“It May Be a Luxury, but Not a Problem”: A Mixed Methods Study of Teachers’ Attitudes towards the Educational Needs of Gifted Students in Norway

Abstract

This study aims to investigate Norwegian primary teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education and discuss their potential impact on their pedagogical practices. In Norway, gifted education is a relatively non-existent phenomenon, and this research field has been scarcely explored in the Norwegian context and teacher education. The Official Norwegian Report NOU 2016:14 highlights a reluctance among Norwegian teachers to cater to gifted students, indicates a lack of training for teachers in identifying and differentiating gifted education, and points out a need for more research within the Norwegian context. In an earlier study, we showed that Norwegian teachers reported having little formal or non-formal education on the theme of gifted education and that few were aware of the abovementioned report. This study aims to investigate Norwegian primary teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education and discuss their potential impact on their pedagogical practices. Data in the study are collected through an online mixed methods survey in a small municipality in Norway. An interesting finding is that culture significantly influences teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education. We argue that teachers’ attitudes should be more informed by evidence-based practice and less by culture, as it can impact gifted students’ access to equal and adapted education.

1. Introduction

Teachers play a crucial role in identifying and supporting gifted students, and teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education can significantly affect the identification process and the type of education that gifted students receive [1,2]. However, the attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards giftedness can vary significantly, and teachers may hold positive or negative views towards gifted education for various reasons; this may affect their pedagogical practices. To enhance the support and education provided to gifted students, exploring the attitudes and beliefs that shape teachers’ pedagogical practices is crucial. By gaining insights into these factors, we can better understand the challenges and opportunities teachers face in meeting the educational needs of gifted students. This understanding can inform future professional development initiatives and guide the implementation of successful strategies in gifted education.

Norway has an egalitarian school system that does not officially recognise giftedness among children and currently lacks specific provisions for gifted education [3,4,5,6]. Giftedness traditionally refers to individuals who demonstrate exceptional abilities in one or more areas than their peers [7,8,9]. In egalitarian school systems, giftedness is often perceived as a privilege, leading to suggestions that resources and support should not be allocated to gifted students due to the perceived priority of other, visibly disadvantaged groups [10,11]. However, contemporary views on giftedness emphasise that many gifted children may not exhibit openly exceptional achievements and can possess strengths and difficulties, particularly in social situations and when faced with challenges [12]. These difficulties highlight the importance of competent teachers in identifying gifted students and supporting them academically and socially.

It is important to note that the egalitarian perspective on giftedness has been challenged in Norway in the last decade by some researchers and organisations that argue that neglecting gifted students’ needs can hinder their educational development and deprive them of opportunities to reach their full potential [3,4,6,13,14,15]. These voices urge the Norwegian school system to foster a more comprehensive and inclusive education system for all students, including the gifted, and work towards a more equitable and inclusive educational environment that benefits all students.

These efforts have resulted in the release of The Official Norwegian Report NOU 2016:14 More to Gain: Better Learning for Students with High Learning Potential [6]. This report has introduced the term “High Learning Potential,” adding another term to the already extensive list of over a hundred terms Hany [16] has found. NOU 2016:14 indicates that the current primary education system does not provide gifted students with adapted and inclusive education that enables them to utilise their potential fully. It also highlights that schools are not utilising the opportunity to adjust teaching pedagogically and organizationally to meet gifted students’ individual needs. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the Norwegian education system lacks a joint knowledge base to implement measures to improve education in the short and long term, both nationally and locally. As a result, gifted students in Norway report not experiencing academic and social inclusion, and many report feeling invisible, socially isolated, and rejected. The NOU 2016:14 report concludes that teachers have the autonomy and opportunities to provide for gifted children within the existing system. The Norwegian Education Act § 1–3 on adapted education states the following: “Education must be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual pupil, apprentice, candidate for a certificate of practice, and training candidate” [17].

Teachers play a crucial role in identifying and supporting gifted students, and teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education can significantly affect the identification process and the type of education gifted students receive [1,2]. However, the attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards giftedness can vary significantly, and teachers may hold positive or negative views towards gifted education for various reasons; this may affect their pedagogical practices. To enhance the support and education provided to gifted students, exploring the attitudes and beliefs that shape teachers’ pedagogical practices is crucial. By gaining insights into these factors, we can better understand the challenges and opportunities teachers face in meeting the educational needs of gifted students. This understanding can inform future professional development initiatives and guide the implementation of successful strategies in gifted education.

In this study, we have investigated Norwegian teachers’ attitudes to gifted education seven years after the report NOU 2016:14 [6]. The study aims to gain an understanding of how teachers perceive giftedness and what attitudes they present concerning gifted education. To explore Norwegian teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education, we have developed the following research question: How do Norwegian primary teachers describe their attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education, and how do they support their views and practices? We have earlier found that Norwegian teachers report having little or no formal education on the theme of gifted education [18]. Few respondents in the study knew the governmental report NOU 2016:14. The current study explores possible connections between attitudes and perceived knowledge of giftedness among Norwegian teachers and their support of adapted gifted education. The article presents theoretical insights into the factors that may influence teachers’ attitudes towards gifted children, including research, legislation, and cultural influences. It then discusses empirical findings on how teachers in Norway perceive and approach gifted children in their pedagogical practices.

