Being gifted in Turkey: Educational and social experiences of high-ability students

Abstract

This phenomenological study explored the educational and social experiences of eight gifted middle school students from Turkey. Data were collected from in-depth semi-structured interviews. The findings indicated that boredom and teacher ineffectiveness were among the most common problems that the participant students faced at school. The students also complained about the high-stakes tests that they believed were more anxiety-provoking than their worth. The students reported experiencing high levels of stress and burnout. The findings revealed that having high ability was not a handicap for developing good social relationships, but being labeled as gifted may lead to some negative outcomes based solely on the stigmatization. The overall findings suggested that the parents of these students were aware of their child’s unique needs. However, not all parents knew how to effectively respond to these needs.

Keywords

Giftedness social experience stigma the gifted label Turkey

Throughout history, there has always been interest in individuals who were recognized as gifted depending upon the values of their culture. Gifts and talents of these individuals were rewarded and cultivated from a very young age. Modern concern for the education of gifted students focuses more on general academic skills or talents in specific aesthetic, scientific, or athletic areas. The gifted movement is worldwide. Although some countries have a long tradition in research and practice on key problems in gifted education, other countries are just starting to make some sort of special provisions for their high-ability students (Persson et al., 2000). Turkey belongs to the latter group of countries. The first effort at preparing a comprehensive strategy plan for the education of gifted children was quite recent (Mammadov, 2015).

Giftedness has engendered interest and attention from all different societies around the world. This is true in the case of Turkey, too. However, because of a lack of evidence-based knowledge, myths about this concept have distorted society’s perception of gifted children and their unique academic and psychosocial needs. To struggle against this sad truth, it is significant and indeed crucial to build a strong knowledge base on concerns relating to the concept of giftedness. As part of the process of building a knowledge base, it is important to provide an insight into (a) gifted students’ perceptions of themselves as well as their peers, parents, and siblings and (b) teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, and information/misinformation toward giftedness and gifted students.

The purpose of this study was to explore in greater depth Turkish gifted students’ educational and social experiences and their perceptions of the effects of being labeled gifted. Considering that gifted students may convey unfavorable notions about the meaning of giftedness (Cross, 1999), understanding gifted students’ emotional responses to the gifted label and their general social experiences can help educators, teachers, and parents to create a supportive environment for their development. Moreover, the findings of this study may have a notable contribution to the global literature on experiences of gifted students. Because the study aims to obtain an in-depth and clearer picture of the phenomenon, there is a need to have a description of the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences (Creswell, 2013). For this reason, the researcher conducted a phenomenological research study. Phenomenology provides rich and descriptive data and therefore is the ideal research process for eliciting students’ lived experiences and their feelings about them.

Background of the study

One common view of the social and emotional characteristics of gifted children is that they are generally well-adjusted (Neihart, 1999). Research has suggested that gifted children who are moderate to high achievers are likely to have high self-concept, high self-esteem, and high levels of achievement motivation (Davis et al., 2011). Compared to their non-gifted peers, gifted children are better adjusted and have better self-concepts and greater overall self-actualization (Pufal-Struzik, 1999). However, there also is evidence indicating that gifted children do have emotional and social needs. Not surprisingly, being labeled as gifted brings with it an array of both intrapersonal and interpersonal issues that are unique to individual’s giftedness (Colangelo, 2003).

Labeling a child gifted, if its precise meaning is unclear, might have serious outcomes in school settings, home, and community. It results in a change in perceptions and expectations of people who are in proximity to the child. These expectations might be unrealistic and, therefore, have the potential to influence a child’s self-concept. Colangelo and Brower (1987) stated that gifted students perceive negative effects on the family, real or imagined. Although these students enjoyed participating in the gifted program, they felt that their families and siblings did not have a positive attitude toward their gifted label. Gifted children are influenced by others’ feelings about their advanced abilities. Sometimes these children experience social ostracism because they are seen as “mental freaks” or “eccentrics” due to having creative and vigorous minds. To avoid this potential stigma, gifted children may conform to their peers or, instead of achieving honor status, they may even underachieve to be more popular among their classmates (Chan, 2005;Cross et al., 1993; Cross et al., 2015; Tannenbaum, 1983).

Robinson (1989) described a gifted label as a two-faced social process that can have both positive and negative effects on the labeled student. Literature supports this description. For example, Kerr et al. (1988) found that gifted adolescents viewed giftedness as having a positive effect on the self but a negative effect or ambiguous on others. Manaster et al. (1994) expanded on Kerr et al.’s study by tailoring the questions to individuals’ experiences so that the effects of being gifted could be evaluated in terms of their social roles and statuses. The findings of Manaster et al.’s study indicated that negative stereotypes come from those who know them least. Parents, teachers, and friends who know them best do not treat them differently because of their special abilities. Moulton et al. (1998) reported on the five most positive and the five most negative perceptions of being labeled gifted. The five most positive perceptions were internal gratification, unique identity, advanced learning in school, interaction with other gifted students, and special experiences in the gifted and talented classes. The five most negative perceptions were stereotyping, pressure of parents, pressure of teachers, expectations of parents, and expectations of teachers.

Some gifted students believe that others perceive them as stereotypically different because of their giftedness (Manor-Bullock et al., 1995). These students may experience problems in social relationships (Coleman and Cross, 1988; Cross and Swiatek, 2009; Patchett and Gauthier, 1991). According to the stigma of giftedness paradigm (Coleman, 1985), normal social interaction will be distorted if a gifted individual believes the stigma is present. In other words, a gifted individual believes he/she cannot have normal social interactions once their peers discover their giftedness. Gifted students employ specific strategies to reduce the effects of stigma and increase their latitude in developing social relationships (Coleman, 1985; Gross, 1989; Mammadov et al., 2013; Swiatek, 2001; Swiatek and Cross, 2007). Swiatek (1995) developed the Social Coping Questionnaire (SCQ) to explore these identified coping strategies from a quantitative perspective. A number of studies using different versions of the SCQ have provided a strong evidence base for the strategies that gifted students employ in dealing with their giftedness in social situations. These strategies include denial of one’s giftedness, using humor, engaging in many extracurricular activities, denying the impact of giftedness, conformity, helping others, and emphasizing the unimportance of one’s popularity (Cross et al., 2015). Several studies with European and Asian samples revealed cross-cultural similarities in social coping (Chan, 2004; 2005; Mammadov et al., 2013). In a study of the social coping and self-concept of gifted students in Turkey, Mammadov et al. (2013) found that Turkish gifted students often engage in extracurricular activities, hiding their giftedness, and denying their giftedness. It is evident from these studies that social coping does occur and that educators and parents should recognize the importance of cultivating a very supportive environment where maladaptive coping does not develop.

Although giftedness is viewed as having some negative social implications, it is perceived positively in terms of one’s personal growth and academics (Kerr et al., 1988). Gifted students can be nurtured academically when a classroom environment is appropriately developed to challenge them as needed. A lack of challenge is the most commonly identified cause for boredom in gifted students (Kanevsky and Keighley, 2003). Boredom negatively affects students’ motivation, self-regulated learning, and achievement outcomes (Goetz et al., 2006; Pekrun, 2006). Research has suggested that gifted students face a higher level of boredom than their non-gifted peers due to the lack of challenge in regular classroom settings (Gallagher et al., 1997; Plucker and McIntire, 1996; Plucker et al., 2004). Although grouping gifted students has been criticized from the psychosocial perspective, it promises some improvements with respect to boredom (Preckel et al., 2010). In the present study, when exploring the students’ experiences in different types of programs, the focus of some interview questions centers on how students cope with their classroom situations.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to explore the educational and social experiences of Turkish gifted students in school and outside. This study did not begin with any hypotheses; however, the researcher had two questions that guided the study:

What are the educational and social experiences of Turkish gifted students with respect to their giftedness?

What are the positive and negative aspects of being labeled gifted?

Method

Participants

The participants were eight (four females, four males) 12- to 14-year-old gifted middle school students from two different regions of Turkey: Marmara and Central Anatolia. Participants were recruited through the assistance of the gifted coordinators and teachers from schools and gifted education centers. All students participated on a voluntary basis. Pseudonyms are used for students to protect anonymity. No personally identifying names or characteristics, other than gender, age, grade, and type of school, are reported throughout the article. Table 1 provides demographic information about the participants.

Table 1.

Demographic information about students.

Pseudonyms	Gender	Age	Grade	School type	Region
Alp	Male	13	7	Regular public school	Marmara
Tarik	Male	12	7	Regular public school	Marmara
Ece	Female	13	7	Regular public school	Central Anatolia
Shule	Female	14	8	Regular public school	Marmara
Kemal	Male	14	8	Private school with gifted program	Central Anatolia
Zehra	Female	12	7	Private school	Central Anatolia
Fuat	Male	13	8	Regular public school	Marmara
Cansu	Female	13	7	Regular public school	Marmara

All participants had a score of 130 or above on the Turkish version of Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children Revised (WISC-R; Savaşır and Şahin, 1998) administered by the Rehberlik ve Arastırma Merkezleri (RAMs; Guidance and Research Centers). RAMs are officially responsible for the identification and diagnosis of children with special needs including those with gifts and talents. Although the formal identification of gifted students in Turkey is based on the use of multiple criteria (i.e., preassessments, group aptitude and achievement tests, and some individual tests), the WISC-R result alone is considered enough for the student enrollment in some gifted programs (Mammadov, 2015). The private schools specialized in gifted education may have their own criteria for student selection beyond the official identification requirements.

Research design

Phenomenological researchers set aside the everyday understandings, judgments, and knowings to be more open to the phenomenon (Colaizzi, 1978; Moustakas, 1994). In the process of exploring experiences and grasping the meaning from them, the researchers’ aim is to uncover the meanings of the phenomenon. In this phenomenological study, the researcher’s approach to understanding students’ experiences at a deeper level is closely tied to a sense of “newness” to elicit rich and descriptive data.

According to Colaizzi (1978), the success of phenomenological research questions is based on to what extent they touch upon experiences distinct from theoretical explanations. In this study, the researcher aimed at exploring students’ personal experiences distinct from what the theory provides and what their own conjecture suggests. Therefore, understanding and sticking to the noema–noesis relationship is essential for the researcher of this study to be able to capture students’ experiences and their feelings of being labeled gifted. The noema is the “perceived as such,” whereas the noesis is the “perfect self-evidence.” The noema–noesis relationship constitutes the intentionality of consciousness (Moustakas, 1994).

No participant had been a student or mentee of the researcher. This was important for the researcher, so he could set aside biases toward participant personalities, characteristics, and experiences. Although the researcher’s own rooted ways of perceiving and knowing will still be a part of the study, he had a more open and fresh approach to the phenomena under inquiry.

Procedure

The parents of the potential participants were approached through the researcher’s personal contacts at the gifted education centers and the schools that offer gifted programs. The parents were asked to sign a consent form if they would allow their children to take part in this study. Both parents and students were informed about the study in writing and verbally. Also, the explanation was made for each student that their participation was voluntary, and they might withdraw from the interview at any time without any penalty.

The researcher explicitly explained the purpose of the study both to the parents and to the students. Fine and Sandstrom (1988) discussed three approaches of conducting studies with children: explicit cover, shallow cover, and deep cover. The researcher opted for the explicit cover approach with the participants. This approach occurs when the researcher is entirely frank about the research with the study group. The researcher let the participants know that the focus of their inquiry was to explore their educational and social experiences and feelings about being gifted.

Interview questions were presented in the student’s native language. The researcher, who is a native speaker of Turkish, conducted all interviews. Interviews were approximately 60 minutes and were held via Skype, at a time available for both the participants and the researcher. With the permission from the participants, all interviews were audio recorded. Sample interview questions were: “Tell me about what it is like to be a student with exceptional academic abilities at school.” “What is it like to be a student with exceptional academic abilities outside of school? (at home or while in outside of school activities)” “How do your friends feel about your exceptional abilities?” and “How do you feel about your exceptional abilities? Tell me about that.”

Data collection

A phenomenological study using semi-structured in-depth interviews was conducted to elicit participants’ educational and social experiences and perceptions of positive and negative aspects of being labeled as gifted. One of the central research questions in this study was “What are the educational and social experiences of Turkish gifted students with respect to their giftedness?” This question is broad and general. Bentz and Shapiro (1998) suggested that the researcher must allow the data to capture rich descriptions of phenomena and their settings and noted that students may have a broad range of experiences due to different factors (e.g., family, environment, gender, socioeconomic status). Therefore, the interview questions should be asked in a more specific way that bracketing can be achieved through “doing phenomenology.” Kvale’s (1996) distinction between the research question, and the interview question supports this preference.

Data analysis

Guided by Creswell’s (2013) process for analyzing qualitative data, the interviews were transcribed verbatim (Pooley et al., 2008). Then, the researcher read all written transcripts several times to obtain an overall feeling for them. In analyzing participants’ transcripts, the researcher used modification of Van Kaam’s (as cited in Moustakas, 1994) method of analysis that was developed by Moustakas (1994). At the very beginning, the researcher employed Horizonalization—listing and preliminary grouping. The researcher listed expressions relevant to having exceptional abilities and being labeled gifted. Then, reduction and elimination were used to remain horizons that were invariant constituents of the abovementioned experience. The next steps were clustering and labeling the invariant constituents to develop the core themes of the experience. Finally, the researcher validated the invariant constituents and themes. This final phase is discussed in the next section as part of the methodological rigor.

Methodological rigor and standards of validation

The researcher used several criteria to attain methodological rigor and to judge the quality of this phenomenological study pertaining to its “core facets” (Moustakas, 1994: 58). The criteria were based on Polkinghorne’s (1989) discussion of validity; Meadows and Morse’s (2001) applications of verification, validation, and validity; and Creswell’s (2013) standards to assess the quality of phenomenology. To fulfill the criteria of verification, the researcher reviewed all of the processes associated with this study by a comprehensive literature search, bracketing past experiences, using an adequate sample, and adhering to the phenomenological method. To accomplish a validation, the researcher used member check by participants (Creswell, 2013). The initial interview transcriptions were provided to participants for review and member checking. Only one participant had a request of correction. The researcher was provided with clarification and the changes were made in agreement with the participant. Besides that, no other discrepancies arose during the member checking process.

Thematic findings

The participants shared their in-depth experiences regarding both positive and negative aspects connected to having exceptional abilities and being labeled as gifted. In general, findings revealed that the students were aware of their abilities and believed that these abilities are important means of realizing their dreams and achieving goals. However, the gifted label is not always a great value that bestows honor and prestige upon the students.

Unmet academic needs

Only two of the participants were attending private schools that had gifted programs and resources for high-ability students. Six participants were in public schools in which no special provisions are made for their special needs. The participants reported that they do not have any difficulty in school tasks. They feel able to perform well in classes even those they are not interested in. The students who attend private schools were happy with their classes and school environment. They believe that their teachers were effective for spotting and nurturing their talents in school. The students in public school, however, reported that they struggle with school, generally because the teachers are not aware of their academic needs.

Boredom

The students indicated that they are usually bored in school, because “tasks provided in school are not interesting” (Tarik), “lessons are painstakingly slow” (Alp), “teachers repeat the same material again and again” (Fuat), and “teachers do not answer [their] questions” (Ece). Three of the students shared that they had already acquired the majority of content of some specific subjects before the school year began. They complained about repetitions that sometime last for several months especially at the beginning of the academic year. The students also reported that in general, the instructional pace at their schools is slow.

Teacher and school influence

The participants indicated that teachers should offer further opportunities for them to make lessons interesting and challenging. A lack of such opportunities might reduce students’ motivation. Some of the participants from public schools complained about teacher ineffectiveness. Although the students are in middle school, interestingly some of them argued that the problem is not merely related to their school; rather, it is a result of more serious issues pertaining to the education system. Unlike the students in public schools, the two students from private schools expressed their appreciation for the opportunity that their teachers provide to address their interests. Both of the students, however, revealed that these opportunities are usually provided beyond the regular school time, either in clubs or in out-of-school activities.

High-stakes tests

During middle and high school years, students in Turkey have to take various nationwide exams for high school or college entrance. Demand outweighs available spaces for placement, thus acceptance rates are very low. As a result, Turkish students experience “some of the world’s worst exam anxiety” (Simsek and Yildirim, 2004: 165). Overall student performance in these exams is a very important factor for schools to propel them up the rankings and help them build their prestige. The participants reported that these exams are more anxiety-provoking than their worth. They complained about experiencing high levels of stress and burnout. One reason is a long and busy schedule of these nationwide exams and regular school exams. Another reason is teachers’ and parents’ pressures and expectations from these students due to their exceptional capabilities. The students complained about not having additional time to spend for advanced tasks of their interest. In addition, the participants indicated that teachers, especially in math and science, resort to drill-and-practice techniques and work toward getting students ready for the tests.

Social experiences

Whether having high academic abilities helps children to demonstrate good social skills is not easy to determine based on interviews with a smaller sample size, because social experiences may arise from a constellation of traits, not just from ability. Although the interview questions were focused on students’ experiences in terms of giftedness and the gifted label per se, we posed several follow-up questions to elaborate on students’ experiences. The analysis of students’ experiences revealed that having high ability is not a handicap for developing good social relationships, yet being labeled as gifted leads to some negative outcomes based solely on the stigmatization.

Being unusual

One of the questions asked the participant students to describe their interests, projects, achievements, and goals for something they care about. They also were asked to explain their perceptions of others’ attitudes and feelings about these things. The purpose of these questions was to see whether their social experiences are not merely due to their personal traits but also because of their gifted characteristics and unusualness. Students’ responses and researcher’s opinion suggested that most of them had unusual precocious language, articulation, and intellectual capacity. Although these characteristics set some of them apart from most of their peers, they did not complain about finding a way of communicating with others. However, it should be noted that some participants have experienced difficulties in sharing an important part of themselves with other people—even with those whom they feel close and whom they value a lot. These students reported that it is very difficult for them to find someone with whom t they can engage in conversations that really interest them and share their interest and enthusiasm. Three of the students indicated that they are not comfortable in a crowd especially for this reason.

Peer relations

The findings suggested that, for all students, having a friend with whom they can share interests and private feelings is of great importance. Two of the students revealed that they like to have many friends regardless of whether they have similar academic interests. Both of these students were in private school. They underscored the school safety that enables them to reap many social advantages and indicated that there is a mutual sense of respect and affection. The students who were in public school had opposite views regarding the school environment and peer relations. Some of the students reported that their peers do not understand them, because of their diverse interests and creative products and thus, they become targets of teasing. These students avoid being popular in class. All three female students who were attending the public school mentioned that they try to be friendly to everyone, but they prefer to have one or two close friends with whom they have shared interests and private thoughts and feelings. Some of the students complained that children in their class were boring. Examples include “They have very simple interests” (Kemal), “some of them do not understand my jokes” (Alp, Fuat), “they always gossip about others” (Cansu), and “they are jealous of me” (Ece, Cansu). Four students indicated that there are different cliques in their schools. Although these students do not want to be seen and feel as a member of such cliques, their classmates view them as nerds or geeks. The students feel social pressures of this clique. In general, these cliques do not have rigid forms; some students may belong to more than one clique.

Stigma

The participants from private schools were comfortable about peer relations, overall social experiences, others’ attitudes toward their giftedness, and school safety. On the other hand, the same students complained about a number of things that make them uncomfortable. In fact, these students distinguish specifically between people and situations that cause discomfort. They are able to discover what sorts of people and situations make them feel at ease. One thing, however, that most of the students face as a challenge is being stigmatized. The students who described such challenge as part of their experience further revealed their struggle to avoid the situation and to fit into the world of the majority. One participant indicated that the label is a natural consequence of the identification, but she believes that “not all classmates should know that” (Shule). Some of the students noted that teachers, even those who are aware of their giftedness, do not know how to respond to their needs. Sometimes teachers’ attitudes unintentionally cause stigma and discrimination.

Coping strategies

A student who feels stigmatized by fellow students will either ignore it or deal with it. Follow-up questions were asked to probe whether the students really employ any coping strategy to manage their appearance in school or outside because of their high academic abilities and the gifted label. Findings suggest that the students often perceive themselves ostracized. For some of these students, socializing was not really a problem, whereas for others, being ostracized or being bullied was a real discomfort. One student’s family decided to resolve these kinds of issues by enrolling their child in a private school with a gifted program, in which they believed their child’s needs would be met better.

From student responses, it was found that five of the students, some often and some rarely, engaged in social coping behaviors. Three students revealed that in some cases they try to camouflage their abilities in class (Shule, Ece, and Tarik). For example, they do not volunteer answers. Even when teachers call on them, they sometimes try to give the appearance that they have not been seriously engaged with the question or task. The students indicated that teachers usually share their test scores in class, which makes them worried about drawing attention. Excerpt # 12 in Table 2 is an example about how the students attempt to manage the information about themselves in order to have a typical social interaction.

Table 2.

Sample excerpts along with themes and subthemes.

Excerpt #	Theme	Subtheme	Sample quote
1	Unmet academic needs	Teacher and school influence	“It would be a great reward for me if my parents allow me not to go to school. I don’t think it is interesting and beneficial, mostly because teachers do not provide any opportunity for students like me and [therefore] I cannot learn [explore] new things that I find interesting” (Ece).
2	Unmet academic needs	Teacher and school influence	“Some teachers are sincere; they encourage all students to achieve, but they are not capable of addressing highly able children’s needs properly” (Fuat).
3	Unmet academic needs	Teacher and school influence	“In our class one of the students is dyslexic. Before he came in to our class last year, the teacher told all students that he is not good at reading and writing and he has some learning difficulties. It made me very sad, because I think she [the teacher] shouldn’t have made that conversation in class. Sadly, for over a year and half, I have never seen that any of our teachers take care of him. Suat [pseudonym] is very smart and he loves to learn. But teachers do not pay any special attention to him and to other similar students. For this reason, I do not believe that these teachers can help me; they are not able to motivate and support even the students who have more [special] needs than I have” (Cansu).
4	Unmet academic needs	Teacher and school influence	“We can schedule meetings with teachers during after-school time and weekends. It is very helpful to all students…I am a member of several school clubs, like chess and creative writing, and I keep attending many other evening and weekend activities…Teachers guide us on our projects and encourage producing something creative. We do not have any gifted class, but I am satisfied that clubs and activities offer a good support for us [her and other gifted students]” (Zehra).
5	Unmet academic needs	Teacher and school influence	“In our school, we have special classes for highly capable students. For example, creative problem solving, thinking skills, and personal development. I am not sure if these classes are interesting. We are doing almost the same activities every year. When I first came in to the school, it was so much fun and challenging. Now, there is not something new and interesting. I think our school doesn’t have any curriculum designed for upper grade levels” (Kemal).
6	Unmet academic needs	High-stakes test	“I had to quit all my weekend enrichment programs and swimming lessons in order to study for the exam. It is a critical year for my academic success” (Fuat).
7	Unmet academic needs	High-stakes test	“It was my parents’ decision that I should take a year break and not to go to the [gifted] center this year. I was not happy with this decision, but because it was vital for my future academic success, I had to accept that” (Kemal).
8	Unmet academic needs	High-stakes test	“A school is waste time waste of time; most of the stuff we are taught are kinds of memorization [due to high-stakes test] that we won’t need them in the future” (Alp).
9	Unmet academic needs	High-stakes test	“Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any of my teachers making an effort to find out ways to help me in my interests. They even prefer not to answer my questions in class. They say that other students cannot understand the subject or it is very broad question, and recommend me to ask the question later outside the class. But I think, they [teachers] race against time. They have to solve many and many questions during class time…Schools are like authoritative places that don’t let you go toward your own dreams” (Zehra).
10	Social experiences	Peer relations	“…We [students in his class] all are interested in soccer. I play [soccer] very well. Being good at it and like having a broad knowledge of teams, team strategies, and players is very cool thing. I think my [peers] may think I have something in common with nerds, but being popular in soccer protects me from being called a member of that clique or feeling any social pressure due to my abilities” (Alp).
11	Social experiences	Stigma	“Teachers frequently praise me and tell me that I’m smart. I know it seems really good to be appreciated by teachers. But when such things are made only for you in that class, other students, I mean your classmates become jealous of you. It makes me to feel very bad. That is why I sometimes wait for others to respond to teachers’ questions” (Shule).
12	Social experiences	Coping strategies	“…Then, I asked our math teacher not to announce our test scores. But, unfortunately, it did not work well. The teacher distributed the exam sheets so we can see our own grades without knowing who got what. Some of my classmates were interested in my grades. I did not tell them, although it was very difficult to do so. When they approached me to ask my score, I was able to deflect those questions. I tried to change the topic, not to say anything about the exam, and I was successful.” (Tarik).
13	Space to be understood: Home	N/A	“My sister is not gifted, but we have not had any conversation about giftedness at all. She has her own interests and abilities. Mom and dad are quite fair in how they treat us” (Tarik).
14	Space to be understood: Home	N/A	“I learned to play a Chinese game, called Go, in one of our gifted classes. I still play this game with my dad. I remember that my dad learned the game just because of me, so he could be my partner and help me to improve my skills. It was a big reward for me” (Tarik).

Two participants reported that they get involved in social activities, even though they do not like to. The reason is that they feel more comfortable when they have good peer relationships and also when they are not viewed differently from their classmates. The analyses suggested that socialization, in a general sense, is a problem for these students, largely not because of the lack of skills, but because of their preferences and consequently experienced pressures. Two students shared that if they seem isolated by not being involved in such activities, it would be hard for them to become socialized when they really need it (Ece and Fuat).

Positive effects

The majority of participants reported that in some situations the gifted label brings opportunities. Qualifying for special services, obtaining teacher support, being popular, getting involved in academic competition teams, having high self-expectations, and being motivated were some of the students’ comments about advantages of the label. The researcher asked the participants whether these advantages can be obtained merely by high academic abilities without being labeled. Students’ explanations were very similar, revealing that most people value the label. One student (Alp) explained: “Many of [my] relatives and neighbors do not see what my academic abilities are, but they’ve heard that I am gifted, so they [assume] that I have high academic abilities.”

Space to be understood: Home

The overall findings suggested that the parents of these students were aware of their child’s unique needs. However, not all parents know how to effectively respond to these needs. The students reported that the home is the safest space for them. They can easily find the support of any particular needs from their parents and siblings. None of the students shared any concern about their non-gifted siblings. The gifted label does not influence their relationships within the family. All students revealed that they do not emphasize the label at home. When asked about the ways families foster their talents, the students shared their experiences about the home environment and role of parents. The most common responses were about respect and support. Some students indicated that although they frequently change their minds about interest areas as they discover new ones, their parents never got tired of supporting what they like to work on.

One student (Shule) revealed that her parents protect her when she worries about or struggles with deep questions and concerns. Although her parents are very concerned with her gifts, they do not place any pressure on her; rather, they tell that her “happiness is worthier than everything else.” Unlike Shule, some students indicated that their parents have high expectations of them because of their intellectual capabilities. Often such expectations, similar to that in Alp’s abovementioned experience, create pressure. Parents’ expectations were found to be related to their child’s success in high-stakes tests (Kemal) and exam grades (Kemal, Ece, Alp, Tarik), and their child’s performance in a domain in which he or she has been identified as talented (Alp, Ece). Alp and Ece reported that their parents were really concerned about their ability to make friends. Alp and two other students emphasized an over-involvement of their parents, especially mothers, in their lives.

Discussion

Academic experiences

Only one participant was studying in a school with a gifted program during the study. The other seven students were in mixed-ability classes. Based on the fact that there is a limited number of gifted programs in public and private schools in Turkey, it can be claimed that the vast majority of gifted students sit in regular classrooms with their age peers without access to specialized instruction. Gifted students in the regular classroom are at risk of failing to achieve their potential, because such settings are not tailored to meet their unique academic needs. Research found that experiences in mixed-ability classes can also negatively influence gifted students’ social and emotional lives. Lack of academic challenge that leads to boredom and demotivation (Baker et al., 1998), being misunderstood by peers and teachers (Feldhusen, 1989), social ostracism and outright rejection by peers (Gross, 1989), and bullying by peers (Moon et al., 1993) are some of these experiences. The findings of the present study revealed that the Turkish gifted students experience many of these difficulties as well.

Gifted students sometimes gradually disengage from classroom learning. Boredom is one of the reasons for this and has frequently been mentioned in the gifted literature. Some researchers suggested that boredom is dispositional (e.g., Eysenck and Zuckerman, 1978; Sundberg and Bisno, 1983), whereas others believe it situational, which is related to the nature of the setting such as the classroom environment and school system (Farmer and Sundberg, 1986). Larson and Richards (1991) found that gifted students experienced more boredom than their non-gifted peers in only school settings, suggesting that boredom is more situational (related to the lack of stimulation), at least for the gifted population. Gifted students usually face a higher level of boredom due to the lack of challenge (Feldhusen and Kroll, 1991; Plucker and McIntire, 1996). The findings of the present study revealed that the gifted students did not have favorable affective attitudes toward school because of the uninteresting tasks, a lack of challenge, a slow pace of instruction, and teacher ineffectiveness and unawareness of student needs. Students who attend various weekend schools and gifted programs beyond their regular school-day classes have a chance to uphold and preserve their motivation to learn. But, unfortunately, those who have no such option are more at risk academically and/or psychologically.

Gifted students who are not living up to their potential can be categorized as either nonproducers or underachievers (Delisle, 1992). Gifted nonproducers are at risk academically but not psychologically, because they are self-assured, independent, confident in their talents, and autonomous learners (Kanevsky and Keighley, 2003). Gifted underachievers, however, are at risk both academically and psychologically, because their underachievement results from a combination of many different factors, including psychological factors such as low self-esteem, a poor sense of self-efficacy, the lack of willingness to take risks, and the lack of motivation (Bandura, 1977; Morisano and Shore, 2010). The gifted students in the present study may or may not be in either of these groups, yet policy makers, educators, and parents should be aware of the fact that inappropriate levels of challenge, less demanding school programs, burned-out teachers, and little diversity in instructional strategies are potential dangers to the academic and psychological development of gifted children.

Just as in many other countries, high-stakes testing plays a prominent role in the education of Turkish children. A test-based accountability system requires students to be continually tested throughout their academic career. This great emphasis on high-stakes testing is often accompanied with increased levels of anxiety, stress, lowered motivation, and increased focus on test preparation (Abrams et al., 2003; Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas, 2000; Jones and Egley, 2006, Putwain, 2007, 2008). As the findings indicated, some gifted students attend various weekend programs that provide opportunities through which they pursue areas of interest. Especially in eighth grade, which is a transition year from middle to high school, most of the families encourage their children to focus on the nationwide tests. As a result of spending a great deal of their time drilling and practicing by going to cram schools, the students often move away from their interest areas and lose their motivation.

Social experiences

Gifted students can experience a variety of difficulties in their social–emotional lives. Interpersonal problems that are associated with being labeled gifted are among these difficulties. The gifted students in the present study had ambivalent feelings about the labeling. This result is consistent with previous research findings. The literature suggests most gifted students perceive their high ability positively, whereas many acknowledge feeling different and experience stress and difficulties in their social lives due to labeling (e.g., Coleman and Cross, 2000; Manor-Bullock et al., 1995).

Üstün zekalı (highly or superior intelligent) or üstün yetenekli (highly or superior talented) are two terms in Turkish that are used interchangeably to refer to a gifted child. Both of these terms emphasize “superiority” and “being smarter or better than anyone.” The use of such terms causes adults to have many false assumptions about individual children. These assumptions, myths, and the gifted label itself that revolve around the education of gifted students puts up many barriers in the academic, social, and emotional development of children. If educators believe that the use of a particular term is necessary for identification and classification of students for better educational provisions, then they should adopt a more proper term that focuses on talents, rather than the specific individual.

The findings indicated that the most of the students were happy with their high abilities, yet only one student had a positive view of being labeled in terms of peer relations and social status. Research suggests that gifted adolescents engage in camouflaging behaviors to separate themselves from the stereotype of the gifted group (Cross et al., 1991). The findings of the present study revealed that the students use several social coping strategies such as hiding their giftedness, conforming, and involving themselves in extracurricular activities (maintaining high levels of interpersonal interactions). These results are supported by previous research findings (Mammadov et al., 2013; O’Reilly et al., 2013; Swiatek, 2001; Swiatek and Cross, 2007; Swiatek and Dorr, 1998).

Because all of the participants were middle school students, it was not possible to shed light on the current problem from a developmental perspective. The middle school years are a sort of transition process for children through which they start valuing peer relationships and try to establish strong companionships. Therefore, the way that they perceive stigmatization may change during these years. It should be noted that the stigmatization among gifted students is an age-related problem. “Many who were content to accept the status ‘gifted’ as elementary children may choose to reject it in adolescence” (Bireley and Genshaft, 1991: 8).

Family as a critical component in the lives of gifted children

The student comments revealed that parents were aware of their children’s unique needs. Parents respect and support their children’s talents. The students believe that their home is a safe place to be understood and valued. It does not mean that all reactions that the students receive are appropriate in terms of academic guidance and emotional support. These children experience supportive and caring roles from their families and parents. The positive experiences enable them to withstand negative ones. The process may be described as a sort of emotional inoculation. The findings suggested that in families, there are mixed reactions to students’ giftedness. In some families, reactions occur in the form of an intense urge to protect their child, whereas in some other families, reactions are more like expectation and pressure.

One issue that parents and families worry about for their gifted children is career development. Specific patterns of this issue showed up in the findings. For example, some gifted children reported that they experience parent pressure in respect to the academic success. This pressure, when it is accompanied with academic boredom, can make children overwhelmed. Parents who, intentionally or not, value their children’s short-term success more than their emotional happiness are likely to have a lack of knowledge about cognitive and affective needs of gifted children. They may also have a sort or type of dysfunctional interaction with their children. This finding and research on counseling suggested that gifted children and their families do have counseling needs based on their giftedness (Colangelo, 2003).

School-based programs can identify and provide remedial services for gifted children and their families in the forms of problem-solving and crisis intervention (Neihart and Robinson, 2001). Academic and psychosocial counseling are desperately needed by gifted students across a broader range of abilities. Although there are many examples in the literature of the models that effectively serve gifted students beyond the traditional classroom (e.g., VanTassel-Baska, 2007), the major issue in the case of Turkey would appear to be the paucity of such models. Unfortunately, there is not any program in the country that provides a real service to gifted students and their families.

Conclusion

The main purpose of the present study was to investigate educational and social experiences of Turkish gifted students. Many important issues and concerns emerged from the findings. These issues and concerns are very serious, as each of them is based on educational setbacks and systemic pitfalls in the country. Although the researcher was limited to a small representative sample, he discovered several messages and themes in the findings that pertain to the academic and social–emotional lives of gifted children. The predominant message was that there is a lack of instructional programs that address the needs of gifted students particularly in regular school settings in which the participant students were involved. The students complained about boredom, lack of challenge, and teacher ineffectiveness. The student comments suggested that most of their teachers seemed to have very limited knowledge about appropriate instructional accommodations for gifted learners who vastly differ in preferences and needs.

Most of the people who are working with diverse students realize that other students are not able to put quite the same levels of energy into everything as the gifted students do. But due to the lack of knowledge in their families or teachers, gifted students may be at risk of losing their zest and motivation for learning. The findings of the present study suggested that the present sample of gifted students were in this category. These students face serious academic and social challenges and do not receive appropriate support for advancement in school and outside. The data suggested that the parents and families of these students were aware of their children’s needs, but being aware does not mean they take appropriate and assertive steps to resolve deep-rooted challenges. School leaders and educators working with gifted children should value parental involvement and ensure that parents gain an important degree of familiarity with what is known concerning gifted children and their academic and psychosocial needs.

It is vital to provide gifted students with a balance of both academic and social–emotional support based on their individual needs (Adams-Byers et al., 2004). Schools should consider each student individually. While responding to their unique academic needs, schools should enhance students’ perceptions of themselves and their social relationships. The findings suggested that the participant students did not have any evident social challenges due to their exceptional abilities. They recognized and appreciated their abilities. However, they were concerned about the social stigma. The students were prone to several difficulties because of the gifted label. The effect of labeling is not a simple phenomenon; it is multifaceted. There is a need for more quantitative research on gifted students’ experiences with respect to the label. The researchers, policy makers, educators, parents, and other educational partners should recognize this struggle and cooperate to find possible ways of getting rid of the negative effects of the label, perhaps by focusing more on abilities. It is hoped that these findings can form the basis for fruitful discussion about the needs of today’s Turkish schools and other educational institutions in terms of quality of services they provide for gifted learners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Abrams

Pedulla

Madaus

(2003) Views from the classroom: teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice 42: 18–29.

Adams-Byers

Whitsell

Moon

(2004) Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly 48: 7–20.

Baker

Bridger

Evans

(1998) Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: the role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly 42: 5–15.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

Barksdale-Ladd

Thomas

(2000) What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education 51: 384–397.

Bentz

Shapiro

(1998) Mindful Enquiry in Social Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Bireley

Genshaft

(1991) Adolescence and giftedness: a look at the issues. In: Bireley

Genshaft

(eds.) Understanding the Gifted Adolescent. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 1–17.

Chan

(2004) Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly 48: 30–41.

Chan

(2005) The structure of social coping among Chinese gifted children and youths in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 29(1): 8–29.

10.

Chan

(2005) The structure of social coping among Chinese gifted children and youths in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 29: 8–29.

11.

Colaizzi

(1978) Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: Valle

King

(eds.) Existential Phenomenological Alternatives in Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 48–71.

12.

Colangelo

(2003) Counseling gifted students. In: Colangelo

Davis

(eds.) Handbook of Gifted Education. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 373–387.

13.

Colangelo

Brower

(1987) Labeling gifted youngsters: long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly 31: 75–78.

14.

Coleman

(1985) Schooling the Gifted. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

15.

Coleman

Cross

(1988) Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted 11: 41–56.

16.

Coleman

Cross

(2000) Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In: Heller

Mönks

Sternberg

Subotnik

(eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier, pp. 203–212.

17.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among five Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

18.

Cross

Kim

O’Reilly

, et al. (2015) Social coping and self-concept among young gifted students in Ireland and the United States: a cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies 26(1): 39–61.

19.

Cross

(1999) How gifted students cope with mixed messages. Gifted Child Quarterly 22: 32–33.

20.

Cross

Swiatek

(2009) Social coping among academically gifted adolescents in a residential setting: a longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly 53: 25–33.

21.

Cross

Coleman

Stewart

(1993) The social cognition of gifted adolescents: an exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review 1(1): 37–40.

22.

Cross

Coleman

Terhaar-Yonkers

(1991) The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 15: 44–55.

23.

Davis

Rimm

Siegle

(2011) Education of the Gifted and Talented. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.

24.

Delisle

(1992) Guiding the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Youth: A Practical Guide for Educators and Counselors. New York: Longman.

25.

Eysenck

Zuckerman

(1978) The relationship between sensation seeking and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality. British Journal of Psychology 69: 483–487.

26.

Farmer

Sundberg

(1986) Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 50(1): 4–17.

27.

Feldhusen

(1989) Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership 46: 6–11.

28.

Feldhusen

Kroll

(1991) Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International 7: 80–81.

29.

Fine

Sandstrom

(1988) Knowing Children: Participant Observation with Minors. Newbury Park: Sage.

30.

Gallagher

Harradine

Coleman

(1997) Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review 19: 132–136.

31.

Goetz

Pekrun

Hall

, et al. (2006) Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 289–308.

32.

Gross

MUM

(1989) The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review 11: 189–194.

33.

Jones

Egley

(2006) Looking through different lenses: teachers’ and administrators’ views of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan 87: 767–771.

34.

Kanevsky

Keighley

(2003) To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review 26(1): 20–28.

35.

Kerr

Colangelo

Gaeth

(1988) Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly 32: 245–247.

36.

Kvale

(1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

37.

Larson

Richards

(1991) Boredom in the middle school years: blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education 99: 418–443.

38.

Mammadov

(2015) Current policies and policy efforts for the education of gifted students in Turkey. Roeper Review 27(3): 139–149.

39.

Mammadov

Cross

Cakir

, et al. (2013) Social coping and self-concept in Turkish gifted students. Paper presented at the International Conference on Talent Development and Excellence, Antalya, TR.

40.

Manaster

Chan

Watt

, et al. (1994) Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness: a partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly 38: 176–178.

41.

Manor-Bullock

Look

Dixon

(1995) Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? The impact of high achievement on social interactions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 18: 319–338.

42.

Meadows

Morse

(2001) Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In: Morse

Swanson

Kuzel

(eds.) The nature of Evidence in Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 187–202.

43.

Moon

Nelson

Piercy

(1993) Family therapy with a highly gifted adolescent. Journal of Family Psychology 4(3): 1–16.

44.

Morisano

Shore

(2010) Can personal goal setting tap the potential of the gifted underachiever? Roeper Review 32: 249–258.

45.

Moulton

Housewright

, et al. (1998) Gifted and talented: exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review 21: 153–154.

46.

Moustakas

(1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

47.

Neihart

(1999) The import of giftedness and psychological well-being: what does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review 22: 10–17.

48.

Neihart

Robinson

(2001) Task Force on Social-Emotional Issues for Gifted Students. Washington: National Association for Gifted Children.

49.

O’Reilly

Cross

Kim

, et al. (2013). A-cross Cultural Study of Self-Concept and Social Coping: A Comparison of Young Irish and American High-Ability Students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN.

50.

Patchett

Gauthier

(1991) Parent and teacher perceptions of giftedness and a program for the gifted. B.C. Journal of Special Education 15(1): 25–38.

51.

Pekrun

(2006) The control–value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review 18: 315–341.

52.

Persson

Joswig

Balogh

(2000) Gifted education in Europe: programs, practices, and current research. In: Heller

Mönks

Sternberg

Subotnik

(eds.) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science, pp. 703–734.

53.

Plucker

McIntire

(1996) Academic survivability in high-potential, middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly 40: 7–14.

54.

Plucker

Robinson

Greenspon

, et al. (2004). It’s not how the pond makes you feel, but rather how high you can jump. American Psychologist 59: 268–269.

55.

Polkinghorne

(1989) Phenomenological research methods. In: Valle

Halling

(eds.) Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 41–60.

56.

Pooley

Breen

Pike

, et al. (2008) Critiquing the school community: a qualitative study of children’s conceptualizations of their school. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 21: 87–98.

57.

Preckel

Gotz

Frenzel

(2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 451–472.

58.

Pufal-Struzik

(1999) Self-actualization and other personality dimensions as predictors of mental health of intellectually gifted students. Roeper Review 22: 44–47.

59.

Putwain

(2007) Test anxiety in UK schoolchildren: prevalence and demographic patterns. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77: 579–593.

60.

Putwain

(2008) Do examinations stakes moderate the test anxiety-examination performance relationship? Educational Psychology 28: 109–118.

61.

Robinson

(1989) Gifted: The two/faced label. Gifted Child Today 12: 34–36.

62.

Savaşır

Şahin

(1998) Wechsler Çocuklar İçin Zeka Ölçegǧi (WISC-R). Ankara: Millli Eǧitim Basımevi.

63.

Simsek

Yildirim

(2004) Turkey: innovation and tradition. In: Rotberg

(ed) Balancing Change and Tradition in Global Education Reform. Lanham: ScarecrowEducation, pp. 153–185.

64.

Sundberg

Bisno

(1983) Boredom at life transitions—adolescence and old age. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

65.

Swiatek

(1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly 39: 154–160.

66.

Swiatek

(2001) Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30: 19–39.

67.

Swiatek

Cross

(2007) Construct validity of the social coping questionnaire. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 30: 427–449.

68.

Swiatek

Dorr

(1998) Revision of the social coping questionnaire: replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 10: 252–259.

69.

Tannenbaum

(1983) Gifted Children: Psychological and Educational Perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

70.

VanTassel-Baska

(2007) Alternative programs and services: a creative response to the unmet needs of gifted students. In: VanTassel-Baska

(ed.) Serving Gifted Learners Beyond the Traditional Classroom: A Guide to Alternative Programs and Services. Waco: Prufrock Press, pp. 241–256.