Profoundly Gifted Students’ Perceptions of Virtual Classrooms

Defining Virtual Classrooms

An early definition of virtual classrooms (sometimes referred to as virtual learning environments [VLEs]) comes from Britain and Liber (1999), who described VLEs as “learning management software systems that synthesize the functionality of computer-mediated communications software and online methods of delivering course materials” (p. 3). Virtual classrooms usually feature noticeboards for announcements, course outlines, in-system e-mail service, conferencing tools, class lists or student homepages, assignments, assessments, multimedia resources, file upload areas, a calendar, and a navigable interface (Britain & Liber, 1999; Vai & Sosulski, 2016). Virtual classrooms largely rely on asynchronous technologies in order to accommodate students’ schedules and individualization of pace and content, although the length and pacing of the classes in general tend to coincide with the traditional school year (Vai & Sosulski, 2016). Virtual personas—roughly defined as imaginary people that users create to serve as surrogates in an online world (Avgerinou & Andersson, 2007)—are widely used online, and students who are steeped in online culture can learn how to navigate the web using a variety of pseudonyms, writing styles, and personality quirks.

The asynchronous nature of virtual classrooms is one of their biggest selling points: Advanced communications technology (including mobile devices, many of which support online learning platforms) allow for individualized, student-centered instruction that can happen on an “any time, any place” basis. Many virtual classrooms also take advantage of Web 2.0 (defined as highly interactive and collaborative) technologies, such as blogs, learner-generated content, wikis, podcasts, social networking, Skype, and Second Life. The components that make up virtual classrooms have improved considerably in the past decade due to the widespread availability of high-speed Internet access and support for video and audio interactivity (Wallace, 2009). Much like in brick-and-mortar classrooms, teachers in virtual settings must wear many hats. Their responsibilities involve facilitating asynchronous and synchronous instruction, leading discussions, assessing student performance, communicating with students via e-mail or telephone, and, in some instances, conducting regular tutoring sessions via synchronous media (Vai & Sosulski, 2016).

As technology-based distance education has become more prominent in K-12 schools, researchers, educators, and institutions have made efforts to differentiate between types of programs. Definitions for common terms used to describe programs have been offered by the annual Keeping Pace with K-12 Digital Learning (Evergreen Education Group, 2015) report and are summarized in Table 1. All these iterations of digital learning have been instrumental in bringing together diverse learners in a single online space, and have had a profound impact on the state of American education in general (Rice, 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Definitions for Technology-Based Education (Evergreen Education Group, 2015).

Blended learning	Blended learning offers a combination of online and brick-and-mortar education, where there is an element of student control concerning pacing, location, and time in the online portion. The teacher of record is located in a school building, and students spend a significant portion of the course interacting face-to-face with that teacher. Blended learning is often used interchangeably with hybrid learning, but online learning can also be thought of as a continuum, with students spending more time in brick-and-mortar schools when engaged in blended learning, and less time when engaged in hybrid learning.
Digital/online learning	Digital (or online) learning is an umbrella term that refers to any instructional practice that uses digital technology to connect teachers and students. Digital learning “encompasses a wide range of digital tools and practices, including instructional content, interactions, data and assessment systems, learning platforms, online courses, adaptive software, personal learning enabling technologies, and student data management systems” (p. 6).
Synchronous versus asynchronous learning	Synchronous learning refers to instruction or activities that require the instruction and multiple students to be present in a virtual classroom at the same time. These “live virtual sessions” often make use of video, audio, and text communication in an attempt to replicate a brick-and-mortar classroom experience. Asynchronous learning, meanwhile, refers to interactions between users—both instructors and students—that take place at disparate times. Discussion boards and wikis are examples of online tools that make use of asynchronous learning.
Hybrid course	While students may still experience face-to-face interactions with teachers and peers in hybrid courses, the majority of instruction and interaction happens online, often asynchronously. The online instructor remains the teacher of record, but the students may also spend face-to-face time with other teachers. As suggested with the definition of blended learning, online learning takes place in a continuum, with students spending more or less time in brick-and-mortar classrooms as needed.
Online course	An online course takes place primarily over the Internet, with both teachers and students accessing the course via an online delivery system such as a Learning Management System (LMS). While students may access the course either in or out of school buildings, there is almost always geographical distance between the teacher and the students.
Virtual/cyber school	Virtual (or cyber) schools are full-time online schools that employ an online delivery system or LMS in order to connect geographically separated students and teachers, both synchronously and asynchronously. Students do not attend a brick-and-mortar school, and nearly all instruction takes place online.

Online Learning, Technological Literacy, and Educational Standards

Even in this age of technological pervasiveness, there has been an ongoing debate about whether the use of technology improves student learning. A study by Eryilmaz (2015) found that undergraduates prefer hybrid and blended learning, but this study did not collect student grades, so it is difficult to know whether there is a causal link between the students’ preferences and their performance in class. However, Hew and Cheung (2013) conducted an analysis of studies examining the effectiveness of Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., blogs, wikis, social media, virtual environments) for K-12 learning, and purposefully eliminated studies that relied on self-reported data or student perception, focusing on research that tied technology use to student grade point averages, class grades, or other measurable signs of student success. The researchers found that evidence concerning the effectiveness of these technologies is weak, in that while there does seem to be a positive impact, there is no causal link between the use of these technologies and student gains. Hew and Cheung concluded that the way the technologies were used (via traditional activities such as Socratic questioning, peer review, and self-reflection) had more of an impact than the simple presence of the technology.