2. Background, Theory and Definitions of Giftedness

In Norway, limited research has been conducted on gifted education since Hofset’s [19] attempt to publish his research book on gifted students was rejected in 1969 [4]. Gifted education is also not prominently featured in national policy documents and teacher education programs, further contributing to the lack of focus on this area [6]. Historically, both the Norwegian school system and researchers have exhibited a negative attitude towards gifted students and gifted education [4,6]. From the 1970s onwards, there has been a growing emphasis on equity in the Norwegian school system, particularly concerning students facing various challenges [20]. However, this focus on equity seems to have created tension between the concept of giftedness and the pursuit of equality. The notion that giftedness is a privilege and gifted students constitute an elite class has further exacerbated this tension. Consequently, gifted students in the Norwegian school system often do not receive the specialised education necessary to meet their unique academic and social needs.

There are various perspectives or “truths” in theory, legislation, guidelines, and culture regarding gifted children. Some are even blended, so legislation sometimes seems to be impacted more by culture and politics and less by pedagogy.

There are several models of identifying giftedness in the research literature. Renzulli and Reis [21] have developed a three-ring model for identifying gifted children with the following areas: superior ability, creativity, and commitment. Gifted children are identified by assessing their skills and achievements in these areas. Gagné [9] has developed a differentiation model that focuses on talent development and identifies gifted children by assessing their skill level in different areas and their potential for future development. The model takes into account intellectual, creative, social, and physical development. Mönks and Pflüger [20] have presented perspectives that emphasise both ability potential and achievements in relation to age and background. They also emphasise motivation and personality traits. Moreover, finally there is the ACCEL model (active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership) for identifying the gifted by Sternberg [7] that is highlighting perceptions of ethics and critical thinking as giftedness in an era when there is much uncertainty on future obstacles and possibilities.

Hany [16] has indicated that over a hundred terms and concepts describe giftedness in the research literature. In addition to the diversity of concepts, there are various models of giftedness [7,8,11,20]. Mönks and Ypenburg [11] have shown that different perspectives on giftedness can be linked to different views on learning, politics, attitudes, values, and cultural practices. They summarise perspectives on gifted people in four explanatory models: capability models, cognitive component models, performance-oriented models, and sociocultural-oriented models.

Early definitions of giftedness were related to IQ (intelligence quotient) by Terman [22]. He pioneered this research field and conducted a longitudinal survey of around 1500 highly gifted students in the 1920s. Some researchers, such as Salovey and Mayer [23], Gardner [24], and Sternberg [7], have suggested that emotional intelligence (often called EI or EQ) is far more important than IQ. Salovey and Mayer describe emotional intelligence as the ability to monitor one’s and others’ feelings and emotions, discriminate among them, and use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions [23].

Several studies have distinguished between “giftedness” and “talent” [25,26,27,28]. Gagné has developed the differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) [28], proposing a clear distinction between these fundamental concepts in gifted education. According to this model, giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed superior natural abilities (aptitudes or gifts) [9]. Talent designates the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity [9]. Gagné [9] states that the main distinction between giftedness and talent is that giftedness is a natural ability that some children are born with, while talent is a skill we can develop with time. Gagné [28] argues that giftedness can be transformed into talent and highlights three types of catalysts that may help or hinder the process: (a) interpersonal (I) catalysts, such as personal traits and self-management processes; (b) environmental (E) catalysts, such as socio-demographic factors, psychological influences (e.g., from parents, teachers, or peers), or special talent development facilities and programs; and (c) chance (C).

In addition, Tannenbaum [29] differentiates between “giftedness” and “talent” with the following notion: “Keeping in mind that developed talent exists only in adults, a proposed definition of giftedness in children is that it denotes their potential for becoming critically acclaimed performers or exemplary producers of ideas” [29] cited in [28]. However, perspectives on giftedness are still evolving. Sternberg [7] suggests this is due to new insights and society’s challenges. He argues that one way to address the question of identifying gifted individuals is to ask what challenges the world faces at a given time and what kind of giftedness is needed to meet those challenges [7]. As Sternberg points out, the world currently struggles with multiple challenges and is best served by gifted individuals who possess knowledge, talent, and ethical thinking. He argues that high IQ alone is insufficient to discover ethical challenges before they arise.

The various terms used to describe gifted children are likely to be affected by language and culture. Moreover, the diversity of terms concerning gifted children can affect school cultures and pedagogical practice [30]. School culture refers to the norms, values, attitudes, and practices prevalent and maintained in a school [31,32]. It is defined as an ethos affecting teaching and learning, although out-of-school influences such as the socioeconomic status of the community also impact school culture [31]. School culture is a broad term that encompasses all aspects of the school environment and influences the experience and interaction between students, teachers, administration, parents, and society. When it comes to gifted education, school culture can affect the local conversation about gifted education and have implications on teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards gifted education.

In this study, we do not take a position on what giftedness entails. Giftedness seems to be various concepts that are still evolving; understandably, teachers might find various definitions confusing. Although, if giftedness is, as Sternberg [7] argues, a complex concept tied to contemporary challenges and needs in society, this may require teachers to understand how contemporary theories of giftedness should impact pedagogical practices. It also requires that the subject of identifying giftedness is addressed in teacher education, legislation, and guidelines.

3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Gifted Students

Gifted children are often mistakenly perceived as high achievers, and their educational needs for intellectual stimulation are often overlooked (e.g., [1,2,33,34]). Consequently, gifted students go unidentified in schools and do not receive an education tailored to their social and academic needs. This is unfortunate, as the lack of appropriate support for gifted children in school can lead to underachievement and difficulties in areas such as social interactions and mental well-being.

