighth-grade American children, Peterson and Ray (2006) reported that gifted

children experience teasing about their intellect starting in kindergarten and peaking

in sixth-grade (age 11-12). Hence, it is plausible that children in the current study

had experienced bullying and some gifted children may themselves be bullies.

According to Peterson and Ray (2006), 16% of participants in eighth-grade were

considered bullies. This is concerning because neither being a victim or a bully

enhances an individual’s outcome. Teachers need to be alert to the types of bullying,

proactive in trying to prevent it and consistent in responding when it occurs.

Furthermore, it is imperative to note that popular children can and do bully and

victims may not respond aggressively. Lastly, there should be adequate adult-to-child

supervision rates especially in the older primary school years where the incidence of

bullying tends to escalate (Peterson & Ray, 2006) Steps to buffer against bullying at

home are found in the key findings of the research of Healy et al. (2015), whereby

facilitative parenting could be used as an intervention for children susceptible to

bullying.


The gifted children themselves have not noted peer difficulties as strongly as

their parents and teachers; perhaps this is self-protecting behaviour, or possibly the

gifted children have become accustomed to a smaller social network or perhaps are

introverted as Silverman (2012) notes. Accordingly, gifted children may be less

dependent on peer interaction, experiencing their few friendships as satisfying.

However, it is necessary to explore this concept more closely to gain a more

objective understanding of the situation to determine whether or not children are

indeed satisfied with their friendships or whether their parents and teachers are

accurate or inadvertently placing their own perceptions of friendships upon the gifted

child.

Parents’ expectations: The current study did not aim to determine the

parents’ expectations, based on age-appropriate behaviours according to social

norms, but focused on the feedback the child received as a consequence of those

expectations. When comparing the parent and children’s perceptions of parent

feedback, parents generally rated themselves rather poorly, focusing on the negative.

Although parents of gifted children face the same challenges all parents do, they also

face challenges with unique concerns about their child’s intellectual development

and SEWB (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000). In Australian research conducted by

Morawska and Sanders (2009b), 409 parents of gifted children (mean age 8.27 years)

were surveyed to identify key areas in which parents felt they required support and

assistance in parenting a gifted child. Areas of difficulty which parents referred to

most included emotional issues, school concerns and, peer relationships; which is

similar to issues raised in the current study. Furthermore, parenting behaviour was a

concern. The need for parenting support is again noted in the Australian research of

Alsop (1997) whereby 42 families of gifted children (mean age 6.9 years) noted

lacking a supportive network as they felt unsupported both within the educational

context as well as by friends and family. It is suggested by Alsop (1997) as well as

Morawska and Sanders (2009b), that the parents of gifted children require

counselling to overcome the difficulties they experience. In contrast, the gifted

children in the current study reported parents to congratulate them on positive

outcomes and to be supportive when things went wrong, looking to improve the

child’s efforts. This contradiction seems difficult to understand at first, but perhaps,

considering parent acceptance-rejection theory, it may be that parents are providing


higher levels of warmth and affection than hostility, indifference, and rejection

(Rohner, Khaleque & Cournoyer, 2005); and the gifted children are more pardoning

of negative moments of parenting. Interestingly, Saranli and Metin (2014) conducted

research with 20 Turkish parents who underwent the Social Emotional Needs of

Gifted Children Parent Education Model. It was found that although parents felt they

gained significantly from the experience, gifted children did not indicate a changed

perception of their parents’ social support provided between pre and post-test. More

research may, therefore, be needed to determine the long-term benefits to gifted

children as a consequence of parents feeling more empowered through counselling

and parenting programs.

Teachers’ expectations: The children interviewed in the current study all

reported getting along with their teacher; however, most children believed that was

because they were well-behaved and accepted their teacher’s rules. These findings

are similar to research undertaken by Wentzel and Asher (1995) whereby 423 non-

gifted sixth and seventh-graders’ sociometric ratings were contrasted with various

factors; it was shown that teachers dislike children who are aggressive and

disruptive. Therefore, considering the gifted child’s predisposition towards pro-social

behaviour, it would seem that gifted children are well-liked for their good behaviour.

This could also be a reason why gifted children may not advocate for themselves in

seeking more appropriate programming as doing so could be perceived as being

difficult. However, the research is inadequate as it does not indicate the extent to

which the need to control one’s behaviour impacts on the gifted child who is

considered by Geake and Gross (2008) to be naturally precocious and to confront

authority.

Considering feedback to children within the school environment, children in

the current study were asked about the reward system in their class. Most of the

reward systems focused on behaviour, and there were mixed feelings about the worth

of these systems especially when the children felt double standards were at play.

Interestingly, even intrinsically motivated children enjoyed rewards which may

affirm competence, further fostering intrinsic motivation. Considering daily

feedback, the teacher reported feedback to be positive, encouraging children to

review mistakes and seek clarification; however, it seemed the children felt feedback

related to schoolwork was limited. According to Clinkenbeard’s (2012) analysis of


motivation theories, feedback regarding school work for gifted students should focus

on independence to develop self-determination whereby the child feels competent

and autonomous. Feedback should also focus on the effort the child applied which

resulted in a successful outcome, rather than their abilities. This may seem

counterintuitive when considering the competency component of self-determination;

however, as suggested by Haimovitz and Dweck (2017) focus should fall on the

learning process and a child’s effort rather than their inherent ability. In this way

feedback regarding a more negative outcome is related to a change which needs to

take place in the learning process rather than due to a child’s lack of ability,

facilitating a growth mindset and not detracting from the child’s competency. It is

further noted, by Clinkenbeard, that feedback should provide information, such as

how something can be improved, opposed to controlling feedback displaying

disappointment in the child. There should also be no comparison between the child

and their peers; focus should fall on personal accomplishment and improvement. By

doing so, a growth mindset is created, and double standards are removed which

children in the current study disliked. Moreover, Clinkenbeard reports many gifted

children to be intrinsically motivated, as reported in the current study, which

increases when the child is working at a level of challenge that matches their ability.

Educational conformity and learning with peers: The parents and teachers

in the current study reported the children to have different abilities in the classroom

compared to peers. These differences included consuming and retaining information

at a faster pace, with a broader knowledge base and deeper understanding, as well as

displaying a conscientious work ethic. Similarly, a meta-analysis of studies

concerning the lived experienced of gifted children in the context of school by

Coleman et al. (2015) highlighted that feeling different dominates discussion around

the experiences of gifted children within the school environment. It is believed that

these feelings of difference come from the social interactions the child experiences as

a consequence of being labelled gifted. Difficulties arise particularly when a child is

placed in an environment where chronological age determines educational

opportunity, and the group is the focus, as this often results in gifted children being

left unchallenged. Hence, an environment in step with the child’s competencies may

eliminate these differences.


Children in the current study reported peer acceptance of their abilities as

well as teasing of differences. As seen in the research of Gallagher (2015), peer

acceptance is dependent on multiple factors, and although the current study did not

explore why some children are teased, Gallagher suggested this may be the case

when gifted children consider themselves superior to their peers and reject their

requests for help. However, this is in contrast to the research undertaken by Janos et

al. (2008) whereby the gifted child’s superior competence and achievement had

enhanced their self-confidence. Perhaps it is the difference in the child’s finesse in

interacting with peers around the topic of their superior achievement that either

results in a positive or a negative outcome. A teacher in the current study noted

similar behaviour of a gifted child in her class (who was not a participant in the

current study), who was rejected by peers due to his feelings of superiority. The

teacher felt that this child may feel superior as a result of this perception being held

by the child’s parents. While some parents may associate giftedness with high status

(Hickey & Toth, 1990), others indicate that labelling a child gifted may result in

more difficulties both academically and socially (Robinson, 1986). However, the

different parent personalities and parenting styles which account for these differences

were beyond the scope of the current study. Looking beyond parent personalities and

parenting styles, it is suggested that parents need to be mindful of the perceptions

they share with their children to prevent highlighting the child’s differences in a

negative light, and be prepared to address concerns a child has over the differences

they personally note with consideration of the child’s social-emotional development.

Many of the gifted children in the current study considered themselves to

behave more in line with the rules and expectations in the school environment when

compared to peers; this has resulted in children feeling despondent and annoyed at

times. Unfortunately, this seems to be an area requiring additional research as

research into the behaviour of gifted children compared to their peers within the

primary school environment seems limited, with focus falling on academic

differences. Interestingly, in research undertaken by Yeo, Chong, Neihart and Huan

(2016) in Singapore, it was found that when considering factors which contribute to

negative experiences within the inclusive education classroom, teachers reported

managing challenging behaviour to be the most difficult. Therefore, poor student


behaviour in the classroom impacts on everyone and effective behaviour

management programs need to be implemented.

These behaviour and ability differences impacted most severely on group

work, whereby satisfaction depended on who was in the group, the contribution they

made, and the project. The majority of the children took responsibility for the group

ensuring an outcome of a high standard, be this the teacher’s or their own

expectation. These findings are supported in the survey undertaken by French,

Walker, and Shore (2011) of 247 school-identified gifted, high-achieving, and

regular-education students in Grades 4 through 12, exploring whether gifted children

preferred independent work. French et al. determined that gifted children preferred to

work independently; however, the gifted children indicated a preference for group

work when the learning tasks met their learning ambitions, and the learning process

supported both their and their peers’ needs. These preferences were based on

personality and fairness of work distribution. Furthermore, an Australian study was

undertaken by Diezmann and Watters (2001) of mathematically gifted children aged

11 to 12 years explored the relationship between preferences for working

collaboratively and task difficulty. In their study, it was found that task difficulty

influenced the preferred working style. Gifted children in their study worked

independently to complete successfully grade-appropriate work, however, sought

peer and teacher interaction to successfully complete challenging tasks, through a

mutual exchange of ideas and support for each other. Therefore, teachers should take

cognisance of these factors when allocating group work within the classroom to

ensure harmonious peer interactions as well as meeting the learning outcomes of

each child.

Academic extension: All children in phase two of the current study, with the

exception of the twice-exceptional children, received academic extension at school.

However, parents felt the extension programs could be improved and that more

support was given to children with barriers to learning; this was also noted by

children. In Australian research undertaken in Queensland by Garvis (2014), 102

parents, at an enrichment workshop for gifted children, were asked about the

extension opportunities at their child’s school. Whilst fewer parents reported having

access to school programs than in the current study, which may be attributed to

improved access for gifted children or inter-state discrepancies, both groups of


parents felt that improvements were needed. Furthermore, both groups felt that

children with barriers to learning were better accommodated despite gifted children

also requiring accommodations to be genuinely inclusive within the classroom.

Participants within the current study spoke more favourably about extension

opportunities outside of the school environment. Seeking alternative extension

opportunities was also voiced by parents in Canadian research undertaken by Penney

and Wilgosh (2000) in which five parents and four teachers were interviewed to

explore parent-teacher relationships. External opportunities may enhance the gifted

child’s educational opportunities; however, they do not compensate for the hours

spent in a regular classroom. Therefore more appropriate programming for gifted

children is needed.

Despite parents’ criticism, children in the current study enjoyed the academic

extension classes although they did not like missing their regular class. According to

research undertaken by Kitsantas et al. (2017) of 49 American elementary school

students who attended gifted programs, children indicated via focus groups that

gifted programs could meet their academic and social emotional needs. The children

in the current study seemed to agree that academically the programs provided

differentiation, challenge, conceptual understanding; however in contrast to the

children in Kitsantas et al.’s study, due to the pull-out process experienced by the

children in the current study, it was difficult to self-regulate their learning between

the two environments. With regard to meeting social-emotional needs, the

appropriate level of challenge and enjoyment for learning were noted in both the

current study and Kitsantas et al.’s study; however, Kitsantas et al.’s study also noted

that peers might bully children who are in gifted programs. The current study did

note that bullying of gifted children may happen in the classroom, but it was unclear

whether this occurred due to students being removed from the mainstream classroom

for extension activities or for broader reasons. It would seem academic extension

opportunities have merit for the gifted child. However, the pull-out type program

may not be the most viable option; consequently, alternatives may need to be

considered. Gagné (2015) in keeping with his DMGT model has proposed a talent

development model which covers the entire formal schooling years, beginning with

early entry for intellectually precocious children. Gifted children would follow a full-

time parallel, enriched pathway throughout school in which children themselves


would determine their own challenging goals. However, some children would still

require acceleration within this system to accommodate substantial differences in

learning pace within the talent development population.

Briefly, in relation to research question four, the data in the current study

indicated that children displayed behaviour as suggested in the literature review.

Notably, there was a strong focus on the difficulties gifted children may experience

interacting with peers, both during play and whilst learning.

Worry: The concept of ‘worry’, much like the concept of ‘giftedness’ is difficult to

define. Recent efforts have described worry as an anxious apprehension for the

future, involving negative verbal thought. A distinction is made between normal

worry, which is fairly common as most children have reported worrying

occasionally, and pathological worry which may or may not be associated with

generalised anxiety disorder (Davey & Wells, 2006). What is important in light of

the current study is that worry can have an impact on a child’s academic and social

functioning (Pine, 1997).

As children self-rated that they worry a lot and are nervous in new situations,

and parents and teachers also indicated high levels of worrying in children, within

the emotional problems subscale of the SDQ, children were asked to consider their

worries during the interviews. They were presented with “The Worry Tree” poster

from which they selected areas they tended to worry about including friends, school,

change, family, illness and lost things; they focused on friends, school, and change.

In research of 12 students, comparing both gifted and non-gifted girls in

Kindergarten to Grade 2, undertaken by Winstead (1998) as part of a Doctorate in

Psychology at the University of Georgia, it was noted that not only has little research

been conducted on primary school aged gifted children, but that the causes of worry

have been overlooked, and worry has been noted merely as a consequence of

difficulties in the intellectual, social, emotional, or physical domains. Through

Winstead’s study, it was found that parents noted their children to worry more than

the child themselves did, which was in keeping with the current study in the higher

levels of emotional and peer relationship difficulties reported by parents in

comparison to their children. Winstead found the topics of possible worries for gifted

children to include school satisfaction, grades, peer relationships, family


relationships, perfectionism, global concerns and health and safety issues. Similarly,

the current study found gifted children to experience worries related to school,

friends, and change. Although Winstead’s list is more extensive than the findings of

the current study, this may be due to the narrow scope of the current study on worry,

whereas this was the primary focus of Winstead’s study. Furthermore, change was

not noted by Winstead, which may offer additional insight by broadening possible

causes of worry as well as speculations around whether or not gifted children

experience more worry about change than their peers. Awareness of the worries of

gifted children can empower parent and teachers in their discussions and support of

gifted children. Furthermore, according to Davey and Wells (2006), children use

similar coping strategies to adults to overcome worries, these include on the most

basic level engaging in a distracting activity or thinking about something else to

talking with others about their difficulties at the extreme. Talking about worries

seems to be difficult for children to do, as noted in the current research. Therefore

parents and teachers need to be open to discussion and provide understanding and

care to encourage future conversations. Davey and Wells also believe that parents

model these behaviours to children, consequently parents should pay particular

attention to their responses to children’s worries to help them cope better.


When considering how well parents and teachers of gifted children are

supporting the SEWB of the gifted child both individually and through their

partnership, five key findings emerged in the current study: gifted children are not

homogeneous; parents view their relationship with their child’s teacher negatively;

children would like their teachers to improve behaviour management and create a fun

learning environment; children would like to spend more time engaged with their

parents; furthermore, children need to feel understood and acknowledged by both

parents and teachers. Interesting these findings are both intrapersonal and

environmental factors reflecting the reciprocal relationship between the individual

and the systems with which they interact, which links back to the theoretical

framework of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model used in this study.

