Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do teachers use distinct motivational styles for cognitively gifted learners? The role of effectiveness beliefs, fixed mindset, and misconceptions about giftedness

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As cognitively gifted students may be at risk for motivational problems and underachievement, it is critical to find effective ways to motivate them. Grounded in self-determination theory (SDT) and the literature on teacher beliefs and mindsets, the present study examined whether teachers adapt their motivational teaching style as a function of the cognitive ability of students and which factors can explain the variability in teachers’ use of (de)motivating styles among gifted versus typical students. Results of linear mixed modeling among 122 teachers in secondary education (73% female; Mage = 39.52 years) indicated that teachers made more use of autonomy-supportive and chaotic and less use of controlling and structuring practices towards cognitively gifted, relative to typical, students, with differences in the perceived effectiveness of teaching styles by type of student explaining this variability. Regardless of students’ giftedness status, teachers’ fixed mindset related positively to the use of a controlling and chaotic style and experience in giftedness education related positively to the use of autonomy support. Misconceptions regarding giftedness did not relate to teachers’ motivating style. These results inform prevention efforts aimed at improving teachers’ motivating styles, to the benefit of the motivation of both cognitively gifted and typical students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The anonymized data are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Notes

  1. In reality, three participants teaching in art sciences also participated in the study. Yet, they were excluded from the database as cognitive giftedness is presumably a less critical issue for them in comparison with other forms of giftedness (e.g., artistic talent) that are not addressed herein.

References

  • Aelterman, N., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Need supportive and need thwarting socialization: A circumplex approach. In M. R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory (pp. 237–258). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., & Haerens, L. (2016). Changing teachers’ beliefs regarding autonomy support and structure: The role of experienced psychological need satisfaction in teacher training. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting student’s engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E. (1990). Measuring and changing teachers’ differential behavior as perceived by students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 683–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E. (1996). How high is ‘high inference’_within classroom differences in students’ perceptions of classroom interaction. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakx, A., Van Houtert, T., van de Brand, M., & Hornstra, L. (2017). A comparison of high-ability pupil’s views vs. regular ability pupil’s views of characteristics of good primary school teachers. Educational Studies, 45(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1390443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

  • Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbusch, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data analysis methods. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004

  • Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, E. (1998). Perceived factors influencing the academic underachievement of talented students of puerto rican descent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domen, J., Hornstra, L., Weijers, D., van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. (2020). Differentiated need support by teachers: Student-specific provision of autonomy and structure and relations with student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions_a world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C., & Bandalos, D. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garn, A. C., & Jolly, J. L. (2014). High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13513262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating inf luence of leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Motivational teacher strategies: The role of beliefs and contextual factors. Learning Environments Research, 18(3), 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9189-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstra, L., Stroet, K., van Eijden, E., Goudsblom, J., & Roskamp, C. (2018). Teacher expectation effects on need-supportive teaching, student motivation, and engagement: A self-determination perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstra, L., Bakx, A., Mathijssen, S., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). Motivating gifted and non-gifted students in regular primary schools: a self-determination perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101871

  • Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016a). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2016b). A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: Teaching in students’ preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1083522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiuru, N., Nurmi, J.-E., Leskinen, E., Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A.-M., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Niemi, P. (2015). Elementary school teachers adapt their instructional support according to students’ academic skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(5), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415575764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavrijsen, J., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Student characteristics affecting the recognition of high cognitive ability by teachers and peers. Learning and Individual Differences, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101820

  • Lavrijsen, J., Preckel, F., Verachtert, P., Vansteenkiste, M., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Are motivational benefits of adequately challenging schoolwork related to students’ need for cognition, cognitive ability, or both? Personality and Individual Differences, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110558

  • Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving from high achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational. Research cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2018). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, A., De Fraine, B., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Learning goal orientation in high-ability and average-ability students: Developmental trajectories, contextual predictors, and long-term educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok — not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., Kaplan, H., Moss, J. D., Olaussen, B. S., & Wang, C. K. J. (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory. The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2021). A legacy unfinished: An appreciative reply to comments on self-determination theory’s frontiers and challenges. Motivation Science, 7(2), 120–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Roberts, A. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoers, S., Meurs, N., & Janson, D. (2012). Vooroordelenspel (hoog)begaafdheid junior Utrecht. APS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, K. L. (2015). There’s no limit: mathematics teaching for a growth mindset [Doctoral thesis, Stanford University].

  • Thompson, B. (2007). Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2016). STEM high schools teachers’ belief regarding STEM student giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22, 431–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019). Seeking stability in stormy educational times: a need-based perspective on (de)motivating teaching grounded in self-determination theory. In E. N. Gonida & M. S. Lemos (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Motivation in Education at a Time of Global Change: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice (Vol. 20, pp. 53–80). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-742320190000020004

  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Curriculum issues: Using questions to elevate thinking. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 68–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511428310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2014). Curriculum issues: Artful inquiry: The use of questions in working with the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513509621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermote, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Aper, L., Buysschaert, F., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: A circumplex approach. Motivation and Emotion, 44(2), 270–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Understanding a lack of motivation to excel. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 66–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported in part by a grant from the SBO-project TALENT, S002917N.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Sabine Sypré, Joachim Waterschoot, Bart Soenens & Maarten Vansteenkiste

  2. School Psychology and Development in Context, KU Leuven, Psychological Institute, Tiensestraat 102, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Karine Verschueren

Authors
  1. Sabine Sypré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joachim Waterschoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bart Soenens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karine Verschueren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maarten Vansteenkiste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Sabine Sypré and analysis by Sabine Sypré and Joachim Waterschoot. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sabine Sypré, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Sypré.

Ethics declarations

Research ethics

The research was conducted according to the ethical rules presented in the General Ethical Protocol of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of Ghent University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Current themes of research:.

-Sabine Sypré: gifted education, underachieving gifted students, motivation, engagement and self-determination theory.

-Joachim Waterschoot: how people motivate themselves, which strategies they use and how these differ in terms of motivational and other psychological outcomes, people’s psychological well-being, boredom, risk perception and vaccination intentions during the COVID-19 crisis.

-Bart Soenens: parenting, motivation, self-determination theory, psychosocial development.

-Karine Verschueren: academic and psychosocial development in schools, teacher-student and peer relationships, school transitions, school engagement, high ability students, gifted education.

-Maarten Vansteenkiste: academic motivation, teaching style, parenting, self-determination theory, identity development.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:.

-Ramos, A., Lavrijsen, J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Sypré, S., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Profiles of maladaptive school motivation among high-ability adolescents: a person-centered validation of the motivational pathways in underachievement model. Journal of Adolescence, 88, 146–161.

-Waterschoot, J., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). The role of competence-related attentional bias and resilience in restoring thwarted feelings of competence. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 82–98.

-Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of experimentally induced choice on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: the moderating role of indecisiveness and teacher–student relatedness. Journal of experimental child psychology, 188, 104,692.

-Boncquet, M., Soenens, B., Verschueren, K., Lavrijsen, J., Flamant, N., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). Killing two birds with one stone: the role of motivational resources in predicting changes in achievement and school well-being beyond intelligence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63, 1,010,905.

-Vandenkerckhove, B., Soenens, B., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Brenning, K., Luyten, P., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). The role of weekly need-based experiences and self-criticism in predicting weekly academic (mal)adjustment. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 69–83.

-Soenens, B., Sierens, E.,Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Dochy, F. (2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 108–120.

-Engels, M.C., Spilt, J.L., Denies, K., Verschueren, K. (2021). The role of affective teacher-student relationships in adolescents’ school engagement and achievement trajectories. Learning And Instruction, 75, Art.No. 101485, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101485.

-Ramos, A., De Fraine, B., Verschueren, K. (2021). Learning goal orientation in high ability and average ability students: developmental trajectories, contextual predictors, and long-term educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (2), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000476.

-Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: the quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671–688.

-Aelterman, N.*, Vansteenkiste, M.*, Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Towards an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: the merits of a circumplex approach. (* equal contributions). Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 497–521.

-Cohen, R., Katz, I., Aelterman, N., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2022). Understanding shifts in students’ academic motivation across a school year: the role of teachers’ motivating styles and need-based experiences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, early access.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Cognitively gifted students may be at risk for motivational problems.

• Teachers adapt motivational teaching style as function of students’ ability.

• Autonomy-support and chaos are more used toward gifted students.

• Differences are explained by perceived effectiveness of teaching styles.

• Teachers with a fixed mindset report more chaotic and controlling styles overall.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Situation-In-School Questionnaire - Giftedness

The following pages list 6 different classroom situations that occur regularly during class and may be applicable to both a typical student and a cognitively gifted student. For each classroom situation, eight ways a teacher might respond during such a situation are described. You are asked to indicate the extent to which each way of handling the situation describes what you have done this year in similar situations with such students. Each of these eight responses can describe what you have done or how you think you would respond. There are no right or wrong answers.

By typical student, we mean the normally gifted students who make up the majority of each class. By cognitively gifted student we mean a student who has been labeled gifted or someone you suspect has high intelligence. These are students who exhibit cognitive abilities to a degree that places them in the top 10 percent of their age peers.

To what extent do you think you apply this teaching style to a typical/cognitively gifted student?

Situation 1: Motivating a learner

You want to motivate a typical/cognitively gifted student during class.

1. You limit your lesson preparation. You let what happens in class happen.

2. You knock on the table and shout, "Now it's time to pay attention!"

3. You offer help and guidance.

4. You explain to the student how the subject matter can be relevant in his/her daily life.

5. You ask the learner to make suggestions so that he/she is more involved in the lesson.

6. You communicate what learning goals you expect the learner to achieve at the end of the lesson.

7. You strongly insist that the student must learn what you teach him/her. It is your duty to teach and his/her duty to learn.

8. You do not worry too much. You think students should learn to decide for themselves whether they are motivated to cooperate or not.

Situation 2: A student exhibits anxiety

When a typical/cognitively gifted student performs a task during class, you notice that he/she exhibits anxiety.

1. You acknowledge that he/she looks anxious and stressed. You invite him/her to talk about it.

2. You insist that he/she needs to behave in a more mature manner.

3. You go over with him/her the steps needed to solve the task so that he/she feels more capable.

4. You don't worry about the anxiety. It will pass by itself.

5. You let the student choose whether to do the task now or put it off for a while.

6. You make it clear how you expect him/her to tackle the task.

7. You insist that the student complete the assigned task; you tolerate no exceptions and no excuses.

8. You are not concerned about these feelings of anxiety. They will pass.

Situation 3: A student exhibits misbehavior.

A typical/cognitively gifted student has been behaving in a rude and disruptive manner.

1. You order him/her to proceed with his/her task immediately, otherwise there will be unpleasant consequences.

2. You explain to him/her why you expect him/her to behave properly. Later, you talk to him/her individually; you listen attentively to how he/she sees things.

3. You state the expectations for cooperation and helpful behavior in the classroom.

4. You let things settle because it takes too much effort to intervene.

5. You tell the student, "Ok, this isn't working. Any suggestions so you don't have to behave like this anymore?"

6. You teach him/her a helpful strategy to modify his/her behavior.

7. You tell him/her to be embarrased of his/her behavior and that if he/she continues like this, sanctions will follow.

8. You are not concerned about the behavior and you will see how the lesson proceeds.

Situation 4: Practice Time.

The time has come for the student to practice what he/she has learned. A typical/cognitively gifted student could use some practice.

1. You ask the student what type of exercises he/she most desires to work on.

2. You command him/her that now is the time to work, whether he/she likes it or not. You tell him/her that sometimes they have to learn to do something against their will.

3. You don't plan too much and you wait to see how things turn out.

4. You explain the solution of one exercise step by step. Then you guide his/her progress and improvement for the other exercises.