The 2012 Babson report (Allen and Seaman, 2012) suggested that the issues surrounding effectiveness of online learning for K-12 students are not yet resolved and that more research will be necessary to determine how virtual classrooms compare with their brick-and-mortar counterparts. However, research focusing on undergraduates in online learning environments might offer useful insights. A study of 791 undergraduates by Jovanovic et al. (2015) found that while teachers believed that students were meeting learning objectives more effectively via hybrid or blended learning, there was not a statistically significant difference in student achievement when compared with traditional classrooms. While these studies focused on higher education as opposed to K-12 education, the similarities between them highlight the notion that beliefs about virtual and hybrid classrooms do not necessarily align with evidence from research. Proponents have argued that students can gain significant learning benefits from audiovisual and computer media, but it is entirely possible that learning is influenced more by instructional strategies than by the technology used to deliver the content (Allen and Seaman, 2012; Ally, 2008; Hew & Cheung, 2013). Additionally, the rapid growth of virtual schools at the K-12 level has outpaced the production of reliable research on data-driven best practices, and the research that does exist largely neglects the perspectives of students enrolled in virtual classrooms (Black, DiPietro, Ferdig, & Polling, 2009; DiPietro, 2010). In a rare study of online learning for K-12 education, Kimmons (2015) examined the relationship between online learning system adoption and student outcomes for 732 schools, and found that the adoption of online learning systems did not affect student achievement at a significant level. Kimmons concluded that due to the weak effect size of any positive gains, the adoption of any given online learning system should not be used as a silver bullet for schoolwide improvement.

While the debate over the effectiveness of online learning is an issue for many educators, others, including literacy and communication specialists, have come to embrace the realities of virtual classrooms, and efforts have been made to understand how to help students communicate in online spaces. In a study of 34 undergraduate students, D. Yang, Olesova, and Richardson (2010) found that students’ online communication methods and participation behaviors are influenced heavily by their cultures. In a recent study, Riordan, Kreuzz, and Blair (2018) investigated the finer points of text-based communication and found that even something as simple as period usage can convey subtle messages online. Anderson (2011) found that incorporating humor into online classrooms can help teachers better connect with their students, and there have even been studies on the use of emoticons and sarcasm in online communication (Thompson, 2016; Walther & D’Addario, 2001), revealing that the ubiquitous online icons are helpful in conveying intention, but cannot supersede the context of the written message. In a study of 19 graduate students, Jeong (2004) found that both the wait between asynchronous responses and the tenor of the exchanges (e.g., argumentative vs. informative) affected student engagement on discussion boards. Similarly, Y.-T. C. Yang, Newby, and Bill (2008) observed that teachers not only must facilitate critical thinking on online discussion boards but also must contend with students’ attitudes toward online learning in general, suggesting that online educators have a variety of unique concerns when it comes to student engagement. The prevalence of studies that focus on communicating in online spaces makes the case that online educators should integrate pedagogy concerning technological literacy into their curricula.

It should not be surprising that technological literacy has made its way into the Common Core State Standards. The standards not only require students to “employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening and language use,” but they should also be able to “tailor their searches online to acquire useful information efficiently” and “integrate what they learn using technology with what they learn offline” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, p. 7). Gifted education has its own unique set of standards authored by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), complete with provisions for technological literacy. Given the unique educational needs of gifted students, standards that address the implementation of technology should focus largely on the individualization and differentiation of typical curricular materials (Shaunessy, 2007). Earlier iterations of the NAGC standards made limited references to technology (Landrum, Callahan, & Shaklee, 2001), but the latest edition, published in 2010, seems to acknowledge the importance of technology as a tool for differentiation (NAGC, 2010). Of the six major standards, three of them—Standards 3, 4, and 5—discuss the strategic use of technology. While some of these standards suffer from the same technocentric pitfalls of the CCSSs (standard 3.1.7, e.g., merely requires that “Educators use information and technologies . . . to individualize for students with gifts and talents”), others work to incorporate technology into other curricular goals. For instance, the introduction to Standard 4, which focuses on learning environments, states that effective teachers of the gifted “use relevant strategies and technologies to enhance oral, written, and artistic communication of learners whose needs vary based on exceptionality, language proficiency, and cultural and linguistic differences” (NAGC, 2010, p. 6). The subsection of this standard requires that “educators ensure access to advanced communication tools” and work to “increase access to high level programming such as distance learning courses” (NAGC, 2010, p. 7). In both these examples, technology is used to facilitate learning outcomes related to communication; the technology is merely a tool or a method rather than the outcome in and of itself. Much like with the CCSSs, the integration of technology into the NAGC standards suggests that the use of various technological tools and platforms is a way of life in gifted education, and as such, need to be embraced by educators.

Online Learning and Gifted Students

While educational technology may be an attractive learning tool for students of all cognitive capacities, virtual classrooms are uniquely situated to serve the needs of gifted students in particular. This is due not only to the ease with which students can engage with their intellectual peers but also because academic strengths that are often associated with giftedness are also characteristics that facilitate success in online learning environments. However, there are potential limitations and barriers that gifted students and their families should consider before enrolling in fully online classes.

