“Ask Me and I Will Tell You”: Gifted Boys’ Perceptions of Self and School

Socially Constructed Definition of Giftedness

All of the participants in this study were identified as gifted and talented (GT) using an intelligence test and a matrix measuring specific academic abilities. To further my understanding of gifted identification as it is defined by the participating district, I explored Pfeiffer’s (2012) description of giftedness that stresses intelligence scores do not tell educators everything about the intelligence of a child. He explained giftedness as not only defined by an intelligence score, but also is a socially constructed concept. He stressed that individuals can be gifted in one area or another and it is difficult to identify giftedness in such concrete terms (Pfeiffer, 2012). Examining giftedness through a socially constructed lens helps teachers deepen their understandings about the exceptional intelligence and behaviors that are above and beyond the modes of thinking for most people. While there is no argument against an intelligence test as a measure of cognitive ability, Pfeiffer (2012) and Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson (2015) focus on other components such as creativity, independence, and sociality in the classroom to measure overall ability of high-achieving students. Similar findings by Baum, Schader, and Hébert (2014) noted several other socially constructed factors that support superior talents and cultivate growth in students: a psychologically safe classroom, tolerance for various levels of emotional maturity, and positive teacher–student relationships. Additional criteria noted by Baudson and Preckel (2016) included creativity, social skills, independence, individual motivation, and high verbal skills. In this study, the participating school district’s definition of giftedness, which incorporates intelligence measurements and a matrix of performances and behaviors that demonstrate qualities that are superior to same-age peers within the school contexts, guided the inquiry. These qualities, as described in the next section, influence teachers’ perceptions of gifted boys in their classrooms.

Influence of Gender Role on Teachers’ Perceptions

Bailey’s (2011) examination of gifted students and their ego development illustrated that teachers are often trained to emphasize intellectual potential rather than the influence of emotional development on learning. Bailey’s (2011) study found teachers held gendered assumptions that influenced their instructional approaches to addressing the academic, social, and emotional needs of gifted boys. For example, Preckel, Baudson, Krolak-Schwerdt, and Glock (2015) engaged in a rigorous mixed design study to investigate whether stereotypes about gifted students affected teachers’ attitudes toward their academic achievement versus assumptions about their behaviors. They found teachers focused more on boys’ negative behaviors than their positive ones (Preckel et al., 2015). In another study, teachers’ expectations about how students were expected to behave were based on their academic ability rather than their social maturity (Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Boys demonstrated high performance in some subjects yet exhibited poorer social and behavioral skills, such as joking around and not taking learning as seriously as they were expected to; yet they were still held to high behavioral standards despite the asynchrony between the two aspects of personal and school development (Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Finding similar analyses, another study illustrated that teachers’ misconceptions about gifted students sometimes increased the risks for unwanted student behaviors because teachers lacked understanding about how to teach these learners (Baudson & Preckel, 2016). Farrell’s (2016) study also suggested the importance of teachers adopting pedagogy that provided appropriate spaces for boys to learn in ways that interested and engaged them by utilizing their personal learning preferences. Understanding how boys prefer to learn can help teachers design more inclusive and academically appropriate curriculum (Legewie & DiPrete, 2012).

Gifted Boys’ Self-Perceptions Within the Social and Academic Context

Händel, Vialle, and Ziegler’s (2013) study described how gifted boys perceived themselves within their social and academic environments. Peers admired their classmates who had high achievements in extracurricular activities but not in academic endeavors. Students who excelled in math and science were viewed as more intelligent than their peers but less socially adept than others who were gifted athletically or in foreign languages. They noted, “These results are of importance because they show that successful peers are characterized differently as a function of the school subject in which their high achievement is attained” (Händel, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2013, p. 109). Peer acceptance’s influence on self-perceptions of highly intelligent boys is also supported by another study. Rentzsch, Schutz, and Schroder-Abe (2011) sought to understand if being labeled as gifted attributed to more social acceptance and increased self-esteem. These researchers found that high achievement was admired by peers, but only if gifted students showed a conscious level of modesty about it (Rentzsch et al., 2011). A study by Gallagher (2015) found peer’s social acceptance of gifted students decreased when gifted students flaunted their academic superiority and when they displayed various immature behaviors. This study also illuminated the importance of gifted students not wanting to be out-casted by their peers; therefore, they exhibited less intellectual capacity than they possessed because they tried to fit in with their average ability peers (Gallagher, 2015).

Research Site

The research site was a PK-5 elementary school with approximately 600 students. This elementary school has had a long-standing designation as a Title I school with about 80% of the student population served by the free and reduced federal lunch program during any given school year. During the year in which the research occurred, this school served a diverse population with approximately 50% of students identified as White and 27% as Hispanic with 11 different languages spoken among the student population. Nearly half of the students experienced low-socioeconomic home lives because their parents were enrolled as either half-time or full-time students at the local university, therefore, making it difficult for parents to make ends meet when juggling both work and school while raising their families. The other half of the student population experienced low-socioeconomic living conditions because of other factors such as lack of household income or stable housing.

The GT program at this school served about 60 students in second through fifth grades; this enrollment was low in comparison with other elementary school sites in the same district that served about 100 students each in their gifted programs. Qualified students attended the school’s pull-out program 3 to 4 days/week for 40-min sessions. General education teachers were also expected to address individual academic needs within their classrooms as deemed appropriate by students’ achievement levels.

Participants

The participants met the following criteria: (a) male students enrolled in Grades 3-5, (b) identified as GT by the school district’s evaluation measures, and (c) enrolled in the GT program at the school site for at least 1 year or more prior to the study. To identify students for services in specific academic areas, the school district used these instruments: Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), teacher rating scales, a portfolio, a self-directed student project illustrating innovation and creativity, and classroom assessments including curriculum unit tests, benchmark tests, and process grades. Teachers referred students who demonstrated consistent academic or creative skills above grade level for the GT program beginning as early as first grade. All of these assessments were submitted to the district’s GT coordinator who is responsible for reviewing assessments and enrollment into the program. Qualifying students needed to have an overall intelligence score of 120 or higher as measured by the CogAT or a score of 120 or higher on one or more CogAT subtests. They also needed to score a minimum of 40 points on the district-designed matrix for gifted identification.

Of the 19 students who met all criteria for participation in this research, 10 boys volunteered to participate. I assigned undisclosed pseudonyms to the 10 boys who volunteered to be a part of my study. Their parents and guardians provided written permission allowing me to observe them in their classrooms and during unstructured school times, such as lunch and recess. They also permitted their child to participate in semi-structured, individual interviews lasting approximately 20 min each. Five of the participants were enrolled in third grade, one participant was enrolled in fourth grade, and four participants were fifth graders.

Six of the participants were White, three were White and of Hispanic Origin, and one was Native American. Two of the participants spoke Spanish and English and another participant spoke Arabic and English (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participants’ Background Information

Participants’ pseudonyms	Grade level	Age (years)	Ethnicity
Dustin	3	9	White
Henry	3	8	White
Nick	3	9	White/Hispanic
Ryan	3	9	White/Hispanic
Wyatt	3	9	White
Leo	4	10	Native American
Evan	5	10	White
Gavin	5	11	White/Hispanic
Joseph	5	11	White

Data Collection

Data were collected from structured and unstructured observations and individual interviews with the participants. Informal jotting and field notes were the methods used to collect data from 32 observations lasting from 20 to 60 min in the general education classrooms, specials rotations which engaged students in extracurricular activities, the GT pull-out program meeting times, and during numerous unstructured times such as in the hallways and during lunch times. One semi-structured individual interview was held with each participant during the school day in an available classroom where students felt familiar and comfortable with their surroundings. Each interview lasted approximately 20–30 min and all participants were asked the same questions, but subsequent questions varied based on their responses to the standard questions (see the appendix for the interview questions).

Data Analysis

Using the Frame of Reference theory as a lens to analyze data, I used priori coding to discover themes threaded throughout the observation field notes and interview transcripts. To maintain credibility, I encouraged the participants to converse with me freely during interviews and asked them to clarify certain terms, such as social plains and slower learners, as well as their personal perspectives about themselves and school rather than relying on my own interpretation of their dialogue. Lincoln and Guba (1986) suggest, “Credibility serves as an analog to internal validity” (pp. 76–77). Acknowledging that my previous work as an administrator provided me with understandings about how school functions for gifted students at this school site, I remained alert to my own reflexivity by depending on the boys to interpret situations or dialogue that occurred during my observations. I was always aware of my obligation to establish trustworthiness through cross-examination of observation and interview data. I coded my reflections into themes to ensure I shared the perspectives of my participants and not showcase what I wanted educators to know based on my interpretation of the issues facing the boys. Therefore, I maintained written fieldnotes and jottings that included rich descriptions of the settings, activities, participants’ behaviors, and recounts of conversations with all of the participants (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1998).

Overgeneralization of Gifted Abilities

The first key theme was the participants’ feelings of embarrassment when they struggled with understanding certain subjects. The participants believed teachers expected them to grasp every subject easily because of their gifted identities— demonstrating a pedagogical myth that gifted students are exceptional in all academic subjects. Dustin, age 9, shared that he frequently gave up and felt poorly about himself because he struggled in math. He divulged, “I don’t think teachers think I need extra help with math because I am usually do pretty good with other subjects. I don’t like math.” The tone of his voice became softer after I asked him how he felt about himself when he worked on his math assignments. “I don’t know, I’m not very good at it, and that doesn’t make me feel good.” Watching his body language change from alertness during our interview to a withdrawal-like state when he talked about how he felt about math demonstrated to me the importance of not overgeneralizing the abilities of gifted children. Other participants also expressed frustration, inadequacy, shame, and dislike for subjects in which they were not confident. Gavin, age 11, attributed his distaste for math to his perceived lack of mathematical skills. Gavin said, “I can’t think of a time I really liked math. I am just not very good at it.” Looking away from me as if embarrassed to speak, he continued, “I don’t think that I am as intelligent as my teachers think I am because math is hard for me.” Leo, age 10, shared similar feelings about his writing abilities: “I hate to write. I don’t know if that’s because it’s hard for me or because I would rather do something I know I am good at.”

Although the students acknowledged their academic weaknesses for which they desired help, they adamantly stated they did not want teachers offering them guidance during class time because their peers would notice their assumed incompetence—creating a fear of losing their gifted identities. Henry added, “I know I am smart and I like to work by myself. I don’t usually ask the teacher for help. I will just ask my parents to help me at home.” Henry’s response illuminated the importance for the participants to maintain their academic status and their need for teachers to find discrete ways of helping them with their academic challenges. If maintaining both academic status and receiving discrete teacher assistance was not achievable, they would rather miss out obtaining academic skills than risk the demise of their intellectual status. “It makes me feel good that other kids know I’m smart,” smiled Dustin. When Leo was asked about how he felt other students perceived him, he said, “It means a lot that they think I am smart. It’s very hard to get into the gifted class. I like that kids think I can do anything.”

Self-Concept and “Social Plains”

A crucial second theme was the boys’ personal connections to the social aspects of the classroom, specifically how the participants perceived their behaviors compared with that of their peers. When I observed the social aspects of the classroom, I gained more understanding about why the boys felt discouraged when their behaviors were misunderstood as insubordination. I witnessed several of the participants corrected for “misbehaviors” during every observation. These misbehaviors included getting out of their seats to seek the teachers’ help, meandering about the room as they waited for their partners to finish their work, talking to themselves while working, and putting their heads on their desks during lectures. During a one 30-min observation, Nick, age 9, was called out a total of seven times for not looking at the board, getting out of his seat, and putting his head down on his desk. However, Nick raised his hand multiple times to answer questions, but he was never called upon to participate. He later told me,

I get bored waiting for the teacher to let me answer questions. This girl in my class—whenever the teacher asks us a question, she always know the answer first. I think that makes her the smartest in the class. I don’t feel like I am the smartest because I get into trouble a lot.

During another observation, Joseph, age 11, was instructed several times to sit down and finish his work, when in fact, he was waiting for his partner to complete his part of the assignment before they could move on. “Working with a partner that doesn’t cooperate with you or doesn’t think like you gets frustrating,” admitted Joseph. Furthermore, Matthew, age 11, was directed to return to his seat and complete his assignment when he joined other students who were circled together and talking. I observed that the other students had barely touched their assignments yet were allowed to be standing and talking to each other without being asked to return to their seats. I asked the boys about these incidents during their interviews, and they reported they lacked academic challenge, were exasperated from working with peers who the boys perceived to not be at their academic level, or they finished with their work and needed creative explorations of work or reading time. Matthew commented, “I prefer people talk when I am working because it helps me focus and calms me down for some reason.” As Matthew was talking, I paused to recognize that it had never occurred to me that students, especially gifted boys like him, whose minds can concentrate on multiple things at once might prefer background noise to enhance their focus on their studies. When it was too quiet in his classroom, he admitted he talked to himself to help remain focused on the assignments. Joseph confessed, “When the teacher is talking about something I already know how to do, I talk.” Participants also felt unfairly redirected because their peers engaged in similar behaviors without receiving consequences. Evan, age 10, argued, “Fairness does not necessarily mean the same to a teacher as it does to a kid. How is me making quiet noises to myself any different than everyone else talking when they are not supposed to?” Not seeing their behaviors more different than their peers’ actions demonstrated their attunement to a sense of justice, or fairness, and felt consistent expectations should apply across the board. The boys felt their intelligence created a different standard for expected behaviors than the expectations of other students in the classroom. In other words, teachers’ behavioral expectations of them were perceived to be as high as their academic expectations. According to some studies, “Many boys evaluate policy by its implementation rather than the fairness of the behavior it asks for” (Cleveland, 2011, p. 92). Nine out of 10 boys, however, felt their peers did not treat them any differently because they were gifted. Sadly though, this was not the case for Evan. Evan revealed,

I have pretty much zero friends who care. The only people I can really talk to are always being jerks, and they always find things to talk about themselves. Social plains are different. (It’s hard to feel more mature than your peers). We should do something about social plains (where this student felt he fit in socially and developmentally as compared to his peers within the classroom environment). They suck. Other kids are not socially on my level.

I concluded that Evan wanted to feel his teachers were aware of the importance of social acceptance on the development of self-perceptions. These gifted students were keenly aware of their assumed place within the classroom environment, and it was vital for them to feel included and necessary within the classroom community. Reflecting on behaviors like the ones mentioned sheds lights on the importance of designing a rigorous and engaging curriculum, making the gifted boys in this study feel more included rather than excluded through constant redirection of misperceived behaviors.

Gifted Boys’ Perceptions About Curriculum

Third, the participants recounted a missing instructional component from their school experience—allowing them to have an opinion when choosing relevant and engaging instructional practices. All participants desired to be academically challenged, and the selection of rigorous curriculum related to their personal learning styles was essential to their self-concepts Henry, age 8, acknowledged, “Sometimes I would like to learn more and have the teachers challenge us more I like to work on projects and learn how things work.” They craved opportunities to learn concepts using student-driven instruction and investigative methods rather than deficit-based approaches to pedagogy. Commonly used teaching methods such as oral discussions, worksheets, textbook assignments, and homework reinforcing rote memorization were uninteresting to them. Ryan, age 9, stated, “I am usually ahead of everybody in class and get bored waiting to learn something new. I would actually like to skip a grade. Maybe that would help.” The participants opposed the seemingly obvious instructional methods geared toward “slower learners,” as stated by Matthew, Evan, and Ryan, and rendered them pointless because they already knew the material. The boys’ end-goals were not to learn from instructional activities but to finish them quickly so they could pursue independent learning time or reading. “I would rather read, build objects, research topics on the Internet, or pretty much do anything but worksheets,” retorted Wyatt, age 9. The boys divulged feelings of boredom because they felt teachers did not care enough about them to put forth the effort to stimulate their minds academically. Ninety percent of the boys confessed a lack of hope that school could be a motivating and exciting place to learn. Gavin believed his educational experience should be a place that encouraged and challenged him, but was losing hope that school would ever meet his academic needs:

It’s human nature to survive. We have learned to survive by being with other people.

School is not necessary because we can learn from others. We were born with an education to some degree. We know how to learn from each other and survive. As long as we can survive and get along in the world, I don’t see why we need a formal education.

Gavin did not like feeling this way but was not sure how to tell teachers he needed more from them to make his educational experience more worthwhile. All participants expressed defeat when divulging they did not feel like they had control over their academics. They could not recall a time when they had been asked their opinions about their classwork or felt their opinions mattered at all. “We have no control to change what things we learn,” believed Evan. Not allowing students to have instructional choices devalues them as human beings and negates the purpose of education—to help all children reach their academic and developmental potential. Gavin noted, “I’m not generally a fan of school because of the way we have to learn. We do not get to choose topics we want to learn about and study in the ways that work for us.”

An example of such a classroom was the boys’ GT class. In this class, students were allowed to talk to one another while working. I observed the participants participate in this class and compared their behaviors with the ones in the general education classes. They smiled more and appeared more relaxed when they were around other kids like them. They were fully engaged in projects and inquiry-based learning. During one observation, the fifth grade participants were planning their upcoming GT field trip in which they were going to take a public bus on a scenic tour of the popular places within their city. All of the boys told me that they like being in the GT class; Gavin indicated, “We are freer to explore our interests and enjoy not having to spend time on concepts we already know.” Wyatt reported that he enjoys attending this class because “We get to build rockets. I like to learn how things work.” In addition, Leo and Dustin expressed their love of building things and enjoyed working with their hands and said it kept them engaged in learning. Leo remarked, “We get to make projects and do lots of fun stuff like coding and building golf courses.” Similarly, Henry replied, “We get to create and build things.”

Conclusively, educators lacked an understanding of how the consideration personal learning preferences could have enhanced their motivation for learning. It was not enough to be considered gifted among their classmates. The boys possessed a desire to learn at their own academic levels with input about which instructional strategies engaged them, encouraged them to achieve more, and valued them as students in the learning community.

The analyses lead to discussion for instructional implications that focuses on the importance of supporting gifted boys’ self-concepts through the curriculum and social aspects of the classroom.