Gifted Students and Gradeless Formative Assessment: A Case Study From Norway

Abstract

This case study focused on students’ experiences with gradeless formative assessment at a center for gifted students. Twenty-two students attending one of the six talent centers in Norway participated. A questionnaire with open- and close-ended questions were used to collect data. Qualitative data analysis was performed. Findings indicated that the students experience gradeless formative assessment positively. They highlighted less stressful and more motivating learning situations at the talent center compared to their experiences at school. Gradeless formative assessment allowed the students to focus on the learning process rather than the learning product.

Keywords

formative assessment gradeless gifted motivation zone of proximal development

Introduction

In 2016, Norway established four national educational centers for gifted students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities, hereby referred to as talent center. Currently, there are six such talent centers in Norway which were established following the release of Nobody Left Behind (Report: 14), which highlighted missed opportunities to identify and serve gifted students. A call was made for additional research and programming in the field of gifted education in Norway. As a result, a unique shift has emerged in Norway in favor of gifted students. However, little knowledge exists about teaching and assessing gifted students in general, particularly in Norway. This study focused on formative assessment at a talent center.

Formative assessment does not have one definition. In the field of teaching practice, oftentimes “Assessment for Learning” is used to refer to the same concept. Some scholars argue for the importance of distinguishing between formative assessment and Assessment for Learning (AfL; Swaffield, 2011), whereas others use them interchangeably (Gardner, 2012). In line with Gardner (2012), we do not distinguish between formative assessment and AfL. According to Black and Wiliam (2009), formative assessment provides evidence used “to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they [teachers and/or students] would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited” (p. 9). Overall, teachers lack the knowledge and skills about the conception of giftedness and subsequently to adapt teaching and assessing gifted students (Børte et al., 2016; Heyder et al., 2017; Idsøe, 2014). In Norway, there has been no tradition of adapting teaching and assessing to gifted students. It was not until 2016 that the Ministry of Education in Norway highlighted gifted students (Report).

We acknowledge, in line with Black and Wiliam (1998), that formative assessment consists of various classroom practices, such as self- and peer assessment, learning strategies, goal orientation, effective tasks, useful feedback, and downplaying grades. The present article focused on the latter activity—going gradeless. No matter which formative assessment activity is chosen, the main concern is that formative assessment must be integrated in teachers’ daily teaching (Wiliam, 2006).

In Norway, all assessments during a school year (apart from the end-of-term assessment) should be formative. An assessment regulation introduced in the 2009 Education Act means that teachers’ assessment has a judicial status in Norway. The assessment regulation explains, among other things, the purposes of assessment. The educational authorities singled out formative assessment as one of the main topics for schools to focus from 2010 to 2014 (Burner, 2019). However, studies have questioned whether teachers’ formative assessment has developed according to expectations (Fjørtoft et al., 2014). Consequently, in 2020, as part of a curriculum reform, sections about assessment became part of all subject curricula.

Missett et al. (2014) noted that research focused on formative assessment for students who need extra support or reinforcement, leaving a gap when applied to gifted students. Gifted students as a heterogeneous group can be better reached through formative assessment (Missett et al., 2014) in effort askew frustration, a loss of self-esteem, boredom, laziness and underachievement (Børte et al., 2016; Crocker, 2004, Idsøe, 2014). Diezmann and Watters (2006) noted “gifted students have an advanced knowledge base compared to their non-gifted peers… Thus, what is initially new content for non-gifted students might be only practice material for gifted students” (p. 3). Gifted students are often not given the opportunity to reach their full learning potential (Børte et al., 2016; Idsøe, 2014), as they have been mislabeled, which may be even more relevant in such an egalitarian country as Norway (Krause et al., 2003). These confusions may stem from schools and teachers being unaware of how to properly support gifted students (Diezmann et al., 2001).

Missett et al. (2014) found that formative assessment allowed for differentiation but that teacher beliefs about gifted students’ abilities affected decision-making in the classroom. Some teachers relied on a set of beliefs about the stereotypical gifted student and when these students deviated from the norm, learning opportunities can be lost.