5. You offer engaging exercises that are interesting to him/her.

6. You offer him/her a step-by-step plan as a guide to solving these types of exercises.

7. You insist that he/she make the exercises attentively. They must keep practicing for their own sake.

8. You do not intervene. It is up to the student to indicate which exercises they still have problems with.

Situation 5: Test results

You have evaluated the test. A typical/cognitively gifted student scores low again, even though you had paid extra attention to this part of the curriculum in the week before.

1. You point out that low scores are not acceptable to you. You tell him/her to get better scores next time for his/her own good.

2. You help the student review his/her wrong answers so he/she understands what went wrong and how to improve them.

3. You listen patiently and with understanding to what the student himself says about his/her results.

4. You do not waste class time on this student if he/she is scoring low.

5. You offer the student the opportunity to retake the test until he/she has mastered this subject matter.

6. You are clear about what the guidelines and expectations are. You state what outcome is desired.

7. You simply command him/her, "Now is the time to start studying!"

8. You don’t react to it and you will see how his/her results progress.

Situation 6: Homework

You give homework to a typical/cognitively gifted student.

1. You make it clear that homework must be done properly. If not, there will be unpleasant consequences.

2. You indicate what it means to solve the homework well. You verify that the student sufficiently understands how to do homework well.

3. You offer a number of different homework assignments (e.g., three) and let the student choose some (e.g., two).

4. You let the homework speak for itself instead of over-explaining everything.

5. You look for new ways to make the homework more interesting and enjoyable for the student.

6. You say, "If you find this homework difficult, I will give you additional instruction and guidance, if you wish."

7. You order the student to submit it on time and otherwise sanctions will follow.

8. You wait for the student himself to ask a question about the homework.

The same questionnaire was resubmitted, with a second question:

How effective do you think this way of teaching is in fostering motivation and engagement of typical/cognitively gifted students?

Teachers rated each of the provided practices in interaction with both typical and gifted students using a 5-point Likert scale ranging between 1 (“Is not effective at all”) and 5 (“Is very effective”).

Key for calculating the scales of the SISQ Gifted:

code = situation(item); add all items and divide by 12

Autonomy support:

[1(4) + 1(5) + 2(1) + 2(5) + 3(2) + 3(5) + 4(1) + 4(5) + 5(3) + 5(5) + 6(3) + 6(5)] / 12

Structure:

[1(3) + 1(6) + 2(3) + 2(6) + 3(3) + 3(6) + 4(4) + 4(6) + 5(2) + 5(6) + 6(2) + 6(6)] / 12

Control:

[1(2) + 1(7) + 2(2) + 2(7) + 3(1) + 3(7) + 4(2) + 4(7) + 5(1) + 5(7) + 6(1) + 6(7)] / 12

Chaos:

[1(1) + 1(8) + 2(4) + 2(8) + 3(4) + 3(8) + 4(3) + 4(8) + 5(4) + 5(8) + 6(4) + 6(8)] / 12

Appendix 2

Misconceptions regarding giftedness

These items are a selection of 10 misconceptions from ‘Prejudice game (highly) gifted junior’ (Sjoers et al., 2012), adapted to the context of gifted students in secondary school class.

The following series of items gauge your knowledge of cognitive giftedness.

Some characteristics of cognitive giftedness are listed below. For each characteristic, indicate the extent to which you think it applies to cognitively gifted students.

Cognitively gifted students...

  • are always perfectionist

  • are often unconcentrated, dreamy and forgetful in class

  • cannot fail exams and tests

  • lack social skills

  • do not make mistakes in their schoolwork

  • get good marks all the time

  • have less need for social school contacts

  • are less able to concentrate than typical students

  • are not good at sports or physical education classes

  • need little guidance from the teacher

Teachers were asked to evaluate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging between 1 (“Not true”) and 5 (“True)” with higher scores reflecting a stronger misconception about characteristics of gifted students.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sypré, S., Waterschoot, J., Soenens, B. et al. Do teachers use distinct motivational styles for cognitively gifted learners? The role of effectiveness beliefs, fixed mindset, and misconceptions about giftedness. Eur J Psychol Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00716-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00716-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation