Content uploaded by Astrid Lenvik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Astrid Lenvik on Oct 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Astrid Knutsdatter Lenvik
Gifted Education in Norway
A mixed-method study with teachers and students in Norwegian
comprehensive school
2022
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
University of Bergen, Norway
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Astrid Knutsdatter Lenvik
Gifted Education in Norway
A mixed-method study with teachers and students in
Norwegian comprehensive school
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 30.09.2022
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Astrid Knutsdatter Lenvik
Name: Astrid Knutsdatter Lenvik
Title: Gifted Education in Norway
Year: 2022
ii
Scientific environment
This thesis was written in the Department of Education, Faculty of Psychology, at the
University of Bergen. I was a member of the research groups SNE (Special Needs
Education) at the Department of Education and BCLG (Bergen Cognition and Learning
Group) at the Department of Biological and Medical Psychology. I followed the
research school GHIG (Graduate School of Human Interaction and Growth) at the
Faculty of Psychology and the research school WNGERII (Western Norway Graduate
School of Educational Research) at the Department of Education, Faculty of
Psychology.
I received a research grant of $15,000 from NORAM (Norway-America Association)
for a mobility stay at the University of California, Berkeley, in fall 2018 and spring
2019.
iii
Acknowledgments
According to an African proverb, it takes a village to raise a child. I would like to
continue this by saying that it takes a village to raise a Ph.D. candidate. Even though
only my name stands on the cover of this thesis, I could not have completed this
endeavor without my wonderful village of helpful and supporting supervisors,
colleagues, family, and friends. This section is not enough to convey my gratitude to
you, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart!
First, I must thank my two exceptional supervisors, my primary supervisor, Associate
Professor Lise Øen Jones, and my additional supervisor, Associate Professor Elisabeth
Hesjedal. You supported me when I needed it and challenged me professionally and
personally when needed that. I may not always have agreed with your critiques and
comments, but I know you have made this thesis infinitely better than what I could
have achieved on my own. I am grateful for the opportunity to develop my own survey
and be hands-on in all aspects of the data collection and analysis. However, I could not
have done this without the wisdom and support of my supervisors. Thank you, Lise,
for constantly arguing about the statistics and providing support in my quantitative
endeavor. Thank you, Elisabeth, for being a Devil’s advocate for the qualitative
material. I am genuinely grateful to have you both as supervisors.
Thank you to all my informants for letting me take a moment of your time, for your
valuable comments and insights, and for providing me with a better understanding of
gifted education in Norway!
Special thanks are due to Associate Professor Bjarte Furnes and Professor Ingrid
Holsen for their valuable comments on and critique of my midterm evaluation.
Thank you to the Department of Education for providing me with the opportunity to
write this thesis. I am thankful to my wonderful colleagues at the department for their
laughter and discussions in the lunchroom, interest, and support in my work. I am
grateful for the support from my research group Special Needs Education. My fellow
Ph.D. candidates have been incredibly wonderful these five years, especially Kari
iv
Hagatun, Øyvind Wiik Halvorsen and Fride Haram Klykken who supported me during
the last stressful months, those in GHIG (the gang from Granca 2017!), PsykStip, and
others I have met and spoken with during my time.
I am grateful to Professor Trond Petersen at the University of California, Berkeley, and
Professor Liv Duesund at the University of Oslo for their support and invitation to be
an international scholar at UCB. I will forever be grateful for this opportunity!
Thank you so much Professor Peder Haug for your insightful comments, positive
affirmation, and harsh critique on my synopsis. Your comments have truly improved
my thesis, and I feel safer knowing that you have helped me on my way.
I must also thank my outstanding friends in Skjold Nesttun Janitsjar. You have given
me respites from my strenuous work and provided me with musical challenges and
delightful musical concerts and arrangements that helped me take a mental break.
Thank you to all of my family, both relational and in-laws, for your never-ending
support, interest, and comfort. You are all a blessing!
Last but especially not least, I am forever grateful to Pål. You never continue to surprise
me with your unconditional love for me; the way you quarrel and discuss everything;
and your support, comfort, and patience. Times have been tough, but we made it
through this as well. Mikael, Alva, and Thor, I love you to the moon and back! Thank
you for your laughter, questions, curiosity, and love. You will always be my most
valuable accomplishment!
v
Abstract
Every student in Norway shall be provided for within an inclusive and equitable
education adapted to the needs and predispositions of the individual student. This
includes students with extraordinary learning potential. However, research on this
group of students within the Norwegian context and educational system is scarce. We
do not know much about the students’ experiences, what knowledge teachers have,
how the education is adapted to the needs of each student, and how the educational
system in Norway facilitates gifted students.
This thesis investigates gifted education in Norway through a mixed-method approach
with a quantitative descriptive survey with 339 teachers and inductive qualitative
interviews with 17 students. The main research question is as follows: how do
Norwegian gifted high school students experience school, and what knowledge do
Norwegian teachers have about gifted students?
International research shows that teachers may have misconceptions regarding gifted
education, such as stereotypical views and characterization of gifted students, negative
attitudes toward gifted education in general, or acceleration and ability grouping.
Internationally, gifted students complain about education that is too slow, repetitive,
and unchallenging and does not consider their individual needs.
Although there is debate within the research community on definitions of giftedness
and gifted education, there is consensus that gifted students require special
accommodation and facilitation to develop their gifts appropriately.
Article 1 in this thesis investigates teachers’ self-evaluated need for knowledge about
giftedness and their characterization and description of gifted students. This study
shows that teachers in Norway want more knowledge about giftedness, gifted students,
and proper educational practices. The teachers display a positive view of gifted
students, focusing on achievement in school and positive behaviors, except for
disruptiveness. The teachers further report that they have gained their knowledge about
gifted students mostly from their practice, rather than formal teacher education.
vi
Article 2 explores how gifted students in Norway experience their education through
an inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. The themes developed in
the analysis reveal systematic challenges within the educational system; the joy of
learning these students have; and problematic issues such as being disrupted, boredom,
frustration with repetition, and a need for an adapted education.
Article 3 utilizes a combination of results from the quantitative survey and the
qualitative interview study when investigating how education is adapted for gifted
students in Norway. Both teachers and students report similar enrichment strategies
and systematic challenges regarding facilitation. There were differences in how the two
groups talked about group work and acceleration. The students mentioned group work
in mixed-ability groups, and the teachers wanted to utilize more homogenous groups.
The students mentioned full-time acceleration and subject acceleration, while the
teachers only reported acceleration in the form using books and assignments intended
for a higher academic level.
In this thesis, the results of the two studies and three articles are discussed in light of
current research, theories regarding gifted education, educational history and the
educational system in Norway, special education, and Foucault’s notion of power in
genealogy.
vii
List of Publications
Lenvik, A., Jones, L. Ø., Hesjedal, E. (2022). Teacher’s perspective on extraordinary
learning potential in Norway: A descriptive study with primary and secondary
teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lenvik, A., Hesjedal, E., Jones, L. Ø., (2021). “We want to be educated!” A thematic
analysis of gifted students’ view on education in Norway. Nordic Studies in
Education, 41(3), 219–238. https://doi.org.10.23865/nse.v41.2621
Lenvik, A., Jones, L. Ø., Hesjedal, E. (2022). Adapted education for gifted students in
Norway: A mixed-methods study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
The published paper is reprinted as an Open Access article under the terms of the Creative
Commons CC-BY 4.0 License. All rights reserved.
viii
Contents
Scientific environment ................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... v
List of Publications .................................................................................................................................... vii
Contents ................................................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction, background, and research design ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.1 Recent white papers .................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 The project design .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.3 Research Aim and research questions ................................................................................................. 12
1.4 Overview of the thesis .......................................................................................................................... 13
2. Current research ............................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Research on teachers and gifted education ......................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and the characteristics of gifted students ....................... 16
2.1.2 Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education and stereotypical beliefs .................................... 17
2.1.3 Teachers’ knowledge about giftedness and gifted education ................................................... 18
2.1.4 Differentiation, ability grouping, and acceleration .................................................................... 19
2.2 Qualitative research on the experiences of gifted students ................................................................. 21
2.3 Research on gifted education in Norway and the Nordic countries ..................................................... 25
3. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.1 Conceptions of Giftedness .................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Harmony and disharmony ......................................................................................................... 29
3.1.2 Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent ........................................................... 31
3.1.3 Vague conceptions or no conception ........................................................................................ 33
3.1.4 Summary of conceptions of giftedness ..................................................................................... 35
3.2 Archeology ........................................................................................................................................... 35
ix
3.3 Educational history in Norway ............................................................................................................. 37
3.4 Adapted education and special education in Norway ......................................................................... 46
3.4.1 Genealogy of education ............................................................................................................ 52
4. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 55
4.1 Mixed-methods research ..................................................................................................................... 55
4.2 Epistemology and ontology ................................................................................................................. 57
4.3 Study 1: Descriptive survey .................................................................................................................. 60
4.3.1 Participants and recruitment .................................................................................................... 60
4.3.2 Pilot and instrument .................................................................................................................. 61
4.3.3 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................... 63
4.3.4 Validity and reliability ................................................................................................................ 64
4.3.5 Analyses ..................................................................................................................................... 65
4.4 Study 2: Interview ................................................................................................................................ 66
4.4.1 Participants and recruitment .................................................................................................... 66
4.4.2 Semi-structured interview ......................................................................................................... 67
4.4.3 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................... 68
4.4.4 Thematic analysis ...................................................................................................................... 69
4.4.5 Researcher positionality ............................................................................................................ 70
4.4.6 Transparency, validity, and reliability ....................................................................................... 71
4.4.7 Validity as Dasein and research praxis ...................................................................................... 72
4.5 Mixing and integrating results ............................................................................................................. 77
5. Summary of the articles .................................................................................................................. 78
5.1 Article 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 78
5.2 Article 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 80
5.3 Article 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 81
6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 83
6.1 Different definitions and characterizations of gifted students ............................................................ 83
6.2 Giftedness within the Norwegian educational history ......................................................................... 85
6.3 Gifted education within special education .......................................................................................... 90
6.4 Upcoming changes and the road ahead .............................................................................................. 95
7. Implications and further research ................................................................................................... 100
x
7.1 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................... 100
7.2 Further research ................................................................................................................................. 101
Source of data .......................................................................................................................................... 104
Enclosed
Article 1: Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway: A
descriptive study with primary and secondary teachers.
Article 2: “We want to be educated!” A thematic analysis of gifted students’ view on
education in Norway.
Article 3: Adapted education for gifted students in Norway: A mixed-methods study.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Supplementary files
Appendix 2: Ethic approval
Appendix 3: Information letter for interview and survey
1
1. Introduction, background, and research design
I first encountered concerns about gifted education when I was studying for my
bachelor’s degree in special needs education. I came across a newspaper article about
a gifted girl who dropped out of school in Norway and moved to Denmark to attend a
special school for gifted children. Her experience in the Norwegian educational
system was so bad that she developed anxiety regarding school. What took me most
by surprise when I read this article was that I had not heard about these children
before, not even during my studies on students with special needs.
All students in Norway have the right to an education adapted according to their
needs and predispositions; this includes gifted students (The Education Act, 1998).
However, the myth that gifted students manage on their own and do not require
special attention has been and may still be prevalent in Norway (Idsøe, 2014). Gifted
students who do not receive an education adapted to their needs may underachieve,
develop disruptive behaviors, have social and emotional issues, lose their initial
motivation for school, become bored and disinterested, and, in a worst-case scenario,
drop out of school (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Baker et al., 1998; Cross,
2014; Idsøe, 2014; Subotnik et al., 2011). How are gifted students then
accommodated in Norwegian schools, how do teachers adapt the instruction and
curriculum, and how do gifted students experience their education? These are the
main questions I had when I began this thesis.
In this thesis, I examine gifted education in Norway from the perspectives of both
teachers and students. I use “students,” not “pupils,” as the term for those attending
comprehensive school throughout this thesis because this is the term used in the three
articles included in the thesis. In Article 2, I also mention “teacher-students,” that is,
those attending higher education to become teachers. Another term used is “pre-
service teachers.” Unless explicitly mentioned, the reader can assume that “student”
refers to a child between the ages of 6 and 15 attending primary or secondary school.
I have not included upper secondary school in my study. The goal of this doctoral
2
study is to obtain a better understanding of how we provide for gifted students in the
Norwegian comprehensive educational system.
In this chapter, I will briefly present the purpose of this study and the overarching
theme of gifted education. I will first present the background for this study and then
introduce the aim, research questions, and research design.
1.1 Background
Mankind has been interested in intellect, especially the categorization of different
intellectual levels and types of genius, for a long time, from Hippocrates, who
suggested the brain was the center of intelligence in 400 BCE, to Huarte, who wrote
about differential psychology and advocated ability testing in 1575; Esquirol, who
proposed several levels of intellectual disability in 1838; and Binet and Simon, who
developed the Binet-Simon Scale in 1905, to name a few (Sattler, 2020). Jacques
Inaudi, a poor boy from Italy, was studied for his remarkable skills in mathematics
by, among other, Binet, who concluded that he had extraordinary mathematical
ability but was average in other areas (Idsøe & Skogen, 2021).
Lewis Terman wrote “The genetic studies of genius” and is considered by some to be
the father of gifted education (Cravens, 1992; Terman, 1926). Terman further
developed the Binet-Simon Intelligence scale into the Standford-Binet (Sattler, 2020),
and he used this scale to study a vast pool of children with measured IQs of 140 or
above (Terman, 1926). Terman defines giftedness as a cognitive construct based on
the normality distribution of intelligence. He also describes a certain hereditary
aspect, lending weight to the genetic component of IQ. Terman also emphasized that
children with extraordinary abilities required extraordinarily stimulating education
(Idsøe & Skogen, 2021).
3
Since Terman, studies on giftedness have spread from psychology and the cognitive
approach to education, sociology, and questions about inclusion and equity in gifted
education.
In Europe, the different countries have different ways of adapting education to gifted
students, from entire schools for the gifted to no adaptation (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005).
In 1994, the European Union Parliamentary Assembly expressed that gifted students
have a particular educational need for differentiation and adaption and that the
various EU countries should implement strategies for adaptation and facilitation
(Mönks & Pflüger, 2005).
Frantz and McClarty (2016) show, in their study, that there are differences between
countries related to egalitarianism versus meritocracy. Within the meritocratic
doctrine, there are specialized gifted schools within the public education system.
Nineteen of the 38 countries in their study have national legislation or gifted
education policies. Twelve countries have gifted education policies only at the
state/provincial or local levels, including the UK, the US, and Iceland. Seven
countries have no legislation regarding gifted education; these include the Nordic
countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (Frantz & McClarty, 2016).
The Nordic countries are considered egalitarian, and within this culture, Frantz and
McClarty found three different approaches to gifted education. These three
approaches provide differentiated or adapted education for all students, including
gifted education within the umbrella of special education and inclusive strategies for
including underrepresented groups in gifted education (Frantz & McClarty, 2016).
Norway utilizes the approach of differentiated or adapted education for all students.
Gifted education in Norway must be seen within the overall educational system. The
overall aim is to provide an inclusive, equitable education adapted to the individual
student’s needs. Nine out of ten Norwegian students in primary and secondary school
attend their nearest public school, which implies that the population in public schools
is as diverse as the rest of society. Adapted education is regulated through the
4
Education Act § 1-3, which states that education should be adapted to every student’s
individual needs and predispositions. However, this is not an individual right for each
student. Schools and teachers abide this principle through varied instruction for the
diverse student population. If a student has needs and a predisposition that requires
greater and more individual adaption, they have the right to special education, as seen
in § 5-1. According to the National Directorate for Education and Training (NDET),
schools cannot provide special education for students who learn more quickly than
their peers and thus require greater adaptation. According to NDET, these students
are covered by adapted education, in line with § 1-3 (NDET, 2014).
Research on gifted education in Norway is scarce (Børte et al., 2016; Smedsrud &
Skogen, 2016). Earlier research on gifted students has mostly been limited to smaller
research projects or master’s theses, apart from Hofseth’s doctoral thesis from 1968
and Smedsrud’s doctoral thesis from 2019. I present a more thorough literature
review on gifted education in Norway in Chapter 2.6. In the following section, I will
briefly present some results that have influenced this thesis.
Arnold Hofseth wrote the first doctoral thesis on gifted education in Norway in 1968.
He followed up with a book about gifted children in Norwegian schools in 1970, in
which he concludes that the undifferentiated school works for the ordinary student,
but not the gifted (Hofseth, 1970). Hofseth argues that the development of the
educational system in Norway has primarily catered to the general population, then to
those who had trouble keeping up, and that this development had not yet had time to
proceed any further. Earlier research in Norway had not considered this group of
students, and there is also the question of whether the vast international research is
relevant to the Norwegian setting. Hofseth found a variation in maturity (or mental
age) between five and seven years within the same class. Organizational
differentiation for gifted students was, according to him, not in focus in compulsory
education after the Second World War. Pedagogical differentiation within the
classroom was also lacking time, resources, and knowledge from the teachers. A
quote from a teacher illustrates this: “There is no need to feel bad about the clever
5
students. They can sit for a whole hour and enjoy coloring and making borders
around an A, while the other students learn to read the letter” (Hofseth, 1970, p. 49).
Hoseth found few signs of adapted education for gifted students in his study and
argues for differentiation (Hofseth, 1970).
After Hofseth, there was not much talk about gifted students in Norway; Damsgård
and Opsahl argue that research and teacher education have not done enough to
prepare their pre-service teachers to teach this group (Damsgaard & Opsahl, 2016).
Smedsrud and Skogen showcase three case studies as current Norwegian research on
gifted students in their book. These studies all show a lack of appropriate adaptation
and differentiation, individual underachievement, and stigmatizing experiences
(Smedsrud & Skogen, 2016). In the study by Damsgård and Opsahl, the informants
look back on their education and their experience. Boredom is a prominent result, and
negative experiences with finishing assignments early or the teacher’s attempt to
adapt by giving them a book to read or work with or letting them draw by themselves.
Some of the informants mentioned that it was best to pretend to be “normal”
(Damsgaard & Opsahl, 2016).
There have been debates on why giftedness and gifted students have been excluded
from the research field and educational discourse. When Hofseth wrote his thesis,
there was a growing interest in a “school for all,” including and assimilating children
with special educational needs, but equality was based on results, not resources
(Kvam, 2016). The students with good results were not those that needed resources.
This may be one of the reasons the school system did not prioritize gifted education
at this time. I will provide the reader with a more thorough introduction to
educational history in Chapter 3.
The myth that gifted students manage on their own has been quite prevalent. There
are many misconceptions regarding gifted students and students with high or
extraordinary learning potential, for example, that they are brilliant overall, in all
subjects or fields, that they manage without special attention, or that giftedness
6
simply means receiving high scores and good grades (Subotnik et al., 2011). In this
thesis, I seek to investigate some of these misconceptions.
My interest in gifted education began as a bachelor’s student in special needs
education. My background as a special educator may influence how I view this field,
and it may make me more predisposed to problematize gifted education within the
Norwegian educational system. As I mentioned earlier, giftedness is not considered a
special educational need in Norway, but I still write this thesis within the paradigm of
special needs education. This discrepancy opens up some interesting questions. I
discuss whether gifted education should be categorized within special education in
Articles 2 and 3, and I will continue this discussion in Chapter 6. My personal aim in
writing this thesis is to learn more about education for gifted students in Norway,
convey my results, and propose some potential changes within the educational
system.
Before I present the research questions and project design, I will provide the reader
with a brief overview of recent white papers of interest to this thesis.
1.1.1 Recent white papers
In the official report from 2016, “More to gain. Better learning for students with high
learning potential,” the authors first present the new terminology – students with high
learning potential. The mandate for the report uses the term high-achieving students.
On the other hand, the report stipulates that students with high learning potential may
not necessarily be high achieving. Still, they have a significant potential for learning
in one or more fields (NOU 2016: 14, 2016). High learning potential covers both high
and extraordinary learning potential, and the authors define the high-learning-
potential group as 10–15% of the student population and the extraordinary-learning-
potential group as 2–5% of the population.
The main message from the report is that, if the educational system is to achieve an
education adapted for all students, three systematic realizations must be emphasized.
7
These three realizations are: (1) comprehensive education does not provide for
students with high learning potential, making it impossible for them to realize their
potential. (2) Schools are not utilizing the available space for pedagogical and
organizational differentiation. (3) The educational system, both nationally and
locally, requires a common knowledge ground for implementing improvement
measures on short- and long-term bases (NOU 2016:14, 2016).
The authors also report the need for more research and knowledge about students
with high learning potential (NOU 2016: 14, 2016) and that results from research
must be conveyed to schools, teachers, and municipalities across the country to make
a difference in the education of students. The research summary complementing the
official report points to several knowledge gaps in the research, among others
research on teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward gifted students, research on
how the label “gifted” influences students’ experiences, and research on
implementing differentiation strategies in school (Børte et al., 2016). In 2016, the
government also reported that it would establish talent centers for high-achieving
students in mathematics, science, and technology (Ministry of Education and
Research, 2016).
Another official report of interest is NOU nr. 8 from 2015, A school for the future
(Fremtidens skole). In this report, Ludvigsen and authors explain that school subjects
must be renewed to properly meet the future competence needs of our society. They
propose four new areas of competence as a foundation for renewing the curricula:
subject-specific competence, learning competence, communication and cooperation
competence, and competence in exploring and creating (NOU 2015:8, 2015). In this
report, they discuss the term “depth learning.” Developing competence is dependent
on students being able to understand their knowledge and knowing how and when
they can use their knowledge. Developing competence and knowledge assumes depth
learning. Students must be able to reflect on their learning, actively participate in
their learning processes, and evaluate their own progress. This also assumes an
education that is differentiated and adapted to the individual student because each
8
student will have different needs in terms of what and how they can learn. To wade
into the deep end in certain themes and subjects, the students must have the ability to
choose. This also means differentiation according to the abilities of each student and
ensuring variety in instruction and working methods (NOU 2015: 8, 2015).
Another factor discussed in the report is progression between school levels and
individual progression for each student. Teachers must assess their students’
knowledge and reflect on how their instruction provides for both the individual
student and the student group (NOU 2015: 8, 2015).
In 2019, the government issued a white paper concerning special education and early
intervention (Meld. St. 6 (2019-2020)). The white paper emphasizes that students
with high learning potential require adaptation to realize their potential properly and
that education is not sufficiently facilitated for this group. In this white paper, the
government considers making changes in the educational law concerning students
with high learning potential and special education (Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019).
In December 2019, a governmentally appointed committee delivered its report
suggesting a new educational law (NOU 2019: 23, 2019). This report proposes
change the terms “adapted education” and “special education” to “universal
education” and “individually adapted education,” respectively. The authors argue that
the terms “adapted education” and “special education” are not suitable for the new
Education Act. Universal education is related to universal facilitation, as used in the
Equality and Discrimination Act (2017). According to the authors, the new term
universal education is better suited to how adapted education is understood within the
fellowship and quality era we currently reside in (see Jenssen & Lillejord, 2010).
Universal education is thus an education that is the best possible, inclusive, available
for anyone, and facilitated in such a way as to create a proper learning environment
for all. Through an excellent universal education, the need for individually adapted
education will be lessened. The official report proposes that gifted students require
9
adapted universal education but not individually adapted education (NOU 2019: 23,
2019).
1.2 The project design
In this research project, I wanted to explore the phenomenon of gifted education in
the Norwegian educational setting. The overarching research aim is to investigate
gifted education in Norway through the perspectives of both teachers and students.
Because research on this phenomenon in Norway is scarce, I set out to obtain an
overview of or insight into the situation, rather than deep-diving into some of the
more minor aspects of the phenomenon. Education requires both teachers and
students, and I want to explore gifted education through both perspectives. Although
these two perspectives are not sufficient to tell the entire story of gifted education in
Norway, they will provide us with a larger picture than looking at either students or
teachers separately.
The thesis consists of quantitative and qualitative methods — a quantitative
descriptive survey of 339 teachers and educators and a qualitative interview study
with 17 students. The overall project design is a convergent mixed-method design
(Creswell, 2015). The studies are not parallel; I performed the quantitative survey
first and then the qualitative interviews. There is a sequential element in which the
results from the survey influenced the development of the interview guide. In Chapter
4, I will elaborate on the chosen method and form of analysis in this thesis.
The first article (Lenvik et al., 2022) is quantitative and based on the teacher survey.
The second article (Lenvik et al., 2021) is qualitative and based on the student
interviews. The third article (Lenvik et al., 2022) is mixed, with results from both the
teacher survey and the student interviews focusing on adaptation and facilitation in
school.
10
The project design, timeline, and overview of the articles are illustrated on the next
pages.
Figure 1: Project design
Note: square boxes mark quantitative method, and oval rings mark qualitative. The arrows mark sequential
elements.
Conceptualization
Sample: teachers
Sample: students
Method: survey
Analysis: QUAN
Article 1
Method: interview
Analysis: QUAL
Article 2
Data integration: quan+QUAL
Article 3, extended synopsis
Timeline:
Fall 2016
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Fall 2021
11
Overarching research aim: Investigate gifted education in Norway through the
perspectives of both teachers and students.
Article
Method
Results
Sample
Implications
1
Quantitative:
survey
Descriptive results.
Teachers want more
knowledge about
gifted students and
display a mostly
positive view of
them.
Teachers
Teacher education
should include more
information about
gifted students and
giftedness.
2
Qualitative:
interview
Gifted students
experience an
educational system
that is not suited to
their needs and
predispositions.
Students
Changes within
comprehensive
education are needed
to better
accommodate gifted
students in Norway.
3
Mixed:
survey and
interview
Education is adapted
to gifted students
through enrichment
strategies. Both
teachers and students
mention barriers and
systematic challenges
regarding
differentiation.
Teachers
and
students
Teachers require
more knowledge
about effective
methods of
differentiation.
Systematic
challenges must be
addressed.
12
1.3 Research Aim and research questions
The overarching research aim is to investigate gifted education in Norway through
the perspectives of both teachers and students. The aim is two-fold; one section aims
to investigate the experience of being a gifted student in Norway, focusing on the
facilitation gifted students receive within adapted education. This is an explorative
study. The other section aims to investigate what knowledge teachers have about this
group of students and how they facilitate them. The main research question is as
follows: how do Norwegian gifted high school students experience school, and what
knowledge do Norwegian teachers have about gifted students? I use quantitative and
qualitative methods to answer this research question.
The thesis also aims to provide a historical perspective on the discussion of gifted
education in Norway using the notion of power described by Foucault. This
perspective supplements the three articles.
The research questions in this thesis are further split between the three articles.
Article 1: Quantitative
1. Where do Norwegian teachers report they have gained knowledge about the
gifted, and how do they self-evaluate their need for knowledge?
a. How do the background variables of years of experience, experience
with gifted students, and education level correlate with teachers self-
evaluated need for knowledge?
2. How do Norwegian teachers evaluate the different characteristics of gifted
students, and how do they describe the characteristics of gifted students?
Article 2: Qualitative
1. How are Norwegian gifted secondary school students experiencing their
education?
Article 3: Mixed
13
1. How is the education adapted to gifted students in Norway?
2. Qualitative: How do gifted students experience adapted education?
3. Quantitative: How do teachers report they facilitate education for gifted
students? How do they report the use of differentiation, the available space for
differentiation, and school’s prioritazion of differentiation for gifted students?
4. Mixed: How does the thematic analysis of gifted students’ experience of
adapted education confirm or differ from the survey results regarding how
teachers facilitate their students?
The first article is quantitative and aims to provide insight into gifted education in
Norway using descriptive data derived from teachers. I seek to explore how teachers
self-evaluate their knowledge about gifted students, how they evaluate different
characteristics of gifted students, and whether background variables correlate with
their need for knowledge. I am also interested in how many teacher-identified
students there are in this selection.
The second article investigates the students’ perspective through qualitative semi-
structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. I interviewed 17 gifted students
attending various secondary schools in the western and eastern parts of Norway.
In the third article, I combine the teacher and student perspectives, focusing on
adaptation and facilitation in school. I investigate how teachers say they adapt their
instruction to gifted students, how gifted students experience the adapted education,
and similarities and differences between these views.
1.4 Overview of the thesis
This thesis consists of seven chapters and three articles.
Chapter 1 briefly presents the theoretical and societal framework for the thesis; I
introduce the research design, research aim, and research questions in the various
studies and articles included in the thesis.
14
Chapter 2 provides the reader with a literature review on research on teachers and
gifted education, the experiences of gifted students, and gifted education in Norway
and the Nordic countries.
In Chapter 3, I describe the theoretical framework more thoroughly, with an emphasis
on conceptions of giftedness. I introduce Foucault and the genealogy of education,
focusing on the aspect of power, as well as providing the reader with an introduction
to educational history in Norway regarding both ordinary education and special
education.
In Chapter 4, I present the methodological framework for this thesis. I describe the
research paradigm and the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods used in the
thesis. I also describe the analytical methods and assessments regarding validity,
reliability, generalizability, and ethics in all studies.
Chapter 5 presents the reader with the main results from all three articles. Chapter 6
discusses these results in light of the literature and theoretical framework presented in
Chapters 1, 2, and 3.
In Chapter 7, I sum up and provide the reader with implications based on this study
and possibilities for further studies.
15
2. Current research
In this section, I present a literature review on research regarding gifted students. The
literature review is split into three sections. This literature review provides the reader
with an understanding of gifted education internationally and in Norway, as well as
what new knowledge this thesis presents to the field.
2.1 Research on teachers and gifted education
In this section, I will present a summary of research on teachers and gifted education.
To search for literature, I used the databases ERIC, ProQuest, and APA with the
following search strategies: (gifted* OR high ability) AND teacher AND (charact*
OR profile OR view OR attitude), limited to English peer-reviewed journals. The
search strategy provided a total 993 articles. Further selection based on title and
abstract narrowed this number down to 75 articles I read in full. The excluded articles
were duplicates, did not address both teachers and giftedness or gifted students, or
were in another language. This summary is based on a final selection of 38 articles.
The inclusion criteria were empirical research; peer review; teachers as research
subjects; giftedness or gifted students as a topic; and research questions about the
characteristics, attitude, conception, and facilitation of gifted students or
differentiation for them. Articles from 1994 to 2021 were included, as were both
qualitative and quantitative research.
To briefly summarize the literature, it considers various characteristics of giftedness;
stereotypes (especially gender and the disharmony hypothesis); teachers’ knowledge
about giftedness; motivation to teach gifted students; and attitudes toward gifted
education, equity, and differentiation.
16
2.1.1 Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and the characteristics
of gifted students
This section will summarize the research on teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and
the characteristics of gifted students found in the literature review.
The characteristic most often chosen by teachers when describing gifted students is
high cognitive ability. This was characterized using the words “sees patterns and
connections,” “uses logic to solve problems,” “solves abstract reasoning problems,”
“can transfer knowledge,” “excellence,” “potential,” “rarity,” “easy to learn,” and
“multidimensional” or an IQ definition (Kaya, 2015; Laine et al., 2016; L. Lee,
1999; Miedijensky, 2018; Miller, 2009; Neumeister et al., 2007; Persson, 1998;
Russell, 2018). Regarding personality characteristics, these students are often
described as having a “spark” or an x-factor (Rohrer, 1995), independent, adaptive,
motivated (Persson, 1998), open to new experiences, introverted (Moon & Brighton,
2008), sensitive, mature, engaged, and non-conformist (Miedijensky, 2018). First and
foremost, teachers use positive adjectives in their conceptions of and when describing
gifted students (Kaya, 2015; L. Lee, 1999; Miller, 2009; Moon & Brighton, 2008;
Neumeister et al., 2007; Persson, 1998).
Teachers also seem to conceptualize giftedness and gifted students as having some
negative social and emotional characteristics. These characteristics may include
shyness, disruptiveness, a lack of social skills (Moon & Brighton, 2008), introversion,
less emotional stability, less agreeability (Baudson & Preckel, 2013), being a social
misfit, and social noncompliance (Geake & Gross, 2008).
Laine et al. (2016) found that teachers in Finland describe giftedness as both fixed
and malleable, depending on whether the researchers used quantitative or qualitative
methods. Suppose teachers believe giftedness or high ability is malleable. This
indicates a need for support and guidance in the students’ development, whereas if
ability is fixed, support is less needed (Laine et al., 2016).
17
In some of the literature, the teachers mention creativity or related traits (Laine et al.,
2016; Miedijensky, 2018; Miller, 2009; Moon & Brighton, 2008; Neumeister et al.,
2007; Persson, 1998), while in other studies, creative traits and creativity were
reported less frequently or missing from practice (Chan, 2000; Hunsaker, 1994).
Based on the literature presented, teachers typically have a positive view of gifted
students; some researchers even argue that the conceptualization of giftedness is too
positive. It can paint a picture of an ideal or golden student (Persson, 1998). In a
study in Mexico, the authors found that the highest subgroup within the nominated
group of gifted students was the “socio-emotional gifted group,” who were nominated
because of their ability to understand and relate to others, as well as expressing
themselves. This group of students performs well in school, receives good grades,
and behaves appropriately (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2013). However, there is also
evidence of a more ambivalent view, especially concerning social and emotional
characteristics.
2.1.2 Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education and stereotypical
beliefs
When studying teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education, many have used Gagnè’s
“Attitude Scale towards Gifted Education” (Gagné, 2018). Research has found a
generally positive attitude toward gifted education in Finland and Virginia (Laine et
al., 2019; Megay‐Nespoli, 2001), a negative attitude in Greece (Polyzopoulou et al.,
2014), and an ambivalent attitude in Turkey (Kaya, 2019).
Research on stereotypes and biases within gifted education and nomination for gifted
programs has focused on the disharmony hypothesis, gender stereotypes, and racial
and cultural equity biases.
Concerning the disharmony hypothesis, which views gifted students as highly
intelligent but socially maladjusted, research has been non-conclusive (Baudson &
Preckel, 2013; Geake & Gross, 2008; Matheis et al., 2017; Preckel et al., 2015; Rizza
& Morrison, 2003). Some research has found evidence for the prevalence of this view
18
among teachers (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Geake & Gross, 2008; Matheis et al.,
2017, 2020), while other research has not or found evidence of such only for boys
(Preckel et al., 2015).
Gender biases may influence teachers’ nomination of gifted students. Some research
has found evidence that girls are less frequently nominated (Endepohls‐Ulpe & Ruf,
2006; Hernández-Torrano et al., 2013; Lavrijsen & Verschueren, 2020). Other
research has found that teachers consider boys to be more maladjusted (Baudson &
Preckel, 2013; Matheis et al., 2017, Matheis et al., 2020). Finally, some has found no
evidence of gender bias (Hernández-Torrano & Tursunbayeva, 2016; Kaya, 2019;
Siegle & Powell, 2004).
Racial, cultural, and socio-economic status (SES) equity is vital in gifted education
because, often, the majority culture (e.g., the white middle class) is considerably
more represented than minority cultures in gifted programs (Miller, 2009; Moon &
Brighton, 2008; Neumeister et al., 2007; Rohrer, 1995). Teachers perceive giftedness
as being most in line with the majority culture, which does not consider students
showing gifted traits in other ways, such as oral traditions, collaboration within a
community, and affective characteristics (Miller, 2009; Neumeister et al., 2007).
Moon and Brighton (2008) found that 27% of teachers in their study disagree with the
item “the potential for academic giftedness is present in all socioeconomic groups in
our society.” Furthermore, 22% disagree with “the potential for academic giftedness
is present in all racial/cultural/ethnic groups in our society.” However, research in
Kazakhstan found no evidence of racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic bias (Hernández-
Torrano & Tursunbayeva, 2016).
2.1.3 Teachers’ knowledge about giftedness and gifted education
In many studies in various countries, teachers report that they have little knowledge
about giftedness and little experience with gifted students (Allotey et al., 2020;
Heyder et al., 2018; Kaya, 2019; Matheis et al., 2017; Megay‐Nespoli, 2001;
Sánchez-Escobedo et al., 2020).
19
In a qualitative study conducted in Sweden with teachers in a professional
development program on gifted students in mathematics (MHAP) and differentiated
education, the teachers explicate a right to be acknowledged for their knowledge
about MHAPs and their duty to both assimilate knowledge and acquire new
knowledge (Mellroth, 2021). Within the duty to assimilate knowledge, there is an
assumption that teachers in general (those who are not a part of the professional
development program) require more knowledge about gifted students, especially
MHAPs.
Megay-Nespoli (2001) studied whether a workshop intervention influenced pre-
service teachers’ use of differentiation and their attitude and beliefs. She found that
the pre-service teachers in the intervention group had fewer stereotypical beliefs and
were more interested in strategies for differentiation. Geake and Gross (2008) found
that teachers who had completed an educational program in gifted education viewed
gifted students’ cognitive and social characteristics more positively and had fewer
negative beliefs. Heyder et al. (2018) found that teachers, in general, had little correct
knowledge about intellectual giftedness. The largest misconceptions were related to
results in school, regarding which 90 % answered the questions “if you show very
high achievement, you are intellectually gifted” and “a few intellectually gifted
children or adolescents do not perform so well in school” incorrectly. Other studies
have found similar results, in which teachers are influenced by good grades and
results in school when nominating or characterizing gifted students (Endepohls‐Ulpe
& Ruf, 2006; Lavrijsen & Verschueren, 2020; Persson, 1998).
2.1.4 Differentiation, ability grouping, and acceleration
Ability grouping, acceleration, and differentiation are well-established methods for
providing gifted students an education adapted to their needs and predispositions, but
these methods do not necessarily translate into practice (Missett et al., 2014).
Teachers may have a negative attitude toward gifted education in general
(Polyzopoulou et al., 2014) or, more specifically, toward ability grouping or
acceleration (Laine et al., 2019). In a longitudinal study, the authors found that
20
acceleration has no adverse effect on psychological well-being. A meta-study found
that acceleration has a positive effect on achievement and gifted students benefit from
flexible grouping within the class, across grades, and in special groups for the gifted
(Bernstein et al., 2020; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016).
In a study in Ghana, ten teachers were asked about differentiation for gifted students,
and the authors found misconceptions regarding differentiation, a “one size fits all”
mentality, and reports that teacher education had not prepared the teachers for
differentiation or gifted education (Allotey et al., 2020).
Time and resources are often mentioned as barriers to differentiation (Brigandi et al.,
2019; Laine et al., 2019; Megay‐Nespoli, 2001; Mellroth et al., 2019), as well as
teachers’ personality characteristics (Brigandi et al., 2019) and lack of knowledge
about effective methods of differentiation (Allotey et al., 2020; Laine et al., 2019).
Teachers’ motivation and self-efficacy regarding teaching gifted students may also
influence how they differentiate and adapt their instruction. In a cross-country study
with Germany and Australia, the authors found that teachers report less self-efficacy
regarding teaching gifted students; this was especially true when they reported a more
significant degree of maladjustment among gifted students (Matheis et al., 2017).
To sum up, this literature review shows that teachers describe gifted students in a
mainly positive way. Still, teachers can also be influenced by misconceptions, biases,
and stereotypes, for example, the disharmony hypothesis or the assumption that high
ability equals high achievement. Teachers, in general, have little knowledge about
giftedness, gifted students, and effective strategies for differentiation. Teachers are
also ambivalent about or hostile to gifted education, especially ability grouping and
acceleration. Courses and professional development programs may increase teachers’
effective strategies; however, changing practice takes time. There are other barriers
within the educational system that teachers have less control over (e.g., time,
resources, and administration).
21
2.2 Qualitative research on the experiences of gifted
students
Teachers are an essential element of gifted education. Still, it is also necessary to
consider the experiences of those who are or recently were gifted students in various
educational settings. In this section, I will not provide a systematic literature review.
In this thesis, one aim is to show the experiences of Norwegian gifted students, so I
have chosen to showcase different experiences across countries in this section. The
literature here is not the result of one literature search but several different searches. I
have chosen a purposeful sample of eleven qualitative studies with gifted students in
different educational settings to showcase different experiences and similarities. The
studies are chosen based on their quality, differences, and contribution. Except for
one study, all are quite recent.
In a single-case study, a researcher interviewed one exceptionally gifted student. She
verbally stated that everything was OK, but of the five themes the researcher
developed, only one was positive (Brandišauskienė, 2019). The student considered
herself different from her peers, and she had no close relationships with friends. She
did not use a great deal of time in school and called herself lazy but still received
good grades. In school, she is bored but remains because of the social atmosphere.
She found her place in an art exhibition, saying “these are my people”
(Brandišauskienė, 2019). Another case study with three high-ability AP students in
Language and Composition found a similar result concerning feeling different than
their peers (Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). These three students also commented that they
preferred being with their intellectual peers in core subjects and teachers who showed
professionalism and efficacy in teaching. The students seemed to lack differentiation
and variety and had been told no by their teachers regarding individual studies. When
asked how much time they were interested and engaged during school and classroom
activities, they all answered a third or less than a third of the time (Schmitt & Goebel,
2015).
22
In a study with 36 students focusing on how experiences influenced mathematics, the
researchers found that the students had a positive attitude toward mathematics and
perceived themselves as competent in this regard (Erdogan & Yemenli, 2019). Those
students who had negative feelings complained about boring assignments, such as
repetition and writing out their calculations. The students were fond of problem-
solving assignments, games, and brain teasers (Erdogan & Yemenli, 2019).
A study with Latina/o students in AP and Honors classes discussed a lack of
affiliation with their class. They were often the only Latina/o, and they strove to
disprove some of the stereotypes about their community (Bjorklund Jr., 2019). The
students felt that they were far behind the other students, despite receiving good
grades. They also felt a lack of a relationship with their teacher and that their teachers
did not work to create good relationships between students across race and culture
(Bjorklund Jr., 2019).
Not all gifted students manage to perform at school to their potential. In the following
article, the author presents six high-ability but underachieving males’ experiences in
an urban high school (Hebert, 2001). The author found that inappropriate curricular
and counseling experiences and family issues were central factors in the
underachievement of these young males. They often proclaimed that the classes were
boring and did not match their learning styles and that they wanted more hands-on
experiences. One of the informants stated that he did not want to read; he just wanted
to do something (Hebert, 2001). They sailed through primary education without
doing homework, which led to poor working habits and difficulties achieving with
the same ease in high school. Being placed in classes not fitted to their ability or
earlier educational experiences from primary school also contributed to their
underachievement. The underachievement of these students seemed to result from a
combination of educational, social, familial, and personal factors (Hebert, 2001).
When considering how to differentiate and adapt instruction for gifted students, it is
crucial to consider gifted students’ experiences with various educational practices. In
23
a study on Renzulli’s type III enrichment activities, the researchers found that
students who chose a theme based on a long and continuous interest or as an aspect of
their identity, were more pleased with the enrichment and continued their interest
afterward (Brigandi et al., 2016). Those students who chose a theme based on a new
interest lost their engagement during the project and viewed the enrichment activity
as more strenuous and less appreciated (Brigandi et al., 2016).
What kind of teachers do gifted students prefer? Eight-grade students reported they
preferred competent teachers who control their classrooms and are helpful,
enthusiastic, calm, and positive (Samardzija & Peterson, 2015). The students further
described preferring written directions, working in groups (if they were ability
homogenous), and discussions. They also preferred visual and kinesthetic learning
styles, with some variation (Samardzija & Peterson, 2015).
Sewell and Goings (2019) considered Black adults’ stories about gifted education in
New York. They found that the gifted programs were primarily black or diverse in
primary school, and the informants looked back at this period fondly. In middle and
high school, the schools and GT programs became increasingly white, and they were
one of the few black students in their programs. This lack of similar students was
problematic, and the informants often found strength and community within extra-
curricular activities, such as choir, theater, and various clubs (Sewell & Goings,
2019).
Not all countries have pure gifted classes or even gifted programs, and in Chile, a
study considered the experiences of gifted students in public schools. These students
were most dissatisfied with the repetition and rigidity of the curriculum and
evaluations (Gomez-Arizaga et al., 2020). These students wanted more open and
problem-solving assignments, especially on evaluations. Boredom led to inactivity or
a chance to create something new, such as a song. The students did not like group
work, because the groups often contained members with mixed abilities (Gomez-
Arizaga et al., 2020).
24
Norway has no official gifted programs, and the opportunities for gifted students in
Norway vary according to which school they attend and where in the country they
reside. Smedsrud (2018) interviewed eleven students who were members of an
accelerated ability group for mathematics. Their experiences indicate a lack of
differentiation and challenges, especially earlier in primary school. The informants
indicate that the pace of learning is too slow and that this learning has too little depth.
The students were pleased with their current accelerated course; however, earlier
accelerated practices resulted in more self-study because the students fell between
school levels and teachers (Smedsrud, 2018).
In the literature review regarding teachers and gifted education, there was some
evidence of a gender bias, in which girls were considered less gifted, were less likely
to be nominated, or were considered less maladjusted than boys. Guthrie (2020) took
this to heart and specifically investigates the experiences of gifted girls. The girls
expressed pressure to be perfect, obtain good grades, engage in extracurricular
activities, have a wonderful social life, and be good daughters. They felt pulled
between various expectations and found it challenging to be smart and a girl (Guthrie,
2020). The girls often felt alone and isolated and downplayed their intellect to fit in
socially. If they displayed an interest in STEM, boys would tease them (Guthrie,
2020).
Although every experience is unique for that gifted student, it is possible to point out
certain similarities in the experiences reported in this section. There is a sense of
isolation from peers; racial and cultural minorities are especially isolated in gifted
programs. There is a need for various educational strategies (especially those not
typically part of a gifted program), such as problem-solving, enrichment based on
interest, and homogenous ability groups. The students want competent teachers who
build relationships with them and facilitate relationships with other students.
25
2.3 Research on gifted education in Norway and the
Nordic countries
In the last section of this chapter, I will present literature on gifted education in
Norway and the Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Because this
research field is still relatively new in Norway, it is necessary to look beyond our
borders. In the Nordic countries, there are similarities in educational policies and the
overarching culture. These countries are considered egalitarian, rather than
meritocratic, and foster gifted education through adapted education for all (Frantz &
McClarty, 2016).
As in Norway, Finland’s, Denmark’s, and Sweden’s educational acts do not mention
gifted individuals. Denmark established an educational policy in 2011; in Sweden,
there are no official policies for gifted education in comprehensive school, but
Sweden has a policy for elite education in upper secondary school (Dodillet, 2019;
Persson, 2010; Rasmussen & Lingard, 2018; Reid & Boettger, 2015). In Finland, the
structure of educational differentiation from kindergarten further establishes that all
children and students are educated according to their individual needs and
development (Reid & Boettger, 2015; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). According to Persson
(2010), in Sweden, the goal is to bring all students to a minimum level of knowledge
needed to live well-functioning lives. All resources and special education are directed
toward this end. A student reaching further than the minimum is left alone to fend for
themselves (Persson, 2010). The Danish Talent Report recommended that teachers
develop competence in differentiating upward and actively work to identify and
develop students with exceptional learning potential (Rasmussen & Lingard, 2018).
Teachers who participated in a professional development program on differentiated
education in mathematics discussed how an assignment with an easy entry and
possibilities for further challenges was an effective way to differentiate in the
heterogenous Swedish classroom (Mellroth et al., 2019). The teachers further
discussed their role in providing guidance and issues concerning resources, time, and
26
students with learning disabilities (Mellroth et al., 2019). In another study based on
the same program, the teachers described their rights and duties concerning gifted
students, especially their duty to convey their knowledge to other teachers and
continually assess their students (Mellroth, 2021).
Elementary teachers in Finland meet the needs of their gifted students through the
differentiation of assignments and materials and fostering independent learning
(Laine & Tirri, 2016). On the other hand, few teachers mentioned flexible grouping
(7%) or adjusting the pace of learning (5%), mirroring the results concerning attitudes
toward gifted education, in which the teachers were skeptical toward acceleration and
ability groups (Laine et al., 2019; Laine & Tirri, 2016).
Based on the results of an action research program on differentiation in mathematics
for gifted students in Denmark, the author recommend differentiation through
demands, time, assistance, topics, ways of teaching, educational resources, and goals
to accommodate gifted learners (Mogensen, 2011).
Pre-service teachers in Norway explain that gifted students should work on social and
emotional competencies, such as relaxing, not being stressed, and managing failure
(Brevik & Gunnulfsen, 2016). The pre-service teachers also mentioned working on
both in-depth and broad knowledge as essential for their students. Teachers needed to
have ambitions for their students and provide support for and acknowledge their
talents (Brevik & Gunnulfsen, 2016). Another study with pre-service teachers showed
they acknowledge they need to differentiate for high-achieving students, the
importance of a safe learning environment in which it is acceptable to be high
achieving, and challenges in identifying student differences. Pre-service teachers also
lack confidence in utilizing differentiation strategies for high-achieving students with
high learning potential (Brevik et al., 2018).
High-achieving students in Norway who participated in an intervention with ability
groups in science exhibited, in general, an increase in the use of conversations and
27
practical work during the intervention (Knutsen, 2016). The students also considered
their learning environment to be better in the ability groups; they received larger
challenges and were more active in the class. However, some of the students were
less pleased with the intervention. The researcher believed this to be the result of a
teacher’s particular teaching style, which the students did not prefer (Knutsen, 2016).
Other research in Norway has found that high-achieving students thrive less, receive
less support, do not experience the learning environment as not optimal for them,
receive fewer educational challenges, and report lower satisfaction than peers
(Cosmovici et al., 2009; Damsgaard & Opsahl, 2016; Smedsrud et al., 2018;
Wendelborg & Caspersen, 2016).
Previous research on gifted education in Norway indicates a learning environment
that is not optimized for gifted students. What kind of students do Norwegian
teachers see as gifted? How are they characterized? Are they characterized similarly
by teachers in Norway as compared to teachers in other countries? How is the
education adapted and differentiated for gifted students in Norway? These questions
have not been adequately answered in previous research. In this thesis, I seek to
provide a preliminary answer to these questions. However, my studies are still not
sufficient to fully answer these questions. My research points to further studies that
are important in understanding gifted education better and implementing and
developing educational programs and systems for gifted students in Norway.
28
3. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, I present various theoretical conceptions of giftedness, both those I
have used in my studies and articles and other important conceptions, and I then
provide a different perspective on giftedness and gifted education. I provide a brief
overview of Foucault and the notion of power in the genealogy of education. This
power aspect is important in understanding educational history and the evolution of
special needs education in Norway. I use educational history and Foucault to provide
the reader with a long-term historical perspective on gifted education in Norway.
3.1 Conceptions of Giftedness
Giftedness and gifted education are not easily defined and agreed upon as concepts.
Conceptions vary, from the regular cognitive concepts and definitions that rely on IQ
and scores surpassing a certain level to multivariate definitions considering other
personal traits and attributes, such as motivation and creativity (Sternberg &
Ambrose, 2021). One issue within gifted education is the various definitions and
conceptions of giftedness. Although some scholars see this multitude as a perfect
invitation to interdisciplinary research (see Ambrose, 2021), other scholars argue that
we must rethink giftedness and gifted education as social constructs, as well as for
gifted education without gifted students (Borland, 2021).
In Norway, we define giftedness through high learning potential and extraordinary
learning potential (NOU 2016:14, 2016). In the quantitative survey (Study 1)
included in this thesis, I used the following definition to explain the term “students
with extraordinary learning potential” to the teachers: Students with extraordinary
learning potential are students with a strong need and potential in academic subjects
like mathematics, reading/writing/language, science, technology, social science, or
creative/esthetic subjects who can transform their potential into talent only if their
needs are met in a rich and responsive learning environment (Idsøe, 2014, p. 16, my
translation). This definition pertains to the variety of fields in which students can
29
have extraordinary potential. It also considers the need for help from surrounding
environmental factors, such as teachers, schools, and peers, to develop potential into a
talent. However, this definition does not suggest how teachers, schools, or scholars
should identify students with extraordinary learning potential.
In the second qualitative study, I interviewed 17 students with extraordinary learning
potential. In this study, I define extraordinary learning potential as scoring in the 95th
percentile or above on one subscale or more in the Weschler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC-IV). Therefore, in this thesis, there are two definitions of giftedness.
The first definition considers potential in various subjects and fields, but without a
definite criterion, and the second definition has a definite cut-off at the 95th
percentile. The use of two definitions could be an issue within the thesis because it
could be unclear whether the two studies investigate the same phenomenon.
However, because there is no clear-cut definition of giftedness and which students
should receive gifted education in the international research field, this ambivalence
could also be considered a strength. I chose these definitions because of the research
strategies within each study. Using a definition with an IQ criterion in the survey of
the teachers would not have been feasible, because the teachers do not know the IQ
scores of their students. Using a vague potential definition in the interview study
would problematize the inclusion criteria. How does one measure potential
objectively unless one measures cognitive capacity (IQ) or ability through grade
scores in secondary school? I could have chosen grades instead of an IQ
measurement; however, such an approach would have had its own issues, such as a
lack of underachieving gifted students. In the following subsections, I will discuss
various conceptions of giftedness related to the definitions used in this thesis,
including conceptions that differ from the chosen definitions.
3.1.1 Harmony and disharmony
As the literature review showed, the disharmony hypothesis is prevalent among
teachers. In this section, I will describe both the harmony and disharmony
conceptions in more depth.
30
In the harmony conception, gifted individuals have a high intellectual capacity. The
threshold for high intellectual capacity is still up for debate. In Terman’s study, he set
the threshold at 140 on the Standford-Binet scale (Terman, 1926). Others mention
only the top 2–5% in terms of cognitive abilities, which, depending on what
measurement is used, might mean an IQ of 125 and above, or the top 10% (Gagné,
1995). Nevertheless, giftedness is considered an innate ability that must be revealed
or recognized through cognitive assessment, and gifted individuals remain gifted
throughout their lives, regardless of what they achieve in later years (Subotnik et al.,
2011). Gifted individuals are not only superior in terms of cognitive abilities but also
surpass their peers in volitional, social, and emotional abilities. Various studies
support this conception, e.g., Terman (1926); Francis, Hawes, and Abbott (2015); and
Cross, Adams, Dixon, and Holland (2004).
There is a concern for gifted children’s unique emotional fragility in the disharmony
conception because they have innate sensitivities that are different from their peers
(Subotnik et al., 2011). These sensibilities indicate a need for special programming,
understanding, and socio-emotional support from schools and the environment.
Shaywitz et al.’s (2001) study is a highly referenced article stating that highly gifted
individuals (IQ 140–154) show behavioral issues on the same level as individuals
classified as learning disabled. There was a significant difference between the highly
gifted and the low-gifted groups (IQ 124–139), where the highly gifted showed a
higher degree of behavioral issues. However, Shaywitz and colleagues only studied
boys, and their results may not be transferrable between genders. Other studies have
investigated asynchrony and the link between socio-emotional discrepancies and
underachievement as a predisposition for behavioral difficulties (Blaas, 2014;
Guenole et al., 2013, Guenole et al., 2015). Guenole et al. (2015) found that
asynchronously gifted children have lower frequencies of social participation and
weak self-concepts. Blaas (2014) argues that internal factors such as asynchrony,
being twice-exceptional (gifted with a learning disability/physical
disability/psychological disability), a weak academic self-concept, and perfectionism
31
are related to social-emotional difficulties and underachievement. Lie (2014) also
argues that twice-exceptional students are in danger of underachievement and
misdiagnosis.
3.1.2 Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
In Article 2, I use Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné,
1995; 2004) as a framework for discussing the results of the inductive thematic
analysis. Gagné distinguishes between gifts and talents. Gifts are untrained and
spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain, such as
intellectual, creative, social, perceptual, muscular, and motor control, placing the
student among the top 10% of their age-matched peers (Gagné, 2010). Talent is a
mastery of systematically developed knowledge and abilities in at least one field of
human activity placing the student within the top 10% of relatable peers (Gagné,
2004).
Three catalysts influence the developmental process from gifts to talents.
Environmental catalysts are the milieu, such as school or its cultural aspect; special
individuals, such as parents, peers, and teachers; and provisions, such as enrichment
programs, pedagogy, and acceleration. Intrapersonal catalysts are physical and mental
traits of the person, such as goal management, awareness, motivation, and volition.
Chance is the final catalyst, and chance affects both the environmental and
intrapersonal catalysts, as well as gifts and developmental process (Gagné, 2010).
The definition crafted by Idsøe (2014) that I used in Study 1 is, among others, based
on Gagné’s DMGT. In Idsøe’s definition, a potential can only develop into a talent if
the needs and predisposition of the student are met in a stimulating learning
environment. Gagné reports this with regard to the developmental process. The
environmental catalysts include influential individuals, such as teachers, and
provisions established by the school, such as enrichment, acceleration, differentiation,
and grouping with other ability-peers (Gagné, 2004). The environment can facilitate
or hinder the proper development of a gift into a talent. Suppose the teacher is not
32
aware of the student’s potential in mathematics and is therefore not enriching the
curriculum or accelerating the student. In that case, the initial gift in mathematics
may not develop properly and become a talent. Of course, other vital individuals,
such as parents and peers, may mitigate the lack of facilitation by the teacher, or the
student may have another teacher later who recognizes the potential within. Even so,
it is important to acknowledge how much time each child spends at school during
their years in comprehensive school; teachers are therefore essential.
In this thesis, I focus on gifts within the intellectual domain. Still, it is relevant to
compare the developmental process between the intellectual domain and other
domains, such as sport or music. If a child is considered gifted within music, for
example, in piano, this child is likely placed in a talent development program at their
music school. They receive individual tutoring from a piano teacher, practice and
hone their skills, and enter musical competitions, and with the help of the
environment, individuals, and provisions, they develop their initial potential for
music into a talent for piano. A child with a motoric gift, for example, in skiing, will
likely receive similar development to a child with a musical gift. Coaches that see this
potential and hone it provide the child with opportunities for talent development at
special programs, upper secondary schools that focus on sports, competition on the
local and national levels, and various exercises to increase their skills. It is not
difficult to picture these two children and their development from gift to talent.
However, imagining the same for a child with a gift in the intellectual domain seems
more difficult.
In Article 2, I also include the Multifactor Model of Giftedness and the three-ring
conception of giftedness (Mönks & Katzko, 2005; Renzulli, 2012). The three-ring
conception of giftedness displays three interactive personal traits, above-average
ability, task commitment, and creativity. The interaction between these three traits
creates the conditions for a creative, productive process (Renzulli, 2012). In this
conception, giftedness is not a fixed state of being but a developmental set of
behaviors that can be applied to problem-solving. Above average ability can refer to
33
general ability; verbal, numerical, spatial, and memory abilities; and specific abilities
in, e.g., ballet, music, or leadership. There is no definite criterion for above average
in the three-ring conception. Renzulli (2012, p. 153) argues that this lack of a definite
criterion is that, beyond a certain level of cognitive ability, achievement level is less
dependent on performance and skills assessment and more dependent on other
personal and dispositional factors. Task commitment traits, such as perseverance,
determination, willpower, and energy, are nonintellectual. Renzulli calls it a refined
form of motivation. Another way to describe it is conscientiousness. The last ring is
creativity, such as curiosity, ingenuity, originality, and challenging conventions and
traditions (Renzulli, 2012).
The Multifactor Model of Giftedness (MMG) (Mönks & Katzko, 2005) builds on the
three-ring conception of giftedness but further expands it with the environmental
factors of school, home, and peers. These three environmental factors surround the
individual and their traits. According to the MMG, these three factors must support
the individual in developing their potential (Mönks & Katzko, 2005). If, for example,
school is unsupportive, it will be difficult for peers and home to compensate for the
lack of support from school. Constant unchallenging and boring assignments in
school, with no support or adaptation, may destroy the initial motivation of the
student.
3.1.3 Vague conceptions or no conception
Sak (2021) argues that all conceptions of giftedness are vague and that giftedness, in
itself, is not a biological fact but a mentifact, a mental construction rooted in society
that changes across generations (Sak, 2021, p. 372). Every conception of giftedness
includes a threshold for giftedness, but these thresholds may vary, as we have seen
previously. Additionally, some conceptions have no concrete threshold but use the
even more vague term “high ability,” which, of course, suggests the following
question: when do you go from ordinary to high ability? Sak proposes the “Fuzzy
Conception of Giftedness,” which defines giftedness as “a set of developing
dispositions interacting efficiently with stimulus conditions” (Sak, 2021, p. 376).
34
Developing dispositions are intellective (e.g., reasoning and working memory) or
non-intellective (e.g., self-concept and motivation) and are internal characteristics of
each person. The number of dispositions is unknown or infinite. Stimulus conditions
are the physical, psychological, social, or economic aspects of the environment that
can stimulate a person. As with developing dispositions, stimulus conditions are
infinite, as these will be different for each person (Sak, 2021).
Borland (2021) agrees with Sak about the vagueness of different conceptions of
giftedness. Borland further argues that, if the research community in gifted education
has not reached a consensus regarding the definition of giftedness, as it has not, it will
likely never reach a perfect consensus. According to Borland (2021), giftedness is a
social construct, similar to giftedness as a mentifact. Giftedness, as a social construct,
varies across societies and cultures, and these different conceptions have different
thresholds and connotations. A gifted person in one country or even a school district
may not be considered gifted elsewhere, because they operate with a different
threshold or conception of giftedness. Borland further argues that, instead of viewing
giftedness existentially, in which the question is whether or not the child is gifted, we
should instead see it as an educational undertaking. Gifted education should occur
without gifted students (Borland, 2021). One issue with gifted education is racial,
cultural, and socioeconomic equity, as displayed in the literature review. The term
“gifted” may contain misconceptions and be best tailored to the majority culture. If
gifted education occurs without gifted students, it may be easier to mitigate the issues
concerning equity.
The differentiation paradigm establishes that education is adapted to gifted students
on an individual basis or that education, in general, should be adapted to each student
on an individual basis. Advanced academics is another notion within the
differentiation paradigm; it provides students who are unchallenged by the regular
curriculum with more advanced, faster, deeper, and more rigorous instruction,
regardless of their identification as gifted or not (Borland, 2021). If a student requires
35
something different, something more advanced, they should receive an education that
is suited to them.
3.1.4 Summary of conceptions of giftedness
As seen in these subchapters, there are several definitions and conceptions regarding
giftedness, and these different conceptions will influence gifted education in various
ways. It is essential to discover what conception teachers and schools utilize for
acceptance into gifted programs or even to acknowledge gifted students’ existence. Is
the conception used in Norway well established, and is there only one conception? I
present the conception used by the official report in Chapter 1.1.1, and I will discuss
all the presented conceptions in light of the results from my study in Chapter 6.
Education contains an aspect of power and to provide the reader with a proper lens
for viewing power, I will now introduce Foucault.
3.2 Archeology
In Michel Foucault’s archeology, he discusses the importance of studying science
through the lens of the time of origin. He proclaims that any given time, in each
domain, sets constraints on how and what people think (Gutting, 2005). When seen in
retrospect, these rules and constraints set a clear framework for how scientists
thought about the world, and when we analyze their science, we must be aware of the
framework they operated in. We are also operating through a framework of rules and
constraints, but we cannot identify them, because they are implicit and embedded in
our thinking. The future archeologist of knowledge will identify the rules that govern
the thinking of our time.
The archeologist of knowledge is not interested in a specific text as a document and
does not attempt to interpret the deeper meaning of this text but, instead, searches for
clues to the system’s general structure (Gutting, 2005).
36
I tried to explore scientific discourse not from the point of view of the
individuals who are speaking, nor from the point of view of the formal
structures of what they are saying, but from the point of view of the
rules that come into play in the very existence of such discourse: what
conditions did Linnaeus (or Petty, or Arnauld) have to fulfill, not to
make his discourse coherent and true in general, but to give it, at the
time when it was written and accepted, value and practical application
as scientific discourse.
(Foucault, 1970b, p. xiv from Ball 2013, p. 5)
Foucault’s later term “genealogy,” which he derives from Nietzsche, builds on the
archeological method, but he goes beyond linguistic expressions and includes power
as an important aspect. He saw archeology as a suitable method for describing the
underlying conceptual systems, but to explain these systems, he needed something
more. One of the crucial changes from archeology to genealogy was the claim of a
direct and intimate link between knowledge and power. Foucault explained this
through changes in thought that occur through the social forces controlling the
behavior of individuals (Gutting, 2005).
Genealogy is a way of historicizing the subject. The subject itself is not interesting
per se, but the systems of ideas and historical practices surrounding and controlling
the subject are the focus of interest (Popkewitz & Brennan, 1998). Foucault himself
explains the situation like this:
One has to dispense with the constituent subject, to get rid of the
subject itself… to arrive at an analysis which can account for the
constitution of the subject within a historical framework…. And this is
what I would call genealogy… a form of history which can account for
the constitution of knowledge, discourses, domains of objects etc.,
without having to make reference to a subject which is either
transcendental in relation to the field of events or runs its empty
sameness throughout the course of history.
(Foucault, 1980, p. 117 from Popkewitz & Brennan, 1998, p. 11)
Foucault was not interested in explaining power itself, and the question of “what is
power” was of no interest to him (Ball, 2013). Foucault was interested in the
37
“relations of power,” and he proclaimed that “there cannot be relations of power
unless the subjects are free” (Foucault, 1981, from Ball, 2013 p. 32). Power is
consistently enforced on something, and this something is usually the human body.
When doing genealogy, you expose a body imprinted by history, making history
visceral and displacing both the self and the subject (Ball, 2013). Power, in
Foucault’s view, is focused in the actors that wield it. He illustrates this through the
example of the sovereign king with the power to decide life and death for his subjects
(Popkewitz & Brennan, 1998). In research, this power is interesting when viewing
various groups. Who are favored, and who are not? People “own” this power, and this
ownership can change from group to group to challenge inequities (Popkewitz &
Brennan, 1998).
3.3 Educational history in Norway
“We cannot understand where we are and where we are heading without knowing
where we have been” (Ravitch, 2000, from Volckmar, 2016, p. 12).
We do not know much about education and upbringing in Norway before Christianity
(Høigård & Ruge, 1963), but it is possible to draw certain conclusions based on
archeological material. Children were brought up within the family, and the young
learned from the elders by cooperating in various types of work. An old poem
(eddakvad) entitled Rigstula displays the different upbringings of a child of a slave
(trell), a child of a farmer, and a child of the Earl (jarl). Only the son of the earl has
the opportunity to learn writing with runes (Høigård & Ruge, 1963).
When Christianity became widespread in the tenth and eleventh centuries, it created
an entirely new foundation for upbringing and education. For a Christian parent, it
was not enough for their children to learn to work. They also needed to learn about
the foundations of Christianity to save their souls from damnation (Høigård & Ruge,
1963). Because the Christian faith was based on the written bible, this had huge
pedagogical implications, and there was a need to educate young boys to become
38
priests. However, it was still the parents’ responsibility to raise their children within
Christian beliefs, and only clergymen could read the Bible.
In the twelfth and thirteenth century, education was concentrated on educating new
priests at the three cathedral schools in Norway, in Nidaros (Trondheim), Bergen, and
Oslo (more cathedral schools came later). A letter from the Pope in 1215 ordered all
clergymen within a cathedral chapter to provide clerical education for the new priests
(Høigård & Ruge, 1963).
Luther blamed the Catholic church for not providing children and adults with a
proper understanding of elementary Christianity, and one issue was that all biblical
text was written in Latin. With the Lutheran reform in the sixteenth century, the Bible
was translated into each country’s mother tongue. In Norway’s case, this was Danish
(Høigård & Ruge, 1963). Luther also proclaimed that the caller (klokkeren) in each
congregation was responsible for educating children about Christianity and that this
education was mandatory.
Education for all in Norway began with the proclamation of Christian Confirmation
in 1736 and the law on schools in Denmark and Norway proclaimed by the Danish
King Christian VI in 1739; it was decided that all children in Norway should receive
education from 7 years of age in Christian knowledge and learn to read (Høigård &
Ruge, 1963; Kvam, 2016). Two laws were established in 1739, the law for schools in
the countryside and the law for Latin schools in Denmark and Norway. Even though
these two laws arrived at the same time, they were not a part of a larger system
regarding schools in Norway (Thuen, 2017).
The Christianity school came about because of pietism and power brokers’ need to
influence children’s Christian upbringing. The common folk were considered lazy
and stupid, and it was the obligation of the state to ensure economic growth and
prosperity and a richer spiritual life for all people (Volckmar, 2016). The Christianity
school was a means to an end intended to usher children through the obligatory rite of
39
Christian Confirmation. When the youth had passed the final examination, they were
welcomed into the communion service (Kvam, 2016). One needed to be a part of the
communion to achieve certain rights, such as employment, buying property,
marriage, and being a witness in the court. However, only Latin schools gave access
to further education (Volckmar, 2016).
This type of school was later referred to as a “standsskole,” a school that educated
students but had no considerations of social mobility (Hommerstad, 2018). The
children of officials went to the Latin school, which prepared them for university, the
children of citizens went to a school that prepared them for trade and commerce, and
the commoner children went to the commoner school, which only provided education
intended to help pass the Christian Confirmation (Thuen, 2017). After 1739, the
Cathedral schools tightened their student admissions. Children from lesser economic
backgrounds were not admitted unless they were gifted, and the Latin schools became
more and more exclusive. In fact, they became elite schools for the upper class
(Thuen, 2017).
Competition and ambition were appreciated in the commoner school, and the clever
students received rewards in the form of positions of trust, monetary rewards, or
books (Høigård & Ruge, 1963).
The laws from 1739 and, later, 1827 were only regarding schools for all children in
the countryside. There was no law ensuring a “commoner school” or public school
for the cities. The Christianity school was quite different from village to village in
terms of how many children attended. It also differed depending on whether you were
from the worker class, the middle class, or the upper class. Each class had its school
system, and only the upper and middle class could continue their educations after
primary school. In the countryside, only 5% of children who were obligated to attend
school skipped school, while in the cities, the number was 18%; in 1848, the law for
public schools in the cities was established (Høigård & Ruge, 1963).
40
In 1850, the teachers used the clever students as a help with instruction. These
students had small groups with other students, who they helped and moved from post
to post during the instruction. This was called the Bell-Lancaster method, but it did
not have a long life in education in Norway (Thuen, 2017).
After 1814, the government wanted to build the new nation, and education was seen
as part of the larger socio-economic scheme. It was said that schools should attend to
and refine each genius, talent, and precondition that existed between the Norwegian
coast and mountains (Thuen, 2017).
In 1860, the government declared a new educational law. School was no longer
merely an education in Christianity (Volckmar, 2016). Now, schools promoted a
national consciousness through history, language and culture. This school was a
“cultural commoner” school; the children should be made harmonious and functional
but also critical and independent (Kvam, 2016). This new law opened the doors to a
larger educational change and a new educational system in Norway (Thuen, 2017).
In 1869, Hartvig Nissen proposed a law for higher education, which established the
first three years in commoner school as required for all, as well as a 6-year middle
school as a preparation for upper secondary school (Volckmar, 2016). The middle
school replaced the Latin schools, and upper secondary schools developed a science
line, as well as the Latin line.
Ideas about the new public school serving democracy first saw light in 1889. This
came about after parliamentarism was established in 1884 (Volckmar, 2016). The
movement for a new public school had a “child friendly unitary school” (den
barnevennlige enhetsskolen) as its goal. There was a political project to change the
educational system and provide proper education to all children in Norway, not only
those from the middle and upper classes (Kvam, 2016). Norway was the first country
to establish a 5-year comprehensive public school, even though some private schools
still existed (Thuen, 2017). Norway separated from the union with Denmark and
41
ratified its own constitution in 1814. Even though Norway was still in a union with
Sweden, it now had its own government. The Norwegian state took responsibility for
its schools and education for all. In 1911, public school was expanded to seven years,
as well as a 3-year middle school. There was some discussion as to whether the
comprehensive school should be the same for all or differentiated. Some argued that
the schools should be for all but differentiated according to the needs and
predispositions of each student (Volckmar, 2016).
In 1907, the government established a different test for examen artium (needed
examination before University) for students from the countryside and, in 1914, a
four-year upper secondary school for children from the countryside. This “country
high school” (landsgymnaset) was mostly an offer to the most gifted and diligent
students (Thuen, 2017).
In 1935, Norway passed a new law on upper secondary school, in which middle
school became “realskolen” (realschule or science school) and a five-year upper
secondary school was established in the cities. Realskolen was meant to be
concluding, and it was differentiated in terms of courses, lines, and years (Thuen,
2017).
Using schools as a means to build society was a political project not just in Norway
but also internationally. What set Norway apart from many other countries was that
the public school was unitary, the same for all, and free. One of the goals was that the
social togetherness in the school for children from different socioeconomic groups
would create mutual trust and common understanding (Volckmar, 2016).
After the Second World War, the major societal project was to provide jobs for as
many as possible, enhance economic growth, improve the standard of living, and
fairly distribute societal benefits (Kvam, 2016). Building a welfare state and
universalism was important in ensuring similar opportunities and rights for all people
(Thuen, 2017). Even so, those who competed further years of education beyond the
42
compulsory were mostly in the upper societal layer. Specifically, 72% of children of
academics completed further education, while only 11% of farmers’ children and 6%
of fishermen’s children did so. The consideration of the community was important
but should not overshadow the individual student. Individualized education was an
essential principle, in which the school ensures the free and harmonious development
of all parts of a student’s personality, as well as the distinctive and special aspects of
each student (Thuen, 2017).
In 1949 and 1953, the Pedagogical Research Institute at the University of Oslo (PFI)
developed different maturity tests. These tests were used to assess various factors
related to intelligence, individual differentiation, and creating a more effective
educational system (Thuen, 2017). Hofseth used this test in his thesis (Hofseth,
1970).
The government passed a law concerning various structures in school (lov om forsøk I
skolen) in 1954. This law allowed attempts at a differentiated secondary school split
into different lines in 1955. The student could choose between theoretical and
practical lines (Volckmar, 2016).
In 1969, a new educational law introduced nine years of obligatory primary schools
as a national system. Social equalization was one of school’s primary goals in this
period. The overarching aim was to create a society of people who could exist on the
same terms and would be fit for essential processes, such as democracy (Kvam,
2016). Here, we also see the vital aspect of normalization. Normalization was needed
for equality, but not everyone was deemed normal and in need of this equality. Some
were categorized as outside the norm (e.g., in need of special educational services). I
will delve further into this in the next chapter.
Earlier, students had been differentiated into different secondary schools, but now,
the various lines and schools were all combined into a single secondary school, and a
historical end to organizational differentiation occurred with the
43
“normalplanutvalget” in 1967. Organizational differentiation, with its different lines,
had not achieved the results that the government wanted, because most students chose
the theoretical line (Volckmar, 2016). However, the students still had to choose
different courses within the subjects, and only the highest courses led to further
education. Even so, it was possible for students who chose lower courses to stay on
for an extra tenth year and thus take higher courses so as to be ready for upper
secondary school.
Equality was an important term. However, there were different ways of interpreting
the meaning of the term. In 1970, the sociologist (and later minister of the church,
education, and research) Gudmund Hernes wrote research articles about school and
equality. He stated that schools did not make children equal; instead, they reproduced
social differences. Children from higher social backgrounds performed better and
received more help and support from teachers and parents (Kvam, 2016). Hernes did
not want to focus on the equal distribution of resources; he wanted to focus on an
equal distribution of results. To achieve this equality, the government needed to
invest the resources differently. An equal distribution of results did not mean that
everyone should receive the same end grade but that every student should achieve the
minimum standard. The equality principle meant that every student was legally equal.
Meritocracy was seen as problematic. In 1968, The parliamentary representative for
the Christian party Jakob Aano said, “The cultivation of intelligence and knowledge
is a huge danger for the future of our society, and we are headed towards a
mercilessly intelligence overclass system, a meritocracy” (Thuen, 2017, p. 141, my
translation). However, an effective and rational differentiation of students based on
their preconditions meant that teachers needed proper knowledge about their students.
Differentiation and testing were seen as two sides of the same coin, and it was
considered fair to discuss differences in abilities if one was objective and rational
(Thuen, 2017).
44
In 1974, the government published a new curriculum, M74, and this plan was
intended to create a synthesis between the individual and social aspects. The
community in the school and the individual student were interdependent on one
another. In this plan, organizational differentiation, with different courses within the
subjects, was canceled, the teachers were supposed to utilize pedagogical
differentiation instead (Volckmar, 2016). M74 used the term “adapted education” in
an individual context, in which the goal was that the individual was neither held back
in their development nor demanded to accomplish more than they could achieve.
However, “adapted education” was mostly seen as a term targeting students with
disabilities (Thuen, 2017).
New public management found its way into educational settings in the 1980s.
Decentralization, quality, freedom of choice, competition, and results were important
aspects of this new management. Education was important for production, as well as
for competition in an increasingly globalized market. In 1987, a new curriculum
(M87) was established as an inspiration for local municipalities, schools, and teachers
in developing their own curricula and teaching plans (Volckmar, 2016).
In 1986 and 1987, Hernes wrote newspaper articles that criticized higher education
and the educational system in Norway. He said that higher education did not have
proper ambitions and that the educational system did not provide students with proper
knowledge and working habits. He wanted more training, more standardization,
greater professional concentration in subjects, and higher standards for students. In
1990, he was asked to become minister of the church, education and research; left his
position as a guest professor at Harvard University; and began his work on reforming
the educational system in Norway (Volckmar, 2016).
The first component of this reform was R94, which established that all students have
an individual right to three years of upper secondary school. The goal of this reform
was twofold. First, it was intended to elevate the status of practical education, and
secondly, it was intended to meet society’s need for qualified workers (Thuen, 2017;
45
Volckmar, 2016). The second reform was R97, which changed the school age from
seven to six years and expanded compulsory school from nine to ten years. The
national curriculum L97 was established as a regulation of the educational law, which
meant that teachers and schools were bound to follow it. L97 contained both a
general component and a component for specific subjects. The general section was
ideological and described the schools’ double assignment, both helping each
individual achieve proper self-realization and fostering humanity in a changing
society (Volckmar, 2016).
In 1998, Norway established a new Education Act, which is still the current law of
education in Norway. This act confirms that all students have the right to an
education according to their needs and predispositions, as well as the right to special
education for those who need it (The Education Act, 1998).
The first PISA examination arrived in 2001, and Norway scored just above average
among the OECD countries, which came as a huge shock to Norwegian society. It
was a general thought that Norway should score better than average, and this shock
led to the development of the new curriculum and teaching plan Kunnskapsløftet 06
(The Promise of Knowledge) (Volckmar, 2016). The general component of L97 was
retained, but the subject curriculum was changed to better fit with the goal
management principle. New national goals, in the form of competence goals, were
developed in each subject, in addition to five basic competence skills. These basic
skills were a part of all subjects and all levels. This change was better suited to
national tests and a national quality assessment system. The term “unitary school”
(enhetsskole) disappeared from the official language concerning school and education
because it was believed that this type of school did not differentiate according to the
diversity within the student population (Volckmar, 2016). Instead, the government
used the term knowledge school. According to Thuen (2017), the new curriculum had
ambitions to create a better school via better content, quality assessment, learning
strategies, and individually adapted education.
46
In 2015, Ludvigsen and authors delivered an official report concerning education for
the future, discussing competence areas and depth learning, among other issues
(NOU 2015:8, 2015). This report paved the way for the new curriculum, which was
published in 2020 (NDET, n.d.a).
3.4 Adapted education and special education in Norway
In the Norwegian educational system today, the overall aim is to provide an education
that is inclusive, equitable, and adapted to the needs and predispositions of all
students (The Education Act, §§ 1-1, 1-3). Adapted education is considered a
principle and not an individual right for each student; it should be achieved through
variation in instruction and materials (NDET, 2021). Inclusion is not just physical but
means that every student has a natural place in the community, feels safe, and can
participate in developing their education (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019).
In Norway inclusive education is understood as individual integrity, and the inclusive
process has its own value (Vik & Hausstätter, 2014). In L97 the term “integration”
was switched to “inclusion”, which symbolized the ambition that education should be
better adapted to all students who, for various reasons, experience difficulties (Haug,
2022). In Norway inclusive education is understood as individual integrity, and the
inclusive process has its own value (Vik & Hausstätter, 2014). In L97 the term
“integration” was switched to “inclusion”, which symbolized the ambition that
education should be better adapted to all students who, for various reasons,
experience difficulties (Haug, 2022)
Norway has ratified the Salamanca Statement, which emphasizes that educational
systems must pay heed to the diversity in their student population and education must
occur in inclusive environments, with room for all predispositions. Education for all
must effectively be for all, especially those who are most vulnerable and in need
(UNESCO, 1994). The Salamanca Statement further emphasize that every child has
unique characteristics, interests, abilities, and learning needs and that education
47
systems should be designed so as to consider the diversity of these characteristics and
needs. The guiding principle of the framework surrounding the statement is that
schools should accommodate all children, including disabled and gifted children,
various socioeconomic groups, minorities, and other disadvantaged or marginalized
groups (UNESCO, 1994).
An equitable education requires that all students have appropriate challenges and are
not excluded based on their gender; age; talents; interest; or social, geographical,
cultural, or language background (Nordahl et al., 2018). While equality often relates
to equal distribution or sameness, equity refers to fairness and justice. Equal
treatment does not necessarily provide an equitable result, and equity in education
requires differentiation (Merriam-Webster n.d.; Nordahl et al., 2018).
As discussed previously, Hernes described three forms of equality, formal equality,
resource equality, and result equality. Result equality was the best because it meant
that society needed to compensate for the differences in abilities and predispositions
among students. This also meant establishing minimum goals that all students could
reach (Eckhoff, 2001).
Because adapted education is regulated in its own paragraph in the Education Act,
this has led to the misunderstanding that adapted education is an individual right for
each student. It is a high ambition but not something each student can require (Haug,
2020a). Adapted education is a term first and foremost used in a political setting, with
differing meanings, which of course brings difficulties both for education and
research on education (Simonsen, 2022).
There are two understandings of adapted education, the narrow one, with individual
adaptation for each student, and the broad one, with high-quality general education.
Jenssen and Lillejord (2010) argue that there are four different eras of adapted
education, an integration era (1975–1990), an inclusion era (1990–1996), an
individualization era (1997–2005), and a fellowship and quality era (2005–) (Jenssen
48
& Lillejord, 2010). We are currently in the fellowship and quality era, in which the
individual aspect of adapted education has been diminished. In white paper nr 31
(2007–2008), the government points to a previous understanding of adapted
education, one leading to an individualistic focus. In this new understanding, there is
a need to balance individualism with the needs of fellowship in each class (Jenssen &
Lillejord, 2010). In the new curriculum from 2020, depth learning and progression
are seen as important aspects of adapted education and require that the teacher knows
their students well (Haug, 2020a). Even though the broad understanding of adapted
education is the most commonly utilized now, some students require narrower
adaptation. Gifted students may be considered in need of a narrower approach
because the broad approach does not seem to fit their needs (Haug, 2020a; Olsen,
2020). Special needs education, adapted education, and ordinary education must all
be seen as aspects of the same general education, not as isolated from one another. A
narrow form of adapted education could be utilizing special education.
Special education is an individual right for students who cannot or will not obtain a
satisfactory yield from ordinary education (The Education Act, § 5-1, 1998). Adapted
education covers both ordinary education and special education. A student can
receive adapted education in ordinary education or in the form of special education.
Because adapted education within ordinary education is considered a principle and
not an individual right, it may be difficult to conceive of how much adaptation each
student can receive. The NDET explains that adapted education through variations in
instruction and materials will cover the needs of most students. The NDET further
explains that it is the teacher’s responsibility to develop instructions that allow all
students to progress, be motivated, and experience self-efficacy in the various
subjects. Through adapted education, space for depth learning will also be made
available (NDET, 2021). Teachers must also adapt education for students with high
learning potential, and the NDET clarifies that this means both students who have
high achievement levels and those who can reach high achievement levels (NDET,
2021).
49
Special needs education (as in the paradigm), or special education, has the
overarching goal of preventing and helping to eliminate difficulties and barriers for
children and adults in the educational system who have special needs (Tangen, 2012).
Special education has in the later years received a lot of critique regarding the yield
the students have, the content and methods are not properly adapted and the education
itself is exclusive rather than inclusive (Haug, 2022). Since 1975 there have been
eight white papers regarding special education, however the critique remains the
same as it has been, and one can ask if there really have been any changes during the
last 40 years (Haug, 2022).
Special educational needs in children and adults can be understood both individually
and within a societal approach. The individual approach sees the barrier and special
need as primarily distinctive traits of a given person. Such barriers could be
physiological or psychological diagnoses or deficiencies. In this view, we must do
something with or for the individual to reduce this barrier. This could, of course,
mean guidance for teachers and parents or measures directed at the individual.
However, these difficulties are considered traits of the individual. This view has been
at the forefront, both in special education and the rest of society. In later times, a new
and more societal understanding emerged. This understanding sees barriers and
difficulties as being due to challenges and demands in the surroundings and society’s
lack of accommodation of the individual in question (Haug, 2022; Tangen, 2012).
Thus, these barriers and difficulties can be viewed as individual traits, a combination
of these traits, societal accommodation, or the lack thereof. For example, we typically
see being deaf as a disability. Still, in a society in which everyone speaks sign
language, those who can hear but cannot speak sign language face barriers and
difficulties. Another example is being tall in a society made for short people, or vice
versa. The barriers and difficulties we face are based on what kind of individuals the
society accommodates.
The first established educational offers for children with special educational needs in
Norway were a school for the deaf in Trondheim (1825), “redningsanstalten på
50
Grønland” (savory school on Grønland) (1841), a school for blind in Christiania
(1861), and a school for the mentally disabled in Christiania (1875). In 1881, the
government passed an educational law for children with special educational needs.
However, only those children with mild mental retardation could go to school, and
quite a large group was still considered unfit for education (Befring, 2012). This law
was, in reality, a coercive law that required all abnormal children to be registered.
The schools used the Binet-Simon intelligence scale to differentiate between children
meant for the special schools and children in need of child welfare services. Children
with IQs under 90 were referred to as “slow”, those with IQ 55–35 were referred to as
“imbeciles,” and those with IQs below 35 were referred to as “idiots.”
The law for special educational schools (spesialskoleloven) was established in 1951
with five categories of special educational needs; sight, hearing and speech, youth
with adjustment difficulties, and mental retardation. Children with severe mental
retardation were not considered part of this law, because they had been deemed
ineducable (Befring, 2012).
During the 1960s, there were critical voices regarding specialized and segregated
special education schools. Concepts of integration, decentralization, and
normalization were breaking into the relevant debates. In 1969, the Blom Committee
received a mandate to develop a new law regarding special education (The Ministry
of Education and Research, 1997).
1975 marked a change in both general education and special education in the form of
the new educational law. Now, everyone had the right to an education, no matter
what kind of disability or special need they had. This law also marked the beginning
of the end for special education schools. The organization of children with special
educational needs should be based on their integration and inclusion in ordinary
schools. In 1992, most special educational schools closed, and new special
educational competence centers opened (Askildt & Johnsen, 2012). Regarding the
reforms of L97, Hernes described the therapeutic ideology of special education and
51
how this ideology robbed students of their actual opportunities. Hernes meant that we
must have the highest ambitions for students who are considered “weak” and it is one
of the main goals of the educational system to find talent in each child (Volckmar,
2016).
Between 1984 and 1997, the percentage of students who received special education
rose from 3% to 6.2%, with the largest increase being observed between 1984 and
1992 (3–5.87 %) (The Ministry of Education, 1997). Today, the percentage of
students who receive special education is approximately 8 %, and this number has
remained stable over the last ten years (NDET, 2020.)
In the 1990s, comprehensive school was criticized for not being able to handle the
diversity in abilities and predispositions in ordinary classes. This was because of the
dominant position of joint teaching in the same classroom, which was not
differentiated and not appropriate for including students with special needs (Eckhoff,
2001). In the late 1990s, some alternative offers arrived. These were officially
attached to the ordinary school but had smaller groups in different settings specialized
for students with, e.g., behavioral difficulties. These alternative offers, along with the
critique regarding compulsory school, paint a picture of a Norwegian educational
system struggling with inclusion. The diversity in one class may be so large that
students are not working on the same assignments and, thus, have little in common.
However, removing the difficult students is not in line with the egalitarian ideology
of the comprehensive school (Eckhoff, 2001).
Now, most of the children and adults with special educational needs receive their
education at their local school. According to the NDET, 46% of students with special
education receive their education mainly in regular classes, while 9% receive their
education at special schools or classes (NDET, n.d. b).
According to Nordahl et al. (2018), special education is exclusive and not functional.
Students’ rights to participation and inclusion were not appropriately implemented in
52
schools. The authors propose a new system in which the resources in pedagogical and
psychological centers (PPTs) are used more closely with schools and students and the
individual right to special education is removed from the educational law (Nordahl et
al., 2018). This proposed change has received critiques from various directions.
Several consultative bodies have argued that this change will remove the rule of law
for students in need of special facilitation (Ministry of Education and Research,
2019).
3.4.1 Genealogy of education
Regarding education in general and special needs education specifically, power is a
critical aspect. To perform an archeology of education without including power as a
social force would be a huge limitation, especially if one wants to explain some of the
changes that have occurred throughout the history of education and special needs
education in particular. For this reason, we must address power in the historical
excavation.
Knudsmoen and Simonsen (2016) specify that, within the research tradition of special
education in Norway, Foucault’s critical views have been underrepresented. They
further argue that genealogy is an especially constructive critical lens via which to
view special education. Foucault was interested in those outside the mainstream of
society, such as lepers, the “mad,” and the “abnormal” (Ball, 2013). This interest is
transferable to the theme of special needs education, which is education for students
that do not fit within the normal guidelines of society or education.
Ball (2013) explores the genealogy of education in England. In his analysis, we see
that, in the late nineteenth century, schools become a new part of the state, both
physically and empirically. The state took on the responsibility of training teachers
and trained them to be experts in their fields and ethical exemplars. “They would
bring the children of the urban masses under their moral observation” (Ball, 2013 p.
41). As education became the state’s responsibility, the population became a resource
the state had to nurture. This was intended to achieve social order, economic
53
prosperity, and social welfare. This new type of political rationality sought to increase
the scope of power by tightening discipline for its subjects (Ball, 2013). The
genealogy of educational policy is, thus, a history of the management of the
population, one marked by specific conceptions of normality,
classification/exclusion, and welfare. Ball views classification through grouping by
performance as the erasure of difference (Ball, 2013). This erasure is tightly
connected to normalization. Normalization is a standard that unifies practice, and in
school, we see it through the distribution of ability. “Normalization becomes one of
the great instruments of power at the end of the classical age” (Foucault, 1979, from
Ball, 2013, p. 54). This normalization continues to affect schools.
There are two main strategies of power according to Foucault, anatomy-politics and
bio-politics (Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016). Anatomy-politics aim to make the
human body docile through normalized conduct and focus on body and biological
processes. This strategy emerged at the start of the eighteenth century. At the end of
that century, bio-politics came into view. In bio-politics, normalization is considered
in terms of medicalization and diagnostics, especially concerning deviancy, disability,
and impairment (Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016).
Norway established the first educational offers for children with special needs in the
middle of the 1800s. In 1881, Norway passed an educational law for children with
special educational needs. However, a large group was still deemed unfit for
education because only children with mild mental retardation could attend school
(Befring, 2012).
This is part of Foucault’s modern episteme. In this episteme, one prominent aspect is
what Foucault calls “new racism.” This new racism is a “biological caesura,”
separating the degenerates and abnormal from the remainder of society to the benefit
of all (Ball, 2013, p. 63). The government considered this morally through the help of
eugenics and social Darwinism. The population would be better off when these
“biological dangers” were taken care of through sterilization. Of course, there was no
54
need to educate these abnormalities. This approach would strengthen the species, and
the responsibility was held by the state and its technologies of power. Therefore,
“racism becomes a tool of the modern state” (Shein, 2004, from Ball, 2013, p. 64).
Now, we consider every child educable, and there is no need for a biological caesura.
However, the power aspect remains prevalent in education. When the least
advantaged individuals are humiliated or stigmatized by being excluded from
ordinary education, this is an abuse of power. Schools must continuously handle the
diversity within the student population, and inclusive education has been the go-to
response to handle the various dilemmas occurring for students that do not fit within
the box (Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016).
For future research, it is important to grasp the cultural, social, pedagogical, and
political contexts producing the discourse on special education from an ethical
perspective. In doing so, it may be possible to identify the struggles and points of
articulation of knowledge, power, and governmentality, unmasking the contingencies
and consequences of educational systems and power-knowledge and demonstrating
the ways in which power acts on individual subjects (Knudsmoen & Simonsen,
2016).
I discuss power as an aspect of special education, ordinary education, and gifted
education in Chapter 6.
55
4. Methodology
I want to introduce this chapter with a sequence from Odysseus. One of the many
dangers Odysseus had to pass in his journey back home to Ithaca was the passage
between two cliffs that harbored the two monsters Scylla and Charybdis. Passing too
close to Charybdis would be met with a massive volume of water. Scylla, on the other
hand, would snatch sailors and swallow them. When Odysseus attempted to avoid
Charybdis, he steered a trifle too near Scylla, who took six of his most able sailors
and devoured them (Gallagher, 2008, p.1).
These two monsters from Greek mythology are said to be the progenitor of the
expression “between a rock and a hard place” because avoiding one of the monsters
places you in danger of the other. Is this true for mixed methods as well? Is it possible
to combine both methods sufficiently, or will steering these tricky waters involve
dangers from both sides? Is it possible to be a true mixed-method researcher? Does
being a true mixed-method researcher mean that one must align one’s research
perfectly in the middle of the two “monsters,” qualitative and quantitative? How will
I steer these dangerous waters?
In this chapter, I will first present my overarching epistemology, ontology, and
axiology; the methodological choices I have made; and the analyses I have used in
my thesis. I discuss research validity, reliability, and generalizability related to the
various studies. At the end of the chapter, I discuss researcher reflexivity.
4.1 Mixed-methods research
Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) give the following general definition of
mixed-methods research: “Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a
researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative
research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data
56
collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and
depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123).
The research design in this Ph.D. study is a convergent mixed-method design
(Creswell, 2015) with two sub-studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, and three
articles, one quantitative, one qualitative, and one mixed. The design is not parallel,
because I did not conduct the studies simultaneously. It has a sequential element, in
which the results from the first quantitative phase influenced the development of the
interview guide in the qualitative phase. However, the design remains convergent
because the studies are primarily separate. The merging or mixing of the data occurs
in the integration phase, Article 3, and the extended synopsis. Another way to view
this design is as a component design (Jang et al., 2008), rather than as an integrated
design. The component design differs from the integrated design because the different
methods remain discrete through data collection and analysis. The mixing occurs at
the level of interpretation and inference. The study is explorative and descriptive,
seeking to investigate gifted education from two perspectives. According to Creswell
(2015), utilizing different analysis units is efficient when comparing different
perspectives. Including quantitative and qualitative data and the perspective of
teacher and student provides a broader view of gifted education in Norway.
The rationale for choosing mixed methods as compared to a purely quantitative or
qualitative approach a desire for breadth and depth in the same thesis. I utilize a broad
perspective in the quantitative survey. The aim is to provide a descriptive insight into
gifted education in Norway in leu of teachers’ and educators’ reports. The qualitative
interview study allows me to more deeply examine the experiences that students with
extraordinary learning potential have in Norwegian schools. However, choosing only
a quantitative method would have allowed me to design a more sophisticated survey
and analysis. In a purely qualitative approach, I could have chosen to interview
teachers and students and provide a deeper investigation of the two perspectives. In
the end, because my goal is to understand gifted education in Norway, I consider the
mixed-method approach to be the best fit for this thesis.
57
According to the general definition, my thesis exists within mixed-methods research.
However, there is the question of the actual mixing of the methods because the two
studies are primarily separate. Is it enough to mix the results in the integration phase
and still call the study a mixed-methods study? Johnson et al. (2007) present
variations within the mixed-method field regarding how much and when the mixing
occurs. Some scholars argue for strict definitions, in which mixing must be integrated
into the entire design. Others only mention combining quantitative and qualitative
methods for a study to be considered mixed (Johnson et al., 2007). Another question
is whether the two studies and methods have equal status in the design. The studies
each have a dedicated article, and the third article combines data from both studies.
However, the sophistication of data analysis is more qualitative because the
quantitative analysis is primarily descriptive and the mixed analysis is also on the
qualitative side of the spectrum. Because the two studies are not equally valued
analytically, we can conclude that the design is on the qualitative, rather than
quantitative, side of the spectrum (Hesse-Biber, 2010).
4.2 Epistemology and ontology
Paradigms in mixed-method research are discussed extensively among mixed-method
researchers (see, e.g., Biesta, 2010; Greene & Hall, 2010; Johnson, 2017; Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). One of the questions is dubbed the paradigm issue, as in is it
possible to mix different philosophical stances and assumptions regarding reality.
There are arguments for metaparadigm dialectical pluralism (Johnson, 2017),
Deweyan pragmatism (Biesta, 2010), dialecticism, and American pragmatism
(Greene & Hall, 2010).
I approach mixed-method research from a pluralist view and assume not a single
reality but multiple forms of interpreting and constructing reality and the knowledge
of reality. I do not place this research entirely within the metaparadigm of dialectical
pluralism (Johnson, 2017) but, rather, within a combination of dialecticism and
58
pluralism. This combination requires reflexivity and dialogue between the different
perspectives I present in my thesis and values divergent and dissonant results (Greene
& Hall, 2010; Johnson, 2017).
Biesta (2010) argues that we must consider seven levels in mixed-method research,
data, methods, design, epistemology, ontology, the purpose of the research, and
practical research roles (p. 100). As for data, my research combines the use of
numbers, in Study 1, and text, in Studies 1 and 2. The data collection involves a
combination of survey and interviews. I previously explained that my design is a
convergent mixed-method design (Creswell, 2015). Biesta (2010) argues for a
distinction between interventionalist and non-interventionalist designs. My research
fits within non-interventionalist design because both studies seek knowledge by
observing a phenomenon, not through experiments or intervention. As for
epistemology and ontology, I relate to constructivism and critical realism.
Constructivism sees the world as a complexity full of different lived experiences from
the point of view of those who live it (Schwandt, 1998; Timulak, 2015). Such
analyses do not assume a single reality. Instead, multiple realities are constructed and
produced through language, representation, and other social processes, which are still
valid and authentic for the people experiencing them. Critical realism, on the other
hand, proclaims that the nature of reality (ontology) cannot be reduced to our
knowledge of reality (epistemology), and it deviates from both positivism and
constructivism (Fletcher, 2017). According to the critical realist, reality is stratified
into three levels: empirical, actual, and real. The empirical level is what we
experience and interpret, such as an apple dropping from a tree onto one’s head. At
the actual level, events happen regardless of whether they are experienced or not; the
apple falls even if you are not sitting there. At the real level, causal structures and
mechanisms exist, which act as forces on the empirical level; the law of gravity pulls
the apple toward the ground. Critical realism seeks to explain social events through
reference to the causal mechanisms that influence them (Fletcher, 2017). Combining
these two paradigms, the constructivist paradigm explains the interpretations at the
59
empirical level, while critical realism seeks to go deeper and discover the underlying
causal mechanism. Empirical realities are still accurate and authentic for the people
experiencing them, but some causal structures and mechanisms influence and affect
the experiences.
When it comes to the purpose of the research, in terms of the distinction between
explanatory and interpretive research (Biesta, 2010), my purpose falls somewhere in
the middle, though more on the interpretive side. The study is explorative, and the
primary purpose is to provide an insight into gifted education in Norway. Even
though I consider some correlations in Study 1, overall, the purpose of the design is
not merely to explain gifted education but to better understand Norwegian gifted
education. Lastly, the functional role of my research is in line with the cultural role of
research, seeking to provide practitioners, in my case teachers and educators, with
new ways of understanding and seeing their practice (Biesta, 2010).
I adopt a pluralist stand regarding axiology as well. I come from a background in
special needs education, with notions of equality, equity, and social justice embedded
in my professional roots. My research values and ethics still relate to these notions
and a discourse standpoint, in which I value the conversation and different arguments
we all bring to the table. As I argue for the needs of students with extraordinary
learning potential, others will argue that these students do not require special
attention. However, as an ethical researcher, I must value and listen to the arguments
that other researchers and practitioners may have. I also must consider the
perspectives of both students and teachers. When I argue for a change in the
educational system to benefit gifted students, thus will also impact, positively or
negatively, teachers and perhaps other student groups. Is it possible to argue for better
benefits for one group if this will negatively impact another group? In the end, I
cannot consider all potential results from my research or arguments, and I can only
choose to argue for what I believe my research has to offer from my own ethical
standpoint. After all, one potential result is no change at all.
60
I have now presented the reader with an overview of this thesis’s background,
standpoint, and rationale. In the following sections, I will present each study,
including methods and analyses.
4.3 Study 1: Descriptive survey
The first study in this thesis is a quantitative survey with descriptive data from 339
teachers and educators. The data and results from this survey are used in Articles 1
and 3 and provide insight into Norway’s gifted education based on the teachers’
responses. The results were used to enhance the interview guide in Study 2.
In this section, I will present this study more thoroughly.
4.3.1 Participants and recruitment
Study 1 set out to explore gifted education using teachers’ responses and
perspectives. I decided to limit the teacher pool to comprehensive education, as in the
primary and secondary levels (1st to 10th grade). I initially wanted approximately the
same number of teachers from the primary and secondary levels and recruited
participants from combined schools.
I contacted all combined 1–10 schools listed in the Norwegian Directorate of
Education and Training through e-mail during spring 2017. The total number of
schools contacted was 586. After three weeks, I called or sent another email to the
schools that had not responded to the first inquiry. The schools that sent negative
responses were not contacted again. After the second round of contact, 32 schools
answered positively and sent the survey to their teachers. The response rate from the
schools, in general, is abysmally low, with only 5% of the schools agreeing to
participate. Of these 32 schools, 144 teachers answered; accounting for the total
number of teachers at these schools, the teacher response rate is 20%.
61
I was not pleased with the number of 144 participants in the study and the low
response rate from the schools that agreed to participate. Because these teachers had
chosen to participate in their free time, I was worried about an interest bias on the
part of these teachers (Gorard, 2001). I decided to recruit more participants in another
fashion.
I changed the inclusion criterion from combined schools to all schools at the primary
and secondary levels and contacted the governmental head of education in several
municipalities in Norway and asked if they were willing to participate in this study. I
received positive replies from two — one in eastern Norway and one in western
Norway. The eastern region provided eighteen participants, and the western region
provided 177 participants from fifteen schools. The response rate from the western
municipality was 63%. However, unfortunately, the schools in the western
municipality were mostly primary schools, so there is an overrepresentation of
teachers at the primary level (63%). The selected sample is a convenience sample
(Gorard, 2001), and we cannot generalize the findings to all Norwegian 1–10
teachers. See Article 1 for descriptive statistics on the 339 participants in the survey.
There is also an overabundance of female teachers (77 %). Eight out of ten teachers
have a regular teaching degree, a four-year bachelor’s degree with or without an extra
year. The teaching degree has since been changed to a master’s degree. Over half of
the teachers in our study are contact teachers.
I cannot say that the result of the study is relevant to all teachers in comprehensive
schools, but I can point at trends and indications of interest that should be further
explored in later research.
4.3.2 Pilot and instrument
Before collecting participants, I performed a pilot test with 48 teachers to validate the
survey questions. I conducted the pilot in two stages, first by contacting one
secondary school with 44 teachers and inviting four teachers I knew personally. The
62
participants in the pilot answered the survey and provided feedback on the questions.
Feedback included comments such as, “I am not sure what you mean by this
question” or “I appreciate this question being open-ended, as that made me reflect
more on where I have generated knowledge about gifted students.”
After the pilot and reading all the feedback from the teachers, I made changes in
wording and formatting. I have not included the informants from the pilot in the final
survey.
I collected the data using a web-based survey provided by SurveyMonkey
(www.surveymonkey.com). With the help of my supervisor and technical help from
Ole Johan Eikeland, I constructed the survey design using 25 questions ranging from
background questions to specific questions regarding gifted students. The total survey
design is included as an attachment. The research questions for the survey were as
follows:
How much knowledge do Norwegian teachers report they have, and where do they
report they have gained this knowledge?
How do Norwegian teachers evaluate the various characteristics of gifted students,
and how do they describe the characteristics of gifted students?
How do the background variables of years of experience, experience with gifted
students, and education level correlate with teachers’ knowledge and
characterization?
How many teacher-identified gifted students are there, and are there any gender
differences?
I could have used the frequently used “Attitudes Scale Towards Gifted Education”
(Gagné, 2018). However, because I did not just want to consider attitudes but, rather,
characteristics and differentiated education, I chose to develop a new survey.
Developing a new survey also provided me with a learning opportunity. I developed
63
the survey using the relevant literature on gifted education, e.g., that on
differentiation (Gagné, 2015; VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016) and characteristics
of the gifted (Ackerman, 1997; Betts & Neihart, 1988; Cross, 1997; Idsøe, 2014; L.
Lee, 1999; Lie, 2014) and other relevant literature (Renzulli, 2012; Shaywitz et al.,
2001; Subotnik et al., 2011) within a Norwegian scope.
The “characteristics of giftedness” scale consists of 15 characteristics that the
teachers agreed or disagreed with on a five-item Likert range (totally agree – totally
disagree). This scale is simplified and does not represent all types of gifted students.
We focus on the characteristics developed from the Norwegian expert literature
(Idsøe, 2014; Idsøe & Skogen, 2011; Lie, 2014). Pre-service teachers use cognitive
and socio-emotional characteristics when describing students with high learning
potential (Brevik & Gunnulfsen, 2016). The 15 characteristics represents various
cognitive and socio-emotional aspects, in line with previous research in Norway, and
the open-ended question where teachers can write what they believe characterizes
gifted students mitigates some limitations with the limited scale.
4.3.3 Ethical considerations
The Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) has approved this study (see
attachment). To answer the survey, all participants had to read the information letter
at the beginning of the survey, included in the attached survey. The information letter
stated that participation is voluntary and that there will be no collection of personal
information to identify a specific participant. I collected indirect personal information
from IP addresses. However, because most of the teachers answered the survey
during their worktime, the IP addresses are related to their school and not considered
personal information. Even so, the IP addresses are deleted from the final material.
The other indirect personal information relates to gender and education. These and
other descriptive data are only presented in their quantified form, and it is not
possible to recognize any single teacher in the material. In Article 3, I use a few
quotes from the teachers to illustrate the various themes. These quotes are translated
64
from Norwegian to English to provide anonymity and are presented without gender,
teaching level, education, or other identifying information. By answering the survey,
the participant completed an informed act of consent.
4.3.4 Validity and reliability
To enhance validity, I completed a pilot test before collecting the data. I included a
definition of giftedness at the beginning to enhance the validity.
When analyzing the “characteristics of giftedness” scale, I performed a Cronbach’s α
to test the scale’s internal consistency. The Cronbach’s α had a value of .75, an
adequate result (Pallant, 2016), and indicated that some items may require additional
clarification. I also performed an exploratory factor analysis using Principal Axis
Factoring, also known as the Principal Factor Method (Rencher & Christensen,
2012). It is common to use an exploratory factor analysis when there are no
established expectations regarding how the factors will cluster, as compared to
confirmatory factor analysis, which is used to test hypotheses (Henson, 2010;
Rencher & Christensen, 2012). Because this scale was new and not previously tested,
an exploratory factor analysis seemed the most fitting. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure gave a result of .739, which is adequate for this scale (Pallant, 2016).
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant at .000, and we can assume the null
hypothesis that there is equal variance across the group.
After examining the eigenvalue criterion, Cattell’s scree plot, and a parallel analysis,
we indicated a three-factor solution. A parallel analysis (Monte Carlo) is an accurate
method of factor extraction, according to Rencher and Christensen (2012). Inspecting
the three-factor solution in detail, every variable connected to the third factor, except
“extroverted”, was more closely connected to the first or second factor. This result
led us to decide on a two-factor solution. The factor analysis is in appendix 1.
Initially, the factor analysis was meant to be a part of the first article, however,
comments from a journal reviewer made us rethink the use of the factor analysis in
the article. We wanted to see if the factor analysis picked up on different constructs of
65
gifted students in the teachers’ answers, and it indicates that there might be two
different constructs, a positive and a negative. As the reviewer was skeptical to the
analysis it was removed from the article, but is included in the thesis as an appendix
(1). The conclusion from the factor analysis is that there might be an indication of
two or more constructs within the scale, however, the scale needs further
development before this question can be answered properly.
As explained previously, the participants are considered a convenience sample, and
hence, we cannot generalize the results to the entire population of teachers in primary
and secondary school.
4.3.5 Analyses
I performed all the statistical computations in this study in SPSS 25. The data from
Study 1 are analyzed and presented in Articles 1 and 3.
Article 1 presents descriptive frequencies and bivariate analyses (Pearson and
Spearman’s Rho) with background variables to establish any significant correlations.
This also includes paired t-tests to analyze gender differences in the reported number
of gifted students per teacher. In Article 1, I also present a quantitative content
analysis (Neuendorf, 2017) of the data from two open-ended survey questions:
“Where have you gained knowledge about gifted students?” and “How would you, in
your own words, describe gifted students?”
In content analysis, the data are split into smaller units for interpretation, and the goal
is to produce a numerical count of key categories and a summary of these categories
and concepts (Neuendorf, 2017). In developing the coding scheme used in the content
analysis, I used the literature consulted in developing the survey and a preliminary
review of the answers. The coding scheme was then input into SPSS 25, and all
answers were re-read and coded accordingly.
In Article 3, I present data from the survey question “What kind of facilitation would
you, as a teacher, give to students with extraordinary learning potential?” This data is
66
analyzed with a mixed-method approach, in which the codes from the qualitative
interviews (Study 2) are used in deductive thematic analysis. I present this analysis
more thoroughly in Chapter 4.5.
In Article 3, I also present descriptive frequencies on five questions regarding
differentiation and adapted education.
4.4 Study 2: Interview
The second study in this thesis is a qualitative interview study with 17 gifted students
in secondary school. The data from this study are presented in Articles 2 and 3. This
study is explorative and inductive.
4.4.1 Participants and recruitment
The participants in the second study are 17 gifted students who attend different
secondary schools in western and eastern Norway. They are between 12 and 15 years
old, with a mean age of 14. Six are female, and eleven are male. The sample could be
considered both a convenience sample and a purposeful sample (Gorard, 2001).
The participation criteria were attending secondary school, nomination by a teacher
or parent, and a WISC-IV score at or above the 95th percentile. Initially, 18
participants agreed to join the study, but one withdrew before the interviews.
To recruit the informants, I utilized various strategies. I contacted “Happy children,”
which is a parental network for parents with gifted kids. I used social media
(Facebook). I contacted a talent center in math and science and all the secondary
schools in my home municipality. I recruited informants through all these strategies.
One of the inclusion criteria was a high WISC-IV score. I tested 13 of the 17
informants. The other four participants had been tested previously, and I could view
and verify the test results. The gifted group is not homogenous and does not
necessarily have a homogenous profile. I decided that a score at the 95th percentile in
67
at least one subscale on the WISC-IV was sufficient to be included, which meant that
they could have high scores in some subscales and lower scores in others. The WISC-
IV is a cognitive measurement test with four subscales, Verbal Comprehension (VC),
Perceptual Reasoning (PR), Working Memory (WM), and Processing Speed (PS).
The participants had scores in the 95th percentile, first and foremost, in VC or PR,
which means they have an exceptional learning potential in language, reading, or
writing (VC) or logical fluid reasoning and visual-spatial skills (PR). Some
participants had homogenous profiles, with high scores in all subscales, while other
participants had more heterogenous profiles, with high scores in some scales and
lower scores in others. Because the test results are considered sensitive personal
information, they are not available to readers and are only presented generally.
4.4.2 Semi-structured interview
My goal with this qualitative study was to understand the various experiences that
Norwegian gifted students have. To achieve an open and inviting dialogue with the
participants, I chose a semi-structured interview guide (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015).
The interview guide had some established questions but was open to following the
major and interesting points that the participants shared. I developed the interview
guide from the following main research question: how are Norwegian gifted
secondary school students experiencing their education? I utilized previous research
in the field (Bracken & Brown, 2006; Gómez-Arízaga & Conejeros-Solar, 2013; S.-
Y. Lee et al., 2012; J. Peterson et al., 2009; J. S. Peterson & Ray, 2006; Samardzija &
Peterson, 2015) and results from the quantitative survey (Study 1), for example,
whether teachers recognize their talents or not. The interview guide is available in full
as an attachment (Appendix 3).
The topics in the interview guide were experience and strategies in school, adapted
education, family and friends, underachievement, social-emotional issues, and
involvement in education. A topic I could have included was whether or not the
students had experienced the different best practices presented by Gagné (2015). This
topic should be included in further research.
68
I interviewed the participants in spring 2018. I traveled to their homes or schools and
met with them in settings they had chosen and were comfortable in. The interviews
were recorded on a recording device, and I took some notes on my computer during
the interviews. Some participants had a parent present during the interview, and in
some cases, the parent also answered some questions. I marked the responses of
parents in the transcript and did not use them on their own in the analysis. The
interview duration varied from 16 minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. The shortest
interview was the last one. This participant answered all questions but was a great
deal less talkative than some of the other participants.
The total data consist of 303 pages of transcripts with a Times New Roman size 12
font and 1.5 line spacing.
4.4.3 Ethical considerations
The Norwegian Centre for Research Data has approved this study (Appendix 2).
Because this study has participants aged from twelve to fifteen, I asked for consent
from both the informants and their parents. They received a written information letter
about the study and gave their informed written consent (Traianou, 2015). The
information letter is available in the attachments (Appendix 3).
To preserve the participants’ privacy, I have removed all names and places when
discussing themes and quotes. I informed the participants that they could withdraw,
even after the interviews. I have been in contact with some participants to member
check the results and themes. None of the participants have shown a need or desire to
withdraw from the study.
Children, as participants, are considered more vulnerable and require more protection
than adult participants (Traianou, 2015). I have synthesized the results so as to create
a combined story, rather than sharing the individual narratives. Even so, I share
individual quotes that emphasize essential issues. The individual quotes are translated
from Norwegian into English, which provides an additional layer of anonymity, and
69
there are no ages, genders, or names associated with the quotes in the articles. Quotes
in the articles are referred to with the genderless pronoun they/them.
4.4.4 Thematic analysis
I used thematic analysis when analyzing the qualitative data from the interviews and
follow the six steps listed by Braun and Clarke (2006) in inductive thematic analysis.
Thematic analysis may consist of various forms of analysis, from using a deductive
schematic to an inductive analytical form, in which the data drive the codes, themes,
and results (Braun & Clarke, 2006). My methodological standpoint is constructivism
and critical realism, meaning that I value various lived experiences and do not assume
a single reality. Still, I also want to consider the causal mechanisms that may affect
each informant’s experiences. Hence, I am not reporting each individual’s lived
experience or individual narrative but, rather, broader themes.
I decided on an inductive thematic analysis as the best fit for the research question
and design. I will now present the six steps and how I followed them in the analytical
process.
Step 1
A close
reading of
transcripts
Step 2
Generating
initial codes
Step 3
Searching
for themes
Step 4
Reviewing
themes
Step 5
Defining
and naming
themes
Step 6
Producing
the report
In Step 1, I transcribed all the interviews ad verbatim, including small pauses, sighs,
laughter, and other sounds. I reread each transcript several times before coding to
obtain a general feel for the material and the stories the students tell. My supervisors
also read the transcripts. In Step 2, I coded the material using NVivo 12 pro (QSR
International), a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program (Silver
and Lewins, 2015). I organized the data by question and interview, so I had the
70
individual answers to each question in the same document and could look at
similarities and differences between each informant. After coding by question, I
reread each interview in full and coded again, looking for new codes and factors I
overlooked in my first session. This coding method was sensible because it first gave
me a bird’s eye view of the material and then a more in-depth look at each informant.
The different coding sessions resulted in 98 codes in total. The codes and themes are
presented in Articles 2 and 3.
In Step 3, I searched for themes. Again, the bird’s eye view of the material was
relevant to and necessary for establishing the various themes. Some codes were easily
grouped, such as codes related to schoolwork (extra assignments, groupwork,
homework, and writing), while other codes remained separate until I had drawn
conclusions regarding the broader themes. In Step 4, I discussed each theme with my
supervisors and the co-authors of the qualitative article. I wrote summaries of each
theme, examined them for commonalities, and searched for the overarching story
these themes represented. In Step 5, I reviewed, described, discussed, and named the
themes with my supervisors. This report is Article 2.
4.4.5 Researcher positionality
As a qualitative researcher, it is essential to establish my positionality,
predispositions, and potential biases (Becker, 1967; Finlay & Gough, 2003).
My interest in gifted education began as a bachelor’s student in special needs
education at the University of Oslo. I remember reading a newspaper article about a
gifted student in primary school and all the issues and difficulties that the student
faced simply because of being gifted. I remember this sparked a genuine interest in
me; it resonated with me. Of course, it would be dreadfully dull to start school in first
grade and learn your ABCs if you already knew how to read and write. I began to
wonder why I had never heard about these issues, not as a bachelor student in special
needs education or previously. The spark grew; I wrote my bachelor’s thesis, my
master’s thesis, and now, my doctoral thesis on this phenomenon.
71
I am not new to the phenomenon of gifted education; however, with a degree in
special needs education, I may view this phenomenon differently than other
researchers with, for example, a pure teaching background. This can be considered
both a strength and a weakness. As shown in Chapter 3, special needs educational
history is marked by the ideas of the normal and the abnormal, or those outside the
norm. Special needs education considers the individual, social, and environmental
aspects of education. However, there is always a degree of problematization. My
background may make me more prone to see problems where there are none, and it
also may help me discover issues in the system that others overlook. Hopefully, by
being aware of this potential bias, I can help counteract it by being reflective and
discussing the themes and results with other researchers with different backgrounds.
In Study 2 and Article 2, I present the perspectives of students, and thus, the research
adopts the lens of students and should be read accordingly. I have not interviewed the
various teachers of the participating students, and they might disagree with how the
students portray their education and teaching.
In Study 1 and Article 1, I utilize teachers’ perspectives; however, as this study is
descriptive and broad, it provides the reader with an overview rather than the
individual perspectives of each teacher. In Article 3, I use both perspectives, and I
seek to incorporate the perspective of the educational system as a whole.
4.4.6 Transparency, validity, and reliability
To provide the reader with information about the quality and credibility of my
research, I will provide the measures I have used in this regard. One inclusion
criterion for participation in the study was a WISC-IV score on the 95th percentile or
above. The WISC-IV is a cognitive measurement with an average reliability score of
.97 on the full scale, as well as .94 on VC and .92 on PR, in the original version
(Wechsler, 2003). In the Norwegian translation, the r scores are .98 on VC, .92 on
PR, and .97 on the full scale (Wechsler, 2009). In terms of validity, the WISC-IV is
an established tool for measuring cognitive ability, and it is a validated test for
72
measuring intellectual giftedness. In the validation of the WISC-IV, they gave the test
to a clinical group with intellectual giftedness. They found that the gifted group
scored substantially higher on VC and PR than age peers but only moderately higher
on WM and PS (Wechsler, 2003). These results imply that the participants in my
study show intellectual giftedness in one or more subscales. However, it also limits
the scope and excludes participants with other forms of giftedness and other
definitions of giftedness (see Chapter 3).
I coded every interview individually; however, one of my supervisors also coded a
segment of the data, resulting in similar codes. I did not calculate inter-rater
reliability, because we utilized coding meetings and discussions instead to check for
reliability and agreement among myself and my two supervisors (co-authors of the
articles). As for the thematic results, I performed member checking with participants
by inviting them to a session at which I presented the themes and findings. Those
who joined the session agreed that the themes represented them and their experiences.
I also returned to the material to look for disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller,
2000), and I achieved data saturation in the coding (Fusch & Ness, 2015).
I will now more closely examine the establishment of validity during the interviews.
4.4.7 Validity as Dasein and research praxis
Dasein is a concept from the philosopher Heidegger. In Heidegger’s theory, Dasein
means the self as a subject, without the baggage and presuppositions associated with
the notion of the subject. Dasein is a combination of the words Da and Sein, which
means there and being, but taken together, the most literal translation would be
existence. However, Dasein is more than merely existence or the subject; by breaking
away from baggage and presuppositions, we can truly see the subject in its being as a
subject (Buchanan, 2010a).
In terms of reality or how we think about reality or ontology, Heidegger tells us that
we must differentiate between two kinds of questions: the ontic question about the
73
properties of being and the ontological question about ways or modes of being
(Dreyfus & Wrathall, 2007). In qualitative research, we are interested in the
ontological question, not the properties of our research subjects but, rather, the ways
and modes of being our subjects have in the world. In this thesis, I use constructivism
and critical realism as an ontological lens to explore the ways and modes of being a
gifted student in secondary school.
Heidegger describes understanding as showing the possible or available range of
ways to be, the can-be or ability-to-be, which he calls Seinkönnen (Dreyfus &
Wrathall, 2007). All these possibilities are constrained and not indifferent. Heidegger
shows us that all human beings are constituted as beings because we inhabit a shared
world. Later, we structure this shared world by ourselves and by others. When we ask
the question, “Who am I,” or as a qualitative researcher asks, “Who are you?” it is
important to note that, in the everyday existence, my essence and the essence of my
research subject are not dictated by myself or by themselves but by others (Dreyfus &
Wrathall, 2007). How my research subjects explain their modes of being a gifted
student are, therefore, not merely dependent on how they see and understand
themselves but also how others, such as me as a researcher, see and understand them.
This combined understanding is the critical part of Dennis’s (2018) thoughts on
validity.
When the research subject and I have a shared understanding of the stories and
experiences, we also understand the essence of being in these stories. This shared
understanding helps validate the feelings and experiences of the research subjects.
This form of validity is vital, first and foremost, in my second study and second
article, as well as in the third article and my thesis. My goal is to better understand
gifted education in Norway; thus, it is essential to establish validity in my
understanding of my interview subjects’ modes of being in the world. Establishing
validity through various means is essential for the reader to ascertain the
trustworthiness of my research.
74
Dennis (2018) talks about validity in research praxis. “Praxis” is the Greek word for
“doing.” It is used in critical theory to show purposive and purposeful human activity,
meaning that the activities have a specific goal and a tangible outcome (Buchanan,
2010b). According to Leavy (2015), research praxis consists of four elements, genre,
methods, theory, and methodology. Research praxis is the purposeful activity of
doing research, the specific goal of answering a research question, and the tangible
outcome of producing results and findings that answer the research question (Leavy,
2015). My research praxis consists of gifted education, quantitative and qualitative
methods, theory on giftedness, and pluralist methodology, with both constructivism
and critical realism.
When Dennis (2018) talks about validity as Dasein, she explains it as self-knowledge,
certainty, how the researcher identifies herself with/in the research process, and
praxis (p. 110). Dennis sees praxis as a part of Dasein, and it is self-reflective and
linked to the nature of being. Later, Dennis (2018) uses Dasein to indicate the quality
of self-understanding and how the “self” is at stake during the action one takes as a
researcher. For the researcher to establish herself as a valid, worthwhile person, there
is a need for an Other to recognize and approve that the researcher is such a person.
The same is true for the research subject. The research subject also requires an Other
to recognize and confirm that they are a valid worthwhile person. The researcher and
the research subject can participate in the research activity, thus confirming and
validating one another.
Dennis (2018) provides examples of how she validated the research subject through
five modes of praxis: praxis as intentional and personal interest, praxis as listening
past the facts, praxis as joining together, praxis as collaborative insight, and praxis as
alongsideness in exploration. I will only present praxis as intentional and personal
insight here, but I also established praxis through listening past the facts and
alongsideness in exploration.
75
Regarding praxis as intentional and personal interest, Dennis (2018) explains that, by
showing interest in what the research subject says, the researcher cares for their
stories more profoundly than just as a means of answering a research question. The
researcher can document interest by asking follow-up questions not indicated in the
protocol or engaging in non-verbal encouraging statements, such as nodding or
cheerful sounds [uh-huh, yes, yeah, wow]. In the following quote, I will show how I,
as a researcher, established interest in one of the stories told by a student (Marie is
not the participant’s actual name).
Marie: Okey… eh, ehm. Yes, I could tell you about today. We had a
substitute teacher in science, and we never had this teacher before. We
felt that he was very ehm strict in like a military way almost. Astrid:
Okey? Marie: Like, it was like we should stand very straight at the start
of class and greet him, and then, he wrote us on the board on a scale
from like beneath expectations, expected, surpassing expectations,
excellent, like. Astrid: He wrote all the students? Marie: No, just, no
the whole class in general. Astrid: Okey. Marie: Ehm, and then it was
very much like you have ten seconds to pack your stuff and ten seconds
to go to recess and such, so I think everyone in class experienced it very
differently from what we have had previously. Astrid: In a positive or
negative way? Marie: No, ehm, I don’t know. For me, a bit negative, I
think, since he was very unnecessary strict really, but I think it was;
people thought it was a bit funny as well, in a way. Astrid: Well, it was
something completely different, at least. Marie: Yes! [laughter].
In this quote, Marie talks about a weird experience with a substitute teacher in
science. She and the rest of the class felt that the substitute was very strict, almost
military. I react to the story with an “Okay?”. My mimic and non-verbal gestures
asked, “What is this? Tell me more.” She continued with her story. I asked follow-up
questions and, in the end, wrapped up the story she told by confirming that it was
something quite different. Regarding my research question, this story was not that
interesting. In terms of establishing a connection and showing my interest in Marie,
this story was important. I show her, with my questions, my facial response, and my
non-verbal response, that I am interested in her and her stories. She responds to my
interest by telling me more and confirming how I wrap up her story in the end. I
76
validate Marie and her stories by showing interest and showing her that she matters to
me as a research subject and person.
Another example of validation through intentional and personal interest is found in
the following quote from an interview with Adrian (not his real name).
Astrid: Have you ever experienced being so engaged in an assignment
that you have forgotten time and place? Adrian: Yes, several times.
Astrid: When has this happened? Adrian: For example, when I’m
working with Rubic’s cube. [laughter]. Like, on the bus. Astrid: Have
you ever missed your stop? Adrian: No, that has not happened. Astrid:
But you feel that you are so focused that you do not notice what
happens around you? Adrian: Mmh. Astrid: Has that ever happened at
school? Adrian: No [shakes his head vigorously]. Astrid: No.
[laughter]. Adrian: It has not happened at school.
In the extract above, I ask Adrian about an idea called absorbed coping, in which one
is so absorbed in what one is doing that the rest of the world slips away from sight.
Adrian has experienced this when he is working with a Rubic’s Cube. When I ask
him if he has experienced this at school, he becomes almost comically serious, and I
cannot help but laugh. Previously during the interview, Adrian told me that there
were issues with how the teachers adapted and facilitated his education. The idea that
he would achieve a state such as absorbed coping at school seems ridiculous when
one considers the entire interview in full. I validate what Adrian has told me earlier
by showing interest and understanding the essence of what he tells me in this extract.
Adrian would likely enter into a state of absorbed coping at school if he received the
adapted education he needs. However, with regard to his story, the notion of him
being absorbed at school seems laughable. We have a shared connection at this
moment; Adrian knows that I am interested in him and his stories, and the fact that I
laugh confirms our relationship.
Some of the praxis variants (Dennis, 2018) are not that prevalent in my material.
However, I found statements and passages in each interview in which I established
interest in the participants and their stories. In these passages, it is clear that the
77
participants feel validated as both a research subject and a person of interest. I am not
merely interested in the stories directly related to my research questions, but I am
interested in what makes my participants tick. I am interested in how my participants
are being in the world and how we can have a shared understanding of their
existence. In our shared experience in research practice, I validated their being in the
world, and they validated me as a worthwhile researcher and person.
4.5 Mixing and integrating results
In Article 3, I combine the data from Studies 1 and 2 regarding facilitation and
education adaptation. The central mixed research question for Article 3 was “To what
extent does the thematic analysis of gifted students’ experience of adapted education
confirm or differ from the survey results regarding how teachers facilitate their
students?”
To answer this research question, I utilized the codes from the inductive thematic
analysis as a deductive coding scheme for the open-ended survey question “What
kind of facilitation would you, as a teacher, give to students with extraordinary
learning potential?” The codebook created from the deductive coding is available in
the attachment (Appendix 1). Some of the codes from the students were not prevalent
in the teacher material, and I also had to develop some new codes that did not fit any
of the student codes. In the codebook, I differentiate between the deductive student
codes and the inductive teacher codes.
Article 3 only combines some of the data from the two other studies; however, in the
synopsis, I will consider and compare the data from both studies and all three articles.
The data and results will then be integrated, compared, and discussed to examine both
similarities and potential divergences and dissonance. This combination will, in the
end, provide the reader with a summary of and insight into gifted education in
Norway.
78
5. Summary of the articles
In the previous chapter, I describe the methodological choices made to ensure that my
research is reliable, valid, and ethically sound. This chapter provides the reader with a
summary of the three articles, highlighting the results from the two studies and the
mixed results.
5.1 Article 1
Lenvik et al. (2022). Teacher’s perspective on extraordinary learning potential in
Norway: A descriptive study with primary and secondary teachers.
In the first article, the quantitative survey and teachers’ reports are in focus. The
article presents descriptive results from a quantitative survey with 339 teachers. The
article aimed to provide an insight into teachers’ perspective on education for gifted
students in Norway.
The rationale for this article was that there is a gap in the Norwegian research
literature regarding teachers and giftedness (Børte et al., 2016) and teachers are the
most crucial factor in providing students with the differentiation and adaptation they
need to reach their potential.
The results show that Norwegian teachers want more knowledge about giftedness and
facilitation for gifted students. In this study, the teachers report they gained their
knowledge through their own experience, not necessarily through their teacher
education. Fourteen percent report they had no knowledge about giftedness and gifted
students. There was a small negative correlation (r -.11, p = 0.5) between experience
measured in years and answers to the question “To what degree do you agree or not
that you need more knowledge about gifted students?” teachers with more experience
were less likely to agree with this statement. On the “characteristics of giftedness”
scale, the teachers mostly agreed with positive characteristics such as performing well
in school, being inquisitive, being willing to learn, showing advanced language, and
79
being diligent. However, almost half agreed that gifted students can exhibit disruptive
behavior. The content analysis of the teachers’ descriptions shows codes related to
cognitive and emotional traits such as intelligence, curiosity, high subject knowledge,
and fast learning, as well as behavioral traits such as boredom, hardworking,
problematic behavior, independence, and need for individual adaptation.
Three out of four teachers report that they have, at some point, had a student with
extraordinary learning potential. On average each teacher has had six gifted students,
with three girls (mean 3.24, SD 3.95) and three boys (mean 3.64, SD 3.65). 44 % of
the teachers claim they have gifted students currently, and they report on average two
students each (one boy, one girl). I performed paired samples t-tests to evaluate the
gender difference for reported boys (M 1.42, SD 1.20) and girls (M 1.34, SD 1.36;
t(91) = 1.82, p = .41, two-tailed) which was insignificant (total boys M 3.64, SD 3.65;
total girls M 3.24, SD 3,95; t(164) = 1,81, p = .07, two-tailed).
Because this article provides results from a convenience sample, it is impossible to
generalize the results to all teachers in primary and secondary schools in Norway.
However, this article still contributes essential information about education for gifted
students in Norway. Teachers require knowledge about giftedness and facilitation for
gifted students to provide the differentiation that these students need. Teachers must
consider all the characteristics of gifted students, not only the positive and
performative ones. Even though each teacher statistically should have one gifted
student at any given time, only 44 % of the teachers believe they currently have gifted
students. This result might indicate that some gifted students go unnoticed in Norway.
It seems giftedness should be considered a topic of higher value in Norwegian teacher
education.
80
5.2 Article 2
Lenvik et al. (2021). “We want to be educated!” A thematic analysis of gifted
students’ view on education in Norway. Nordic Studies in Education, 41(3), 219–238.
https://doi.org.10.23865/nse.v41.2621
In the second article, I present the results of the qualitative interview study and
thematic analysis. This article aimed to explore gifted education in Norway through
the student perspective. The main questions for this article were related to how these
students experience school and the educational provisions they receive. I was also
interested in potential differences between primary and secondary school, the
students relationships with teachers, and their preferred teachers.
The results of the inductive thematic analysis are presented in terms of three main
themes: The Educational System, The Joy of Learning, and Problematic issues
Concerning School and Learning. The central phenomenon was that the educational
system in Norwegian schools is not adequately prepared for or invested in gifted
students. The system is not a good fit for the informants, and it is necessary to change
the policy in this regard.
In Theme 1, The Educational System, the analysis shows systematic issues related to
teachers, school, adapted education, and educational law. Teachers can be a
promotional or inhibitory factor in gifted students’ education, especially their
knowledge, attitude, and differentiation. The students prefer professional teachers
who are knowledgeable and know to convey their knowledge, maintain control and a
peaceful environment, and differentiate the curriculum. The students want more
differentiated groups but consider this to be problematic in the Norwegian
educational system. There is also a systematic issue concerning acceleration and
facilitation, especially in primary school.
81
In Theme 2, The Joy of Learning, the analysis revealed various learning methods in
school. The informants convey how they enjoy learning new things, especially logical
subjects and overlapping projects that combine different subjects and elements.
In Theme 3, Problematic Issues Concerning School and Learning, the analysis shows
various problematic issues that disturb gifted students’ learning. These issues may
include disruptions from other students, frustration with repetition, becoming bored
and frustrated, and not receiving proper adaptation and facilitation. In their boredom,
these students may display disruptive behaviors in the form of daydreaming or
physical disruptions.
The students are only reporting on their own experiences, and there could be other
students in Norway with vastly different experiences from the ones presented in this
article. Still, it contributes valuable information about the situation of gifted students
in Norway. The results indicate a need to consider the systematic challenges with
gifted education in Norway, especially concerning differentiation, acceleration, and
adaption.
5.3 Article 3
Lenvik et al. (2022) Adapted education for gifted students in Norway: A mixed-
methods study.
In this article, I combine the two studies focusing on facilitation and adaptation for
gifted students. I use a subsample of the teacher survey composed of teachers who
answered “Yes” regarding whether they had gifted students currently (N = 132). I use
a mixed-method approach with descriptive results from the quantitative survey, the
qualitative results from the interview study, and combining the qualitative results
from students with the teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey questions
regarding adaption in school. The overarching research question was “How is
82
education adapted for gifted students in Norway?”, with quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed sub-questions.
The results show that teachers in our selection agree that they use differentiation in
their instruction, that it is possible to differentiate instruction, and that gifted students
require adaptation beyond ordinary education.
From the inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews with students, we
developed three themes, adapted education, the teacher as a promoter or inhibitor,
and barriers regarding facilitation. These themes display the various instruction
strategies students have experienced. Furthermore, they show the kind of teacher the
students prefer and how teachers can be inhibitors if they do not facilitate
appropriately. The themes also reveal various types of barriers and challenges in
education.
From the deductive thematic analysis of teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey
question, we developed four themes, individually adapted education, instructional
practices, the supporting teacher, and systematic challenges. These themes show how
teachers adapt the education they provide, as well as how teachers vary their
instruction, support, and motivate their students, and experience systematic
challenges for adapted education.
In the mixed analysis, we found both similarities and differences between the teacher
and student themes. Both groups reported similar enrichment strategies within
adapted education and barriers and systematic challenges regarding facilitation. There
were differences in how the two groups described group work and acceleration. The
students mentioned group work in a mixed-ability group, and the teachers wanted to
utilize more homogenous groups. The students mentioned full-time acceleration and
subject acceleration, while the teachers only reported acceleration in the form of
using books and assignments from a higher level.
83
6. Discussion
This section combines and discusses the results from both studies and all three
articles, combined with the theories, educational history and notion of power
presented in this synopsis. The aim is to synthesize the results to achieve a systematic
perspective.
6.1 Different definitions and characterizations of gifted
students
As mentioned in Chapter 3, I use two different definitions of giftedness in this thesis:
the “potential” definition (Gagné, 1995, 2010; Idsøe, 2014) and an IQ-based
definition with a cut off at the 95th percentile. The rationale for using these two
definitions is explained in Chapter 3.
In Article 1 and the results for the “characteristics of giftedness” scale, we see that
teachers typically agree with the positive characteristics listed and have a positive
view of giftedness. Their attitudes are not measured, so we cannot say whether they
have positive attitudes toward gifted education, as, for example, the teachers in
Finland have (Laine et al., 2019). However, their positive characterization of gifted
students seems to be more in line with the harmony hypothesis than the disharmony
hypothesis, in contrast with teachers in Germany and Australia (Matheis et al., 2017).
Persson (1998) argues that teachers in Sweden view gifted students as golden or ideal
students. There are similar tendencies among Norwegian teachers as well.
The characteristic that the teachers most often agree with is “performs well at
school.” This result coincides with the misconception that high ability equals high
achievement and may mean that underachievers are in danger of being overlooked as
gifted in Norway. This result aligns with previous research in which teachers focus on
achievement (Endepohls‐Ulpe & Ruf, 2006; Heyder et al., 2020; Lavrijsen &
Verschueren, 2020).
84
Underachievement is an issue in gifted education internationally (see, e.g., Hebert,
2001). The material in this thesis cannot indicate the prevalence of underachievement
among gifted students in Norway. However, underachievement may be an issue,
especially because one of the factors in underachievement is a lack of differentiation
and adaptation in school. In Articles 2 and 3, the results show a lack of proper
differentiation and systematic issues with acceleration and facilitation for gifted
students in Norway. In Article 2, the results show that a lack of differentiation can
result in boredom and disruptive behavior among the gifted students in the study.
There are also indications that gifted students are less motivated and do not perform
as well as they think they could when assignments are considered boring and
unchallenging.
In the literature review, there were indications of biases, for example, biases related
to gender. I do not have data that indicate a gender bias in Norway. There was no
significant difference in the quantitative survey between how many gifted boys and
girls the teachers had had experience with. In Study 2, however, there were eleven
boys and six girls. This reflects a gender difference in terms of nomination for this
study. I did not include gender as a variable in nomination, because I did not want to
exclude some gifted boys because fewer girls had been nominated. This may still
indicate that the result in this study is more expressive of the boys’ perspective than
the girls’. We do not know the differences in how gifted boys and gifted girls in
Norway view and experience their education. This should be explored in further
research.
The research field of gifted education is considered new in Norway, although, as we
saw in the introduction, Hofseth wrote a thesis about gifted students in 1968.
Education for the gifted in Norway may be more undeveloped than new. Because
there are no official programs or policies for gifted education, I have not considered
racial, cultural, or socioeconomic equity within gifted education in this study. The
lack of an official definition of giftedness in Norway also means that Norway has the
opportunity to elude the stereotypical views and biases regarding giftedness by going
85
directly to a definition of giftedness without gifted students (Borland, 2021). Suppose
Norway, instead, utilizes the differentiation paradigm and differentiates according to
the needs and predispositions of each student, one not based on a definition of
giftedness that may exclude students with diverse backgrounds. In that case, there
will be an opportunity to enhance education for all students. This paradigm would
also fit with the egalitarian views prevalent in Norway (Frantz & McClarty, 2016).
However, is this differentiation paradigm possible within the educational system in
Norway?
6.2 Giftedness within the Norwegian educational history
In this section, I will use the historical review provided in Chapter 3.3 as a scope for
gifted education in Norway.