Lacking an appropriate teacher education concerning gifted education, gifted students are not always easy for teachers to identify in the classroom. They are not a homogenous group but children who might or might not exhibit openly exceptional achievements in one or more fields (e.g., [7,8,22,24,35,36]). Gifted children can possess an exceptional memory or the ability to make rapid associations that may be difficult for others to follow. However, they do not always exhibit their abilities willingly.

Identifying giftedness among children might also be challenging due to the many terms, definitions, and models used internationally (e.g., [7,9,34,35,36]). Giftedness is a debated theme in education, and the diversity of models and definitions reflects different values and implies diverse pedagogical approaches (e.g., [11,30]). Moreover, gifted children can possess strengths and difficulties, particularly in social situations and when faced with challenges [12]. They may struggle with issues such as immaturity, lack of social skills, and feelings of not fitting in, which can lead to isolation. Furthermore, Renzulli and Park [37] have identified a correlation between giftedness and high school dropouts, emphasising the crucial role of teachers in supporting gifted children’s academic and social development. This highlights the critical importance of teachers in identifying and promoting gifted students’ growth in both academic and social domains.

Robinson and Shore [38] argue that teachers’ perceptions of gifted students should be informed by evidence-based practice (EBP) which involves integrating the following three knowledge fields: (1) the highest quality research evidence, (2) the expertise of professionals, and (3) the individual values and preferences of students. This means considering the students’ personal concerns, expectations, cultural influences, and unique characteristics. By combining these elements, EBP aims to provide the most effective and personalized education to meet the needs of each individual student. However, it is worth mentioning that evidence-based practice have also been criticised by, among others, Biesta [39]. He argues that the notion of “what works” in education is overly instrumental and reductionist, failing to capture the complex and nuanced nature of educational processes and the goals of education itself. Teachers should have the trust and autonomy to decide which pedagogical practice is needed. Nonetheless, considering that the field of gifted education is also a complex one, we argue that teachers can benefit from the knowledge of the highest quality research-based evidence and the individual values and preferences of students in addition to their own expertise as professionals.

Teachers are bound by legislation and guidelines that shape their knowledge, attitudes, and pedagogical practices regarding gifted education. Mullen and Jung [1] have found that teachers who report having perceived knowledge of giftedness are more likely to support gifted programs, while a negative predictor results in perceptions that gifted programs are elitist. This section will outline the relevant legislation and guidelines on gifted education in Norway.

4. Legislation and Provisions Concerning Gifted Education in Norway

Legislations do not always reflect the concerns for education. Tourón and Freeman [33] conducted the gifted education in Europe survey (GEES) which was designed to shed light on current European educational provisions for the gifted. The study has demonstrated an awareness among education administrators in most European countries regarding the need for special provisions to be made for gifted and talented children to reach their full potential [33]. However, these concerns are not always reflected in official legislation and are often communicated to schools through directives rather than clearly articulated.

In Norway, there has not been a cultural acceptance of providing specialised education for gifted students outside the regular education system (e.g., [4,6,13,14]). As a result of a school policy that promotes inclusion, the number of special schools in Norway has significantly decreased since the 1970s. This means that most students with special educational needs have the right to receive specialised education programs at a school in their local area, where they can realise their potential for learning and socialisation [40]. The argument that integrated education can increase inclusion implies that segregated training programs can promote exclusion. This notion requires schools to avoid segregated instruction whenever possible, so all students can feel included. However, integrated learning may not meet students’ educational needs in all contexts. Therefore, schools offer various segregated education programs for students with learning difficulties, in line with the Norwegian Education Act § 5–1 for special education (e.g., [41,42,43]). Some secondary schools also offer segregated education programs for gifted children through cooperation with high schools.

In recent years, there have been some improvements in Norway, mostly out-of-school enrichment opportunities related to students’ skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), such as Newton rooms, Olympiads on various subjects, research camp on Andøya, research clubs, and all kinds of local initiatives [44]. In addition, a possible provision is accessing four talent centres situated in or by larger cities in Norway [45,46,47,48].

Legislation is often linked to how a phenomenon is culturally perceived. Some educators believe that since gifted children may have special educational needs beyond the ordinary education program, they may be entitled to special education [11,43]. This notion is supported by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) [49], the largest international professional organisation dedicated to improving educational provision for people with disabilities and giftedness or talent. The CEC conveys that both groups are seen as exceptional and may therefore need tailored training. Nonetheless, in Norway, gifted children historically have not been defined as children with special needs or entitled to individually adapted education [50], and this has not changed in the new proposition for The Education Act [51].

The principles of inclusive education in Norway, as outlined in the Education Act, promote social acceptance and joint learning for all students, regardless of their abilities or disabilities [17]. However, despite its goals, the Act may inadvertently exclude gifted students due to its explicit wording that states these students are not entitled to special provisions. However, gifted students may have the option to skip one or more grade levels or apply for exemption from school subjects in which they excel. While there has been a growing emphasis on equity in the Norwegian school system to support students who face various challenges, there has been a lack of focus on providing adequate support for gifted students who may also struggle emotionally and socially. This neglect can lead to gifted students feeling excluded if they do not receive the necessary support to fully engage in learning and social activities. Skipping grade levels and exemption cannot be perceived as inclusive education.

Privileging one student group to the detriment of the others is not in line with policy by the Council of Europe [34] (a body for intergovernmental cooperation between 25 European states). The Council of Europe reaffirms education as a fundamental human right and believes that it should, as far as is possible, be appropriate to each individual. The Council of Europe states the following:

Gifted children should be able to benefit from appropriate educational conditions that would allow them to fully develop their abilities for their benefit and the benefit of society as a whole. No country can indeed afford to waste talents and it would be a waste of human resources not to identify in good time any intellectual or other potentialities.

[34]

Based on this statement, it can be assumed that gifted children are entitled to an education that gives them opportunities to develop in line with their prerequisites. Tourón and Freeman [33], in line with the Council of Europe [34] have emphasised the importance of legislation, research, teacher training, establishing special provisions for gifted children in ordinary schools, avoiding negative consequences of labelling children as gifted and talented, and promoting debate and research concerning giftedness as a construct.

However, it appears that some Scandinavian countries, including Norway, do not fully follow these recommendations, as official programs and identification tools in gifted education do not exist [4,6,14,20]. Tourón and Freeman [33] found that initiatives related to giftedness in Scandinavia are generally explored through private opportunity associations, and efforts to support the needs of gifted children are not affiliated with formal legislative decrees but are typically sought voluntarily by parents. This interesting finding should be examined concerning why states that promote inclusion and equity leave a gap where some gifted children receive private support while others are deprived of such provisions. This way, practising equity is working against less-privileged children in the Scandinavian school systems, even though they are supposed to provide equal opportunities for all.

The legislation does not always have the desired effect. While the Official Norwegian Report NOU 2016:14 [6] highlights that teachers have the autonomy and opportunities to provide for gifted children, studies show that they refrain from doing so [4,13,14,52,53]. It is crucial to investigate factors affecting teachers’ attitudes to gifted education and inform their pedagogical practices.

5. Teachers’ Attitudes to Gifted Education

To explore the relations between teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices related to gifted education, it is helpful to examine possible connections between attitudes and behaviour. Theorists have found a strong relationship between attitudes and behaviour, which can be influenced by factors such as culture, beliefs, values, and context [54,55]. Teachers’ attitudes and behaviour are likely to be complex, as they are subject to theories, legislation, official guidelines, and cultural practices that also impact their pedagogical practices.

Fishbein and Ajzen [55] propose a strong correlation between “the evolution of beliefs to attitudes, attitudes to intentions, and finally, intentions to actions”. While Liska [54] acknowledges the vital interrelationships between attitudes and behaviours, he critically examines the causal structure of Fishbein and Ajzen’s attitude–behaviour model. Liska argues that the model does not fully consider the influence of situational factors and does not adequately address the issue of behavioural consistency. He claims that attitudes cannot always explain or predict behaviour. Social norms and context can play a significant role in determining behaviour. Consequently, Liska suggests that different situations can impact the relationship between attitudes and behaviour over time.

Regarding giftedness, various factors may impact teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices [1,56]. Given that teachers’ pedagogical practices are shaped by their underlying beliefs, attitudes, and context, in addition to theories, legislation, and official guidelines, the attitude–behaviour model by Fishbein and Ajzen [55] may not fully capture the complexity of teachers’ behaviours concerning gifted education. The arguments by Liska [54] contribute to understanding the complexity of the relationship between attitude and behaviour by showing that social norms and context can play a significant role in determining behaviour and adding that time can also be a significant factor. This argument aligns with Krüger [57], who refers to teachers’ practices as “an ensemble of discursive practices.” He views discursive practices as cultural and ideological ways of thinking, speaking, and acting, which can be verbal or nonverbal. These practices contain specific “styles of reasoning” and unquestioned assumptions, also known as “truths”. DeCuir-Gunby and Bindra [56] support that teachers’ biases can impact their perceived knowledge and interactions with students, as well as differentiation, and ultimately affect students’ learning outcomes and possibilities in the future. Teachers’ biases based on various values and attitudes can potentially expand or limit students’ access to professional, emotional, and social support.

Culture also appears to be a significant factor in legislation and research which informs teachers’ pedagogical practices towards gifted children. We have found similarities and differences between the school systems in Australia and Norway. Both countries have school systems that value egalitarianism which generates antipathy against elitism and gifted education [1,58]. Egalitarian school systems, out of fear of creating good conditions for elitism, tend not to recognise giftedness among children officially. Gross [10] points out that the notion that giftedness is a privilege might lead to suggestions that provision should not be made for gifted students due to the more pressing needs of other, visibly disadvantaged groups.

Mullen and Jung [1] studied Australian primary and secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students. They found that teachers’ perceived knowledge of giftedness is connected to whether they support gifted programs/provisions. Australian teachers who report having perceived knowledge of giftedness are more likely to support gifted programs, while a negative predictor results in perceptions that gifted programs are elitist. Additionally, Australian teachers in primary school may be more supportive of gifted programs than secondary school teachers.

The findings from Australian studies by Mullen and Jung [1] are perhaps relevant not only to the Norwegian context but also to the Scandinavian context due to similarities in values concerning egalitarianism. Several studies in Scandinavian countries have shown that schools prioritise inclusive education for students with disabilities over gifted students [3,58,59,60,61]. In Finland, Tirri and Kuusisto [61] show that there is a greater need to recognize the social and affective needs of gifted pupils. Nissen, Kyed, and Baltzer [62] have found in 2005 that in Denmark, official programs in gifted education do not exist, and that few schools pay special attention to gifted education or provide systematic provisions for gifted students. Denmark has, however, according to the Ministry of Education in Denmark [63], since 2011, launched talent development in the education system as an explicit policy objective. In Sweden, Persson [60] shows that teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students in primary and secondary schools in Sweden differ from those in Australia. According to Persson [60], primary school, in particular, has been a hostile environment for gifted students. However, conditions did improve somewhat as participants moved from primary to secondary school, and again from secondary to tertiary education. This finding contradicts what Mullen and Jung [1] have found in Australia, where primary schools seemed more supportive of gifted programs than secondary school teachers. One of the more disturbing findings by Persson [60] was that teachers at all levels of the education system in Sweden were found to have punished what he calls “gifted behaviour”. He reports that some teachers appeared to have felt threatened by the opposition and, in response, forced students into submission—gifted students in Sweden report low satisfaction at all levels of the education system.

In Norway, research on gifted education is limited, although some have conducted a few studies. A recent qualitative study by Lenvik et al. [14] indicates that the Norwegian education system does not meet the needs of gifted students at individual or systemic levels. Lenvik et al. notes that the study title reflects the informants’ experiences with education, which they believe is not adequately adapted to gifted students’ needs and abilities. The researchers conclude that teachers in Norway might have limited knowledge about giftedness and how to support gifted students.

Considering that teachers play a crucial role in identifying and supporting gifted students and that teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education can significantly affect the identification process and the type of education gifted students receive e.g., [1,9,28], it is essential to understand how teachers’ attitudes towards gifted children can impact their pedagogical practices. After presenting the methods used in the study, we will delve into the empirical findings that shed light on Norwegian teachers’ attitudes towards gifted children and gifted education.

6. Materials and Methods

The study is based on a digital survey online on Questback [64] that employs a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods [65,66]. The survey was distributed to primary and secondary school teachers in a small Norwegian municipality, in the outskirts of a larger city, with approximately 400 teachers from 17 schools being invited to participate. To ensure teachers’ anonymity, we had an agreement with the local municipality (school owners) to distribute the survey to the headmasters at all schools who then will distribute the survey to the teachers. The survey aimed to gather information about the teachers’ educational background, knowledge, perceptions, and pedagogical practices related to gifted education.

The survey is designed to include multiple-choice and Likert scale-based questions for quantitative data, as well as text-based questions for follow-up qualitative data [67,68]. The survey utilizes automated detection of quantitative responses and offers tailored follow-up questions to minimize non-response and encourage respondents to provide their own perspectives. This feature has proven to be effective in improving data quality by eliciting more-detailed and insightful answers to open-ended questions. Additionally, to enhance the depth of knowledge gathered, the survey invites respondents to participate in interviews for future research purposes. The survey included questions pertaining to teachers’ demographics, knowledge of policies and research, guidelines, and school practices.

Ethical considerations were taken concerning General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [69] and the study has a data management plan (DMP) [70] that is in line with guidelines with The Norwegian Centre for Research Data. The study was approved by NSD—Sikt [71].

The study achieved a response rate of approximately 14 percent (n = 56), which is relatively low and limits the generalizability of the findings. Of the respondents, around 40 percent work at secondary schools, 35.7 percent at lower secondary schools, and 25 percent at primary schools. Due to the limitations of the response rate, the quantitative data were used primarily to complement and support the qualitative data in the study. Despite the low response rate, the diversity of schools within the municipality reduces the influence of local cultural conditions on the data. Other limitations can be the replication of the study to other municipalities that are farther from larger cities and with less possibilities to access external gifted programs and talent centres [44]. To increase the response rate in future studies, we will discuss whether direct contact with several schools is more fruitful than distributing the survey through the municipality.

Given the limitations with the study’s low response rate, we have placed a greater emphasis on the analysis of qualitative data compared to quantitative data. In examining teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education, the qualitative data were analysed from a dialogical perspective, drawing on the work of Bakhtin and Holquist [72]. Bakhtin introduced the concept of polyphony to describe the interaction between different discourses. According to Bakhtin, utterances are not isolated expressions, but are part of a more extensive dialogue. Previous utterances impact subsequent utterances and can carry both explicit and implicit meanings. The context and individual interpretations contribute to hidden meanings, and the performance of utterances can influence our actions in practice. We as researchers believed teachers in general had limited knowledge on gifted education and that this topic is marginalized in teachers’ conversations. By employing a Bakhtinian perspective on dialogism, our aim was to actively listen to and gain a better understanding of the voices of teachers, encompassing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning gifted education. Applying the dialogical perspective to data analysis, we conducted an examination of the interactions, conversations, and discourses within the research context. We placed particular emphasis on identifying and analysing the diverse voices and perspectives present, observing how they engage in communication and whether they seem to contribute to the formation of collective understanding [72]. Our analysis involved identifying patterns, contradictions, power dynamics, and the negotiation of meanings within the data. By closely examining these aspects, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances of the research context and shed light on the social and interactive dimensions of communication and knowledge construction. During the analysis, we remained mindful of our voices within the polyphony of utterances and how they may have influenced the findings.

7. Results, Analysis, and Discussion

In our study, we identified the following three factors that can influence teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, their attitudes, and pedagogical practices regarding gifted education: research, legislation, and culture. In the subsequent sections, we will delve into various aspects that teachers in the study have commented on concerning giftedness and gifted education that we have categorized within these factors. We will then analyse teachers’ statements from a Bakhtinian [72] perspective and discuss their perceptions and the implications for their attitudes and pedagogical practices in the context of gifted education.

