Myths about Gifted Learners from the Perspective of Teachers

Author: Šárka Portešová
Institution: Masaryk University
Author: Marie Budíková
Institution: Masaryk University
Author: Dana Juhová
Institution: Masaryk University
Year of publication: 2014
Source: Show
Pages: 229-242
DOI Address:
PDF: tner/201403/tner3718.pdf

The aim of the presented paper was to find out whether Czech and Slovak teachers are affected by myths about the gifted. We selected myths concerning the nature of giftedness, its identification, social and emotional characteristics of the gifted, and their education. The myths were examined in regard to determinants regarding educators. Data from 434 teachers (350 women) were collected by a foreign questionnaire. The results showed that these educators tend to hold myths about overachievement of the gifted without special care, simultaneity of giftand creativity, and the correlation of giftedness with social and emotional problems. The group with a higher risk to be susceptible to certain myths are teachers over 40 years of age, with experience longer than 10 years, teaching in villages and having no contact with giftedness. Thus, we recommend focusing especially on further training of these high-risk groups of teachers in order to rebut their misconceptions about the gifted. The research was supported by the research grant of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic registered under number P407/11/1272.


  • Bain, S.K., Choate, S.M., & Bliss, S.L. (2006). Perceptions of developmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they realistic? Roeper Review, 29, pp. 41-48.
  • Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. DarlingHammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Bégin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and blueprints for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, pp. 161-179.
  • Bégin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994a). Predictors of a general attitude toward gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, pp. 74 - 86.
  • Copenhaver R.W., & McIntyre D.J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, pp. 151-153.
  • Hansen, J.B., & Feldhusen, J.F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), pp. 115-121.
  • Hříbková, L. (1994). Výchova a vzdělávání nadaných dětí - okrajový problém. [Education and Training of Gifted Children - a Marginal Problem]. Pedagogika, 3, pp. 246-251.
  • Koncepcia rozvoja nadaných detí a mládeže v SR [Conception of Development of Gifted Children and Youth in Slovakia]. (2007).
  • Marland, S.P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, pp. 246-255.
  • Megay-Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23, pp. 178-182.
  • Nail, J.M., & Evans, J.G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, pp. 18-21.
  • Neihart, M., Reis, S.M., Robinson, N.M., & Moon, S.M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Passow, A.H. (1993). National/state policies regarding education of the gifted. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.
  • Portešová, Š., Budíková, M., & Koutková, H. (2009). Kontakt s nadáním jako jedna z důležitých proměnných ovlivňujících postoj pedagogů a rodičů k mimořádně nadaným žáků a k jejich vzdělávání [Contact with giftedness as a significant variable affecting the attitude of educators and parents towards extraordinarily gifted learners and their education]. Pedagogika, LVIV(1), pp. 38-53.
  • Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, pp. 233-235.
  • Treffinger, D. (1982). Guest editorial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), p. 1.
  • Vyhláška č. 73/2005 Sb., o vzdělávání dětí, žáků a studentů se speciálními vzdělá vacími potřebami a dětí, žáků a studentů mimořádně nadaných [Ministerial Regulation No. 73/2005 Collection of Law, on Educating Children, Pupils and Students with Special Educational Needs and Extraordinarily Gifted Children, Pupils and Students].
  • Whitmore, J.R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Zákon č. 561/2005 Sb., o předškolním, základním, středním, vyšším odborném a jiném vzdělávání (školský zákon) [Act No. 561/2005 Collection of Law, on Pre-school, Basic, Secondary, Tertiary Professional and Other Education (School Act)].

myths intellectually gifted teachers

Message to:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart