Elementary teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and professional development needs concerning gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to update the state of knowledge and attitudes of teachers concerning gifted students and their educational needs in theNetherlands. Additionally, this study aimed to gain insights into teachers’ professional development (PD) needs regarding giftedness, taking teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning this topic into account. Aquestionnaire was filled out by 116 teachers from thirteen elementary schools in the Netherlands. Teachers seemed to have little knowledgeabout how to identify and support gifted students. Their overall attitude was positive, however, teachers held negative or ambivalent attitudestowards ability grouping and acceleration. All teachers were interested in receiving PD, although teachers who had the most knowledge and most positive attitude were most interested. Teachers reported the most need for PD activities that do not require too much time and take place at their workplace. However, teachers’ knowledge and attitude related positively to PD activities that require a greater time investment. The findings of the present study underline the importance of PD for teachers concerning giftedness. Future research is needed to effectively design and incorporate PD activities for teachers which meet their knowledge,attitudes, and PD needs. This eventually contributes to better education for gifted students.

KEYWORDS:

• Correlational Analysis
• Descriptive Analysis
• Teacher Knowledge
• Teacher Attitude
• Teacher Professional Development

Introduction

As in many, and increasingly more, countries worldwide, education in the Netherlands aims at inclusion of all students (Ainscow, 2020; Ministry of Education, Culture and Science [OCW], 2021). Teachers play a key role in this (Madalińska-Michalak, 2018). Especially in elementary schools, inclusive education can be a challenge for teachers. Classes usually consist of a large, heterogeneous group of students in terms of learning abilities, knowledge, and skills. All these students have their own educational needs. Gifted students, for example, need less repetition, and they need to engage with more advanced materials and content than their classmates (Little, 2018). In the Netherlands, elementary school teachers are mainly good at educating the “average student” and the “low-achieving student,” while they seem to have difficulties with educating the “cognitively talented student” (De Boer et al., 2013; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2016). Consequently, the pedagogical needs of gifted students are often not met by their teachers (De Boer et al., 2013; Inspectorate of Education, 2018). As a result, gifted learners in the Netherlands academically lag behind gifted learners in other countries (Inspectorate of Education, 2018; OECD, 2012). This contradicts the purpose of education, that is an optimal continuous development process for every student (OCW, 2021).

Teachers in the Netherlands seem to lack the proper knowledge and attitudes concerning giftedness to meet gifted students’ needs (De Boer et al., 2013; Smeets et al., 2015). They seem to be unaware that gifted learners have additional educational and instructional needs; they think that gifted learners will learn without support (Van Gerven, 2021). This is a common myth in other countries too (Cooper, 2009; Moon, 2009; Peterson, 2009). Additionally, they are insufficiently aware of how to differentiate for gifted learners (Van Gerven, 2021). Numerous studies in other countries have been conducted regarding (pre-service) teachers’ knowledge and attitudes about gifted education (e.g. Cross et al., 2018; Antoun et al., 2020; McCoach & Siegle, 2007). Studies among Irish (Cross et al., 2018), Finnish (Laine et al., 2019), Swedish (Allodi & Rydelius, 2008) Australian (Lassig, 2009), Lebanese (Antoun et al., 2020), and American (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Troxclair, 2013) (pre-service) teachers found that teachers were moderately supportive or neutral toward gifted students and special services for gifted students, but they were often ambivalent or negative toward acceleration options and ability grouping for these students. A study on the knowledge of German pre-service teachers revealed that these teachers had a substantial level of misconceptions (Heyder et al., 2018). A cross-country comparison study by Matheis et al. (2017) also revealed many misconceptions among teachers in Germany and Australia. Moreover, they revealed an ambivalent attitude of teachers toward gifted students in these countries (Matheis et al., 2017). Knowledge and attitudes concerning gifted students and gifted education thus varies within and between countries and topics. Misconceptions and negative or ambivalent attitudes are problematic since they are fundamental in educational practice (e.g. Kunter et al., 2013; Little, 2018). They also influence numerous student outcomes as academic achievement and social and emotional development (e.g. Miller, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005; Zundans, 2006).

In the Netherlands, teachers seem to be aware of their lack of knowledge and their ambivalent attitudes concerning giftedness: a substantial proportion of teachers reported that they have a strong need for professional development (PD) concerning the education for gifted students (Smeets et al., 2015). While meeting teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and other needs in PD activities is important (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Little & Housand, 2011), teachers in the Netherlands often experience that their PD needs and interests are not being fulfilled (OECD, 2016). This might explain why teachers’ knowledge concerning gifted students is still poor. A lack of PD that matches teachers’ needs is a problem that is faced by teachers outside the Netherlands too (OECD, 2009).

Teachers’ insufficient knowledge and attitudes are a problem for gifted students themselves and society as a whole. Gifted students need to be seen and supported by teachers to be able to fully develop their potential talent (De Boer et al., 2013). When gifted students’ educational needs are not met, their well-being can be affected. They could develop social-emotional difficulties (Mathijssen et al., 2018), underachieve (White et al., 2018), or even drop out of (regular) education (Hansen & Toso, 2007). Furthermore, not fully developing gifted students’ potential cognitive talent leads to high costs for society in terms of productivity of the knowledge society and gross domestic product (Minne et al., 2007; OECD, 2010). PD programs that meet teachers’ level of knowledge and teachers’ attitudes, could improve teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning gifted students and their educational needs (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Little & Housand, 2011). PD that meets teachers’ needs, in turn, could result in improved education for gifted students (Thurlings & Den Brok, 2017).

The present study aims to give an update on the state of elementary school teachers’ knowledge and attitude about the gifted and their educational needs in the Netherlands. Additionally, this study aims to gain insights into teachers’ PD needs regarding giftedness, taking teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning the gifted into account. Finally, this study aims to contribute to the international comparison of these topics from a Dutch perspective.

Previous documents offering insights into teachers’ knowledge are mainly based on policy documents and estimates of school staff instead of a validated knowledge questionnaire (e.g. De Boer et al., 2013). Besides, previous studies have not (or only very limited) studied teachers’ attitudes concerning gifted students and their educational needs (e.g. De Boer et al., 2013; Hoogeveen et al., 2005). The outcomes of the present study could be used to develop more effective PD activities that match teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and PD needs.

Context

This study has been carried out within the context of the Dutch educational system. In the Netherlands, there is freedom of education: both public and private schools are treated equally by the law. All elementary schools must adhere to the elementary education law, which states that schools should facilitate an uninterrupted development process for their students (Ministry of OCW, 2016). The additional law of “appropriate education” [passend onderwijs] states that every child should receive the education that fits their qualities and possibilities (Official Gazette of the Kingdom of the Netherlands [Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden] (2012)). Education for gifted students is explicitly mentioned in this law. While appropriate education is mandatory for gifted students as well, schools are free in how they define giftedness and how they make the education for gifted students fit their potential (Ministry of OCW, n.d.).

The freedom in the definition of, and education for gifted students results in a wide variety in definitions and educational arrangements for gifted learners (De Boer et al., 2013; Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010). In general, gifted students in Dutch elementary schools are in regular mixed ability classrooms with 23 up to 30 children. Common educational adjustments for these students are differentiation in the classroom, acceleration by skipping a grade, and attending an enrichment group or pull-out class within the school or at another school or organization (De Boer et al., 2013). Gifted students can also attend full-time segregated education, these schools were not involved in the present study (Van Gerven, 2021). Who qualifies for these educational adjustments/arrangements differs between the offered adjustments and between schools (Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010). Schools nominate students for adjustments for gifted learners based on good learning results/grades, an IQ test, the wish of caregivers, toolkits, interests, motivation, and/or social aspects (Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010; Van Gerven, 2021). Schools often do not have a clear policy and/or clear criteria concerning gifted students and their educational adjustments. Enthusiastic and engaged teachers are often the most important actors in meeting the needs of gifted students (De Boer et al., 2013; Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010).

Most teachers in the Netherlands do not feel qualified enough to work with gifted students, despite being a fully licensed teacher (Van Gerven, 2021). Within their teacher-training program, the attention paid to knowledge of, and specific pedagogical and didactical skills regarding gifted education is very limited and often not obligatory (Van Gerven, 2021). Teachers, therefore, feel like they miss the knowledge, skills, and understanding to effectively teach gifted students (De Boer et al., 2013; Van Gerven, 2021). Acquiring knowledge about teaching gifted people is usually gained through in-service training. Teacher-training institutes offer for continuous professional development regarding gifted education are marginal (Van Gerven, 2021).

Giftedness

How giftedness is perceived and identified depends on the culture one looks at (Sternberg, 2007). As mentioned earlier, there are no explicitly established identification criteria for giftedness in the Netherlands. Giftedness criteria are defined by schools, institutions, and organizations themselves (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). This is not only characteristic of the Netherlands but also of Belgium, Poland and Lebanon for example (Antoun et al., 2020; Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). In the Netherlands, the multi-factor model of Mönks and Span (1984) is often used in the educational context to describe giftedness. This model builds on the triadic model of Renzulli (1978). The model of Renzulli has been based on the idea that giftedness is a combination of above-average abilities, creativity, and task commitment (Renzulli, 1978). In the Netherlands, above average ability is usually defined as above average intellectual ability. Mönks’ addition to Renzulli’s model – adding environmental actors – entails that the positive interaction between family, school, and peers contributes to the development of gifted potential into gifted achievement (Mönks & Span, 1984). The teacher thus plays an important part. In the present study, the conceptualization of giftedness has been based on the model of Mönks. Meaning that giftedness entails more than (only) a high IQ score, it also includes creative thinking and motivation to learn (Mönks & Span, 1984). In the method section of the present study, it is explained in more detail how this conceptualization of giftedness is reflected in the measurements.

Knowledge and attitudes

Teachers’ professional competence consists, among others, of their knowledge (Kunter et al., 2013). According to research, knowledge can be distinguished between teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and psychological-pedagogical knowledge (PPK; Shulman, 1986). Teachers’ content knowledge is the thorough understanding of the content that they teach (Kunter et al., 2013). Teachers’ PPK is the non-subject-specific knowledge to create and optimize powerful teaching and learning situations (Voss et al., 2011). In the context of education for gifted learners, this knowledge includes being able to identify gifted students (i.e. knowing what giftedness entails) and provide an appropriate learning environment for these students (knowing how to support these students; Voss et al., 2011). PPK supports teachers to counter common myths and misconceptions about giftedness (Heyder et al., 2018). It makes teachers more able and comfortable to offer the educational adjustments that gifted students need (Little, 2018). When teachers have insufficient PPK they are less able to: provide learning environments that are cognitively activating; adjust the pace of their instruction to students’ needs; relate to their students; recognize problems with comprehension; avoid disturbances in the classroom (Voss et al., 2011). Teachers’ PCK entails the subject-specific knowledge to make content accessible to students, e.g. knowing how to effectively teach gifted students in a certain subject (Kunter et al., 2013). When teachers’ PCK is insufficient, their instruction is less cognitively activating and their learning support toward students is less strong (Kunter et al., 2013). This, in turn, negatively influences their students’ achievement, motivation, and enjoyment in the subject (Kunter et al., 2013).

Besides knowing the content, knowing how to transfer the content, and knowing how to create a supportive learning environment for every student, teachers’ attitudes are also part of their professional competence (Kunter et al., 2013). Attitudes are the feelings and cognitive beliefs a person has about something or someone and the behavior shown in response (Stern & Keislar, 1975). Attitudes influence behavior at various levels: at the individual, interpersonal, and societal level (Bohner & Wänke, 2002). Teacher attitudes regarding giftedness and teaching gifted learners affect gifted students because attitudes influence teacher behavior in the classroom (Ajzen, 1991; Berman et al., 2012). For example Berman et al. (2012) have found that teachers’ attitudes about gifted students influence their willingness to teach gifted students, their instructional approaches for gifted students, and other teaching strategies for gifted students (Berman et al., 2012). Additionally, teachers’ attitudes can influence gifted students’ attitudes, performances, creativity, and social and emotional development (e.g. Miller, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005; Zundans, 2006).

Teachers’ knowledge and attitudes are related to each other. Attitudes affect how information is taken in and accepted: This is also known as the “attitudinal selectivity effect” (Bohner & Wänke, 2002). Information is more likely to be accepted when it supports one’s current attitudes and more likely to be rejected when it opposes one’s current attitudes (Bohner & Wänke, 2002). Having a lack of knowledge or having misconceptions could support negative attitudes and vice versa (Almakhalid, 2012). When teachers have insufficient knowledge and attitudes, they might be less prone to participate in professional development regarding gifted education, thus failing to understand their need for professional development (Lassig, 2009).

Professional development needs

In this study, PD is defined as increasing teachers’ understanding of the processes of teaching and learning and facilitating their understanding of the students whom they teach (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). PD is seen as the best method to improve teacher quality (Desimone & Garet, 2015) and as a critical support structure for the quality of the teaching of gifted students (Little, 2018). PD stimulates the increase in knowledge, and change in attitudes and skills of teachers (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Little & Housand, 2011; Thurlings & Den Brok, 2017).

According to the Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002), teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (personal domain) should be considered in PD. Change can, following this model, only occur when the personal domain is included in PD. Research showed that PD meeting teachers’ current level of knowledge and attitudes, stimulates teachers’ level of participation and opportunity to learn (Little & Housand, 2011). Furthermore, it is important to consider teachers’ PD needs in terms of preferred timeframe, format, and topics (Owens et al., 2018). Offering PD that matches these needs, helps to increase teachers’ willingness to attend and engage in PD (Owens et al., 2018). Additionally, it helps to increase teachers’ perception of the value and quality of PD (Owens et al., 2018).

In summary, for PD to be most effective, it is crucial that teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and PD needs are considered. It is therefore important to know the state of teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and PD needs concerning gifted learners.

Research questions

The following research questions are examined in the present study:

1. What are elementary school teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands?

2. What are elementary school teachers’ PD needs concerning gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands?

3. What are elementary school teachers’ PD needs concerning gifted students and their educational needs in relation to teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands?

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 116 teachers of all grades (kindergarten – grade 6) from 13 regular elementary schools in the Netherlands. One teacher from every school participated in a educational field lab on giftedness. Their colleagues did not participate in the field lab.

The majority of the teachers were female (80%), and their average age was 39.9 years (SD = 11.6; age range 22–63 years). On average they had 15.6 years of teaching experience (SD = 10.5; range 1–42 years).

Procedure

An information letter about the research, including a consent form and a link to the online survey, was sent by e-mail to the teachers that participated in the learning community. The teachers were asked to send this e-mail to all their teacher colleagues. Participation by the teachers was voluntary. After ten days, the online survey had been closed. In total, 170 respondents filled in the questionnaire, and 116 questionnaires were completed. It is not clear how many teachers received the invitation for the research; therefore no exact response rate can be given. Based on information on the school websites, around 235 teachers work on the 13 schools. The estimated response rate is therefore almost 72%. The research proposal has been reviewed by the ethics committee of [Fontys University of Applied Sciences] and received positive advice.

Instruments

This study has a survey-research design. The constructed survey consisted of several existing questionnaires and self-designed items. Statements of existing questionnaires were translated from English to Dutch using a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). In total, the survey consisted of 96 items.

Knowledge

Teachers’ knowledge about gifted students and their needs was examined with a 35-items questionnaire. The items were based on the Knowledge test, a 40-items questionnaire with a true-false-do-not-know item response format designed by Heyder et al. (2018). To our knowledge, this test is one of the only knowledge assessments regarding giftedness used in teacher education and professional development of teachers. However, this questionnaire considers a unidimensional concept of giftedness (Heyder et al., 2018). As mentioned in the introduction, the current study conceptualizes giftedness based on the multi-factor model of Mönks. The questions of the Knowledge Test of Heyder et al. (2018) do align with the concepts of Mönks. For example “Compared with students with average aptitude, gifted students have a larger general academic potential” for above average (intellectual) abilities, “Gifted students are also characterized by above-average creativity in thinking” for creativity, and “Almost all gifted students are motivated to learn if they are sufficiently challenged” for motivation. To align the Knowledge Test more with the conceptualization of giftedness in the present study, all items were discussed collaboratively between three of the authors, and statements and answers were revised afterward if necessary. Five items of the original questionnaire were deleted completely, and six items were adjusted. Appendix A gives an overview of the altered and deleted questions.

Item difficulties ranged from 2% to 98%. The item-total correlations ranged from .08 to .56. Three items were deleted because of a negative item-total correlation (see Appendix A). Following the procedure of Heyder et al. (2018), other items with low item-total correlations were kept as these items had relatively high or low item difficulties and because knowledge of giftedness is seen as a heterogeneous construct, which is known to go along with relatively low item-total correlations (Fisseni, 2004, as cited in Heyder et al., 2018). Reliability analyses indicated that the 32-item version of the knowledge scale had sufficiently high internal consistency (α = .81). This is in line with the internal consistency (α = .79) of the original questionnaire (Heyder et al., 2018).

The knowledge items were recoded (1 = correct, 2 = incorrect), whereby “do not know” answers were labeled as incorrect as well. Next, a knowledge scale was made by taking the sum score of all items, whereby a valid answer had to be given for all items.

Attitudes

For this study, the 34-items validated questionnaire Opinions about the Gifted and their Education by Gagné and Nadeau (1991) was used to assess teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs. This is a widely used instrument (e.g. Lassig, 2009; Troxclair, 2013). In this study, six statements were left out due to an error in the questionnaire program (see Appendix B). Furthermore, some statements were adjusted to more general statements (e.g. “schools” instead of “our school” and “Gifted students … ” instead of “A greater number of gifted students … ”). Participants rated the statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The original questionnaire measures respondents’ attitudes toward six issues of gifted education. The present study is interested in the overall attitude rating and the item attitude rating. Therefore, a general attitude scale was created by taking the mean score of all items, whereby a valid answer had to be given for all items. Reliability analyses indicated that the 28-item version of the knowledge scale had a sufficient internal consistency (α = .75).

Professional development needs

Teachers’ PD needs were examined with a 34-items self-constructed questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into five categories consisting of multiple items. All items, except the last item, were rated on an interest scale ranging from 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (extremely interested).

General interest (1-item). The question “Would you like to receive professional support in the field of giftedness?” was asked to measure participants’ interest in receiving PD.

Topics (11-items). Participants were then asked on what topic(s) they would like to receive PD. Eleven topics were named (e.g. twice-exceptional). Reliability analyses indicated that the 11-items had a good internal consistency (α = .84).

Timeframe (9-items). Nine activities with different timeframes were presented to measure the preferred timeframe of PD activities (e.g. one-time full-day workshop). These items have originally been designed for the MO‐STEM PD Needs Assessment Survey (Owens et al., 2018). Reliability analyses indicated that the 9-items had a sufficient internal consistency (α = .70).

Format (12-items). Twelve different formats of PD activities were presented to measure the preferred timeframe for PD (e.g. attending programs offered by the school). Again, these items come from the MO‐STEM PD Needs Assessment Survey (Owens et al., 2018). Two extra items were added to fit the Dutch context (“Conduct research under supervision in a sub-area of giftedness” and “Attending a peer performance track”). Reliability analyses indicated that the 12-items had a good internal consistency (α = .91).

Requirements to participate in PD (1-item). The open question “What do you need to receive professional support?” was used to measure what participants need to receive and successfully finish PD activities.

Results

Knowledge & attitude

Table 1 shows the range, mean, standard deviation, and frequencies for the knowledge and attitude questionnaires. Teachers’ knowledge about gifted students and their educational needs varied between 2 and 30 correct responses (6% − 94%). On average about half of the questions were answered correctly (M = 15.0, SD = 5.4), one-fourth of the questions were answered wrong (M = 8.0, SD = 3.9), and slightly more than one-fourth of the questions were answered with “do not know” (M = 9.0, SD = 5.6). Teachers held the strongest misconceptions about the relation between social-emotional wellbeing and giftedness (items 9, 19 & 24), the relation between giftedness and interests (item 33), and the relation between challenge in lessons and giftedness (item 17). These items held the highest error rates.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for knowledge and attitude measures.

	Range	Mean	SD	Freq (%)
Knowledge^a
Assessed knowledge	2–30	15.0	5.4	47
Misconceptions	0–18	8.0	3.9	25
Uncertainty	0–24	9.0	5.6	28
Attitude^b	2.54–4.29	3.55	0.6
High negative (<2.00)				0
Negative (2.00–2.74)				1
Ambivalent (2.75–3.24)				17
Positive (3.25–3.99)				72
High positive (4.00–5.00)				10

Notes. ^aAssessed knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainty refer to the results of the 32-item knowledge test. ^bClassifications of attitude scores as classified by Troxclair (2013).

For the qualitative interpretation of the attitude mean scores, Gagné and Nadeau (1991) interpretation was used: mean scores below 2.00 indicate a high negative attitude, mean scores above 2.00 but below 2.75 indicate a negative attitude, mean scores between 2.00 and 2.75 reflect an ambivalent attitude, mean scores above 3.25 but below 4.00 indicate a positive attitude while a mean score above 4.00 refers to a high positive attitude. Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs varied between a negative and a high positive attitudes. Overall, teachers held a positive attitude (M = 3.55). Only one teacher had a negative attitude, and less than one-fifth (17%) of the teachers had an ambivalent attitude. Teachers held, among others, a negative attitude toward special classes for gifted students (M = 2.54) and separating students into gifted and other groups (M = 2.65).

Professional development needs

To investigate to what extent teachers would like to receive PD regarding giftedness, frequencies were calculated (see Table 2). Interest in receiving PD ranged from “a little interested” to “strongly interested,” most participants (58%) were interested.

Table 2. Interest in receiving PD concerning giftedness.

	Range	Mean	SD
Interest in PD	3–5	4.0	0.7

Frequencies were also calculated for the various items of PD topics concerning giftedness (see Table 3). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run to examine if the various items statistically differed from each other. The degree of interest in the different topics did not vary much. Teachers were overall “interested” to “strongly interested” in all topics. Teachers were significantly least interested in the topic “definition” (M  = 2.9, SD  = 0.8). Teachers were significantly most interested in the topics “materials,” “educational needs,” “underachievement” (M  = 4.2, SD  = 0.8), and “identification” (M  = 4.2, SD  = 0.9).

Table 3. Interest in various PD topics concerning giftedness.