Gifted children are not homogeneous: According to observations,

interviews and reviews of literature undertaken by Betts and Neihart (1988), there are

six profiles of gifted and talented children: the successful, the challenging, the


underground, the dropouts, the double-labelled and, the autonomous learner, similar

differences in personality were noted by Shaughnessy et al. (2004). This is

acknowledged by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

(2017), which states gifted children vary in aptitude and ability, their level of

giftedness, achievement, backgrounds, and have an unlimited range of personal

characteristics. Furthermore, and in-line with the current study, some gifted children

have good SEWB, while others do not. This was acknowledged by a teacher in the

current study who reported that some gifted children would feel good about

themselves due to a favourable disposition and influence over others, thereby

empowering the child. However, this was not true for other gifted children whom the

teacher believed were unhappy due to parental expectation and difficulties

interacting with peers. Both teachers interviewed in the current study mentioned

gifted children who do not fit in with the group, despite having positive qualities.

Many parents in the current study believed that their child had a positive self-concept

and felt good about themselves. However, there were situations which may have

impacted negatively on the child, both from the actions of others and the child’s

interpretation of the situation or themselves. This is in keeping with the ongoing

social-emotional vulnerability debate. However, overall, the negativities experienced

could be minimised, provided the child was supported by both parents and teachers.

To successfully support a gifted child, parents and teachers need to be aware of the

factors that may influence a child, so that they are able to identify them, bearing in

mind that due to their heterogeneous nature, gifted children can be both resilient and

vulnerable in different aspects, in different environments, and at different times of

their development. Furthermore, parents and teacher should both independently and

through their partnership seek appropriate support so that they can effectively

encourage the child’s social-emotional development, based on empirical research.

Parents do not view their working relationship with their child’s teacher

as positively as what teachers do, children are aware of this: The parent-teacher

relationship within the current study was determined by whether or not each felt the

other was fulfilling their role, whereby parents voiced concern over programming,

teacher competency, curricular needs of their child and the impact their child’s

teacher had on their child in creating problematic behaviour as a result of their

interaction being distressing which is comparable with the research undertaken by


Penney and Wilgosh (2000). Within the current study, from a parent perspective,

there was a mix of support being provided by the teacher to their gifted child;

however, positive comments were few. Comments made by parents generally

focused on the lack of educational rigour and the teacher’s inability to meet the

child’s differentiated needs, although parents did acknowledge teacher limitations

due to limited resources and time available. SEWB did not seem to be an area of

focus but was viewed more as a consequence of the right educational environment,

which is also supported by the research of Penney and Wilgosh (2000); reinforcing

the importance of creating an appropriate learning environment.

Likewise, Tatar and Horenczyk (2000), administered the Expectations of

Teachers questionnaire to 765 Israeli parents of adolescents, scored under three

headings including; help and assistance, teaching competence, and fairness. High

expectations were held by the parents for teachers to provide help and assistance and

teaching competence, similar to the current study. Research exploring the child’s

expectations of their teacher is insufficient. Therefore, similar research also

undertaken by Tatar and Horenczyk (1996) with 1,100 Israeli children and 610

Soviet Union immigrants was scrutinised to determine whether or not a comparison

can be drawn between parent and children’s expectations of teachers. Due to

different cultural and situational characteristics of the immigrants, only the Israeli

children’s expectations were considered. In their study children also placed the most

value on teachers providing help and assistance. Older children in their study did

place value on teacher fairness and then competency; which when considered in

relation to the current study may be of interest. Gifted children in the current study

did make mention of the value they place on fairness and justice, similar to findings

in related research (Clarke, 2008). Therefore, gifted children may hold expectations

of teachers more in line with older children and the focus of importance they have in

comparison to their parents may differ. More research examining the expectations

children hold for their teachers is however needed, as well as research comparing

children’s and parents’ expectations.

Interestingly, two children in the current study were encouraged to self-

advocate at school as a means for the parent to have less interaction with the teacher.

Although Cohen (2014) reports self-advocacy to be a necessary skill to develop a

sense of self-efficacy and independence, it is unsure whether the children in the


current study do in fact have the skills necessary to efficiently self-advocate. To be a

successful self-advocate, the child needs to establish a trusting relationship with their

teacher, know the facts, the audience, the preferred outcome, and retain a respectful

attitude (Cohen, 2014) – it is not merely complaining. In addition, it should be noted

in a study undertaken by Peterson and Moon (2008), it was found that gifted children

would be unlikely to share their concerns with adults outside of the research context.

Therefore, further studies would be required to determine how capable primary

school-aged children are at self-advocating.

Only two teachers were willing to be interviewed, and both reported good

working relationships with the parents of the gifted child in their class, although they

acknowledged that some relationships could be more difficult. Teachers felt

relationships were strained due to the pressure placed on them not only by parental

expectations but also by management and the system which does not always support

teachers. When considering the research of Penney and Wilgosh (2000), there are

similarities with the current study such as teachers struggling with funding issues,

concern over the impact parent’s expectations have on the child, and the need for

others in the educational sphere to also take responsibility for the child’s education.

Furthermore, issues of identification were noted, which were not a concern in the

current study; however, teachers in the current study were already aware of the

child’s giftedness. Consequently, there was no need to focus on identification. In

Penney and Wilgosh’s (2000) study, teachers objected to parents approaching

administration, and although not mentioned by teachers in the current study, the

majority of parents had mentioned that they do this in an effort to obtain greater

support or when they felt communication with the teacher had failed. It seems as if

communication is fundamental to the parent-teacher relationship, however, this did

not always occur. Simmons (2002) suggests the parent-teacher relationship needs to

be built on mutual respect with the child’s best interests at the focus. This requires

“tact, honesty, and trust, plus willingness to believe that there is caring, competence,

and good will on the part of all” (pp. 92).

The majority of the children in the current study tended to view their parents

and teachers as not being friends but friendly often because of different interests,

personality, and values; these factors may influence the parent-teacher relationship

and their shared understanding of the child. Much research affirms that parent-


teacher relationships are a challenge (Berger, 1991; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis,

2013; Lasater, 2016; Penney & Wilgosh, 2000). Lasater (2016) explored diverging

attitudes of parents and teachers around the child’s ability through interviews with

parents, teacher, and students. It was found that poor parent-teacher relationships

were detrimental to the child, and in such cases, the child was obliged to choose

sides. Usually, the child would choose their parent's side, which impacted on the

child’s attitude not only towards the teacher but also their attitude towards their

schooling and themselves, as they perceived their ability to be the cause of the

disharmony. As a result, Lasater argued that parent-teacher conflict should be kept

private and a resolution sought. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a few

children in the current study had noted conflict between their parent and teacher.

However, the extent to which this had impacted on the child was not determined.

Children would like their teachers to improve behaviour management in

the classroom and create a fun learning environment: This finding of gifted

children wanting improved behaviour management within the classroom is similar to

the research undertaken by Bear (1983) whereby 14 gifted children in America were

contrasted with 46 of their sixth-grade non-gifted peers. It was found that gifted

children exhibited fewer conduct problems and less variability in their conduct in the

classroom. Although gifted children in the current study may be better behaved and

would like peers to be as well, they also wanted to have a fun learning environment.

In the current study, children reported that learning activities were unstimulating,

leaving children feeling bored; although this may not be voiced at school, possibly to

maintain their relationship with their teacher. Similarly, both teachers in the current

study stated that the strengths and weaknesses of each child should be considered to

ensure the child was adequately challenged and catered for to prevent the child

stagnating and developing emotional and behavioural difficulties. Creating a learning

environment which supports the child’s level of ability has been discussed previously

and supported by the research undertaken by Coleman et al. (2015). Research

exploring what gifted children perceive as fun indicates a top-down approach,

higher-order thinking, enquiries, original and surprising learning links, strategy and

spatial awareness, creativity and philosophy (Evans, 2008).

Children would like to spend more time engaged with their parents:

Children in the current study most wanted a relaxed atmosphere at home where they


could spend time with their parents. This simple statement does not detract from the

role parents play but highlights what children value. The voices of the gifted child

themselves are very faint in the literature, and web pages dedicated to parenting

gifted children focus on the time parents should give to engage their child in

activities. However, Simmons (2017) of the Natural Child Project notes children, in

general, want time with their parents during which they offer undivided attention and

listen to them in a respectful way, which seems comparable to the children in the

current study. This implies that when considering what gifted children want from

their parents, they have the same needs as any child, they want an in the moment

caring connection.

Considering the perspectives of children, it is interesting to note that most

parents in the current study, when asked what advice they would give other parents

with gifted children, focused on assessment of giftedness and finding support within

groups for gifted children and their families. Only two parents in the current study

suggested that they would tell other parents of gifted children that their children

should be allowed to be children. Parents need to recognise what it is that children

want and need most to parent effectively, and it is not an assessment or support

group but to be heard and understood, cared for and accepted.

Most parents in the current study found being the parenting of gifted children

to be overwhelming. The impact on parents of having to provide support to

overcome these emotional and peer relationship difficulties noted in the current study

is beyond the scope of this research but would be of interest when considering the

oxygen mask procedure utilised on aircrafts as a metaphor; in order for parents to be

effective pillars of support and provide an environment that bolsters their child’s

SEWB, parents need to display favourable SEWB themselves.

Children need to feel understood and acknowledged by both parents and

teachers: Many gifted children in the current study did not always share their

concerns or seek help from their parents or teachers, because it may reflect

negatively on them and/or they have felt dissatisfied with the level of support

received in the past; consequently the challenges the child faces may be concealed.

Although working through one’s difficulties can be a positive stress management and

coping mechanism; the outcome was not always optimal for the child. There is little


evidence in the literature detailing whether or not gifted children feel understood and

acknowledged by parents and teachers. The literature does, however, focus on

providing parents and teachers with information about gifted children including

identification, traits, and means of differentiation, a few programs also include

characteristics of SEWB. It is suggested that through engagement within programs,

parents and teacher will be provided with knowledge, empowering them to better

meet the needs of the gifted child (Morawska & Sanders, 2009a). Therefore it is

hoped that through engagement in programs, parents and teachers will see and hear

gifted children for who they are and treat them accordingly with understanding and

gentleness, through an improved understanding of their child’s characteristics.

However, it is recommended that a program should not only provide parents and

teachers of gifted children with tools to overcome challenges the child may face and

alleviate the stressors imposed on these significant adults, but also highlight the need

to be available and attentive so that the value of spending quality, meaningful,

connected time with a gifted child is considered paramount.

8.4 Implications of this study

To conclude this mixed methods study and meet the aim of determining the

extent to which parents and teachers were supporting the SEWB in gifted children,

the data collected in both phases of this research program were compared and

contrasted to bring together the perceptions of SEWB of gifted primary school

children in Australia with perceptions of parent and teacher social support of the

child.

8.4.1 The SEWB of gifted primary school children in Australia.

According to the overall results of the SDQ in comparison to the norms, gifted

children were perceived most positively by their teachers. In contrast, their parents

believed gifted children experienced more difficulties particularly in relation to

emotional and peer difficulties, a similar finding to the Australian research

undertaken by Morawska and Sanders (2008). When considering the various

interrelated internal and external factors (Hamilton & Redmond, 2010), according to

which the SEWB of gifted children were contrasted in the second phase of data

collection, the results in many ways reflected the literature review expectations.

Significant areas of similarity with regard to internal factors, taking perceptions of


parents, teachers and gifted children into consideration, included intellectual, motor,

and affective asynchronous development; being highly perceptive, displaying

sensual, imaginative, and intellectual overexcitabilities as well as anger towards

injustices; feeling different but not overtly from the child’s perspective; and

fluctuating relationships with peers. An internal factor, worry, was also added as this

was highlighted within the SDQ by both children and their parents and teachers as

being an area of concern. Considering external factors, difficulties learning with

peers and conforming to the educational environment were significant although there

were mixed feelings regarding the child’s perception of their worth according to

external expectation as many were intrinsically motivated. Overall considering the

findings of phase 2, gifted children in this study can be described as resilient in many

regards, however, areas that stood out as being the most difficult for the majority of

children in the current study, indicating vulnerability, included; peer relationships -

again, similar to the research undertaken by Morawska and Sanders (2008),

educational conformity and learning with peers, and being highly perceptive.

Contrasting the outcomes from the two phases of data collection yields the following

concerns: difficult peer relationships, a need to control emotions and being different

from peers at school, which impact not only on the gifted child’s SEWB but may

also influence the development of gifts towards talents as noted by Gagné’s DMGT.

8.4.1.1 Difficult peer relationships.

Interestingly, overall, only parents had noted peer relationships as a concern

within the SDQ. However, all three groups described difficulties during the

interviews; parents and teachers were especially aware of this disconnection. The

difficulties gifted children may face in peer relationships have been researched for

almost a century, culminating in the 1980s and 1990s; however, children in the

current study were able to describe positive experiences with friends although

numbers were few and only two children mentioned having a best friend, which is

line with research undertaken by Morawska and Sanders (2008).

It seemed some gifted children in the current study were considered

introverted and not dependent on other children, treating their peers as mere

acquaintances, despite being well-liked. Signs of gifted children being more solitary

date back to the pioneering work of Terman et al. (1926), which was attributed to

their advanced intellectual level compared to peers. It should be remembered that


research has indicated that isolation does not necessarily equate with loneliness, just

as being with others does not imply that a child is not lonely (Porter, 2005). Hence it

is possible that children may be happy with the few friendships they have forged,

while parents may feel their children should have a more extensive friendship circle.

The finding of being well-liked correlates with an American study undertaken

by Gallagher (2015) of highly gifted children whereby 52% of the group were in the

top quarter of their class in terms of social-choice. However, being well-liked, a

measure of quantity, does not ensure quality friendships, which offer support,

closeness, warmth, trust and kindness (Gross, 2002b); hence the need for fulfilling

relationships. Furthermore, gifted children seemed definitive when selecting friends.

Similar to the study undertaken by Gallagher (2015), children in the current study did

not base friendship selection on their peers’ intellectual ability, taking other factors

into consideration such as shared interests in activities, personality traits, and mutual

conversation.

A lack of shared interest and understanding, as mentioned in the work of

Gross (1989), often resulted in the gifted child in the current study adjusting to the

norms of the group to avoid being excluded or friendship options decreasing. As was

cautioned by Clark (2008), it is essential that gifted children engage with their peers,

rather than engaging in social adjustment to others; hereby projecting the image they

perceive others to like, trading off their true essence, which some children in the

current study were believed by their parents to be doing. When comparing the

children in the current study to the study by Wellisch et al. (2012), in which 11

mothers of gifted children in Sydney Australia were interviewed, similarities are

noted in that atypical gender behaviour patterns (especially the non-sporty boys) and

higher expectations in games had resulted in a reduced number of friends. However,

the firm sense of justice which influenced the child’s sense of fair play was not

mentioned as strongly in the current study; although injustices, in general, were the

primary cause of children in the current study becoming angry.

In addition, parents, teachers, and gifted children in both the SDQ and

interviews had believed gifted children to prefer getting along with older children

and adults due to shared interests, common understanding, and social advancement.

Therefore, as suggested by Gross (2002b); children may also be seeking others with

a conception and expectation of friendship similar to their own. However, as

mentioned in the current study, this may expose children to older more assertive


children and factors beyond their years. This does not seem to be a concern voiced in

the literature and was only mentioned by two parents in the current study, however,

may be a consideration warranting further research.

As mentioned in the current study, children may still experience bullying

within their peer group. In Wolf and Chessor’s (2011) Australian study of 80 high

school students selected from in-school gifted and talented programs it was found

that peer victimisation is significantly related to lower levels of self-concept, social

coping and motivation; believing that participation in gifted and talented programs

may act as a buffer against the impact of victimisation.

As noted by Holder and Coleman (2015), friendships are associated with

positive well-being. Furthermore, Morawska and Sanders (2008) have observed that

peer difficulties may have a bearing on emotional difficulties, hence the role

friendship plays in the life of the gifted child is more than the provision of a

superficial playmate, but a pillar of their SEWB, both now and into the future.

Subsequently, gifted children require support to forge appropriate and fulfilling peer

relationships. Gross (1997) proposes that children are ability grouped so that they can

both achieve and build relationships with like-minded peers, enshroud in acceptance,

this may include grade advancement, particularly in the early primary years, to help

children find friendships which offer “trust, fidelity, and authenticity” (Gross, 2002b;

p. 12). However, as cautioned both within Freeman’s (2012) research and within the

current study, parents and teachers should remain vigilant to possible difficulties

which may arise as a consequence. Within the school environment, Farmer et al.’s

(2011) metaphor of the invisible hand could also be applied encouraging teachers to

guide and reinforce social interactions and opportunities. In addition, family-based

interventions indicated by Healy et al. (2015) could also be used to scaffold and

support skills and strategies to improve a child’s friendships and coaching social

problem-solving. Furthermore, as described in the current study, participation in

activities of interest outside of school may also provide opportunities to form

friendships with like-minded peers as well as provide access to older children and

adults.

8.4.1.2 A need to control emotions.

Similar to the research findings of van der Meulen et al. (2014), children, and

to a lesser degree parents, noted conduct difficulties in gifted children via the SDQ.


Upon closer inspection, these conduct difficulties in the current study were often as a

consequence of the child’s anger; likewise, parents reported their children to lose

their temper often. During the interviews, the majority of parents reported injustices

to be a trigger of anger. Since the early works of Terman, gifted children have been

characterised as demonstrating concern over injustices, with Sword (2002)

associating injustices with feelings of despair and cynicism in emotionally intense

gifted children.

However, both parents and children in the current study reported that they

would not display anger at school due to the need to conform and possibly maintain

the teacher-child relationship by meeting teacher expectations. Ersoy and Deniz

(2016) have noted that gifted children tend to display higher levels of self-control

than their peers and are less likely to act out when angered, taking the setting into

consideration when displaying emotions. Therefore as noted by Fiedler (1998), gifted

children may lose their sense of self as they contain their anger in favour of a

peaceful environment and meeting expectations. Although delaying gratification and

regulating one’s social behaviour may be considered admirable qualities, a high

demand for self-control impacts negatively on well-being, hence measures are

needed to prevent the gifted child from bottling-up their emotions, which may result

in an outburst or loss of temper at a later stage.

Pianta (2009) noted that children with higher levels of self-control received

more emotional support from their teachers. Therefore, teachers may see less

evidence of the difficulties the gifted child faces, as the child works hard to conform

and refrain from emotional outbursts at school. It may be then, that gifted children

save their anger and frustration for the safety of their home, which may explain why

parents indicated their children to have a higher incidence of emotional difficulties in

the SDQ than teachers did.

Consequently, parents and teachers need to encourage children to share their

feelings in a safe environment, whereby their concerns are heard and

accommodations made to surmount injustices; without the fear of their conversation

resulting in an adverse reaction or a decrease in support. Furthermore, research

carried out by van der Meulen et al. (2015), found that the one day a week school for

gifted children had a positive effect on the gifted children’s self-reports of behaviour

conduct. Subsequently, appropriate programming for gifted children within the


school environment may facilitate lowered levels of anger and fewer temper

outbursts at home.

8.4.1.3 Different from peers at school.

Although the SDQ did not directly measure the child’s happiness with the

school environment, feelings expressed by the children as well as their parents’ and

teacher’ perceptions shared during the interviews provided insight into how being

different from peers at school impacts on the child’s SEWB. Children felt different

from their peers due to their enhanced ability as well as good behaviour which were

exacerbated in group work. Similarly, a review was undertaken by Coleman et al.

(2015), analysing studies of gifted children conducted over a 25 year period, noted

ability and motivation to be the cause of gifted children feeling different to peers at

school. Although as further noted by Gross (2004a), and found within the current

study, these differences resulted in the children feeling different and subsequently

despondent. In an effort to support the gifted child’s learning, the majority of

children in the current study had access to academic extension opportunities.


Parents and teachers in the current study agreed that these children consumed

and retained information rapidly, with a broader knowledge base and understanding,

along with a conscientious work ethic. Gifted children themselves described their

more advanced academic abilities compared to their peers, which is in line with

previous research on adolescents that found gifted children have greater academic

self-concepts (Lee et al., 2012). Although similar positive findings are also noted in

the work of Schmitz and Galbraith (1985), they also suggested that intense focus

could result in the child being perceived as stubborn or it may isolate the child from

peers. This finding was not noted in the current study, where having a strong work

ethic was perceived positively by the teachers. However, the gifted children’s

advanced academic abilities did impact negatively on the children in the current

study, with the children reporting feeling bored at school due to the pace of the class

and lessons which were unstimulating. Worksheets dominated, leaving the lessons

reportedly void of higher-order thinking, investigations, innovative and unexpected

learning links, strategy and spatial awareness, creativity and philosophy, which are

all, according to Evans (2008), empowering for gifted children.

Gifted children in the current study often perceived themselves as being

better behaved within the school environment than their peers, often in an effort to

maintain teacher approval as well as meet personal expectations. The gifted children

in the current study found peer misbehaviour frustrating and felt that their peers

could easily follow the rules if they so choose. The need for exemplary behaviour by

the gifted children may be linked to conformity pressures, whereby gifted children

seek to conform to the clear boundaries, expectations, and consequences within the

classroom in an effort to create an ideal environment and be accepted by others.

When searching the literature, it was difficult to determine the impact poorly

behaved students have on those who consider themselves well-behaved and their

relationships, as research tended to focus on the outcomes of programs designed to

assist poorly behaved children. However, as noted by Thomson, DeBortoli, and

Underwood (2017), poor behaviour within Australian classrooms may be pervasively

impacting on a large percentage of children. Therefore research into the effects of

poor behaviour on well-behaved children, including gifted children, is desirable to

improve classroom practice. Evidence of poor behaviour in Australian classrooms

was noted in the report of the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment


results for Australia; 40% of students reported peers to not listen to what the teacher

says, and 43% of students reported noise and disorder in almost every lesson

(Thomson et al., 2017). This statement is further disconcerting recalling the adverse

effect the gifted boys in the current study had with regard to a noisy classroom, a

finding supported by related research (Renati et al., 2016; Tucker & Lu Hafenstein,

1997), as well as the differences in auditory functioning noted in the investigation

undertaken by Liu et al. (2007).

Despite the challenges of working with peers in the classroom, not all

children wanted to work in isolation. Research undertaken by French et al. (2011)

found that a willingness of gifted children to work with others was dependent on

feelings of being supported by the teacher and their peers, the situation meeting their

learning goals, peers’ personalities, and the fairness of work distribution. The gifted

children in the current study did not make reference to being supported by their

teachers; neither in group work nor in general classroom interactions. Both gifted

children and their parents articulated that support from teachers was concentrated on

students with difficulties. These findings relating to a lack of support for gifted

children being provided in the classroom are similar to parents’ perceptions of

inclusive education voiced in the Australian study undertaken by Garvis (2014), as

well as in the retrospective voices of children in a study undertaken by Persson

(2010), both previously discussed. Therefore, teachers should take cognisance of the

factors which satisfy group work such as fairness of work distribution and the

personalities of group members, so as to support the process to ensure all children

achieve their individualised learning outcomes as well as build positive collaborative

peer relationships. The difficulties associated with group work extend across the

learning experience whereby gifted children are not getting the support they need

because they are perceived as academically advanced and therefore not in need. The

focus of inclusive education still resides in students with difficulties, due to the

history of special education. While children with difficulties do need and deserve

support, so do those at the other end of the spectrum so that they too can learn,

contribute and participate in all aspects of school life. Teachers, principals and

education departments need to ensure that programs and supports for students are

genuinely inclusive, and incorporate the needs of gifted children as a deserving group

within schools.


Feelings of difference can impact negatively on self-esteem and peer

relationships (Morawska & Sanders, 2009b), which can, in turn, result in feelings of

unease or lack of competence in social situations and difficulty in creating and

maintaining relationships with others (Lee et al., 2012). However, it is suggested by

Coleman et al. (2015), through their review of 25 years of studies of the experiences

of gifted children in school, that students do not feel different when school is

orientated to their needs. This fits well within Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory

as well as with Gagné’s DMGT whereby the environment influences the

developmental process supporting the development of natural gifted to systematically

developed skills or talents, as shown previously in Figure 2.1. Consequently, for

classroom environments to be supportive and inclusive of gifted children;

chronological age should not determine educational opportunity. Instead, the focus

should fall on the individual rather than the group, and gifted children should be

challenged to achieve their learning potential. However, although the majority of

children in the current study enjoyed the academic extension opportunities presented,

they felt that these interrupted their other class work and commitments. In addition,

parents felt that the quality of these extension programs could be improved. In the

current study, parents focused on their child being provided with ability-appropriate

and challenging materials, which they believed would enhance their SEWB. Drawing

on research using case studies of mathematically gifted primary students in England

(Dimitriadis, 2016), it is further argued that programs should be supported by theory

and research on gifted children and education, to ensure theoretically and empirically

grounded best practice from these fields is upheld.

How best to support the needs of gifted children in schools is not without

contention. A meta-analysis undertaken by Rogers (1991) supported gifted children

spending the majority of their school day in appropriate programming to make

academic gains. However, when considering the effects of full-time versus part-time

educational programs for the gifted children in primary school, Zeidner and Schleyer

(1999) found that full-time placement in gifted programs only supported more

favourable attitudes towards the school environment; personal-social adjustment was

not improved. Perhaps it is therefore necessary to look at how best to include

qualities of gifted programs within the mainstream environment so as to overcome

the barriers the children within the current study experienced by being removed from

their class for extension opportunities, in this way a more integrated learning


experience would be created, whereby whole school real talent development is

supported by trained teachers and mentors. Likewise, Kulik’s (1992) meta-analysis

of grouping found that gifted children’s achievement increased when placed in

enriched, advanced or accelerated learning environments, merely grouping without

ability-appropriate curriculum has little to no effect. Furthermore, Eddles-Hirsch et

al. (2010), found that more than merely cognitive daily challenge was necessary to

create a positive school experience for gifted elementary students; the social context

of the school was also important. Hence SEWB is not only determined by the

cognitive program but also factors such as social coping strategies, attitudes towards

class competition and peer relationships; supporting an integrated approach.

Besides specific programming for gifted children, other options such as

acceleration, including early entrance, grade skipping, and subject-specific

acceleration, could also be considered. However, these options are often not accepted

by teachers on the grounds of social difficulties (Belfie, Goos, De Fraine & Van

Damme, 2012), but Colangelo et al. (2004) report through their meta-analysis that

accelerated students feel academically challenged rather than bored, as well as

socially accepted. In the current study, parents had experienced success with

extension opportunities in areas of the child’s interests outside of the school

environment; this approach was also found useful in research undertaken by Penney

and Wilgosh (2000). Unfortunately, it would seem that there is no one clear-cut

solution to determine the most appropriate programming for gifted children, and

options, based on research, should be considered by both teachers and parents to

make informed decisions. In addition, creative and flexible alternatives may need to

be envisaged to best suit individual children’s needs.

8.4.2 Parents’ and teachers’ social support of the gifted child.

When considering the results of the CASSS, gifted children perceived the

social support their parents and teachers provided in relation to the importance they

placed on that support to be similar, placing a premium on emotional support; the

provision of love, empathy, and trust. Emotional support from parents is associated

with personal well-being (Malecki & Demaray, 2003), global attitudes towards

achievement and the effectiveness of socialisation practices (Wentzel, 2016). High

levels of emotional support from one’s teacher has resulted in various outcomes

including, student connectedness and a positive attitude towards school (Johnson,


2009), increased attentiveness and engagement (Pianta, 2009), and may be

considered a significant and sole predictor of a student’s social skills and academic

competence (Malecki & Demaray, 2003; Tennant et al., 2015). However, this does

not imply that teachers and parents are providing support at the same level, but rather

that they are meeting the child’s expectations of support to a similar extent.

Reflecting on the parent-teacher relationship, and the effectiveness of the link

between home and school, responses seemed pessimistic, particularly from the

parents’ and children’s perspectives. Children perceived that their parents and

teachers were friendly but not friends, due to different interests, personalities and

values, although the impact this has on the child was not determined within the

current study. The vast majority of teachers, within the survey, reported good

working relationships with parents; compared to 42% of parents reporting both good

and average working relationships with teachers. When questioned during the

interviews, it seemed as if parent-teacher relationships were determined by whether

or not each felt the other was fulfilling their role. Interestingly, teachers in the

Penney and Wilgosh study (1998), similar to those in the current study, also reported

making concerted efforts to engage positively with parents; however, they disliked

the high parental expectation and demands placed on them to deliver. Furthermore,

both studies noted that parents often imposed obstacles in communication through

their demands and by approaching administration. Likewise, parents felt that teachers

were not meeting their child’s differentiated learning needs. These outcomes are

similar to the research undertaken by Penney and Wilgosh (1998) whereby parents

questioned the programming and teacher competency to meet the needs of gifted

children. This was further influenced by the parent’s high-level involvement in their

child’s education and the parental concern about the impact the teacher’s responses

have on their child. Both parents and teachers noted the constraints of funding, time

available and the large number of children one teacher is responsible for.

Taking both parents and teachers awareness of gifted children into

consideration, both perceive the child to be mutually vulnerable and resilient, both as

a transient response and a persuasive characteristic, offering numerous ways in

which they have overcome difficulties the child may be facing. Interestingly, as

reported in a study undertaken by Penney and Wilgosh (2000) whereby five parents

and four teachers were interviewed; parents believed their child’s difficulties were a


result of events at school, similar to the current study; whereas teachers in the current

study identified difficulties as a consequence of parental pressure or internal factors

of the child. There seems to be a breakdown in what Campbell and Verna (2007)

term, the academic home climate. In their research conducted in Scandinavian,

European, and Asian countries as well as the United States of America with high-

achieving gifted children, it was shown that children prosper when their academic

home climate matches the academic climate of the school. Campbell and Verna

describe a positive academic home climate as fostering curiosity and encouraging the

child to engage in their academic interests as well as generating positive behaviours,

attitudes, beliefs, and values. It is suggested that mediators may be used to integrate

the understanding of this concept within schools as with policy surrounding

inclusion; there is a breakdown between theory and the implementation so as to

foster effective development with mutual understanding. These stronger partnerships

are also envisaged within the Australian context as documented in the Melbourne

Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008), whereby parents are acknowledged as being the

primary and most influential person in a child’s life, instilling attitudes and values

which support children throughout their schooling towards becoming contributing

members of society.

Children were asked how parents and teachers could better support them

personally. When considering their teachers, as previously discussed, improved

behaviour management and the creation of a fun and engaging learning environment

were suggested. Therefore, in a similar manner to their parents, children were also

seeking improved learning opportunities. Both teachers who participated in Phase

two acknowledged the need to consider the child’s strengths and weaknesses to

ensure an optimal learning environment. This finding is supported by a 25-year

review of the literature, undertaken by Coleman et al. (2015); as gifted children have

repeatedly relayed that classrooms are not intellectually challenging and their time is

being wasted whilst waiting for peers to catch up. This implies a breakdown in the

application from theory to pedagogy and practice. Kaplan (2012) notes that the

reason for the disconnect between theory and practice in the field of gifted education

may be attributed to a lack of modelling that promotes the importance of and

practicality to practice. As such, practice remains an abstract idea or the experience

of modelling lessens the value of how a learned concept can be practised.


Consequently, as previously stated in line with Campbell and Verna (2007), perhaps

more well-trained mediators are needed to bring practice to reality by providing

greater understanding and examples of what best practice looks like, which for

children in this study should be fun. In the current study, it was not determined what

children implied by fun. However, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) notes that any activity

can result in a sense of boredom or enjoyment for the doer, some activities such as

reading have no external reward yet people engage in these activities for sheer

enjoyment, in these instances they reach a state of flow. Flow can only be achieved

when the activity aligns with the person’s ability to respond to the opportunities

presented, and an appropriate goal is set on which the person receives feedback.

Consequently, teachers should try to stimulate a student’s enjoyment of learning by

providing gradual increments of challenge so that boredom and anxiety are not

experienced; being in flow is not having a pleasurable experience, as pleasure does

not lead to the development of new potentialities or personal growth. For researchers

such as Siegle (2015), the use of technology and electronic games in the classroom

by gifted children could constitute fun as well as provide cognitive, motivational,

emotional and social benefits.

Interestingly, when considering improving the support from their parents,

gifted children in the current study wanted to spend more time together. In a study

undertaken by Karnes, Shwedel and Steinberg (1984), whereby 10 parents of gifted

and 10 parents of non-gifted children were interviewed, it was found that parents of

gifted children spent more time with their children, however on school-related

activities. Similar to the sample in the study undertaken by Freeman and Zabriskie

(2003), whereby 197 families were surveyed, the children within the current study

also reported the need for regular involvement in daily activities that are easily

accessible and low-cost. Activities suggested by the children in the current study

included cooking together, playing games, and going to favourite places such as the

park. Perhaps the key lies in parents focusing their time and efforts appropriately,

focusing on activities and interactions which are pleasurable to the child, to make

good use of the time spent together. As noted by Simmons (2017), children want

time with their parents during which they offer undivided attention and listen to them

in a respectful way This is crucial considering parental involvement is one of the

most influential protective factors a child can have in maximising their potential by


fostering meaningful relationships, developing skills and competencies and

influencing the environments within which the child interacts (Ward & Zabriskie,

2011).

Lastly, but probably most importantly, children in the current study indicated

the need to feel understood and acknowledged for who they are by both parents and

teachers. Condon (2008, p. 181) noted how feeling misunderstood results in

emotions in the gifted child such as “sadness, depression, dissatisfaction,

abandonment, loneliness, irritability, insecurity, confusion, and annoyance along

with feelings of being attacked, devalued and unappreciated.” The negative feeling

associated with being misunderstood thwarts SEWB. Hereby preventing the gifted

children from “developing resilience, forming healthy relationships, improving

academic performance, coping with stressful life events, being successful and

productive in the workplace, learning thinking skills for problem-solving and

decision making, and infusing interest and challenge into the curriculum” (Greene,

2004, p. 31); skills which allow individuals to flourish within and beyond school.

8.4.3 Final remarks.

The current study has contributed to the literature. Firstly, SEWB is highly

discussed yet briefly researched in relation to gifted primary school Australian

children; the current study has provided insight into the most dominant difficulties

experienced by this group of children, through their self-perceptions as well as the

perceptions of their parents and teachers. By highlighting the difficulties gifted

children experience in their peer relationships, exploring the impact of controlling

one’s emotions and exposing how gifted children feel different from their peers at

school; difficulties which influence SEWB as well as the development process of

nurturing gifts to talents, as described by Gagné.

Secondly, the difficulties associated with the parent-teacher relationship and

the impact this has on the gifted child has been investigated. In an effort to provide

better support to gifted children, gifted children themselves have made broad

suggestions to both their parents and teachers which could foster their SEWB and

develop their gifts to talents, as suggested by Gagné, through the DMGT through the

creation of an environment supportive of the child’s development. The current study

has opened avenues for future studies as well as areas to contemplate best practice.


Furthermore, worry was added as an internal factor which may influence a

gifted child’s SEWB. Although worry was not indicated as a factor in the literature

review, the word anxiety is however scattered throughout as a consequence of the

gifted child being perceived as vulnerable. Due to all groups indicating the child as

worrying a lot during the SDQ, children were asked to consider their worries during

the interviews. Although only provided with narrow options of worries rather than an

open-ended question, gifted children reported worries related to school, friends, and

change. Internationally, limited research relating to gifted children and worry have

been undertaken, however, through the findings of this study as well as the work

done by Winstead (1998) the surface has been scratched for further exploration of the

impact worry has on gifted children.

8.5 Limitations

The current study faced a number of limitations. Firstly, not all gifted children

are publically known and therefore need to be sought through various avenues.

Furthermore, teachers and/or parents may not have identified a child as gifted,

therefore omitting a proportion of participants from the study at the outset. However,

it is anticipated that a wide range of gifted children was captured as participants were

sought from diverse areas and not only from gifted programs, which has been a

limitation in previous research.

Secondly, as has been a criticism of many past studies related to gifted

children, the current study did not include children of the general population to

which gifted children’s experiences could be compared. However, it was anticipated

that by drawing comparisons between gifted children and the general population on

which norms of the SDQ are based, this obstacle would be overcome. Unfortunately,

phase one had fewer participants than anticipated. Furthermore, not all related

members of the parent-teacher-gifted child grouping completed the survey. An

obstacle whilst approaching schools was being declined due to research fatigue and a

reluctance to engage in additional studies. Schools also noted that they did not have

gifted children attending the school, which seems irrational due to the prevalence of

giftedness across society regardless of gender, race, religion, or socio-economic

background. Lower participant numbers made inter-rater comparisons more difficult

particularly in relation to cases which deviated from the norm. As such, further


testing of the SDQ and CASSS questionnaires are required to determine whether or

not gifted primary-school aged populations would require different norms.

A third limitation of the current study was related to comparing the data

collected with norms of the general population. Children who display great

difficulties may not be represented in the current study as their difficulties may have

been so severe that they were not have been in a position to participate due to the

additional stress the survey or interview may have placed on them. Furthermore, as

supported by enquiries made into this study and data collected during this study,

parents may withdraw their child from school, in favour of homeschooling, due to

the distress they were experiencing at school. Furthermore, not all cases of interest

volunteered to participate in Phase two; therefore, no further information could be

obtained from these participants who could have added to the information-rich

qualitative phase.

Furthermore, teacher participation rates were low, despite efforts to engage

teachers both directly and via parents; although valuable insights were obtained from

those that did participate. In phase one, it is unsure whether parents passed on

information about the survey to teachers, or whether teachers declined from

participating. Despite asking teachers who had volunteered to participate in phase

two repeatedly and asking families to approach their teacher personally, only two

teachers followed through with interviews.

Finally, although it is unsure who completed the surveys, it would be

assumed that the rightful parties did as participants had no gains to make through

participation. Furthermore, qualitative data were also obtained in an attempt to gain a

deeper understanding of the results of the surveys and describe the SEWB and social

support of gifted children more thoroughly.

8.6 Recommendations for Future Research

There is little information on the SEWB of gifted primary school children

within Australia. Subsequently, future research directions are numerous. Firstly, the

current study focused on the social support provided by parents and teachers to

support the SEWB of gifted children due to the widespread influence they have on a

child’s development. However, through the current study, it has been highlighted


that peer interactions are significant. Future studies could examine both classmate

and close friend support through the use of the CASSS to determine how the

differences between gifted children and their peers discussed in this research impact

on the gifted child and ways in which these differences can be supported, this is

important as peer interactions are significant predictors of social and emotional

adjustment (Buckholdt, Kitzmann & Cohen, 2016).

Secondly, while the current study focused on primary school aged gifted

children within mainstream school, future research could examine and possibly

compare the SEWB of gifted children who are homeschooled. It was indicated in the

current study that children who had negative experiences at school were often

withdrawn and some parents who were homeschooling currently did contact the

researcher to ask if they would be able to participate, in the current study they were

declined. Although homeschooling may confound the systems to which the child is

exposed, research in this area could indicate reasons why children leave the

mainstream and possibly provide insight into how schools could improve to prevent

this happening, as well as the benefits the parents and gifted children believe to have

experienced from a social and emotional perspective as a result of this change.

In addition, when considering the gifted child’s SEWB, there seemed to be a

distinction between the conversations with gifted children and their parents and

teachers. Children and teachers were more focused on the here and now. Parents,

however, seemed to carry a lifetime of experiences, sharing a history of difficulties

which they have faced with their children. It appeared that parents knew the literature

related to giftedness but were often struggling themselves to be heard and supported.

As noted by Cook (2001), children are also agents of emotional influence for their

parents. Hence the process of parenting a child with unique challenges may result in

the parent feeling isolated and without support from others in the community,

resulting in parental stress. Parents who suffer from high levels of stress suffer

emotionally and are less responsive to their child’s needs (Abidin, 1992), hereby

impacting on the child’s well-being. Examining the well-being of parents of gifted

children could shed light on the way in which they perceive their child and the

support they are able to offer as well as the thoughts and feelings they may project

onto their child.


Furthermore, many schools are now including social-emotional learning

programs into their classroom to provide students with opportunities to practice skills

such as cooperation, conflict management, making friends, coping, being resilient

and recognising and managing one’s feelings (Victoria State Government, 2017).

Future research may consider the programs being offered to children and determine

firstly whether or not the program takes cognisance of the differentiated social and

emotional needs gifted children may have and secondly, the impact these programs

may have on the SEWB of gifted children.

Additionally, the current study noted worry to be an essential consideration in

terms of the internal factors which influence a child’s SEWB. There is insufficient

research in this area and due to the extensive reports of anxiety as an outcome in

describing the vulnerable gifted child the root of worry and means to overcome the

child’s concerns should be investigated.

Although this study aimed to explore the SEWB of gifted children, the

academic programming a child receives was prominent in discussions with both

parents and children. Teachers also indicated awareness of the implications of not

meeting a gifted child’s needs. Therefore, it would be beneficial to explore the role

various forms of programming for gifted children play on their SEWB as to date

most research has focused on the academic outcomes of opportunities such as

acceleration, full-time placement in gifted programs, pull-out extension programs

and cluster grouping within the classroom.

Finally, longitudinal studies exploring the gifted child’s SEWB should be

undertaken. Exploring SEWB in younger children and following these children

through adolescence into adulthood would provide insights into the developmental

nature of the gifted child and their SEWB. In addition, at the conclusion of the study,

a retrospective perspective of participants at each phase could also be determined to

note whether age and experience alter one’s perception of experience.

8.7 Conclusion

Studying SEWB is valuable as it is fundamental to overall development.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012), children with

high levels of SEWB display greater confidence and self-worth, have better


relationships, and possess the tools necessary to persist and overcome challenges to

succeed in life. Encouraging SEWB in children increases the likelihood that children

will grow to become adolescents and ultimately adults who will be contributing

members of society rather than a burden due to poor mental health. SEWB has

become an increasingly important phrase used in the 21st century, health-promoting

agenda both within society and education. Therefore parents and teachers need to

understand the role they play in supporting the child from a holistic perspective,

taking differences which gifted children may exhibit into consideration. If they

appreciate the outcome of their support and are aware of the way in which a gifted

child may deviate from the norm, a more supportive environment can be created for

the child, whereby, gifted children are more likely to feel valued and heard.

The vulnerable vs. resilient debate, as described in the literature review,

continues across the globe, as gifted children are not a homogenous group. Thus the

current study fills a gap, providing insight and understanding as to how the SEWB of

the gifted primary school child in Australia fits into the debate. It seems as if these

children have both strengths and weaknesses which need to be adequately supported

with understanding and gentleness by parents and teachers, as children use these

interactions to make sense of their world and understand their place (Tudge et al.,

2009). Providing gifted children with opportunities to think positively about

themselves and others and build their resilience and coping skills ensures they are

able to flourish within school and beyond. Furthermore, considering reciprocity in

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model within the outcomes envisaged through

positive developmental experiences for gifted children as proposed by Gagné’s

DMGT, greater appropriate support for gifted children will benefit society at large.

As suggested by Kauffman and Sternberg (2008; p. 87), “We can do better, and

given the current state of our knowledge, we must do better if we want to do justice

to our children, our schools, and our societies.”

As I have journeyed through this study as a researcher, I have heard through

the voices of parents, teachers, and gifted children, the trials and tribulations they

experience on a daily basis in relation to their perception of giftedness and the social

support needed to facilitate the child’s development. There have been both moments

of confirmation and enlightenment. Considering primary school gifted children’s

SEWB, I believe they are resilient in many ways, and they show strength in


themselves. However, they are not perfect – not academically nor socially and

emotionally.

Gifted children do face difficulties every day, both at home and in the school

environment. Gifted children are seeking greater connectedness and quality time with

their parents and support from teachers to both buffer their relationships with peers

and engage them academically. Difficult peer relationships seemed most prolific, and

ways to better connect children to others seems like providing children with a

fundamental human right. At the start of this journey, I was taken aback by the

volume of research focused on the academic needs of gifted children, at this moment

I am exasperated by the lack of implementation of these suggestions. As a

consequence, gifted children feel different from their peers and experience

difficulties in their ongoing efforts to control their behaviour in an environment

which does not fit well with their learning needs. Academic programming plays a

pivotal role in the SEWB of gifted children, and should not be disregarded; square

pegs cannot and will not fit into round holes, without splintering the pegs in the

process. Subsequently, parents and teachers need to put their differences aside and

work together, acknowledging the child’s strengths and weaknesses as well as the

importance of their role, so as to better accommodate the needs of the gifted child.

Moving from theory to practice is a considerable task, but is not insurmountable.

References 259

260 References

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical

and Child Psychology, 21, 407–412. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2104ˍ12

Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality

characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19(4), 229-

236. doi:10.1080/02783199709553835

Akin, C. A. (2005). Academic asynchrony. Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 60-66. doi:

10.4219/gct-2005-165

Allen, B., & Vacca, J. S. (2010). Frequent moving has a negative affect on the

school achievement of foster children makes the case for reform. Children

and Youth Services Review, 32(6), 829-832.

10..1016/j.childyouth.2010.02.001

Alsop, G. (1997). Coping or counselling: Families of intellectually gifted students.

Roeper Review, 20(1), 28-34. doi:10.1080/02783199709553847

Anderson, D. (2011). Self-concept. In Encyclopedia of child behavior and

development (pp.1308). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0

Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J., & Rodger, S. (2008). Sensory processing and classroom

emotional, behavioural, and educational outcomes in children with autism

spectrum disorder. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5),

564-573. doi:10.5014/ajot.62.5.564

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Children’s participation in cultural and

leisure activities. Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/4901.0~Apr+2009~Main+

Features~Organised+sport

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). Student

diversity. Retrieved from http://v7-

5.australiancurriculum.edu.au/studentdiversity/gifted-and-talented-students

References 261

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2009). A picture of Australia's

children. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Social and emotional well-

being: Development of a children's headline indicator. Canberra, ACT:

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2017). Mental health services

in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-

services/mental-health-services-in-australia/mental-health-

resources/expenditure-on-mental-health-related-services

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, National Health and Medical Research

Council (Australia), & Australian Research Council. (2007). National

statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra, ACT: National

Health and Medical Research Council.

Bainbridge, C. (2017). Dabrowski’s emotional overexcitability of gifted children.

Retrieved from https://www.verywell.com/dabrowskis-emotional-

overexcitability-1449135.

Bar-On, R. (2009). In search of emotional–social giftedness: A potentially viable

and valuable concept. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi.10.1007/978-1-

4020-6162-2ˍ26

Bear, G. G. (1983). Moral reasoning, classroom behavior, and the intellectually

gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(2), 111.

doi:10.1177/016235328300600206

Belfie, B., Goos, M., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2012). The effects of class

composition by gender and ability of secondary school students’ school well-

being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research

Review, 7(1), 62-74. doi:10.101/j.edurev.2011.09.002

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How "equity" can lead

to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 2(2), 249-292. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.2.2.249

https://www.verywell.com/dabrowskis-emotional-overexcitability-1449135

https://www.verywell.com/dabrowskis-emotional-overexcitability-1449135

262 References

Berger, E. H. (1991). Parent involvement: Yesterday and today. The Elementary

School Journal, 91(3), 209-219.

Berlin, J. E. (2009). It's all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the

impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31(4), 217-223.

doi:10.1080/02783190903177580

Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253. doi:10.1177/001698628803200202

Blackett, J., & Hermansson, G. (2005). Guidance and counselling of the gifted and

talented in New Zealand. International Journal for the Advancement of

Counselling, 27(2), 277-287. doi:10.1007/s10447-005-3186-2

Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes

and behaviours. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146-170.

doi:10.3102/012373716670260

Bobbitt, K., & Gershoff, E. (2016). Chaotic experiences and low-income children’s

social-emotional development. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 19-29.

doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.006

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety and anger (Rev.

ed.). London: Hogarth Press.

Brechwald, W.A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of

advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 21(1), 166-179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambridge, MA: USA Harvard University Press

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six

theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues.

London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental

processes. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child

References 263

psychology: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp.

993-1028). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Brown, P. M., Corrigan, M. W., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2012). Handbook of

prosocial education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Buckholdt, K. E., Kitzmann, K. M., & Cohen, R. (2016). Parent emotion coaching

buffers the psychological effects of poor peer relations in the

classroom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 23-41.

doi:10.1177/0265407514562560

Buescher, T. M., & Higham, S. (1990). Helping adolescents adjust to giftedness.

Eric EC Digest, 489. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-

9216/adjust.htm

Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic

effects of perceived social isolation: Social relationships and health. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58-72. doi:10.1111/spc3.12087

Callahan, C. M., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2013). Fundamentals of gifted

education: Considering multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Callard-Szulgit, R. (2010). Parenting and teaching the gifted (2nd

ed.). Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (2007). Effective parental influence: Academic

home climate linked to children’s achievement. Educational Research and

Evaluation, 13(6), 501-519. doi:10.1080/13803610701785949

Chan, D. W. (2002). Perceptions of giftedness and self-concepts among junior

secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(4),

243-252. doi:10.1023/A:1015478015956

Chan, L. K. S. (1988). The perceived competence of intellectually talented

students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 310-314.

doi:10.1177/001698628803200303

Chau, I. (2009). Emotional management of gifted children. Nurturing the Gifted.

Retrieved from

264 References

http://www.hkage.org.hk/file/parent_article/381/PAN017_EmotionalManage

mentofGiftedChildren_en.pdf

Chessor, D., & Whitton, D. (2007). The impact of grouping gifted primary school

students on self concept and achievement. TalentEd, 25(2), 7-22.

Christopher, M. M., & Shewmaker, J. (2010). The relationship of perfectionism to

affective variables in gifted and highly able children. Gifted Child Today,

33(3), 20-30. doi:10.1177/107621751003300307

Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds.) (2011). Popularity in the

peer system. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home

and at school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home

and at school (7th

ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E. (1995). Underachievement of highly able students

and the peer society. Gifted and Talented International, 10, 67-76.

Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory

and research. Psychology in Schools, 49(7), 622-630. doi:10.1002/pits.21628

Cloverdale, G. E., & Long, A. F. (2015). Emotional wellbeing and mental health:

An exploration into health promotion in young people and families.

Perspectives in Public Health, 135(1), 27.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic

Medicine, 38, 300-314. Retrieved from

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/soci

ology/Reading%20Lists/Mental%20Health%20Readings/Cobb-

PsychosomaticMed-1976.pdf

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project.

Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeTria-3692.html

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Mental%20Health%20Readings/Cobb-PsychosomaticMed-1976.pdf



http://www.qualres.org/HomeTria-3692.html

References 265

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd

ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cohen, N. A. (2014). The importance of teaching children self-advocacy. Parenting

for High Potential,3(4), 12.

Cohen, R., Duncan, M. & Cohen, S.L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children

participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1),

33-37. doi:10.1177/001698629403800105

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: University of

Iowa.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T.L. (2014). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 5-17. doi:10.1177/0162353214521486

Coleman, L.J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research

on the lived experiences of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’

voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358-376.

doi:10.1177/1062353215607322

Condon, B. B. (2008). Feeling misunderstood: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum,

43(4), 177-190. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.2008.00112x

Conry-Murray, C. (2013). Children’s reasoning about gender-atypical preferences

in different settings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(1), 210-

217. Doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.007

Cook, W.L. (2001). Interpersonal influence in family systems: A social relations

model analysis. Child Development, 72(4), 1179–1197. doi:10.1111/1467-

8624.00341

266 References

Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (2016). Identity formation, youth and development: A

simplified approach. New York: Psychology Press.

doi:10.4324/9780203767047

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed

methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 200-203. doi:10.2307/20183024

Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling

the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 163-

172. doi: 10.1002/j..1556-6676.2015.00192.x

Cross, T.L. (2011). Social-emotional needs: The necessity of psychological

services for students with gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today. 34(4), 64-65.

doi:10.1177/1076217511418068

Cross, T. L. (2012). Social-emotional needs: The personal narratives of students

with gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 290-291.

doi:10.1177/1076217512455482

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119(2),

115-140.

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.

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. doi:10.1177/0016986213490020

References 267

Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of

extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 10-14.

doi:10.1177/001698629003400103

Davey, G., & Wells, A. (2006). Worry and its psychological disorders: Theory,

assessment, and treatment. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor.

Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279-289.

doi:10.177/104973230201200211

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th

ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson/A and B.

Dawson, A. E., & Wymbs, B. T. (2016). Validity and utility of the parent-teacher

relationship scale-II. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(8), 751-

764. doi:10.1177/0734282915627027

Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth.

White Plains, NY: Longman.

Delisle, J. R., & Galbraith, J. (2002). When gifted kids don't have all the answers:

How to meet their social and emotional needs. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirits

Publishing.

Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. M., Davidson, L. M., Hodgson, K. K., & Rebus, P. J.

(2005). The relationship between social support and adjustment: A

longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 691-706.

doi:10.1002/.pits.20120

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.

Derevensky, J., & Coleman, E. B. (1989). Gifted children’s fears. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 33, 65-68. doi:10.1177/00169862890330020310

Dettmann, D. F., & Colangelo, N. (2004). A functional model for counseling

parents of gifted students. In S. M. Moon & S. M. Reis (Eds.), Social/

268 References

emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented

students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted

students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 7-

31. doi:10.1177/016235320102500102

Dimitriadis, C. (2016). Gifted programs cannot be successful without gifted research

and theory: Evidence from practice with gifted students of mathematics.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(3), 221-236.

doi:10.1177/0162353216657185

Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., Winkworth, G. (2000).

The relationship between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and

perceived social supports as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 47, 437-453.

Dunn, W., Little, L., Dean, E., Robertson, S., & Evans, B. (2016). The state of the

science on sensory factors and their impact on daily life for children: A

scoping review. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 36(2ˍsuppl),

3S-26S. doi:10.1177/1539449215617925

Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Weissberg, R. P., & Schellinger, K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A

meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development,

82(1), 405-432. doi:10.111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., Rogers, K. B., & McCormick, J. (2010). "Just

challenge those high-ability learners and they'll be all right!" The impact of

social context and challenging instruction on the affective development of

high-ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 106-128.

doi:10.1177/1932202X1002200105

Eisenberg, M. E., Olson, R. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Bearinger, L.

H. (2004). Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being

among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(8),

792-796. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.8.792

References 269

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N.

M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for

educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Ersoy, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2016). Psychometric properties of the gifted students’

coping with anger and decision making skills scale. Journal of Education and

Practice, 7(15), 121-128.

Evans, M. (2008). Gifted and talented: A special approach? Gifted Education

International, 24(1), 82-87. doi:10.1177/026142940802400110

Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the

invisible hand: the role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 247-256.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006

Fiedler, E.D. (1998). Denial of anger/ denial of self: Dealing with dilemmas.


Foreman, P. B. (1948). The theory of case studies. Social Forces, 26(4), 408-419.

doi:10.2307/2571874

Fowler, M. (1990). Issues in education. Gifted education: Some considerations.

Childhood Education, 66(5), 320-321. doi:10.1080/00094056.1990.10522548

Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London: David Fulton.

Freeman, J. (2012). A quality of giftedness. Gifted and Talented International,

27(2), 13-18. doi:10.1080/15332276.2012.11673627

Freeman, P., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2003). Leisure and family functioning in adoptive

families: Implications for therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal, 37(1), 73-93.

French, L.R., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2011). Do gifted students really

prefer to work alone? Roeper Review, 33(3), 145-159.

doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.580497

270 References

Fromberg, D. P., & Bergen, D. (2012). Play from birth to twelve: Contexts,

perspectives, and meanings. (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

doi:10.4324/9780203622650

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the

definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103-112.

doi:10.1177/001698628502900302

Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability

Studies, 21(2), 81-99. doi:10.1080/13598139.2010.525341

Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted

education. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 3-22.

Gagné, F. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath and beyond. Talent

Development and Excellence, 5(1), 5-19.

Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: a best practices model.

Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281-295.

doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9

Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Peer acceptance of highly gifted children in elementary

school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 51-57.

doi:10.1177/0162353214565549

Gallagher, S., Smith, S. R., & Merrotsy, P. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of the

socioemotional development of intellectually gifted primary aged students

and their attitudes towards ability grouping and acceleration. Gifted and

Talented International, 26(1-2), 11-24. 10.1080/15332276.2011.11693585

Gallucci, N. T. (1988). Emotional adjustment of gifted children. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32(3), 273-276. doi:10.1177/001698628803200206

Garces-Bacsal, R. M., & Yeo, S. D. (2017). Why and what they read when they

don’t have to: Factors influencing the recreational reading habits of gifted

students in Singapore. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 247-

265. doi:10.1177/0162353217717035

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

References 271

Garvis, S. (2014). Parents’ perceptions of gifted and enrichment programs in

Queensland, Australia. Talented, 28(2014), 65-70.

Geake, J., & Gross, M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect towards academically

gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231.

doi:10.1177/0016986208319704

Gifted Development Center. (2017). The Columbus Group. Retrieved from

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/isad/columbus-group

Gillath, O., Karantzas, G. C., & Selcuk, E. (2017). A net of friends: Investigating

friendship by integrating attachment theory and social network analysis.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(11), 1546-1565.

doi:10.1177/0146167217719731

Gomme, S. (2001). The role of the family. In M. J. Stopper (Ed.), Meeting the

social and emotional needs of gifted and talented children. London: David

Fulton Publishers.

Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader

internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five

subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from

British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

38(8), 1179-1191. doi.10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research

note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,

38(5), 581-586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

Goodsell, B., Lawrence, D., Ainley, J., Sawyer, M., Zubrick, S. R., & Maratos, J.

(2017). Child and Adolescent Mental health and educational outcomes. An

analysis of educational outcomes from Young Minds Matter: the second

Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing.

Perth: Graduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia.

Graham, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Supporting children’s social and emotional

well-being: Does ‘having a say’ matter? Children & Society, 25(6), 447-457.

doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00295.x

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/isad/columbus-group

272 References

Greene, M. J. (2004). Gifted adolescent social and emotional development: Teacher

perceptions and practices. Roeper Review, 26(4), 236.

Gross, C. M., Rinn, A. N., & Jamieson, K. M. (2007). Gifted adolescents’

overexcitabilities and self-concepts: An analysis of gender and grade level.


Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The

forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189-194.

doi:10.1080/02783198909553207

Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Gross, M. U. M. (1997). How ability grouping turns big fish into little fish - or does

it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments. Australasian Journal of

Gifted Education, 6(2), 18-30.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). "Fishing" for the facts: A response to Marsh and Craven.

Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1), 162-128.

Gross, M. U. M. (2002a). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally

intellectually gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson & S.

M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children:

What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gross, M. U. M. (2002b). Play partner or sure shelter: What gifted children look for

in friendship. Gifted, 124, 1-11.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004a). Exceptionally gifted children. New York, NY: Routledge

Falmer.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004b). Gifted and talented education professional development

package for teachers: Module 3 primary. Sydney, NSW: Department of

Education, Science and Training

Gross, M. U. M., Macleod, B., Drummond, D., & Merrick, C. (2003). Gifted

students in primary schools: Differentiating the curriculum. Sydney, NSW:

Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre.

References 273

Gross, M. U. M., Urquhart, R., Doyle, J., Juratowitch, M. L., & Matheson, G.

(2011). Releasing the brakes: Administrator, teacher and parent attitudes

and beliefs that block or assist the implementation of school policies on

academic acceleration. Sydney, NSW: Gifted Education Research, Resource

and Information Centre.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications.

Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed

mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849-

1859. doi:10.1111/cdev.12955

Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical

guide for beginning researchers (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Hamilton, M., & Redmond, G. (2010). Conceptualisation of social and emotional

well-being for children and young people, and policy implications: A

research report for the Australian research alliance for children and youth

and the Australian institute of health and welfare. Sydney, NSW: Social

Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales

Harder, H. (2010). Explanatory case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp.370-371). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications Inc.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4135/9781412957397

Hardy, L.L., Mihrshahi, S., Drayton, B.A. & Bauman, A. (2016). NSW schools

physical activity and nutrition survey (SPANS) 2015: Full report. Sydney,

NSW: NSW Department of Health.

Hargreaves, A. (1995). Introduction. In C. M. Clark (Ed.), Thoughtful teaching (pp.

ix-xi). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties

of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand

http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4135/9781412957397

274 References

Journal of Psychiatry, 38(8), 644-651. doi:10.1080/j.1440-

1614.2004.01427.x

Healy, K. L., Sanders, M. R., & Iyer, A. (2015). Parenting practices, children’s peer

relationships and being bullied at school. Journal of Child and Family

studies, 24(1), 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9820-4

Hébert, T.P., & Hammond, D.R. (2006). Guided viewing of film with gifted

students: Resources for educators and counselors. Gifted Child Today. 29(3),

14-27. doi:10.4219/gct-2006-6

Henderson, L. (2011). Gifted and shy. Digest of Gifted Research. Retrieved from

http://www.tip.duke.edu/node/793

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:

Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

Hickey, M. G., & Toth, L. (1990). The effects of labelling children gifted: A review

of the literature. Early Childhood Development and Care, 63(1), 149-151.

doi:10.1080/0300443900630118

Holder, M., & Coleman, B. (2015). Children’s friendships and positive well-being.

In M., Demir, (Ed.), Friendship and happiness. Dordrecht: Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3ˍ5

Hollingworth, L. S. (1930). The child of very superior intelligence as a special

problem in social adjustment. The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 149(3), 151-159.

doi:10.1177/000271623014900314

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. London: Blackwell

Science.

Huang, K., Kim, Y., Sherraden, M., & Clancy, M. (2017). Unmarried mothers and

children’s social-emotional development: The role of child development

http://www.tip.duke.edu/node/793

References 275

accounts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(1), 234-247. doi:

10.1007/s10826-015-0551-1

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods

sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1),

3-20. doi:10.1177/1525822x05282260

Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Rorschach studies reveal possible misinterpretations of

personality traits of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(3), 195-200.

doi:10.1177/001698627101500305

Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Self-concept, self-esteem,

and peer relations among gifted-children who feel “different”. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 29(2), 78-82. doi:10.1177/001698628502900207

Jarvela, S. (2011). Social and emotional aspects of learning. Retrieved from

http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=629938

Jennaway, A., & Merrotsy, P. (2011). Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration

and its use with gifted children. Talented, 27(1), 61-67.

Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school

violence: A review of the literature. The Journal of School Health, 79, 451-

465. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00435.x

Kaplan, S. N. (2012). Theory into practice. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 295-296.

doi: 10.1177/1076217512455484

Karnes, M. B., Shwedel, A. M., & Steinberg, D. (1984). Styles of parenting among

parents of young gifted children. Roeper Review, 6(4), 232-235.

doi:10.1080/02783198409552824

Kauffman, S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory,

research, and best practices. Tallahassee, FL: Springer.

http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=629938

276 References

Keiley, M. K. (2002). Affect regulation and the gifted. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis,

N. M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development

of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous

classroom. Roeper Review, 17(3), 164-168. doi:10.1080/02783199509553651

Kerr, M. A., & Schneider, B. H. (2008). Anger expression in children and

adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology

Review, 28(4), 559-577. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.08.001

Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted

students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60 (2), 102-116.

doi:10.1177/0016986216630607

Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2017). Fathers’ indirect contribution to children’s social-

emotional development via mothers’ psychological parenting environments.

Social Behavior and Personality, 45(5), 833-844. doi: 10.2224/sbp.6187

Kitano, M. K. (1990). Intellectual abilities and psychological intensities in young

children: Implications for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13(1), 5-0.

doi:10.1080.02783199009553296

Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications for

gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27(4), 200-205.

doi:10.1080/02783190509554319

Kitsantas, A., Bland, L., & Chirinos, D. S. (2017). Gifted students’ perceptions of

gifted programs: An inquiry into their academic and social-emotional

functioning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 266-288.

doi:10.1177/01623532177107033

Kline, B. E., & Meckstroth, E. A. (1985). Understanding and encouraging the

exceptionally gifted. Roeper Review, 8(1), 24-30.

doi:10.1080/02783198509552922

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and

contemporary perspectives. The National Research Center on the Gifted and

References 277

Talented. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-

based_resources/kulik/

Lamont, R. T. (2012). The fears and anxieties of gifted learners: Tips for parents

and educators. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 271-276.

doi:10.1177/1076217512455479

Landrum, M. S. (1987). Guidelines for implementing a guidance/counseling

program for gifted and talented students. Roeper Review, 10(2), 103-107.

doi:10.1080/02783198709553095

Lasater, K. (2016). Parent-teacher conflict related to student abilities: The impact

on students and the family-school partnership. School Community Journal,

26(2), 237.

Lassig, C. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of

professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 24(2), 6–16.

LeBuffe, P. A., Shapiro, V. B., Naglieri, J. A. (2013). Assessment of social-

emotional competencies related to resilience. In S, Goldstein, & R.B. Brooks

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (2nd ed., pp. 261-272). New York,

NY: Springer Science + Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted

students' perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. The

Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90-104. doi:10.1177/0016986212442568

Lehman, E. B., & Erdwins, C. J. (2004). The social and emotional adjustment of

young, intellectually gifted children. In S. M. Moon & S. M. Reis (Eds.),

Social-emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling gifted and

talented students (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. (2014). Social emotional risk factors. Child Indicators

Research, 7(4), 715-734. doi: 10.1007/s12187-014-9261-7

Levy, J. J., & Plucker, J. A. (2003). Theory and practice: Assessing the

psychological presentation of gifted and talented clients: A multicultural

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/kulik/

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/kulik/

278 References

perspective. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(3), 229-247.

doi:10.1080/09515070310001610100

Lewis, R. B. (1992). Psychological intensities in gifted adults. Roeper Review,

15(1), 25-31. doi:10.1080/02783199209553452

Leyden, R., & Shale, E. (2012). Social and emotional development. Camberwell,

VIC: ACER Press.

Linley, P. A. (2009). Positive psychology (History). In S. J. Lopez, The

encyclopaedia of positive psychology (pp.742-746). Chiceter, United

Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell Hoboken.

Liu, T., Shi, J., Zhang, Q, Zhao, D., & Yang, J. (2007). Neural mechanisms of

auditory sensory processing in children with high intelligence. Neuroreport,

18(15), 1571-1575. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282ef7640

Lombroso, C. (1895). The man of genius. New York, NY: Scribner.

Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist,

55(1), 137-150. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137

Madjar, N., Voltsis, M., & Weinstock, M. P. (2015). The roles of perceived parental

expectation and criticism in adolescents’ multidimensional perfetionsim and

achievement goals. Educational Psychology, 35(6), 765-778.

doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.864756

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support:

Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS).

Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1-18. doi:10.1002/pits.10004

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What types of support do they need?

Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational,

appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3),

231-252. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.231.22576

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). The Child and Adolescent

Social Support Scale. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

http://qut.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1NS8MwGH7R7bKLH1NxfkDAiwrVNm2a1tscDj0IYid4K2k-8CDdcNvBf--btCtzfoAeCjmkhXz0yZMn7_sEIKQXvreCCVSFKpC43QqF0Lgp8iMjNTJfaRSV2Jgf9LfKLaKR3-x_4tC72Xn61PokTW3Jjy5FYeUBOVuHtnUpx2nfvn58tgklNTTzlFbQHIZeiGSj8Std_synFWqZsToEHW7CIn5pIYC9fskw-MbS8X8t2YKNmpiSfjWTtmFNl117p3Md_9GFToOV7zvwcu-0RVz3yMSGxiBmKlLp72Q6n1hSf0WWApLI2BCkmsTljhNR4tNYSa28R6Y4bTQ5HfSzLDvbhafhzWhw69WXNngyYDa2E4eXUS6LIFGG2bKQKSuEr3zrFC8ZVzqWfoy8kTMeGBZxYexhaRHTSCO52INWOS71PhDOhU4kNzJB3pSyNBFxoZSJVCyECkzUg5PFQOWTypsjr1yYaW77Mnd92YNz192_VMkf7kaZKx38pfIhdNzdME6QOYLW7G2uj13C6AdBjeOe



References 279

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2014). A working manual of the

development of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (2000).

Unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University.

Mann, R. L. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for gifted learning-disabled

students with spatial strengths. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17,

112-121. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-681

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A

philosophic and practical guide. London: Falmer.

McKay, M. (2000). Self-esteem (3rd ed.). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger

Publications.

McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

McRae, C. (2002). Addressing the social and emotional needs of gifted

adolescents: Implications for counsellors. Alberta Counsellor, 27(1), 16.

Mellor, D. (2005). Normative data for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 40(3), 215-222.

doi:10.1080/0050060500024375

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation

(Rev. And expand; ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., & Gowlett,

C. (2014). Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review

of Education, 40(3), 331-348. doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.911725

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for

young Australians. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/publications,11582.html

Moon, S. M. (2002). Counseling needs and strategies. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.

M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of

gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

280 References

Moon, S. M. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 5-21.

doi:10.1080/13032000093490

Moon, S. M., Kelly, K. R., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Specialized counseling

services for gifted youth and their families: A needs assessment. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 41(1), 16-25. doi:10.1177/001698629704100103

Moon, S. M., Zentall, S., Grskovic, J., Hall, A. S., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (2001).

Emotional, social, and family characteristics of boys with AD/HD and

giftedness: A comparative case study. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 24, 207-247. doi:10.1177/016235320102400302

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). Parenting gifted and talented children:

What are the key child behaviour and parenting issues? Australian

Psychiatry, 42(9), 819-827. doi:10.1080/00048670802277271

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009a). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting

intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy,

47(6), 463-470. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.008

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009b). Parenting gifted and talented children:

Conceptual and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 163-

173. doi:10.1177/0016986209334962

Muris, P., Meesters, C., Eijkelenboom, A., & Vincken, M. (2004). The self-report

version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Its psychometric

properties in 8- to 13-year-old non-clinical children. The British Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 437-448. doi:10.1348/0144665042388982

Musgrove, M. (2012). The Worry Tree. North Sydney, NSW: Random House

Australia.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing

transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century (Committee on

Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W. Pellegrino & M. L.

Hilton, Editors, Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science

Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education).

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

References 281

Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What

does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10-17.

doi:10.1080/02783199909553991

Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual framework.

In M. Neihart, N. M. Robinson, S. M. Moon & S. M. Reis (Eds.), The social

and emotional development of gifted children: what do we know? Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

Olsen Laney, M. (2002). The introvert advantage: How to thrive in an extrovert

world. New York, NY: Workman.

Onwuegbuzie. A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research.

Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48.

Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., &

Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and

analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and

Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-

544. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528y

Pallini, S., Baiocco, R., Schneider, B., Madigan, S., & Atkinson, L. (2014). Early

child-parent attachment and peer relations: A meta-analysis of recent research.

Journal of Family Psychology, 28(1), 118-123. doi:10.1037/a0035736

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). Career development and systems theory:

Connecting theory and practice (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:

Sense Publishers.

Penney, S., & Wilgosh, L. (1998). A qualitative study of parent-teacher

relationships in educating gifted children. Exceptionality Education Canada,

7, 41-60.

282 References

Penney, S., & Wilgosh, L. (2000). Fostering parent-teacher relationships when

children are gifted. Gifted Education International, 14(3), 217-229.

doi:10.1177/026142940001400303

Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian

and inclusive education system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 33(4), 536-569. doi:10.1177/016235321003300405

Peterson, J. S. (2006). Addressing counseling needs of gifted students. Professional

School Counseling, 10(1), 43-51. doi:10.5330/prsc.10.1.b76h32717q632tqn

Peterson, J. S., & Lorimer, M. R. (2012). Small-group affective curriculum for

gifted students: A longitudinal study of teacher-facilitators. Roeper Review,

34(3), 158-169. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.686423

Peterson, J. S., & Moon, S. M. (2008). Counseling the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.),

Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 223-245). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Peterson, J. S., & Morris, C. W. (2010). Preparing school counselors to address

concerns related to giftedness: A study of accredited counselor preparation

programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 311-336.

doi:10.1177/016235321003300302

Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators,

prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 148-168.

doi:10.1177/001698620605000206

Peterson, J.S. & Wood, S. M. (2017). Counseling gifted students: A guide for

school counselors. New York, NY: Springer.

Pfeiffer, S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted

students. Special Services in the Schools, 16(1-2), 83-93.

doi:10.1300/J008v16n01_06

Pianta, R. C. (2009). School psychology and developmental psychology: Moving

from programs to processes. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The

handbook of school psychology (4th

ed., pp. 107-123). New York, NY: Wiley.

References 283

Piechowski, M. M. and Miller, N. B. (1995). Assessing developmental potential in

gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17 (3), 176-180.

doi:10.1080/02783199509553654

Pine, D. S. (1997). Childhood anxiety disorders. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 9(4),

329-338. doi:10.1097/00008480-199708000-00006

Plunkett, M., & Kronberg, L. (2007). The importance of social-emotional context:

Perceptions of students, parents and teachers regarding an extended

curriculum program for students with high abilities. Australasian Journal of

Gifted Education, 16(2), 35-43.

Pontes de França-Freitas, M. L., Del Prette, A., & Del Prette, Z. A. P. (2014).

Social skills of gifted and talented children. Estudios de Psicologia, 19, 288–

295. doi:org/10.1590/ S1413-294X2014000400006

Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. Crows

Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Powell, M. A, & Graham, A. (2017). Wellbeing in schools: Examining the policy-

practice nexus. The Australian Educational Researcher, 44(2), 213-231. doi:

10.1007/s13384-016-0222-7

Pretsch, J., Ehrhardt, N., Engl, L., Risch, B., Roth, J., Schumacher, S., & Schmitt,

M. (2016). Injustice in schools and students’ emotions, well-being, and

behavior: A longitudinal study. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 119-138.

doi:10.1007/s11211-015-0234-x

Pyryt, M. C. (2008). Self-concept. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.),

Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says.

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children (QAGTC). (2010).

Giftedness. Stafford, QLD: The Queensland Association for Gifted and

Talented Children.

Ramaseshan, P. H. (1957). The social and emotional adjustment of the gifted.

(Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from

284 References

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/193260087?accountid=13380

Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Compromises and challenges of talented

females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In M.

Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and

emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp.125-136).


Reis, S. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Models and strategies for counselling,

guidance, and social and emotional support of gifted and talented students. In

M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social

and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 251-

266). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Renati, R., Bonfiglio, N. S., & Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Challenges raising a gifted child:

Stress and resilience factors within the family. Gifted Education

International, 33(2), 145-162. doi:10.1177/0261429416650948

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Rimé, B. (2007). The social sharing of emotion as an interface between individual

and collective processes in the construction of emotional climates. Journal of

Social Issues, 63(2), 307-322. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560-2007.00510

Rimm, S. (1986). Underachievement syndrome: Causes and cures. Watertown, WI:

Apple Publishing.

Rimm, S. B. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In M.

Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and

emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-18).


References 285

Rinn, A. N, Reynolds, M. J., & McQueen, K. S. (2011). Perceived social support

and the self-concept of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 34(3), 367-396. doi:10.1177/016235321103400302

Robinson, A. (1986). Brave new directions: Needed research on the labelling of

gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 1-14.

doi:10.1177/01698628603000102

Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I.

Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational

theory, research, and best practices (pp. 33-51). Tallahassee, FL: Springer.

Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted kids think and learn differently? A review of

recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education

of the Gifted, 10, 17-39.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the

gifted and talented learner: Research based decision making. The National

Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/nov9105/

Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2005). Parental acceptance-

rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos,

33(3), 299-334. doi:10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.299

Rudasill, K. M., Adelson, J. L., Callahan, C. M., Houlihan, D. V., & Keizer, B. M.

(2013). Gifted students’ perceptions of parenting styles: Associations with

cognitive ability, sex, race, and age. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 15-24.

doi:10.1177/0016986212460886

Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2008). Gender differences in the

relationship between perceived social support and student adjustment during

adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 496-514.

doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.496

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs

in motivation, development and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford

Publications.

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/nov9105/

286 References

Safe and Supportive School Communities Working Group. (2017). Definition of

bullying. Retrieved from

http://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/DefintionOfBullying

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles,

CA: Sage Publications.

Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press

Saranli, A. G., & Metin, E. N. (2014). The effects of the SENG parent education

model on parents and gifted children. Egitim Ve Bilim, 39(175), 1-13.

Saunders, C. (2016). Psychology of self-control: New research. Hauppauge, N.Y:

Nova Science Publishers, Inc

Sawyer, M. G., Arney, F. M., Baghurst, P. A., Clark, J. J., Graetz, B. W., Kosky, R.

J., Nurcombe, B., Patton, G. C., Prior, M. R., Raphael, B., Rey, J. M.,

Whaites, L. C., & Zubrick, S. R. (2001). The mental health of young people

in Australia: Key findings from the child and adolescent component of the

national survey of mental health and well-being. Australian & New Zealand

Journal of Psychiatry, 35(6), 806-814.

doi:10.1046/j.1440.1614.2001.00964.x

Schader, R. (2008). Parenting. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical

issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp.457-

470). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Schauer, G. H. (1976). Emotional disturbance and giftedness. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 20(4), 470-478. doi:10.1177/001698627602000415

Schmitz, C. C., & Galbraith, J. (1985). Managing the social and emotional needs of

the gifted: A teacher's survival guide. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit

Publishing.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Hymel, S. (2007). Educating the heart as well as the mind:

Social and emotional learning for school and life success. Education Canada,

47(2), 20-25.

http://bullying/

References 287

Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. The Journal of

Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 183-196. doi:10.4219/jsge-2000-629

Schuler, P. A. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In M.

Neihart, S. M. Moon, S. M. Reis & N. M. Robinson (Eds.), The social and

emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 71-80).


Schuler, P. A. (2013). Gifted students and Lyme Disease: What educators,

counselors, and parents need to know. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 35-46.

doi:10.1177/1076217512465288

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.55.1.5

Shatkin, J. P., & Belfer, M. L. (2004). The global absence of child and adolescent

mental health policy. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9(3), 104-108.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2004.00090.x

Shaughnessy, M. F., Kang. M. H., Green, M., Misutova, M., Suomala, J., & Siltala,

R. (2004). 16 PF personality profile of gifted children: Preliminary report of

an international study. North American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 51.

Shechtman, Z., & Silektor, A. (2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted

children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34(1), 63-72.

doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627555

Shernoff, D. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement.

New York, NY: Springer.

Siegle, D. (2015). Technology: Learning can be fun and games. Gifted Child Today,

38(3), 192-197. doi:10.1177/1076217515583744

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk,

text and interaction (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

288 References

Silverman, L. K. (1983). Personality development: the pursuit of excellence.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(1), 5-19.

Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution

of society. Roeper Review, 17(2), 110-116. doi:10.1080/02783199409553636

Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.

M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of

gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31-40) Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Silverman, L. K. (2012). Giftedness 101. New York, NY: Springer Publishing

Company.

Silverman, L. K., & Golon, A. (2008). Clinical practice with gifted families. In S. I.

Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational

theory, research, and practices (pp. 199-222). Tallahassee, FL: Springer

Silverman, L. K., & VanTassel‐Baska, J. (1983). A practical guide to counseling

the gifted in a school setting. Reston, Virginia: The Council for Exceptional

Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231153.pdf

Simmons, B. J. (2002). Facilitative conferences: Parents and teachers working

together. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues,

and Ideas, 76(2), 88-93. doi: 10.1080/00098650209604956

Simmons, C. (2017). What do children want? The Natural Child Project. Retrieved

from http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/carolyn_simmons.html

Smith, C. M. M. (2006). Including the gifted and talented: Making inclusion work

for more gifted and able learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

doi:10.4324/9780203008621

Sorin, R., & Iloste, R. (2016). Moving schools: Antecedents, impacts on students and

interventions. Australian Journal of Education, 50(3), 227-241.

doi:10.1177/000494410605000302

Speir Neumeister, K. (2007). Perfectionism in gifted students: An overview of

current research. Gifted Education International, 23(3), 254-263.

doi:10.1177/026142940702300306

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231153.pdf

References 289

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-

ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39-53.

doi:10.1177/0016986210383155

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking

giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on

psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-

54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

Suldo, S., Friedrich, A. A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J.

(2009). Teacher support and adolescent’s subjective well-being: A mixed-

methods investigation. School Psychology Review, 38, 67-85.

Sword, L. (2002). Gifted children: Emotionally immature or emotionally intense?

Gifted, 123, 14-17.

Tan, L. S., & Neihart, M. (2010). Social and emotional needs. In J. Jolly, D.

Treffinger & T. Inman (Eds.), Parenting gifted children: The authoritative

guide from the National Association of Gifted Children (pp. 378-381).

Naperville, IL: Prufrock Press.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1962). Recent trends in the education of the gifted. The

Educational Forum, 26(3), 333-343. doi:10.1080/00131726209338552

Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 13(2), 187-202. doi:10.1007/BF00905728

Tatar, M., & Horenczyk, G. (1996). Immigrant and host pupil’s expectations of

teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 289-299.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01198.x

Tatar, M., & Horenczyk, G. (2000). Parental expectations of their adolescents’

teachers. Journal of Adolescence, 23(4), 487-495.

doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0333

Tennant, J., Demaray, M., Malecki, C., Terry, M., Clary, M., & Elzinga, N.

(2015). Students’ ratings of teacher support and academic and social-

http://qut.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw3V07T8MwELagUyWEoLzagpQdBWI7jp2BoVQgxITUdI4SPySkNlS0_f_YsZM4sMDK6stD9ll335393QGA0V0UfrMJrCBISYQTjlMoS46LSArMtG9QKBV17wkv_9b2vezG_oPiHeF2u98YaH277pKAPhBtT2o8ROrIIoY02JjFNuGeNSf87nzekRqEJdAx4l0z-e3t-2bEN5zmghRxhlM6W0lxiKjt-9EaU-xtGuRZRuj8qnWyqKZZ_7TfUXMrPUo1kHS08X497Nnr_M17wFRIX4t3vnuQVbhcHOrwm5kgfPG4bD0yJcRWjXeT6JepdV_qhRh-oFIjjewEHDuFBDOr2lNwIKsRGHYqGYEjm2wNLIfsDEyszgOn88DT-TnInp-y-Uvoml6EXAfbLIw5kVSDBO1Dk9IcGvMCF2UcyRSnHMIyJgpJlSRMQqVM9XwFoUA8EpQrUcT4Agyqj0pegYDilLFEMKV0SMwVYVHCYpkUGlAKSlk8BtNmwnlRmsQa321zDe80hINaetlKxWqVa1xImP4tSsbgupW4fb_tie_rxcs3tlxK3hTG7pY67-tw8uc3pmDYbe1rMNh97uVNTdX9AhdNX5U

290 References

emotional well-being. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 494-512.

doi:10.1037/spq0000106

Terman, L.M. (1915). The mental hygiene of exceptional children. Pedagogical

Seminary, 22(4), 529-537. doi:10.1080/08919402.1915.10533983

Terman, L. M., Oden, M. H., Bayley, N., Marshall, H., McNemar, Q., & Sullivan,

E. B. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CT: Stanford University

Press.

Terman, L. M. et al. (1926). Genetic studies of genius. Volume I: Mental and

physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CT: Stanford

University Press. Retrieved from

https://archive.org/stream/geneticstudiesof009044mbp#page/n7/mode/2up

Thomas, V., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Counseling exceptional individuals and their

families: A systems perspective. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 58-

65.

Thompson, A. D., & King, K. (2015). 2015 Australian Mensa gifted children's

survey summary report. Australian Mensa Inc. Retrieved from

https://www.mensa.org.au/documents/item/288

Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2017) PISA 2015: Reporting

Australia's results. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/22

Tieso, C. L. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and

their parents: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 11-22.

doi:10.1177/0016986206296657

Tippey, J. G., & Burnham, J. J. (2009). Examining the fears of gifted children.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 321-339. doi:10.4219/jeg-

2009-861

Tolan, S.S. (1989). Special problems of young highly gifted children.

Understanding Our Gifted, 1(5), 7-10

Tolan, S. S. (1992). Only a parent: Three true stories. Understanding our Gifted,

4(3), 8-10.

https://archive.org/stream/geneticstudiesof009044mbp#page/n7/mode/2up

https://www.mensa.org.au/documents/item/288

http://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/22

References 291

Tucker, B., & Lu Hafenstein, N. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted

children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 66-75.

doi:10.1177/001698629704100302

Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and

misuses of Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory of human development.

Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 198-210. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589-

2009.00026.x

Underwood M. K. (1997). Top ten pressing questions about the development of

emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21(1), 127-146.

doi:10.1023/A:1024482516226

Van der Meulen, R. T., van der Bruggen, C. O., Split, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout,

M., Bögels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted

children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child and

Youth Care Forum, 43(3), 287-314. doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9239-5

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2008). Curriculum and instructional

considerations in programs for the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of

giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best

practices (pp. 347 -365). Tallahassee, FL: Springer.

Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-

Molina, S., & García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory

revision: Moving culture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives of

Psychological Science, 12(5), 900-910. 10.1177/1745691617704397

Vialle, W. (1994). “Termanal” science? The work of Lewis Terman revisited.

Roeper Review, 17(1), 32–38. doi:10.1080/02783199409553614

Victoria State Government. (2017). Social and emotional learning. Retrieved from

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/mentalhealth/Pages/s

ocialemotion.aspx#link5

Vincent, C., Neal., S., & Iqbal, H. (2016). Children’s friendships in diverse primary

schools: Teachers and the processes of policy enactment. Journal of Education

Policy, 31(4), 482-494. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1130859

292 References

Walsh, R. L., Kemp, C. R., Hodge, K. A., & Bowes, J. M. (2012). Searching for

evidence-based practice: A review of the research on educational interventions

for intellectually gifted children in the early years. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 35(2), 103-128. doi:10.1177/0162353212440610

Ward, P. J., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2011). Positive youth development within a family

leisure context: Youth perspectives of family outcomes. New Directions for

Youth Development, 2011(130), 29-42. doi:10.1002/yd.395

Waters, S. K., Lester, L. E W., & Cross, D. (2012). A theoretically grounded

exploration of the social and emotional outcomes of transition to secondary

school. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(2), 190-205.

doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.26

Webb, J. T. (1994). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted children.

Retrieved from [http://eric.org/digest/e527.html]. Eric EC Digest, E527.

Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2011). Where are the underachievers in the DMTG’s

academic talent development? Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 115-

117.

Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and intervention

model for intellectually gifted children. Journal of Advanced Academics,

23(2), 45-167. doi:10.1177/1932202X12438877

Wellisch, M., Brown, J., & Knight, R. (2012). Gifted and misunderstood: Mothers'

narratives of their gifted children's socio-emotional adjustment and

educational challenge. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 5-18.

Wellisch, M., Brown, J., Taylor, A., Knight, R., Berresford, L., Campbell, L., &

Cohen, A. (2011). Secure attachment and high IQ: Are gifted children better

adjusted? Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 20(2), 23-33

Wentzel, K. R. (2016). Emotional support and expectations from parents, teachers,

and peers predict adolescent competence at school. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 108(2), 242-255. doi:10.1037/edu0000049

http://eric.org/digest/e527.html%5d

References 293

Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected,

popular, and controversial children. Child Development, 66(3), 754-763.

doi:10.1111/j31467-8624.1995.tb00903.x

Wilson, H.E. (2015). Patterns of play behaviours and learning center choices

between high ability and typical children. Journal of Advanced Academics,

26(2), 143-164. doi:10.1177/1932202X15577954

Winkler, D., & Voight, A. (2016). Giftedness and overexcitability: Investigating

the relationship using meta-analysis. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 243.

doi:10.1177/0016986216657588

Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist,

55(1), 159-169. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159

Winstead, S. A. S. (1998). Worries of primary gifted girls. (Doctoral thesis).

Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/304431597?pq-origsite=summon

Wolf, N., & Chessor, D. (2011). The affective characteristics of gifted children:

Can peer victimisation make a difference? Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 20(1), 38-52.

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2014). Mental health: Strengthening our

response. [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/

Wright, K. (2015). Are children vulnerable in research? Asian Bioethics Review, 7

(2).

Wu, S. C., & Elliot, R. T. (2008). A study of reward preference in Taiwanese gifted

and nongifted students with differential locus of control. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 32(2), 230-244. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2008-848

Yeo, L. S., Chong, W. H., Neihart, M. F., & Huan, V. S. (2016). Teachers’

experiences withi inclusive education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of

Education, 36(sup1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/02188791.2014.934781

https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/304431597?pq-origsite=summon

https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/304431597?pq-origsite=summon

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/

294 References

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th

ed.). Thousand

Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th

ed.). Los Angeles,

CA: Sage Publications.

YouthinMind. (2015). Scoring the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for age

4-17. Retrieved from http://www.sdqinfo.com/a0.html

Yuen, M., & Fong, R. W. (2012). Connectedness and life skills development for all

children. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 119-121.

doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679121

Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the effects of full-time vs. part-

time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy

considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(4), 413-427.

doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(99)00027-0

Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Vialle, W. (2012). Giftedness and gifted education: The

need for a paradigm change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 194-197.

doi:10.1177/0016986212456070

Zimmermann, P. (2004). Attachment representations and characteristics of friendship

relations during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

88(1), 83-101. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.002

References 295

Appendices 297

APPENDICES

Appendix A An approach email

Dear

My name is Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott and I am a Ph.D. candidate at the Queensland

University of Technology (QUT). I am conducting research which explores the social-

emotional well-being of gifted children across Australia. To date, much research has focused

on the academic needs of gifted children. Research that has looked at the social-emotional

needs of students has been conducted mostly with adolescents and within an international

context, resulting in a void in the literature exploring Australian gifted primary school-aged

children. In addition, research in this area is often explored from the perspective of parents

and teachers, often overlooking the voice of the gifted child him/herself. This research

project aims to fill this void by having gifted children, their parents, and teachers complete

surveys on social-emotional well-being. This allowed for the types of support gifted children

need and receive to be determined. The project is being conducted under the supervision of

Dr. Amanda Mergler and Adjunct Professor Jim Watters.

I would like to invite your school to take part in this Australia-wide project.

What does participation in the research project involve?

I would appreciate it if your school would kindly advertise my research to your parent body,

in a manner in line with your school’s communications model, i.e. through a newsletter,

social media or similar. As many schools have identified gifted populations I would be

grateful if these families were made aware of this research project, however, gifted children

may not access these opportunities and therefore a wider approach to advertising this

research across the school community would be appreciated. I have attached an

advertisement for your use.

Through the advertisement parents of gifted children were invited to participate in the

survey, which I anticipate having completed by mid-September. At the start of the survey,

they were provided with additional information about this project as well as provide their

consent. Parents were then responsible for engaging their gifted child in their own survey as

well as request their child’s teacher to also become involved. Teachers were provided a link

to the teacher survey, which also has additional information about this project. As all surveys

are electronic, only the research team is aware of participants’ responses. All participants

remained anonymous and parent-child-teacher triads would be linked through a code

298 Appendices

generated by the parent. Each survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete and

would be completed in the participant’s own time.

Participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If any member of a participant

group decides to participate and then later changes their mind, they are able to withdraw

from the survey at any time, until they submit their survey. Decisions made will not affect

the relationship with the research team or QUT.

What will happen to the information collected, and is privacy and confidentiality

assured?

At no stage will participants be asked to identify themselves with the exception of

participants living in the Perth metropolitan area, who may volunteer their email address

should they be willing to engage in phase two of this project. Email addresses will be

removed from the data collected. This data will be stored securely under lock and key and

can only be accessed by the research team. The data will be stored for a minimum period of

5 years, after which it will be destroyed, as per the QUT guidelines. Participant privacy and

the confidentiality of information disclosed by participants is assured at all other times.

Is this research approved?

The research has been approved by QUT, ethics approval number 1600000300.

Who do I contact if I wish to discuss the project further?

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this study, please contact me via email

[email protected] or 0400 752 740.

My supervisor's contact details are:

Dr. Amanda Mergler [email protected] or 07 3138 3308

Adjunct Professor Jim Watters [email protected]

If you wish to speak with an independent person about the conduct of the project, please

contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email

[email protected].

How do I indicate my willingness for the school to be involved?

If you have had all questions about the project answered to your satisfaction, and are willing

to participate, by advertising this research project, please let me know via email. This is

important to do as a summary of the research findings will be made available to all

participating organisation at the end of the research project.

Kind regards, Kerry-Ann

mailto:[email protected]



Appendices 299

Appendix B Flyer

Are you the parent of a gifted

primary school child?

We need your help to improve our understanding of the social

emotional wellbeing of gifted children.

To date much research has focused on the academic needs of gifted children; however a child’s

social and emotional wellbeing is integral to their overall health, development and wellbeing. This

study explores what parents and teachers have noticed about the social emotional development of

gifted children and how they view their role both independently, and through their partnership with

each other, in guiding a child’s growth.

To do this we need you and your child’s teacher to complete a survey (15 minutes).

Furthermore, this research will ask gifted children (aged 8 and over) what they perceive their social

emotional strengths to be as well as look at ways in which they feel supported by parents and

teachers in their daily lives. To do this we need your child to complete a survey (15 minutes).

This research is being conducted by a doctoral student, Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott, through the

Queensland University of Technology, according to strict guidelines, under the supervision of Dr

Amanda Mergler and Adjunct Professor Jim Watters.

Parents, please use this link for further information and the survey:

http://survey.qut.edu.au/parent

Please use this link for your child:

http://survey.qut.edu.au/child

Once you have completed your survey, please refer your child’s teacher to this link:

http://survey.qut.edu.au/teacher

If you require additional information, please email Kerry-Ann at

[email protected]

300 Appendices

Appendix C Parent Survey

Appendices 301

302 Appendices

Appendices 303

304 Appendices

Appendices 305

306 Appendices

Appendices 307

Appendix D Gifted Child Survey

308 Appendices

Appendices 309

310 Appendices

Appendices 311

312 Appendices

Appendices 313

Appendix E Teacher Survey

314 Appendices

Appendices 315

316 Appendices

Appendices 317

318 Appendices

Appendix F Permission to use the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Dear Kerry-Ann, We have now received your payment and are pleased to authorize you to use the SDQ under the terms of the license (please see below – terms (c) and (e) having been part of your pre-authorization). I hope all works out well and we will be glad to respond if you have further queries at any point. Best wishes, James Goodman Youthinmind Ltd Licensees pay a small license fee to Youthinmind (currently 0.20 AUD per SDQ administered). The conditions of use of the SDQ include: a) Licensees need to keep track of the exact number of SDQs administered, and be able to justify, if requested, the total that they declare. b) Licensees pay Youthinmind the license fee at regular intervals: quarterly, 6-monthly or yearly at the Licensee’s convenience. The fee is strictly per item, with no reduction for large users. (Since we expect users to save money by using the license, larger users are already advantaged by saving larger amounts of money). c) The web presentation of the SDQ cannot involve any change in wording and needs to be as close as possible to the standard paper version in appearance – no bright colours, flashing icons etc. This is because changes in presentation can undermine the comparability of SDQ data collected in different ways, making it harder to combine or contrast SDQ data from different studies or clinics. The copyright notice on the paper version also needs to be present on the electronic version. To ensure that these terms are respected, we do need to see and approve of the licensee's proposed online version before you are authorized to use it. d) The license will be revoked if the SDQ were being used in a way likely to bring it into disrepute. e) There is a one-off authorization charge of 100 AUD at the time of authorization. Please let us know if you need further clarification.

Appendices 319

Appendix G Phase Two Parent Information and Consent Form

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH

PROJECT

– Parent Interview –

Knowledge, attitudes and support of social-emotional well-being:

The parent-teacher-gifted child triad.

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000300

RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott PhD student

Associate Researchers: Dr Amanda Mergler Principal Supervisor

Adjunct Professor Jim Watters Associate Supervisor

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology

(QUT)

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD for Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott, under the supervision of Dr Amanda Mergler and Adjunct Professor Jim Watters.

The purpose of this project is to determine what parents and teachers have noticed about the social-emotional development of gifted children and how they view their role both independently, and through their partnership with each other, in guiding a child’s growth. This approach helps to add to our knowledge of primary school-aged gifted children (aged 8 to 12), which ultimately provides a better understanding of giftedness in children and may shape the support we provide.

You are invited to participate in this project because you are the parent of a gifted primary school child.

PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve a one-on-one audio-recorded interview with you at an agreed location that will take approximately one hour of your time. Questions will include asking you for example, to consider the way in which your child may think or feel about him/ herself and how you encourage them to either maintain or improve this outlook? Or it may be acknowledged that relationships are tricky business, and you would be asked to share if there have been times where you have needed to support the relationships between your child and others? Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. You can withdraw anytime during

http://www.qut.edu.au/

320 Appendices

the interview and the recording will be destroyed upon request. If you withdraw later, and notify me within 30 days after the interview then it will be possible to destroy the data already collected upon request. After that time it is likely that analysis will have begun and it may not be possible to destroy data. However, you should always feel able to discuss what is included or not included with me. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT.

EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not benefit you directly, but I hope that it will provide new knowledge about young children who are identified as being gifted and talented. To recognise your contribution, should you choose to participate, the research team is offering participants access to the outcomes of this research both via a participant feedback session as well as via email on completion of the project.

RISKS There are few risks associated with your participation in this project. These include giving up of your time and possibly the anxiety induced by an interview. All questions will be carefully considered and you are welcome to not answer any questions that you do not feel comfortable responding to. The researcher is also the parent of a gifted child and has empathy for other parents. The aim of this research is not to make you uncomfortable but to gain insight. Should you experience discomfort or distress as a result of your participation in the research, Lifeline provides access to online, phone or face-to-face support, call 13 11 14 for 24 hour telephone crisis support. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Audio recordings will only be used as a means to accurately recall the interview session, and will only be accessible by the research team. All recordings will be stored for five years after publication of the thesis.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed below. Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott [email protected] Amanda Mergler [email protected] 07 3138 3308 Jim Watters [email protected] 07 3138 3639 CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your

information.





Appendices 321

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Parent Interview –




RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott [email protected] Amanda Mergler [email protected] 07 3138 3308 Jim Watters [email protected] 07 3138 3639 STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

Have read and understood the information document regarding this project.

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time without comment or penalty.

Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected].

Understand that the project will include an audio recording.

Agree to participate in the project.

Name

Signature

Date

Please return this sheet to the investigator.






322 Appendices

Appendix H Phase Two Gifted Child Information and Consent Form


PROJECT

– Interview with Children –







Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)


This research will ask gifted children to describe ways in which they feel supported by parents and teachers in their daily lives. This approach helps to add to our knowledge of primary school-aged gifted children (aged 8 to 12), which ultimately provides a better understanding of giftedness in children and shapes the support we provide.

Your gifted primary school child is invited to participate in this project.

PARTICIPATION Your child’s participation will involve an audio-recorded one-on-one interview with the researcher at an agreed location that will take approximately one hour. Questions posed to your child will include items such as: “Sometimes kids at school don’t get along ... should teachers get involved? Why?” or, “What is the best thing about the relationship you have with your parent?” At no stage will your child be made aware that the research focuses on gifted children, as the researcher is sensitive that some children may be unaware of the label.

Your child’s participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you both agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. Your child can withdraw


Appendices 323

anytime during the interview and the recording will be destroyed upon request. If you or your child decides to withdraw later, and notify me within 30 days after the interview then it will be possible to destroy the data already collected upon request. After that time it is likely that analysis will have begun and it may not be possible to destroy data. However you should always feel able to discuss what is included or not included with me. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not benefit you or your child directly. RISKS There are few risks associated with your child’s participation in this project. These include both you and your child giving up of your time and possibly the anxiety induced by engaging in an interview. As a parent, you will be asked to stay close to the room, however cannot sit inside the room, during the interview session. All questions will be carefully considered and presented in a child-friendly manner. Although all children are encouraged to participate fully, at no time will they be obliged to answer any question. The researcher is both the parent of a gifted child and has been a primary school teacher for more than ten years prior to engaging in this research project, therefore rest assured that I am experienced with working with children. Furthermore, I hold a current Working with Children Card and I am currently a parent facilitator of a Tournament of the Minds group. Should you or your child experience discomfort or distress as a result of participation in the research, Lifeline provides access to online, phone or face-to-face support, call 13 11 14 for 24 hour telephone crisis support. For young people aged between 5 and 25, you can also call the Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. The audio- recording will be used to transcribe the interview session. However, at no stage will the child’s identity be revealed. Only the research team will have access to the audio-recording, which will be stored securely. The recording will be destroyed five years after the thesis has been published.






324 Appendices

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.


– Interview with Children –


The parent-teacher-child triad.


RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott [email protected] Amanda Mergler [email protected] 07 3138 3308 Jim Watters [email protected] 07 3138 3639

STATEMENT OF PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT





Understand that you are free to withdraw your child at any time without comment or penalty.


Have discussed the project with your child and what is required of them if participating.

Understand that the project will include an audio-recording.

Agree to your child participating in the project.

Name

Signature

Date






Appendices 325

STATEMENT OF CHILD CONSENT Your parent or guardian has given their permission for you to be involved in this research

project.

This form is to seek your consent to participate in the research.


Have read and understood the information about this project.

Have discussed the project with your parent/guardian.



Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty.


Understand that the project will include an audio-recording.


Name

Signature

Date


326 Appendices

Appendix I Phase Two Teacher Information and Consent Form


PROJECT

– Teacher Interview –







Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)


The purpose of this project is to determine what parents and teachers have noticed about the social-emotional development of gifted children and how they view their role both independently, and through their partnership with each other, in guiding a child’s growth. This approach helps to add to our knowledge of primary school-aged gifted children (aged 8 to 12), which ultimately provides a better understanding of giftedness in childhood and shapes the support we provide.

You are invited to participate in this project because you are a class teacher of a gifted primary school child who has participated in the study.

PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve a one-on-one audio-recorded interview with you at an agreed location that will take approximately one hour of your time. Questions will include asking you for example, to consider the way in which the student may think or feel about him/ herself and how you encourage them to either maintain or improve this outlook. Or it may be acknowledged that relationships are tricky business, and you would be asked to share if there have been times where you have needed to support the relationships between the gifted child in your class and others at school?

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. You can withdraw anytime during


Appendices 327

the interview and the recording will be destroyed upon request. If you withdraw later, and notify me within 30 days after the interview then it will be possible to destroy the data already collected upon request. After that time it is likely that analysis will have begun and it may not be possible to destroy data. You should always feel able to discuss what is included or not included with me. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not benefit you directly. To recognise your contribution should you choose to participate the research team is offering participants access to the outcomes of this research both via a participant feedback session as well as via email on completion of the project.

RISKS There are few risks associated with your participation in this project. These include giving up of your time and possibly some anxiety induced by an interview. All questions will be carefully considered and you are welcome to not answer any questions that you do not feel comfortable responding to. The researcher has been a teacher prior to engaging in this research project, and has some understanding of your role. The aim of this research is not to make you uncomfortable but to gain insight. Should you experience discomfort or distress as a result of your participation in the research, Lifeline provides access to online, phone or face-to-face support, call 13 11 14 for 24 hour telephone crisis support. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Audio recordings will only be used as a means to accurately recall the interview session, and will only be accessible by the research team. All recordings will be stored for five years after publication of the thesis.


Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.





328 Appendices


– Teacher Interview –




RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Kerry-Ann Wright-Scott [email protected] Amanda Mergler [email protected] 07 3138 3308 Jim Watters [email protected] 07 3138 3639 STATEMENT OF CONSENT





Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time without comment or penalty.


Understand that the project will include an audio recording.


Name

Signature

Date

Please return this sheet to the investigator.






Appendices 329

Appendix J Parent Semi-structured Interview Schedule

Introduce myself upon meeting and greeting.

Just to reiterate, as part of my Ph.D. studies, I am conducting research about the SEWB of gifted

children. You have kindly volunteered about an hour of your time to help me gain insight into this

topic. I would like to remind you that you may skip any questions that you don’t want to answer and

can stop this interview at any stage should you feel the need to. Although we have obviously met in

person, and therefore I know who you are, no personally identifying information will be made public,

as all information will be kept strictly confidential and in a locked filing cabinet. The data files will

be turned in to my supervisors for moderation and data will be stored in QUT archives as required.

Do you have any questions about the research study? Are you ready to begin?

1. Let’s start by looking outwards – friends! Tell me about your child’s experiences in this

department.

2. Is your child the same person at home and at school?

3. Can you think of a time your child has had to make a decision? Please explain the process

your child went through.

4. Could you give me examples of things or situations that make your child feel unhappy or

scared?

5. Tell me about your child ever feeling angry.

6. What factors do you consider when providing your child with feedback about their school

work or behaviour?

7. What types of advice does your child seek out most often?

8. How do you find your child interacts with older children or adults?

9. How does your child respond to new situations?

10. What characteristics does your child have, that I may not have mentioned, that really stand

out to you?

11. Thinking about your gifted child, how do you think they feel about themself?

12. Tell me about your relationship with your child’s teacher.

13. Thinking about your child’s resilience and coping in everyday situations, are there factors

your child’s teacher needs to be aware of?

14. If you had a friend whose child was identified as gifted, what advice would you give them

about coping with their abilities?

Thank you for your participation in this research study. If you have any questions, later on, please

feel free to contact me.

330 Appendices

Appendix K Gifted child Semi-structured Interview Schedule


I would like to thank you for kindly volunteering about an hour of your time to help

me get to know more about kids just like you. I think kids like you are important and

as part of my studies, I want to find out more about your relationships with your

parents and teacher. I would like to remind you that you may skip any questions that

you don’t want to answer and can stop this interview at any time if you need to ...

your parents are in the room next door. Although we have obviously met, so I know

who you are, I won’t mention your name anywhere so all information will be kept

private. My supervisors, who are like my teachers, may also get to hear what you

say and what I write, but they’re great at keeping information secret. I also want to

remind you that there are no wrong answers, just what you think – which it all I’m

interested in. Do you have any questions? Are you ready to begin?

1. Tell me about a typical day in your class.

2. How well do you think you and your teacher get along?

3. Who are your friends?

4. What kinds of things does your teacher do to help you learn?

5. Has your teacher ever praised you for being kind or helping someone else?

6. If you could plant a secret thought in your teacher’s head that would change

the way they thought about you, what would you want them to know?

7. Tell me about the reward system in your class.

8. I’ve read a book called The Worry Tree where this girl has a beautiful picture

painted on the wall of her bedroom. Each animal on the tree has a different

area to look after. Wolfgang the Wombat looks after friend worries,

Petronella the Pig looks after school worries and Gwyneth the Goat makes

you feel better when you are sick. Dimitri the Dog looks after family worries,

Piers the Peacock is in charge of worries about things that are lost and Delia

the Duck helps with worries about change. Which of these animals would you

spend time talking to, just like the girl in the book?

Appendices 331

9. If you had to write a report card for your teacher, how could they improve?

10. If your teacher and parents were kids again, do you think they would be

friends?

11. Tell me about your favourite teacher.

12. Are you the same person at home as at school?

13. Let’s pretend you are feeling unhappy or worried about something and you

go to talk it over with your parents – what happens?

14. You’ve just achieved something awesome, how do your parents react?

15. If you could wave a magic wand and make your parents perfect, what would

you change?

16. What is the best thing about spending time with your parents?

17. Lastly, could you give me some tips on how parents can show their kids that

they care for them?

Thank you so much for sharing your great ideas with me, I really feel that I have

learnt so much from you.

332 Appendices

Appendix L Teacher Semi-structured Interview Schedule


Just to reiterate, as part of my Ph.D. studies, I am conducting research about the social-emotional

well-being of gifted children. You have kindly volunteered about an hour of your time to help me

gain insight into this topic. I would like to remind you that you may skip any questions that you

don’t want to answer and can stop this interview at any stage should you feel the need to.

Although we have obviously met in person, and therefore I know who you are, no personally

identifying information will be made public, as all information will be kept strictly confidential

and in a locked filing cabinet. The data files will be turned in to my supervisors for moderation

and data will be stored in QUT archives as required.

Do you have any questions about the research study? Are you ready to begin?

1. Has the gifted child in your class ever complained to you about had or tummy aches,

feeling worried or scared or unhappy?

2. How would you describe this child’s behaviour in the classroom compared to other

children?

3. Thinking about the gifted child in your class, what comments would you make about

their academic work?

4. What factors do you consider when providing this child with feedback about their work

or behaviour?

5. Can you describe for me the types of relationships the gifted child in your class has with

other students – friends, classmates and in group work?

6. Could you give me an example of a time where this child has sought out advice from

you?

7. Would you say the gifted child in your class requires more of your time?

8. Thinking about the gifted child in your class, how do you think they feel about

themselves?

9. How would you describe the relationship between you and the child’s parents?

10. Thinking about resilience and coping in everyday situations of this gifted child in your

class, do you have any concerns?

11. If there was a new teacher, who had a child identified as gifted in their class, what advice

would you give them?

Thank you for your participation in this research study. If you have any questions, later on,

please feel free to contact me.

Appendices 333

Appendix M Codebook

Triad number – links members of the same child/ parent/ teacher group

Child/ parent/ teacher gender: 0 = Female, 1 = Male

0 = No, 1 = Yes

Level of giftedness: 1 = Moderately, 2 = Highly, 3 = Exceptionally, 4 = Profoundly,

5 = Confidential

Age of child: entered as is

Childs age three levels: 3 to 7 years = 1; 8 to 10 years = 2; 11 to 13 years = 3

Year level: 0 = other, each year as year

Australian state or territory: 1 = ACT, 2 = NSW, 3 = NT, 4= QLD, 5 = SA, 6 =

TAS, 7 = VIC, 8 = WA

Teacher support of child according to parent: 1 = Poor, 2 = Average, 3 = Good

Parent-teacher relationship classification: 1 = Poor, 2 = Average, 3 = Good

Year’s teaching experience: 1 = 1-3 years, 2 = 4-6 years,3 = 7 or more years

Highest qualification: 0 = Bachelors, 1 = Masters

Rater on SDQ: 1= parent, 2 = teacher, 3 = child

Adult rated on CASSS: 0 = Parent, 1 = Teacher

SDQ to CASSS comparison ages: 0 = 3-9 years, 1 = 10-13 years

SDQ coding: 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true

(except questions 7, 21, 25, 11, 14 which are reverse coded)

CASSS frequency coding: 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = some of the time,

4 = most of the time, 5 = almost always, 6 = always

CASSS importance coding: 1 = not important, 2 = important, 3 = very important

Documents

THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF THE …...7.2.3 The gifted child’s perception of their relationship with their teacher.175 7.3 The Role Parents Play in the Development of SEWB