7.1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Theoretical Terms Concerning Gifted Students

The following section presents the respondents’ preferred labels for gifted students and discusses how their use of these terms may impact their attitudes towards gifted education and the identification and pedagogical practices employed. We presume that the definition of giftedness may be a significant indicator that strongly influences teachers’ attitudes and practices [11,30].

Teachers in our study have different academic backgrounds in the area of gifted education and various perceptions. When we asked the teachers whether they had received lectures about gifted students during their teacher training, approximately 80 percent responded negatively or were unsure. This finding suggests that the topic of gifted students has not been given sufficient priority in the study programs in which the participating teachers were enrolled. This observation aligns with the lack of emphasis on gifted students in the National Guidelines for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education 1–7 and 5–10 grades, where this specific student group is not mentioned [73,74].

When asked to select the most relevant terms that describe gifted children (multiple answers were allowed), teachers in the study provided the following responses: “Gifted children” (65.5 percent), “Children with higher learning potential” (63.6 percent), “Highly achieving students” (29 percent), “Good students” (12.7 percent), “Smart students” (9 percent), and “Children with academic talent” (5.5 percent). In the text-based responses to this question, some teachers mentioned children who excel at high levels or demonstrate high competency in specific subjects. “Gifted” has been the common term until the NOU 2016:14 report which introduced the term “higher learning potential”. Both terms seem to be preferred by teachers in the study.

The text-based results show also that teachers in the study have various perceptions of what giftedness entails, although they seem to prefer the term “gifted”. We argue that various perceptions might lead to different attitudes and pedagogical practices. The diversity of concepts found in the data aligns with findings from previous studies, which have shown a lack of consensus regarding the terminology used in reference to gifted students [4,5,6,16]. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, the conceptual diversity observed among the teachers in our study reflects a polyphony concerning their beliefs about gifted students, indicating a variety of perceptions. The presence of multiple voices and discourses surrounding the terms used may indicate variations in values and attitudes regarding giftedness and gifted education [30]. It is essential to acknowledge and further explore this polyphony to gain a deeper understanding of how this diversity can influence teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices concerning gifted education.

7.2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Legislation Concerning Gifted Education

The following section presents teachers utterances on legislation concerning gifted education. Most teachers in our study report that the Education Act obliges them to provide adapted and tailored instruction for gifted students as well as the rest of the students. Some teachers emphasize the importance of creating enthusiasm for learning and motivation for development. A few aim to ensure that gifted students receive appropriate challenges to enhance their competence level. These latter teachers advocate for individualized instruction, assigning tasks that match the gifted students’ abilities, and allowing them to reach higher goals.

When asked about what The Education Act obliges teachers to do for gifted students, a common response in the study is that every student in the Norwegian school system has the right to tailored education. This implies that teachers in our study recognize the importance of providing educational practices that are adapted to meet the individual needs of each student. This viewpoint aligns with the principles of inclusive education, as it emphasizes the equitable treatment of all students, regardless of their abilities or challenges [17]. The differences found in the responses in the current study revolve around how to cater to the needs of gifted students, and whether they have equal rights to students who struggle in different ways.

When asked about their familiarity with the NOU 2016:14 official report, More to gain. Better learning for students with higher learning potential [6], over 80 percent of the teachers responded negatively or were unsure. Only about 16 percent had heard of the report, and a mere 1.8 percent reported having read it. Regarding the impact of the report on teachers’ ability to adapt instruction for gifted students, 90 percent indicated they did not know, while 10 percent stated that there had been no change. In terms of the Education Act’s obligations for gifted students, teachers’ perspectives in the study varied widely. Some were uncertain about the specific requirements, while a few believed that there should be demands for specially tailored programs on an equal footing with students who struggle academically. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, the presence of conflicting views and voices regarding giftedness and gifted education in Norway reflects the existence of multiple discourses and perspectives within the education system. These conflicting views are a manifestation of polyphony, where different social groups, such as teachers, policymakers, and researchers, hold diverse understandings and opinions on the topics “giftedness” and “gifted education”. However, when only 1.8 percent of the teachers in our study have read the official NOU 2016:14 report [6] concerning gifted education, several years after its publication, it indicates that sources other than official policy have taken priority in informing teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices. This suggests that the report has not been widely disseminated or emphasized within the education system. Such a notion implies that in our study, teachers’ knowledge and understanding of gifted education may rely more heavily on alternative sources, such as personal experiences, informal discussions with colleagues, or professional development activities that may not align with the official policy recommendations and can be more subjected to cultural practices.

Only a few teachers in our study recognize that legislation obliges them to provide tailored education to gifted students on the same level as for other students, and they report striving to facilitate further learning and support within their time and resource constraints. Several of these teachers emphasize the need to adapt the instruction to meet the needs of all students, including the gifted ones, and promote inclusive education. Though, some teachers stress the need for more knowledge and resources for doing so as the respondent below:

Differentiated instruction is essential for every student, including those who are well above average among their peers. However, there is currently insufficient knowledge, tools, and resources available to effectively implement differentiated instruction specifically tailored to meet the needs of these exceptionally gifted students.