The educational history of Norway shows how Norway went from education for the
few to a compulsory Christianity school for all and, ultimately, to an egalitarian
tradition aiming to provide an inclusive, equitable, and adapted education for all
students, regardless of their needs, abilities, and predispositions (Høigård & Ruge,
1963; Kvam, 2016; Nordahl et al., 2018; Thuen, 2017).
General education was made available to the people in the eighteenth century.
However, not everyone was deemed educable. There was clearly power in education
and determining who could or could not receive an education. The educational
system in this century had no room for social mobility, because there were different
schools for the different socioeconomic levels of society (Hommerstad, 2018). Only
those attending Latin schools could go on to further education, and these schools
became more and more exclusive, representing elite schools for the upper class
(Thuen, 2017). Children from lower socioeconomic groups had almost no chance of
going on with higher education, unless they were discovered as gifted.
86
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain methods of targeting clever or
gifted students, using competition and rewards or the Bell-Lancaster method,
emerged (Høigård & Ruge, 1963; Thuen, 2017). However, these methods did not
consider what gifted students needed.
With the new public schools created in 1889, the government wanted to provide
proper education for all children in Norway, independent of their social class or
standing. Again, the issue of power is apparent. The state took responsibility for
schools and education and established a comprehensive five-year public school, and
the state needed to nurture its garden (Ball, 2013; Kvam, 2016). A few years
previously, in 1881, the government passed a special educational law, with
segregated schools for children with special needs, though a large group was still
considered unfit for education (Befring, 2012). The Binet-Simon Scale was used to
weed out those children who were considered “imbeciles” or “idiots”. However, there
are no references to this scale being used to identify those on the opposite side.
In the beginning of the twentieth century, compulsory school (5 years) was
considered the same for all, but secondary and upper secondary school were
differentiated into lines or schools. There were different upper secondary schools for
children from the city or countryside, and only the most diligent students went to
these schools. “Realskolen” was established in 1935 and intended to be concluding,
with students who wanted further education attending Latin schools (Thuen, 2017).
Here, we see how organizational differentiation through different courses and lines
remained a prominent aspect of power. Even after the Second World War, those who
attended education beyond the compulsory were mostly sons of academics or part of
the upper societal layer (Thuen, 2017).
The 1954 law regarding trials in schools (lov om forsøk I skolen) allowed attempts at
various types of organizational differentiation in school, and secondary school was
split into different lines. In this period, the schools and school psychologists also used
the maturity test developed by PFI for individual differentiation and creating an
87
effective educational system (Thuen, 2017). However, this attempt did not have the
desired results (Volckmar, 2016). Organizational differentiation into different lines
was ended in 1967, but differentiation between courses or levels in each subject
remained.
One interesting aspect in this period was a discussion of equality in school, with
equality of results being the goal. A minimum goal was set, and all students were
intended to achieve this result. Hofseth wrote his thesis at this time, but because his
results showed that the gifted students achieved proper results (even if they weren’t
truly enjoying school or developing their potential) (Hofseth, 1970), there was no
need to advocate for this group. Regarding equality of results, their needs were being
met, and it was deemed more important to focus on those students who were falling
behind and not achieving the necessary results. Another important point is the
discussion of meritocracy and the fear of a “mercilessly intelligence overclass
system” (Thuen, 2017). It seems that catering to the needs of gifted students would
lead to a meritocracy. As a continuation of this thought, M74 cancelled all forms of
organizational differentiation in secondary school and utilized adapted education as
individual pedagogical differentiation. Frantz and McClarty (2016) view the
difference between meritocratic and egalitarian cultures as an important distinction,
and organizational differentiation for gifted students in segregated schools or groups
is prominent in the more meritocratic cultures.
In the 1970s, Hernes discussed equality. In the 1980s, he was more concerned with
the lack of ambition in Norwegian higher education, and when he became Minister
for Church, Education, and Research in 1990, he reformed the entire educational
system (Kvam, 2016; Thuen, 2017; Volckmar, 2016). In view of gifted education, the
new L97 curriculum gave less freedom to teachers to differentiate as they deemed
necessary.
The new “knowledge school” in 2006 had ambitions to create a better school by
providing better content, quality assessment, learning strategies, and individually
88
adapted education (Thuen, 2017). Both the teachers and students in my study are a
part of this school type and follow this curriculum. Even though this school type was
created with great ambitions, especially in the form of individually adapted
education, my results indicate that this has not been the case for the gifted students in
Norway. Neither students nor teachers have experience with individual adaptation in
the form of individual plans or interventions. Of course, some would argue that
providing more difficult assignments or books from a higher level could be seen as
individually adapted education. The problem is that this is only a small part of a
larger picture and does not follow the best practices for gifted students (Gagné,
2015). The closest this situation comes to individual adaptation is skipping a grade or
completing accelerated classes.
If we draw a historical line, we can see that different types of differentiation have
been tested in the Norwegian system. Organizational differentiation into different
schools, lines, or courses failed because they either were too exclusive or did not
provide properly for student diversity. Of course, the debate over inclusive schools
ultimately led to demands for an end to segregation, or organizational differentiation.
Pedagogical differentiation requires a great deal from each teacher, maybe too much.
Hofseth (1970) found a 5–7-year difference in maturity between the students in one
class. There is no reason to think this difference is less now. Haug (2020a) identifies
at least a 4-year gap in first grade, and this gap only widens as the children grow. Is it
possible to demand that each teacher differentiate individually with such a huge gap?
An egalitarian tradition means that everyone should receive the same opportunities;
however, what a person makes of their opportunities is up to them. As I discuss in
Article 3, this egalitarian tradition may be considered a barrier to gifted education in
Norway because it hinders the use of some of the proper educational tools for gifted
students (Gagné, 2015). It may be the result of a fear of going back in history to a
time when higher education was for the elites. The egalitarian view determines that
education is for all. Everyone, regardless of their cognitive or learning potential, has
the right to the same education.
89
Finland is also considered egalitarian, and teachers in Finland display a negative
attitude toward educational practices such as acceleration and ability grouping (Laine
et al., 2019). In Sweden, Persson (2010) argues that egalitarian Swedish education
aims for every student to achieve to a minimum level, while those with the ability to
achieve much more are left alone to fend for themselves. With regard to discussions
of results equality, we see the same in Norway.
The differentiation paradigm, as well as Renzulli’s three rings, Mönks and Katzko’s
MMG, and Gagnè’s model, all argue that gifted students require educational
provisions to help develop their potential (Borland, 2021; Gagné, 2004; Mönks &
Katzko, 2005; Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). Outside of school, in sports or music, for
example, there are countless opportunities for musically or physically gifted students
to hone and develop their potential. Why is it so much more difficult for school and
academic potential? Of course, there are different values and histories concerning
school and extracurricular activities. Schools value community and building
companionship across ability and socioeconomic levels, creating mutual trust and a
common understanding (Volckmar, 2016). Inclusive education requires that everyone
has a place in their local school and is provided for. Even so, the educational system
may be able to learn something from sports, for example, and it is possible to work on
both the general inclusive part and talent development at the same time.
The differentiation paradigm (Borland, 2021) argues for a practice that differentiates
individually for those students who need differentiation. Gagnè (2015) presents the
best practices for differentiation in gifted education: density, difficulty, depth, and
diversity. Density is the most important, meaning that the curriculum is condensed
and accelerated. In Article 3, we see that both teachers and students have the most
experience with differentiation through difficulty and depth, while acceleration
strategies, such as density, are lacking or result in self-study for the student.
Organizational differentiation is problematic, and the Norwegian educational law
prohibits permanent ability groups (The Education Act, § 8-2, 1998), probably
because of the negative history of organizational differentiation. As the results from
90
Sweden and Finland display, negative attitudes toward ability groups are mirrored in
other Nordic countries (Laine et al., 2019; Persson, 2010). It may be challenging to
achieve the differentiation paradigm and proper individual differentiation in Norway.
Frantz and McClarty (2016) show different versions of gifted education within
egalitarian traditions, including giftedness within special needs education. Is that
possible in Norway?
6.3 Gifted education within special education
Before I consider gifted education within the tradition of special needs education, we
must look back at the history of special education and the aspect of power.
Students with special educational needs are said to be included in their local school,
but we still talk about them using special wording. These students receive something
different from the norm; they are in a field for “special specialists” (Ball, 2013). They
are not part of the mainstream, and even if they are in the same classroom or the same
school, they are still seen as outcasts or somewhat different from the others. They
may be included, but that does not mean that the schools are inclusive.
When viewing this through a genealogical lens, we see the concept of power. There is
power in education and creating knowledge, and therefore, there is power in deciding
who can be educated and who cannot. As mentioned above, the genealogy of
education is marked by ideas of normality and classification/exclusion. Special
education contributes, in large part, to ideas of both normality and
classification/exclusion. Who do we consider normal, and who is classified as
“abnormal,” atypical, or extraordinary and thus in need of special education? In
addition, who may have special educational needs but still be excluded from such?
The words we use to describe those in need of special education are also related to
power. These words are socially formed, through experiences, and they are a part of
reasoning constructed through history through the effects of power (Popkewitz &
91
Brennan, 1998). Power is evident in both the language concerning special needs
education and actions taken both locally and systematically. Defining someone as
having a special educational need could be very stigmatizing for them, especially if
this would mean they were separated from their peers and taught in different rooms.
Students in special education have a “special” need, even if their need is the same as
every other student, that is, to be educated according to their predispositions.
Defining something as abnormal is always problematic. We have, fortunately, left the
outdated historical view of “biological caesura” and “cleansing” the species. We
agree that everyone has the right to an education on their terms and that a special
educational need is accommodated through special education, at least regarding those
attending ordinary education and those with “approved” special educational needs.
As of now, gifted students do not have an approved special need.
Schools are also a place where observation, training, and treatment are used to change
behavior or mold a body or mind. Within education, discipline is a normalizing
practice, for example, by making the body docile and ready to learn (Knudsmoen &
Simonsen, 2016). In later days, neuropsychiatric diagnoses have more often been
used to explain negative behavior in school. This behavior is then understood as an
individual problem that can be medicated. Using Foucault, it is more natural to see
the negative behavior from a student perspective. Norms, problematization,
marginalization, and exclusion are the results of a diagnostic practice, rather than a
wish to protect the student in an inclusive setting (Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016).
In research on special education in Norway, Foucault and his theories have not been
prominent (Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016). However, Steinsholt (2011, from
Knudsmoen & Simonsen, 2016) considered Foucault’s critical view on discipline and
normalization. He knits the critical view together with the individual’s position as a
learner, the context of ordinary education, special education, and the notion of
“satisfactory yield.” What really counts as satisfactory, and who has the power to
decide when the yield is not satisfactory? This is relevant for gifted students, who do
not have a satisfactory yield but are still not considered in need of special education.
92
If we look back at the history of special needs education in Norway, we see that
power through exclusion and classification is important. At first, this power was in
deeming who could be educated and who could not be. Now, everyone is educable by
law, and everyone has a right to attend the school in their neighborhood. Power is
nevertheless still significant, and classification is still prominent. Students are
classified based on grades, educational needs, diagnoses, gender, restlessness,
shyness, outspokenness, and many other formal and informal classifications. Gifted
students may or may not be classified as gifted; as seen in chapter 3, there are
different conceptions of giftedness, and these will influence whether a student is
considered gifted. In the survey, we provided the teachers with a definition of
giftedness; however, they may have had other definitions in mind when answering
the questions or identifying their gifted students. Underachievement may be an issue,
especially if a teacher, first and foremost, considers giftedness in the form of high
achievement, as is prominent in Article 1. High or extraordinary learning potential
(NOU 2016:14, 2016) may be difficult to identify without considering achievement.
As the results from Article 1 show, this is especially the case if teachers lack
knowledge about giftedness and associated traits and characteristics beyond high
achievement.
Traditionally, the individual focus is prominent in special needs education (Tangen,
2012). There can be much talk about challenges and problems, both in the system and
when discussing a student. I have academically “grown up” in this tradition because I
have both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in special needs education. Does this
mean that I have a “problem-based” view of the educational system? Does this shape
my view of gifted education? I may see the problems and challenges clearly, but not
the eminent solutions. Another issue regarding my relationship to special needs
education is that I may be too tightly connected to this paradigm. Maybe, my
relationship blocks me from seeing the challenges in a different light. However, it is
also important to problematize the experiences of gifted students because they have
educational needs that are not being accommodated. The qualitative literature review
93
paints a problematic picture regarding education for gifted students. The summary
shows a need for various educational strategies, such as problem-solving, enrichment,
and homogenous ability groups. The qualitative results from my interviews display
the same results. Norwegian gifted students have the same needs as international
gifted students. Adopting a “problem-based” view may provide me with a discourse
that is necessary for explaining the issues within education for gifted students in
Norway.
Another issue with my relationship to this paradigm is history. Special needs
education history shows how “the imbeciles, the idiots, the mentally ill” (to use the
wordings from a different time) and all those deemed uneducable, after decades of
atrocities such as sterilization and demonization, finally gained their right to be
educated like everyone else. However, equity is still an issue within special education
because not everyone with special educational needs receives the same quality of
education as students in ordinary education (Nordahl et al., 2018). The gifted have
not faced this history, although they have received their share of stigmatization. Is it
right, considering this history, to include the gifted within the special needs education
paradigm? The gifted have not been excluded from education, but they might be
excluded from an education adapted appropriately to their needs and predispositions.
Educational history also shows that, even though there were trials with organizational
differentiation, these were not specifically aimed at gifted students. In fear of
returning to education for the elites or creating a new intellectual overclass, the
education for gifted students has been ill-managed. The history of gifted education is
a history of a group that has been viewed as able to manage independently and fend
for themselves. However, history has proven that this is not the case. This group also
requires unique accommodation based on their special educational needs (e.g., Cross,
1997, 2014; Gagné, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011).
One of the problems with not including the gifted in this regard is that, if they do not
receive accommodation for their educational needs, they are in danger of becoming
underachievers, troublesome, or disruptive and developing social and emotional
94
difficulties. They are also in danger of being bullied (Cross, 2014; Damsgaard &
Opsahl, 2016; Smedsrud, 2018; Subotnik et al., 2011). Another problem is that they
may not achieve to the best of their abilities without accommodation. All these
factors are considered part of the tradition of special needs education. If schools do
not attend to gifted students’ educational needs, because they are not considered in
need of special education, they may come to need special education due to this lack
of accommodation. Gifted students may also have learning disabilities, physical
disabilities, or psychological disabilities and be considered twice-exceptional (Lie,
2014). Twice-exceptional students have the right to special education to
accommodate their disabilities but not their gifts (NDET, n.d.b). Is it possible to
facilitate properly while not considering all the needs of the student?
Of course, not all gifted students will require special education. The gifted group is
heterogenous, and while some students manage quite well, other do not. The teachers
in my survey agree that gifted students require more than ordinary adapted education.
This might mean special education or simply a more individually adapted education.
Even though the students in my qualitative study had many similar experiences, there
were also differences. Some managed quite well, enriched their own assignments, or
attended accelerated courses. Others had more negative experiences with disruptive
behavior and almost dropping out of school. These extremities would not require the
same type of intervention or adaptation.
Today, approximately 8% of the student body receives adaptation through special
education (NDET, n.d.b). However, there are also many other students in school who
have a need for individual facilitation who are not considered part of those in need of
special education. Some scholars argue that up to 20% of the student population is in
need of individual facilitation (Haug, 2020a; Hausstätter, 2012). This indicates that
gifted students are not the only group of students who require more specialized
adaptation.
95
Another important factor is the line between ordinary and special education. They are
part of the same story and interdependent on one another. Special education is not
just for those attending special schools anymore, and high quality in ordinary
education lessens the need for special interventions through special education (Mjøs
et al., 2020). This means that gifted students who attend schools with high-quality
ordinary education will be more likely to have their needs met than those who do not.
The political aim of reducing the amount of special education (Mjøs et al., 2020) is
also important when considering who is in need of special education. One issue is the
conflicts between different imperatives and understandings of both what constitutes
high-quality education and how to achieve it (Haug, 2020b). Adapted education can
be considered within a broad or narrow perspective, where the narrow perspective is
more individualistic (Haug, 2020a; Olsen, 2020). Which perspective schools and
teachers are utilizing will then influence what kind of adaptation and facilitation
gifted students receive.
According to both my survey with teachers and the interviews with students, it is
clear that gifted students require some kind of special pedagogical facilitation.
However, whether this should be a part of special education, ordinary broad adapted
education, or a narrower form of adapted education is not clear from my material.
Previous studies in Norway have not provided a clear answer to this question. The
answer will depend on the quality of ordinary education, how local policies and
national policies adjust to interventions for gifted students, and the individual
teacher’s ability to adapt material to and facilitate for their students.
6.4 Upcoming changes and the road ahead
How can we approach the results of this thesis concerning educational law and
systematic challenges? As Haug states, “It is impossible to avoid policy,” and with
that, he refers to both the national policy and the local policy of each school,
including how they prioritize (Haug, 2020b). Haug further explains that national
96
support, policy, and priorities are essential in developing inclusive education. This is
also true for gifted education.
One option is to expand special education to include gifted students. The Education
Act § 5-1 states the following: Students who do not have or cannot get satisfactory
yield from the ordinary educational offer have a right to special education.
According to the law, it seems that gifted students have a right to special education
because they are so far ahead of their peers that they do not obtain a satisfactory
yield. However, the NDET (2014) has specified that gifted students do not have the
right to special education, because special education is meant to provide for those
who are behind.
The Education Act of 1998 is now up for revision. In the proposition for a new
Education Act, the official report argues for a change in both the terminology and
content regarding both adapted education and special education (NOU 2019: 23,
2019). The act proposes changing adapted education to universal education and
special education to individually adapted education. The authors argue that universal
education is more in line with how adapted education is considered now, variation
within instruction, and a “whole group” approach. Previously, adapted education was
considered to be more individual adaptation (Jenssen & Lillejord, 2010). Would
universal education be better for gifted students than adapted education? According
to the authors of the official report, gifted students are not considered in individually
adapted education but, rather, one of the groups that requires adaptation within
universal education (NOU 2019: 23, 2019). There is less individualism in the current
understanding of adapted education; however, the differentiation and adaptation that
gifted students need acquire a certain degree of individualism. Accelerative practices,
skipping grades, or a personally accelerated pace are not variations for the entire
class. Is it possible to provide the individual differentiation that gifted students
require within adapted or universal education? Is the current understanding of
adapted education hindering appropriate adaptation for gifted students? Within
special education, the individual approach to education is more prominent, which
97
could be another argument for some gifted students being accommodated within
special education, not adapted education.
I am not convinced changing from adapted education to universal education will
provide better adaptation for gifted students. However, it is impossible to predict
exactly how the new education act will function and what changes it will bring to the
entire educational system. One thing is certain, though; the new education act
provides ample opportunity to make changes for the better for gifted students.
Both students and teachers in my study point to systematic challenges with ability
grouping as a form of organizational differentiation. The literature review showed
negative attitudes toward ability grouping. Other researchers argue that ability
grouping has a minimal effect on students’ achievement (e.g., Hattie, 2009).
However, ability grouping positively affects gifted students, and flexible grouping
based on formative assessment, acceleration, and accounting for prior knowledge and
ability has apparent positive effects (Hattie, 2009; Missett et al., 2014). Permanent
ability groups are not allowed within the educational system in Norway (apart from
students in special schools or permanent groups) (The Education Act, § 8-2, 1998).
Based on the results derived from both teachers and students in this thesis, it seems
that flexible grouping based on ability is not used, although this is permitted. This is
not even done in group work, because the gifted students complain about being
assigned to mixed-ability groups in which they do “the lion’s share” of the work. The
official report concludes that flexible grouping is a missed opportunity that schools
and teachers should utilize more often (NOU 2016:14, 2016). What changes do we
need for schools and teachers to be able to utilize flexible grouping? Do schools need
more knowledge about the available resources and possibilities, or do they need
knowledge about utilizing these possibilities? My results show that gifted students
experience repetition, too slow a pace, unchallenging assignments, and boredom. The
educational system is not considering their prior knowledge and abilities and
differentiating accordingly.
98
Acceleration is also a systematic challenge, especially when it becomes self-study for
the student. Teachers may have negative attitudes toward acceleration (Bernstein et
al., 2020; Laine et al., 2019), often based on the misconception that accelerated gifted
students will have social issues in their new class. However, acceleration does not
necessarily mean skipping a grade; accelerative practices may include compacting the
curriculum or individually accelerated practice (Gagné, 2015). There is a need to
investigate how to better utilize accelerated practices within the Norwegian
educational system and expand the notion of what acceleration is.
The official report regarding the future of schools in Norway argues for depth
learning (NOU 2015:8, 2015). Depth learning is one of the D’s that Gagné (2015)
discusses as part of the best practice for gifted students. The new curriculum based on
this report was published in 2020, so how this change toward depth learning will
affect gifted students is not known. However, the report argues for individual
progression, which indicates a certain form of individual adaptation. Will the local
and national policies follow the intentions in the official report?
When I argue to change the system, I may be a bit strict. Maybe, the system itself is
not what we need to change but, rather, how teachers and schools understand and
maneuver through the system. There are possibilities for acceleration, differentiation,
and flexible grouping within the system. There are some constraints concerning the
directorate’s limitations on special education and the current interpretation of adapted
education. However, there are options for utilizing the system to a higher degree.
Time and resources are considered barriers, but are they truly the barriers to a
differentiated education? Might one of the barriers be the current understanding of the
system as a more strict, limited, and narrow system than it is? This poses the
following question: does this thesis provide a new understanding of the educational
system in Norway, or is it reproducing our current perceptions? There is no clear
answer to the question of how to provide for gifted students within the Norwegian
educational system. This issue is complicated and requires that all levels work
together. However, I point to some possibilities for change, for example, utilizing
99
acceleration strategies, providing enrichment opportunities, flexible grouping, and
more individualized adaptation for gifted students in Norway.
100
7. Implications and further research
7.1 Concluding remarks
In this thesis, I set out to explore gifted education in Norway, with the goal of
emerging at the other side with a better understanding of how we provide for our
gifted students. My conclusion is that teachers are doing what they can within their
understanding of the system, although they have some misconceptions (such as that
“high ability equals high achievement”) and limited knowledge about proper
educational practices and possibilities within the system for gifted students. However,
because gifted students are not prioritized within special education and adapted
education is, first and foremost, considered with a “whole group” approach, there is
still much more to do to provide gifted students with an education that is adapted
appropriately.
As I conclude this thesis, I must acknowledge that there is still much more to learn
about gifted education in Norway. In this chapter, I will present some implications
based on the results of this thesis and suggestions for further research.
One implication of this thesis is that there is a need for changes in and within the
educational system to better provide for gifted students in Norway. There is a need
for more information and knowledge about giftedness, gifted education, and
educational strategies such as differentiation and acceleration within teacher
education. However, my results are obtained from convenience samples and may not
be generalizable across the entire country. I do propose some changes, such as
including giftedness within special education or adopting the differentiation
paradigm. Still, I cannot conclude, purely based on my results, that these are the
changes that will benefit gifted students the most.
101
7.2 Further research
Does the teacher education provide future teachers with enough knowledge about
differentiation and giftedness? The results of this thesis indicate that it does not. The
results suggest that teacher education should be changed to include more information
on effective educational practices and handling stereotypes and misconceptions
concerning giftedness and gifted education. Also, knowledge about how to maneuver
through the system is important as well. However, regular teacher education has been
changed from a four-year bachelor’s degree to a five-year master’s degree during the
span of this study. Hopefully, this means that some of these changes are included in
the new master’s degree. This should be investigated in further research.
What this thesis has not considered is, among other equity issues in gifted education
in Norway, how do we work toward a gifted education that is inclusive of minority
groups? What issues lie within the system for gifted students with other cultural and
language backgrounds? Nor has it considered differences between genders. Is it the
same to be a gifted boy and a gifted girl in Norway? What differences might there be
in this regard, and are there misconceptions and stereotypes about specific genders
among Norwegian teachers? Another interesting question would be “what are the
special needs of gifted students?” Do gifted students have substantially different
needs than other students? Would a gifted and non-gifted sample answer differently
on questions regarding their need for adaptation and facilitation in school?
I have included the aspect of power in this thesis; however, there is still more to
discuss and explore on this issue. How does power influence education in Norway?
What groups are underserved because of issues related to power?
Disruptive behavior was evident in both studies. Almost half of the teachers agreed
that gifted students might be disruptive, and the students mentioned how being bored
and unchallenged led to disruptive behavior. The results of this thesis cannot reveal
how prevalent disruptive behavior is or what kind of disruptive behaviors gifted
102
students display. This should be investigated in further research, as well as how to
mitigate this behavior.
Talent development within various fields would be an exciting study in further
research. Why is it easier to talk about talent development in music and sport? Could
those in charge of the development of academic talent learn something from talent
development in other areas, as well as how to apply these policies within a
Norwegian discourse? Is the notion of practice evident in other areas applicable to
education and academic talent? As I write this, I am also watching the Olympic
Games unfold in Tokyo. In this area, no one debates the necessity of developing the
potential of each performer. On the other hand, just some days previously, during the
International Mathematical Olympiad, one participant from Norway managed to win
the Silver medal, and another the Bronze medal, which I have seen or heard no
mention of in Norwegian newspapers (International Mathematical Olympiad, 2021). I
must say I find that interesting, a bit sad, but hardly surprising. Why are the attitudes
so different toward outstanding academic performance as compared to performance
in sports?
Based on the results of this thesis, we see systematic challenges concerning
acceleration in education. However, we have no data on the prevalence of
acceleration through skipping grades or starting school earlier. Are the accelerated
students in Norway pleased with this provision? In what scenarios are students
prohibited from accelerative practices? How can we better accommodate those who
require subject acceleration?
It would also be interesting to look beyond our borders and combine research from
the other Nordic countries. Do these countries have similar barriers for gifted students
in education, and if not, what are the differences?
Although this thesis marks the end of my Ph.D. journey, we are still at the starting
line of the marathon of gifted education in Norway; there is an almost infinite amount
103
to learn and investigate further. I am ready to continue investigating and learning
much more about gifted education, talent development, and proper interventions for
gifted students.
Finally, I want to thank the reader who has followed and read this thesis all the way
through. I hope I have managed to convey some of the knowledge I have gained
through this study and provided an increased interest in the education of gifted
students.
104
Source of data
Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). A study of gifted high, moderate, and low
achievers in their personal characteristics and attitudes toward school and
teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 28(3).
Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality
characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19(4), 229–
236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553835
Allotey, G. A., Watters, J. J., & King, D. (2020). Ghanaian science and mathematics
teachers’ beliefs about gifted education strategies. Gifted Education
International, 36(3), 250–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261429420946732
Ambrose, D. (2021). Interdisciplinary exploration guiding conceptions of giftedness.
I R. Sternberg J. & D. Ambrose (Ed.), Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent
(p. 1–20). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-56869-6_3
Askildt, A., & Johnsen, B. H. (2012). Spesialpedagogiske røtter og fagets utvikling i
Norge. I E. Befring & R. Tangen (Ed.), Spesialpedagogikk (5th edition) (Pp.
59–75). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among
gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 42(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200102
Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, Power and Education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group; US.
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about
the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1),
37–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
105
Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–247.
JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/799147
Befring, E. (2012). Spesialpedagogikk: historisk framvekst, ansvarsoppgaver,
forståelsesmåter og nye perspektiver. I.E. Befring & R. Tangen (Red.),
Spesialpedagogikk (5th edition) (Pp. 33–58). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Bernstein, B. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020). Academic acceleration in
gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-
year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 32(2), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200202
Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods
in Social & Behavioral Research (s. 95–118). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n4
Bjorklund, Jr., P. (2019). “Whoa. You Speak Mexican?”: Latina/o high school
students’ sense of belonging in Advanced Placement and honors classes.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 24(2), 109–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1570202
Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between social-emotional difficulties and
underachievement of gifted students. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 24(2), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2014.1
Borland, J. H. (2021). The trouble with conceptions of giftedness. I R. J. Sternberg
& D. Ambrose (Red.), Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent (s. 37–49).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-
6_3
106
Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. (2006). behavioral identification and assessment of
gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
24(2), 112–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282905285246
Brandišauskienė, A. (2019). ‘I am more than my IQ:’ Analysis of the experience of a
gifted learner. Gifted Education International, 35(3), 201–215.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429419840648
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brevik, L. M., & Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2016). Differensiert undervisning for
høytpresterende elever med stort læringspotensial. Acta Didactica Norge,
10(2), 212–234.
Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice
and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning
potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003
Brigandi, C. B., Gilson, C. M., & Miller, M. (2019). Professional development and
differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted
education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362–
395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418
Brigandi, C. B., Siegle, D., Weiner, J. M., Gubbins, E. J., & Little, C. A. (2016).
Gifted secondary school students: The perceived relationship between
enrichment and goal valuation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
39(4), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216671837
Buchanan, I. (2010a). Dasein. In A Dictionary of Critical Theory. Oxford University
Press.
107
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199532919.001.00
01/acref-9780199532919-e-159
Buchanan, I. (2010b). Praxis. In A Dictionary of Critical Theory. Oxford University
Press.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199532919.001.00
01/acref-9780199532919-e-554
Børte, K., Lillejord, S., & Johansson, L. (2016). Evnerike elever og elever med stort
læringspotensial: En forskningsoppsummering. Kunnskapssenter for
utdanning.
Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students by
teacher ratings: Parent ratings and student self-reports in Hong Kong. High
Ability Studies, 11(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/713669176
Cosmovici, E. M., Idsoe, T., Bru, E., & Munthe, E. (2009). Perceptions of learning
environment and on‐task orientation among students reporting different
achievement levels: A study conducted among Norwegian secondary
school students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), 379–
396. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830903043174
Cravens, H. (1992). A scientific project locked in time: The Terman Genetic Studies
of Genius, 1920s–1950s. American Psychologist, 47(2), 183.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.183
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. JSTOR.
Cross, T. L. (1997). Guiding and supporting the development of gifted children, Part
One. Gifted Child Today, 20(5), 46–49.
108
https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759702000513
Cross, T. L. (2014). Social emotional needs: The effects of educational
malnourishment on the psychological well-being of gifted students. Gifted
Child Today, 37(4), 264–265.
Cross, T. L., Adams, C., Dixon, F., & Holland, J. (2004). Psychological
characteristics of academically gifted adolescents attending a residential
academy: A longitudinal study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
28(2), 159–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235320402800203
Damsgaard, H. L., & Opsahl, M. (2016). “Det smarteste var å ikke være smart” –
evnerike elevers skolelivskvalitet. Spesialpedagogikk, 6.
https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2016/det-smarteste-var-a-ikke-vare-
smart--evnerike-elevers-skolelivskvalitet/
Dennis, B. (2018). Validity as research praxis: A study of self-reflection and
engagement in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(2), 109–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416686371
Dodillet, S. (2019). Inclusive elite education in Sweden: Insights from implementing
excellence programs into an egalitarian school culture. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 63(2), 258–271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1336480
Dreyfus, H. L., & Wrathall, M. A. (2007). A Companion to Heidegger. John Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bergen-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=350875
Eckhoff, N. (2001). Einskapsskolens historie i Noreg. Norske Samlaget.
Endepohls‐Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2006). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the
identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228.
109
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140
Erdogan, A., & Yemenli, E. (2019). Gifted students’ attitudes towards mathematics:
A qualitative multidimensional analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1),
37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9562-5
Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Red.). (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers
in health and social sciences. Blackwell Science.
Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology
meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2),
181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401
Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2015). Intellectual giftedness and
psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature
review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779
Frantz, R. S., & McClarty, K. L. (2016). Gifted education’s reflection of country-
specific cultural, political, and economic features. Gifted and Talented
International, 31(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1220794
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report; Fort Lauderdale, 20(9), 1408–1416.
Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact
on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553709
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
Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies,
110
21(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281–295.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9
Gagné, F. (2018). Attitudes toward gifted education: Retrospective and prospective
update. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 60(1), 26.
Gallagher, K. (Red.). (2008). The methodological dilemma: Creative, critical, and
collaborative approaches to qualitative research. Routledge.
Geake, J. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward
academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704
Gómez-Arízaga, M. P., & Conejeros-Solar, M. L. (2013). Am I That Talented? The
experiences of gifted individuals from diverse educational backgrounds at the
postsecondary level. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 135–151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.838898
Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., Valdivia-Lefort, M., Castillo-Hermosilla, H., Hébert, T. P., &
Conejeros-Solar, M. L. (2020). Tales from within: Gifted students’ lived
experiences with teaching practices in regular classrooms. Education
Sciences, 10(5), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050137
Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The role of
numbers made easy. Continuum.
Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of
consequence. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (s. 119–144). SAGE Publications,
Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n5
111
Guenole, F., Louis, J., Creveuil, C., Baleyte, J. M., Montlahuc, C., Fourneret, P., &
Revol, O. (2013). Behavioral profiles of clinically referred children with
intellectual giftedness. Biomed Research International, 7.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/540153
Guenole, F., Speranza, M., Louis, J., Fourneret, P., Revol, O., & Baleyte, J. M.
(2015). Wechsler profiles in referred children with intellectual giftedness:
Associations with trait-anxiety, emotional dysregulation, and heterogeneity of
Piaget-like reasoning processes. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology,
19(4), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2015.03.006
Guthrie, K. H. (2020). The weight of expectations: A thematic narrative of gifted
adolescent girls’ reflections of being gifted. Roeper Review, 42(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1690080
Gutting, G. (2005). Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to
Achievement. Routledge
Haug, P. (2020a). Tilpassa opplæring. In M. H. Olsen & P. Haug (Red.), Tilpasset
opplæring. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Haug, P. (2020b). ‘It is impossible to avoid policy’ comment on Mel Ainscow:
Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international
experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1730092
Haug, P. (2022). Ideal og realitet i spesialundervisninga. I H. Ø. Thuen, S. Myklestad,
& S. Vik (Red.), Pedagogikkens idé og oppdrag. Fagbokforlaget Open Access.
https://oa.fagbokforlaget.no/index.php/vboa/catalog/view/20/28/253
Hausstätter, R. S. (2012). Grenseoppgangen mellom tilpasset opplæring og
112
spesialundervisning. In R. S. Hausstätter (Red.), Inkluderende
spesialundervisning. Fagbokforlaget.
Hebert, T. P. (2001). “If I had a new notebook, I know things would change”: Bright
underachieving young men in urban classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3),
174–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500303
Henson, R. K. (2010). Use of factor analysis techniques in the study of giftedness. In
B. Thompson, and R. F. Subotnik (Red.), Methodologies for conducting
research on giftedness. American Psychological Association
Hernández-Torrano, D., Prieto, M. D., Ferrándiz, C., Bermejo, R., & Sáinz, M.
(2013). Characteristics leading teachers to nominate secondary students as
gifted in Spain. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490197
Hernández-Torrano, D., & Tursunbayeva, X. (2016). Are teachers biased when
nominating students for gifted services? Evidence from Kazakhstan. High
Ability Studies, 27(2), 165–177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108187
Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364611
Heyder, A., Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about
intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology
Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 27–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493
Heyder, A., Südkamp, A., & Steinmayr, R. (2020). How are teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusion related to the social-emotional school experiences of students
with and without special educational needs? Learning and Individual
113
Differences, 77, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101776
Hofseth, A. (1970). Evnerike barn i skolen. Universitetsforlaget.
Hommerstad, M. (2018). «Lærerløft» anno 1814. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift,
102(02), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2018-02-02
Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it,
then they don’t. Roeper Review, 17(1), 11–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553610
Høigård, E., & Ruge, H. (1963). Den norske skoles historie (2. utg.). J. W. Cappelens
Forlag A.S.
Idsøe, E. C. (2014). Elever med akademisk talent i skolen. Cappelen Damm AS.
Idsøe, E. C., & Skogen, K. (2021). Spesialpedagogikk for barn med stort
læringspotensial. In E. Befring, K.-A. B. Næss, & R. Tangen (Red.),
Spesialpedagogikk (6. utg., s. 570–586). Cappelen Damm AS.
International Mathematical Olympiad. (2021). 62nd IMO 2021 Individual results.
http://imo-official.org/year_individual_r.aspx?year=2021
Jang, E. E., McDougall, D. E., Pollon, D., Herbert, M., & Russell, P. (2008).
Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school
success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
2(3), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808315323
Jenssen, E., & Lillejord, S. (2010). Hvorfor tilpasset opplæring er så vanskelig. Bedre
skole, 2. https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2010/hvorfor-tilpasset-
opplaring-er-sa-vanskelig2/
Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has
come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156–173.
114
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher; Washington,
33(7), 14–26.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–
133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kaya, F. (2015). Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and special needs of gifted
students. Egitim ve Bilim, 40(177).
Kaya, N. G. (2019). Determination of attitudes and opinions of classroom teachers
about education of gifted students. Egitim ve Bilim, 44(199).
Knutsen, B. (2016). Høytpresterende elevers opplevelse av naturfagundervisning i
prestasjonslike elevgrupper på ungdomstrinnet. Nordisk tidsskrift for
pedagogikk og kritikk, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.17585/ntpk.v2.162
Knudsmoen, H. & Simonsen, E. (2016). Why Michel Foucault in Norwegian Special-
Education Research? Nordic Journal of Social Research 7(2016).
https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2016/why-michel-foucault-in-
norwegian-special-education-research/
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Gyldendal
Akademisk.
Kvam, V. (2016). Jakten på den gode skole: Utdanningshistorie for lærere.
Universitetsforlaget.
Laine, S., Hotulainen, R., & Tirri, K. (2019). Finnish elementary school teachers’
attitudes toward gifted education. Roeper Review, 41(2), 76–87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1592794
Laine, S., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2016). Finnish teachers conceptions of
115
giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 151–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640936
Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2016). How Finnish elementary school teachers meet the needs
of their gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 149–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108185
Lavrijsen, J., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Student characteristics affecting the
recognition of high cognitive ability by teachers and peers. Learning and
Individual Differences, 78, 101820.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101820
Leavy, P. (2015). Introduction. In P. Leavy (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative
Research (Pp 1-13). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, L. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and talented young children. High
Ability Studies, 10(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813990100205
Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted
students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568
Lie, B. (2014). Eksepsjonelle og dobbelteksepsjonelle elever: Begavede elever og
begavede elever med lærevansker. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do
stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service
teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia - Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029
Matheis, S., Schmitt, M., Preckel, F., (2017). Threat or challenge? teacher beliefs
about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and
116
Talented International, 32(2), 134–160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685
Megay‐Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding
instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23(3), 178–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554092
Mellroth, E. (2021). Teachers’ views on teaching highly able pupils in a
heterogeneous mathematics classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 65(3), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1716065
Mellroth, E., van Bommel, J., & Liljekvist, Y. (2019). Elementary teachers on
orchestrating teaching for mathematically highly able pupils. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 16(1–3), 127–153.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). “Equity” and “Equality” – how they differ and overlap.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/equality-vs-equity-
difference
Miedijensky, S. (2018). Learning environment for the gifted—What do outstanding
teachers of the gifted think? Gifted Education International, 34(3), 222–244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754204
Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary
classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65–105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300104
Ministry of Education and Research. (1997). St.meld. Nr 23 (1997-98) Om opplæring
for barn, unge og vaksne med særskilde behov.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2016, februar 11). Talentsentre for høyt
presterende elever [Pressemelding]. Regjeringen.no; regjeringen.no.
117
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/ny-tiltaksplan-for-realfag/id2475132/
Ministry of Education and Research (2019). Meld. St. 6 (2019-2020) Tett på—Tidlig
innsats og inkluderende felleskap i barnehage, skole og SFO.
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/3dacd48f7c94401ebefc91549a5d08c
d/no/pdfs/stm201920200006000dddpdfs.pdf
Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014).
Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and
formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–
268.
Mjøs, M., Lied, S. I., & Flaten, K. (2020). Spesialpedaogikkens rolle—I et
utdanningspolitisk perspektiv. I B. I. B. Hvidsten, I. Kuginyte-Arlaskiene, &
G. Söderlund (Red.), Tilpasset opplæring og spesialpedagogikk i teori og
praksis.
Mogensen, A. (2011). The proficiency challenge: An action research program on
teaching of gifted math students in grades 1-9. The Mathematics Enthusiast,
8(1), 207–226.
Moon, T. R., & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447–480.
https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793
Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Red.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2. Utg.).
Cambridge University Press.
Mönks, F. J., & Pflüger, R. (2005). Gifted Education in 21 European Countries:
Inventory and Perspective (s. 172). Radboud University Nijmegen.
https://www.giftedforyou.eu/plovdiv-guide/17.pdf
118
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878
Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A.
(2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for
identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503
Nordahl, T. Et al., (2018). Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge. Fagbokforl.
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (n.d. a) Overordnet del – verdier
og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen. Retrieved 8. october 2021, from
https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (n.d. b). Grunnskole. Retrieved 24.
february 2021, from https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-
forskning/tema/utdanningsspeilet-2020/del-1/grunnskole/
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2014). Veilederen
Spesialundervisning. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/sarskilte-
behov/spesialundervisning/Spesialundervisning/
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2021). Tilpasset opplæring.
https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/tilpasset-opplaring/
NOU 2015: 8. (2015). Fremtidens skole: Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser. Ministry
of Education and Research.
NOU 2016: 14. (2016). Mer å hente. Bedre læring for elever med stort
læringspotensial. Ministry of Education and Research.
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-14/id2511246/
NOU 2019: 23. (2019) Ny opplæringslov. Ministry of Education and Research.
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/3a08b44df1e347619e32db47d13ac0
119
cd/no/pdfs/nou201920190023000dddpdfs.pdf
Olsen, M. H. (2020). Tilpasset opplæring når elever har stort læringspotensial. I M.
H. Olsen & P. Haug (Red.), Tilpasset opplæring. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual. 6th Edition. New York: Open University
Press.
Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe. (1994). Doc 7140. Report on education
for gifted children. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-
ViewHTML.asp?FileID= 8142&lang=EN
Persson, R. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of
high ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9(2), 181–
196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813980090204
Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian
and inclusive educational system: A survey study: Journal for the Education
of the Gifted. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300405
Peterson, J., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2009). A longitudinal study of negative life
events, stress, and school experiences of gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly,
53(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208326553
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators,
prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 148–168.
Polyzopoulou, K., Kokaridas, D., Patsiaouras, A., & Gari, A. (2014). Teachers’
perceptions toward education of gifted children in Greek educational settings.
Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 14(2), 211–221.
Popkewitz, T., & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of social and political theory in
education: Foucault and a social epistomology of school practices. In T.
Popkewitz & M. Brennan (Red.), Foucault’s Challenge: Discourse,
Knowledge, and Power in Education. Teachers College Press; US.
120
Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and
maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted
children. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1160–1184.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413
Rasmussen, A., & Lingard, B. (2018). Excellence in education policies: Catering to
the needs of gifted and talented or those of self-interest?: European
Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118771466
Reid, E., & Boettger, H. (2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe.
Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4, 158– 171.
https://doi.org/10.18355/PG.2015.4.2.158-171
Rencher, A. C., & Christensen, W. F., (2012) Methods of Multivariate Analysis.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent
development for the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A
focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International,
26(2–3), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600303
Rizza, M. G., & Morrison, W. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying
characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral
disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554202
Rohrer, J. C. (1995). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence,
and nonevidence. Talents and Gifts, 18(3), 269–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329501800304
121
Russell, J. L. (2018). High school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, gifted
education, and talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4),
275–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18775658
Sak, U. (2021). The fuzzy conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Ambrose
(Red.), Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent (s. 371–392). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_21
Samardzija, N., & Peterson, J. S. (2015). Learning and classroom preferences of
gifted eighth graders: A qualitative study. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 38(3), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592498
Sánchez-Escobedo, P. A., Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Contreras-Olivera, G. A., García-
Vázquez, F. I., & Durón-Ramos, M. F. (2020). Mexican teachers’ knowledge
about gifted children: Relation to teacher teaching experience and training.
Sustainability, 12(11), 4474. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12114474
Sattler, J. M. (2020). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications.
Schmitt, C., & Goebel, V. (2015). Experiences of high-ability high school students:
A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 428– 446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607325
Schwandt, T. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Red.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research:
Theories and Issues (s. 221–259). Sage Publications.
Sewell, C. J. P., & Goings, R. B. (2019). Navigating the gifted bubble: Black adults
reflecting on their transition experiences in NYC gifted programs. Roeper
Review, 41(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553218
Shaywitz, S. E., Holahan, J. M., Freudenheim, D. A., Fletcher, J. M., Makuch, R. W.,
& Shaywitz, B. A. (2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys
122
exhibit behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 45(1), 16–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500103
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating
students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
Silver, C. & Lewins, A. F. (2015) Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative research.
In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 606–
638). Oxford University Press.
Simonsen, E. (2022). Hva skal man med spesialpedagogikken? I H. Ø. Thuen, S.
Myklestad, & S. Vik (Red.), Pedagogikkens idé og oppdrag. Fagbokforlaget
Open Access.
https://oa.fagbokforlaget.no/index.php/vboa/catalog/view/20/28/250
Smedsrud, J. (2018). Mathematically gifted accelerated students participating in an
ability group: A qualitative interview study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
1359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01359
Smedsrud, J., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Idsøe, E. C., Ulvund, S. E., Idsøe, T., & Lang-
Ree, O. C. (2018). The association between math achievement and percieved
relationship in school among high intelligent versus average adolescents.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(7).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1476406
Smedsrud, J., & Skogen, K. (2016). Evnerike elever og tilpasset opplæring.
Fagbokforlaget.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one
hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and
acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two
123
second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
Sternberg, R. J., & Ambrose, D. (Red.). (2021). Conceptions of Giftedness and
Talent. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
56869-6
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking
giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on
psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–
54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
Tangen, R. (2012). Retten til utdanning for alle. In E. Befring & R. Tangen (Ed.),
Spesialpedagogikk (5th edition) (Pp. 108–128). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Terman, L. (Red.). (1926). Genetic Studies of Genius: Vol. I (2. utg.). Standford
University Press.
The Education Act. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa
(LOV-1998- 07-17-61). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61
The Equality and Discrimination Act. (2017). Lov om likestilling og forbud mot
diskriminering (LOV-2017-06-16-51).
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2017-06-16-51
Thuen, H. (2017). Den norske skolen: Utdanningssystemets historie. Abstrakt forlag
AS.
Timulak, L. (2015). Inroduction to research methodology. In A. Vossler & N. Moller
(Red.), The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook (s. 74–87).
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland Serves Gifted and Talented Pupils:
Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212468066
124
Traianou, A. (2015). The centrality of ethics in qualitative research. In P. Leavy
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 62–77). Oxford
University Press.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special
Needs Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-
education.org/files/resource-attachments/Salamanca_Statement_1994.pdf
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Hubbard, G. F. (2016). Classroom-based strategies for
advanced learners in rural settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4),
285–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16657645
Vik, S., & Hausstätter, R. (2014). Fra «early intervention» til tidlig innsats.
Spesialpedagogikk, 6. https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2014/fra-early-
intervention-til-tidlig-innsats/
Volckmar, N. (2016). Utdanningshistorie: Grunnskolen som samfunnsintegrerende
institusjon (N. Volckmar, Red.; 1. utgave, 1. opplag). Gyldendal.
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. Pearson
Assessment.
Wechsler, D. (2009). WISC-IV norsk versjon manual del 1. (Heldal, L. & Haukeland,
E., Trans). Pearson Assessment.
Wendelborg, C., & Caspersen, J. (2016). Høyt presterende elevers vurdering av
læringsmiljøet (Mangfold og inkludering, s. 44). NTNU Samfunnsforskning
AS.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
1
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway: A
descriptive study with primary and secondary teachers.
In countries with no clear policy regarding gifted students, teachers are vital. Norway is
such a case. Teachers might have stereotypical views and need knowledge about gifted
students to appropriately facilitate them. This article aims to give descriptive insights
into teachers’ views and perceptions of students with extraordinary learning potential
(gifted) in Norway. To examine this, we used a survey of primary and secondary school
teachers (N = 339), exploring teachers’ self-evaluated need for knowledge, how
teachers evaluate different characteristics, and the teachers’ open-ended descriptions.
We also report descriptive statistics from the survey. The results indicate that the
Norwegian teachers wanted more knowledge about gifted students; they reported
positive characteristics like performing well and being hardworking and intelligent but
also being bored and, to some degree, displaying disruptive behavior. Here, 74% of the
teachers reported they had experiences with teaching gifted students. One implication is
including giftedness as a topic in teacher education. Our study points to important areas
for further research—for example, more in-depth research with Norwegian teachers on
their view and characterization of gifted students.
Keywords: gifted identification; teachers; high ability; student characteristics
Introduction
Teachers are essential in gifted education. As Tirri (2017) stated, “Teachers are the key agents
in identifying and nurturing all kinds of talent” (p. 211). Internationally, a lot of research has
supported the needs of gifted students but has shown differences across educational systems
and that teachers are not always providing the necessary support and facilitation (Renzulli,
2012; Sekowski & Łubianka, 2015; Walsh & Jolly, 2018). If gifted students are not provided
for, they may develop socioemotional difficulties, negative attitudes toward school, and even
drop out (Subotnik et al., 2011). Many policy-level strategies can help teachers identify gifted
students, and policy does matter by providing structure and guidance (Gubbins et al., 2021;
Haug, 2020b; Hodges et al., 2021). Unfortunately, not all countries or municipalities have
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
2
policies regarding gifted students. In these situations, the teacher becomes even more critical
in identifying their students’ needs. What happens when there are no national policies to help
teachers, and how do teachers view gifted students and their educational needs? The current
article illustrates this by exploring teachers’ views on education for students with
extraordinary learning potential in Norway through a descriptive survey. In the survey, we
used the term extraordinary learning potential; the present article will use both extraordinary
learning potential and gifted students.
The Case of Norway
In the current article, we focus on compulsory education, which, in Norway, consists of
primary education from first to seventh grade and lower secondary education from eighth to
tenth grade (The Norwegian Education Mirror, 2019).
Gifted students are considered a new field of interest in Norwegian educational
research. A research summary has pointed to the need for more research about Norwegian
teachers in education for gifted students (Børte et al., 2016), and Norway published its first
official report on education for gifted students in 2016 (NOU 2016: 14, 2016), establishing
the new terms high learning potential and extraordinary learning potential. The report stated
that giftedness is not essential in Norwegian teacher education and that Norway has no clear
uniform policy regarding gifted students. The educational policies in Norway focus on
inclusive and adapted education for all students (The Education Act, 1998). Accordingly,
gifted students also need facilitation to enhance their potential (NOU 2016:14, 2016).
If giftedness was not a topic teachers learned about during their teacher education,
then teachers might lack knowledge about identification and facilitation in adapting their
instruction to the needs of gifted students. Teachers may utilize different types of
identification methods through assessment, such as ability tests, rating scales, or performance-
based assessments (Cao et al., 2017). In Europe, the most widely used criteria for
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
3
identification are aptitude tests or performance tests (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2015). However,
ability tests are rarely used in Norway, and there are no rating scales (NOU 2016: 14, 2016).
High learning potential is estimated to constitute 10–15% of the student population,
while extraordinary learning potential comprises 2–5% (NOU 2016:14, 2016). In Norway,
there are currently around 636,000 students in compulsory education, and the student-to-
teacher ratio is approximately 16 (The Norwegian Education Mirror, 2019). If 5% of the
student population has extraordinary learning potential, that constitutes 31,800 students, so
each teacher should statistically have one gifted student at any given time.
Teachers in Norway must follow the principle of adapted education and equitable
education (The Education Act, 1998, §§ 1-1, 1-3), which requires differentiation according to
a student’s needs and predispositions. However, this principle is not an individual legal right
(Haug, 2020a; National Directorate of Education and Training [NDET], 2021). The national
requirements for teacher education define adapted education as variation through different
assignments, material, intensity, organization, teaching aids, and methods. Teachers must
adapt the instruction according to the diversity in their classes (Ministry of Education and
Research, 2010).
Students who do not have a satisfactory yield from ordinary education have the right
to special education (The Education Act, 1998, § 5-1). However, according to the NDET,
gifted students are not covered by the right to special education. They have a satisfactory
yield and should receive adaptation within ordinary education (NDET, 2014).
A qualitative study with focus group interviews of 322 preservice teachers in Norway
found that the teachers acknowledge the need to differentiate students with high learning
potential. However, teachers found it hard to design and conduct differentiated instruction
(Brevik et al., 2018; Brevik & Gunnulfsen, 2016).
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
4
Nordic research on gifted students and giftedness
In a qualitative Swedish study, Mellroth (2021) analyzed the discussions of 12 teachers in a
professional development program. Mellroth found that the teachers were prepared to teach
their highly able students in mathematics by providing differentiation and challenging
assignments. The teachers also had the competence to recognize these students. On the other
hand, in a quantitative survey, Persson found that gifted adults (N = 287) retrospectively saw
Swedish schools as hostile and unsatisfactory (Persson, 2010). As in Sweden, gifted students
in Norway are in regular classrooms, not in any special programs; hence, the general teacher
needs knowledge about giftedness, potential, detection, provisions, and the dynamic
relationship between potential, support, and motivation (Mattsson & Bengmark, 2011).
Laine (2010) studied the Finnish public discussion of giftedness, finding a diversity of
conceptions. Laine further asked if this diversity could influence how gifted children are
identified in school and whether those participating in the public discussion discuss the same
phenomenon. In Norway, new terminology has been established (high and extraordinary
learning potential). However, it might be unclear what this terminology means and how to
identify these students.
Teachers’ characterization of gifted students
When identifying gifted students, teachers in Norway must rely on their knowledge of
giftedness, different characteristics, and performance assessment. However, teachers can be
stereotypical in their characterization of gifted students and value excellence, potential, rarity,
behavior, and innate ability (Lee, 1999; Rizza & Morrison, 2003). Gender biases may also
influence characterization; some research has found evidence that girls are less frequently
nominated for gifted programs (Endepohls‐Ulpe & Ruf, 2006; Hernández-Torrano et al.,
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
5
2013). Level of experience and teacher training have been found to influence teachers’
responses (Rizza & Morrison, 2003).
Persson (1998) studied Swedish teachers’ (N = 232) conceptualizations of giftedness,
finding that teachers failed to understand the social-emotional aspect of giftedness, instead
focusing on the ideal student, the “paragon of virtue”. Students characterized as such act as
leaders, never give up, are inspiring, and act as teacher assistants when the need arises
(Persson, 1998). This is not an image of all gifted students, and it is important to recognize
that gifted students might underachieve and not perform according to their potential or the
expectations of their teachers (Reis & McCoach, 2000). As Smedsrud (2018) stated, there is a
misconception that gifted students must be high achieving. Mattson found that Swedish
headteachers (N = 34) emphasized creative ability, logical ability, and motivation in the
conception of gifted students in mathematics (Mattsson, 2010). Norwegian preservice
teachers have characterized students with high learning potential as a heterogenic group with
requirements regarding subject knowledge and cognitive and socioemotional needs (Brevik et
al., 2018).
Finnish teachers have characterized gifted students using cognitive, creative, and
motivational features (Laine et al., 2016). A Spanish study found that the teachers nominated
students with high scores in verbal and numerical areas for gifted programs, choosing
students who exceled in social intelligence, showing that they were more likely to nominate a
student displaying positive behavior than one with disruptive behavior (Hernández-Torrano et
al., 2013).
The literature indicates that extraordinary learning potential or giftedness is a new
topic in educational research in Norway. Teachers in Norway are required to adapt education
according to the diversity in their classes. Previous research has found that Norwegian
teachers find it difficult to differentiate their instruction for gifted students (Brevik et al.,
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
6
2018; Brevik & Gunnulfsen, 2016). Teachers require knowledge about gifted students and
characteristics to help identify their students’ needs; however, they might have different
biases.
Aims of the study
The current article aims to provide insight into how teachers perceive education for students
with extraordinary learning potential in Norway, here by using descriptive data from primary
and secondary school teachers. We sought to explore where teachers reported gaining
knowledge, their self-evaluated need for knowledge about giftedness, and how they evaluated
different characteristics. We were also interested in how many teacher-identified students
there were in our selection because this is a new term and an understudied topic in Norwegian
educational research. The following research questions guided the present article:
1. Where do Norwegian teachers report that they have gained knowledge about gifted,
and how do they self-evaluate their need for knowledge?
a. How do the background variables of years of experience, experience with
gifted students, and education level correlate with teachers’ self-evaluated
need for knowledge?
2. How do Norwegian teachers evaluate the different characteristics of gifted students,
and how do they describe the characteristics of gifted students?
The rationale for the current study is twofold. There is a gap in the Norwegian
research literature regarding teachers and giftedness (Børte et al., 2016). Teachers are also the
most crucial factor in Norwegian compulsory education for providing gifted students with the
differentiation they need (Smedsrud et al., 2018; Tirri, 2017). The current study was a
prerequisite for developing an interview guide for a qualitative interview study and
identifying possible research gaps for further research.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
7
Because extraordinary learning potential is a new term in Norway and might be
unclear to teachers, we used the following definition in the survey: Students with
extraordinary learning potential are those students with a strong need and potential in
academic subjects like mathematics, reading/writing/language, science, technology, social
sciences, or creative/esthetic subjects and who can transform their potential to talent only if
their needs are met in a rich and responding learning environment (Idsøe, 2014, p. 14, our
translation). This definition also defines giftedness and gifted students. We did not focus on
one subject area but instead on gifted students in all subjects.
Materials and Methods
Participants
In total, N = 339 teachers in Norway participated in a web-based survey. We recruited the
participants in two cycles. The first sample consisted of n = 144 participants from a national
inquiry of all combined grade 1 to 10 schools in Norway. Only 32 schools answered and sent
the survey to their teachers, with a total response rate of 20%. After the first cycle, we
contacted municipalities and received replies from one in Eastern Norway and one in Western
Norway. The one in the east provided 18 participants, and the one in the west provided n =
177, with a response rate of 63%. The total sample is considered a convenience sample
(Gorard, 2001), so we cannot generalize the findings to all Norwegian 1–10 teachers.
Pilot
We conducted a pilot test with 48 teachers to evaluate the survey questions. The pilot
participants answered the survey and gave feedback on the questions. After the pilot, we made
some minor changes, such as changing the wording and formatting. We did not include the
informants from the pilot in the final survey.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
8
Instrument
We collected data using a web-based survey provided by SurveyMonkey
(www.surveymonkey.com). We designed the survey specifically for the current study, with
25 questions split into five different areas: (1) background questions, (2) questions on
teachers’ self-evaluated need for knowledge of gifted students and where teachers have
received knowledge, (3) identification and characteristics of gifted students, (4) adaptation or
differentiation of education, and (5) experience with gifted students. The survey consisted of
dichotomous questions, Likert-scale questions, and open-ended questions. We developed the
survey from the literature on gifted education, for example, on differentiation (Gagné, 2015;
VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016), on characteristics (Ackerman, 1997; Betts & Neihart,
1988; Cross, 2002; Idsøe, 2014; Lee, 1999; Lie, 2014), and other relevant literature (Renzulli,
2012; Shaywitz et al., 2001; Subotnik et al., 2011) but with a Norwegian scope.
The “characteristics of giftedness” scale consisted of 15 different characteristics that
the teachers agreed or disagreed with on a five-item Likert scale. We developed the different
characteristics from the Norwegian expert literature concerning cognitive and socioemotional
characteristics and differences between high-achieving and gifted students (Idsøe, 2014; Idsøe
& Skogen, 2011; Lie, 2014). The scale has been simplified, hence not representing all
possible characteristics. We focused on the characteristics developed from the Norwegian
literature. Preservice teachers have been shown to use cognitive and socioemotional
characteristics when describing students with high learning potential (Brevik & Gunnulfsen,
2016). We ended up with the 15 characteristics representing various cognitive and
socioemotional aspects, in line with previous research in Norway (Brevik & Gunnulfsen,
2016; Idsøe, 2014; Idsøe & Skogen, 2011; Lie, 2014). The open-ended question, where
teachers could write what they believed characterizes gifted students, mitigated some
limitations with the limited scale.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
9
Analyses
Descriptive frequencies and bivariate analyses were primarily used to establish any significant
correlation with background variables. We analyzed the internal consistency of the scale
“characteristics of giftedness” using Cronbach’s α. We used the open-ended questions as a
supplement to the other survey data. We used quantitative content analysis to analyze the
open-ended questions regarding teachers’ descriptions and where teachers have gained
knowledge about gifted students (Neuendorf, 2017). See Table 1 for an example of the
content analysis. Table 4 provides all the codes and frequencies. We performed all statistical
computations using SPSS 25.
Table 1
Coding Example
Quote
Unit
Code
Ability to reflect, see contexts,
and understand subjects on a
much higher level than their age
peers. Learning is substantially
faster than the average student.
Large inner drive and motivation
for acquiring new knowledge.
Ability to reflect, see context, and
understand on a higher level
Intellect
Learning is faster
Learn fast
Large inner drive and motivation
for acquiring new knowledge
Motivation
Joy of learning
Ethical considerations
The Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD) approved this study. To answer the survey,
all participants had to read the information letter at the beginning of the survey. The
information letter stated that participation was voluntary and that no personal information
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
10
would be collected for identification. By answering the survey, the participants completed an
informed act of consent.
Results
The teachers were from different parts of Norway and teach first to tenth grades. Two-thirds
identified as female (n = 261). According to the teachers’ self-evaluation, almost half (44%)
believed they currently had students with extraordinary learning potential. More than 7 out of
10 (74%) believed they had experience teaching these students. The participants had a mean
experience of 14 years (SD: 10.5). For other descriptive results, see Table 2.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
11
We have organized this section according to the research questions. First, Where do
Norwegian teachers report they have gained knowledge about extraordinary learning
potential, and how do they self-evaluate their need for more knowledge?
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
N
%
Total
339
100
National survey
144
43
Eastern municipality
18
5
Western municipality
177
52
Gender
Female
261
77
Male
78
23
Education
Bachelor (4 years)
138
41
Bachelor (4 +1 year)
139
41
Master (5 years)
8
2
Master (5 +1 year)
18
5
Other
36
11
Teaching level
Primary school
213
63
Secondary school
85
25
Across all grades
37
11
Administration
4
1
Public school
310
91
Private school
29
9
School size
<100 students
68
20
100–199 students
85
25
200–399 students
142
42
>400 students
44
13
Contact teacher
Yes
187
55
No
152
45
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
12
The teachers answered an open-ended question about where they had received
knowledge or information about gifted students. This question was open ended because we
did not want to limit the teachers to our predispositions, and it allowed the teachers to
elaborate. The quantitative content analysis generated eight categories: experience (44%),
education (27%), literature (18%), no knowledge (14 %), media (13 %), courses (6 %),
parents/student themselves (5%), and other (3%). Fourteen percent claimed they did not know
about giftedness and gifted students. Further, even though almost a third mentioned their
teacher education, the teachers also reported that they did not see it as a vital part.
Because teachers must adapt or differentiate education for all students, it is necessary
to know if they used differentiation and if the educational system would allow for
differentiation. Nine out of ten teachers agreed that they differentiated, and eight out of ten
agreed that there was space for differentiated instruction in Norwegian schools.
Further, the questionnaire asked the teachers to what degree they agreed (Likert scale
1–5) that they needed more knowledge about gifted students and adaptation. Nine out of ten
teachers said they needed more knowledge and information in this area. To investigate a
possible relationship between the background variables (research question 1a), we performed
a Pearson correlation between experience measured in years and the question, “To what
degree do you agree or disagree that you need more knowledge about gifted students?” The
correlation was significant, with a small negative correlation r = -.11 (p = .05), indicating that
the more experienced teachers were less in agreement with the statement that they needed
more knowledge about gifted students. However, because the correlation was small, whether
it should be further interpreted is unclear. The other background variables had no significant
correlations.
The second research question was, How do Norwegian teachers evaluate different
characteristics of gifted students, and how do they describe gifted students?
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
13
We analyzed the “characteristics of giftedness” scale and looked at the teachers’ descriptions
to answer this question. All answers were on a five-item Likert scale. A total of 288
respondents answered the questions. See Table 3 for the descriptive results. We tested the
scale’s internal consistency using Cronbach’s α, which gave a result of .75. This result was
adequate (Pallant, 2016) but indicated that some items needed further clarification. The
internal consistency indicated that the characteristics in the scale were related to each other;
however, we analyzed them separately to determine which characteristics the teachers agreed
with most.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
14
Table 3
Frequencies on Characteristics of Gifted
Totally agree (1)
%
Somewhat agree (2)
%
Neither agrees nor disagrees (3)
%
Somewhat disagree (4)
%
Totally disagree (5)
%
Mean
SD
1. Performs well at school
43.2
39.0
14.0
3.2
0.6
1.79
0.85
2. Disruptive
3.6
44.7
33.1
11.6
7.0
2.74
0.96
3. Unsocial
2.6
21.1
47.0
17.8
11.5
3.14
0.97
4. Creative
19.6
39.5
33.3
6.5
1.0
2.30
0.90
5. Energetic
12.7
37.6
44.1
4.9
0.7
2.43
0.80
6. Diligent
19.9
37.6
31.4
10.8
0.3
2.34
0.93
7. Inquisitive
36.8
41.8
17.8
3.6
0
1.88
0.82
8. Quiet
4.9
23.0
56.1
13.8
2.3
2.86
0.80
9. Irritating
2.7
15.4
39.1
16.1
26.8
3.49
1.12
10. Extroverted
5.0
25.2
59.8
9.6
0.3
2.75
0.71
11. Social
7.9
28.1
50.7
12.9
0.3
2.70
0.81
12. Show an advanced language
28.6
45.7
22.0
3.0
0.7
2.01
0.83
13. Know-it-all
8.3
37.6
35.6
10.9
7.6
2.72
1.02
14. Willing to learn
35.8
40.1
19.5
4.6
0
1.93
0.86
15. Introverted
1.3
15.3
65.4
11.6
6.3
3.06
0.76
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
15
The teachers mostly agreed on the positive characteristics; eight out of ten agreed that
gifted students performed well and were inquisitive. Three out of four agreed that gifted
students were willing to learn and showed an advanced language. The teachers were
more diverse in terms of the students’ negative characteristics. Two out of ten agreed
that gifted students can be irritating, while almost half (46%) agreed that they might be
“know-it-alls” and that they might show disruptive behavior (48%).
The survey asked the teachers to describe gifted students using an open-ended
question (n = 268). The quantitative content analysis developed 19 different codes (see
Table 4). There were differences in the teachers’ answers; some were long and detailed,
and some were relatively short. The maximum number of codes was 9, the minimum
was 1, and the mean was 2.93. The codes were related to cognitive traits in the student
such as intelligence, creativity, and curiosity or behavior in school, such as
hardworking, motivated, and problematic behavior. Some (10%) teachers mentioned
that gifted students were diverse, making it difficult to sum it up in a few sentences.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
16
Table 4
Characteristics Developed from the Teachers’ Descriptions (n = 268)
Character trait
N
%
Cognitive attributes
Intellect
91
34
Need individual adaptation
79
30
Subject knowledge
63
24
Different
53
20
Learn fast
50
19
Joy of learning
47
18
Curious
17
6
Creative
10
4
Behavior in school
Boredom
84
31
Problematic behavior
52
19
Perform well in school
39
15
Motivated
33
12
Hardworking
28
10
Fast
28
10
Diverse group
28
10
Independent
25
9
Challenging
25
9
Active
19
7
Underachiever
13
5
Note: Max codes 9, min 1. Mean 2.93. SD 1.43
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
17
Because statistically speaking, each teacher should have one student at any time
with extraordinary learning potential, we were interested in how many teacher-
identified gifted students there were in our material. Three out of four teachers reported
that they had experience with gifted students. Approximately each teacher has had six
gifted students (the total reported number was 1,253 from 214 teachers, M 5.94),
averaging out to three girls and three boys. Those who had gifted students (44%) at the
time of taking the survey reported two gifted students each, one boy and one girl. We
performed paired samples t-tests to evaluate the gender difference for reported boys (M
1.42, SD 1.20) and girls (M 1.34, SD 1.36; t(91) = 1.82, p = .41, two-tailed), which was
insignificant (total boys M 3.64, SD 3.65; total girls M 3.24, SD 3.95; t(164) = 1.81, p =
.07, two-tailed).
Discussion
Norwegian teachers have been almost unanimous in their request for more knowledge
about gifted students in our study. Mostly, the teachers have gained knowledge through
their own experiences, and they did not report teacher education as an essential part.
Tirri (2017) stated that teachers are key agents in developing talent. Furthermore,
teacher education is the key to producing teachers with proper knowledge about
students with extraordinary learning potential and how to facilitate them appropriately.
Teachers need knowledge about different characteristics, tools for identification,
adaptation in school, and differentiation. However, our results show that 14% of the
teachers reported having no knowledge about gifted students. Almost 90% said they
needed more knowledge. According to Norwegian official report (2016: 14, 2016),
giftedness is not essential in teacher education. We also saw the same tendency in our
results. Mellroth (2021) found that the teachers they interviewed stated a duty to acquire
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
18
knowledge about gifted students and the duty and right to disseminate their knowledge
to other teachers. In line with this, there seems to be a need to include giftedness as a
course in Norwegian teacher education (Brevik et al., 2018). Teacher education should
provide teachers with the necessary knowledge to identify gifted students and provide
for them in school.
Experience with gifted students
Statistically speaking, each teacher should have around one gifted student at any given
time. However, only 44% of the teachers in our study reported they currently had one or
more gifted students, and 74% reported they have had a gifted student during their
career. This result might indicate that some gifted students were not recognized as
gifted by their teachers because of limited knowledge or a more limited conception of
giftedness. This result might also be a consequence of a lack of consensus regarding
what constitutes extraordinary learning potential and the lack of uniform policies in
Norway (NOU 2016:14, 2016; Smedsrud, 2020).
Characterization of gifted students
The Norwegian teachers characterized gifted students mainly in a positive light. The
characteristics they agreed most with were “performs well at school” (82%),
“inquisitive” (79%), and “willing to learn” (76%). In their open-ended descriptions, the
most used characteristics were “intellect” (34%), “boredom” (31%), “need for
individual adaptation” (30%), and high “subject knowledge” (24%). As so, Norwegian
teachers primarily identified gifted students as intelligent, high achievers, curious but
bored, and needing individual adaptation. This result is in line with previous studies
from Sweden (Mattsson, 2010; Persson, 1998) Australia (Lee, 1999), the USA (Rizza &
Morrison, 2003), and Finland (Laine et al., 2016).
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
19
The student characterized by the teachers seems to be the golden student every
teacher wants. This student is willing to learn, intelligent, diligent and hardworking,
learns fast, and performs well. One problem is that this is not always the case. There is
no absolute relationship between extraordinary learning potential and school
achievement; gifted students might underachieve (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Rubenstein et
al., 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011). In our study, the Norwegian teachers thought about a
gifted student as mainly a high-achieving student. We saw this when looking at the
frequencies, primarily of “performs well” and “diligent.” When combining “totally
agree” and “somewhat agree,” 82% of the teachers agreed on the characteristic of
performs well, and 58% agreed on diligence. These results indicate that the teachers
focused on results, meaning underachievers might go unnoticed. If teachers do not
recognize that gifted students might underachieve, these students could potentially lose
out on beneficial interventions and facilitation in school (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Disruptive behavior
An interesting result is that 48% of the teachers agreed on the disruptive characteristic,
and in their descriptions, 19% described problematic behavior. It seems disruptive or
problematic behavior is something that many of the teachers were experiencing. This
result goes against other research, for example, a Spanish study indicating that teachers
nominated students with positive behavior, not disruptive behavior (Hernández-Torrano
et al., 2013).
Limitations of the study
Because the response rate was so low in the national sample, we feared that those
teachers who initially answered the survey were only those interested in the field, which
might give skewed results. Gorard (2001) mentioned how using only those volunteering
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
20
to participate in a survey can bias a study. This bias was less of an issue in the second
sample. The first author traveled to the schools that participated, and the teachers
answered the survey during their working hours.
Although the current study obtained answers from teachers from the entire
country, more than half of the teachers were from the same area, limiting the
generalizability of the study. There was also missing data because not all teachers
answered all the questions, especially the open-ended questions. However, we received
answers from two-thirds of the teachers to the open-ended questions. Overall, the
current study has provided valuable insights into teachers’ views on gifted education in
Norway.
Implications and further research
Teachers are essential for how gifted students develop their potential (Gagné, 1995;
Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). To manage the (maybe impossible) requirement of meeting
every student’s learning needs, teachers need to know what characterizes different types
of gifted students and how they can differentiate their teaching. According to the results
of our study, the teachers wanted and needed more knowledge about giftedness and
gifted students. They displayed a mostly positive view of gifted students and
characterized them as intelligent, performing well in school but bored, and, to some
degree, displaying disruptive behavior. Even though each teacher statistically should
have one gifted student at any given time, only 44% of the teachers believed they
currently had gifted students. This result might indicate that some gifted students go
unnoticed in Norway. It seems that giftedness should be considered a topic of higher
value in Norwegian teacher education.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
21
Because this was a relatively small study, there is a need for more in-depth
research on this phenomenon in the Norwegian context. Areas for further research could
be more in-depth research with teachers on their views, characterization, and
conceptualization of giftedness or gifted students. Because the terminology and
conception regarding giftedness are vague, it is crucial to investigate how teachers
conceptualize this phenomenon.
Further research should explore how Norwegian teachers adapt and differentiate
their instruction for gifted students. It is necessary to investigate differentiation because
there are some established best practices (Gagné, 2015), but Norway has no mandate
regarding proper adaptation other than the overarching principle of adapted education
for all students (Haug, 2020a; Olsen, 2020).
Acknowledgments
We thank the teachers who participated for their time and valuable input. We thank Ole
Johan Eikeland for his technical help with the survey design.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
22
References
Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality
characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19(4), 229–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553835
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 32(2), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200202
Børte, K., Lillejord, S., & Johansson, L. (2016). Evnerike elever og elever med stort
læringspotensial: En forskningsoppsummering. Kunnskapssenter for utdanning
Brevik, L. M., & Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2016). Differensiert undervisning for
høytpresterende elever med stort læringspotensial. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2),
212–234.
Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice
and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning
potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003
Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of
the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163-
203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572
Cross, T. L. (2002). Competing with myths about the social and emotional development
of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 44–45.
Endepohls-Ulpe, M. & Ruf, H. (2006). Primary school teachers' criteria for the
identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219-228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
23
Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on
the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553709
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-
9366-9
Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The role of numbers
made easy. Continuum.
Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Ottone-Cross, K., McCoach, D. B., Langley, S. D., Callahan,
C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Caughey, M. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted
and talented students: Are identification and services connected? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
Haug, P. (2020a). Tilpassa opplæring. In M. H. Olsen & P. Haug (Eds.), Tilpasset
opplæring. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Haug, P. (2020b). ‘It is impossible to avoid policy’ comment on Mel Ainscow:
Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international
experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1730092
Hernández-Torrano, D., Prieto, M. D., Ferrándiz, C., Bermejo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2013).
Characteristics leading teachers to nominate secondary students as gifted in
Spain. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490197
Hodges, J., Mun, R. U., Jones Roberson, J., & Flemister, C. “Tedd.” (2021). Educator
perceptions following changes in gifted education policy: Implications for
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
24
serving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 338–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211023796
Idsøe, E. C. (2014). Elever med akademisk talent i skolen. Cappelen Damm AS.
Idsøe, E. C., & Skogen, K. (2011). Våre evnerike barn en utfordring for skolen.
Høyskoleforlaget.
Laine, S. (2010). The Finnish public discussion of giftedness and gifted children. High
Ability Studies, 21(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.488092
Laine, S., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2016). Finnish teachers conceptions of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 151–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640936
Lee, L. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and talented young children. High
Ability Studies, 10(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813990100205
Lie, B. (2014). Eksepsjonelle og dobbelteksepsjonelle elever: Begavede elever og
begavede elever med lærevansker. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Mattsson, L. (2010). Head teacher’s conception of gifted students in mathematics in
Swedish upper secondary school. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education,
15(3), 3–22.
Mattsson, L., & Bengmark, S. (2011). On track to gifted education in mathematics in
Sweden. In B. Sriraman & K. H. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and
giftedness in mathematics (pp. 81–101). Sense Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-439-3_6
Mellroth, E. (2021). Teachers’ views on teaching highly able pupils in a heterogeneous
mathematics classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(3),
481–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1716065
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
25
Ministry of Education and Research. (2010). Nasjonale retningslinjer for
grunnskolelærerutdanningen 5.-10. trinn.
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/rundskriv/2010/retningslinje
r_grunnskolelaererutdanningen_5_10_trinn.pdf
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training [NDET]. (2014). Veilederen
Spesialundervisning. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/sarskilte-
behov/spesialundervisning/Spesialundervisning/
Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training [NDET]. (2021). Tilpasset
opplæring. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/tilpasset-opplaring/
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878
NOU 2016:14. (2016). Mer å hente. Bedre læring for elever med stort læringspotensial.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-
14/id2511246/
Olsen, M. H. (2020). Tilpasset opplæring når elever har stort læringspotensial. In M. H.
Olsen & P. Haug (Eds.), Tilpasset opplæring. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Persson, R. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of high
ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9(2), 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813980090204
Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and
inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 33(4) https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300405
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do
we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
26
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Examining the role of gifted education and talent development
for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly,
56(3), 10.
Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on
student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2–3), 140–
156. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600303
Rizza, M. G., & Morrison, W. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying
characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral
disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554202
Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A
complex quest: The development and research of underachievement
interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678–694.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620
Sekowski, A., & Łubianka, B. (2015). Education of gifted students in Europe. Gifted
Education International, 31(1), 73-90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413486579
Shaywitz, S. E., Holahan, J. M., Freudenheim, D. A., Fletcher, J. M., Makuch, R. W., &
Shaywitz, B. A. (2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit
behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly,
45(1), 16–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500103
Smedsrud, J. (2020). Explaining the variations of definitions in gifted education. Nordic
Studies in Education, 40(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2129
Smedsrud, J. (2018). Forsering og akselerasjon for evnerike elever: Det dårligste av de
beste alternativene. Psykologi i kommunen, 3(2018), 5-9.
Teachers’ perspective on extraordinary learning potential in Norway
27
Smedsrud, J., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Idsøe, E. C., Ulvund, S. E., Idsøe, T., & Lang-Ree,
O. C. (2018). The association between math achievement and perceived
relationship in school among high intelligent versus average adolescents.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(7).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1476406
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness
and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological
science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
The Norwegian Education Mirror, 2019. (n.d.). The Norwegian Directorate of
Education and Training. https://www.udir.no/in-english/education-mirror-2019/
Tirri, K. (2017). Teacher education is the key to changing the identification and
teaching of the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 210–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318996
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Hubbard, G. F. (2016). Classroom-based strategies for
advanced learners in rural settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4), 285–
310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16657645
Walsh, R. L., & Jolly, J. L. (2018). Gifted education in the Australian context. Gifted
Child Today, 41(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517750702
Manuscript received: 30.09.2020. Manuscript accepted: 08.02.2021.
©2021 A. Lenvik, E. Hesjedal & L. Ø. Jones. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License. ISSN 1891-5949, https://noredstudies.org
Citation: Lenvik, A., Hesjedal, E. & Jones, L. Ø. (2021). “We want to be educated!” A thematic analysis of gifted
students’ views on education in Norway. Nordic Studies in Education, 41(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.23865/
nse.v41.2621
Article | Peer-reviewed | Vol. 41, No. 3, 2021, pp. 219–238
“We Want to Be Educated!”
A Thematic Analysis of
Gifted Students’ Views on
Education in Norway
Astrid Lenvik
Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway
Contact corresponding author: Astrid.Lenvik@uib.no
Elisabeth Hesjedal
Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway
Lise Øen Jones
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway
ABSTRACT
Norwegian educational policy focuses on inclusive, equivalent, and adapted education for
all. We followed procedures for an inductive thematic approach to explore the educational
experiences of seventeen gifted students (age twelve – fteen). The inductive thematic
analysis revealed three key themes: the educational system, the joy of learning, and
problematic issues concerning school and learning. Our results are discussed in light
of educational policy and Gagné’s Dierentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, and
indicate that the Norwegian educational system does not meet these gifted students’
needs at either the individual or systemic levels. This study is vital for gaining a better
understanding of the Norwegian perspective as well as the wider Nordic setting.
Keywords: gifted education, primary school, secondary school, inductive thematic analysis,
educational policy
Being a gifted student in a heterogeneous class is not necessarily an easy task. Interna-
tional research has shown that gifted students who are not part of a gifted program may
develop issues related to behavior, drop out of school, or just give up on education and
school altogether (J. R. Cross & T. L. Cross, 2015; T. L. Cross et al., 2014; Subotnik et al.,
Astrid Lenvik et al.
220
2011). Gifted students report feelings of otherness from their peers, apathy for school,
that school is an obligation or “prison,” a need for sucient challenges and dier-
entiation, and the importance of their teacher (Borovay et al., 2019; Brandišauskienė,
2019; Gomez-Arizaga et al., 2020; McGrath, 2019; Samardzija & Peterson, 2015; Smith
& Goebel, 2015; Yavuz et al., 2016). This inductive qualitative study aims to explore the
educational experiences of seventeen gifted students in Norwegian secondary schools.
The gifted students report on their secondary school education and retrospectively on
their primary school education.
Educational provisions for gifted students
There are three primary educational provisions for gifted students: segregation,
acceleration, and inclusion (Rasmussen & Lingard, 2018). Segregation and accelera-
tion involve identifying gifted students and providing for them in segregated or accel-
erated classes. Acceleration can also entail skipping grades or entering comprehensive
school earlier than peers.
Acceleration is often viewed as harmful to the students’ psychological and social
well-being, both by teachers and parents (Bernstein et al., 2020; Dare & Nowicki,
2019; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). However, a longitudinal study of educational
acceleration concluded that acceleration did not negatively aect psychological
well-being (Bernstein et al., 2020). Gifted students benet from grouping within the
class, across grades in particular subjects, and by unique grouping for gifted students
(Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). Acceleration has a positive, moderate, and signicant
impact on student academic achievement, and accelerated students outperform their
non-accelerated same-age peers ( Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016).
Inclusive provisions for gifted students are approaches within the same-age
classroom involving dierentiation and enrichment strategies (Rasmussen &
Lingard, 2018; VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016). Dierentiation may involve
the inclusion of advanced content from higher grade levels, critical thinking
and problem- solving skills, projects and problem-based learning (Betts, 2004;
VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016). Gifted students prefer more demanding work
and accelerated subjects with older students, and enrichment activities that are
active, inquisitive, open-ended, and varied, as well as tailored to dierent learning
styles (Borovay et al., 2019; Gomez-Arizaga et al., 2020; McGrath, 2019; Samardzija
& Peterson, 2015).
Teachers may have negative attitudes towards giftedness and gifted education;
including, for example, the idea that gifted students do not need educational provi-
sions, or that the acceleration or segregation of gifted students is harmful. If teach-
ers have knowledge and training about giftedness and gifted education, they are more
likely to meet gifted students’ educational needs (Geake & Gross, 2008). Students pre-
fer engaging, professional, and competent teachers who have reasonable control in
their classroom (Samardzija & Peterson, 2015; Smith & Goebel, 2015).
“We Want to Be Educated!”
221
Nordic research on gifted education
According to several comparison studies, there is not much information to be found
about gifted education in the Nordic countries (Frantz & McClarty, 2016; Mönks &
Püger, 2005; Reid & Boettger, 2015).
Finland has a highly developed educational system, which educates all chil-
dren according to their individual needs. However, some Finnish teachers have a
xed ability mindset, and teachers need more knowledge about giftedness’s social-
emotional aspects (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). There are opportunities for acceleration
through earlier entry to comprehensive school and enrichment and extra-curricular
activities like summer camps or talent classes in Finland, Denmark, and Sweden
(Dodillet, 2019; Rasmussen & Lingard, 2018; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). Gifted Swedish
adults regard their education as unsatisfactory, with primary school being the least
satisfying (Persson, 2010).
Wendelborg and Caspersen (2016) found that high achievers in Norway report less
teacher support, not enough challenges, lack of relevance, and a higher degree of bul-
lying (Wendelborg & Caspersen, 2016). Smedsrud (2018) found in his interview study
of eleven Norwegian accelerated math students that they did not receive sucient
challenges, especially in early primary school.
Gifted education in Norway
Norway bases its educational system on equity, inclusion, and adaption to the dier-
ent abilities and aptitudes of students; an ideology based on the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the Salamanca Statement (Ministry of Children and Families,
1991; The Education Act, 1998, § 1-1, § 1-3; UNESCO, 1994). Norwegian students also
have the right to be involved in and inuence their education (The Education Act, 1998).
If ordinary education does not cover students’ needs, they should receive special edu-
cation (The Education Act, 1998, § 5-1). Adapted education covers both ordinary educa-
tion and special education (Nordahl et al., 2018).
In 2016, an ocial investigation concluded that three main systematic realiza-
tions were needed to better provide for students with high learning potential (gifted)
(NOU 2016: 14, 2016). Primary and secondary education is not adapted enough to real-
ize gifted students’ learning potential. Schools are not utilizing the possibilities for
pedagogical and organizational dierentiation. The educational system needs a joint
knowledge base (NOU 2016: 14, 2016, p. 8).
Gifted education can be a part of special education, and receive special education
stature (Mönks & Püger, 2005; Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, 1994).
However, Norway reserves special education for students with, e.g., learning dicul-
ties, and the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (NDET) concludes that
students with high learning potential have a satisfactory yield within ordinary adapted
education (NDET, 2014). Adapted education covers ordinary and special education; in
special education, adaptation is considered an individual right, while adaptation in
Astrid Lenvik et al.
222
ordinary education is supposed to be achieved through variation and modication
according to students’ diverse needs (NDET, 2020).
Educational provisions for gifted students in Norway include acceleration through
early entry to comprehensive school and skipping grades later, and single subject
acceleration (NOU 2016:14, 2016). Teachers can use enrichment strategies through
adapted education and dierentiation, but we have little knowledge about the enrich-
ment and dierentiation these students get in Norway (Børte et al., 2016).
Theories on giftedness and development
There are several denitions and theories regarding giftedness and development. In this
article, we will refer to three dierent theories: the three-ring conception of giftedness
(Renzulli, 2012), the Multifactor Model of Giftedness (MMG) (Mönks & Katzko, 2005),
and the Dierentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) (Gagné, 1995, 2004, 2010).
The three-ring conception of giftedness model displays three interactive clus-
ters: above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity (Renzulli, 2012). These
traits represent the main dimensions for creative productivity, and it is the interac-
tion between these traits that creates fruitful conditions for a creative, productive pro-
cess (Renzulli, 2012). Above average ability can be both general intellectual ability and
a specic ability like, e.g., music. Task commitment is a focused or rened form of
motivation, and creativity includes traits like curiosity, originality, and a willingness
to challenge convention and tradition (Renzulli, 2012). The Multifactor Model of Gift-
edness combines these traits with support from the main environmental components:
peers, family, and school (Mönks & Katzko, 2005). The MMG emphasizes that gifted-
ness can only develop in a fruitful interaction with the environmental dimension.
According to Gagné (2010), giftedness is the possession of natural abilities or
aptitudes that are untrained, spontaneously expressed, and considered outstanding.
In Gagné’s (2010) model, he emphasizes three catalysts, the intrapersonal, the envi-
ronment, and chance. Through a developmental process, the natural abilities (gifts)
develop into a systematically developed skill (talent). The catalysts will inuence the
developmental process and might promote or hinder development. The intrapersonal
catalyst includes traits like physical characteristics, motivation, and personality. The
environmental catalyst represents the milieu or environment with signicant per-
sons, provisions, and signicant events (Gagné, 2004, 2010). Chance inuences both
the intrapersonal catalyst, the environmental catalyst, and the developmental process
itself. While it is possible to reduce some amount of chance, for example through the
provision of a high standard of education for all students in all regions of a country,
there will still be elements of chance that inuence a child’s development.
Current study
In this study, we aim to explore gifted education in Norway. The main research ques-
tion is, “How do Norwegian gifted secondary school students experience their education?”
“We Want to Be Educated!”
223
There are few studies on gifted education in Norway, and it is crucial to explore this
phenomenon from the perspective of those experiencing it. How do gifted students
experience the educational provisions they get? Are their experiences dierent
between primary and secondary school? How do these students relate to their teach-
ers, and what kind of teachers do these students prefer?
This study will focus on the environmental catalyst in the DMGT, the environmen-
tal dimensions in the MMG, and the intellectual domain, which is the most familiar
domain attributed to giftedness (Subotnik et al., 2011).
Method
This article draws on a qualitative study (Braun & Clarke, 2006) with data from per-
sonal (face to face) semi-structured interviews (Brinkmann, 2015) with seventeen
gifted students in Norwegian secondary schools, conducted by the rst author during
the spring of 2018. The inductive thematic analysis was driven by the data content,
with the research question as a guide (Braun et al., 2015). The interview duration
ranged from sixteen minutes to one hour and twenty minutes. The total amount of
data consists of 303 pages of transcript (Times New Roman, size 12, line spacing 1.5).
Interview Guide
We developed the semi-structured interview guide from the research question “How
do Norwegian gifted secondary school students experience school?” as well as previ-
ous research in the eld (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). We also did a quantitative sur-
vey with teachers before the interviews, which yielded some topics like facilitation
and teachers’ recognition of talent. We did a pilot interview before the data collec-
tion, which prompted some changes in wording. The main topics were experiences
and strategies in school, adapted education, family and friends, underachievement,
social-emotional issues, and involvement in their education.
The informants
Participants in this study are seventeen students between twelve and fteen years
(mean age fourteen) attending secondary school in Norway. Eleven participants are
male, and six are female. The selection is a convenience sample (Gorard, 2001). There
is an overweight of one gender, but we have not considered gender dierences in this
study.
We recruited the informants in the study by contacting “Happy Children,” a net-
work for parents of gifted kids in Norway. We utilized social media, contacted all sec-
ondary schools in our home municipality, and reached out to a talent center in Math
and Science. Inclusion criteria in this study was nomination by a teacher or parent, and
a score of 95th percentile or above on at least one subscale in WISC-IV, Verbal Com-
prehension (VC), Perceptual Reasoning (PR), Working Memory (WM), or Processing
Speed (PS). The rst author tested thirteen of the participants; the remaining four had
Astrid Lenvik et al.
224
been tested previously. The informants in this study are gifted more specically in the
VC, which means that they are exceptionally talented in language, reading, writing,
or PR, which means they have talents with logical uid reasoning and visual-spatial
skills. Some had a homogenous prole with high scores in all domains, while others
scored substantially better on VC or PR.
Analysis
Thematic analysis is a common analytical method in qualitative interview studies
(Braun et al., 2019; Braun et al., 2015; Braun & Clarke, 2006). We followed the six steps
listed by Braun and Clarke (2006) for inductive thematic analysis. The rst step was a
close reading of the transcripts. The rst author transcribed all of the interviews, and
all authors read the transcripts. Step two is generating initial codes. See table 1 for an
example of the preliminary coding.
Table 1: Coding example
TEXT CODE(S) NOTE
Well it was an assignement where I was suppo-
sed to write about a book we had been reading
in class, that was interesting. So I just started
working, and working and I thought it was nice
to write and feel like I’m coping with the assign-
ment. That’s a very nice feeling.
Academic self-
condence
Positive feeling of
coping, interesting and
challenging assignments.
[ehm] I was kinda put in a class where I was like
the “smart one”, because “wow she reads books
in recess. And she pays attention in class!” And I
always thought it was strange, so I kinda just got
that role, like that.
Primary school,
Comments from
other students,
Roles
Didn’t feel like they t
in the class, they got a
role as «the smart one»
because of reading books
and paying attention.
I like it best in secondary school. But I think it
has a lot to do with the environment also. And,
yeah I got involved in the wrong crowd like …
and I think the subjects are more fun, and like
there is more discussion and not just what the
book says and remember that to the test. Like
there is much more discussions in class, and we
try to reect more and such, and we learn more
about those things.
Discussion, En-
richment, Joy of
learning
The student mention
discussion and reec-
tions as positive for
learning. They say that
it’s fun and they like to
move past what the book
says. This is in line with
enrichment strategies.
The rst author coded the transcriptions in NVivo 12 Pro (QSR International),
computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (Silver & Lewins, 2015). First, by
question, with all the individual answers from each informant at the same time. This
method gave a sense of similarities and dierences between informants. The second
author conducted a preliminary coding, resulting in the same codes as the rst author.
After we coded all of the questions, we reread each interview and coded again. The
coding sessions resulted in 98 dierent codes. Step three is searching for themes. We
grouped some of the codes easily, while others remained separate until we determined
the broader themes. Step four is reviewing themes. All authors discussed codes and
preliminary themes during a meeting. The rst author then wrote summaries of each
theme, examined the themes for commonalities and dierences, and searched for the
overarching story.
“We Want to Be Educated!”
225
Table 2: Relationship between themes, subthemes and codes
OVERARCHING
THEME
SUBTHEME CODES CODES
The Educational
system
Adapted
education
Enrichment Extra assignments
Acceleration Challenging work
Adapted education Complicity
Teachers
Competent teachers Golden Child
Teacher relation Helping teacher
Overbearing teachers Feedback
Understanding teachers Teacher – student conference
Focus on achivement
School –
home relation
Teacher relation School – home
Family Challenging work at home
Primary school Primary school Problems with facilitation
School work
Extra assignments Projects
Group work Writing
Grade scores Ask for help
Homework Challenging work
The Joy of
Learning
How I work
Notes Skip it
Organizing Don’t want to
Reading
Joy of learning Joy of learning Motivation
Subjects Logical Challenging work
Discussions
Problems related
to school and
learning
Classroom (social
environment)
Calm working
environment Bullying
Class environment “Jantelaw” (Tall poppies)
Problems related
to myself
Detached Fear of missing out
Frustrated Tired
Gives up Issues with concentration
Need to nish Disruptive behavior
Instruction
No instruction Adapted education
Boring assignments Freedom to choose
Grouping by level Repetition
Inductive thematic analysis is not a linear process (Braun et al., 2019), which we also
saw in our study. After the rst author wrote the thematic summaries, it was clear
that there was an overweight of semantic codes and few latent codes, which prompted
a new look at the material. Step ve is dening and naming the themes, and step six
is producing the report. We reviewed, described, discussed, and, after a meeting,
Astrid Lenvik et al.
226
identied the themes, determining three main themes and eleven subthemes. The
main themes are: the educational system, the joy of learning, and problematic issues
concerning school and learning. See table 2 for the relationship between themes and
subthemes.
Validity and reliability
The terms validity and reliability are contested when it comes to qualitative research.
Validity, especially, has many dierent denotations and connotations (Creswell &
Miller, 2000; Hammersley, 2007). Even though the terms have dierent value and
content in qualitative research compared to quantitative research, it is still crucial for
the qualitative researcher to prove the credibility and quality of the research. Inclusion
criteria were nomination by a teacher or parent and a score of 95th percentile or above
on WISC-IV. WISC-IV is a cognitive measurement with an average reliability score of
.97 on the full scale, and .94 on VC and .92 on PR in the original version (Wechsler,
2003). In the Norwegian translation, the r score is .98 on VC, .92 on PR and .97 on full
scale (Wechsler, 2009). In terms of validity, WISC-IV is an established tool for mea-
suring cognitive ability, and it is a validated test for measuring intellectual giftedness.
In the validation of WISC-IV, they tested it on a clinical group with intellectual gifted-
ness. They found that the gifted group scored substantially higher on VC and PR but
moderately higher on WM and PS (Wechsler, 2003).
We have established the validity of the thematic results in this study by several
means. All three authors read the transcriptions, and then discussed and agreed on
the codes and themes. We achieved data saturation (Bryant, 2015; Fusch & Ness, 2015)
in the coding around interview fourteen. No new codes emerged from the last three
interviews. The rst author returned to the material to look for disconrming evidence
(Creswell & Miller, 2000). We performed member checking by inviting the participants
to a session to present the themes and ndings. The participants who joined this ses-
sion agree that the themes represent their experiences. The tables included in the
article also provide transparency.
Ethics
Norwegian Centre for Research Data has approved this study. All informants and par-
ents gave their informed written consent (Traianou, 2015). To preserve the privacy
of the participants, we have removed all names and places. We informed the partic-
ipants that they could withdraw, even after the interviews. Children as participants
are considered more vulnerable and need further protection than adult participants
(Traianou, 2015). We have synthesized the results to create a combined story rather
than sharing the individual narratives. Even so, there will be individual quotes, which
emphasize essential aspects. The individual quotes are translated from Norwegian
to English, which gives an extra layer of anonymity, and there are no ages, genders,
or names associated with the quotes. Informants are referred to using the genderless
pronoun they/them.
“We Want to Be Educated!”
227
Findings
Our primary research question was, “How do Norwegian gifted secondary school stu-
dents experience their education?” By following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) procedures
for inductive thematic analysis, we developed three main themes; 1) the educational
system, 2) the joy of learning, and 3) problematic issues concerning school and learn-
ing. The central phenomenon is that Norwegian schools’ overarching system is not
adequately prepared for or invested in gifted students. The informants experience that
the system is not a good t for them and that it is necessary to change policy in order
to improve their educational outcomes.
Theme 1: The Educational system
The analysis shows that there are dierent systematic issues related to teachers,
schools, adapted education, and overarching issues, such as educational law.
One of the systematic issues is teachers. Teachers can be a promotional or inhibi-
tory factor in gifted students’ education, based on their knowledge and attitudes. Our
informants emphasize teachers who have helped them and teachers who have hin-
dered their education.
I know several in my school, (…) who learn fast, (…) and they need more chal-
lenges in some subjects. And it’s like they won’t get it, and they are stuck with
the teacher who is holding them back, and just repeat a lot they already know,
and they lose motivation for the subjects.
The quote above illustrates how teachers can be an inhibitory factor if they do not dif-
ferentiate the education provided. Further analysis reveals that teachers who have dif-
culties with classroom management, resulting in a lot of noise and disruption, may
also inhibit gifted students’ development.
Well, one of them, (…) it’s like a lot of noise and foolishness in his classes. It’s
like he has no control over his students. (…) [A]ll the students they just walk
around somewhere and do the complete opposite of what they are supposed
to do.
The student emphasizes that a good learning environment is built on the teacher’s
control and classroom management skills.
Moreover, the analysis shows what kind of teachers these students prefer —
professional teachers who are knowledgeable in their subject and know how to convey
their knowledge.
They are teachers who are very exible and who know their subject well. And
teachers who (…) manage to facilitate for everyone, for all types of students.
The quote above demonstrates that a good teacher dierentiates the curriculum and
adapts it to all students’ needs. Further, the preferred teachers are friendly but strict
Astrid Lenvik et al.
228
when necessary; and the learning environment is calm and inviting. The students also
describe teachers that give proper feedback.
She gives good feedback on assessments. And that’s something I think is im-
portant, that you should look less on the grade itself and rather more on the
assessment, like the comment on what you can do better, what was good and
stu like that, and she is very good at that.
The quote above shows that these students want more input than just a grade on paper;
they want to know how to improve. A good teacher provides this kind of feedback. Fur-
thermore, the analysis revealed other systematic issues, like a lack of communication
between teachers and more of the same work instead of greater diculty. Addition-
ally, when the participants get challenging work, they have to work independently, as
there are not enough teachers to facilitate appropriately.
I think maybe they should facilitate better. [eh] I know it’s like everyone should
have the same when they are at school. But I think it would have been better
with more adaptation. I know it’s not possible, with the way the school is now,
but more adaptation for each student (…) it would be better.
In the quote above, the informant calls for more adaptation in school. It also demon-
strates that when everyone gets the same input, that does not mean that the educa-
tion provided is equitable. Some students say that this is probably dicult to change
because that would mean changing the entire system.
[I] t’s not stu I want to change at this school, but like with the entire system,
but I don’t think that’s realistic to think about.
These students see a fault in the system. The central issue is using groups based on
the students’ competence level, not just the regular age group. The participants report
that splitting the age group would make it easier for the teacher to facilitate and adapt
the instruction and curriculum.
[T]hey are not allowed to do that, my teacher said. Because it shouldn’t be
elites and such, so they are not allowed to make groups by level (…). [I]nstead,
they mix people who are on a level of two or three with people who get ve
and six. And I don’t think that works out for either of them.
Moreover, the analysis displays that grouping by level is considered elitist. Accord-
ing to participants, this notion makes it harder to adapt the education for all
students.
The analysis in this study revealed that it seems easier to facilitate for gifted stu-
dents in secondary school. Primary school (especially 1–4) appears to be the most
disruptive and tedious for these students, and they talk about acceleration in an unfa-
vorable view.
“We Want to Be Educated!”
229
In primary school, there was a lot less adaptation compared to secondary
school. Like, (…) I work with 10th-grade math now, and I have a teacher
teaching me. But in primary school, I just sat in the classroom with head-
phones on and did my own thing; there was no teaching.
The quote above reects both the dierence between primary and secondary school
and the systematic issue with facilitation.
Besides, the analysis demonstrates that schoolwork is a systematic issue. These
students share the same experience with group work; they get stuck with all the work
and must carry the entire group.
[B]ut I don’t like cooperative work. (…)
Why not?
Because (…), especially
if you have projects and such, (…) you get placed in a group where it’s quite
dierent how motivated you are. So you get stuck with a lot of work, and I
don’t like that. It’s very annoying, (…) Since I want the entire project to be
good, not just my part, even if it’s an individual grade in the project, it’s like I
want it to be perfect, so then I get stuck with a lot of work and do everything
myself.
The quote above also illustrates another vital aspect, which is involvement and partic-
ipation. In the Norwegian educational law (The Education Act, 1998, § 1-1), the students
have the right to be involved and aect their education. On the whole, the informants
regarded participation as occurring through the student council, and not as a way of
inuencing their education.
Theme 2: The Joy of Learning
The analysis revealed dierent ways of learning in school. The informants enjoyed
learning new things, especially logical subjects, and more signicant projects that
combined various subjects and art elements.
In the analysis of how these students learn best, there are individual dierences and
shared experiences. Some of the students mention taking notes and organizing their
learning, while others feel that notes are disturbing and they learn more by focusing
on the teacher or reading.
[A]nd I think it’s fun just to nd out things like just go on Wikipedia and read
about German minorities in Slovenia; I think that’s interesting. Just learning
and learning. That’s fun!
The above extract displays the joy of learning these students have. The students talk
with enthusiasm about the subjects they enjoy. They speak about logical subjects like
math or science in optimistic terms. These subjects are rational and easily under-
standable, and they appreciate using this part of their brain. In addition, the partici-
pants consider discussions as fruitful for learning and questions that make you reect
as rewarding.
Astrid Lenvik et al.
230
The analysis claries that project assignments, where they need to develop their
own research question, are valid methods for learning and getting more challenges.
For example, when we in science were supposed to make this health booklet,
and that was fun because I didn’t know much about it; at the same time, you
got to mix in knowledge from the book with graphic design and art.
The quote above demonstrates that project work can encompass dierent subjects and
include art, which these students seem to enjoy.
Theme 3: Problematic issues concerning school and learning
The analysis revealed that each informant mentions problematic issues related to their
education. There are dierent aspects of their experience in school that disturb their
learning.
The analysis displays that other students in school might disrupt education and
learning.
[T]here was a lot of noise and disruption, and we didn’t do anything, the
teacher didn’t know what I was supposed to do, so I just sat there and did
nothing and got really frustrated. I was really mad at everything and everyone
actually, since none of them were listening, and there was so much noise.
The above extract illustrates how frustrated these students can get when some-
one disturbs their learning and education. The informants also need less repetition,
varied instruction, more freedom to choose, facilitated education, and group-
ing by levels. When they do not get this kind of dierentiation, they get bored and
frustrated.
Repetition is, really, I think it’s just a waste of time for me when I know I could
have used that time to learn something new, instead of repeating what we had
two days ago.
One student calls for a proper education, not just being expected to learn on their
own.
I don’t like the way (…) they teach me in math. Or it’s not even teaching,
the way they want me to learn math on my own. I can’t sit in a room with
a book and learn like that.
You want to be taught?
I want to be educated!
But not instructed how to calculate the volume of a dice; (…) that’s just
boring.
The two quotes above emphasize the need for proper adaptation and facilitation in
school. The informants are frustrated by repetition or sitting by themselves and learn-
ing independently. They want a proper education, not self-study.
“We Want to Be Educated!”
231
The analysis further demonstrates that when the informants get bored and frus-
trated in school, they display disruptive behavior. This disruptiveness can take the
form of daydreaming (being detached from the learning situation or task at hand) or
physical disruptions (talking, walking, etc.).
Mhm, and I used to talk a lot in class. They said I had to be quieter and not
disturb others.
If you think back to that time, do you remember why you
were talking in class?
It was because it was boring, so I talked to people.
Boredom also leads to issues with concentration and feelings of fatigue. The students
report how challenging it is to concentrate and put eort into tedious and unnecessary
assignments. They do not put the same eort into these kinds of tasks as they would
more challenging tasks. Moreover, the analysis revealed other problematic issues like
perfectionism, that they need to stay on top of everything and are afraid of missing out
on their education.
To sum up, the students want teachers who are competent and can adapt the edu-
cation to their needs. The informants report that their education is better adapted in
secondary school. There are issues related to the educational system, which indicate
that the system is not optimal for them. Further, the informants reect on how they
learn best, and that they like project assignments, reection, and discussions. Repeti-
tion and unnecessary work and assignments are tedious and result in a lack of concen-
tration and disruptive behavior.
Discussion
Equitable education
Every student in Norwegian primary, secondary, and upper secondary school has the
right to an inclusive, equitable education adapted to their needs and abilities (The Edu-
cation Act, 1998, § 1-1, § 1-3). This study indicates systematic challenges that might
lead to education without equity, inclusion, and adaptation.
The results in theme 1 reveal that the students want more grouping based on level.
In Norway, the educational law emphasizes that you cannot regularly split student
groups by competence level (The Education Act, 1998, § 8-2). The law does not permit
schools and teachers to make permanent groups based on level, except for students
with special education needs. However, it is allowed if such a grouping is less regular.
Teachers might not be aware of this exception. In the ocial report from 2016 (NOU
2016: 14, 2016), the authors mention grouping by level as a missed opportunity. Gifted
students benet from special groups and grouping within the class or across grades
(Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). Individualization and dierentiation are core princi-
ples in gifted education, but this is not easy to achieve in same age groups, which are
heterogeneous in development and learning needs (Mönks & Katzko, 2005). The NOU
(2016) argues that both teachers and schools might be underutilizing this option. Our
results indicate the same.
Astrid Lenvik et al.
232
Teachers are essential in the DMGT and the MMG (Gagné, 2010; Mönks & Katzko,
2005). Teachers must be aware of the needs of the student and how to facilitate them
properly. One result in theme 1 displays that a good teacher facilitates these students.
These ndings are on par with other qualitative studies that nd that students value
teacher competence and teacher personality, novelty, and creativity (Gomez-Arizaga
etal., 2020; Samardzija & Peterson, 2015). In the DMGT, the chance element is a catalyst
that aects both the developmental process and the environmental and intrapersonal
catalyst (Gagné, 2004, 2010). As we see in the results, there are dierent experiences
between the dierent students regarding the provisions and adaptation they receive,
indicating that getting a teacher who provides and facilitates them inuences how they
experience their education. As in Schmitt and Goebel’s (2015) study, teachers might
promote or hinder gifted students’ development. The educational system should reduce
the amount of chance and how chance aects the education of gifted students.
Wendelborg and Caspersen (2016) show that high achievers receive less support
and fewer challenges than their peers. Smedsrud (2018) found that gifted students did
not receive sucient challenges, especially in primary school; Persson (2010) shows
similar results from Sweden. In our study, the students are more pleased with their
experience in secondary school and say the education there is better adapted. It is dif-
cult to speculate on why there is a dierence; it might be primary teachers’ com-
petence or knowledge about giftedness and gifted students’ needs. It might be, as in
Sweden, that the increased diculty in secondary school makes it easier to dierenti-
ate or that specialized subject teachers nd it easier to enrich the curriculum (Persson,
2010). The results further demonstrate that the facilitation and adaptation for these
students does not provide them with enough opportunities to develop their potential.
Equitable education does not mean education that is the same for everyone – equity in
education requires dierentiation (Nordahl et al., 2018).
Educational provisions
Education for gifted students can be adapted by utilizing content from a higher grade
level and assignments that foster critical thinking and problem solving (Betts, 2004;
VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016). Provisions like adaptation and facilitation are
an essential part of the DMGT and the MMG (Gagné, 2010; Mönks & Katzko, 2005).
Adaptation through ordinary education might not necessarily fulll the needs of
gifted students. The individual right to adaptation in special education might give
gifted students greater opportunity to utilize their potential. However, the Norwegian
educational authority does not acknowledge giftedness as a “special” education need
(NDET, 2014, p. 13). Are we losing some potential by neglecting that giftedness might
be a “special” education need?
One of the provisions we see in the result is acceleration. Some participants have
skipped a year, while others attend an accelerated subject. Acceleration is a tried and
valued type of facilitation as it provides the necessary speed and less repetition ( Sayler
& Brookshire, 1993). Acceleration might mean starting school at ve instead of six
“We Want to Be Educated!”
233
(The Education Act, 1998, § 2-1), skipping a grade, or subject acceleration. The most
signicant problem we found with subject acceleration is getting it to work; you need
the entire school environment to work together. There might also be issues related to
the myth about the harmful eects of acceleration, but acceleration does not nega-
tively aect students socially or psychologically, and acceleration has a positive and
signicant eect on academic achievement (Bernstein et al., 2020; Steenbergen-Hu
et al., 2016). Schools need to develop a system that makes it easier for students to take
accelerated subjects (NOU 2016: 14, 2016). An overarching system would also reduce
the chance element in what kind of provisions gifted students get.
In theme 2, the analysis revealed how the participants feel they learn best. Logical
subjects, reection, discussion, project assignments, and creative and practical assign-
ments are fruitful for their learning. These results are similar to previous research that
mentions discussion (Brandišauskienė 2019), logical subjects like math and science
(McGrath 2019; Mujtaba & Reiss, 2016), reection (Borovay et al. 2019), and creative
enrichment projects (Brigandi et al., 2016; Gomez-Arizaga et al., 2020). Teachers need
to know how to adapt the education so gifted students can utilize their potential. The
forms of adaptation mentioned here are inclusive (Rasmussen & Lindgård, 2018) and
possible to utilize in ordinary adapted education. When a teacher evaluates a gifted stu-
dent’s education, they should ask that student how they learn best and what motivates
them, and use this information when adapting the education. A gifted student might
need dierentiation both in terms of types of assignments and content.
The results in theme 3 show how problematic issues can lead to frustration and
boredom. The examination further showed that when gifted students get bored and
frustrated, they turn to disruptive behavior. Some research points to the relationship
between giftedness and behavioral problems (Bakar & Ishak, 2014; Kennedy, 2002;
Saunders, 2003; Shaywitz et al., 2001). Others nd that gifted students show fewer
behavioral issues (Cornell et al., 1994; Francis et al., 2015; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993;
Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). It seems that gifted students in gifted programs are less
likely to show behavioral issues like disruptive behavior. But, the picture is dier-
ent for gifted students who lack adaptation. There are no gifted programs per se in
Norway, and students with high learning potential are reliant on their teachers and
the provisions provided by their school.
Limitations
Qualitative researchers need to be aware of and reect on the inherent biases and
assumptions we bring to research (Becker, 1967; Finlay & Gough, 2003). Becker (1967)
argues that sociological research should inform the reader about which side the
research favors. This study focuses on students’ perspectives, and teachers might dis-
agree with this presentation. The themes are a product of how we analyzed the inter-
views and are subject to our biases. Themes do not emerge from the data, we are not
discovering diamonds (Braun & Clarke, 2016; Constas, 1992), and dierent research-
ers might produce dierent themes.
Astrid Lenvik et al.
234
As this is an inductive qualitative study with only seventeen participants, it is
impossible to generalize the ndings to all gifted students in Norway. There were
some dierences in interview duration, with the shortest interview at sixteen minutes.
This participant answered every question but was much less talkative than the other
participants.
Conclusion
Previous research on gifted students in Norway is scarce, and this study contributes
to this area of research with valuable knowledge about how gifted students experience
their education in primary and secondary school. The study’s themes reveal that the
informants’ experience of their education is that it is not adequately adapted to their
needs and abilities. The students experience dierent issues that aect and disturb
their learning in school, including issues with the system, with a particular teacher or
classroom, or how they handle boring assignments. According to the DMGT and MMG
(Gagné, 2010; Mönks & Katzko, 2005), teachers and schools are necessary for develop-
ing gifts to talents. Our results indicate that the Norwegian educational system is not
adequately prepared to give gifted students the conditions they need to further their
development. This means that each teacher must provide students with the neces-
sary facilitation. Still, the teacher might have limited knowledge about giftedness and
adaptation for gifted students. It highlights the chance element in DMGT and how this
aects the education of gifted students. Systematic challenges concerning accelera-
tion and adaption need to be addressed so that gifted students in Norway can receive
an inclusive, equitable and adapted education.
Implications and further research
Our study is important for teachers as we highlight gifted students’ experiences in
Norway and their needs. Our results are also valuable for policymakers. It might be
necessary to implement changes on a systemic level to better provide for gifted stu-
dents and reduce the chance element in their education. There is a need for more
knowledge and information about gifted students in Norwegian teacher education and
for policymakers.
Further research should investigate how to facilitate these students, as well as
how to explore teachers’ perspectives. Exploring giftedness and disruptive behav-
ior in Norwegian schools is also of interest. How prevalent disruptive behavior
is in the Norwegian gifted student population is impossible to say based on this
study.
REFERENCES
Bakar, A. B. Y. & Ishak, N. M. (2014). Depression, anxiety, stress, and adjustments among
Malaysian gifted learners: Implication towards school counseling provision. International
Education Studies, 7(13), 6–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p6
“We Want to Be Educated!”
235
Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–47. https://doi.
org/10.2307/799147
Bernstein, B. O., Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2020). Academic acceleration in gifted youth and
fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500
Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of dierentiation. Roeper
Review, 26(4), 190–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554269
Borovay, L. A., Shore, B. M., Caccese, C., Yang, E. & Hua, O. L. (2019). Flow, achievement level,
and inquiry-based learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(1), 74–106. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1932202X18809659
Børte, K., Lillejord, S. & Johansson, L. (2016). Evnerike elever og elever med stort læringspotensial:
En forskningsoppsummering [Gifted students and students with high learning potential: A
research summary]. Kunnskapssenter for utdanning. https://www.forskningsradet.no/
siteassets/publikasjoner/1254019980213.pdf
Brandišauskienė, A. (2019). “I am more than my IQ”: Analysis of the experience of a gifted
learner. Gifted Education International, 35(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429
419840648
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems
with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayeld, N. & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–60). Springer.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. & Rance, N. (2015). How to use thematic analysis with interview data.
In A. Vossler & N. Moller (Eds.), The counselling and psychotherapy research handbook
(pp. 183–197). Sage Publications.
Brigandi, C. B., Siegle, D., Weiner, J. M., Gubbins, E. J. & Little, C. A. (2016). Gifted secondary
school students: The perceived relationship between enrichment and goal valuation. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 39(4), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216671837
Brinkmann, S. (2015). Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 277 –299). Oxford University Press.
Bryant, A. (2015). The grounded theory method. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 116 –136). Oxford University Press.
Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category
development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253–266. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312029002253
Cornell, D. G., Delcourt, M. A., Bland, L. C., Goldberg, M. D. & Oram, G. (1994). Low incidence of
behavior problems among elementary school students in gifted programs. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 18(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329401800102
Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477543
Cross, J. R. & Cross, T. L. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted
individual. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/
j.1556-6676.2015.00192.x
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J. & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (2014). The social cognition of gifted
adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 37(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521492
Astrid Lenvik et al.
236
Dare, L. & Nowicki, E. (2019). Beliefs about educational acceleration: Students in inclusive
classes conceptualize benets, feelings, and barriers. The Journal of Educational Research,
112(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1440368
Dodillet, S. (2019). Inclusive elite education in Sweden: Insights from implementing excellence
programs into an egalitarian school culture. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
63(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1336480
Finlay, L. & Gough, B. (Eds.). (2003). Reexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and
social sciences. Blackwell Science.
Francis, R., Hawes D. J. & Abbott, M. (2015). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in
children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279–
302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779
Frantz, R. S. & McClarty, K. L. (2016). Gifted education’s reection of country-specic cultural,
political, and economic features. Gifted and Talented International, 31(1), 46–58. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1220794
Fusch, Patricia I. & Lawrence R. Ness. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report; Fort Lauderdale, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://search.proquest.
com/docview/1721368991?accountid=8579
Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the
language of the eld. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/027831995
09553709
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
Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81–99.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
Geake, J. G. & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative aect toward academically gifted
students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–231. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704
Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., Valdivia-Lefort, M., Castillo-Hermosilla, H., Hébert T. P. & Conejeros-Solar,
M. L. (2020). Tales from within: Gifted students’ lived experiences with teaching practices in
regular classrooms. Education Sciences, 10(5), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050137
Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The role of numbers made easy.
Continuum.
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270701614782
Kennedy, D. M (2002). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper
Review, 24(3), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554148
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Gyldendal Akademisk.
McGrath, P. (2019). Education in Northern Ireland: Does it meet the needs of gifted students?
Gifted Education International, 35(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429418784165
Ministry of Children and Families. (1991). FNs konvensjon om barnets rettigheter [UN convention
on the right of the child]. Barne- og familiedepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/
globalassets/upload/kilde/bfd/bro/2004/0004/ddd/pdfv/178931-fns_barnekonvensjon.pdf
Mujtaba, T. & Reiss, M. J. (2016). “I fall asleep in class … but physics is fascinating”: The use
of large-scale longitudinal data to explore the educational experiences of aspiring girls in
mathematics and physics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
16(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1235743
Mönks, F. J. & Püger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective.
Radboud University Nijmegen. https://www.giftedforyou.eu/plovdiv-guide/17.pdf
“We Want to Be Educated!”
237
Mönks, F. J. & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Nordahl, T. et al. (2018). Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge. Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge
med behov for særskilt tilretttelegging [Including community for children and youth. The
expert group for children and youth with need for special adaption]. https://nettsteder.
regjeringen.no/inkludering-barn-unge/les/2018/04/INKLUDERENDE-FELLESSKAP-FOR-
BARN-OG-UNGE-til-publisering-04.04.18.pdf
NOU 2016: 14 (2016). Mer å hente. Bedre læring for elever med stort læringspotensial [More to
gain. Better learning for students with high learning potential]. Kunnskapsdepartementet.
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-14/id2511246/
Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe. (1994). Doc 7140. Report on education for gifted
children. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=
8142&lang=EN
Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and inclusive
educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 536–569.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300405
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and
emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698
6209346946
Rasmussen, A. & Lingard, B. (2018). Excellence in education policies: Catering to the needs of
gifted and talented or those of self-interest? European Educational Research Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1474904118771466
Reid, E. & Boettger, H. (2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavonic
Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.18355/PG.2015.4.2.158-171
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the
21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698
6212444901
Samardzija, N. & Peterson, J. S. (2015). Learning and classroom preferences of gifted eighth
graders: A qualitative study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 233–256. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592498
Saunders, C. L. (2003). Case study: A gifted child at risk. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
14(2), 100–106. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.4219/jsge-2003-417
Sayler, M. F. & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment
of accelarated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth
grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 150–154. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/001698629303700403
Shaywitz, S. E., Holahan J. H., Freudenheim, D. A., Fletcher, J. M., Makuch, R. W. & Shaywitz,
B. A. (2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit behaviors resembling
boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001698620104500103
Shechtman, Z. & Silektor, A. (2012). Social competencies and diculties of gifted children
compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.
2012.627555
Silver, C. & Lewins, A. F. (2015) Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative research. In P. Leavy
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 606–638). Oxford University Press.
Smedsrud, J. (2018). Mathematically gifted accelerated students participating in an ability
group: A qualitative interview study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1359. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.01359
Astrid Lenvik et al.
238
Smith, C. & Goebel, V. (2015). Experiences of high-ability high school students: A case study.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353
215607325
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years
of research says about the eects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’
academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational
Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted
education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
The Education Act. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa (LOV-1998-
07-17-61). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2014). Veilederen spesialundervisning
[Guidance for special education]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/sarskilte-behov/
spesialundervisning/Spesialundervisning/
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020). Tilpasset opplæring [Adapted
education]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/tilpasset-opplaring/
Tirri, K. & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212468066
Traianou, A. (2015). The centrality of ethics in qualitative research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 62–77). Oxford University Press.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and sframework for action on special needs education.
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization. https://www.right-to-
education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/les/resource-attachments/Salamanca_
Statement_1994.pdf
VanTassel-Baska, J. & Hubbard, G. F. (2016). Classroom-based strategies for advanced
learners in rural settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4), 285–310. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1932202X16657645
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. Pearson Assessment.
Wechsler, D. (2009). WISC-IV norsk versjon manual del 1. (Heldal, L. & Haukeland, E., Trans).
Pearson Assessment.
Wendelborg, C. & Caspersen, J. (2016). Høyt presterende elevers vurdering av læringsmiljøet.
NTNU Samfunnsforskning AS. https://samforsk.no/Publikasjoner/2016/H%C3%B8yt%20
presterende%20elever%20WEB.pdf
Yavuz, E., Mehmet, S., Birben Fazilet, Y. & Hatun, S. Y. (2016). Motivation levels of gifted
students and their metaphorical perceptions of school. Educational Research and Reviews,
11(8), 553–61. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2697
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
1
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway: A mixed methods study
Abstract
In this article we describe the mixed methods research (i.e., quantitative survey and
qualitative interviews) we conducted to investigate adapted education for gifted students in
Norway. The survey results showed that the teachers (n = 132) used differentiation strategies
and agreed that gifted students need an adapted education that extends beyond the regular
curriculum. We identified three themes related to adapted education based on an analysis of
the student interview data (N = 17, aged 12–15) and four themes based on an analysis of the
teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey question regarding adapted education. We also
investigated similarities and differences between teacher and student themes: both groups
reported similar enrichment strategies applied within adapted education, as well as similar
barriers and systematic challenges to its facilitation.
Keywords: Adapted education, mixed methods, teachers, students
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
2
Introduction
In Norway, interest in gifted students and in the differentiation and adaptation of education for
this student population is increasing (Børte et al., 2016). The myth that gifted students can
manage on their own is being debunked as educators increasingly recognize that gifted
students need facilitation from teachers to develop their gifts properly (Gagné, 2004; Renzulli,
2012; Subotnik et al., 2011). Absent the guidance they need, they are in danger of developing,
for example, socioemotional difficulties, behavioral issues, negative relations with peers and
teachers, and negative self-value (Cross, 2014).
Frantz and McClarty (2016) demonstrated through their study of 38 Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries that cultural characteristics
contributed strongly to the way each country managed gifted education. The policy
approaches they identified were differentiated on a scale ranging from egalitarianism to
meritocracy. The egalitarian doctrine involved three distinct approaches: (a) providing
differentiated or adapted education for all students, (b) including gifted education within
special education, and (c) implementing inclusive strategies for underrepresented groups in
gifted education (Frantz & McClarty, 2016, p. 49). Specialized gifted schools have been
established as part of the public education system within the meritocracy doctrine. Seven
countries, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have not enacted any laws that
address gifted education, have less knowledge about gifted students, and place less focus on
this aspect of public education (Børte et al., 2016; Frantz & McClarty, 2016; Reid & Boettger,
2015).
Despite the increasing attention gifted education is now receiving in Norway,
educators still have little information on how to facilitate strategies to adapt and differentiate
education for gifted students (Børte et al., 2016). The current mixed methods study considered
both the teacher and the student perspective to investigate the differentiation and adaptation of
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
3
education in primary and secondary schools for students with extraordinary learning potential
(i.e., gifted) in Norway.
The Norwegian context
The educational approach in Norway is built to promote equity, inclusion, and adapted
education (Nordahl et al., 2018). Providing an equitable education involves ensuring that all
students are met with appropriate challenges and that no students are excluded based on their
preconditions. However, it does not require that every student receive the same education; on
the contrary, equity requires differentiation and adaptation (Nordahl et al., 2018).
To ensure the provision of an inclusive education, schools and teachers must heed the
diversity in the student group. The matter of inclusive education also raises essential questions
that are addressed by different and sometimes opposing positions (Magnússon & Sims, 2021).
These questions ask who, as in which groups need inclusion or which are considered
excluded, and how, as in how can we adjust pedagogical and organizational elements to
provide an inclusive education. These questions also touch on the relationship between
inclusion and special education, regarding which two strong, opposing positions exist: special
education as a means to inclusive education, and special education as incompatible with
inclusive education (Magnússon & Sims, 2021).
In Norway, the concept of inclusion as individual integrity, whereby diversity as the
inclusion process has its own value, is integral to the understanding of inclusive education
(Vik & Hausstätter, 2014). Inclusive education, in Norway, has its roots in the Salamanca
Statement by UNESCO in 1994, in which gifted students are among the various student
groups specifically mentioned (UNESCO, 1994).
Adapted education is one way to provide inclusive and equitable education for all.
Norwegian educational law dictates that education be adapted to meet all students’ needs and
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
4
abilities (The Education Act, 1998, § 1-3). According to the Norwegian Directorate for
Education and Training (NDET), adapted education is not an individual right of each student;
instead, it is realized through variation and differentiation in line with the student group’s
diversity (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training [NDET], 2020b).
Special education is regulated in § 5-1 in the Education Act, which states that all
students who do not or cannot get a satisfactory yield from ordinary education shall receive a
special education (The Education Act, 1998). However, the Act does not concretely define
what constitutes a “satisfactory” yield; such determinations require an assessment based on
the student’s needs and available provisions. The NDET has established that gifted students
already achieve a satisfactory yield and, thus, are not covered by special education (NDET,
2014).
Adapted education, as a principle, encompasses both ordinary adapted education and
special education (Nordahl et al., 2018). Teachers might adapt education through individual
educational plans or by applying general principles for a good education (Hausstätter, 2012).
In this article, “adapted education” refers to the legal term based on § 1-3 in The Education
Act (1998). In that sense, adapted education is not an individual legal right: it does not entitle
all students to receive individualized education plans tailored to their specific needs. Rather,
adapted education is a strategy implemented within the classroom to the extent the teacher can
manage. The implementation of adapted education is a lofty goal but one that schools should
strive to achieve to the greatest degree possible (Haug, 2020).
Teachers report that they lack the necessary time and resources and are unsure of the
space available to support differentiated instruction for students with special needs within
ordinary education (Herlofsen & Nilsen, 2016; Nordahl et al., 2018). Gifted students are not
considered to have special needs; however, they require differentiation and adaptation as well.
Pre-service teachers have described gifted students as diverse and have reported difficulties in
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
5
developing and implementing differentiated teaching targeting this student group (Brevik &
Gunnulfsen, 2016).
The Norwegian Official Report entitled “More to Gain – Better Learning for Students
with High Learning Potential” (NOU, 2016: 14, 2016) recognizes three main systematic
issues that impact the education of gifted students. First, the comprehensive education is not
appropriately adapted to enable gifted students to realize their full learning potential. Second,
opportunities exist for implementing pedagogical and organizational differentiation that
schools are not utilizing. Third, the national and local educational systems need to operate
according to a joint knowledge base regarding measures to differentiate instruction for gifted
students (NOU 2016: 14, 2016, p. 8). The NDET published a compilation for schools in 2020
guiding educators on how to facilitate an optimal education for gifted students in response to
the third issue (NDET, 2020a).
Differentiation and adapted education for gifted students
Rasmussen and Lindgard (2018) classified educational provisions for gifted students into
three types: segregation, acceleration, and inclusion. Under segregation and acceleration
provisions, the gifted students are identified and taught in segregated or accelerated classes.
Other forms of acceleration include skipping grades, early entry into higher school levels, or
personalized accelerated pacing of the curriculum (Missett et al., 2014). According to Mönks
and Pflüger (2005), early entry into first grade and skipping grades are the most prevalent
forms of acceleration implemented in the EU. While their report does not indicate segregated
groups as a provision, some EU countries do offer special schools for the gifted (Mönks &
Pflüger, 2005).
Myths and negative connotations surround both acceleration and segregation.
Segregation can be considered elitist, and teachers and parents may view acceleration as
harmful to the student’s psychological well-being and social development (Bernstein et al.,
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
6
2020; Dare & Nowicki, 2019; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). Recently, however, a longitudinal
study demonstrated that acceleration did not negatively affect the student’s psychological
well-being (Bernstein et al., 2020). At the same time, acceleration has been shown to have a
positive and significant impact on achievement. Moreover, gifted students have been shown
to benefit from grouping within the class, grouping across grades in particular subjects, and
unique grouping for the gifted population (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). Students support the
notion of acceleration for high-ability learners and believe it benefits the accelerated student,
the teacher, and other students (Dare & Nowicki, 2019).
Nevertheless, teachers may have misconceptions borne of the harmful myths
connected to acceleration and ability grouping (Bernstein et al., 2020; Steenbergen-Hu et al.,
2016; Troxclair, 2013), as the substantial empirical support for acceleration and ability
grouping has not necessarily translated into practice in education (Lee et al., 2010; Missett et
al., 2014; Troxclair, 2013; Wood et al., 2010). A study in Finland uncovered that teachers
supported differentiated education for gifted students but held more negative views toward
acceleration and ability grouping (Laine et al., 2019). Since teachers may perceive
acceleration and ability grouping negatively, enrichment strategies that can be implemented
within heterogeneous ability groups must be considered.
At the same time, gifted students in homogenous age groups need inclusive provisions
that involve differentiation and enrichment strategies (Rasmussen & Lingard, 2018; Renzulli
& Renzulli, 2010; VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016). Differentiation can involve utilizing
advanced content from higher grade levels and higher-level questions from Bloom’s
taxonomy that require students to use critical thinking and problem-solving skills, developing
different projects, and to engage in problem-based learning (Betts, 2004; Renzulli & Renzulli,
2010; VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2016). These types of enrichment programs promote a
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
7
higher level of thinking and creativity and allow students to explore topics and materials in
depth (Kim, 2016).
A recent meta-analysis found that enrichment programs positively impact academic
achievement and socioemotional development (Kim, 2016). According to Gagné (who used
the term “enrichment” in place of “differentiation”), best practices for enrichment programs
include enriched K–12 curriculum, systematic daily enrichment, full-time ability grouping,
customized/accelerated pacing, personal excellence goals, highly selective access, and early
interventions (2015, p. 287).
Teachers can enrich (i.e., differentiate) the curriculum via the four Ds: density, difficulty,
depth, and diversity (Gagné, 2015). Density, which is the most crucial of these four, entails
compacting or condensing the curriculum. Systematic daily enrichment requires teachers to
challenge gifted learners each day. Full-time ability grouping is a sensitive and controversial
subject and is not allowed under Norwegian educational law (Gagné, 2015; The Education
Act, §8-2, 1998). Customized acceleration or pacing demands that enrichment programs also
heed the student diversity. Gifted students are not a homogenous group, which obliges
teachers to identify each gifted student’s unique needs and predispositions. Personal
excellence goals are set by either the gifted student or the teacher and may change when
necessary. Highly selective access ensures that the enrichment program reaches the student
group that will benefit most from it. Finally, early interventions are strategies implemented
early in gifted learners’ educational journey, ideally as soon as teachers discover their
giftedness.
This study investigated adaptation and facilitation for gifted students in Norway. We used
a convergent mixed methods design to understand adapted education from both the teacher
and student perspectives. The overarching research question guiding this research—How is
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
8
education adapted for gifted students in Norway?—was supported by the following
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods sub-questions:
Qualitative: How do gifted students experience adapted education?
Quantitative: How do teachers report they facilitate education for gifted students? How do
teachers report the use of differentiation, the available space for differentiation, and their
school’s prioritization of differentiation for gifted students?
Mixed: How does the thematic analysis of gifted students’ experience of adapted education
confirm or differ from the survey results regarding how teachers facilitate their students?
Method
This research involved the analysis of data gathered for a study that followed a convergent
mixed methods design (Creswell, 2015). As such, two sub-studies, one quantitative and one
qualitative, are included in the overall study (author XX). The design is not parallel because
the studies were not conducted simultaneously. It has a sequential element, whereby results
from the first quantitative phase influenced the development of the interview guide used in the
qualitative phase. Still, the research remains convergent, as the studies were primarily
conducted separately, and the merging or mixing of the data happened in the integration
phase. However, the combination of quantitative and qualitative data was not equal in this
design, as the purely quantitative data were supplementary to the qualitative data driving the
research. Hence, this study falls on the qualitative side of the mixed methods scale (Hesse-
Biber, 2010; Johnson et al., 2007). The study is explorative and descriptive, seeking to
investigate adaption from two perspectives. Including quantitative and qualitative data and the
teacher and student perspective captures a broader view of adaptation in Norway’s
educational system. Combining the teacher and student perspectives allows us to look at this
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
9
issue through different lenses. According to Creswell (2015), utilizing different analysis units
is efficient when comparing multiple perspectives.
Figure 1
Timeline and illustration of data collection and analysis
Merging and integrating results
and analysis
QUAN
Survey
Teachers and educators
QUAN
Result
QUAL
Semi-structured interview
Gifted students
QUAL
Inductive thematic
analysis (TA)
QUAN subsample
Open ended survey q.
Deductive TA
Descriptive analysis
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Fall 2020
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
10
Quantitative phase
In the quantitative study, we collected data through a web-based survey of 339 teachers from
Norway. We recruited the participants in two cycles. Initially, we intended to conduct a
national survey; however, a low response rate from both schools and teachers in the first cycle
challenged us to use other methods to recruit participants. The first sample included 144
participants from a national inquiry sent to all combined primary and secondary (1–10)
schools in Norway. In the second cycle, we contacted municipalities in Norway and received
positive replies from one in eastern Norway and one in western Norway. The eastern
municipality added 18 participants, while the western municipality provided 177 participants
from 15 schools. The response rate from the western municipality was 63%. Thus, the sample
population is considered a convenience sample (Gorard, 2001), so we cannot generalize the
findings to all Norwegian teachers in primary and secondary school.
For the current study, we surveyed a subsample consisting of teachers who reported
having a student with extraordinary learning potential in their classrooms at the time of the
survey (n = 132). We included in the survey a definition of “extraordinary learning potential,”
which is the term commonly used to refer to gifted students in Norway. See Table 1 for
background information and statistics on the study subsample. No significant differences were
observed between the background statistics for the subsample and the same statistics for the
survey’s total sample.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
11
Table 1
Descriptive background statistics of teachers
N
%
Total
132
100
Gender
Female
97
74
Male
35
26
Education
Bachelor (4 years)
47
36
Bachelor (4 +1 year)
58
44
Master (5 years)
3
2
Master (5 +1 year)
9
7
Another
15
11
Teaching level
Primary school
80
60
Secondary school
35
26
Across all grades
17
13
Administration
1
1
Public school
117
89
Private school
15
11
School size
<100 students
28
22
100-199 students
27
21
200-399 students
54
41
>400 students
21
16
Contact teacher
Yes
87
66
No
45
34
Note: This sample is teachers who answered yes to the question “Do you currently have gifted students?”
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
12
Instrument and procedures
We administered a web-based survey through SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) to
gather the quantitative data. The survey consisted of 25 questions, including both background
questions and questions related to gifted students. This article focuses on the responses to five
questions regarding differentiation (see Table 2) and to responses to an open-ended question
about educational strategies used with gifted students (see Appendix 1 for copy of the survey).
We performed a pilot test with 48 teachers who completed the survey and shared
feedback on the questions and formulations. Based on that feedback, we made minor changes
to the study; we did not include data on the informants from the pilot in the final survey
calculations.
Qualitative phase
In addition to the quantitative survey, we performed individual, face-to-face, semi-structured
interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015) with 17 gifted students in Norwegian secondary
schools. Data collected through the interviews comprised 303 pages of transcripts (size 12
Times New Roman font, 1.5 line spacing). The duration of the interviews varied, ranging
from 16 to 80 minutes.
Interview guide
The main research question for the qualitative study was “How are Norwegian gifted
secondary school students experiencing school?” This question guided development of the
semi-structured interview guide. Before the data were collected, the first author conducted a
pilot interview, which prompted some wording changes to the interview guide. The main
topics addressed were experience and strategies in school, adapted education, family and
friends, underachievement, social-emotional issues, and involvement in their education.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
13
Recruitment and selection criteria for informants
Participants in the qualitative study included 17 gifted students between the ages of 12 and 15
who were attending secondary school in Norway. Eleven participants were male, and six were
female.
We pursued multiple avenues to recruit gifted students to participate, including
connecting with Happy Children, a Norwegian parental network for parents with gifted kids;
contacting a talent center in math and science; reaching out to all secondary schools in our
municipality; and posting messages on social media. To participate, the student had to be
nominated by a teacher or parent and score at the 95th percentile or above on one or more
subscales in the WISC-IV: verbal comprehension (VC), perceptual reasoning (PR), working
memory (WM), or processing speed (PS). The participants were gifted either in VC
(exceptionally talented in language/reading/writing) or PR (talented in logical fluid reasoning
and visual-spatial skills). The first author assessed 13 of the participants; the other 4 had been
evaluated previously. Some had high scores in all domains, while others scored substantially
higher on VC or PR.
Ethics
The Norwegian Centre for Research Data approved both studies presented in this article. All
informants in the quantitative survey and all informants and parents involved in the qualitative
study provided their informed written consent (Traianou, 2015). We informed the participants
that they could withdraw from the studies at any time, even after completing the interviews or
the survey. To preserve the participants’ privacy, we removed all names and locations.
Current study
This article presents the analyses from each of the two primary studies and responds to the
central mixed research question that serves as the guiding force of this article: “How does the
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
14
thematic analysis of gifted students’ experience of adapted education confirm or differ from
the survey results regarding how teachers facilitate their students?” To answer this question,
we employed an inductive thematic analysis of gifted students’ experiences as reported during
their interviews; we then used the codes regarding facilitation and adaptation in the deductive
thematic analysis of teachers’ answers to the open-ended survey question: “What kind of
facilitation would you as a teacher provide to students with extraordinary learning potential?”
Because the students reported their actual school experiences, we decided to include those
teachers who indicated that students with extraordinary learning potential were represented in
their classes at the time of the study (132 teachers). The students reported on their recent
experiences in secondary school and recalled experiences from primary school.
Analyses
The analyses in this study reflect a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
We used inductive thematic analyses (Braun et al., 2015; Braun & Clarke, 2006) in the
qualitative study to examine the data from the student interviews, following the six steps
listed by Braun and Clarke (2006): we familiarized ourselves with the material, generated
initial codes, searched for themes, reviewed the themes, defined and named them, and
produced the report. The qualitative student codes were then used deductively to analyze
teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey question on the facilitation of differentiation and
adaptation. Using the student codes as our deductive framework, we searched for themes,
defined them, and named them. We used NVivo 12 pro (QSR International), a computer-
assisted qualitative data analysis software (Silver and Lewins, 2015), for our analysis.
We used descriptive statistics to answer the quantitative research question regarding
teachers’ self-reported use of differentiation. The respondents were asked five questions
regarding differentiation and adaptation. Responses to these questions were indicated using a
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
15
5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree.” We used
IBM SPSS 25 for frequency analyses.
Results
Quantitative findings
We asked the teachers five questions regarding differentiation and adaptation to gain insights
into the teachers view on differentiated instruction for gifted students. Table 2 presents the
results for each question.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
16
Table 2
Frequencies on questions regarding differentiation
N = 132
Totally disagree
% (N)
Somewhat disagree
% (N)
Neither agrees nor disagrees
% (N)
Somewhat agree
% (N)
Totally agree
% (N)
Mean
SD
Q 1 Possible to work with differentiated
instruction
4.5 (6)
7.6 (10)
3.8 (5)
44.7 (59)
39.4 (52)
4.1
1.1
Q 2 Use differentiated instruction
1.5 (2)
3.8 (5)
3.0 (4)
54.5 (72)
37.1 (49)
4.2
0.8
Q 3 Gifted students need facilitation
beyond ordinary education
3.0 (4)
5.3 (7)
0.8 (1)
42.4 (56)
48.5 (64)
4.3
1.3
Q 4 School allow space for adaption
9.8 (13)
25.0 (33)
18.9 (25)
30.3 (40)
15.9 (21)
3.2
1.3
Q 5 School prioritize adaption for gifted
students
16.7 (22)
36.4 (48)
19.7 (26)
19.7 (26)
7.6 (10)
2.7
1.2
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
17
A large majority (84%) of the teachers reported that they can utilize differentiated
instruction in their classrooms, and 92% confirmed employing it in their teaching practices.
Nine out of ten teachers agreed that gifted students need facilitation beyond ordinary
education. Regarding the availability of space for adaptation, the teachers were more split:
only 46% agreed on the claim that schools provide space for adaptation. The teachers were
also divided in their perceptions of the priority their schools place on adapting education for
gifted students, with 53% indicating that their school does not prioritize these strategies.
Of the 132 teachers in the subsample, 108 responded to the open-ended survey
question “What kind of facilitation would you as a teacher give to students with extraordinary
learning potential?” The responses, which were not restricted to a limited number of
characters, ranged from short two-word replies to long answers containing 300–400
characters. All but two teachers referred to some form of facilitation. Some teachers described
vivid and diverse forms of facilitation, while others only wrote “adapted education.” We used
the codes developed from the qualitative analysis of the way gifted students’ experience
adaption and facilitation as a deductive coding framework. In addition to the 26 student codes,
we developed 9 extra codes from the teachers’ answers that did not fit the initial student
codes. In the analysis we found on average 1.9 codes in the teachers’ answers, with a
maximum of 5 codes and a minimum of 1. See the codebook (Appendix 2) for all codes and
quotes.
Qualitative findings – Students
In the interviews, the students mentioned both proper adaption and challenges to its
facilitation. Following the procedure for the inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006), we developed three themes related to facilitation: adapted education, the teacher as a
promoter or inhibitor, and barriers regarding facilitation. See Table 3 for the relationships
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
18
between themes and subthemes. The central phenomenon that emerged was that gifted
students experienced adapted education through enrichment strategies; however, systematic
barriers existed that sometimes hampered the implementation of these strategies, such as the
lack of proper facilitation and teachers who do not differentiate the curriculum.
Analysis of the qualitative data uncovered various strategies teachers and students
used to adapt gifted students’ education classified under the theme adapted education.
You do not get anything out of doing the same assignments all the time; it’s
better to skip further on and to a higher level.
The students reported enrichment strategies like consulting web pages, completing additional
assignments, working on projects that align with their interests, and making adjustments to
enrich assignments themselves. Moreover, they expressed a preference for assignments that
develop reflective and logical thinking and projects that involve art and design. Further, the
students mentioned acceleration in different subjects and accelerating by skipping grades.
The analysis further revealed gifted students’ experiences with distinct types of
teachers: the teacher as a promoter or as an inhibitor. The informants stated that they enjoyed
competent teachers who convey the different elements of their instruction to all students.
Teachers who are very flexible and know their subject well …can facilitate
[learning] for all students.
According to the students, competent teachers who promote student learning establish good
relationships with students and give them proper feedback. These teachers can adapt their
instruction and facilitate learning for all students.
On the other hand, teachers who inhibit gifted students’ learning do not adapt the
curriculum, refuse to allow gifted students to skip ahead and do other work, and patronize the
students.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
19
[T]hey [gifted students] won’t get the challenges they need and are stuck
with the teacher holding them back …they [may] lose motivation for the
subject.
The students perceive these teachers as lacking an understanding of what the gifted students
can manage and as holding them back.
Analysis of the data related to the last theme, barriers regarding facilitation, revealed
various challenges. The informants viewed group work negatively because they typically get
stuck doing the lion’s share. Also, instead of being assigned different and more challenging
learning activities, the students reported being assigned extra work of the same caliber. Some
students referred to a lack of communication between teachers and less adaptation in primary
school. The students who had received subject acceleration also experienced barriers to
organizing the strategy and recalled often being placed in a room alone to work. The students
indicated a desire for more freedom to choose, an accelerated education with less repetition,
more variation, and grouping by levels. They perceived the education they were receiving at
the time of the study to lack these types of facilitation strategies.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
20
Table 3
Relationship between themes and subthemes
Overarching teacher theme
Subtheme
Individually adapted education
Enrichment
Acceleration
less repetition
challenges
Instructional practices
Varied instruction
digital tools
gifted groups
student responsibility
The supporting teacher
Student-teacher conference
guidance and support
teacher competence
Systematic challenges
Large classes
other students’ needs
not enough help from the administration
difficulties grouping by level
Overarching student theme
Subtheme
Adapted education
Enrichment
Acceleration
Schoolwork
The teacher as a promoter or
inhibitor
Competent teachers
Teacher relation
Overbearing teachers
Understanding teachers
Barriers regarding facilitation
Classroom environment
Grouping by level
Boring assignments
Primary school
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
21
Qualitative findings – Teachers
We used the codes from the inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from the
qualitative study in a deductive thematic analysis of the teachers’ answers to the open-ended
question, “What kind of facilitation would you as a teacher give to students with extraordinary
learning potential?” In the deductive analysis, we developed four themes: individually
adapted education, instructional practices, the supporting teacher, and systematic challenges.
See Table 3 for the relationships between themes and subthemes. The central phenomenon
that emerged was that the teachers in our study adapted the curriculum for gifted students by
assigning them challenging work geared toward a higher grade level, by varying their
instruction, and by supporting and motivating their students. Teachers identified both a large
student body and a lack of support from the school administration as challenges to facilitating
differentiation and adaption appropriately.
The analysis of the responses classified under the theme individually adapted
education showed how the teachers adapted gifted students’ education and instruction by
giving them challenging assignments designed for a higher grade level.
I wish to adapt the assignments so the students become motivated and
challenge themselves.
Acceleration was described as being implemented through books or assignments from a
higher grade level. The teachers mentioned open-ended and problem-solving assignments that
allow gifted students to reflect and analyze as fruitful for differentiation and enrichment. The
teachers also described asking gifted students to ponder philosophical questions and questions
they, themselves, do not know the answer to as an additional enrichment technique employed.
The analysis revealed that the supporting teacher facilitates adapted education by
supporting and motivating students.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
22
First and foremost, give them support to show what they can achieve. Not
all these students have the structure and self-discipline to show their
potential.
Some teachers noted that allowing gifted students to skip repetitive and easy assignments is
vital for their motivation. A few teachers commented that gifted students should complete
assignments that they can manage individually, making them more independent, so that the
teacher can dedicate time to other students in the class. The teachers also identified support
and teacher–student conferences as essential to facilitating adapted education so they are not
alone in designing and implementing the related strategies.
The analysis related to instructional practices conveyed the techniques teachers use to
vary their instruction for gifted students.
Group work or projects where the gifted students get to work together. They
often speak the same language and need to stretch themselves further.
Teachers cited digital tools, reversed education (or flipped learning), differentiating teaching
materials, and grouping the gifted students together to work on assignments as ways they vary
their instruction.
The data analysis related to the theme systematic challenges demonstrated that
teachers experience obstacles that hinder them from facilitating adaptation for students with
extraordinary learning potential in real world settings, such as being singly responsible for
many students.
You can give them extra challenges, but you don’t have time to follow up
with them during a typical day.
Some teachers expressed a desire to group students by achievement level more often, and
some wished for more teachers in the classroom, while others reported a lack of support from
the school administration.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
23
Mixed
The mixed methods research question guiding this study was as follows: how do the thematic
analysis of gifted students’ experience of adapted education confirm or differ from the survey
results regarding how teachers facilitate their students? Table 3 presents the themes garnered
from analysis of the student interview transcripts and those developed through analysis of the
teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey question."
The teachers described both practices they actively employed and methods they
wanted to employ to facilitate differentiated instruction; however, they do not explicitly refer
to the measures they are not implementing. Similarly, the students reflected on both their
experiences and their vision for their ideal educational design. Still, the mixed analysis
revealed many similarities in how the student and teacher participants described the
facilitation of an adapted and differentiated education. For example, both students and
teachers mentioned giving gifted students open assignments that require reflection, problem-
solving, and the consideration of philosophical questions. The teachers referred to grouping
gifted students with other students on the same level. In contrast, the students themselves
wanted to be grouped by levels, but found they were often put in mixed ability groups where
they ended up doing the Lion’s share. The teachers highlighted assigning gifted students
reading materials and exercises intended for a higher grade level as acceleration strategies that
can be employed for subsets of students within the same class. The students mostly discussed
acceleration in the form of skipping grades or advancing in a specific subject.
The teacher as a promoter or inhibitor theme encompassed ways a teacher can
promote or inhibit gifted students’ education and potential. Naturally, the teachers only
addressed how they promote their students’ learning. The analysis indicated that students
reported a need for competent and flexible teachers who establish good relationships with
students and adapt their instruction. At the same time, the teachers referred to creating fruitful
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
24
relationships with students through student–teacher conferences and by supporting their
students, guiding them, and letting them skip ahead to more advanced work.
The analysis further uncovered negative feedback from both teachers and students
regarding the grouping of students by levels. The students expressed a desire for their
education to be provided in a more homogenous setting in terms of ability, while the teachers
indicated a desire to create such groups but noted that they encounter challenges to doing so.
Some teachers identified systematic issues like being alone with a large student group as
contributing to these challenges. The gifted students also identified systematic issues and
barriers to the facilitation of adapted education, including a lack of communication between
teachers, difficulties in organizing accelerated programming, and receiving an education that
has not been adapted to their needs and potential.
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate how education is adapted for gifted students among our
selection of teachers and students. The teachers included in this study reported having gifted
students in their classrooms at the time they completed the survey; however, the students and
teachers were not from the same schools.
Gifted students are diverse and need different supports and adaptations to develop
their gifts or potential properly. If they do not receive the proper support, they may be at risk
of developing various problematic behaviors, losing interest in school, developing negative
self-esteem, and even dropping out of school (Cross, 2014; Renzulli, 2012; Subotnik et al.,
2011). Teachers are essential to providing the necessary support and differentiation for gifted
students, as they are the key agents in identifying and developing the potential of all students
(Tirri, 2017). Teachers in our study agreed that using differentiated instruction for gifted
students in their schools was feasible, and some reported having incorporated it into their
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
25
teaching practices. In the mixed methods analysis, teachers and students mentioned similar
strategies and systematic difficulties and barriers.
Enrichment strategies within adapted education
Inclusion is the default for all students in the Norwegian educational system (The Education
Act, 1998, § 1-1). Inclusive education has its roots in the Salamanca Statement, in which
gifted students are among the different student groups mentioned specifically (UNESCO,
1994). In Norway, inclusion is viewed as individual integrity, whereby diversity as well as the
inclusion process has its own value (Vik & Hausstätter, 2014). However, establishing an
inclusive and diverse classroom requires the teacher to differentiate and enrich the instruction
and curriculum to fit the gifted students’ needs. The quantitative results reflected a general
consensus among the teachers that incorporating differentiated instruction was possible in
their schools and that they, themselves, employed this strategy. The teachers also agreed that
gifted students need an adapted education to be facilitated that extends beyond the scope of
ordinary education. They were split on whether the educational system prioritizes this kind of
facilitation.
Gagnè (2015, p. 287) presented seven criteria that define best practices for enrichment
programs. The first two are enriched K–12 curriculum and systematic daily enrichment. As
these two are highly intertwined, we combined them for the purpose of this discussion. The
themes adapted education and individually adapted education applied to enrichment
strategies in education and instruction. Gagnè (2015) described four enrichment types, called
the four Ds: difficulty, depth, diversity, and density (the most important of the four). Density
refers to compacting the curriculum so gifted students learn more in a shorter time frame. The
teachers’ and students’ themes included different assignments, more challenging assignments,
projects, reflections, and art and design. These responses are more akin to the other three Ds,
primarily, difficulty and depth. Some teachers referred to utilizing books from a higher grade
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
26
level to assign more complicated work but did not mention compacting the curriculum. These
results align with the findings reported for a study in Sweden, where teachers differentiated
instruction through challenging and open-ended tasks (Mellroth et al., 2019).
Density can also be an acceleration strategy. Acceleration can be achieved in multiple
ways, such as beginning school at a younger age, skipping grades, accelerating in a specific
subject, or following a personal accelerated curriculum (Missett et al., 2014; Rasmussen &
Lindgård, 2018). Analysis for the theme adapted education showed that students reported
both full-time acceleration (skipping grades) and subject acceleration, while teachers only
reported acceleration strategies that involved using books from a higher grade level. In the
theme barriers regarding facilitation, challenges encountered with subject acceleration were
highlighted. The barriers mentioned include organizational difficulties, communication issues
between teachers and students, and a lack of actual instruction. Is the education genuinely
accelerated if the student completes all work alone using a book from a higher grade level?
We do not know why the teachers in our study did not mention acceleration strategies. It may
be because of the organizational difficulties we uncovered under the student theme, or it may
be related to the myths and misconceptions concerning acceleration (Bernstein et al., 2020).
In this study, 35% of the teachers disagreed with the claim that schools allow space for
adaption, and 53% indicated that schools do not prioritize adaption for gifted students. These
results may indicate the same organizational difficulties that we found in the student data. The
lack of mention of different forms of acceleration by the teachers aligns with the findings of
previous studies on teacher attitudes toward gifted education that have suggested that teachers
are skeptical or even hostile toward acceleration strategies (Laine et al., 2019; Troxclair,
2013).
Criterion 3 (Gagné, 2015) is full-time ability grouping. The analysis of barriers
regarding facilitation revealed the students want to be grouped by levels more often. In
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
27
Norway, schools and teachers are restricted by law from making permanent groups based on
ability (The Education Act, 1998, § 8-2). However, the law only prohibits the usual grouping
by ability; flexible grouping is allowed. Nevertheless, the student and teacher participants
indicated that they have not experienced this in practice.
Criteria 4 and 5 were not mentioned by the students or by the teachers. Furthermore,
we found no references to customized pacing or personal excellence goals for gifted students
in the analyses. Teachers addressed providing guidance for their students in the survey
responses highlighting the supporting teacher theme, but not through individual plans or
goals. Generally, teachers display a broad understanding of adapted education with less
individualism (Hausstätter, 2012). None of the students mentioned that their teacher
developed personal goals for them. Criterion 6, highly selective access, is not relevant in the
Norwegian context.
Moreover, the analysis revealed that criterion 7, early interventions, was mentioned by
some students relative to skipping grades in early primary school. However, the analysis also
demonstrated that students reported only minor adaptations in primary school; also, none of
the teachers mentioned any early intervention strategies. Thus, we see indications that early
intervention is lacking for gifted students.
Barriers within an egalitarian education
As noted in the introduction, the Norwegian educational system is built on equity, inclusion,
and adapted education. This principle is true for special education, ordinary education, and
gifted education. An equitable education requires differentiation for all. Adapted education
encompasses all aspects of the educational system, but is adapted education (in its legal form)
enough for gifted students? The teachers in our survey agreed that gifted students need
facilitation of an adapted education that surpasses the ordinary education. Adapted education
within ordinary education is not an individual legal right but a high ambition (Haug, 2020). Is
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
28
it possible to differentiate the education appropriately for gifted students within ordinary
adapted education? Both inclusive and adapted education require that schools and teachers
heed the diversity in each student group and differentiate and adapt accordingly. However,
seeking to provide an inclusive and adapted education does not necessarily mean that all
schools and teachers manage to fulfill this ambition for all students. Indeed, whether it is even
possible may even be a topic for discussion.
According to Frantz and McClarty (2016), the three distinct approaches to gifted
education within egalitarian cultures include (a) adapted education for all students, (b)
including gifted education within special education, and (c) inclusive strategies for
underrepresented groups. Norway utilizes the approach of adapted education for all students.
The results and analysis in this study indicate that adapted education within ordinary
education does not provide the best practice for gifted students in Norway (Gagnè, 2015).
A study that examined Swedish policy documents revealed that gifted students are
described as students with special needs who are at risk of developing a variety of problems.
They are placed under the umbrella of special needs education, however, with some issues
concerning inclusion. The policy documents focus on organizational differentiation, which
can be defined as an exclusive rather than an inclusive practice (Magnússon & Sims, 2021).
Magnusson and Sims (2021) reported that gifted students risk being forgotten or invisible in
the full inclusive classroom or being excluded by being placed into separate groups. Teachers
in Norway find facilitating adapted education for students with special educational needs in
the ordinary inclusive classroom challenging (Herlofsen & Nilsen, 2016). Suppose teachers
lack time and resources to support students who have a legal right to an individualized
adapted education: What would the situation be for gifted students who need facilitation but
do not have the same legal right? The analysis in this article shows both students and teachers
point to difficulties and systematic challenges in the provision of gifted education. Some of
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
29
these challenges are related to ability grouping; others relate to communication, acceleration,
lack of instruction, mixed-ability group work, slow progress, and too much repetition.
Including gifted education within special education is considered an egalitarian
approach (Frantz & McClarty, 2016). The official report uncovered that opportunities exist
for pedagogical and organizational differentiation that schools are not utilizing (NOU
2016:14, 2016). Flexible grouping by ability is possible; however, neither teachers nor
students in our study reported experiencing such groupings. Perhaps defending these special
groups for the gifted students would be easier if Norway considered gifted education part of
special education. However, as the study from Sweden suggests, these special groups might
also be considered as conflicting with inclusive education (Magnússon & Sims, 2021). The
egalitarian culture itself may be the barrier to properly adapting education for gifted students.
Gifted students need proper educational strategies to help develop their potential
(Renzulli, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011). Of course, gifted students are not a homogenous
group, so they need individual differentiation based on their unique needs and predispositions.
However, some best practices have been established for educational strategies that include
accelerated pace, ability grouping, enrichment, or differentiation within heterogeneous ability
groups. According to the results of our study, Norway may have a way to go to in developing
an appropriate education program for gifted students.
Limitations and implications for further research
This article presents the results from a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview mixed
methods study that captured both teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Our study highlighted
trends and results that may be necessary for other teachers and policy makers in Norway and
other egalitarian educational cultures to consider. This research offers a glimpse into an
educational system that lacks specific programs for gifted students and showcases how gifted
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
30
students and teachers work to differentiate the education within that system. The quantitative
survey participants constituted a convenience sample; hence, we cannot generalize the results
to all Norwegian teachers in primary and secondary schools. Furthermore, the teachers in this
study self-evaluated their teaching and instructional practices, so those data may be biased.
Additionally, the gifted students only reported on their own experiences; other students in
Norway may have had vastly different experiences. However, similarities in the facilitation of
adapted education and the challenges teachers and students both pointed to lend credibility to
our results. Moreover, utilizing a mixed methods approach adds strength. Thus, the blind
spots regarding barriers and challenges may not have been as profound in a purely qualitative
or quantitative sample.
Further research should investigate how to navigate the challenges of ability grouping
and how to implement acceleration within the egalitarian educational system. Is it possible,
feasible, or just not ideologically attractive? Will the best practices presented by Gagnè
(2015) work best in the Norwegian educational system, or should we consider other
approaches and practices? Have gifted students in Norway experienced these best practices,
and how? These are interesting questions for further exploration.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
31
References
Bernstein, B. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2021). Academic acceleration in gifted
youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500
Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper
Review, 26(4), 190–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554269
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rance, N. (2015). How to use thematic analysis with interview data.
In A. Vossler & N. Moller (Eds.), The counselling and psychotherapy research
handbook (pp. 183–197). Sage Publications.
Brevik, L. M., & Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2016). Differensiert undervisning for
høytpresterende elever med stort læringspotensial [Differentiated instruction for high
achieving students with high learning potential]. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), 212–234.
Børte, K., Lillejord, S., & Johansson, L. (2016). Evnerike elever og elever med stort
læringspotensial: En forskningsoppsummering [Gifted students and students with high
learning potential: A research summary]. Kunnskapssenter for utdanning.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
Cross, T. L. (2014). Social Emotional Needs: The Effects of Educational Malnourishment on
the Psychological Well-Being of Gifted Students. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 264–265.
Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. (2019). Beliefs about educational acceleration: Students in inclusive
classes conceptualize benefits, feelings, and barriers. The Journal of Educational
Research, 112(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1440368
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
32
Frantz, R. S., & McClarty, K. L. (2016). Gifted education’s reflection of country-specific
cultural, political, and economic features. Gifted and Talented International, 31(1),
46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1220794
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
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9
Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The role of numbers made
easy. Continuum.
Haug, P. (2020). Tilpassa opplæring [Adapted education]. In M. H. Olsen & P. Haug (Red.),
Tilpasset opplæring. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Hausstätter, R. S. (2012). Grenseoppgangen mellom tilpasset opplæring og
spesialundervisning [The differentiation between adapted education and special
education]. In R. S. Hausstätter (Ed.), Inkluderende spesialundervisning.
Fagbokforlaget.
Herlofsen, C., & Nilsen, S. (2016). Spesialundervisning i spenningsfeltet mellom juridisk
regelverk og lokal praksis [Special education in the borderline between legal
regulations and local practices]. In K. Andenæs & J. Møller (Eds.), Retten i skolen—Mellom
pedagogikk juss og politikk. Universitetsforlaget.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Practice. Qualitative
Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364611
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed
Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
33
Kim, M. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Enrichment Programs on Gifted Students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju [The qualitative
research interview]. Gyldendal Akademisk.
Laine, S., Hotulainen, R., & Tirri, K. (2019). Finnish Elementary School Teachers’ Attitudes
Toward Gifted Education. Roeper Review, 41(2), 76–87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1592794
Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, G. (2010). The Efficacy of Academic
Acceleration for Gifted Minority Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 189–208.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369256
Magnússon, G., & Sims, C. (2021). Inkludering och särskild begåvning. Förutsättningar och
dilemman i rådgivande policydokument [Inclusion and giftedness. Prerequisites and
dilemmas in advisory policy documents]. Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för
didaktik och utbildningspolitk, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.48059/uod.v30i1.1553
Mattsson, L., & Bengmark, S. (2011). On Track to Gifted Education in Mathematics in
Sweden. I B. Sriraman & K. H. Lee (Red.), The Elements of Creativity and
Giftedness in Mathematics (s. 81–101). SensePublishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-439-3_6
Mellroth, E., van Bommel, J., & Liljekvist, Y. (2019). Elementary teachers on orchestrating
teaching for mathematically highly able pupils. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 16(1–3),
127–153.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
34
Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014).
Exploring Teacher Beliefs and Use of Acceleration, Ability Grouping, and Formative
Assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268.
Mönks, F. J., & Pflüger, R. (2005). Gifted Education in 21 European Countries: Inventory
and Perspective. Radboud University Nijmegen. https://www.giftedforyou.eu/plovdiv-
guide/17.pdf
Nordahl, T., & Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilretttelegging.
(2018). Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge [Inclusive community for children
and young people]. Fagbokforlaget. https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/inkludering-barn-
unge/files/2018/04/INKLUDERENDE-FELLESSKAP-FOR-BARN-OG-UNGE-til-
publisering-04.04.18.pdf
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2014). Veilederen spesialundervisning
[The guide for special education]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/sarskilte-
behov/spesialundervisning/Spesialundervisning/
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020a, June 18). Kompetansepakke om
elever med stort læringspotensial [Guiding package for developing competence on
students with high learning potential]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-
trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/kompetansepakke-om-elever-med-stort-
laringspotensial/
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020b). Tilpasset opplæring [Adapted
education]. Retrieved November 5, 2020, from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-
trivsel/tilpasset-opplaring/
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020c, December 12). Utdanningsspeilet
2020 [The Norwegian Education Mirror 2020]. https://www.udir.no/tall-og-
forskning/finn-forskning/tema/utdanningsspeilet-2020/
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
35
NOU 2016: 14. (2016). Mer å hente. Bedre læring for elever med stort læringspotensial
[Norwegian Official report 14: More to get – Better learning for students with great
learning potential]. Kunnskapsdepartementet.
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-14/id2511246/
Rasmussen, A., & Lingard, B. (2018). Excellence in education policies: Catering to the needs
of gifted and talented or those of self-interest? European Educational Research
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118771466
Reid, E., & Boettger, H. (2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavonic
Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.18355/PG.2015.4.2.158-
171
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent Development for
the 21st Century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Focus on
Student Strengths and Interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2–3), 140–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600303
Silver, C. & Lewins, A. F. (2015). Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative research. In P.
Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 606–638). Oxford
University Press.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What One Hundred
Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–
12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses.
Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and
Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science.
Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
36
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
The Education Act. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa (LOV-
1998- 07-17-61). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61
Tirri, K. (2017). Teacher Education Is the Key to Changing the Identification and Teaching of
the Gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 210–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318996
Traianou, A. (2015). The centrality of ethics in qualitative research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 62–77). Oxford University Press.
Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice Teacher Attitudes Toward Giftedness. Roeper Review,
35(1), 58.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-
attachments/Salamanca_Statement_1994.pdf
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Hubbard, G. F. (2016). Classroom-Based Strategies for Advanced
Learners in Rural Settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4), 285–310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16657645
Vik, S., & Hausstätter, R. (2014). Fra “early intervention” til tidlig innsats [From “early
intervention” to the Norwegian term “tidlig innsats”]. Spesialpedagogikk, 6.
https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2014/fra-early-intervention-til-tidlig-innsats/
Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010). School Counselors’
Perceptions and Experience With Acceleration as a Program Option for Gifted and
Talented Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 168–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210367940
Appendices
Appendix 1 Supplementary files
Factor Loadings from the Principal Axis Factoring
1
2
3
Communalities
Willing to learn
.687
.074
-.291
.567
Diligent
.666
.045
-.300
.656
Social
.591
.065
.468
.661
Inquisitive
.521
.191
-.153
.398
Performs well at school
.514
.125
-.256
.407
Creative
.454
.287
.252
.545
Show an advanced
language
.450
.386
-.229
.584
Introverted
-.364
.601
-.144
.613
Unsocial
-.417
.600
-.237
.601
Know-it-all
-.131
.482
.035
.385
Irritating
-.414
.470
.121
.416
Energetic
.365
.395
.320
.492
Silent
.197
.385
-.158
.287
Disruptive
-.369
.380
.241
.342
Extroverted
.415
.143
.554
.584
Codebook – Adapted education for gifted students in Norway
Codes and references in the teachers’ answers to an open-ended survey question.
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
Student codes
Codes developed from the inductive
thematic analysis of interviews with
17 gifted students
0
0
Enrichment
Adaption beyond what the rest of the
class is working on
Problem-solving, philosophical, and
challenging assignments
32
33
Discussions
0
0
Being an extra
teacher
Let them teach others what they know
(be an extra teacher) without taking
absolute control.
4
4
Extra
assignments
When the original assignment is done,
they will get new and more
challenging assignments.
3
3
Acceleration
Faster progression in a subject
In mathematic they get assignments
from older students’ curriculum when
they have showed they know
16
16
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
everything in the ordinary
curriculum.
Issues with
acceleration
0
0
Group-work
Group-work or projects where the
gifted students get to work together.
They often speak the same language
and have a need to stretch themselves
further.
2
2
Skipping work
Let them skip work they already know
1
1
Grade-scores
0
0
Homework
Adapted homework
Homework on their level
5
5
Motivation
Don’t let them work on more and
more assignments on the same level,
that will influence their motivation
negatively
2
2
Problematic
Issues
Ideally, I would make own
assignments and give these students
extra challenges. But, in praxis this is
7
7
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
difficult to do, because of a large
student-body.
You can give them extra challenges,
but you don’t have time to follow
them up during a normal day.
Kept back
0
0
No
instruction
0
0
Boring
assignments
0
0
Grouping
by levels
I wish there was space to create
groups on each grade so students
with extraordinary learning potential
could get their own instruction.
4
4
Repetition
Reduce all repetition and stuff that
they easily learn by reading.
3
3
Moving too
slow
0
0
Varied
instruction
Vary instruction by using several
teaching materials
2
2
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
Projects
0
0
Reflection
Make space for students own
reflection.
More difficult assignments that also
demands reflection and
interpretation.
3
3
Writing
0
0
Asking for help
0
0
Adapted
education
Adapted education
Adapt the difficulty on assignments,
more advanced reading, adapt
assignments online, online materials
in math etc.
I wish to adapt the assignments so the
student becomes motivated and need
to challenge themselves.
44
45
Challenges
Challenging questions, assignments
and homework
Give them assignments with a more
challenging wording, give them
47
47
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
assignments I know will be
challenging for them.
Make your
own
challenges
I often let the student themselves
create their own questions.
2
2
Teacher codes
Codes generated from the teachers
answer that did not fit any of the
student codes.
0
0
Digital tools
When you use digital tools it is easier
to differentiate the instruction in
different levels.
1
1
Student-teacher
conference
Talks with the student about the
subject
4
4
More teachers
More teachers so there is space to
work with the different students who
need it.
1
1
Support from
teacher
First and foremost give them support
to show what they can achieve. Not
all of these students have the
structure and self-discipline to show
their potential.
Guidance and support if necessary.
10
10
Name
Descriptionandexample
Teachers
References
More
knowledge
More knowledge in the subject for
myself.
1
1
Misunderstood
the question
Work with the goals in the IEP
2
2
Social
competence
Emphasize social competence,
cooperative skills and contact with
the class.
1
1
Special talents
Utilize special talents in e.g., music
when possible.
1
1
Instructional
practices
Reverse teaching
3
3
Note: Teachers represent the 108 individual teachers who answered the question. In
some answers, the same code is counted twice on different elements in the answer,
which is why some references have a higher count than teachers.
11.11.2021, 10:29
Meldeskjema for behandling av personopplysninger
https://meldeskjema.nsd.no/vurdering/5f4e2a80-53a9-4d7e-8533-216547a6e652
1/3
NSD sin vurdering
Prosjekttittel
Gifted Education in Norway
Referansenummer
260230
Registrert
02.09.2020 av Astrid Knutsdatter Lenvik - Astrid.Lenvik@uib.no
Behandlingsansvarlig institusjon
Universitetet i Bergen / Det psykologiske fakultet / Institutt for
pedagogikk Prosjektansvarlig (vitenskapelig ansatt/veileder eller
stipendiat) Astrid Lenvik, astrid.lenvik@uib.no, tlf: 41568194
Type prosjekt
Forskerprosjekt
Prosjektperiode
01.01.2017 - 31.12.2021
Status
07.09.2020 - Vurdert
Vurdering (1)
07.09.2020 - Vurdert
BAKGRUNN
Behandlingen av personopplysninger ble opprinnelig meldt inn til NSD 16.02.2017 (NSD sin ref: 53049) og
vurdert under personopplysningsloven som var gjeldende på det tidspunktet.
02.09.2020 meldte prosjektleder inn en endring av prosjektet. Ny prosjektslutt vil være 31.12.2021. Materiale
som inneholder personopplysninger vil deretter oppbevares til forskningsformål internt ved
behandlingsansvarlig institusjon frem til 31.12.2022. De registrerte vil motta informasjon om utvidet
prosjektperiode, om sine rettigheter og kontaktinformasjon til UiBs personvernombud.
Det er vår vurdering at behandlingen/hele prosjektet vil være i samsvar med den gjeldende
personvernlovgivningen, så fremt den gjennomføres i tråd med det som er dokumentert i meldeskjemaet den
07.09.2020 med vedlegg, samt i meldingsdialogen mellom innmelder og NSD. Behandlingen kan fortsette.
MELD VESENTLIGE ENDRINGER
Dersom det skjer vesentlige endringer i behandlingen av personopplysninger, kan det være nødvendig å
Appendix 2 Ethical approval
11.11.2021, 10:29
Meldeskjema for behandling av personopplysninger
https://meldeskjema.nsd.no/vurdering/5f4e2a80-53a9-4d7e-8533-216547a6e652
2/3
melde dette til NSD ved å oppdatere meldeskjemaet. Før du melder inn en endring, oppfordrer vi deg til å
lese om hvilke type endringer det er nødvendig å melde:
https://nsd.no/personvernombud/meld_prosjekt/meld_endringer.html
Du må vente på svar fra NSD før endringen gjennomføres.
TYPE OPPLYSNINGER OG VARIGHET
Prosjektet vil behandle alminnelige kategorier av personopplysninger frem til 31.12.2021. Materiale som
inneholder personopplysninger vil deretter oppbevares til forskningsformål internt ved behandlingsansvarlig
institusjon frem til 31.12.2022.
LOVLIG GRUNNLAG
Prosjektet vil innhente samtykke fra de registrerte til behandlingen av personopplysninger. Vår vurdering er
at prosjektet legger opp til et samtykke i samsvar med kravene i art. 4 og 7, ved at det er en frivillig,
spesifikk, informert og utvetydig bekreftelse som kan dokumenteres, og som den registrerte kan trekke
tilbake. Lovlig grunnlag for behandlingen vil dermed være den registrertes samtykke, jf.
personvernforordningen art. 6 nr. 1 bokstav a.
PERSONVERNPRINSIPPER
NSD vurderer at den planlagte behandlingen av personopplysninger vil følge prinsippene i
personvernforordningen om:
- lovlighet, rettferdighet og åpenhet (art. 5.1 a), ved at de registrerte får tilfredsstillende informasjon om og
samtykker til behandlingen
- formålsbegrensning (art. 5.1 b), ved at personopplysninger samles inn for spesifikke, uttrykkelig angitte og
berettigede formål, og ikke viderebehandles til nye uforenlige formål
- dataminimering (art. 5.1 c), ved at det kun behandles opplysninger som er adekvate, relevante og
nødvendige for formålet med prosjektet
- lagringsbegrensning (art. 5.1 e), ved at personopplysningene ikke lagres lengre enn nødvendig for å oppfylle
formålet
DE REGISTRERTES RETTIGHETER
Så lenge de registrerte kan identifiseres i datamaterialet vil de ha følgende rettigheter: åpenhet (art. 12),
informasjon (art. 13), innsyn (art. 15), retting (art. 16), sletting (art. 17), begrensning (art. 18), underretning
(art. 19), dataportabilitet (art. 20).
NSD vurderer at informasjonen som de registrerte vil motta oppfyller lovens krav til form og innhold, jf. art.
12.1 og art. 13.
Vi minner om at hvis en registrert tar kontakt om sine rettigheter, har behandlingsansvarlig institusjon plikt til
å svare innen en måned.
FØLG DIN INSTITUSJONS RETNINGSLINJER
NSD legger til grunn at behandlingen oppfyller kravene i personvernforordningen om riktighet (art. 5.1 d),
integritet og konfidensialitet (art. 5.1. f) og sikkerhet (art. 32).
Surveymonkey er databehandler i prosjektet. NSD legger til grunn at behandlingen oppfyller kravene til bruk
av databehandler, jf. art 28 og 29.
For å forsikre dere om at kravene oppfylles, må dere følge interne retningslinjer og eventuelt rådføre dere
med behandlingsansvarlig institusjon.
OPPFØLGING AV PROSJEKTET
NSD vil følge opp ved planlagt avslutning for å avklare om behandlingen av personopplysningene er
avsluttet.
Lykke til med prosjektet!
11.11.2021, 10:29
Meldeskjema for behandling av personopplysninger
https://meldeskjema.nsd.no/vurdering/5f4e2a80-53a9-4d7e-8533-216547a6e652
3/3
Kontaktperson hos NSD: Simon Gogl
Tlf. Personverntjenester: 55 58 21 17 (tast 1)
Appendix 3 Information letter for interview and survey
Forespørsel om deltakelse i forskningsprosjektet
”Gifted Education in Norway”
Bakgrunn og formål
Høsten 2016 startet jeg på mitt doktorgradsarbeid i spesialpedagogikk ved Universitetet i Bergen. Som
en del av doktorgradsstudiet ønsker jeg å ha en kvalitativ intervjuundersøkelse av elever.
Formålet med dette doktorgradsstudiet er å undersøke hvilken opplevelse elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial har i den norske skolen, hvilken kunnskap lærere har, og hvordan lærere tilrettelegger
for elevgruppen. Doktorgradsstudiet blir gjennomført og finansiert ved Universitetet i Bergen, Det
psykologiske fakultet, institutt for pedagogikk. Prosjektleder og doktorgradsstipendiat Astrid K.
Lenvik er under veiledning av hovedveileder førsteamanuensis Lise Øen Jones og biveileder
førsteamanuensis Elisabeth Hesjedal. Studien vil ta for seg intervjuer av ungdomsskoleelever, og
spørreundersøkelse til lærere på barne- og ungdomsskoler.
Utvalget til intervjuundersøkelsen er basert på frivillig påmelding. Det er sendt ut informasjon om
studien og ønsket om informanter gjennom mange ulike kanaler, heriblant Lykkelige barn, Facebook,
Talentsentre og Mensa Norge.
Hva innebærer deltakelse i studien?
Deltakelse i studien innebærer å aktivt delta i et semistrukturert intervju med prosjektleder. I tillegg vil
det bli gjennomført en WISC-IV evnetest for å kartlegge evnenivået til deltakerne. Hvis informanten
har gjennomført en evnetest gjennom andre instanser (for eksempel BUP og PPT) vil den ikke bli
gjennomført på nytt, men det vil da bli bedt om å få tilsendt kopi av testresultatet fra tidligere test.
Testresultatet vil ikke bli brukt til noe annet enn det som er beskrevet her og vil bli anonymisert.
WISC-IV testen (ved behov) vil ta ca. 1 time, og intervjuet på ca. 1 – 1,5 time vil gjennomføres i
etterkant av testen.
Spørsmålene i intervjuet vil være utforskende og handle om opplevelsen i skolen. Et semistrukturert
intervju innebærer at spørsmålene ikke er faste, men at det er mulighet for å ta tak i det som
informantene kommer med og gå videre på dette. Temaer som vil bli tatt opp er blant annet tilpasset
opplæring, fungering i skolen (faglig og sosialt) og arbeidsstrategier. Intervjuet vil bli tatt opp på
lydopptaker for å unngå misforståelser. Intervjuer vil også notere stikkord underveis.
Foreldre kan, etter forespørsel, få tilsendt intervjuguide.
Hva skjer med informasjonen om deg?
Alle personopplysninger er underlagt taushetsplikt og vil bli behandlet fortrolig. Lydfiler og tekstfiler
vil anonymiseres og kodes. Kun prosjektleder vil ha tilgang til personopplysninger og koblingsnøkkel.
Koblingsnøkkel vil oppbevares adskilt fra øvrige data.
Det er mulig å trekke seg fra prosjektet i etterkant, da vil lydfiler og tekstfiler bli slettet.
Resultatene av intervjuene vil bli publisert som artikler uten at den enkelte person kan gjenkjennes.
Prosjektet skal etter planen avsluttes 20.08.2020. Datamaterialet i form av tekstfiler, vil lagres utover
dette, men koblingsnøkkel og lydfiler vil bli slettet. Det vil dermed ikke være mulig å trekke tilbake
sitt samtykke etter denne dato. Datamaterialet vil kunne bli brukt i fremtidige publikasjoner også
utover det som inngår i doktorgradsavhandlingen.
Appendix 3 Information letter for interview and survey
Frivillig deltakelse
Det er frivillig å delta i studien, og du kan trekke ditt samtykke uten å oppgi noen grunn frem til
prosjektslutt. Dersom du trekker deg, vil alle opplysninger om deg bli slettet.
Studien er godkjent av Personvernombudet for forskning, NSD - Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS.
Ved spørsmål knyttet til prosjektet, ta kontakt med
Astrid Lenvik
astrid.lenvik@uib.no
55582846
Samtykke til deltakelse i studien
Jeg har mottatt informasjon om studien, og er villig til å delta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Signert av prosjektdeltaker (elev), dato)
Jeg har mottatt informasjon om studien, og er villig til å la mitt barn delta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Signert av foresatt, dato)
Interview guide
Research question: How do Norwegian gifted secondary-school students experience their
situation in school? How do they experience the adapted education, and what accommodation
do they get in the adapted education? What strategies do they have in relation to learning and
boredom in school?
Age and gender
1. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?
a. What do you like most about yourself?
b. What do you like least about yourself?
c. What do you like to do in your spare time?
d. Can you tell me about some hobbies you have?
2. Can you tell me about your regular school day?
a. What do you like best about school?
b. What do you like least about school?
c. Are you satisfied with your regular school day?
d. What would you change if you could?
e. If you could decide, how would you design an education for youth in
secondary school?
f. Absence? What do you do if you are not at school? Do you skip school?
3. How was primary school?
a. Differences between primary and secondary?
b. Did like primary or secondary best?
4. Can you describe your regular school week?
5. Which subjects do you like, and what is it that makes you like these subjects?
a. Can you tell me when you get challenging work? What kind of
assignments?
b. Do you get any adaptions at school?
6. How do you work with school work and home work ?
7. Can you describe how you learn best?
a. Can you tell me about a place you are when you are learning?
8. Complicity and participation: In the Education Act § 1-1 it says among others
that: Students and apprentices shall learn to think critical and act ethical and
with environmental concern. They shall have joint responsibility and a right to be
complicit in their education. Can you describe how you experience complicity in
school?
9. How are your grades?
a. Would you say your grades are in line with what you can achieve at
school?
10. How is your relation with your teachers?
a. Are there someone you have a better relation with, why?
11. Have your teachers ever called you gifted/high potential/good at school?
a. How was that experience?
b. Does your teachers know of your potential?
12. How is your relation to your parents?
13. How are you thriving socially at school? Do you have good friends?
a. Can you tell me a little about what you are doing when you are with your
friends?
14. When you are in the classroom and you get a boring assignment, how do you feel
or react?
a. What do you think about your reactions?
15. When you get assignments that are challenging, how do you feel/react?
a. How do you expect to cope with challenging assignments?
16. Have you ever been so engaged in an assignment that you have forgotten all
about time and place?
a. When have you experienced this? What kind of assignments did you do?
b. Has this happened at school?
17. Are there any specific experiences you want to tell me?
18. Are there anything I haven’t asked that you want to tell me?
Kjære lærer
Forespørsel om deltakelse i forskningsprosjektet «Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial i Norge»
Høsten 2016 startet jeg på mitt doktorgradsarbeid i spesialpedagogikk ved Universitetet i Bergen. Som en del av
doktorgradsstudiet ønsker jeg å ha en kvantitativ undersøkelse blant lærere.
Formålet med dette doktorgradsstudiet er å undersøke hvilken opplevelse elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial har i den norske skolen, hvilken kunnskap lærere har, og hvordan lærere tilrettelegger for
elevgruppen. Doktorgradsstudiet blir gjennomført og finansiert ved Universitetet i Bergen, det psykologiske fakultet,
institutt for pedagogikk. Prosjektleder og doktorgradsstipendiat Astrid Lenvik er under veiledning av førsteamanuensis
Lise Øen Jones og førsteamanuensis Elisabeth Hesjedal. Studien vil ta for seg intervjuer av ungdomsskoleelever, og
spørreundersøkelse til lærere på barne- og ungdomsskoler.
Utvalget av lærere er basert på alle skoler registrert som barne- og ungdomsskoler på skoleporten.no. Skolene blir
plukket ut og alle lærere på skolene vil få forespørsel om deltakelse.
Hva innebærer deltakelse i studien?
Deltakelse i studien innebærer for deres del å svare på en nettbasert spørreundersøkelse. Undersøkelsen tar ca. 15
minutter å besvare. Det vil ikke bli innhentet personlige opplysninger utover kjønn og år som yrkesaktiv lærer.
Spørsmålene vil først og fremst omhandle kunnskap om elevgruppen, tilrettelegging, hvilke kjennetegn du mener er
passende, og hvorvidt du har/har hatt elever du mener passer inn i betegnelsen.
Hva skjer med informasjonen om deg?
Alle personopplysninger vil bli behandlet konfidensielt. De eneste indirekte personopplysninger som lagres midlertidig
er IP-adresser. IP-adressene vil ikke kobles til svarene, men kun brukes for å følge med på hvor mange svar som
kommer fra hver skole. Hvis spørreundersøkelsen blir besvart mens du er koblet til skolens nettverk vil ikke IP-
adressen være å anse som en indirekte personopplysning. All data vil anonymiseres og kvantifiseres. Det vil ikke
være mulig å gjenkjenne enkeltdeltakere fra spørreundersøkelsen i publikasjonen.
Prosjektet skal etter planen avsluttes 20.08.2020. Datamaterialet vil lagres utover dette, men IP-adresser vil ikke bli
lagret utover dette.
Frivillig deltakelse
Det er frivillig å delta i studien, og du kan når som helst trekke ditt samtykke uten å oppgi noen grunn.
Dersom du har spørsmål til studien, ta kontakt med Astrid Lenvik, astrid.lenvik@uib.no, 55583980.
Studien er godkjent av Personvernombudet for forskning, NSD - Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS.
Samtykke til deltakelse i studien
Forespørsel om deltakelse i forskningsprosjekt.
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
1
Jeg har mottatt informasjon om studien, og er villig til å delta.
Besvarelse av spørreundersøkelsen blir regnet som aktivt samtykke.
Med vennlig hilsen
Astrid Lenvik
2
Tusen takk for at du deltar med dine betraktninger, det er et verdifullt bidrag i forskningen knyttet til denne gruppen
elever. Det er viktig at du svarer ut i fra din egen oppfatning av fenomenet, og ikke det du tenker at andre ønsker å
høre. Dine betraktninger er helt anonyme og vil ikke kunne spores tilbake til deg personlig, eller din skole.
Alle skoler som er med i undersøkelsen blir med i trekningen av en fagdag om elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial med Astrid Lenvik, doktorgradsstipendiat.
I denne spørreundersøkelsen kommer begrepet «ekstraordinært læringspotensial» til å bli brukt. Dette begrepet
dekker også begreper som begavet eller evnerik. Begrepet er i tråd med terminologien som ble brukt i NOU 2016:14
«Mer å hente, bedre læring for elever med stort læringspotensial».