In Norway, there have been attempts to try out gradeless schools (Gillespie & Burner, 2019). Less stress, fewer comparisons with peers, more useful written feedback, and more stable effort throughout the school year were some of the positive results as reported by students (Mellingsæter, 2018). However, no focus on the gifted students and their experiences of gradeless formative assessment were reported.

In this study, we investigated how gifted students experienced grade free assessment after participating at a talent center. The talent center is not part of the public school, but public schools can offer this to students who needed extra academic challenges. Additionally, it is not very common in Norway to assess students’ learning without grades in public school after students are over the age of 12. Thus, for this study, we posed the following research question:

How do students at a center for Gifted and Talented in STEM experience gradeless formative assessment?

The Norwegian Context for the Gifted

The Norwegian school system is built on the principle of equality for all students and comprehensive schools are best suited to provide equal opportunities in school and society (Burner & Svendsen, 2022). The only criteria for group affiliation are students’ birth year, and consequently there are irregular variations in achievement within groups of students. International studies show that Norway has an alarmingly low proportion of students who achieve at the advanced level in STEM (Kjærnsli & Olsen, 2013). Results from Trends in Mathematical and Science Study (TIMMS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), two large comparative international studies related to teaching and education, evidenced that the Norwegian education system struggled to meet the needs of all learners (Grønmo et al., 2012; Kjærnsli & Olsen, 2013). One cause of concern was the low percentage of students performing at an advanced level. There was nothing which indicated that Norwegian students should have poorer intellectual and cognitive performance at high levels than students in other countries. As a governmental response to this challenge, a shift has emerged in Norway in favor of gifted students.

The Norwegian school system is described as extremely comprehensive in the European context (EURYDICE, 2006). Given the low percentage of high-performing students in Norway compared with other countries, it is reasonable to question whether the Norwegian school system is comprehensive for all students (Burner & Svendsen, 2022). Students, regardless of ability, must encounter learning environments where they face challenges aligned to their needs and where they are motivated to perform and develop their potential through their own efforts (Gagné, 2010).

Talent Centers in Norway

The talent centers were established in 2016 as a pilot project commissioned by the Ministry of Education (Report), concluding that the Norwegian school does not provide students with great learning potential. The mandate given to the talent centers was to ensure that more gifted students can explore subjects at the desired pace, to give students a network of like-minded peers, and to work to increase competence in the school system and society in general (Svendsen, 2019). In 2019, the talent centers became permanently funded by the Norwegian government and have added one new center per year (Nordic Institute for Studies of Innovation, 2020). In less than 3 years, the talent centers have established offerings that are impressive in both quality and scope and motivated gifted students’ interests in science and technology (Nordic Institute for Studies of Innovation, 2020).

Historically, gifted students are a student group that has not been spotlighted in the Norwegian public school system. A government report (St., 2019) highlighted underachievement, dropping out, social stigmatization and bullying as consequences of unmet educational and affective needs of gifted students. In addition, gifted students can often feel alone and outside of a social community at school, which can impact gifted students learning outcomes (Idsøe, 2014). Collaboration with other like-minded peers over time makes students more confident in their own learning (Aaberg, 2018; Idsøe, 2014; Rosten, 2018). The talent centers provide an alternative learning environment where the focus is on creative joy, commitment, and the urge to explore. Differentiated approaches to learning are important to meet a range of students’ ability and skills (Burner & Svendsen, 2022).

The application process for attending a talent center includes a recommendation from a STEM teacher and the school’s approval for participation. Talent centers target math, natural science, biology, physics, and chemistry curriculums. Grades are not used in the selection process, as many of these students do not necessarily have high grades. Talent center participation is part of the student’s statutory right to adapted education and is regulated by the Education Act. Twenty-five percent of the hours set in any school subject can be allocated for students to study elsewhere if this will result in greater targeted achievement for the student.

Application submissions often begin with the teacher asking students to submit based on an academic need not offered in the mainstream classroom. The teacher also recognizes the student’s need to meet like-minded peers and to stretch themselves academically. Students spend 10–20 days of the school year at the talent center working with other students have a common interest in STEM subjects without a learning ceiling imposed by the traditional school framework. Still, talent centers do work closely with schools to address any pre-existing motivational or learning issues.

A makerspace model for STEM learning is provided at talent centers, offering students with STEM interests, especially in computing or technology, the opportunity to collaborate and share ideas, equipment, knowledge, and skills. Taylor and colleagues (2016) noted a wide range of roles that makerspaces can play in society, as their study drew on data collected through a series of site visits and interviews intended to scope out existing activity in makerspaces to identify opportunities and challenges. Their study shows that makerspaces play various roles in public life and have been very successful in that role. There is a shift occurring in education that has the potential to transform teaching and learning. A skill often referred to when makerspaces are discussed is creativity (Maslyk, 2016). According to Maslyk (2016), creativity goes beyond theory and helps systematically integrate STEAM at the Makerspaces that prepare students for real-world experiences.

The concept of makerspace has become so widespread that it no longer needs to include a pre-defined set of fabrication tools; the focus is rather on having a creative space, where it is possible to explore, make, and tinker (Rosa et al., 2017), rather than learning from a textbook which gifted students have found to be demotivating (Børte et al., 2016). According to Prince and Felder (2006), interactive learning environment that uses makerspace can deliver an inductive approach in which students can explore and experience science in action. At the talent center, students work in the cross-section of theoretical science, practical engineering, and design to develop theoretical and practical STEM knowledge and skills (Graves, 2014).

Completed projects at the talent center use gradeless assessment, which provides students with written or oral feedback on areas of strength and improvement. Thus, compared to traditional school contexts, the talent centers provides a learning atmosphere that allows the growth and development of alternative assessment practices such as gradeless formative assessment.

The Zone of Proximal Development and Gifted Students

Vygotsky (1978) characterized the essence of learning as finding new means to solve problems of activity. Zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a term Vygotsky used to explain range of development. Development of a child’s “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90) and the space between independent problem-solving capacity and that achieved with guidance is a highly relevant theoretical concept for students’ intellectual development. He argued that every individual has two levels of development: a lower level that each can attain under normal circumstances and an upper level that each can attain under the influence of an adult or capable peer. The difference between these two levels is the ZPD (Daniels, 2008).

Vygotsky’s articulation of the ZPD underscores his belief in the importance of social influences, especially instruction, on children’s cognitive development. ZPD is reflected in the theory of flow, which is based on the importance of concentrating learning in the student’s flow zone (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The learning flow lies in a zone where challenges are balanced against the student’s skills. If the skills are good, but the challenges are low, as we often see in students with great learning potential, it can lead to boredom and frustration (see Figure 1). Conversely, the challenges may be greater than the student’s ability indicates. The challenge will be to know the student’s level of ability and to promote competence and learning so that the individual student moves in his or her flow zone (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 2002; Greeno, 2006).

Figure 1.

The Flow Model. Note. From Csikszentmihalyi (2002, p. 74).

Teaching in creative ways facilitates students’ personal interest (Børte et al., 2016; Idsøe, 2014; Prince & Felder, 2006). Gifted students may “opt out,” if teaching is perceived as trivial. Academic and practical challenges should include creative approaches, such as problem-solving and by delving deeper into authentic subject matter (Børte et al., 2016; Idsøe, 2014). Csikszentmihalyi (1999) described six characteristics to indicate flow:

1. Sense of ecstasy—being outside everyday reality.

2. Great inner clarity—knowing what needs to be done and how well it is going.

3. Knowing the activity is doable—that the skills are adequate, and not feeling anxious nor bored.

4. Sense of serenity—absence of self-worry, feeling of growing beyond the boundaries of ego, and feeling of transcending ego in ways not thought possible.

5. Timeliness, thoroughly focused on the present, and without noticing the passage of time.

6. Intrinsic motivation—whatever is produced “flow” becomes its own reward.

Gagné (2011) recommends formative assessment for gifted students in order to facilitate decision-making about their progress. Gradeless formative assessment can realize the list of the six flow characteristics mentioned above. By dropping grades in formative assessment, the idea is to avoid “…focus[ing] attention on the self by emphasizing outcome and social comparison, or both, rather than process or task mastery” (Butler, 1987, p. 475). Butler’s classic and oft-cited study not only confirmed previous research findings stating that low performing students suffer from ego-involving feedback information, such as non-specific praise or grades, but also indicated that high-performing students are affected negatively. Ego-involving feedback information, called “external markers,” such stars, smileys, scores, numbers, letters, seemed to be counterproductive to intrinsic motivation (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009).

Method

This study applied a qualitative case study approach. Qualitative approaches build a comprehensive picture as they explain and develop questions dealing with interactions between people (Creswell, 2013). A case study provides context dependent knowledge which contributes to nuanced views of the world (Flyvbjerg, 2006), in this case, how students at a gifted and talented center with a STEM focus experienced gradeless formative assessment. Case studies can be particularly useful for studying a process and a program. As Merriam (1998) noted, “A case study design is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. The interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation” (p. 19).

Participants

The present study included 22 students in two cohorts, cohort 1 in 2020 (n = 12) and cohort 2 in 2021 (n = 10). The students were between ages 13–17. There were 14 boys and 9 girls. Eight in 8th grade, three in 9th grade, five in 10th grade, and seven in the foundation course at senior high level (i.e., 11th grade). In Norway, the grading system is rated from 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest). Most of the students responded that they were at a high level of achievement in the school system (grades 5 to 6). Some of them responded that they are at a medium-range level of achievement at school (grades 3 to 4).

We wanted to study students’ experiences of learning and assessment at a talent center, and thus, students were selected from one of the six talent centers in Norway. To study at the talent center, students application included a motivation letter and a recommendation letter from their teacher.

Data Collection

The survey consisted of three background questions regarding students’ gender, class, and level of achievement, and six questions about feedback and grades using a five-point Likert scale. A seventh and last question was open-ended, asking students about gradeless assessments. The questionnaire was presented to the students by the researchers which included information about the study and the survey questions. Students also had the opportunity to ask any questions or raise any concerns they had about the study. They could also choose not to participate. The questions are translated from Norwegian to English in the following:

Data Analysis

The constant comparative method of analysis was used to analyze the open-ended survey questions. This method has its origin in pragmatism and was intended to develop theory that could develop scientific knowledge and benefit (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). This form of analysis is characterized by a process where the researcher moves back and forth between the data and the field to gather information about a phenomenon which will be coded into categories, properties, and hypotheses (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008). As our analysis progressed, each category in the data was compared with other categories for similarities and differences.

Strauss and Corbin’s (2008) approach consists of a three-step coding process with constant movement between an open, axial, and selective coding. The open coding is about naming and shaping concepts from the data and then sorting and assembling them together with similar phenomena in categories (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008; Postholm, 2010). When transcriptions from the survey were completed, we read through the material several times. We treated the transcripts separately but also were trying to look for connections between them. As relevant categories emerged, we explored whether these were represented in the remaining data. We acknowledged the interactive process of research, which is sometimes referred to as “abductive,” that is, going back and forth between data collection and data analysis (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008, p. 55). In other words, the process of analyzing was a recurring interaction between research, data, coding, and categorizing.

Findings

Open-Ended Responses

In vivo categories for open-ended responses supported grades relieved stress, there is more learning without grades, grades do not motivate learning, and gradeless assessment contributed to inquiry-based learning which in turn encouraged trial and error in the learning processes (see Figure 2). Occurrences found to be conceptually similar were grouped together under a higher-level descriptive concept and provided the main categories such as stress with grades and motivation without grades. The core category found in the study was learning through formative assessment. Figure 2 illustrates the subcategories, main category, and core category from open-ended responses.

Figure 2.

The Coding Chart.

Data collection was not time distinct but was merged in with data analysis until the data had reached a point of saturation. Data saturation was evident when data analysis no longer contributed to elaboration of the phenomenon being investigated (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Postholm, 2010). The ongoing data collection process involved exchange between data collected in the naturalistic environment and the codes and categories developed during the research process (Postholm, 2010). The constant comparative method helped us to identify key essences in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 2008), and then to see if these could be interpreted to provide advice on how the students at the Center for Gifted and Talented in STEM experienced gradeless formative assessment.

Close-Ended Responses

The findings from the close-ended part of the questionnaire are illustrated in Figure 3. The findings reveal that 22 of the gifted students experience a high level of trial and error when participating in STEM activities compared to what they experienced at school, and two students reported that they experience some extent of trial and error. Regarding feedback from teachers at the talent center, 21 students reported that the feedback from the teacher helped them to become better in STEM subjects. Only one student reported that this happened to some extent. Moreover, the findings showed that students experience feedback from teachers at the talent center to a great extent helps them to become better in STEM subjects. Only one student reported that this happens to some extent. The close-ended responses to the survey questions about to what degree grades from teachers at school helps students improve in STEM, 15 students responded that this is the case to a very little or to a little extent. Four students stated this happens to some extent, and three students stated that this happens to a great extent. Students reported that they have not had much experience in gradeless assessment before they came to the talent center. Fifteen students have very little or little experience with gradeless assessment, and five students have experiences with gradeless assessment to some extent or great extent. Finally, 18 students reported a very great satisfaction with gradeless assessments at the talent center. One student reported to a great extent and one to some extent.

Figure 3.

Overview of the Responses on the Close-Ended Questions in the Survey.

Discussion

We discuss the findings based on the two main categories (a) stress with grades and (b) motivation without grades (see Figure 2), supported by the findings on the questionnaire as illustrated in Figure 3. Finally, we relate the main findings to the main category, learning through formative assessment.

Stress With Grades

The students in this study experienced situations as stressful when involving grades. They described learning situations at the talent center comparing them to the ones they experience at school, emphasizing that assessments at the talent center are less stressful (Mellingsæter, 2018). In the following, we discuss the situations they refer to.

The gifted students at the talent center report that they developed their learning potential, supporting previous studies by Crocker (2004) and Idsøe (2014). Formative assessment used in the talent center provided academic challenge (Missett et al., 2014) and in the absence of grades, the findings show that the learning process was the focus (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Gagné, 2011). The assessment was also used to determine the students’ ZPD (Daniels, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978) and to create probing questions and provide feedback to aid students’ understanding and subsequent achievement (Gagné, 2011; Missett et al., 2014). Assessment became an extension of teaching with students stretching their potential within the ZPD with learning goals aligned to the formative assessment (Wiliam, 2006).

The students reported having different experiences with assessments and grades from their traditional school background, but the majority stated that they had little experience with gradeless formative assessment before coming to the talent center. Moreover, they generally did not experience feedback at school when compared to the talent center. They felt this helped them to achieve better results in STEM subjects. Assessment was perceived by the students to have the best effect when it comes as feedback and without a grade (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009; Butler, 1987). The students may consider assessment situations at school as something that ends in a grade and is largely related to a summative assessment. Similar to Missett et al. (2014), gifted students working at the talent center preferred different forms of assessments.

The students reported learning more without grades (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009; Butler, 1987), particularly with the strategy of trial and error. Trial and error was also reported as one of the useful forms of learning STEM subjects. This strategy allowed students to make an error, or fail at something, then they had the opportunity to analyze that failure, make a change, and then try again, which is related to the concept of reinforcement and revision in formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Missett et al., 2014). Since grades can interfere and interrupt the process of reinforcement and revision (Butler, 1987; Black & Wiliam, 1998), going gradeless can enhance the learning potential from formative assessment. As Børte et al. (2016) and Diezmann et al. (2001) noted that many teachers do not know how to properly support gifted students. Talent centers and gradeless formative assessment provided the teachers the opportunity to meet the needs of gifted students.

There was also a difference in how students experienced assessment at school compared to the talent center. At the talent center, students barely noticed that they were assessed, but it is difficult to say whether it was the absence of grades alone or whether it is related to the environment at the talent center, or a combination of the two. As the talent center is largely learning-oriented, the assessment focuses exclusively on learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009; Gardner, 2012).

Motivation Without Grades

The students experienced increased intrinsic motivation for learning in the absence of grades, focusing instead on the given tasks (Black & Wiliam 2009; Butler, 1987). They described the use of inquiry-based learning (IBL), which required greater abstract and complex thinking and increased their motivation for learning. Questioning and finding answers are important in IBL and aided in generating new knowledge. Formative assessment strategies that were used at the talent center increased students’ conceptual understanding of STEM topics and motivated them to learn more (Gagné, 2010; Idsøe, 2014).

Previous research indicated that being challenged to perform just above one’s capacity was crucial for learning (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Greeno, 2006). This aligns with Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978), which represents STEM knowledge and skills that students have yet to develop. Working with tasks in the ZPD can increase the student’s competence and move the boundaries of the developmental zone. Students described the tasks gave them something to strive toward (Vygotsky, 1978). The students at the talent center experienced the essentials of learning as defined by Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) flow zone, such as having adequate skills, being neither anxious nor bored, experiencing focus and concentration, and being motivated intrinsically which was their reward moving the focus away from grades. Furthermore, they experienced a sense of social belonging while they learned with like-minded peers and contributed to each other’s ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978).

Learning Through Formative Assessment

The main category, learning through formative assessment, summarizes the students’ experiences in this study. Students related formative assessments to organizing groups based on their ability, common skills, and interests. Thus, providing gifted students a more challenging learning environment and the opportunity to meet peers (Børte et al., 2016; Gagné, 2011; Idsøe, 2014; Idsøe & Skogen, 2011).

The use of gradeless formative assessment when working with interdisciplinary themes was something the students highlighted as a source to intrinsic motivation. They also stated that they gained a deeper understanding when conducting interdisciplinary work, as they did in IBL. This concerns the students’ gradual development of understanding concepts, methods, and contexts within subject areas, and about understanding themes and issues across areas of knowledge. Students analyzed and solved problems and reflected on their own learning to construct a lasting understanding, using strategies such as using trial and error as a method of learning. Learning something thoroughly and with deep understanding requires active participation in the learning process, the use of learning strategies, and the ability to assess learning progress (Svendsen, 2019). This led to a focus on the learning process with the use of formative assessments (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Gardner, 2012; Wiliam, 2006).

The students were encouraged to work in different ways, and they outlined that the absence of grades motivated their continued learning. Formative assessment feedback from facilitators at the talent center challenged them to move into their flow zone (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 2002). Moreover, participating students experienced less pressure at the talent center, which offered more time for learning. They expressed greater confidence in debating with peers because they were highly motivated at solving given tasks. Students also revealed that the focus shifted from an achievement-oriented at school to learning-oriented at the talent center when going gradeless. This gave students an opportunity to increase their perseverance during the learning process (Gagné, 2011; Missett et al., 2014). The students asserted that their skills and autonomy were better met at the talent center when compared to school. They also stated that they experienced collaboration and collective learning at the talent center.

The use of homogenous grouping was found to maximize the learning potential (Børte et al., 2016; Crocker 2004; Idsøe, 2014). This offered gifted students a chance to see what they could do when grouped with students of similar abilities and interests. Students considered highly professional environment and the participation, involvement, and interaction with similar peers the most important elements of the talent center.

Limitations of the Study

The data in this study could have been enriched and thickened by including classroom observations and observations at the talent center. The study included 22 participants. This does not allow for findings to be generalizable. However, due to strict regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the plans for observations and recruitment of a larger sample had to be altered. Nonetheless, we believe that by including open-ended questions in the survey and analyzing the data qualitatively have provided some important findings on how gifted students experience gradeless formative assessment at a talent center. The study is by no means statistically representative for the population of gifted students in Norway, but naturalistic generalizations (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2000) can be made in similar contexts at other talent centers nationally and internationally.

Conclusion

Gifted students experienced gradeless formative assessment positively and associated grades with more stressful and less motivating learning experiences. They also believed they learned more through gradeless formative assessment at the talent center compared to assessment situations at school. Overall, the absence of grades made students go through a learning process where the focus is on the learning process and not on the learning product. We could claim that the students experienced learning to learn.

This study found that the gradeless formative assessment methods used at the talent center were fruitful for gifted students learning, which supported the grouping of the gifted students with peers. More research, preferably from similar talent centers in other countries, would be useful to shed light on how gifted students experience the learning and assessment cultures compared to when they are placed in mainstream schools. It could also be interesting to investigate to what extent the students transfer skills and knowledge from the talent centers to mainstream schools. Undoubtedly, there is need for more research on gifted students’ perceptions and practices of learning and assessment methods.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Bodil Svendsen

Author Biographies

Bodil Svendsen, PhD, is an associate professor of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests are school development, teachers' professional development, school leadership development, formative assessment, natural science education and adapted learning.

Tony Burner, PhD, is a professor of English Education at the University of South-Eastern Norway. His research interests are formative assessment, teachers' professional development, school development, curriculum implementation, and multilingualism.

References

Aaberg

(2018). Talentsenter som læringsarena for elever med stort læringspotensial [Talent center as a learning arena for gifted students] . [MA thesis, Norweigen Univesity of Science and Technology]. Trondheim. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2719636

Alvesson

Sköldberg

(2008). Tolkning och reflection. Vetnenskapsfilosofi och Kvalitativ Metod [Interpretation and reflection. Philosophy of science and qualitative method (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur.

Black

Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/0969595980050102

Black

Wiliam

(2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Børte

Lillejord

Johansson

(2016). Evnerike elever og elever med stort læringspotensial: En forskningsoppsummering [Talented students and students with high learning abilities: A summary of research]. Knowledge Center for Education.

Burner

(2019). Assessment in secondary education (Norway). In Corsaro

Hognestad

(Eds), Bloomsbury education and childhood studies, Bloomsbury Academic.

Burner

Svendsen

(2022). Social change through education: A Scandinavian approach. In Baikady

Sajid

Nadesan

Przeperski

Rezaul

Gao

(Eds), The Palgrave handbook of global social change (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Macmillan.

Butler

(1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

10.

Crocker

(2004). Underachievement: Is our vision too narrowed and blinkered? Fools step in where angels fear to tread. Gifted, 131, 10–14.

11.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and innovation. Harper Perennial.

12.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist, 54(10), 821–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.821

13.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2002). Flow. The classic work on how to achieve happiness (2nd ed.). Rider.

14.

Daniels

(2008). Vygotsky and research. Routledge.

15.

Denzin

N. D.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994/2000). Introduction. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–28). Sage.

16.

Diezmann

C. M.

Watters

J. J.

(2006). Balancing opportunities for learning and practicing for gifted students. Curriculum Matters, 5(1), 3–5.

17.

Diezmann

C. M.

Watters

J. J.

Fox

(2001). Early entry to school in Australia: Rhetoric, research and reality. Australasian Journal for Gifted Education, 10(2), 5–18.

18.

EURYDICE . (2006). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union.

19.

Fjørtoft

Langseth

H.I. D.

Sandvik

L. V.

(2014). Hvordan er vurderingspraksisene og –kulturene i norske skoler? [How are the assessment practices and cultures in Norwegian schools?]. In Vurdering i skolen. Utvikling av kompetanse og fellesskap. Sluttrapport fra prosjektet Forskning på individuell vurdering i skolen (FIVIS) [Assessment in schools. Development of competence and collaboration. Final report from the project research on individual assessment in schools (FIVIS)]. Norweigen Univesity of Science and Technology.

20.

Flyvbjerg

(2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

21.

Fusch

P. I.

Ness

L. R.

(2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281

22.

Gagné

(2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341

23.

Gagné

(2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1), 3–22.

24.

Gardner

(Ed), (2012). Assessment and learning (2nd ed.). Sage.

25.

Gillespie

Burner

(2019). Principals’ views on the implementation of grade-free middle schools in Norway: Justifications, challenges and opportunities. Nordic Journal of Education and Practice, 13(2), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.23865/up.v13.1969

26.

Graves

(2014). Teen experts guide makerspace makeover. Knowledge Quest, 42(4), 8–13.

27.

Greeno

J. G.

(2006). Learning in activity. In Sawyer

(Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge University Press.

28.

Grønmo

L. S.

Onstad

Nilsen

Hole

Aslaksen

Borge

I. C.

(2012). Framgang, men langt fram. Norske elevers prestasjoner i matematikk og naturfag i TIMSS 2011 [Progress, but far ahead. Norwegian students’ performance in mathematics and science in TIMSS 2011]. Akademika Forlag.

29.

Heyder

Bergold

Steinmayr

(2017). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493

30.

Idsøe

E. C.

(2014). Elever med akademisk talent i skolen [Gifted students with academic abilities] . Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

31.

Idsøe

E. C.

Skogen

(2011). Våre evnerike barn [Gifted children]. En utfordring for skolen [A challenge in schools]. Høyskoleforlaget.

32.

Kjærnsli

Olsen

R. V.

(Eds.). (2013). Fortsatt en vei å gå [Still a way to go]. Norske elevers kompetanse i matematikk, naturfag og lesing i PISA 2012 [Norwegian students competence in mathematics, science and reading in PISA 2012]. Universitetsforlaget.

33.

Krause

Bochner

Duchesne

(2003). Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Thomson.

34.

Maslyk

(2016). STEAM makers. Fostering creativity and innovation in the elementary classroom. Corwin Press.

35.

Mellingsæter

(2018). Flere ungdomsskoler dropper karakterer [More middle schools are dropping grades]. Aftenposten. https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/9jg0W/Flere-ungdomsskoler-dropper-karakterer

36.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

37.

Missett

T. C.

Brunner

M. M.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Azano

A. P.

(2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214541326

38.

Nordic Institute for Studies of Innovation (2020). Rapport—Evalueringen av Tett på realfag—Implementeringen fortsetter. [Report— evaluation of stem implementation] . https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2689661/NIFUrapport2020-20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

39.

NOU (Norweigen Official Report). (2016:14). Mer å hente . Bedre læring for elever med stort læringspotensial [More to gain: Better learning for gifted students]. Norwegian Government Security and Service Organization.

40.

Postholm

M. B.

(2010). Kvalitativ metode. En innføring med fokus på fenomenologi, etnografi og kasusstudier [Qualitative method: An introduction focusing on phenomenology, ethnography and case studies], (2nd ed.). Universitetsforlaget.

41.

Prince

J. M.

Felder

M. R.

(2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.

42.

Rosa

Ferretti

Guimaraes Pereira

Panella

Wanner

(2017). Overview of the maker movement in the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2760/227356

43.

Rosten

(2018). Er talentsenteret en stimulerende arena for høytpresterende elever i realfag? [Is the talent center a stimulating arena for high-achieving students in STEM? [MA thesis., Norweigen University of Science and Technology]. Trondheim. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2685864/MNATF_Ragnhild_Rosten.pdf?sequence=1

44.

St. Meld. (2019–2020). Melding til stortinget. Tett på- tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO [Early intervention and inclusive communities in kindergartens, schools and day care facilities]. [White paper], 6. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/3dacd48f7c94401ebefc91549a5d08cd/no/pdfs/stm201920200006000dddpdfs.pdf

45.

Strauss

Corbin

(2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.

46.

Svendsen

(2019). Students with special education needs. In Akpan

(Ed), Science education: Visions of the future (pp. 417–432). Next Generation Education.

47.

Swaffield

(2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838

48.

Taylor

Hurley

Connolly

(2016). Making community: The wider role of makerspaces in public life . http://www.nick-taylor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/taylor-chi16-making-community.pdf

49.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

50.

William

(2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11, 3(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652993