Many definitions exist to define giftedness. A common denominator in these definitions is that they are ‘classical theories of concepts’ based on a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. As a result, a clear borderline is drawn between those belonging to the category and those outside, supposedly making identification of gifted students easy. In this article, a new way of defining giftedness is suggested by a cluster concept. In addition, the article argues that giftedness is situated - a property of the individual in the environment. These two factors are judged to have significance for understanding giftedness in relation to students who are at risk of being left without provision, such as creative students who perform well in a practical setting. Above all, the paper challenges the idea of provision being based on identification which is based on definition. Instead, it is argued that identification should take place within provision.

A common way to support the development of gifted students is through acceleration. This could mean that students take some (or all) classes with students of a higher year-group, or that they remain with their biological Year-group but work on learning materials intended for older students (Southern & Jones 2015). Several international studies attribute positive outcomes to this strategy in terms of academic achievement, social circumstances, and emotional well-being (c.f. v Tassel-Baska 2023; Steenberger-Hu 2016; Rogers 2007; Dare & Nowicki 2018; Jovanovic et al. 2024).

 More recent changes in the Swedsih Education policy now support the acceleration of gifted and high-achieving elementary school students to upper-secondary level, and allow upper-secondary school students to complete their studies in less than the usual three years, intended to give them early access to university (Proposition 2023/24:79). 

Despite this, Swedish research has highlighted that acceleration is not without its challenges. For example, there is a lack of continuity and planned progression of such activities and accelerated students tend to be set to work in isolation from their peers. In addition, there is no recognition of the extended skills and content possessed by those who have been accelerated making their extra effort and capabilities effectively invisible (Sims 2023). Moreover, headteachers, who are essential in creating the right conditions for acceleration, are uncertain as to how to apply this strategy and do not possess the requisite knowledge to do so, making student provision uncertain (Ivarsson 2023). 

This presentation is based on the first results of a case study of students and their experinces of early entrence to university studies. In addition, we present how a selection of universities’ admittance boards  reason about accepting students via early entrance.

The results indicate that whether students succeed in being accepted varies. While some universities accept the students others deciline their application and treat the students as unqualified, while yet others want to accept the students but are unsure how to realise it in prcatice. 

As a matter of equity and inclusion, more work needs to be done to guarantee equal treatment between universities as  no common system is in place. We see that stronger collaboration between schools and universities is needed, as well as new routines for admittance and registration and how to sidestep an automatic application system based on a completed certificate from upper secondary level. 

In educational policy,  all students’ right to flourish is founded in the Education Act (SFS 2010:800). During the 30 years since the Salamanca Declaration, many efforts have been made to make education and schools more inclusive for learners of diverse abilities.  Nevertheless, both in previous research and in documents produced by official policy agents, a recurring claim is that not enough support is given to the development of students who are ahead in ther learning. For example, the School Inspectorate (2010, 2016, 2018) points to a need to support to such students as a matter of equity. 

Applied to the teaching of English, this problem relates, for example, to students who are native speakers, students who are highly able in what has been described as extra-mural English activities (Sundquist 2009), and students who are defined as linguistically able or even gifted in the area of language (Sims 2021). Frequently identified consequences for these students are that they have to wait for their peers, that they are given ad hoc activities below their level of ability, and that they have to rehearse already attained skills (Sims 2023).

Drawing on Tomlinson’s (1996) theory of differentiated teaching, this project explores the extent to which exercises and texts in English textbooks in Middle school education may potentially stimulate students of diverse abilities; in short, the project aims to assess the books’ level of adaptivity (Bardy et al. 2021). The sample consists of the four series of the most sold textbooks on the Swedish market accordning to Läromedia. 

Tentative conclusions include the notion that few opportunities for differentiation are available within the books. While some differentiation appears possible, the books are not sufficiently sensitive to the diverse needs of students of mixed-ability classrooms. Therefore, it could be concluded that the current approach is insufficient in facilitating successful language acquisition for all students.

As a way forward, we suggest the possibility of replacing textbooks with the more dynamic and authentic tool found in fiction as the centre of  teaching. 

Research in the field of gifted education points to a notable lack of challenges in the educational trajectories of gifted people (Sims 2023). Consequently, some people find their own challenges through application of positive character traits such as ingenuity, determination, and self-motivation. Some of the time these solutions are within the boundaries of the legal system - at other times not. Biographical accounts indicate there can be a thin line between the two. 