	Range	Mean	SD
Materials	1–5	4.2	0.8
Educational needs	1–5	4.2	0.8
Underachievement	1–5	4.2	0.9
Identification	1–5	4.2	0.9
Twice-exceptional	1–5	4.0	1.0
Enrichment	1–5	4.0	1.0
Differentiation	1–5	3.9	1.0
Acceleration of curriculum	1–5	3.4	1.1
Compacting	1–5	3.4	1.2
Criteria pull-out class	1–5	3.2	1.2
Definition	1–4	2.9	0.8

Next, frequencies were calculated for the various timeframes of PD concerning giftedness (see Table 4). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run to examine if the various items statistically differed from each other. Teachers were significantly least interested in PD activities that take place during the weekend (M  = 1.3, SD  = 0.8) or summer break (M  = 1.3, SD  = 0.9). One-time workshops (M  = 3.8, SD  = 1.2; M  = 3.5, SD  = 1.4), training or workshops during school hours (M  = 4.0, SD  = 1.2), and recurring sessions during school hours (M  = 3.7, SD  = 1.2) were significant of most interest

Table 4. Interest in various PD activity timeframes.

	Range	Mean	SD
Training or workshops during school hours	1–5	4.0	1.2
One-time, half-day workshop	1–5	3.8	1.2
Recurring sessions during school hours	1–5	3.7	1.2
One-time, short workshop (max. 2 hours)	1–5	3.5	1.4
One-time, all-day workshop	1–5	3.5	1.3
Ongoing support program	1–5	3.1	1.4
Recurring sessions outside of school hours	1–5	2.8	1.3
Intensive workshops during summer break	1–5	1.3	0.9
Weekend training	1–5	1.3	0.8

Subsequently, frequencies were calculated for the various formats of PD activities (see Table 5). Additionally, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run. Teachers significantly preferred “face-to-face programs at own school” most (M  = 4.1, SD  = 1.0). The significantly least preferred formats were “face-to-face programs with 1–2 hours travel time” (M  = 2.1, SD  = 1.3), “online communities and forums” (M  = 2.2, SD  = 1.2), and “research under supervision” (M  = 2.1, SD  = 1.3).

Table 5. Interest in various PD activity formats.

	Range	Mean	SD
Face‐to‐face programs at own school	1–5	4.1	1.0
Observing an expert teacher	1–5	3.7	1.2
Face‐to‐face programs in the region	1–5	3.5	1.1
Professional learning community	1–5	3.3	1.2
Mentorship from an expert teacher	1–5	2.9	1.4
Peer performance track	1–5	2.7	1.3
Virtual training and webinars	1–5	2.7	1.3
Online, self‐paced learning modules	1–5	2.5	1.3
Hybrid model (face‐to‐face & online)	1–5	2.4	1.3
Conduct research under supervision	1–5	2.2	1.3
Online communities and forums	1–5	2.2	1.2
Face‐to‐face programs (1–2 hr. travel time)	1–5	2.1	1.3

Overall, teachers’ answers to the open question “What do you need in order to receive professional support?” aimed at facilitating PD in terms of time, money, and materials. Teachers mostly answered that they need time off during working hours to be able to invest time in PD activities, for example, a teacher answered “The space and time to delve into this [professional development concerning giftedness]. For example, a few days out of class, to receive professional support during class time.”

Knowledge and attitude related to professional development needs

Spearman correlations were calculated to examine to what extent teachers’ knowledge and attitude concerning giftedness were related to teachers’ interest in receiving PD concerning giftedness. Teachers’ knowledge (r_s = .211, p = .023) and attitude (r_s = .388, p < .001) were positively related to interest in receiving PD.

Next, Spearman correlations were calculated to see to what extent teachers’ knowledge and attitude were related to teachers’ interest in various topics of PD (see Table 6). Teachers’ knowledge and attitude were not related to most topics. Teachers’ knowledge was only significantly positively related to the topic “differentiation” (r_s = .209, p = .024). Teachers’ attitude was only significantly positively related to the topic “identification” (r_s = .221, p = .017) and “twice-exceptional” (r_s = .246, p = .008).

Table 6. Spearman correlations between knowledge, attitude, and topics for PD.

	Knowledge	Attitude
Materials	.12	.03
Educational needs	−.01	.09
Underachievement	.05	.18
Identification	.02	.22**
Twice exceptional	.17	.25**
Enrichment	.08	.07
Differentiation	.21*	.07
Acceleration of curriculum	.08	.06
Compacting	.04	−.01
Criteria pull-out class	.04	.07
Definition	−.04	.06

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Spearman correlations were also calculated for teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and timeframes of PD activities (see Table 7). Teachers’ knowledge was only positively related to training and workshops or recurring sessions during school hours (r_s = .196, p = .034;r_s = .197, p = .034). Teachers’ attitude was significantly positively related to five timeframes: “recurring sessions outside of school hours” (r_s = .206, p = .027), “one-time, all-day workshop” (r_s = .257, p = .005), “ongoing support program” (r_s = .292, sp = .001), “training or workshops during school hours” (r_s = .260, p = .005) and “recurring sessions during school hours” (r_s = .249, p = .007).

Table 7. Spearman correlations between knowledge, attitude, and timeframes of PD activities.

	Knowledge	Attitude
Training or workshops during school hours	.20*	.26**
One-time, half-day workshop	.00	.17
Recurring sessions during school hours	.20*	.25**
One-time, short workshop (max. 2 hours)	−.09	−.01
One-time, all-day workshop	.14	.26**
Ongoing support program	.16	.29**
Recurring sessions outside of school hours	.07	.21*
Intensive workshops during summer break	−.05	− .04
Weekend training	−.12	−.04

Notes. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Finally, Spearman correlations were calculated for teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and formats of PD activities (see Table 8). Teachers’ knowledge was significantly positively related to five formats: “research under supervision” (r_s = .274, p = .003), “hybrid model” (r_s = .186, p = .046), “peer performance track” (r_s = .261, p = .005), “professional learning community” (r_s = .233, p = .012) and “observing expert teacher” (r_s = .232, p = .012). Teachers’ attitude was significantly positively related to the same formats as mentioned with knowledge, excluding the “hybrid model.” Additionally, teachers’ attitude was significantly positively related to face-to-face programs offered in the region (r_s = .187, p = .044) and own school (r_s = .258, p = .005).

Table 8. Spearman correlations between knowledge, attitude, and formats of PD activities.

	Knowledge	Attitude
Face‐to‐face programs at own school	.13	.26**
Observing an expert teacher	.23*	.23*
Face‐to‐face programs in the region	.14	.19*
Professional learning community	.23*	.31***
Mentorship from an expert teacher	.14	.06
Peer performance track	.26**	.33***
Virtual training and webinars	.07	.12
Online, self‐paced learning modules	.05	.05
Hybrid model (face‐to‐face & online)	.19*	.13
Conduct research under supervision	.27**	.18*
Online communities and forums	.11	.03
Face‐to‐face programs (1–2 hr. travel time)	−.01	−.02

Notes. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Conclusions and discussion

The present study aimed to examine teachers’ current state of knowledge and attitude concerning gifted students and their educational needs. Additionally, this study aimed to gain insights into teachers’ PD needs regarding giftedness, taking teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning the gifted and their education into account.

Teachers’ knowledge and attitudes

The first goal of our study was to learn more about teachers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning giftedness. Both are an important part of teachers’ professional competence and influence teacher behavior in the classroom and, in turn, student outcomes (Berman et al., 2012; Kunter et al., 2013; Voss et al., 2011). We might expect from teachers that they have enough PPK and PCK to identify and support gifted students. The results showed that most teachers in the Netherlands are aware of what characterizes giftedness, they know that it entails and requires more than students’ intelligence. However, the results also showed that teachers held multiple misconceptions, especially concerning gifted students and their social and emotional well-being. Teachers seem to regard gifted students as more “fragile” than other students. Many teachers in the sample for example thought that gifted students have many problems and are more depressed. Additionally, more than half of the teachers thought that gifted students are not popular among peers. Vignette studies in Germany found similar misconceptions among (pre-service) teachers (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Weyns et al., 2021). The number of correct answers from teachers varied widely: some teachers knew almost nothing while others knew almost everything. A similar result was found in Heyder et al. (2018) study in Germany.

The results regarding teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs showed a generally positive picture. Most statements had a high mean score, indicating a (high) positive attitude. Teachers value gifted students and think they have, just like any other student, the right for a supportive learning environment. Despite teachers’ general positive attitude toward gifted students and their needs, they had contradictory attitudes concerning educational adjustments such as ability grouping and acceleration. They shared common myths of social maladjustment and knowledge gaps as a result of acceleration. Studies among Irish (Cross et al., 2018), Finnish (Laine et al., 2019), Swedish (Allodi & Rydelius, 2008) Australian (Lassig, 2009), Lebanese (Antoun et al., 2020), and American (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Troxclair, 2013) (pre-service) teachers also found that teachers were generally positive toward gifted students and special services for gifted students, and these teachers too were often ambivalent or negative toward acceleration options and ability grouping for these students. However, acceleration and ability grouping have shown their significant effectiveness in research (e.g. Hattie, 2009; Rogers, 2015)

The current study underlines the earlier view that knowledge of teachers in the Netherlands about gifted learners should be improved (De Boer et al., 2013). Teachers’ attitudes generally do not appear as ambivalent or negative, as previous studies and documents suggest (De Boer et al., 2013). However, their attitudes toward acceleration and ability grouping could be more supportive. Teachers in the Netherlands, as many teachers worldwide, require professional development to transform their misconceptions and improve their attitudes toward acceleration and ability grouping.

Teachers’ professional development needs

Our second goal was to get insight into teachers’ professional development needs concerning gifted students and their educational needs. Our third goal was to see how this related to teachers’ knowledge and attitudes. In line with the 2015 study by Smeets and colleagues, results showed that a substantial part of the teachers was (very) interested in PD concerning gifted students and their educational needs. This result emphasizes the need for PD on this topic. As expected, teachers’ knowledge and attitude were positively related to interest in receiving PD concerning giftedness. This indicates that it was especially teachers who needed it least, who were most interested in receiving PD. Desimone et al. (2006) found a similar result in their study concerning PD in mathematics. It might be that teachers are not aware of their insufficient knowledge and attitudes, and as a result, do not see why PD concerning giftedness is necessary for them. Or, as mentioned in the introduction, the attitudinal selectivity effects play a role (Bohner & Wänke, 2002). Teachers do not accept information that does not align with their current attitude and therefore they will not participate in PD. It is therefore important that teachers are confronted with their misconceptions, and that they are made aware of the need for PD concerning giftedness.

Concerning the topic of PD, teachers were least interested in the topic “definition of giftedness.” It could be that the teachers in this study think that they already know the definition of giftedness. Results of the knowledge test indicated that most teachers are indeed aware of the conceptualization of giftedness. Teachers were most interested in the topics “materials,” “educational needs,” “underachievement,” and “identification.” These topics reflect an interest in both theoretical information and practical information, as also found by Masuda et al. (2013) regarding PD in general. This seems beneficial because PD is claimed to be more effective when both theoretical and practical information is included (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021).