Assessing Online Programs for the Gifted

The existence and success of programs such as Stanford’s Educational Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) and Johns Hopkins’s CTY Online—both of which offer fully virtual programs designed specifically for gifted students—suggest that online education is indeed a viable option for gifted learners looking for enrichment, acceleration, or a completely new educational environment. However, there has been little research done on the use and effectiveness of distance learning for gifted students (Ng & Nicholas, 2010; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2010; Weber & Smith, 2010). Indeed, even determining what is meant by “effectiveness” in terms of program assessment is not necessarily clear. One of the most thorough and useful appraisals of online learning for gifted students is Wallace’s (2009) quantitative study of 690 gifted students enrolled in CTY programs. Wallace (2009) concluded that online learning is “effective” because it is “well suited to provide appropriate and individualized levels of challenge to each student without grouping high-ability students separately or busing them to schools serving higher grades” (p. 313). Yet Wallace herself pointed out that many questions regarding individualization, challenge, and readiness for online environments still linger, and suggested that qualitative research would be useful in helping educators understand how gifted students function in their virtual classrooms and how they (and their teachers) perceive their experiences. Weber and Smith (2010) concurred, saying that since online distance programs vary so greatly, quantitative findings cannot be generalized. What is apparent is that some method of assessment is necessary if educators, students, and parents are to work together to determine whether an online distance learning program is worth a student’s time and effort.

The key to discovering the strengths and potentials of online learning programs is to determine where “best practices of gifted education and online learning converge” (Sanderson & Greenberger, 2010, p. 44) and then measure the quality of that convergence. Qualitative research conducted by DiPietro (2010) examined the relationship between K-12 instructors’ beliefs, goals, and practices in virtual education and found that teachers valued creating connections with students, maintaining flexible practices that translate well into the online setting, engaging students with the content, managing the course, and supporting student success. Similar research on best practices for online learning emphasized teacher flexibility, clear communication, relationship building, engaging with the content, managing the course, providing timely feedback, and providing opportunities for personalized and authentic learning (Correy, Ianacone, & Stella, 2014; DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008; Kerr, 2011). Teachers working with gifted students online can take these best practices and then compare them against the standards for both online courses and online teaching practices offered by the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL, 2011a, 2011b). These standards are regularly used for the purpose of developing online learning platforms and accrediting online courses, but they also could easily be used by educators and parents interested in evaluating courses that are specifically built for gifted students. Similarly, the National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (iNACOL, 2011b) can be used to assess the practices and performance of individual teachers of online courses. Using both sets of standards from iNACOL, in combination with an awareness of NAGC standards and program components from leaders in the field of gifted education, could provide a solid framework for educators and parents looking to evaluate the effectiveness of an online program.

Participants

The five participants in this case study were 11- and 12-year-old boys. All participants for this study were enrolled part-time in an introductory writing course offered by a public school for profoundly gifted students, meaning only a portion of their academic education took place virtually. This school, which has both brick-and-mortar and online offerings, is located on the campus of a major university. The school has strict entrance requirements, and students must submit scores from at least one standardized measure of intelligence and achievement to be considered for an additional, in-house assessment. Scores for the Stanford-Binet V, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Fourth or Fifth Edition), and Differential Abilities Scale must be in the 99.9th percentile. Combined scores for the SAT and ACT vary by age, but must not be below 1,300 and 24, respectively for even the youngest applicants. Students in the sixth grade and below may submit scores on either the Explore test (a composite score of 23 is required) or the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement (where a score of at least 145 is needed). Since each of the participants were accepted to this school, it can be assumed that they meet these criteria for the label “profoundly gifted.” However, it was determined by the teaching staff that each of these students needed additional instruction in writing before they could begin the school’s English curriculum, hence, their enrollment in either the fully virtual or hybrid course.

The enrollment for this course was nine students, which gave a natural and inclusive way to delimit the boundaries of the case. Of the nine students, only three were enrolled in the fully virtual iteration of the course; the remaining six students participated in the hybrid course. The three students enrolled in the fully virtual course met once per week in a virtual classroom hosted by Blackboard Collaborate, and kept in contact with their instructor and each other via asynchronous tools throughout the week. The six students in the hybrid course had classroom time with the instructor in the brick-and-mortar school twice per week but most of the instruction took place online. Classroom time was devoted to working on assignments, clarifying concepts, or working one-on-one with the instructor. They also interacted with their fully virtual counterparts through the discussion board, wikis, and other asynchronous tools. All the students in the course were contacted via e-mail and were invited to participate in the case study. Of the nine invited, five agreed to participate.

Martyn

Martyn, the final participant, joined Forrest and Dominic in the hybrid writing class. Martyn is an 11-year-old seventh grader, and has been enrolled in the brick-and-mortar school since the 2013-2014 academic year. Much like his fellow hybrid participants, Martyn was taking the online writing course in order to strengthen his English skills before moving on to more challenging curriculum. Before his enrollment, Martyn lived in a small neighboring town, where he attended a public elementary school that had no gifted offerings. Of all the participants, Martyn had the most online learning experience prior to this writing course. Martyn has completed the critical reading and writing course through Guinevere’s Gifted Group (G3), the popular math program Art of Problem Solving (AOPS), and a variety of programs through Khan Academy.

Both Aamir and Jax had access to personal or family computers (both worked in office areas that were open to other family members), along with Internet connects fast enough to handle the requirements of Blackboard Collaborate, where they met with the instructor for their weekly synchronous meetings. All the hybrid participants had access to computers, both at home and in the brick-and-mortar school. These students were given time during the school day to work on Blackboard, where they interacted with their fully virtual counterparts. None of the participants, whether fully virtual and hybrid, expressed discomfort or confusion regarding the use of the technology available to them. All pertinent information on the participants is gathered below in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Information for Participants.

Name	Age (years)/Grade	Hybrid/fully virtual	Years in program	Previous experience with online learning?	Average grade
Aamir	12/6th	Fully Virtual	1	Yes	1.03
Jax	12/6th	Fully Virtual	1	Yes	0.98
Forrest	11/7th	Hybrid	1	No	0.82
Dominic	12/6th	Hybrid	1	No	0.78
Martyn	11/7th	Hybrid	2	Yes	0.84

Course Description

While this course was “remedial” in relation to the other writing courses offered at the school, it focused on skills that the students currently did not have, suggesting that it provided them with an appropriate level of challenge. Objectives for this course included understanding rhetorical elements and situations; recognizing the conventions of writing; engaging with texts via close reading techniques; developing strong, logical arguments about texts; and revising based on peer and instructor feedback. Each week, the instructor introduced the students to a different skill, writing genre, or theme. While the students could decide on the pacing of assignments to a certain degree within each weekly module, the instructor controlled the pace of the class as a whole, and many assignments also had set deadlines. Students were asked to complete weekly individual writing tasks, participate on discussion boards, or complete journals that could be shared with others. The culminating assignment of the course was a magazine that served as a portfolio of the students’ best work. In total, each student completed 89 assignments for this course. Emphasis in this class was placed on process over product, and students were allowed to revise all their work based on the recommendations of their instructor. Grades on individual assignments received either “needs revision,” “acceptable,” or “exceptional” designations, along with detailed feedback from the instructor. These designations were quantified as 0, 1, or 2 in the gradebook, and the instructor had the option of assigning half scores, such as 0.50 or 1.5. Final grades for the course were either “pass” or “fail,” with all the participants in this study passing. The participants’ average scores are included in Table 2. The participants reported that prior to enrollment at this school, they had not received much training on analytical writing, and this course was designed to bolster not only their technical writing skills but also their critical and creative thinking skills in preparation for the rest of the school’s humanities curriculum.

Researcher as Instrument

The researcher was a teacher at the school in question over the duration of the study, meaning that she had a vested interest in understanding how these students perceive the school’s new online environment. While the participants were never under the researcher’s direct instruction, there are potential power issues that come with studying one’s own student population. The students might reasonably have viewed the researcher as an authority figure, making it vital to avoid any sense of coercion during participants for this study. As such, the students and their parents were reminded at every step in the study that information was to be given voluntarily, and that their decision concerning whether or not to participate had no bearing on their status at their school. Additionally, the collection and analysis of the data required bracketing, or a deliberate suspension of judgment, on the part of the researcher, allowing her to explore all possible interpretations of the phenomenon. This involved setting aside her research-based, anecdotal, and practical understanding of how gifted students learn to hear what the participants thought about their experiences in their virtual classroom. In an attempt to further remove any bias, the anonymized data and the researcher’s analyses were reviewed by a nonpartial panel of researchers.

Data Collection

Since case studies require researchers to draw evidence from multiple sources, the flexibility of the virtual classroom was used to collect data in three different ways, listed here chronologically: (1) through an asynchronous focus group hosted on a Blackboard (LMS) discussion board, (2) by observing each of the participants at least twice in their weekly synchronous classes, and (3) through individual 45- to 60-minute interviews with each participant conducted either on Blackboard Collaborate or, in the case of the students who physically attend the school, in person.

Data Analysis

The collected data were transcribed, coded, and then compared. At every step, the data were shared with a committee of researchers interested in the project; this sharing and subsequent discussion about the codes allowed for an increased level of interrater reliability. The constant-comparative method, which asks the researcher to compare the codes across data points, was used for analysis. This method allowed the researcher to discover whether the themes that arose in one place in the data actually existed in the others. First, the data were analyzed for open, or general, codes that described each participant’s experiences. The open coding involved categorizing the data by examining each discrete piece of information and determining what they represent. For example, the students were asked what kind of academic support they received in the online writing course. Each example cited by the students became an open code because it described a distinct event. Next, open codes were compared across participants to form axial codes that described more general categories, concepts, or themes. The axial codes that emerged included communication; comparisons with brick-and-mortar classrooms, social issues, and online personas; distractions; pacing and self-directed learning; synchronous meetings; dealing with technology; and personal feelings about online learning. The final level of coding, selective coding, narrowed the axial codes down into larger categories from which theories and explanations began to emerge. The quantitative counts for each selective code for each participant are described in Table 3. The counts for each theme represent the individual participant’s discussion of that theme, which might be several sentences long; these counts sometimes overlapped with other themes within the same code.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Quantitative Counts of Themes Within Each Selective Code, Separated by Participant.

Codes and themes	Aamir	Jax	Forrest	Dominic	Martyn
Code 1: Participants’ experiences interacting with other users
The use of synchronous meetings and discussion boards	14	13	12	6	9
Problems with writing as a medium	6	8	7	8	11
Communicating with the instructor	8	7	5	7	13
The social aspects of online learning	8	9	11	11	14
Code 2: Participants’ experiences with technology
Availability and mobility	8	6	3	7	6
Distractions	3	8	7	3	11
The use of tools and applications	4	6	4	4	5
Code 3: Participants’ experiences with course content
Direct comparisons between online and brick-and-mortar content	11	11	8	13	11
Pacing in classwork and homework	12	5	4	7	9
Perceived quality, helpfulness, and rigor of the course content	10	6	9	11	10

Participants’ Experiences Interacting With Other Users

Of the three categories, the participants had the most to say about their interactions with other users enrolled in the course. These interactions were largely mediated by the instructor, who set up discussion boards, wikis, and other asynchronous tools that allowed the students to connect with each other. Housed within this category were a number of subcategories, including the use of the synchronous meeting rooms and discussion boards, the problems with writing as a medium, the participants’ interactions with the instructor, and the social aspects of online learning. Scattered through these subcategories were each of the students’ comparisons between their interactions in virtual classrooms and those in brick-and-mortar classrooms.

Participants’ Experiences With Technology

This category presents the way the participants experienced the technology on the course. As with the first category, there were several subcategories, including availability and mobility, the presence of distractions when online, the use of various technological and virtual tools and applications, and technical difficulties. In this category, the participants regularly compared experiences learning via technology with their educational experiences in brick-and-mortar classrooms.

Participants’ Experiences With Course Content

The final category explores the students’ experiences with the content as delivered not only on the Blackboard course site but also via the instructor during the synchronous Collaborate meetings. This category is distinct from the previous two, as it deals not with interpersonal communication nor with the technology itself, but with the participants’ interactions with the actual learning materials. As with the previous categories, several subcategories were apparent, including direct comparisons between content as delivered on online and brick-and-mortar courses, pacing with classwork and homework, and the perceived quality, helpfulness, and rigor of the course content.

The Importance of Personalized Interactions in Virtual Classrooms

The participants’ desire for social interactions with their peers is among the most important findings of this study. While the participants did not directly state that they would rather work in intellectually homogeneous groups, the argument could be made that their desire for more interaction and socialization in their online learning environments, combined with the fact that they sought out this school for profoundly gifted students, suggests that they are indeed interested in working with other gifted students. The fact that all the participants expressed a preference for this type of interactive group as opposed to the self-directed but decidedly lonely experience of programs such as Khan Academy helps dispel the myths that gifted children either “do fine on their own,” or prefer working autonomously. The fact that participants are profoundly gifted students, thus, more likely to differ from their peers in preferences and interests (Gross, 2004; von Károlyi & Winner, 2005), makes it even more interesting that they expressed a preference for each other’s company.

The participants’ enjoyment of online classes in general seemed to hinge on their perceptions of the social environment. It is noteworthy that the number one recommendation all the participants had for improving online learning was offering more opportunities for socializing via an expanded use of the LMS’s social tools. In fact, the social atmosphere seemed to be the deciding factor of whether these students would enroll in online classes in the future. This suggests that educators should carefully consider how to infuse their online courses with more social interactions, or make the social interactions that already exist more fulfilling. While it could be easy to dismiss adolescent’s pleas for more socialization, for profoundly gifted students developing healthy peer relationships is a legitimate concern. The research on socialization for profoundly gifted students as described in the literature suggests not only that peer groups for these students are difficult to find (Dauber & Benbow, 1990; Hollingworth, 1942) but also that students are more socially satisfied once they are placed with their intellectual peers (Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Delcourt & Evans, 1994; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Shields, 2002). For students in this study, most of whom had just found a peer group with which they are comfortable, any perception of a reduction in social time must be supremely frustrating. As Martyn sadly put it, “It feels like you’re in a non-gifted program again.”

It is possible that the participants’ perceived lack of social interactions came from the fact that most of their communication took place via writing, either on the discussion boards or in e-mail. In traditional teaching environments, teachers and students communicate instantly, not only through verbal exchanges but also through facial expressions and body language (Avgerinou & Andersson, 2007, p. 353). However, despite synchronous teaching tools such as Collaborate, most of the communication in virtual classrooms likely will take place asynchronously, if only because students and teachers are usually logging on at disparate times of day. While there is a general concern about online learning leading to isolation, the careful construction of virtual personas, combined with a critical class discussion about this act of creation, could work to alleviate this worry. For gifted students who are often unjustly accused of not having adequate social skills, this mindful formulation of a representative self could serve a double purpose: Not only would gifted students be encouraged to engage in self-discovery but also the asynchronous nature of most virtual classrooms would give them time to digest and reflect on their peers’ contributions before crafting responses that likewise would be projected through their chosen persona (Ng & Nicholas, 2007). The use of these personas requires that gifted students embrace interpersonal skills which can then be extrapolated and extended beyond the virtual classroom. Rather than further isolate gifted students, who often do not feel at home in the physical classroom anyway due to asynchronous emotional and social development, the thoughtful and critical use of personas in the virtual classroom might actually help bring students closer to their gifted peers.

The effective use of humor, however, seemed to be a challenge for the participants, resulting in discomfort and misunderstanding. It is possible that comments that would have been easily perceived as light hearted and jovial in a brick-and-mortar classroom simply do not translate well into written media. David (2004) argued that humor can be a useful tool in online classes, but it requires “considerable time and forethought” (p. 93). In the case of the Collaborate meetings, the humor was rapid-fire and reactionary, which may have resulted in some of the hurt feelings described during the interviews. Most of the research done on humor in online classes has focused on the instructor’s use of humor (Anderson, 2011; David, 2004), giving educators little guidance in how to prepare their students to appropriately joke with their peers. One possibility used by the participants was to pepper humorous interactions with both qualifiers and emoticons. Unfortunately, a study of the effectiveness of emoticons suggest that “their actual communicative effects are minimal in the context of the language cues they may accompany” (Walther & D’Addario, 2001). A more useful suggestion for educators would be to give students explicit instruction and feedback on how to interact with each other, including modeling their expectations in both synchronous and asynchronous environments.

The blend of synchronous and asynchronous connection offered by this course via technology seemed to work for the participants, who did not expect an exact replica of the brick-and-mortar experience. The discussion boards, one of the main tools for asynchronous communication, were popular with all the participants, which speaks to their potential as a tool for critical and creative thinking. While there has been very little research on the use of discussion boards in K-12 education, studies of graduate and undergraduate students suggest that this environment holds a great deal of potential to promote critical thinking skills (Jeong, 2004; Y.-T. C. Yang et al., 2008). The most common benefit of discussion boards cited by the participants, the ability to take the time to craft a thoughtful response, is also the characteristic believed to promote engagement and critical thinking (Jeong, 2004; Y.-T. C. Yang et al., 2008). Even though the participants found it frustrating to have to wait for a response to their discussion board postings, research suggests that thoughtful topics and the use of a debate-style organization on discussion boards are capable of alleviating the negative effects of long wait times (Jeong, 2004). Additionally, informing students that the discussion boards should be seen a as a springboard to large writing assignments might help foster engagement and critical thinking.

While social interactions were paramount for the participants, all the students also voiced a preference for an instructor-led learning environment over the more autonomous environment of online learning systems. The literature supports the students’ preferences, with researchers arguing that the importance of a communicative and “present” teacher in virtual classrooms cannot be understated (Ng & Nicholas, 2007; Wallace, 2009). More than anything else, an active, thoroughly engaged teacher in a virtual classroom serves as the motivating force for students to engage with both the class materials and their virtual classmates, especially for young students who have not developed the emotional maturity to work independently in a physically isolating environment (Ng & Nicholas, 2007). In this way, teachers become more than faceless online proctors of digitized databases; they are real people who are invested in the success of their students. Observations of the Collaborate meetings illustrated how hard the instructor worked to create an interactive, welcoming online environment for her students. This effort on the instructor’s part went a long way toward swaying the participants’ perceptions of the course. Indeed, many of the participants in this study acknowledged that the presence and personality of the instructor was a defining, positive feature of the course. The literature suggests that the participants’ admiration for the instructor’s efforts was well founded: Along with normal pedagogical duties, teachers working online must be aware of their presence in the virtual space, mindful of special considerations for their gifted students, and technologically proficient enough to engage in systematic troubleshooting (Ng & Nicholas, 2007, 2010). The lessons educators should learn from these observations are twofold: First, the presence of the instructor is invaluable for fostering engagement in the virtual classroom; and second, teaching online is a difficult undertaking, especially when the students are both young and profoundly gifted.

Using Technology to Enhance Advanced Pedagogy

The use of educational technology has proven effective in addressing the needs and characteristics of gifted learners and has the potential to enhance the curriculum, providing challenge that is not possible on regular basis in general education (Shaunessy, 2007; Wallace, 2009). Despite minor issues during the Collaborate meetings, the participants in this study seemed to be satisfied with the accessibility, organization, and functioning of the Blackboard LMS. While Blackboard is not the only option for educators interested in working online, most of the major LMSs have similar features and functions. The point is that educators should choose platforms that make it easier for students to interact with the technology and each other. While the instructor was not responsible for choosing the LMS, she worked hard to make it as navigable and user friendly as possible.

Understanding the realities of online learning includes coming to terms with the limits of educational technology, both pedagogical and technical. Even with well-constructed technology, bugs and breakdowns are not uncommon, and software usability issues can severely hinder the effectiveness of otherwise sound curricula (Wallace, 2009). Unsuccessful online courses usually do not have technology to blame, however. Unsound pedagogical technique or the ineffective transfer of “real-world” curricula into a virtual space tend to be the most damaging flaws. While particular technological attributes can enhance the educational experience for learners, the bottom line is that promotion of higher level thinking relies on instructional strategies, not technology (Ally, 2008). In the case of gifted education, technology should help provide appropriate challenge, give students multiple avenues for explorations, and allow users to engage in higher level thinking activities with their intellectual peers (Shaunessy, 2007). The computer is merely the vehicle for this instruction, suggesting that while technological choice is important, educators should spend most of their planning time deciding how to best challenge their gifted students in virtual environments.

The benefits of availability and mobility offered by technology were among those most often mentioned by the fully virtual participants. While gifted students are renowned for their task commitment (Renzulli, 2012), they also are prone to suffering from perfectionism stemming from undue pressure and a lack of balance in their lives. Interestingly, Jax and Aamir—who had the most freedom and flexibility when it came to their learning schedules—received the highest averages on their assignments, with scores significantly higher than those of their hybrid counterparts (see Table 2 for a comparison of these scores). It could be that their scores positively affected their perceptions of course, since they were also the most in favor of online learning. Another possibility is that their position as fully virtual students allowed them to make better use of both their time and the resources of the LMS, thus, resulting in higher average scores. Regardless, the experiences of Jax and Aamir suggest that online learning has the potential to offer gifted students a more balanced, less structured educational experience without sacrificing educational quality.

The freedom experienced by Aamir and Jax likely stemmed from the organization and accessibility of the course materials on the Blackboard site. Indeed, the organization of materials is often touted as the most important factor for instructors to consider when designing online classes (Hew & Cheung, 2013; Vai & Sosulski, 2016). In the present study, all the participants, even those who would not choose to take online classes in the future, appreciated the easy availability of course materials. The instructor’s weekly instructions walked students through all the elements of the course, and she regularly posted clarifying details in the announcements. Instructors who are concerned about potential issues with navigation can alleviate these problems by providing direct instruction regarding the layout of the course early in the school year (Hew & Cheung, 2013; Vai & Sosulski, 2016).

Another major issue that the participants mentioned regularly throughout the study was the possibility of distractions. The participants’ concern about online distractions seemed to be dependent on whether they were enrolled in the hybrid or fully virtual class: Students in the hybrid iteration saw them as a major challenge, whereas students in the fully virtual course found them to be completely manageable. Like with all learning activities, task management is a skill that varies from person to person, and Jax and Aamir may have been successful in managing distractions online simply because this is a skill they had already acquired in brick-and-mortar classes. However, participants’ giftedness might be a double-edged sword when it comes to avoiding distractions. On one hand, gifted students often display high levels of task commitment (Renzulli, 2012), which should help keep them focused on the task in front of them. On the other hand, gifted students’ preference for a steady stream of new and challenging materials (Rogers, 2007) might be enough to draw even the most diligent student into the highly stimulating world of the Internet. Age might be a factor as well, with older students being more capable of self-regulation.

While it is tempting to argue that the students enrolled in the hybrid version of the class simply need to bolster their self-regulation, research suggests that developing self-efficacy and self-regulation in an online learning environment is notoriously difficult (Terry, 2008; Winter et al., 2010). The participants in this study seemed to confirm Terry’s (2008) findings, as their perceptions about their ability to manage their time and avoid distractions did not match up with reality: Although Jax claimed that distractions were not an issue, he continually doodled robots and dinosaurs on the virtual whiteboard provided by Collaborate during the interview, and was highly distractible during the Collaborate meetings, to the point where the instructor had to limit access to the chat box. However, it could be argued that in this case, perhaps students’ perceptions are just as meaningful as reality: Jax did not report feeling distracted, and while observations seemed to reveal a bevy of distractions, he was nonetheless a highly engaged and successful member of the fully virtual course, receiving the second highest average score in the class. This apparent inconsistency is not all that surprising, as gifted students regularly doodle as a way to cope with their overexcitabilities in brick-and-mortar classes (Peine & Coleman, 2010). Forrest, on the other hand, perceived the distractions to be a real problem, and was thus willing to use interactions with his parents as a tool to keep him on track. Interestingly, he received the second lowest average score in the class, and although this study did not reveal a correlation between distractedness and student success, it is possible that Forrest’s perceptions of distractedness had a negative effect.

Addressing Intellectual Needs in a Virtual Classroom

While the participants voiced concerns over the differences in social atmosphere between virtual and brick-and-mortar classes, they did not appear to have any concerns when it came to content delivery. Aamir noted that the instructor was able to “preserve the overall meaning [italics added] of a classroom,” which suggests that the objectives of an online class can and perhaps should mirror the objectives of a brick-and-mortar class. However, online classes should not attempt to become proxies for brick-and-mortar classes, as insisting that they are the same detracts from the benefits of online learning. Instead, students should engage in critical discussions about the differences between these two learning environments, as being aware might entice them to consider the benefits of prolonged writing and thinking time, a more flexible and balanced schedule, and immediate access to both course content and the vastness of the Internet. This type of awareness not only plays to gifted students’ ability to engage in and appreciation for metacognition, but it encourages them to become active agents in their own learning in that they often can make educational choices in an online environment.

The most interesting result in this category dealt with the participants’ experiences with flexible scheduling and self-directed learning. As noted in the results, all the participants were satisfied with the blend of self- and teacher-directed learning, but the potential of self-directed learning for gifted students working online is especially intriguing. For the participants in this study, self-directed learning was often the rule as opposed to the exception, especially before their entrance into the gifted program featured in the study. The fact that they were able to retain the benefits of self-directed learning—including making educational choices, working at a pace appropriate for their abilities, and having access to a wide range of interesting materials—while simultaneously benefitting from the guidance of a teacher seemed to have affected their perceptions of this course in almost exclusively positive ways. Treffinger’s (1975) self-directed learning model could be applied more intentionally to future iterations of this course, as it could take advantage of the participants’ preference for individualized pacing while giving them the scaffolding and modeling they need from a highly engaged instructor.

One of the biggest challenges in gifted education is ensuring that the students are being exposed to appropriately challenging and flexibly paced content. All the participants expressed satisfaction with the content and its delivery, but Aamir probably said it best when he indicated that the pace, delivery, and appropriateness of the content are more important than the environment. Aamir’s sentiment summarizes what researchers have long said about gifted learners: They will be successful if they are in a supportive environment, surrounded by like-minded peers, and working at an appropriately challenging level (Gross, 2004; Renzulli, 2012; VanTassel-Baska, 2005). If these needs are being met, the physical location of the learning environment is a minor concern. In the participants’ opinions, the course achieved its stated goal of helping the students to become better writers, and their perceptions of their experiences were largely positive. Additionally, the students were quick to give their instructor credit for her efforts to create an effective course, suggesting that her work was noticeable and appreciated. Gifted students’ self- and environmental perceptions play an important role in their achievement motivation, and students who view their environments as friendly, encouraging, and appropriate for their abilities are more likely to exhibit achievement-oriented behaviors. In other words, the students’ perceptions of quality, rigor, and helpfulness are just as important as the reality of the situation. The findings from this study suggest that even if students have concerns about the social atmosphere of a virtual classroom, positive perceptions of the course content can still make the class a success in the eyes of the students.

Limitations

One limitation of this study involves the degree to which each participant’s coursework is completed online. While the original intent was to complete the study with students who were working solely online, the writing course offered by the school changed since the inception of the study, giving students both hybrid and fully virtual options. Only two of the five students, Aamir and Jax, were working remotely and fully online, whereas Forrest, Dominic, and Martyn engaged in a hybrid version of the course. While disparity could be seen as a limitation, these differences afforded the researcher the opportunity to compare and contrast the experiences of students in both hybrid and fully virtual classes, a possibility that had not been considered at the onset of the study. In the case of this particular course, the most notable difference was the way in which the students interacted with the instructor, and for the purposes of this study, examining that difference yielded results with interesting implications. This compare and contrast could have been even stronger had the instructor been able to meet with the students from both the hybrid and virtual classes together in the virtual classroom. However, the schedules of the students in the hybrid course did not allow for this additional meeting, meaning that the only time the two groups of students were able to “meet” was on the asynchronous discussion board. This was an unfortunate limitation both of the study and of the class itself, as doubtless the students would have benefitted from more interactions with each other.

Other limitations of this research include limitations of case studies in general: Large amounts of data make findings difficult to summarize; the findings are not generalizable in the traditional sense; the researcher serves as the major instrument for the study; and the sample size is small and sometimes atypical. The participants in this study could also be considered a convenience sample, since they were easily accessible to the researcher. However, this group of participants is relatively unique, as there are very few online programs designed specifically for profoundly gifted students. While case studies are sometimes decried as not being generalizable, Yin (2014) offers a reasonable response: The goal of a case study is to “expand and generalize theories (analytic generalizations) and not to extrapolate probabilities (statistical generalizations)” (p. 21). The results of this case study are generalizable to myriad theories, including those concerning gifted characteristics, elements of successful online learning design, and the ability to socialize in virtual classrooms. A better understanding of these theories could in turn affect curricular decisions and interventions aimed at helping gifted students, thus, making this case if not generalizable, at least valuable to the educational community at large.

Recommendations and Suggestions for Further Research

This case study opens up many possibilities for researchers interested in understanding profoundly gifted students’ experiences in virtual classrooms. The fact that the participants in this study were categorized as profoundly gifted offers a wide range of prospects for expanding upon these findings. Future research might include examining the perceptions of these students in a variety of online environments, conducting action research using various virtual learning tools or models, or observing more closely how the characteristics of profoundly gifted students manifest online. Additionally, the participants noted that gifted students might be better equipped at handling the challenges of online learning, and a comparison between the general student population and gifted students could reveal whether this hypothesis is true.

Researchers interested in gifted students’ perceptions of the social atmosphere in online learning could study the effects of introducing more opportunities for socializing in virtual classrooms. The lack of socialization was the largest complaint of the participants in this study, and discovering how to meet gifted students’ social needs in an online environment could go a long way toward increasing student satisfaction with the virtual learning environment. A much more interesting and beneficial study, however, would be to explore how the flexibility of online learning can improve gifted students’ lives beyond online environment. Students who have the opportunity to tailor their learning schedules might be more willing to include time for athletics, social activities, and family excursions, thus, alleviating the stress, perfectionism, and overscheduling profoundly gifted students are prone to (Gross, 2004; Hollingworth, 1942; von Károlyi & Winner, 2005).

It would also be useful to come to a better understanding of how online distractions affect gifted students’ productivity and perceptions of deep learning. While the participants in this study were split concerning the pervasiveness of online distractions, research suggests that these distractions are more detrimental than most people realize (Terry, 2008; Winter et al., 2010). A study that closely monitors online students’ computer usage during assigned work periods could shed some light into just how distracting the Internet really is. Along those same lines, researchers interested in the use of audio and video in synchronous virtual classrooms could conduct an experiment regarding students’ use (or disuse) of this technology and how they help or hinder productiveness during these meetings. If, as the participants suggested, the quality of the content and its effective delivery are more important than the environment, it is possible that less technology as opposed to more is an appropriate direction for online learning.

While the instructor was not a participant in the present study, I would highly recommend that further research be conducted on teachers’ roles in online classes designed specifically for gifted students. The participants reported that the instructor was instrumental to their growth, and it would be beneficial to all online teachers of the gifted to discover more about the characteristics that make for a successful instructor in a virtual environment. More specifically, further research should be conducted on how to run an effective synchronous online class meeting. While the instructor in this study did plenty of things right, her decision to allow the students to choose whether or not to use the audio and video equipment led to unnecessary wait times and frustration. Higher expectations for synchronous meetings, especially regarding the use of technology, might make these classes more productive. Finally, qualitative research that focuses solely on the challenges faced by online teachers of the gifted could educate readers on what a difficult undertaking working with gifted students in a virtual setting really is.

Finally, researchers should spend more time simply talking with gifted students about the way they perceive the differences between the brick-and-mortar and virtual learning environments. Critical discussions, perhaps in the form of live focus groups, could entice these students to think more deeply about how the virtual environment has affected their educational experiences. These students’ perceptions seem to have some bearing on whether an online program is successful. Considering that online learning for gifted students is only growing in popularity, more focused research on these students within virtual environments will greatly benefit administrators, teachers, and students.