In earlier criminological research, low intelligence has been described as a risk factor for criminality, along with socio-economic hardship and lack of integration (Ttofi et al. 2016, Gath et al. 1971, Mahoney, 1980). However, there are indications that such a perspective needs widening. In a survey to more than 4000 inmates, examples have been found of how ‘geniuses’ were drawn to criminality to seek stimulation away from ’intolerable boredom’ (Oleson, 2016). In addition, Feldman (1993) notes how IQ-levels tend to increase as: ”we move away from street crimes to organised crime and corporate crime”. Similarly, Rostami (2024) states that educated people can be found within organised crime networks who use their strong leadership, organisational and/or technical abilities for criminal purposes. A relevant question, therefore, is what is the role of education, seen as a risk factor, in causing a gifted person to become a criminal. Subsequently, how can education promote resilience against this process, and what role can education play in rehabilitation. 

With the aim of furthering research in this area, the current presentation is based on the first in a series of studies in a newly developed research project in collaboration between pedagogy and criminology (CaSH)[1]. The content of the presentation is based on a policy analysis of documents regulating educational options for people in Swedish prisons and what these could mean for a person who is not only a criminal but also gifted.

The results show that once imprisoned, inmates can be offered further, or even higher education, as part of their rehabilitation treatment. In summary, the findings indicate there is a lack in continuity, lack of access and limited educational options focused on vocational tasks based on low expectations regarding ability. The key question is to what extent gifted criminals, in the process of turning their lives around, face the same failure to recognise their abilities as perhaps drove them towards criminality in the first place. 

 [1] Crime and Social Harm, an interdisciplinary research group based at the University of Gavle, Sweden lead by Dr Sara Waller Skoog and professor Börje Leijdhammar.

According to an important and influential definition in the literature, critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on decisions about what to believe or what to do (Ennis, 1987), and it is considered to be a defining condition of higher education (Davies and Barnett 2015: 27). In some programmes (such as the IB Diploma Programme) it is something that is perhaps already developed in upper secondary schooling. While some authors consider critical thinking to be constituted by a cluster of dispositions or abilities (Ennis 2015), we consider critical thinking to be more of an attitude - more akin to an epistemic virtue than a set of procedures. We propose that the question of how to nurture such an attitude rests on situational factors in the university seminar room and that the university teacher plays a central role. 

 In this short presentation we focus on a single factor - the process of questioning - and suggest that critical thinking is nurtured and stimulated through questions that are open-ended, conceptually framed, and second order. The target of second-order questions is not factual information about the world itself, but rather concerns the relation between our knowledge of the world and the (thinking) processes needed in the production of this knowledge. The format in which we explore how to do this is by the use of Socratic dialogue.

Second-order questions possess multiple entry points for students - they can be interpreted differently depending on the current state of understanding of the student. Thereby they facilitate differentiated teaching/adaptive learning in the class or seminar supporting the cognitive development of a variety of students including those of high ability. This approach spawns a variety of applications in higher education from teacher training, to the humanities, and STEM disciplines.

Gifted education policy in the US

The former and current ECHA correspondents from the U.S. (Prof. Pamela Clinkenbeard and Dr. Kimberley Chandler) will provide an overview of gifted education policy at the national level, and will show the wide variations in policy among the 50 states and territories. The emphasis will be on advocacy with federal and state legislators, with examples of how to inform and involve parents as advocates. The U.S. National Association for Gifted Children (nagc.org) offers advocacy training opportunities annually at their Leadership and Advocacy Conference, which is attended by state leaders in gifted education. Attendees interact with their federal legislators and share information with each other on what has worked in their states in terms of advocacy at several levels: state legislators, state departments of education, school districts, individual schools, and even individual classrooms and teachers. The goal of this presentation is to share a brief overview of the gifted education policy landscape in the U.S., and to exchange policy strategy ideas with several other countries.

Recent public debates and consultations on education in Scotland.

At any one time in Scotland there are a range of consultations taking place across all aspects of Government. Members of the public, 3rd sector organisations, business etc are invited to comment on proposed changes to anything from roads to health care to education. Ensuring that the voice of gifted learners is heard in educational consultations is an ongoing issue.

Education has been high on the policy agenda in Scotland, and all the main political parties agree that a successful educational system is an essential requirement if the nation is to fulfil its ambitions for the future. There is less agreement in how that is to be achieved. Catherine Reid and Margaret Sutherland, University of Glasgow, will examine recent public debates and consultations on education in Scotland. They will argue that gifted education should be an integral part of the education system. They will examine the central focus of the consultations and consider whether such events can act as a catalyst for change at ground level, particularly for highly able learners.

Educator, parent, and student attitudes toward gifted education policy in Ireland

Currently, there is no relevant national policy for gifted learners in Ireland and giftedness is excluded from the Education for Persons With Special Educational Needs Act (2004). The only formal outlet for gifted students in Ireland is the enrichment programmes at Centre for Talented Youth, Ireland (CTYI) based at Dublin City University. A study of educator attitudes in Ireland (Cross et al., 2014) determined that while most Irish teachers are generally supportive of gifted children, there is a lack of access to specialised knowledge in the area and a challenge in identifying gifted students who are under-performing. In 2023, the Department of Education in Ireland formed a working group to establish the role of giftedness in upcoming changes to special education needs legislation. Many of this group’s members are parent advocates, whose children attended or currently attend CTYI programmes.

Dr. Orla Dunne, residential programme manager at CTYI, will discuss the Centre’s research on educator, parent, and student attitudes toward gifted education policy in Ireland, with emphasis on potential legislative changes and current government interest in including giftedness within the Special Educational Needs Act. 

Inclusion, special education, and giftedness in educational policy in Sweden

In 2024, it is 30 years since the Salamanca Statement was published by UNESCO. The document focuses on inclusion policy and includes an aim to make inclusion a central feature of education systems worldwide. How this aim has been interpreted varies considerably between countries. Moreover, there are differences concerning who should be the subject of inclusion. 

In this presentation Dr. Caroline Sims presents how the relationship between inclusion, special education and giftedness has been interpreted in educational policy in Sweden. The questions she addresses concern what happens when central policy becomes local, and how actions intended to be inclusive actually create exclusion. The presentation will also address matters to do with translation of policies – translation between languages but also, perhaps more importantly, between discourses.

In research, it is common to define giftedness in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions – a ‘classical definition’ (Andersen 2002). In practice, such definitions are problematic because they are either too narrow, too wide, and involve an arbitrary cut-off. In two research reviews covering a total of 135 articles, the majority based their samples on IQ or high performance. In the whole review no less than 70 criteria for giftedness were identified.

An alternative strategy is to treat giftedness as a cluster concept consisting of ten loosely connected categories. Empirical applications of this conceptualisation are presented covering both policy documents and teaching practices (Ball 1993).  

Establishing a new tradition through the use of a dynamic model of this kind has the potential to impact policy, research, and practice offering a way to include students who are gifted but not necessarily high achieving on standardised testing or IQ measures. 

In this presentation, an alternative way of defining and identifying gifted abilities are offered. In addition, its practical applications are discussed and how the use of such a model can include students otherwise left unidentified.

The presentation is based on research from a current PhD project. It covers the conceptualisation of giftedness in educational policy in Sweden. In analysing such, Stephen J. Ball makes a distinction on the one hand between policy as text, and on the other policy as enactment. The way the thesis has approached these two components is by focusing on policy documents from 200 years of education and interviews with teachers from national eduction, the International Baccalaureate and the Peak Programmes, a version of national education based on accelerationa nd enrichment. Presence of giftedness has been analysed through the occurance of teaching strategies identified as relevant in supporting gifted students. In addition, the presence of giftedness has been identified as when refering to any of the denominators in a cluster concept constructed out of common criteria in categorising giftedness. 

The presentation covers how the teachers’ enactment should be thought of as a dialectic relationship, as the teachers respond to, re-formulate, or even ignore what have been formulated by the actors at the central formulation arena. In doing so, they are caught between a sense of equity where excellence is interpreted as elitism, and the inclusion of all students’ right to education.

The relevence of this reserch from a Nordic point of view is sprung, on the one hand out of a common cultural conception of excellence and elitism. On the other hand, the Nordic countries also apply different startegies in how to address the needs of students identified as gifted. More knowledge and research is needed concering these issues from a number of different stand points, such as in policy analysis, in developing teaching practices and research networks where reserchers from a varity of fields discuss these issues. At NERA 2022, we hope to initiate the beginning of such a discussion based on an exchange of experiences to generate possible future cooperation across the Nordic countries.

In research, it is common to define giftedness in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions – a ‘classical definition’ (Andersen 2002). In practice, such definitions are problematic because they are either too narrow, too wide, and involve an arbitrary cut-off. In two research reviews covering a total of 135 articles, the majority based their samples on IQ or high performance. In the whole review no less than 70 criteria for giftedness were identified.

An alternative strategy is to treat giftedness as a cluster concept consisting of ten loosely connected categories. Empirical applications of this conceptualisation are presented covering both policy documents and teaching practices (Ball 1993).  

Establishing a new tradition through the use of a dynamic model of this kind has the potential to impact policy, research, and practice offering a way to include students who are gifted but not necessarily high achieving on standardised testing or IQ measures. 

An alternative way to do so is offered in this presentation.