Pressure and perfectionism: a phenomenological study on parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of the challenges faced by gifted and talented students in self-contained classes

Abstract

This qualitative study sought to examine the challenges of pressure and perfectionism among gifted and talented students in self-contained class settings at the primary level, based on the experiences of their teachers and parents. To obtain comprehensive details and complete descriptions from the participants, a phenomenological design was used to collect data from 13 participants, including 10 parents and 3 teachers of gifted and talented students through semi-structured interviews. The major findings indicate that while self-contained classes help to raise the academic potential of gifted and talented students, teachers and parents were concerned about challenges related to the pressure of a competitive environment along with the pressure of high expectations and perfectionism in these selective class settings that may hinder the student’s academic development and negatively affect their social–emotional wellbeing. Using full-time ability grouping practices in self-contained settings for gifted learners was quite challenging and could hamper their talent development. This study recommends that pressure and perfectionism can be overcome if educators use flexible grouping practices, motivational strategies and encourage feedback in such settings. Consequently, educators and policy makers in gifted education should plan and implement educational provisions that help to meet the academic as well as social emotional needs of highly intellectual learners.

Full text

Frontiers in Education 01 frontiersin.org
Pressure and perfectionism:
a phenomenological study on
parents’ and teachers’ perceptions
of the challenges faced by gifted
and talented students in
self-contained classes
BushraNoor *
Faculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia
This qualitative study sought to examine the challenges of pressure and
perfectionism among gifted and talented students in self-contained class settings
at the primary level, based on the experiences of their teachers and parents. To
obtain comprehensive details and complete descriptions from the participants,
a phenomenological design was used to collect data from 13 participants,
including 10 parents and 3 teachers of gifted and talented students through
semi-structured interviews. The major findings indicate that while self-contained
classes help to raise the academic potential of gifted and talented students,
teachers and parents were concerned about challenges related to the pressure
of a competitive environment along with the pressure of high expectations and
perfectionism in these selective class settings that may hinder the student’s
academic development and negatively aect their social–emotional wellbeing.
Using full-time ability grouping practices in self-contained settings for gifted
learners was quite challenging and could hamper their talent development.
This study recommends that pressure and perfectionism can be overcome if
educators use flexible grouping practices, motivational strategies and encourage
feedback in such settings. Consequently, educators and policy makers in gifted
education should plan and implement educational provisions that help to meet
the academic as well as social emotional needs of highly intellectual learners.
KEYWORDS
gifted and talented, ability grouping, pressure, perfectionism, challenges
Introduction
Despite rigorous eorts in the eld of gied education, the needs of the diverse minority
group of gied and talented students (GTS) remain unmet. Identication of gied children is
challenging due to the complexity of the phenomenon and the diculty in clearly dening them.
Earlier researchers believed that giedness is inherited intelligence that can bemeasured by
instruments (National Association for Gied Children, 2015). However, identifying GTS by
their ability to secure high marks on IQ tests is a concept of giedness that can belikened to a
century old magic bullet that does not hit its target. Societies’ belief that individuals with
exceptional performance in more than one domain are gied is based on the context of their
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
John J. Hoover,
University of Colorado Boulder, UnitedStates
REVIEWED BY
Nicoleta Duta,
University of Bucharest, Romania
Alberta Novello,
University of Padua, Italy
*CORRESPONDENCE
Bushra Noor
s360646@students.cdu.edu.au
RECEIVED 19 May 2023
ACCEPTED 06 July 2023
PUBLISHED 17 July 2023
CITATION
Noor B (2023) Pressure and perfectionism: a
phenomenological study on parents’ and
teachers’ perceptions of the challenges faced
by gifted and talented students in self-
contained classes.
Front. Educ. 8:1225623.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Noor. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
TYPE Brief Research Report
PUBLISHED 17 July 2023
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 02 frontiersin.org
cultural values; therefore, such individuals may beconsidered gied
in one culture but not in another (Huang, 2008). e assessment of
GTS is a major issue, especially with respect to the provision of
educational programs and support to meet their unique needs
(Nisbett, 2009; Renzulli, 2013). New trends in identication whereby
particularities of cognitive functioning, such as the individual’s ability
to process and organize information, synthesize, plan, and solve
problems, completely negate earlier identication approaches based
on securing high scores on IQ tests, which failed to provide an
adequate measurement of children’s abilities. In addition to the above-
average level of abstract reasoning, talented students may also
demonstrate high-level vocabulary, good reading skills, high-level
information, strong motivation, cognitive exibility, independent and
self-disciplined work, or an open personality (Dean, 2011). Several
studies in the gied eld have recognized that students with higher
academic abilities require higher levels of service exceeding the
minimum prociency learning standards set for most students. In
gied and talented education (G/T education) programs, gied
students receive additional educational services, advanced courses,
professionally trained teachers, and a more challenging learning
environment than non-gied students (Slavin, 1990). Schools use
dierentiators such as age, interests, language, and intellectual ability
to tailor customized programs and services to the needs of advanced
learners. e long-lasting debate on the provision of education for
GTS is still unresolved. Questions remain concerning whether such
students should beplaced in regular classrooms to act as role models,
to help other students, and to ensure equity or in special education
provisions to meet their needs and maximize their academic potential.
e reason for the existence of G/T education programs is that regular
programs cannot meet the needs of such students. However, several
studies have revealed that special academic provisions for GTS can
adversely aect their social–emotional and academic development
as well.
Advocates of G/T education programs have argued, based on
empirical research, that a high level of educational services, advanced
curricula, challenging and stimulating learning environments, and
professionally trained teachers are required to raise the academic
potential (Van Tassel-Baska and Johnsen, 2007) of individuals who
possess self-regulation and independence in work. e educational
curriculum required by GTS is dierent from the regular curriculum
provided to them by regular schools.
erefore, they require educational services that meet their needs
because they have the ability to dierentiate themselves from their
peers. Mainstream classroom settings sometimes failed to build the
capacity of GTS at academic and social emotional level learning (Reis
etal., 2007). e goal of the GTS educational program is to enable
them to become autonomous, creative, and productive learners in
society (Diezmann and Watters, 2000; Kanevsky, 2011; Phillipson
etal., 2011).
In an attempt to produce an optimal learning environment for
GTS, educational institutions may arrange students in academic
groups according to their learning abilities and introduce them to like-
minded companions. e aim is to create a more homogeneous
learning environment, so that teachers can provide eective, targeted,
and layered teaching (Steenbergen-Hu etal., 2016) to their learning
abilities and introduce them to like-minded companions. A consistent
learning environment is desired for teachers to better equip them (Dai
et al., 2011). However, this can still lead to academic and
social–emotional challenges for GTS over the years. Considering this
situation, the concept of “ability grouping” has created an atmosphere
of erce opposition. Ability grouping means tracking students by
placing them in groups based on their academic abilities. According
to opponents, the rigidity of ability grouping creates racial and socio-
economic inequalities among students. Moreover, it has detrimental
eects on the higher education and career choices of disadvantaged
students by limiting their access to opportunities. On the other hand,
proponents of ability grouping have claimed that the aim of education
is not to demand equal opportunities or services for all; rather, it
should be fair and just in its provision of special services for the
individual (Missett etal., 2014). In the last two decades, dierent
academic programs and services have been introduced to raise their
potential. Research has proposed various G/T educational models and
strategies, such as accelerated learning, enrichment programs, self-
contained classes, club activities, selective schools, and special interest
communities (Preckel etal., 2019). Ability grouping, as a widespread
academic practice, has been implemented in dierent forms, such as
within-class ability grouping, cluster grouping, full-time ability
grouping (homogeneous grouping), and heterogeneous grouping to
facilitate G/T education in the United States, Australia,
UnitedKingdom, Singapore, and many other countries. Students in
full-time ability grouping classes exhibit higher achievement gains
compared with students in regular classes (Lee et al., 2020). G/T
programs based on ability grouping can be eective educational
services for meeting the needs of GTS and providing teaching and
learning with intensive fast-tracking (Rogers, 2007) if they are
implemented by professional teachers using exible approaches
(Ireson and Hallam, 2001). However, a study by Neihart (2007)
comparing the self-concept scores of students in homogeneous and
heterogeneous groups revealed that those who were not grouped by
ability exhibited a higher self-concept. Another study conducted by
Blaas (2014) on the social–emotional impact of a homogeneous
environment on gied students showed that interaction and social
activities with peers of dierent abilities beneted students more.
While such academic arrangements signicantly improved academic
achievement, they adversely aected students’ social–emotional
development. As GTS are reportedly from diverse backgrounds, with
a range of socio-economic statuses and abilities, they may encounter
additional contributing factors to underachievement, such as social–
emotional diculties, involving pressure, perfectionism, anxiety,
depression, and isolation (Berliner and Glass, 2014). Further, Vidergor
and Gordon (2015) added that ability grouping of students means
distancing them from learning and limiting their interaction with
peers from diverse backgrounds, which has been observed to create
an overly competitive academic environment that forces students to
try to outperform their peers to prove their self-worth (Cross and
Cross, 2015).
Seaton etal. (2010) reported that perfectionism may lead to
negative outcomes for GTS. Another very challenging factor is the
pressure faced by high-ability students in ability grouping among
like-minded peers. However, there has been limited research on
the challenges of pressure and perfectionism among GTS in full
time ability grouping. With this in mind, the current study was
carried out to identify the challenges of full-time ability grouping
practices in special services to GTS from the perspective of their
teachers and parents. Educational provisions for GTS have come
under scrutiny in recent years because of their detrimental

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 03 frontiersin.org
consequences. erefore, this study will behelpful for teachers,
parents, leaders, policy makers, and curriculum designers in gied
education to better understand the issues and problems of GTS in
selective settings. is study focused on the following
research question:
What are teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the challenges of
pressure and perfectionism in self-contained classrooms for GTS?
Methods and materials
A qualitative methodology was used to investigate teachers’ and
parents’ perceptions concerning the challenges of pressure and
perfectionism among GTS in self-contained classes at a primary
school located in New South Wales (NSW). Self-contained classes are
educational provisions that implement full time ability grouping;
therefore, in this study, wewere especially interested in the challenges
of full-time ability grouping experienced by GTS in terms of their
academic and psychosocial development.
A qualitative phenomenological design was used to obtain
comprehensive details and complete descriptions from the
participants, based on open-ended interview questions.
Phenomenological research design is used to identify phenomena,
focus on experiences, and understand the structure of lived
experiences of Participants (Creswell etal., 2007; orogood and
Green, 2018). Phenomenology is used to describe common
characteristics. e phenomena in question in this study were
teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of challenges experienced by GTS
in self-contained classes, including pressure, perfectionism, and
high expectations.
According to the education policy of the Department of Education
(DOE) in New South Wales, GTS potential should be raised by
providing appropriate opportunities and addressing the negative risks
that hinder their talent development. In this context, the site (NSW
public primary school) and participants were selected based on the
criterion of providing a self-contained opportunity class (OC)
structure for GTS.
ree teachers with complete G/T education qualications as
well as professional training, who were already teaching grade 5 and
6 self-contained classes, and 10 parents of GTS from multicultural
backgrounds (Asians, Europeans, Americans, and Africans) were
selected. e parents included ve from each grade without any work
or home commitments who were willing to participate. e
participants were selected using purposeful sampling, based on the
context of their experience with self-contained classes, given that they
were in a better position to explain the challenges faced by GTS
during such special provisions. e participants were also selected
based on their understanding of the research problem and their
ability to answer the research questions, which enabled me to obtain
in-depth information from teachers and parents of gied students.
Convenience sampling was used aer careful consideration of the
costs attached to travelling and the time availability of participants,
as the study site was conveniently accessible for the researcher, which
further met the inclusion criteria of the research. e school principal
helped to invite the parents of GTS by phone and email. All
participants voluntarily agreed to take part in the study and gave their
consent through written informed consent forms. Information sheets
about the research objectives and its potential benets were
distributed to all participants.
To ensure human safety and avoid any potential risk, this study
received approval from the University of Wollongong Human
Research Ethics Committee (HREC). It also received approval from
the NSW Department of Education (SERAP), the agency responsible
for approving applications for research. To obtain broad, independent
responses from participants concerning their experience of self-
contained classes, the researcher used a semi-structured interview
instrument to ask about the advantages, disadvantages, academic
challenges, and social–emotional challenges of such a setting. Smith
and Osborn (2007) advocated using a exible data collecting approach
for phenomenology, such as semi-structured interviews, to engage in
a discourse. Using a funneling technique, a interview guide consists of
specic to general questions.
e list of interview questions for the teachers and parents is
presented in Table1.1.
As Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize, qualitative
research entails data analysis. This includes using established
procedures to analyze notes, as well as establishing, testing, and
reverse sampling methods that are successful and feasible. All the
processes of data collection, transcription, and data analysis were
conducted by the researcher. Data were collected from 13
participants through in-depth interviews with open-ended
questions (80% female; 20% male). The interviews were audio
recorded by the researcher. Participant confidentiality was
ensured using pseudonyms. With the consent of the participants,
TABLE1.1 Summary of participant’s interview questions.
Participants interview questions
Teachers ➢ What has been your experience of the self-contained classroom setting?
➢ Do youthink self-contained classroom settings are benecial for gied and talented students? Why/why not?
➢ What are the disadvantages for gied and talented students of being in a self-contained classroom?
➢ What do youthink are the academic challenges for gied and talented students in a self-contained classroom?
➢ What do youthink are the social–emotional challenges for gied and talented students in a self-contained classroom?
Parents ➢ What has been your experience of the self-contained classroom setting?
➢ Do youthink self-contained classroom settings are benecial for your gied and talented child? Why/why not?
➢ What are the disadvantages for your gied and talented child of being in a self-contained classroom?
➢ What do youthink are the academic challenges for your gied and talented child in a self-contained classroom?
➢ What do youthink are the social–emotional challenges for your gied and talented child in a self-contained classroom?
Self-contained classrooms, especially designed classrooms where full-time ability grouping is practiced (Classrooms for gied and talented students where full-time ability grouping is
practiced).

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 04 frontiersin.org
member checking and peer debriefing was conducted to ensure
the accuracy and validity of the data (Triangulation, 2014). During
the data analysis, the researcher used a highlighting strategy in the
transcript to initiate the coding process, and a constant
comparative analysis enabled the researcher to develop themes to
reach the essence of the study’s research question. In Table1.2, a
summary of the themes from the perspective of the participants
is presented in terms of sub-themes, and the main themes were
extracted through a comparative analysis.
Results
Teacher’s perceptions of the challenges of
pressure, perfectionism, and high
expectations in self-contained classes for
GTS
Results showed that While 66% teachers of GTS favored self-
contained classes to cater to the educational needs of highly
intellectual students, they believed that full-time ability grouping
represented a quiet challenge for students, however 33.3% believed
that competitive environment is not the main reason. Teacher A
(TA) reported that learning in a self-contained class such as an OC
at the primary level with like-minded peers created academic
competition among GTS, who experienced peer pressure to move
ahead of others. is negatively impacted their performance and
created anxiety.
“In OC, they are at the same level, but they want to bedierent,
they want to stand out, to bebetter than their peers. is brings
down their performance, and that’s part of the anxiety.”
“ey are expected to apply their knowledge but when they get
stuck, it’s hard for them. ey do not want to bealone. Ihave lots
of students in my class who go through extremes in that setting.
ey see their peers at an overly high level, and they are below
level. ey don’t handle it very well.”
However, 50% of teachers agree that teacher’s expectations had a
signicant eect and 50% were disagreed. Overall, teachers have
mixed perceptions about the high expectations of teachers from GTS
(Table1.3).
For example, TA has been teaching GTS for 2 years at the primary
level and claims that in class, students are ready to take on academic
challenges because of the expectations formed in their surroundings
to surpass their peers.
“I think it’s very competitive, so they excel in what is expected of
them. ey say their peers are up to the challenge and think,
‘Right, Istand to do the same’ … But, unfortunately, the struggle
to keep up to the fast pace and the challenging position such an
environment puts them in create pressure on them Ind that
sometimes in this environment, they feel pressure … e students
are capable of understanding and sharing with one another, but
sometimes, Ifeel there is lots of pressure too. Ido nd in my class,
there is a lot of pressure … that negatively aects their social-
emotional wellbeing.”
Almost 83.3% participants reported that the struggle to keep up
to the fast pace and challenges created pressure on students which
negatively aected their social–emotional wellbeing.
Teacher B (TB) added that GTS were not very concerned about
emotional issues such as peer pressure or work pressure in
TABLE1.2 Summary of participants’ perceptions of challenges for gifted
and talented students (GTS) in self-contained settings.
Questions Participants
N = 13
Subthemes Main
themes
Experience 3 teachers Peer pressure Pressure of the
competitive
learning
environment
Advantages of
self-contained
settings
10 parents Parents’ and
teachers’ pressure
to perform well
Disadvantages of
self-contained
settings
Competitive
environment
Pressure of high
expectations
Academic
challenges of
self-contained
settings
Pressure of
parents’
expectations
Social–emotional
challenges of
self-contained
settings
Teacher’s
expectations
Performing tasks
in a perfect way
Fixed mindsets
Lack of
extracurricular
activities
Perfectionism
N = total number of participants in study [Total number of participants (teachers and
parents) in study].
TABLE1.3 Summary of teachers’ perceptions of challenges for GTS in
self-contained settings.
Themes No of
participants
N= 13
Favorable
themes
Unfavorable
themes
Competitive
environment
3 teachers 66.6% 33.3
Teacher’s high
expectations
50% 50%
Eects on
social
emotional well
being
83.33% 16.66%
Pressure from
parents
66.6% 33.3%
Perfectionism 93.33% 6.66%
N = total number of Teachers in study, Favorable themes = no of teachers responded/total
teachers*100, Unfavorable themes = no of teachers responded/total teachers*100.

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 05 frontiersin.org
mainstream classrooms, but since they had been placed in self-
contained classes (full-time ability grouping) they were unable to
overcome it.
“In mainstream classes, they didn’t have social-emotional kinds of
behavior, yet in my class—not all but most of them—have
emotional issues. ey get upset. In OC they quiet better to deal
it but in mainstream they do accept emotional problems.
Sometimes, a same ability grouping might beretrenchment … To
maintain their academic progress in future, they start to take extra
coaching and tutoring that again creates pressure at a very young
age … ey are very anxious at the end of term when they have
assessments and tests. ey have selective high school tests in
March, and up until that point, they are much stressed and try to
get the best marks they can. Ihave students who pull out of school
to do private tutoring for test preparation; it’s become too much
pressure for too young kids … Before coming to OC, they were at
the top of the mainstream class, but now everyone is at the same
level. It becomes like a competition among them, a pressure on
them, to bebetter, to bebetter, they just get stressed.”
e following statements by TB further highlight that self-
contained classes were the main barrier to the academic strength of
GTS because they crushed their condence.
“Some students are not good in math. ey think they are low in
math, but, in reality, they are at level for math. However, they
think other students are ahead. eir condence is crushed. ey
have strengths in dierent areas. But it’s hard for them to realize,
youare good, youhave strengths in your areas. ey felt like they
were the smartest in the class. ey thrived on being the best, and
their condence is crushed.”
Contrary to the above statements,16.66% claimed self-contained
classes has no pressure on the GTS and such settings enhance their
further academic performance.
Most of the teachers (66.6%) opined that parent also played a role
in creating pressure on primary GTS by expecting high performance
among their like-minded peers. ey always wanted them to bethe
best in the class. TA stated that
“ere are lots of social-emotional issues when grouped together,
as they are clever in their certain areas, yet they are pushed by
their parents and by schools to demonstrate the best, so they feel
that is pressure.”
TB claimed that GTS faced pressure from parents to get high
grades but not from school or teachers.
“e pressure from home and the pressure from outside are not
necessarily from teachers, but they are expected to do more.”
Only one of the participants reported that parents did not
pressure their special gied students to perform well, while two
class teachers reported that teachers had high expectations of
excellent results. Conversely, TA responded that teachers had high
standards for work in special gied classes. erefore, they
continuously pushed students to perform well, sometimes beyond
their capacity, which obviously led to depression, anxiety,
and stress.
“For Work at higher level, sometime in OC, wecontinue to push,
push, push … however, the students see the pressure as coming
from the high expectations of the school, teachers, and parents.”
e school vice-principal who was currently teaching in special
classes and supervising professional development training workshops
for teachers in STEM projects for GTS continuously aimed to raise the
potential of these high achievers. However, the school vice principal
expressed great concern over the perfectionism and pressure of full-
time ability grouping.
“Sometimes, the children perceive that they are not doing well
when, in fact, they are at a higher level. ey really want to
beperfect 100% of the time. ey have the feeling that they are
not at the top of the class, and they are not achieving, so it is
sometimes very hard to get through to them, ‘Wow, youare
actually doing very well, youdid your best, youknow, scoring
90%,’ or whatever … To see those children sometimes walk away
with a sad look on their faces because they haven’t gotten the top
mark can bedicult, very hard. Ido feel for the children who are
perfectionist in the extreme.”
Another statement by T2 reiterated that “they want to beperfect
among their peers,” and all three of the participants reported that
when students did not get 100% in their results, they were
sometimes upset.
Parents’ perceptions of the challenges of
pressure, perfectionism, and high
expectations in self-contained classes for
GTS
Approximately 90% parents responded that gied and talented
children faced intense pressure from family and school to perform at
a higher level because of same-ability peers in self-contained classes,
which led to a further question on full-time ability grouping.
Parent 2 (P2) clearly reported that his daughter was free from
pressure in the self-contained class, but overall, the situation of other
students in OC was dierent just because of the high expectations of
the parents.
“All the kids in OC are smart. ey are always under pressure, but
not my daughter now. Her peers are under pressure. is extra
pressure is sometimes from families. ey have high expectations
that everything must beat a higher level.”
For example,P5 admitted that they had high expectations of their
daughter performing well.
“She wants back, weknow, but she would belazy again. She would
beable to lead an easy life. In OC, she is pushing herself, and
everyone is performing at a higher level. Wewant her to perform
at a higher level.”

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 06 frontiersin.org
Diverse statements revealed that 80% parents perceived in self-
contained setting their children are quiet young to face the pressure of
challenging work and competitive environment among like-
minded peers.
“In OC, the kids are all the same, but if a kid is a little behind,
hehas to make an extra eort to catch up to the advanced kids. It’s
really hard for the kids, very hard.”
“Academics are not a problem. OC is competitive, maybe it’s more
intense competition.”
“For 10 years old, they do feel the pressure of competition and
challenging work … much work to do, sometimes. My
daughter feels pressure, but she tries to manage it in a
positive way.”
However, 20% participants were positive about the academic
development of their children in such settings.
“Some are really gied and talented in some subjects like Math
and English, and if your child is not ready for that subject, then
she needs to work hard to achieve that standard.”
80% parents believed that such educational provisions made their
child overcondent, so that they stopped learning and came
under pressure.
“Sometimes, the school treats them as, ‘you have a better
understanding, youare special, youhad the chance to go to OC,’
and they become overcondent. Even kids don’t know, why they
need to learn more?”
However, on the other side, P7 stated that since her daughter was
placed in a self-contained class, she had been struggling with low self-
esteem, pressure, and low condence. However, she had a positive
experience in the regular class setting before coming to the self-
contained setting.
“ere are bright students in mathematics, and she doesn’t feel
bright in mathematics as she did in the previous class. She
struggles with her self-concept in math. She is ne in OC, but it’s
lots of pressure on kids. ey are too young to deal with this kind
of pressure.”
P3 added,
“In the previous class, she did not have academic discussions; they
only talked about what was happening on the weekend. Since she
has been in OC, they discuss tests, results, they talk about selective
school things like benchmarking. She thinks she is not as high as
the others. Iimagine how it must behard—lots of pressure on a
10-year-old.”
A total 70% of participants were concerned that because of the
full-time ability grouping setting, their children had less opportunity
to participate in extracurricular activities and had become less social
owing to the pressure of such a competitive learning environment.
For example, P5 stated,
“In OC, there is a little bit of stress because of the lack of extra
activities. At the old school, there were lots of extracurricular
activities. She is a social person, but in OC, she is quiet, focused
on study but stressed all the time. It’s dicult mentally.”
P9 added that extracurricular activities provided gied students
with the opportunity to explore further study or career options aer
school, which might help give them a “sense of direction.” However,
due to the burden of their studies, “they could not take part in any
other activities.”
Some parents believed that full-time ability grouping was also one
of the reasons for GTS having a xed mindset that they are good at
everything all the time, which could be quite harmful to their
academic development and social emotional well-being, as
stated by P10.
“In OC, it’s kind of a special bubble. Life is not always about a
bunch of smart people. Sometimes, it’s quite dicult to teach your
kids that nothing is xed.”
In summary, the statements of teachers and parents showed a high
concern with challenges such as peer pressure, pressure from the
competitive learning environment, pressure from parents and teacher
expectations to perform at a higher level, and perfectionism associated
with full-time ability grouping in self-contained class settings
(Table1.4).
Discussion
e main purpose of this research was to identify the challenges
of full-time ability grouping practices in self-contained class settings
for academically advanced students. ere has been very little research
in this area, but many educators are aware of the powerful inuence
of special educational provisions, which shape the lives of gied
children (Coleman, 2001; Coleman and Cross, 2005). Consequently,
schools respond best by producing optimal learning environments.
TABLE1.4 Summary of parents’ perceptions of challenges in self-
contained settings.
Themes No. of
participants
N= 10
Favorable
themes
Unfavorable
themes
Pressure from family 10 90% 10%
Peer competition 10 90% 10%
High expectations 10 99.9% 0.1%
Competitive
environment
10 80% 20%
Lack of
extracurricular
activities
10 70% 30%
Fixed mindset 10 60% 40%
N = Total number of parents in study, Favorable themes = no of parents responded/total
parents*100, Unfavorable themes = no of parents responded/total parents*100.

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 07 frontiersin.org
e intrinsic motivation of students and their academic performance
are both enhanced by positive environmental perceives (Rubenstein
etal., 2012; Winton, 2013). According to (Robinson etal., 2002), the
most gied students’ social and emotional issues are tied to the setting
in which they are serviced. Indeed, this study found that while special
educational services are better at meeting the needs of advanced
learners, such learning environments signicantly aect their
academic progress and social–emotional wellbeing. According to
Benard (2004)
From an equity and empowerment lens, no matter what ethnic,
social class, geographic, and historical backgrounds gied
children they have, wehold the belief about the impact of buers
on their life courses. (p.9)
e following themes emerged aer comparing and contrasting
the data collected from the participants.
Pressure of the competitive learning
environment
e ndings of this study generally conrmed those of dierent
studies conducted of GTS in full-time ability grouping. In the current
study, teachers and parents highlighted peer pressure during full-time
ability grouping. e results indicate that students in full-time ability
grouping perceived the challenge of peer pressure, as all the students
were at the same level of ability, and they constantly felt an intense
atmosphere of competition among themselves. Almost all the
participants including parents and teachers commented on
peer pressure.
To perform better than others, students were under direct and
indirect pressure to always stand out. Being academically talented,
gied students face greater emotional challenges in terms of social
expectations and academic achievement pressure (Neihart, 1999).
Furthermore, the ndings conrmed the study of Callahan (2004) by
highlighting that major social emotional problems arise when students
compare their academic progress to peers to stand out.
e students felt performance anxiety and therefore feared the
loss of their academic position, which conrmed the research by
Seaton etal. (2011) citing the case of a student who experienced
Stuyvesant, a high-pressure environment, as “a place of profound
desperation and extreme pressure” (p.201).
e Big-Fish-Little-Pond Eect (BFLPE) is worth noting here, as
high-ability students in special gied programs deal with low self-
esteem and self-concept. BFLPE assumes that students’ academic self-
concept is based on social comparisons between achievement levels.
However, the current results contradict many studies that found that
high-ability peers receive benets from one another (Adams-Byers
etal., 2004; Sehgal, 2017). It is somehow contradictory to the ndings
of Kulik and Kulik (1992) who documented ability grouping as a
learner-friendly atmosphere, without fear of mockery that not only
reduced peer pressure, but also reduced the pressure to succeed.
e study by Neihart (1999) raised an interesting point on the
relative importance of the eects of labeling versus the eects of daily
classroom experience. It suggested that labeling (by placing the
student in low-medium-high groups) may have a transitory impact on
self-esteem but that the impact may bequickly overshadowed by the
eect of the comparison that the student makes between themselves
and others each day in the classroom. Low-ability students may
experience feelings of success and competency when in a classroom
with others of like ability, and high-ability students may encounter
greater competition for the rst time.
e participants reported that a high-pressure environment
existed for GTS in specially designed provisions, compared with the
general learning classroom setting, and that they had less
opportunity to be social, compared to their non-gied peers.
However, as suggested by Reis and Renzulli (2004) when examining
the social competence of gied students, they appeared to bea more
diverse group consisting of dierent subgroups with dierent social
and emotional outcomes. She emphasized three major risk factors
for the social–emotional development of gied students: (1) more
social and emotional problems than peers, due to their apparently
dierent academic progress; (2) common areas of psychological
vulnerability experienced by some gied students (e.g.,
perfectionism and underachievement); and (3) the identication of
gied students as twice exceptional (being gied students with
special needs).
Participants in the current study described GTS as perceiving
extreme pressure, a nding that is similar to the study by Callahan
(2004) reporting that GTS viewed the special school of Stuyvesant
as “a place of profound desperation and extreme pressure” and a
“uniquely competitive and high-pressure environment” (p.201).
Students in the above-mentioned studies further highlighted that the
high-achieving environment “is a culture present in competitive
schools everywhere.” If teachers adopt cautious strategies, such as
appreciating and commenting on the eorts of gied students, rather
than their intelligence, then this competitive environment can
beovercome. is can minimize the risk of poor grades, enhance
their enthusiasm, and reduce their worries about their own
intelligence, so that they will enjoy a more challenging learning
environment (Dweck, 2007).
Pressure of high expectations
e majority of the participants stated that being in special gied
classes (full-time ability grouping) created more pressure due to the
high expectations of parents, teachers, and peers, compared to being
in regular classes. Parents and teachers claimed that they expected
high performance from gied students with like-minded peers. e
pushy attitude of parents and teachers “to work harder and climb
higher” exerted pressure on GTS, which had serious detrimental
eects on their psychosocial and academic development (Jiang etal.,
2022). It is evidence that a teacher’s and parents’ attitudes play a
substantial role in a gied student’s ability to succeed academically
(Altun and Yazici, 2010).
Students feared that they would not full the expectations of
parents, teachers, and peers and negatively sabotaged their abilities.
Some parents and teachers believed that being gied and being
placed in special gied programs meant accepting nothing less than
regular outstanding performance. Students may begin to internalize
these unrealistic standards of perfection and start to believe that not
always doing things perfectly is undesirable. In turn, they may
become depressed and anxious when they fail to meet unreasonable
expectations. e results of this study supported the claim by

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 08 frontiersin.org
Shani-Zinovich and Zeidner (2009) that the role of the family is as
important as that of the school in cultivating gied students’
potential. Unrealistic expectations about gied students’ abilities by
parents and teachers put pressure on them and undermine their
performance; however, if parents and teachers adopt a motivational
approach and positive attitude, they can accelerate the
progress of GTS.
Perfectionism
Another important nding of this study was that perfectionism
among GTS is signicantly high when they are placed in full-time
ability grouping because the intense competitive learning environment
exacerbates the intensity of the drive for perfection. is nding is
similar to the studies by Hoge and Renzulli (1993) claiming that high
parental expectations for perfection in all areas, high grades, and
perfect behavior negatively inuence their children’s state and trait
anxieties and may aect self-concept among gied children
(Adderholdt-Elliott, 1991). is suggests that gied students have an
increased vulnerability to perfectionistic tendencies because they are
oen inuenced by perfectionistic parents, high personal standards,
and pressure from teachers and peers to succeed, whether the pressure
is real or perceived.
Conclusion
e practice of full-time ability grouping in self-contained
gied classes was found to bequite challenging and to inuence the
talent development process of GTS. e phenomenological
framework of this study allowed me to listen to the voices of the
participants and raise issues regarding barriers to the academic
progress of advanced learners. Consequently, educators and policy
makers in gied education will beable to plan and implement the
proper educational provisions that can help save the future of highly
intellectual learners.
As BFLPE Marsh et al. (2013) is observed in self-contained
settings, teachers and parents must be quick to respond to the
problems of GTS and adopt motivational strategies. Teachers should
beprofessional and develop the use of exible groupings to deal with
social–emotional issues in selective settings. Teachers reported social–
emotional issues among the gied students in the current study,
stating that despite making them clear that they were perfect or their
performance was outstanding, GTS were not satised, and the same
concerns were also expressed by parents.
I would suggest that stakeholders in gied education consider the
following points from the study of Marsh and Hau (2003) that
educators should expand the basis for selecting students to include
criteria other than standardized test scores. Although academic
performance may beimportant, it seems that students of all ability
levels are aected by BFLPE. erefore, educators should try to avoid
the typical highly competitive environment of some G/T projects,
which encourages the social comparison process behind BFLPE,
additionally develop assessment tasks and encourage students to work
on projects that are of particular interest to them and based on the
performance of other students in the G/T class, provide students with
feedback related to the comparison. Moreover, it is important to
emphasize to each student that they are very capable and value each
student’s unique achievements, so that all students can feel good about
themselves. Finally, it is recommended that self-contained classes are
led by teachers who are trained in gied education and sensitive to the
special needs of G/T students. ere should beMentoring learning
programs in school to fulll the educational and social emotional
needs of gied and talented students (Wechsler and De Feith, 2017).
Data availability statement
e raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will
bemade available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
e studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC). NSW Department of Education SERAP. Written
informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the
participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
e author conrms being the sole contributor of this work and
has approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
e author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., and Moon, S. M. (2004). Gied students’ perceptions
of the academic and social/emotional eects of homogeneous and heterogeneous
grouping. Gied Child Q. 48, 7–20. doi: 10.1177/001698620404800102
Adderholdt-Elliott, M. R. (1991). Perfectionism and the gied adolescent. In:
Understanding the gied adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural
issues. eds. M. Birely and J. Greensha (New York: Teachers College press), 65–75.

Noor 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225623
Frontiers in Education 09 frontiersin.org
Altun, F., and Yazici, H. (2010). Learning styles of the gied students in Turkey.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 9, 198–202. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.136
Benard, B. Resilience: A Universal Capacity. Resilience: What WeHave Learned. San
Francisco, CA: west Ed Publishing. (2004).
Berliner, D. C., and Glass, G. V. (eds.) 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s
Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press;
(2014).
Blaas, S. (2014). e relationship between social-emotional diculties and
underachievement of gied students. J. Psychol. Couns. Sch. 24, 243–255. doi: 10.1017/
jgc.2014.1
Callahan, C. M. (2004). “Asking the right questions: e central issue in evaluating
programs for the gied and talented” in Program Evaluation in Gied Education. eds. C.
M. Callahan and S. M. Reis (ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press), 1–2.
Coleman, L. J. (2001). A “rag quilt”: social relationships among students in a special
high school. Gied Child Q. 45, 164–173. doi: 10.1177/001698620104500302
Coleman, L. J., and Cross, T. L., Being Gied in School: An Introduction to Development,
Guidance, and Teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press; (2005).
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., and Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative
research designs: selection and implementation. Couns. Psychol. 35, 236–264. doi:
10.1177/0011000006287390
Cross, J. R., and Cross, T. L. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in
counseling the gifted individual. J. Couns. Dev. 93, 163–172. doi:
10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00192.x
Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., and Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giedness and
gied education: a survey of empirical studies published during 1998—2010 (April).
Gied Child Q. 55, 126–138. doi: 10.1177/0016986210397831
Dean, K. M., e Eects of Gied Programming on Student Achievement: Dierential
Results By Race/Ethnicity and Income. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology and
Georgia State University; (2011).
Diezmann, C. M., and Watters, J. J. (2000). Catering for mathematically gied
elementary students: learning from challenging tasks. Gi. Child Today 23, 14–52. doi:
10.4219/gct-2000-737
Dweck, C. S. (2007). e secret to raising smart kids. Sci. Am. Mind 18, 36–43. doi:
10.1038/scienticamericanmind1207-36
Hoge, R. D., and Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giedness and self-
concept. Rev. Educ. Res. 63, 449–465. doi: 10.3102/00346543063004449
Huang, S. Y. (2008). E arly identication: cultivating success for young gied children.
Gi. Educ. Int. 24, 118–125. doi: 10.1177/026142940802400113
Ireson, J., and Hallam, S., Ability Grouping in Education. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage;
(2001).
Jiang, M. M., Gao, K., Wu, Z. Y., and Guo, P. P. (2022). e inuence of academic
pressure on adolescents’ problem behavior: chain mediating eects of self-control,
parent–child conict, and subjective well-being. Front. Psychol. 13:954330. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2022.954330
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential dierentiation: what types of dierentiation do
students want? Gied Child Q. 55, 279–299. doi: 10.1177/0016986211422098
Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C. L. (1992). Meta-analytic ndings on grouping programs.
Gied Child Q. 36, 73–77. doi: 10.1177/001698629203600204
Lee, S. Y., Matthews, M., Boo, E., and Kim, Y. K. (2020). Gied students’ perceptions
about leadership and leadership development. High Abil. Stud. 32, 219–259. doi:
10.1080/13598139.2020.1818554
Marsh, H. W., and Hau, K. T. (2003). Big-sh-little-pond eect on academic self-
concept:a cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative eects of academically selective
schools. Am. Psychol. 58, 364–376. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364
Marsh, H. W., and Seaton, M. A., Academic self-concept. Hattie, J., and
Anderman, E. M., (Eds.) In: International Guide to Student Achievement (2013). pp.
79–80. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage; (1994).
Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., and Price, A. A. (2014).
Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative
assessment. J. Educ. Gi. 37, 245–268. doi: 10.1177/0162353214541326
National Association for Gied Children. Dierentiating curriculum and instruction
for gied and talented students. (2015). Available at: http://www.nagc.org.
Neihart, M. (1999). e impact of giedness on psychological well-being: what does
the empirical literature say? Roeper Rev. 22, 10–17. doi: 10.1080/02783199909553991
Neihart, M. (2007). e socioaective impact of acceleration and ability grouping:
recommendations for best practice. Gied Child Q. 51, 330–341. doi:
10.1177/0016986207306319
Nisbett, R. E., Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. New
York, NY: WW Norton & Company; (2009).
Phillipson, S. N., Phillipson, S., and Eyre, D. M. (2011). Being gied in Hong Kong:
an examination of the region’s policy for gied education. Gied Child Q. 55, 235–249.
doi: 10.1177/0016986211421959
Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., Stumpf, E., Motschenbacher, M., Vogl, K., Scherrer, V., et al.
(2019). High-ability grouping: benets for gied students’ achievement development
without costs in academic self-concept. Child Dev. 90, 1185–1201. doi: 10.1111/
cdev.12996
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., and Gubbins, E. J.
(2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading
uency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: an evidence-based study. Elem.
Sch. J. 108, 3–23. doi: 10.1086/522383
Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional
development of gied and talented students: good news and future possibilities. Psychol.
Sch. 41, 119–130. doi: 10.1002/pits.10144
Renzulli, J. S. (2013). “Swimming upstream in a small river: changing conceptions and
practices about the development of giedness” in Translating eory and Research Into
Educational Practice. eds. M. A. Constas and R. J. Sternberg (Oxfordshire: Routledge),
226–256.
Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., and Moon, S. M. (2002). “Social and
emotional issues facing gied and talented students” in e Social and Emotional
Development of Gied Children, Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. 267–288.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gied and talented: a
synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gied Child Q. 51, 382–396. doi:
10.1177/0016986207306324
Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., Mccoach, D. B., and Burton, M. G. (2012). A
complex quest: the development and research of underachievement interventions for
gied students. Psychol. Sch. 49, 678–694. doi: 10.1002/pits.21620
Seaton, M., Marsh, H. W., and Craven, R. G. (2010). Big-sh-little-pond eect:
generalizability and moderation—two sides of the same coin. Am. Educ. Res. J. 47,
390–433. doi: 10.3102/0002831209350493
Seaton, M., Marsh, H. W., Yeung, A. S., and Craven, R. (2011). e big sh down
under: examining moderators of the ‘big-sh-little-pond’ eect for Australia's high
achievers. Aust. J. Educ. 55, 93–114. doi: 10.1177/000494411105500202
Sehgal, R. (2017). Ability grouping: the utilitarian approach for teaching English to
engineering students. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Technol. 11, 27–31.
Shani-Zinovich, I., and Zeidner, M. (2009). “On being a gied adolescent:
developmental, aective, and social issues” in Creativity in Mathematics and the
Education of Gied Students. eds. R. Leikin, A. Berman and B. Koichu (Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers), 195–219.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Point-counterpoint: ability grouping, cooperative learning and
the gied. J. Educ. Gi. 14, 3–8. doi: 10.1177/016235329001400102
Smith, J. A., and Osborn, M. (2007). Pain as an assault on the self: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis of the psychological impact of chronic benign low back pain.
Psychol. Health 22, 517–534. doi: 10.1080/14768320600941756
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., and Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one
hundred years of research says about the eects of ability grouping and acceleration on
K–12 students’ academic achievement: ndings of two second-order meta analyses. Rev.
Educ. Res. 86, 849–899. doi: 10.3102/0034654316675417
orogood, N., and Green, J. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research.
4thEdition. Qual. Methods Health Res., 1–440.
Triangulation, D. S. (2014). e use of triangulation in qualitative research. InOncol
Nurs. Forum 41, 545–547.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., and Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the
eld of gied education: a vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st
century. Gied Child Q. 51, 182–205. doi: 10.1177/0016986207299880
Vidergor, H. E., and Gordon, L. A. (2015). e case of a self-contained elementary
classroom for the gied: student, teacher, and parent perceptions of existing versus
desired teaching–learning aspects. Roeper Rev. 37, 150–164. doi:
10.1080/02783193.2015.1047549
Wechsler, S. M., and De Feith, D. S. (2017). e scenario of gied in Brasil. J. Educ.
Malaysia 4, 1–12.
Winton, B. J. Reversing Underachievement Among Gied Secondary Students. Missouri,
MO: University of Missouri-Columbia; (2013).