Giftedness in Brazil: To what extent does terminology really matter?

How should the terminology used to describe gifted individuals be understood and used? On one hand, the terminology may influence how gifted students are defined, identified, and served. Terminological issues may overemphasize one aspect of giftedness at the expense of others, perpetuating misconceptions about gifted individuals and leading to the exclusion of some groups of students from gifted services. On the other hand, the ways gifted students have been identified and served can determine how the concept of giftedness is defined. It is also important to remember that the selection of a term is affected by individuals’ values and beliefs as well as cultural and political issues.

Regardless of which term is used, it is crucial to have clear definitions of the phenomenon to which the term refers so that any professionals likely to work with gifted students understand what is meant by the selected term. Moreover, rather than trying to settle on one term to be used to refer to all gifted students as a single classification, it is more important to inform both education professionals and the general public about the multifarious nature of giftedness.

Since 1929, when the term “supernormal” was included in an educational policy document of the state of Rio de Janeiro, followed by the publication of the book, The Education of the Supernormals by Kaseff in 1931 (Delou, 2007), Brazilian scholars and policy-makers have debated about the terms to be used in gifted education. At different times during the 90-plus ensuing years, several terms have prevailed. Soon after the advent of “supernormal,” it was replaced by “well-endowed” (translated into Portuguese as bem-dotado), due to the influence of Helena Antipoff, a Russian scholar who arrived in Brazil in 1929. Antipoff published several articles in the 1930s and 1940s, calling attention to the need for early identification and services for gifted individuals. Many scholars continued to use the term “well-endowed” until the 1980s, despite the 1971 federal educational legislation stating that gifted students, like those with intellectual and physical disabilities, should have access to special educational services. At this time, the terms “gifted and talented” and “giftedness” were included in the Brazilian federal special education policy. This was influenced by the publication of the suggestion in the Marland Report in the United States, and recommended by a team of American experts whom the Brazilian Ministry of Education invited to serve as consultants (Alencar et al., 2019).

Since 1971, the term “giftedness” has been used in governmental documents, such as federal national special education policies (Ministério da Educação [MEC], 1995, 2008, 2020), as well as research reports, and professional organizations, such as the Brazilian Council for Giftedness. However, the term can have negative consequences as it helps to perpetuate misconceptions about gifted students as those endowed with unusually high IQs for whom learning and excellent grades come easily and whose abilities are innate and crystallized. It is often believed that once children are identified as gifted, they will always be gifted and display gifted behaviors. A gifted individual has also been stereotyped as a person with extraordinary capabilities in certain areas that elevate them above ordinary people, as expressed in a Portuguese translation of “giftedness” as superdotação, the prefix “super” implying that gifted individuals are powerful, successful, and immune to psychological disorders (Antipoff & Campos, 2010).

The term high ability in conjunction with giftedness (i.e., “high ability/giftedness” and “high ability or giftedness”) can also be found in official documents of the Ministry of Education (MEC, 1995, 2008, 2020) to specify alternative terms used for the phenomenon of giftedness in Brazil. According to the current National Special Education Policy (MEC, 2020, Article 5), “a gifted or high ability student is one who has high achievement or potential in any domain, isolated or combined with other domains, creativity, and school task involvement.” One reason for the inclusion of the term “high ability” in official documents in Brazil was to help overcome the exaggerated stereotypes of gifted students previously mentioned. In the last 15 years, both “giftedness” and “high ability” have been used in the titles of programs and services for gifted students, such as the Atendimento Educacional Especializado ao Estudante com Altas Habilidades/Superdotação do Distrito Federal (Specialized Educational Services for High Ability/Gifted Students of the Federal District). Most teachers and parents prefer to use the term “high ability” because it sends the message that gifted children are not eccentric or abnormal, attributions which, parents have complained, often result in relatives’ and friends’ lack of recognition and appreciation of and support for their children’s needs and characteristics (Alencar et al., 2009), unveiling a covert hostility toward gifted students and their families in the Brazilian culture. On the other hand, depending on the theoretical framework adopted by a program or service, restricting the concept of giftedness to level of ability may be inadequate because the phenomenon cannot be well understood from a unidimensional perspective. It is worth mentioning that in Brazil, most programs and services for gifted children use the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 2016) as a foundational model (Alencar et al., 2019), so that identification procedures rely not only on traditional measures of intelligence but also on evaluations of other dimensions such as creativity, learning preferences, and interests. Therefore, the limitations of terms such as “giftedness” or “high ability” do not influence identification practices.

“Talent” is another term that has sometimes been used in Brazil; however, it is more commonly used to nominate students in specific domains such as arts and sports. Additionally, it is a more neutral term, which does not carry the same, often negative, connotations as the term “giftedness.” However, “talent” is not as widely used by Brazilian parents, educators, and reseachers as “giftedness” and “high ability.” We hypothesize that potential for high achievement in academic domains, connoted by the latter terms, is more valued than potential in other domains, such as arts and sports, particularly among Brazilian families from middle and high socioeconomic backgrounds. On the other hand, “talent” has been adopted by some non-governmental organizations, such as the Social Institute for Motivating, Supporting and Recognizing Talent, The Center for Potential and Talent Development, and the Objetivo Program for Fostering Talent, most likely to reduce the negative connotation that the term “giftedness” often carries. The term “talent” was also used in guidelines issued by the Special Education Office from the Ministry of Education in the 1970s and 1980s, but since the 1990s, the terms “high ability” and “giftedness” have been used by the Brazilian federal government, which legislates educational policy for the states to implement.

Thus, in the last three decades, “giftedness” and “high ability” have been popularized in Brazilian society due to their use by educational policy-makers, educators, researchers, and academic organizations. To have a consensus on terminology, however, does not diminish our argument that although having common terms is to be valued, the most important issue is agreement on the meanings of the terms. According to Davidson (2019), “deliberate effort should be made to bestow the gifted and talented designation as soon as there are indications of extraordinary potential” (p. 44). In this regard, we have to be careful not to wait years to bestow the designation as gifted, talented, or high ability. We should recognize academic potential as early as possible so that it does not fade out.

There is no perfect terminology that could reflect what the giftedness construct means. Furthermore, a society’s values, culture, and traditions determine which of its members can be identified as gifted (Davidson, 2019). For example, according to Sak et al. (2019), the term giftedness does not exist in the Turkish language. We should also remember that there is no single profile of the gifted. In this regard, the gifted can no longer be identified by one single trait, such as abilities measured by IQ scores. In addition, as giftedness is not static, but developmental (Renzulli, 2016), definitions and terminologies may become obsolete and be replaced by new ones over the years. Therefore, it is our contention that whether the terms “giftedness,” “high ability,” or even “talent” are used, it is of utmost importance to be clear about how we define and respond to the phenomenon of giftedness. Above all, society needs to be aware that whether students are referred to as gifted, high ability, or talented, they need and deserve a supportive and nurturing environment.