In terms of time investment, results indicated that, as expected, teachers were most interested in PD activities that do not consume much time and take place during work hours. This might be explained by the high workload that teachers in the Netherlands experience (Statistics Netherlands, 2018). Teachers indicated the most interest in receiving short-time workshops. This is consistent with the findings of Owens et al. (2018) and Jones and Lee (2014). While teachers prefer short-time PD, literature shows that these types of activities, including workshops, are mostly ineffective (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Short-time activities could be used as effective PD activities when they include follow-up or sustained support (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Additionally, a focus on implementing research-based instructional practices, active learning experience, and adapting practices to the unique classroom situations of teachers could make these activities more effective (Guskey & Yoon, 2009).

Concerning the format of PD activities, teachers want face-to-face PD activities that take place in their schools, which is in line with the study of Owens et al. (2018). While PD on the own school-side is seen as effective, outside experts must be involved in PD activities that take place on the own school-side (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Outside experts provide challenges, fresh input, and broader perspectives on problems. Moreover, they prevent that existing expertise from inside the school is “recycled” (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021).

Teachers mainly indicated that they need to be facilitated to successfully develop professionally, especially in terms of time. Effective PD requires considerable time indeed (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Teachers in the Netherlands experience a high workload, which might explain teachers’ need for time (Statistics Netherlands, 2018). This problem is not only seen in the Netherlands, but in many more countries too (OECD, 2018). However, purely providing more time for PD does not make PD effective in itself. PD needs to be thoughtfully planned and well-implemented (Guskey & Yoon, 2009).

Limitations and future research

Several limitations of the present study should be noted. Participants of this study were teachers from 13 primary schools, who had one teacher in the educational field lab on giftedness. While the participants of this study did not participate in the field lab themselves, they might be influenced by their participating colleague. Therefore their knowledge and attitude toward gifted students could be (slightly) better than the average teacher in the Netherlands. To improve the generalizability of the study, the research can be repeated with a more diverse and larger group of teachers in the Netherlands. Further, teachers in this study held generally positive attitudes toward gifted students and their educational needs. Social desirability might have applied here. Teachers were aware of the topic of the questionnaire and the context of the research; therefore they possibly would not be honest about their real attitudes. Moreover, some changes were made to the instruments. We have modified some statements from the Knowledge Test (Heyder et al., 2018) to better fit the conceptualization of giftedness in the present study. Additionally, we made some minor changes to the “Opinions about the gifted and their education questionnaire” and some statements in this questionnaire were left out due to an error in the questionnaire program. The changes made to the instruments change the tests’ validity substantially. In addition, the Knowledge Test of Heyder et al. (2018) was not validated. Therefore, it was not possible to state what the level of knowledge of teachers was. Only the number of (in)correct answers could be said. To gain more validated insights into the knowledge and attitudes of teachers regarding a more multidimensional conceptualization of giftedness, a (partly) new knowledge assessment might be developed and tested. Furthermore, on closer inspection, not all items used from the MO-STEM PD Needs Assessment Survey (Owens et al., 2018) were formulated very clearly. For example, the timeframes “recurring sessions during school hours” and “training or workshops during school hours” did not include a clear quantitative component, which makes the results less reliable. Last, future research could look more closely at possible predictors of knowledge, attitudes, and PD needs. For example, years of experience and gifted education training. Moreover, it is important that both teachers’ needs and scientific research findings are met in the PD activities that are offered to teachers. Future research is needed to effectively design and incorporate PD activities for teachers which meet their knowledge, attitudes, and PD needs. This eventually contributes to better education for gifted students.

Despite the limitations, the present study gave an update on the state of elementary school teachers’ knowledge and attitude about the gifted and their educational needs in the Netherlands. The findings underlined the importance of PD for teachers concerning gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the present study contributed to the international comparison of these topics from a Dutch perspective.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the professional learning community [POINT], for assistance in data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research [NRO 405-16-627/710].

Notes on contributors

Kim Smeets

Kim Smeets, is a social scientist. She works as a junior researcher at POINT and Tilburg University. Her field of expertise is teachers’ professional development in the field of gifted education for elementary school students.

Ellen Rohaan

Ellen Rohaan., is a teacher educator and senior researcher. Her field of expertise is elementary education professional learning of teachers and learning environments.

Joke Peijnenburg

Joke Peijnenburg, is a pedagogical scientist and child and youth psychologist. She works as a junior researcher at POINT.

Elise Samsen-Bronsveld

Elise Samsen-Bronsveld, is a pedagogical scientist. She works as a junior researcher at POINT and Tilburg University. Her field of expertise is giftedness and sensory processing sensitivity, especially in children.

Anouke Bakx

Anouke Bakx., is a professor of giftedness at Radboud University and an associate professor at Fontys University of Applied Sciences, where she is also academic director of Pabo University. She is founder of the POINT-educational research labs and cofounder of the Scientific Centre of Expertise RATIO (Radboud Talent in Development). Her field of expertise is teachers’ professional development in the field of gifted education for elementary school students.

Appendix Appendix A

Knowledge test items and item statistics

Table

No	Item	P	rj(t-j)
1*	Gifted children always achieve an IQ-score of at least 130. (f)	.66	0.13
2	If your musical performance is well above average, you are gifted. (f)	.73	0.21
3*	Non-intellectual characteristics or skills are also included in the identification of giftedness. (t)	.59	0.19
4*	Assigning a diagnosis of “giftedness” (sticking the label) requires more than assessing their intelligence. (t)	.90	0.14
5	If you show very high performance, you are gifted. (f)	.90	−0.02
6	A few gifted students or adolescents do not perform so well in school. (t)	.98	0.11
7	On average, one out of 1000 children is gifted. (f)	.34	0.23
8	Gifted persons do not have it easy in life. (f)	.16	0.23
9	Gifted students or adolescents often have many problems. (f)	.22	0.33
10*	Gifted students or adolescents often have many and broad interests. (t)	.52	0.08
11	Gifted students or adolescents are usually not very popular among their peers. (f)	.42	0.36
12*	Gifted students or adolescents are, except for their intelligence, no different from other children. (f)	.60	0.11
13	Gifted students skip some developmental phases. (f)	.38	0.31
14	Gifted students are also characterized by above-average creativity in thinking. (t)	.82	0.20
15	In determining giftedness, the student must also be willing to make an above-average effort. (f)	.65	0.15
16*	Almost all gifted students are motivated to learn if they are sufficiently challenged. (t)	.52	0.06
17	Gifted students often refuse to participate in lessons because they are not sufficiently challenged at school. (f)	.22	0.10
	Compared with children or adolescents with average aptitude, gifted children or adolescents are
18	… totally different. (f)	.72	0.34
19	… more often depressed. (f)	.21	0.44
20	… more emotionally immature. (f)	.65	0.52
21	… less mentally stable. (f)	.38	0.55
22	… less sociable and cooperative. (f)	.37	0.47
23	… less afraid and insecure. (t)	.03	−0.14
24	… more suicidal. (f)	.20	0.44
25	… more dependent on their parents. (f)	.42	0.48
26	… on average, equally well adapted. (t)	.31	0.31
27	… less motivated to achieve. (f)	.67	0.55
28	… on average, similarly extroverted. (t)	.26	0.30
29	… more socially incompetent. (f)	.35	0.58
	Compared with students with average aptitude,
30	… gifted students enjoy learning and challenging schoolwork more. (t)	.44	−0.13
31	… gifted students have fewer friends. (f)	.38	0.38
32	… gifted students have a larger general academic potential. (t)	.70	0.11
33	… gifted students have different interests. (f)	.12	0.25
34	… gifted students have more mental issues. (f)	.25	0.64
35	… gifted students have less interest in peers. (f)	.34	0.35
	Items removed from the original survey
	On average, one child out of two classes (of 25 students each) is intellectually gifted. (t)
	Only a few intellectually gifted children or adolescents have no problems at school. (f)
	Intellectually gifted children are tiring babies. (f)
	Intellectually gifted children are able to talk earlier than other children. (f)
	Intellectually gifted children are able to calculate and/or read and/or write before they enter school. (f)

Notes. * = item adjusted, t = true, f = false, P = item difficulty, rj(t-j) = corrected item-total correlation. Items 5, 23 and 30 were dropped due to negative item-total correlations.

Appendix B.

Attitudes of teachers-in-training about giftedness

Table

	Item	M	Range	Rating
1	Children with learning difficulties have the most need of special education services^.a	2.99	1–5	A
2	Schools should offer special educational services for the gifted.	4.32	1–5	HP
3	Most gifted students who skip a grade have difficulties in their social adjustment to a group of older students^.a	2.78	1–5	A
4	Gifted persons are a valuable resource for our society.	4.16	1–5	HP
5	Special programs for gifted students have the drawback of creating elitism^.a	3.24	1–5	P
6	Special education services for gifted students are a mark of privilege^.a	4.01	1–5	HP
7	A child who has been identified as gifted has more difficulty in making friends^.a	3.25	1–5	P
8	We have a greater moral responsibility to give special help to students with learning difficulties than to gifted students^.a	3.72	1–5	P
9	The specific educational needs of the gifted are too often ignored in school.	3.87	1–5	P
10	When the gifted are put in special classes, the other children feel devalued^.a	3.43	1–5	P
11*	I would like my child to be gifted.	2.00	1–4	N
12*	Schools should be able to meet the needs of gifted students too.	4.53	2–5	HP
13	Gifted students need special attention to fully develop their talents.	4.23	2–5	HP
14	Some teachers feel their authority is threatened by gifted students^.a	3.80	1–5	P
15	It is parents who have the major responsibility for helping gifted children develop their talents^.a	3.48	1–5	P
16	In order to progress, a society must develop the talents of gifted persons to a maximum.	3.61	1–5	P
17	By separating students into gifted and other groups, we increase the labeling of children as strong – weak, good – less good, etc^.a	2.65	1–5	N
18	Since we invest supplementary funds for children with difficulties, we should do the same for gifted students.	4.41	2–5	HP
19	When skipping a grade, gifted students miss important knowledge (they have “holes” in their knowledge)^.a	3.11	1–5	A
20	By offering special educational services to gifted students we prepare the future members of an elite class^.a	3.47	1–5	P
21	Tax money should not be spent on appropriate education for gifted students^.a	4.34	1–5	HP
22*	Gifted students should be left in regular classes, so they can serve as intellectual stimulant for the other students^.a	2.54	1–5	N
23	Often, gifted students are rejected because people are envious of them^.a	3.78	1–5	P
24	Average children are the major resource of our society, so they should be the focus of our attention^.a	3.91	1–5	P
25	The regular school program stifles the intellectual curiosity of gifted students.	3.31	1–5	P
26*	Gifted students should be allowed to skip a grade.	3.94	1–5	P
27	The leaders of tomorrow’s society are/will be mostly the gifted students of today.	2.35	1–5	N
28	Gifted children might become vain or egotistical if they are given special attention^.a	4.16	2–5	HP
	Items removed from the original survey
	Gifted children are often bored in school.
	The gifted waste their time in regular class.
	The gifted are already favored in our schools.
	The best way to meet the needs of the gifted is to put them in special classes.
	It is more damaging for a gifted child to waste time in class than to adapt to skipping a grade.
	Children who skip a grade are usually pressured to do so by their parents.

Notes. * = item adjusted, HP = high positive (mean score: 4–5); P = positive (mean score: 3.25–3.9); A = ambivalent (mean score: 2.75–3.24); N = negative (mean score: 2–2.74); HN = high negative (mean score: less than 2).

^aScores reversed: a higher score indicates a more positive attitude.