(Respondent No. 39) [our translation]

The utterance above on the concept of differentiated instruction for gifted students is in line with research that has shown that teachers in Norway do not possess the knowledge and resources necessary to cater for gifted student’s academic and social needs [4,6,13]. This teacher and others who gave similar statements demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing equitable opportunities for all students, regardless of their abilities. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, the utterance above reveals tensions and contradictions within the education system. This teachers’ recognition of the need for differentiated instruction reflects an acknowledgement of the diverse needs and abilities of students. The statement suggests a desire to create a learning environment that caters to individual differences and promotes the development of each student’s unique potential—also the gifted students. This aligns with Bakhtin’s [72] emphasis on dialogue and responsiveness to the individual. However, the statement also highlights the limitations and challenges faced in implementing differentiated instruction for gifted students in the Norwegian school system. The lack of knowledge, tools, and resources implies that there is a disconnect between the recognition of the gifted students’ needs and the practical means to successfully meet those needs. This gap creates a tension between the educational ideals and the realities of the system. From a Bakhtinian perspective, this can be a signal that the tension might be perceived as a conflict between competing voices and interests. On one hand, the utterance advocates for tailored and responsive education for gifted children, recognizing their unique abilities and the need for nurturing. On the other hand, there are constraints imposed by limited knowledge, resources, and systemic factors that hinder the realization of these ideals. When multiple interests collide, negotiations within the education system regarding priorities and resources often do not seem to prioritize the needs of gifted students.

Very few teachers in our study recognize that legislation obliges them to provide special education for gifted students. They believe that gifted students have unique educational requirements that should be addressed to ensure their full potential is realized. One respondent has specifically highlighted the importance of addressing the needs of gifted students alongside students with special needs by uttering the following:

Greater provision should be made for gifted children in school. Today, the main focus is probably on children with special needs (which, of course, should not be reduced). Gifted children can easily get bored and some have unwanted behaviour. [There should be] Mapping of gifted children, it does not occur today.

(Respondent No. 51) [our translation]

This statement is in line with The Council for Exceptional Children [49] that promotes establishing special provisions for gifted children in ordinary schools. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, the statement highlights the presence of conflicting discourses and priorities within the education system regarding the provision of resources and support for gifted children. By asserting that greater provisions should be made for gifted children, this respondent challenges other voices in the Norwegian education system that do not promote doing so. This perspective also points out that catering to gifted children’s needs can prevent boredom and potentially disruptive behaviours. It suggests that the current focus on children with special needs should not overshadow the importance of catering to the needs of gifted children as well. The statement also draws attention to the absence of a mapping or systematic identification process for gifted children in schools. This observation reveals a gap in current practices and implies that the education system may not adequately recognize and address the needs of gifted children. This absence of mapping can be seen as a silencing the voice and unique experiences of gifted children within the educational discourse. In addition, in this utterance we find the presence of conflicting views and voices regarding giftedness and gifted education in Norway.

Only one respondent in our study addresses the issue of identifying gifted students in order to tailor adapted education that is supportive for their needs. “After all, it depends on identifying children who are gifted” (respondent No. 46) [our translation]. Identifying gifted students is a crucial practice that can help facilitate their education socially and academically [7,61]. From a Bakhtinian perspective, this response indicates a plurality of voices and discourses surrounding the identification of gifted children. In this case, the teachers’ response reflects diverse perspectives and pedagogical practices on whether gifted students are identified or not. This teacher believes that identification can be a means to ensure that gifted students receive appropriate challenges and opportunities for growth. Gifted children who are not identified might also not receive an adequate education that is tailored for their needs.

This section has demonstrated that teachers may hold differing views on the extent to which the Education Act mandates them to provide adapted and tailored instruction for gifted students, as well as for other students. In the study, only a few teachers were familiar with the official NOU 2016:14 report. This suggests that teachers in the study may rely more on alternative sources, such as personal experiences, informal discussions with colleagues, or professional development activities that may not align with the official policy recommendations and may be influenced by cultural practices.

7.3. Teachers’ Cultural Perceptions of Gifted Education

The following section presents teachers’ utterances concerning gifted education that we have perceived as references to cultural practices. Researchers have found a strong relationship between attitudes and behaviour, which can be influenced by factors such as culture, beliefs, values, and context [54,55], and some of these factors are visible in our data.

When asked whether their schools have guidelines on how to adapt instruction for gifted children, over 60 percent of teachers in our study answered “I do not know,” 28 percent answered “No,” and 9 percent answered “Yes, it has.” In the text-based answers, teachers are requesting more guidelines, time, and knowledge from their school management on how to meet the academic needs of gifted students.

We have little focus on this! Management also has little focus on this area. Time is needed to map, plan, and collaborate across grades/schools. Time must be set aside for training staff. Currently, there is limited effort being made in this regard.

(Respondent No. 51) [our translation]

The statement above shows that teachers would like to have more focus in this area, but they need more time and knowledge concerning how to do so. This statement is in line with studies that show that teachers do not feel competent to cater for gifted children’s needs [4,6,13]. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, this utterance can be interpreted as a collective response produced by a representative of the teacher fellowship at this school. However, according to Bakhtin, no utterance occurs in a vacuum but rather in the context of a larger conversation or discourses. By using the word “we,” the teacher highlights that the teacher fellowship at their school does not emphasize gifted education. This “we” also provides legitimacy for this respondent’s pedagogical practice. Being part of a culture of pedagogical practices is easier to legitimatize current practice than standing alone. Furthermore, respondent No. 51 also expresses that management at this school does not prioritize gifted education. This utterance highlights that in the polyphony of voices in education, areas that school management prioritizes are more likely to be prioritized by the teachers. When management does not do so, teachers perceive this as a signal of policy and guidelines. This response can be interpreted as part of a larger conversation consisting of multiple voices or perspectives within discourses on gifted education. Although the speaker here is speaking on behalf of the rest of the teachers at this school, it is one voice of many contributing to the discourse on this topic.

To provoke responses that can signify which attitudes teachers in our study have towards gifted children, we asked our respondents to comment to the following statement: “Being gifted is a luxury problem” [Norwegian: luksusproblem] (The Norwegian term “luksusproblem” is a compound of the words “luxury” and “problem. According to the Norwegian Academic Dictionary, the term “luksusproblem” signalises an insignificance presented as a problem. The term can be used to describe a situation in which a problem may seem like a challenge or concern to someone. However, it may be perceived as less significant or privileged than larger or more serious problems. The phrase can be used ironically or critically to point out that a problem or concern may seem less important or less justified when viewed in the face of more pressing or serious societal problems. The term can also be used to reflect on privileges and perspectives in different situations. It is important to note that the term can be perceived as controversial or inappropriate, especially when used to downplay or dismiss other people’s problems or concerns.). The cultural term “Luksusproblem” in Norwegian signifies that someone is more lucky than unlucky—even privileged. By using this term, we have hoped to provoke responses that highlight teachers’ ethics concerning gifted children’s educational needs. We were pleased to note that most teachers in our study that responded to this statement did not agree with it, although several teachers did have this notion. Respondents answer this question by emphasising that giftedness can have both positive and negative consequences if the abilities of gifted students are not acknowledged and utilized. Some respondents highlight that being gifted is not necessarily a “luxury problem” but can lead to frustration if not addressed. Gifted students may be overlooked and prioritized last in the classroom, resulting in stagnation or loss of motivation for learning. However, there are differing opinions expressed regarding the challenges faced by gifted students, including social difficulties, lack of appropriate challenges, loss of interest, and stigmatization. The overall consensus is that being gifted is not a luxury and can present significant challenges in various aspects of a student’s school life. The following statement from a teacher in our study is critical to the notion that giftedness is perceived as a privilege might result in a practice that does not cater for gifted students’ needs:

This is a statement that can serve as a comfortable cushion for school staff [that they can use for not doing anything]. In any society, there is a need for individuals at all levels, and those who have the ability and opportunity to achieve great heights have an equal right to have their school day adapted to meet their needs, just like those who face other challenges.

(Respondent No. 50) [our translation]

The statement above aligns with research and policy that claim that children at all levels have the right to have an education that is tailored to their educational and social needs [4,6,20,34,49]. From a Bakhtinian [72] perspective, the statement above reflects a polyphony of voices and discourses. On one hand, it recognizes the significance of meeting the needs of gifted students and adapting their school day accordingly. At the same time, this perspective stresses that children with exceptional abilities have an equal right to have their educational experience tailored to their needs, just as those who face other challenges. Nonetheless, this statement also implies a critical voice against the schools and school system that can use such a notion that giftedness is a luxury as a “comfortable cushion” or an excuse for inaction by school staff. The statement stresses that the principle of equity should apply to all children. From a Bakhtinian perspective, we can see a tension between different voices who represent conflicting discourses and interests within the education system concerning gifted education.

A few teachers in our study concurred with the statement that giftedness is a privilege for gifted students, although several also commented that having such students in the classroom poses more challenges for teachers than for the students themselves. One teacher expressed the following viewpoint: “It might be considered a luxury, but not a problem” (Respondent No. 7) [our translation]. This latter notion aligns with egalitarian school systems that often perceive giftedness as a privilege, leading to suggestions that resources and support should not be allocated to gifted students due to the perceived priority of other, visibly disadvantaged groups [10]. From a Bakhtinian perspective, the statement reflects a conflicting voice to The Norwegian Education Act § 1–3 on adapted education that states the following: “Education must be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual pupil, apprentice, candidate for a certificate of practice, and training candidate” [17]. Some teachers appear to perceive giftedness as a privilege for gifted students, attributing it to their exceptional learning abilities. They view giftedness as something desirable and valuable, akin to a luxury. This perspective reflects a high regard for knowledge. However, the contrasting viewpoint of teachers that consider giftedness as a luxury highlights the consequences of limited research, legislation, and focus within teacher education in Norway in the field of gifted education. In the absence of proper guidance, teachers and schools may heavily rely on cultural factors, which can influence and shape teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices to a greater extent than they should.

8. Conclusions

This study shows that teachers play a crucial role in identifying and promoting gifted students’ academic and social development, and it is essential to understand their attitudes and beliefs that inform their practices. This underscores teachers’ critical role in identifying and promoting gifted students’ academic and social development. Competent teachers are more positive about facilitating adapted gifted education and integrating gifted students into social contexts to help them feel acknowledged and understood.

Furthermore, this study shows that research, legislation, and teacher education are undoubtedly crucial means of enforcing evidence-based practice in gifted education. Without these means to inform teachers, cultural factors may be given more weight in defining teacher practices. Additionally, when schools do not support gifted children, it creates a gap that others attempt to fill. As Tourón and Freeman [33] have found in their studies of gifted education in Europe, private associations and parents make efforts to fill this gap. In Norway, we have found the same. As a result, some gifted children will receive private support, while others will lack the means and network to access such resources. In this way, paradoxically, ideas of equity in the egalitarian Norwegian school system are working against less-privileged children, even though it is supposed to provide equal opportunities for all. In the future, it is essential to implement more provisions in Norwegian schools to ensure equal opportunities for all gifted children. This will help promote equity and ensure that every child has access to the appropriate resources and support. By recognizing and addressing the unique needs of gifted learners in Norway, schools can create an inclusive learning environment that promotes the development and success of all learners, regardless of their abilities.