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial er elever med sterke behov og potensial innenfor akademiske fag som
matematikk, lesing/skriving/språk, naturfag, teknologi, samfunnsvitenskap eller kreative/estetiske fag, og som kan
transformere sitt potensial til talent kun dersom disse behovene blir identifisert og møtt i et rikt og responderende
læringsmiljø. (Idsøe, 2014)
Velkommen til spørreundersøkelse om elever med ekstraordinært lærings
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
3
Informasjon om din utdannelse, erfaring som lærer og generell informasjon om skolen.
Bakgrunnsinformasjon
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
1. Kjønn?
*
Mann
Kvinne
2. Hvilken utdannelse har du?
*
Lærerutdannelse (adjunkt)
Lærerutdannelse med videreutdanning (adjunkt med opprykk)
Lektor
Lektor med videreutdanning
Annet (vennligst spesifiser)
3. Hvor lenge har du praktisert som lærer?
*
4. Er du kontaktlærer?
*
Ja
Nei
5. Hvilket klassetrinn underviser du på?
*
6. Hvor mange elever er det på skolen din?
*
4
7. Hvilken eierform har skolen din?
*
Offentlig
Privat
8. Hvor mange innbyggere er det i kommunen til skolen din?
*
Under 2000 innbyggere
2000 - 4999 innbyggere
5000 - 9999 innbyggere
10000 - 19999 innbyggere
20000 - 49999 innbyggere
50000 eller flere innbyggere
5
I denne delen av undersøkelsen får du spørsmål relatert til elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial. Definisjonen
på elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial som blir brukt i denne undersøkelsen er: "Elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial er elever med sterke behov og potensial innenfor akademiske fag som matematikk,
lesing/skriving/språk, naturfag, teknologi, samfunnsvitenskap eller kreative/estetiske fag, og som kan transformere sitt
potensial til talent kun dersom disse behovene blir identifisert og møtt i et rikt og responderende læringsmiljø".
(Idsøe, 2014)
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial i skolen
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
9. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at det er rom for å jobbe med
differensierte oppgaver i skolen?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
10. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at du som lærer bruker
differensierte oppgaver i undervisningen din?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
11. Hvor har du fått kunnskap om elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial?
*
6
12. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at du har behov for mer kunnskap
om elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
13. I hvilken grad trenger du mer kunnskap om tilrettelegging for elever med
ekstraordinært læringspotensial?
*
Ikke i det hele tatt
I liten grad
Hverken eller
I medium grad
I stor grad
14. Hva kjennetegner elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial slik du ser
det?
7
Helt enig Noe enig
Hverken enig
eller uenig Noe uenig Helt uenig
Skoleflinke
Urolige
Usosiale
Kreative
Energiske
Flittige
Undrende
Stille
Irriterende
Utadvendte
Sosiale
Viser et avansert
språk
Bedrevitere
Lærevillige
Innadvendte
15. Her kommer det ulike påstander om elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial som vi ønsker at du skal ta stilling til. Dette vil selvsagt
variere fra elev til elev, men vi ønsker at du ut i fra din kjennskap til elevene
skal vurdere påstandene. Hvis du har lite eller ingen erfaring med
elevgruppen er det fint om du likevel svarer ut i fra dine tanker og meninger.
I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial er:
*
8
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
16. Har du hatt elever som du har vurdert til å ha ekstraordinært
læringspotensial?
*
Nei
Ja
Antall
Hvor mange gutter
Hvor mange jenter
17. Hvis ja, hvor mange?
18. Har du elever nå som du vurderer til å ha et ekstraordinært
læringspotensial?
*
Nei
Ja
Antall
Hvor mange gutter
Hvor mange jenter
19. Hvis ja, hvor mange?
9
20. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at elever med ekstraordinært
læringspotensial trenger tilrettelegging utover den ordinære tilpassede
opplæringen?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
21. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at skolen som system gir rom for å
tilrettelegge for elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial i den ordinære
opplæringen?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
22. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i at skolen som system prioriterer
tilrettelegging for elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial?
*
Helt uenig
Noe uenig
Hverken enig eller uenig
Noe enig
Helt enig
23. Hva slags faglig tilrettelegging vil du som lærer gi til elever med
ekstraordinært læringspotensial?
10
24. Hvordan har elevene med ekstraordinært læringspotensial blitt
identifisert? Flere svar mulig.
*
Har ikke hatt elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
Har identifisert dem selv
Andre lærere har identifisert dem
Foreldre har identifisert dem
Eleven selv har sagt det
PPT/BUP eller andre fagfolk har identifisert dem
Annet (vennligst spesifiser)
25. Har du noen utfyllende kommentarer?
11
Tusen takk for din deltagelse på spørreundersøkelsen om elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial. Hvis du har
kommentarer eller annet du ønsker å formidle er det mulig å ta kontakt med astrid.lenvik@uib.no. Det som blir
formidlet der vil ikke bli tatt med i datagrunnlaget.
Vennlig Hilsen
Astrid Lenvik
Tusen takk!
Elever med ekstraordinært læringspotensial
12
I
Doctoral Theses at The Faculty of Psychology,
University of Bergen
1980
Allen, Hugh M., Dr. philos.
Parent-offspring interactions in willow grouse (Lagopus
L. Lagopus).
1981
Myhrer, Trond, Dr. philos.
Behavioral Studies after selective disruption of
hippocampal inputs in albino rats.
1982
Svebak, Sven, Dr. philos.
The significance of motivation for task-induced tonic
physiological changes.
1983
Myhre, Grete, Dr. philos.
The Biopsychology of behavior in captive Willow
ptarmigan.
Eide, Rolf, Dr. philos.
PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS AND INDICES OF
HEALTH RISKS. The relationship of psychosocial
conditions to subjective complaints, arterial blood
pressure, serum cholesterol, serum triglycerides and
urinary catecholamines in middle aged populations in
Western Norway.
Værnes, Ragnar J., Dr. philos.
Neuropsychological effects of diving.
1984
Kolstad, Arnulf, Dr. philos.
Til diskusjonen om sammenhengen mellom sosiale
forhold og psykiske strukturer. En epidemiologisk
undersøkelse blant barn og unge.
Løberg, Tor, Dr. philos.
Neuropsychological assessment in alcohol dependence.
1985
Hellesnes, Tore, Dr. philos.
Læring og problemløsning. En studie av den
perseptuelle analysens betydning for verbal læring.
Håland, Wenche, Dr. philos.
Psykoterapi: relasjon, utviklingsprosess og effekt.
1986
Hagtvet, Knut A., Dr. philos.
The construct of test anxiety: Conceptual and
methodological issues.
Jellestad, Finn K., Dr. philos.
Effects of neuron specific amygdala lesions on fear-
motivated behavior in rats.
1987
Aarø, Leif E., Dr. philos.
Health behaviour and sosioeconomic Status. A survey
among the adult population in Norway.
Underlid, Kjell, Dr. philos.
Arbeidsløyse i psykososialt perspektiv.
Laberg, Jon C., Dr. philos.
Expectancy and classical conditioning in alcoholics'
craving.
Vollmer, Fred, Dr. philos.
Essays on explanation in psychology.
Ellertsen, Bjørn, Dr. philos.
Migraine and tension headache: Psychophysiology,
personality and therapy.
1988
Kaufmann, Astrid, Dr. philos.
Antisosial atferd hos ungdom. En studie av psykologiske
determinanter.
II
Mykletun, Reidar J., Dr. philos.
Teacher stress: personality, work-load and health.
Havik, Odd E., Dr. philos.
After the myocardial infarction: A medical and
psychological study with special emphasis on perceived
illness.
1989
Bråten, Stein, Dr. philos.
Menneskedyaden. En teoretisk tese om sinnets
dialogiske natur med informasjons- og
utviklingspsykologiske implikasjoner sammenholdt med
utvalgte spedbarnsstudier.
Wold, Bente, Dr. psychol.
Lifestyles and physical activity. A theoretical and
empirical analysis of socialization among children and
adolescents.
1990
Flaten, Magne A., Dr. psychol.
The role of habituation and learning in reflex
modification.
1991
Alsaker, Françoise D.,
Dr. philos.
Global negative self-evaluations in early adolescence.
Kraft, Pål, Dr. philos.
AIDS prevention in Norway. Empirical studies on
diffusion of knowledge, public opinion, and sexual
behaviour.
Endresen, Inger M., Dr. philos.
Psychoimmuniological stress markers in working life.
Faleide, Asbjørn O., Dr. philos.
Asthma and allergy in childhood. Psychosocial and
psychotherapeutic problems.
1992
Dalen, Knut, Dr. philos.
Hemispheric asymmetry and the Dual-Task Paradigm:
An experimental approach.
Bø, Inge B., Dr. philos.
Ungdoms sosiale økologi. En undersøkelse av 14-16
åringers sosiale nettverk.
Nivison, Mary E., Dr. philos.
The relationship between noise as an experimental and
environmental stressor, physiological changes and
psychological factors.
Torgersen, Anne M., Dr. philos.
Genetic and environmental influence on temperamental
behaviour. A longitudinal study of twins from infancy to
adolescence.
1993
Larsen, Svein, Dr. philos.
Cultural background and problem drinking.
Nordhus, Inger Hilde, Dr.
philos.
Family caregiving. A community psychological study with
special emphasis on clinical interventions.
Thuen, Frode, Dr. psychol.
Accident-related behaviour among children and young
adolescents: Prediction and prevention.
Solheim, Ragnar, Dr. philos.
Spesifikke lærevansker. Diskrepanskriteriet anvendt i
seleksjonsmetodikk.
Johnsen, Bjørn Helge,
Dr. psychol.
Brain assymetry and facial emotional expressions:
Conditioning experiments.
1994
Tønnessen, Finn E., Dr. philos.
The etiology of Dyslexia.
Kvale, Gerd, Dr. psychol.
Psychological factors in anticipatory nausea and
vomiting in cancer chemotherapy.
Asbjørnsen, Arve E.,
Dr. psychol.
Structural and dynamic factors in dichotic listening: An
interactional model.
III
Bru, Edvin, Dr. philos.
The role of psychological factors in neck, shoulder and
low back pain among female hospitale staff.
Braathen, Eli T., Dr. psychol.
Prediction of exellence and discontinuation in different
types of sport: The significance of motivation and EMG.
Johannessen, Birte F.,
Dr. philos.
Det flytende kjønnet. Om lederskap, politikk og identitet.
1995
Sam, David L., Dr. psychol.
Acculturation of young immigrants in Norway: A
psychological and socio-cultural adaptation.
Bjaalid, Inger-Kristin, Dr. philos.
Component processes in word recognition.
Martinsen, Øyvind, Dr. philos.
Cognitive style and insight.
Nordby, Helge, Dr. philos.
Processing of auditory deviant events: Mismatch
negativity of event-related brain potentials.
Raaheim, Arild, Dr. philos.
Health perception and health behaviour, theoretical
considerations, empirical studies, and practical
implications.
Seltzer, Wencke J., Dr. philos.
Studies of Psychocultural Approach to Families in
Therapy.
Brun, Wibecke, Dr. philos.
Subjective conceptions of uncertainty and risk.
Aas, Henrik N., Dr. psychol.
Alcohol expectancies and socialization:
Adolescents learning to drink.
Bjørkly, Stål, Dr. psychol.
Diagnosis and prediction of intra-institutional
aggressive behaviour in psychotic patients
1996
Anderssen, Norman,
Dr. psychol.
Physical activity of young people in a health perspective:
Stability, change and social influences.
Sandal, Gro Mjeldheim,
Dr. psychol.
Coping in extreme environments: The role of personality.
Strumse, Einar, Dr. philos.
The psychology of aesthetics: explaining visual
preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway.
Hestad, Knut, Dr. philos.
Neuropsychological deficits in HIV-1 infection.
Lugoe, L.Wycliffe, Dr. philos.
Prediction of Tanzanian students’ HIV risk and
preventive behaviours
Sandvik, B. Gunnhild,
Dr. philos.
Fra distriktsjordmor til institusjonsjordmor. Fremveksten
av en profesjon og en profesjonsutdanning
Lie, Gro Therese, Dr. psychol.
The disease that dares not speak its name: Studies on
factors of importance for coping with HIV/AIDS in
Northern Tanzania
Øygard, Lisbet, Dr. philos.
Health behaviors among young adults. A psychological
and sociological approach
Stormark, Kjell Morten,
Dr. psychol.
Emotional modulation of selective attention:
Experimental and clinical evidence.
Einarsen, Ståle, Dr. psychol.
Bullying and harassment at work: epidemiological and
psychosocial aspects.
IV
1997
Knivsberg, Ann-Mari, Dr. philos.
Behavioural abnormalities and childhood
psychopathology: Urinary peptide patterns as a potential
tool in diagnosis and remediation.
Eide, Arne H., Dr. philos.
Adolescent drug use in Zimbabwe. Cultural orientation in
a global-local perspective and use of psychoactive
substances among secondary school students.
Sørensen, Marit, Dr. philos.
The psychology of initiating and maintaining exercise
and diet behaviour.
Skjæveland, Oddvar,
Dr. psychol.
Relationships between spatial-physical neighborhood
attributes and social relations among neighbors.
Zewdie, Teka, Dr. philos.
Mother-child relational patterns in Ethiopia. Issues of
developmental theories and intervention programs.
Wilhelmsen, Britt Unni,
Dr. philos.
Development and evaluation of two educational
programmes designed to prevent alcohol use among
adolescents.
Manger, Terje, Dr. philos.
Gender differences in mathematical achievement among
Norwegian elementary school students.
1998
V
Lindstrøm, Torill Christine,
Dr. philos.
«Good Grief»: Adapting to Bereavement.
Skogstad, Anders, Dr. philos.
Effects of leadership behaviour on job satisfaction,
health and efficiency.
Haldorsen, Ellen M. Håland,
Dr. psychol.
Return to work in low back pain patients.
Besemer, Susan P., Dr. philos.
Creative Product Analysis: The Search for a Valid Model
for Understanding Creativity in Products.
H
Winje, Dagfinn, Dr. psychol.
Psychological adjustment after severe trauma. A
longitudinal study of adults’ and children’s posttraumatic
reactions and coping after the bus accident in
Måbødalen, Norway 1988.
Vosburg, Suzanne K.,
Dr. philos.
The effects of mood on creative problem solving.
Eriksen, Hege R., Dr. philos.
Stress and coping: Does it really matter for subjective
health complaints?
Jakobsen, Reidar, Dr. psychol.
Empiriske studier av kunnskap og holdninger om hiv/aids
og den normative seksuelle utvikling i ungdomsårene.
1999
V
Mikkelsen, Aslaug, Dr. philos.
Effects of learning opportunities and learning climate on
occupational health.
Samdal, Oddrun, Dr. philos.
The school environment as a risk or resource for
students’ health-related behaviours and subjective well-
being.
Friestad, Christine, Dr. philos.
Social psychological approaches to smoking.
Ekeland, Tor-Johan, Dr. philos.
Meining som medisin. Ein analyse av placebofenomenet
og implikasjoner for terapi og terapeutiske teoriar.
H
Saban, Sara, Dr. psychol.
Brain Asymmetry and Attention: Classical Conditioning
Experiments.
V
Carlsten, Carl Thomas,
Dr. philos.
God lesing – God læring. En aksjonsrettet studie av
undervisning i fagtekstlesing.
Dundas, Ingrid, Dr. psychol.
Functional and dysfunctional closeness. Family
interaction and children’s adjustment.
Engen, Liv, Dr. philos.
Kartlegging av leseferdighet på småskoletrinnet og
vurdering av faktorer som kan være av betydning for
optimal leseutvikling.
2000
V
Hovland, Ole Johan, Dr. philos.
Transforming a self-preserving “alarm” reaction into a
self-defeating emotional response: Toward an integrative
approach to anxiety as a human phenomenon.
Lillejord, Sølvi, Dr. philos.
Handlingsrasjonalitet og spesialundervisning. En analyse
av aktørperspektiver.
Sandell, Ove, Dr. philos.
Den varme kunnskapen.
Oftedal, Marit Petersen,
Dr. philos.
Diagnostisering av ordavkodingsvansker: En
prosessanalytisk tilnærmingsmåte.
H
Sandbak, Tone, Dr. psychol.
Alcohol consumption and preference in the rat: The
significance of individual differences and relationships to
stress pathology
Eid, Jarle, Dr. psychol.
Early predictors of PTSD symptom reporting;
The significance of contextual and individual factors.
2001
V
Skinstad, Anne Helene,
Dr. philos.
Substance dependence and borderline personality
disorders.
Binder, Per-Einar, Dr. psychol.
Individet og den meningsbærende andre. En teoretisk
undersøkelse av de mellommenneskelige
forutsetningene for psykisk liv og utvikling med
utgangspunkt i Donald Winnicotts teori.
Roald, Ingvild K., Dr. philos.
Building of concepts. A study of Physics concepts of
Norwegian deaf students.
H
Fekadu, Zelalem W., Dr. philos.
Predicting contraceptive use and intention among a
sample of adolescent girls. An application of the theory
of planned behaviour in Ethiopian context.
Melesse, Fantu, Dr. philos.
The more intelligent and sensitive child (MISC)
mediational intervention in an Ethiopian context: An
evaluation study.
Råheim, Målfrid, Dr. philos.
Kvinners kroppserfaring og livssammenheng. En
fenomenologisk – hermeneutisk studie av friske kvinner
og kvinner med kroniske muskelsmerter.
Engelsen, Birthe Kari,
Dr. psychol.
Measurement of the eating problem construct.
Lau, Bjørn, Dr. philos.
Weight and eating concerns in adolescence.
2002
V
Ihlebæk, Camilla, Dr. philos.
Epidemiological studies of subjective health complaints.
Rosén, Gunnar O. R.,
Dr. philos.
The phantom limb experience. Models for understanding
and treatment of pain with hypnosis.
VI
Høines, Marit Johnsen,
Dr. philos.
Fleksible språkrom. Matematikklæring som tekstutvikling.
Anthun, Roald Andor,
Dr. philos.
School psychology service quality.
Consumer appraisal, quality dimensions, and
collaborative improvement potential
Pallesen, Ståle, Dr. psychol.
Insomnia in the elderly. Epidemiology, psychological
characteristics and treatment.
Midthassel, Unni Vere,
Dr. philos.
Teacher involvement in school development activity. A
study of teachers in Norwegian compulsory schools
Kallestad, Jan Helge, Dr.
philos.
Teachers, schools and implementation of the Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program.
H
Ofte, Sonja Helgesen,
Dr. psychol.
Right-left discrimination in adults and children.
Netland, Marit, Dr. psychol.
Exposure to political violence. The need to estimate our
estimations.
Diseth, Åge, Dr. psychol.
Approaches to learning: Validity and prediction of
academic performance.
Bjuland, Raymond, Dr. philos.
Problem solving in geometry. Reasoning processes of
student teachers working in small groups: A dialogical
approach.
2003
V
Arefjord, Kjersti, Dr. psychol.
After the myocardial infarction – the wives’ view. Short-
and long-term adjustment in wives of myocardial
infarction patients.
Ingjaldsson, Jón Þorvaldur,
Dr. psychol.
Unconscious Processes and Vagal Activity in Alcohol
Dependency.
Holden, Børge, Dr. philos.
Følger av atferdsanalytiske forklaringer for
atferdsanalysens tilnærming til utforming av behandling.
Holsen, Ingrid, Dr. philos.
Depressed mood from adolescence to ’emerging
adulthood’. Course and longitudinal influences of body
image and parent-adolescent relationship.
Hammar, Åsa Karin,
Dr. psychol.
Major depression and cognitive dysfunction- An
experimental study of the cognitive effort hypothesis.
Sprugevica, Ieva, Dr. philos.
The impact of enabling skills on early reading acquisition.
Gabrielsen, Egil, Dr. philos.
LESE FOR LIVET. Lesekompetansen i den norske
voksenbefolkningen sett i lys av visjonen om en
enhetsskole.
H
Hansen, Anita Lill, Dr. psychol.
The influence of heart rate variability in the regulation of
attentional and memory processes.
Dyregrov, Kari, Dr. philos.
The loss of child by suicide, SIDS, and accidents:
Consequences, needs and provisions of help.
2004
V
Torsheim, Torbjørn,
Dr. psychol.
Student role strain and subjective health complaints:
Individual, contextual, and longitudinal perspectives.
Haugland, Bente Storm Mowatt
Dr. psychol.
Parental alcohol abuse. Family functioning and child
adjustment.
VII
Milde, Anne Marita, Dr. psychol.
Ulcerative colitis and the role of stress. Animal studies of
psychobiological factors in relationship to experimentally
induced colitis.
Stornes, Tor, Dr. philos.
Socio-moral behaviour in sport. An investigation of
perceptions of sportspersonship in handball related to
important factors of socio-moral influence.
Mæhle, Magne, Dr. philos.
Re-inventing the child in family therapy: An investigation
of the relevance and applicability of theory and research
in child development for family therapy involving children.
Kobbeltvedt, Therese,
Dr. psychol.
Risk and feelings: A field approach.
2004
H
Thomsen, Tormod, Dr. psychol.
Localization of attention in the brain.
Løberg, Else-Marie,
Dr. psychol.
Functional laterality and attention modulation in
schizophrenia: Effects of clinical variables.
Kyrkjebø, Jane Mikkelsen,
Dr. philos.
Learning to improve: Integrating continuous quality
improvement learning into nursing education.
Laumann, Karin, Dr. psychol.
Restorative and stress-reducing effects of natural
environments: Experiencal, behavioural and
cardiovascular indices.
Holgersen, Helge, PhD
Mellom oss - Essay i relasjonell psykoanalyse.
2005
V
Hetland, Hilde, Dr. psychol.
Leading to the extraordinary?
Antecedents and outcomes of transformational
leadership.
Iversen, Anette Christine,
Dr. philos.
Social differences in health behaviour: the motivational
role of perceived control and coping.
2005
H
Mathisen, Gro Ellen, PhD
Climates for creativity and innovation: Definitions,
measurement, predictors and consequences.
Sævi, Tone, Dr. philos.
Seeing disability pedagogically – The lived experience of
disability in the pedagogical encounter.
Wiium, Nora, PhD
Intrapersonal factors, family and school norms:
combined and interactive influence on adolescent
smoking behaviour.
Kanagaratnam, Pushpa, PhD
Subjective and objective correlates of Posttraumatic
Stress in immigrants/refugees exposed to political
violence.
Larsen, Torill M. B. , PhD
Evaluating principals` and teachers` implementation of
Second Step. A case study of four Norwegian primary
schools.
Bancila, Delia, PhD
Psychosocial stress and distress among Romanian
adolescents and adults.
2006
V
Hillestad, Torgeir Martin,
Dr. philos.
Normalitet og avvik. Forutsetninger for et objektivt
psykopatologisk avviksbegrep. En psykologisk, sosial,
erkjennelsesteoretisk og teorihistorisk framstilling.
Nordanger, Dag Øystein,
Dr. psychol.
Psychosocial discourses and responses to political
violence in post-war Tigray, Ethiopia.
VIII
Rimol, Lars Morten, PhD
Behavioral and fMRI studies of auditory laterality and
speech sound processing.
Krumsvik, Rune Johan,
Dr. philos.
ICT in the school. ICT-initiated school development in
lower secondary school.
Norman, Elisabeth, Dr. psychol.
Gut feelings and unconscious thought:
An exploration of fringe consiousness in implicit
cognition.
Israel, K Pravin, Dr. psychol.
Parent involvement in the mental health care of children
and adolescents. Emperical studies from clinical care
setting.
Glasø, Lars, PhD
Affects and emotional regulation in leader-subordinate
relationships.
Knutsen, Ketil, Dr. philos.
HISTORIER UNGDOM LEVER – En studie av hvordan
ungdommer bruker historie for å gjøre livet meningsfullt.
Matthiesen, Stig Berge, PhD
Bullying at work. Antecedents and outcomes.
2006
H
Gramstad, Arne, PhD
Neuropsychological assessment of cognitive and
emotional functioning in patients with epilepsy.
Bendixen, Mons, PhD
Antisocial behaviour in early adolescence:
Methodological and substantive issues.
Mrumbi, Khalifa Maulid, PhD
Parental illness and loss to HIV/AIDS as experienced by
AIDS orphans aged between 12-17 years from Temeke
District, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A study of the
children’s psychosocial health and coping responses.
Hetland, Jørn, Dr. psychol.
The nature of subjective health complaints in
adolescence: Dimensionality, stability, and psychosocial
predictors
Kakoko, Deodatus Conatus
Vitalis, PhD
Voluntary HIV counselling and testing service uptake
among primary school teachers in Mwanza, Tanzania:
assessment of socio-demographic, psychosocial and
socio-cognitive aspects
Mykletun, Arnstein, Dr. psychol.
Mortality and work-related disability as long-term
consequences of anxiety and depression: Historical
cohort designs based on the HUNT-2 study
Sivertsen, Børge, PhD
Insomnia in older adults. Consequences, assessment
and treatment.
2007
V
Singhammer, John, Dr. philos.
Social conditions from before birth to early adulthood –
the influence on health and health behaviour
Janvin, Carmen Ani Cristea,
PhD
Cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson’s
disease: profiles and implications for prognosis
Braarud, Hanne Cecilie,
Dr.psychol.
Infant regulation of distress: A longitudinal study of
transactions between mothers and infants
Tveito, Torill Helene, PhD
Sick Leave and Subjective Health Complaints
Magnussen, Liv Heide, PhD
Returning disability pensioners with back pain to work
IX
Thuen, Elin Marie, Dr.philos.
Learning environment, students’ coping styles and
emotional and behavioural problems. A study of
Norwegian secondary school students.
Solberg, Ole Asbjørn, PhD
Peacekeeping warriors – A longitudinal study of
Norwegian peacekeepers in Kosovo
2007
H
Søreide, Gunn Elisabeth,
Dr.philos.
Narrative construction of teacher identity
Svensen, Erling, PhD
WORK & HEALTH. Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress
applied in an organisational setting.
Øverland, Simon Nygaard, PhD
Mental health and impairment in disability benefits.
Studies applying linkages between health surveys and
administrative registries.
Eichele, Tom, PhD
Electrophysiological and Hemodynamic Correlates of
Expectancy in Target Processing
Børhaug, Kjetil, Dr.philos.
Oppseding til demokrati. Ein studie av politisk oppseding
i norsk skule.
Eikeland, Thorleif, Dr.philos.
Om å vokse opp på barnehjem og på sykehus. En
undersøkelse av barnehjemsbarns opplevelser på
barnehjem sammenholdt med sanatoriebarns
beskrivelse av langvarige sykehusopphold – og et forsøk
på forklaring.
Wadel, Carl Cato, Dr.philos.
Medarbeidersamhandling og medarbeiderledelse i en
lagbasert organisasjon
Vinje, Hege Forbech, PhD
Thriving despite adversity: Job engagement and self-
care among community nurses
Noort, Maurits van den, PhD
Working memory capacity and foreign language
acquisition
2008
V
Breivik, Kyrre, Dr.psychol.
The Adjustment of Children and Adolescents in Different
Post-Divorce Family Structures. A Norwegian Study of
Risks and Mechanisms.
Johnsen, Grethe E., PhD
Memory impairment in patients with posttraumatic stress
disorder
Sætrevik, Bjørn, PhD
Cognitive Control in Auditory Processing
Carvalhosa, Susana Fonseca,
PhD
Prevention of bullying in schools: an ecological model
2008
H
Brønnick, Kolbjørn Selvåg
Attentional dysfunction in dementia associated with
Parkinson’s disease.
Posserud, Maj-Britt Rocio
Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders
Haug, Ellen
Multilevel correlates of physical activity in the school
setting
Skjerve, Arvid
Assessing mild dementia – a study of brief cognitive
tests.
X
Kjønniksen, Lise
The association between adolescent experiences in
physical activity and leisure time physical activity in
adulthood: a ten year longitudinal study
Gundersen, Hilde
The effects of alcohol and expectancy on brain function
Omvik, Siri
Insomnia – a night and day problem
2009
V
Molde, Helge
Pathological gambling: prevalence, mechanisms and
treatment outcome.
Foss, Else
Den omsorgsfulle væremåte. En studie av voksnes
væremåte i forhold til barn i barnehagen.
Westrheim, Kariane
Education in a Political Context: A study of Konwledge
Processes and Learning Sites in the PKK.
Wehling, Eike
Cognitive and olfactory changes in aging
Wangberg, Silje C.
Internet based interventions to support health
behaviours: The role of self-efficacy.
Nielsen, Morten B.
Methodological issues in research on workplace bullying.
Operationalisations, measurements and samples.
Sandu, Anca Larisa
MRI measures of brain volume and cortical complexity in
clinical groups and during development.
Guribye, Eugene
Refugees and mental health interventions
Sørensen, Lin
Emotional problems in inattentive children – effects on
cognitive control functions.
Tjomsland, Hege E.
Health promotion with teachers. Evaluation of the
Norwegian Network of Health Promoting Schools:
Quantitative and qualitative analyses of predisposing,
reinforcing and enabling conditions related to teacher
participation and program sustainability.
Helleve, Ingrid
Productive interactions in ICT supported communities of
learners
2009
H
Skorpen, Aina
Øye, Christine
Dagliglivet i en psykiatrisk institusjon: En analyse av
miljøterapeutiske praksiser
Andreassen, Cecilie Schou
WORKAHOLISM – Antecedents and Outcomes
Stang, Ingun
Being in the same boat: An empowerment intervention in
breast cancer self-help groups
Sequeira, Sarah Dorothee Dos
Santos
The effects of background noise on asymmetrical speech
perception
Kleiven, Jo, dr.philos.
The Lillehammer scales: Measuring common motives for
vacation and leisure behavior
Jónsdóttir, Guðrún
Dubito ergo sum? Ni jenter møter naturfaglig kunnskap.
Hove, Oddbjørn
Mental health disorders in adults with intellectual
disabilities - Methods of assessment and prevalence of
mental health disorders and problem behaviour
Wageningen, Heidi Karin van
The role of glutamate on brain function
XI
Bjørkvik, Jofrid
God nok? Selvaktelse og interpersonlig fungering hos
pasienter innen psykisk helsevern: Forholdet til
diagnoser, symptomer og behandlingsutbytte
Andersson, Martin
A study of attention control in children and elderly using
a forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm
Almås, Aslaug Grov
Teachers in the Digital Network Society: Visions and
Realities. A study of teachers’ experiences with the use
of ICT in teaching and learning.
Ulvik, Marit
Lærerutdanning som danning? Tre stemmer i
diskusjonen
2010
V
Skår, Randi
Læringsprosesser i sykepleieres profesjonsutøvelse.
En studie av sykepleieres læringserfaringer.
Roald, Knut
Kvalitetsvurdering som organisasjonslæring mellom
skole og skoleeigar
Lunde, Linn-Heidi
Chronic pain in older adults. Consequences, assessment
and treatment.
Danielsen, Anne Grete
Perceived psychosocial support, students’ self-reported
academic initiative and perceived life satisfaction
Hysing, Mari
Mental health in children with chronic illness
Olsen, Olav Kjellevold
Are good leaders moral leaders? The relationship
between effective military operational leadership and
morals
Riese, Hanne
Friendship and learning. Entrepreneurship education
through mini-enterprises.
Holthe, Asle
Evaluating the implementation of the Norwegian
guidelines for healthy school meals: A case study
involving three secondary schools
H
Hauge, Lars Johan
Environmental antecedents of workplace bullying:
A multi-design approach
Bjørkelo, Brita
Whistleblowing at work: Antecedents and consequences
Reme, Silje Endresen
Common Complaints – Common Cure?
Psychiatric comorbidity and predictors of treatment
outcome in low back pain and irritable bowel syndrome
Helland, Wenche Andersen
Communication difficulties in children identified with
psychiatric problems
Beneventi, Harald
Neuronal correlates of working memory in dyslexia
Thygesen, Elin
Subjective health and coping in care-dependent old
persons living at home
Aanes, Mette Marthinussen
Poor social relationships as a threat to belongingness
needs. Interpersonal stress and subjective health
complaints: Mediating and moderating factors.
Anker, Morten Gustav
Client directed outcome informed couple therapy
XII
Bull, Torill
Combining employment and child care: The subjective
well-being of single women in Scandinavia and in
Southern Europe
Viig, Nina Grieg
Tilrettelegging for læreres deltakelse i helsefremmende
arbeid. En kvalitativ og kvantitativ analyse av
sammenhengen mellom organisatoriske forhold og
læreres deltakelse i utvikling og implementering av
Europeisk Nettverk av Helsefremmende Skoler i Norge
Wolff, Katharina
To know or not to know? Attitudes towards receiving
genetic information among patients and the general
public.
Ogden, Terje, dr.philos.
Familiebasert behandling av alvorlige atferdsproblemer
blant barn og ungdom. Evaluering og implementering av
evidensbaserte behandlingsprogrammer i Norge.
Solberg, Mona Elin
Self-reported bullying and victimisation at school:
Prevalence, overlap and psychosocial adjustment.
2011
V
Bye, Hege Høivik
Self-presentation in job interviews. Individual and cultural
differences in applicant self-presentation during job
interviews and hiring managers’ evaluation
Notelaers, Guy
Workplace bullying. A risk control perspective.
Moltu, Christian
Being a therapist in difficult therapeutic impasses.
A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis of skilled
psychotherapists’ experiences, needs, and strategies in
difficult therapies ending well.
Myrseth, Helga
Pathological Gambling - Treatment and Personality
Factors
Schanche, Elisabeth
From self-criticism to self-compassion. An empirical
investigation of hypothesized change prosesses in the
Affect Phobia Treatment Model of short-term dynamic
psychotherapy for patients with Cluster C personality
disorders.
Våpenstad, Eystein Victor,
dr.philos.
Det tempererte nærvær. En teoretisk undersøkelse av
psykoterapautens subjektivitet i psykoanalyse og
psykoanalytisk psykoterapi.
Haukebø, Kristin
Cognitive, behavioral and neural correlates of dental and
intra-oral injection phobia. Results from one treatment
and one fMRI study of randomized, controlled design.
Harris, Anette
Adaptation and health in extreme and isolated
environments. From 78°N to 75°S.
Bjørknes, Ragnhild
Parent Management Training-Oregon Model:
intervention effects on maternal practice and child
behavior in ethnic minority families
Mamen, Asgeir
Aspects of using physical training in patients with
substance dependence and additional mental distress
Espevik, Roar
Expert teams: Do shared mental models of team
members make a difference
Haara, Frode Olav
Unveiling teachers’ reasons for choosing practical
activities in mathematics teaching
XIII
2011
H
Hauge, Hans Abraham
How can employee empowerment be made conducive to
both employee health and organisation performance? An
empirical investigation of a tailor-made approach to
organisation learning in a municipal public service
organisation.
Melkevik, Ole Rogstad
Screen-based sedentary behaviours: pastimes for the
poor, inactive and overweight? A cross-national survey
of children and adolescents in 39 countries.
Vøllestad, Jon
Mindfulness-based treatment for anxiety disorders. A
quantitative review of the evidence, results from a
randomized controlled trial, and a qualitative exploration
of patient experiences.
Tolo, Astrid
Hvordan blir lærerkompetanse konstruert? En kvalitativ
studie av PPU-studenters kunnskapsutvikling.
Saus, Evelyn-Rose
Training effectiveness: Situation awareness training in
simulators
Nordgreen, Tine
Internet-based self-help for social anxiety disorder and
panic disorder. Factors associated with effect and use of
self-help.
Munkvold, Linda Helen
Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Informant discrepancies,
gender differences, co-occuring mental health problems
and neurocognitive function.
Christiansen, Øivin
Når barn plasseres utenfor hjemmet: beslutninger, forløp
og relasjoner. Under barnevernets (ved)tak.
Brunborg, Geir Scott
Conditionability and Reinforcement Sensitivity in
Gambling Behaviour
Hystad, Sigurd William
Measuring Psychological Resiliency: Validation of an
Adapted Norwegian Hardiness Scale
2012
V
Roness, Dag
Hvorfor bli lærer? Motivasjon for utdanning og utøving.
Fjermestad, Krister Westlye
The therapeutic alliance in cognitive behavioural therapy
for youth anxiety disorders
Jenssen, Eirik Sørnes
Tilpasset opplæring i norsk skole: politikeres,
skolelederes og læreres handlingsvalg
Saksvik-Lehouillier, Ingvild
Shift work tolerance and adaptation to shift work among
offshore workers and nurses
Johansen, Venke Frederike
Når det intime blir offentlig. Om kvinners åpenhet om
brystkreft og om markedsføring av brystkreftsaken.
Herheim, Rune
Pupils collaborating in pairs at a computer in
mathematics learning: investigating verbal
communication patterns and qualities
Vie, Tina Løkke
Cognitive appraisal, emotions and subjective health
complaints among victims of workplace bullying:
A stress-theoretical approach
Jones, Lise Øen
Effects of reading skills, spelling skills and accompanying
efficacy beliefs on participation in education. A study in
Norwegian prisons.
XIV
2012
H
Danielsen, Yngvild Sørebø
Childhood obesity – characteristics and treatment.
Psychological perspectives.
Horverak, Jøri Gytre
Sense or sensibility in hiring processes. Interviewee and
interviewer characteristics as antecedents of immigrant
applicants’ employment probabilities. An experimental
approach.
Jøsendal, Ola
Development and evaluation of BE smokeFREE, a
school-based smoking prevention program
Osnes, Berge
Temporal and Posterior Frontal Involvement in Auditory
Speech Perception
Drageset, Sigrunn
Psychological distress, coping and social support in the
diagnostic and preoperative phase of breast cancer
Aasland, Merethe Schanke
Destructive leadership: Conceptualization,
measurement, prevalence and outcomes
Bakibinga, Pauline
The experience of job engagement and self-care among
Ugandan nurses and midwives
Skogen, Jens Christoffer
Foetal and early origins of old age health. Linkage
between birth records and the old age cohort of the
Hordaland Health Study (HUSK)
Leversen, Ingrid
Adolescents’ leisure activity participation and their life
satisfaction: The role of demographic characteristics and
psychological processes
Hanss, Daniel
Explaining sustainable consumption: Findings from
cross-sectional and intervention approaches
Rød, Per Arne
Barn i klem mellom foreldrekonflikter og
samfunnsmessig beskyttelse
2013
V
Mentzoni, Rune Aune
Structural Characteristics in Gambling
Knudsen, Ann Kristin
Long-term sickness absence and disability pension
award as consequences of common mental disorders.
Epidemiological studies using a population-based health
survey and official ill health benefit registries.
Strand, Mari
Emotional information processing in recurrent MDD
Veseth, Marius
Recovery in bipolar disorder. A reflexive-collaborative
exploration of the lived experiences of healing and
growth when battling a severe mental illness
Mæland, Silje
Sick leave for patients with severe subjective health
complaints. Challenges in general practice.
Mjaaland, Thera
At the frontiers of change? Women and girls’ pursuit of
education in north-western Tigray, Ethiopia
Odéen, Magnus
Coping at work. The role of knowledge and coping
expectancies in health and sick leave.
Hynninen, Kia Minna Johanna
Anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance in chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Associations,
prevalence and effect of psychological treatment.
Flo, Elisabeth
Sleep and health in shift working nurses
XV
Aasen, Elin Margrethe
From paternalism to patient participation?
The older patients undergoing hemodialysis, their next of
kin and the nurses: a discursive perspective on
perception of patient participation in dialysis units
Ekornås, Belinda
Emotional and Behavioural Problems in Children:
Self-perception, peer relationships, and motor abilities
Corbin, J. Hope
North-South Partnerships for Health:
Key Factors for Partnership Success from the
Perspective of the KIWAKKUKI
Birkeland, Marianne Skogbrott
Development of global self-esteem:
The transition from adolescence to adulthood
2013
H
Gianella-Malca, Camila
Challenges in Implementing the Colombian
Constitutional Court’s Health-Care System Ruling of
2008
Hovland, Anders
Panic disorder – Treatment outcomes and
psychophysiological concomitants
Mortensen, Øystein
The transition to parenthood – Couple relationships
put to the test
Årdal, Guro
Major Depressive Disorder – a Ten Year Follow-up
Study. Inhibition, Information Processing and Health
Related Quality of Life
Johansen, Rino Bandlitz
The impact of military identity on performance in the
Norwegian armed forces
Bøe, Tormod
Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health in Children and
Adolescents
2014
V
Nordmo, Ivar
Gjennom nåløyet – studenters læringserfaringer i
psykologutdanningen
Dovran, Anders
Childhood Trauma and Mental Health Problems
in Adult Life
Hegelstad, Wenche ten Velden
Early Detection and Intervention in Psychosis:
A Long-Term Perspective
Urheim, Ragnar
Forståelse av pasientaggresjon og forklaringer på
nedgang i voldsrate ved Regional sikkerhetsavdeling,
Sandviken sykehus
Kinn, Liv Grethe
Round-Trips to Work. Qualitative studies of how persons
with severe mental illness experience work integration.
Rød, Anne Marie Kinn
Consequences of social defeat stress for behaviour and
sleep. Short-term and long-term assessments in rats.
Nygård, Merethe
Schizophrenia – Cognitive Function, Brain Abnormalities,
and Cannabis Use
Tjora, Tore
Smoking from adolescence through adulthood: the role
of family, friends, depression and socioeconomic status.
Predictors of smoking from age 13 to 30 in the “The
Norwegian Longitudinal Health Behaviour Study” (NLHB)
Vangsnes, Vigdis
The Dramaturgy and Didactics of Computer Gaming. A
Study of a Medium in the Educational Context of
Kindergartens.
XVI
Nordahl, Kristin Berg
Early Father-Child Interaction in a Father-Friendly
Context: Gender Differences, Child Outcomes, and
Protective Factors related to Fathers’ Parenting
Behaviors with One-year-olds
2014
H
Sandvik, Asle Makoto
Psychopathy – the heterogenety of the construct
Skotheim, Siv
Maternal emotional distress and early mother-infant
interaction: Psychological, social and nutritional
contributions
Halleland, Helene Barone
Executive Functioning in adult Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). From basic mechanisms
to functional outcome.
Halvorsen, Kirsti Vindal
Partnerskap i lærerutdanning, sett fra et økologisk
perspektiv
Solbue, Vibeke
Dialogen som visker ut kategorier. En studie av hvilke
erfaringer innvandrerungdommer og norskfødte med
innvandrerforeldre har med videregående skole. Hva
forteller ungdommenes erfaringer om videregående
skoles håndtering av etniske ulikheter?
Kvalevaag, Anne Lise
Fathers’ mental health and child development. The
predictive value of fathers’ psychological distress during
pregnancy for the social, emotional and behavioural
development of their children
Sandal, Ann Karin
Ungdom og utdanningsval. Om elevar sine opplevingar
av val og overgangsprosessar.
Haug, Thomas
Predictors and moderators of treatment outcome from
high- and low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy for
anxiety disorders. Association between patient and
process factors, and the outcome from guided self-help,
stepped care, and face-to-face cognitive behavioral
therapy.
Sjølie, Hege
Experiences of Members of a Crisis Resolution Home
Treatment Team. Personal history, professional role and
emotional support in a CRHT team.
Falkenberg, Liv Eggset
Neuronal underpinnings of healthy and dysfunctional
cognitive control
Mrdalj, Jelena
The early life condition. Importance for sleep, circadian
rhythmicity, behaviour and response to later life
challenges
Hesjedal, Elisabeth
Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid mellom skule og barnevern:
Kva kan støtte utsette barn og unge?
2015
V
Hauken, May Aasebø
«The cancer treatment was only half the work!» A Mixed-
Method Study of Rehabilitation among Young Adult
Cancer Survivors
Ryland, Hilde Katrin
Social functioning and mental health in children: the
influence of chronic illness and intellectual function
Rønsen, Anne Kristin
Vurdering som profesjonskompetanse.
Refleksjonsbasert utvikling av læreres kompetanse i
formativ vurdering
XVII
Hoff, Helge Andreas
Thinking about Symptoms of Psychopathy in Norway:
Content Validation of the Comprehensive Assessment of
Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) Model in a Norwegian
Setting
Schmid, Marit Therese
Executive Functioning in recurrent- and first episode
Major Depressive Disorder. Longitudinal studies
Sand, Liv
Body Image Distortion and Eating Disturbances in
Children and Adolescents
Matanda, Dennis Juma
Child physical growth and care practices in Kenya:
Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys
Amugsi, Dickson Abanimi
Child care practices, resources for care, and nutritional
outcomes in Ghana: Findings from Demographic and
Health Surveys
Jakobsen, Hilde
The good beating: Social norms supporting men’s
partner violence in Tanzania
Sagoe, Dominic
Nonmedical anabolic-androgenic steroid use:
Prevalence, attitudes, and social perception
Eide, Helene Marie Kjærgård
Narrating the relationship between leadership and
learning outcomes. A study of public narratives in the
Norwegian educational sector.
2015
H
Wubs, Annegreet Gera
Intimate partner violence among adolescents in South
Africa and Tanzania
Hjelmervik, Helene Susanne
Sex and sex-hormonal effects on brain organization of
fronto-parietal networks
Dahl, Berit Misund
The meaning of professional identity in public health
nursing
Røykenes, Kari
Testangst hos sykepleierstudenter: «Alternativ
behandling»
Bless, Josef Johann
The smartphone as a research tool in psychology.
Assessment of language lateralization and training of
auditory attention.
Løvvik, Camilla Margrethe
Sigvaldsen
Common mental disorders and work participation – the
role of return-to-work expectations
Lehmann, Stine
Mental Disorders in Foster Children: A Study of
Prevalence, Comorbidity, and Risk Factors
Knapstad, Marit
Psychological factors in long-term sickness absence: the
role of shame and social support. Epidemiological
studies based on the Health Assets Project.
2016
V
Kvestad, Ingrid
Biological risks and neurodevelopment in young North
Indian children
Sælør, Knut Tore
Hinderløyper, halmstrå og hengende snører. En kvalitativ
studie av håp innenfor psykisk helse- og rusfeltet.
Mellingen, Sonja
Alkoholbruk, partilfredshet og samlivsstatus. Før, inn i,
og etter svangerskapet – korrelater eller konsekvenser?
Thun, Eirunn
Shift work: negative consequences and protective factors
XVIII
Hilt, Line Torbjørnsen
The borderlands of educational inclusion. Analyses of
inclusion and exclusion processes for minority language
students
Havnen, Audun
Treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder and the
importance of assessing clinical effectiveness
Slåtten, Hilde
Gay-related name-calling among young adolescents.
Exploring the importance of the context.
Ree, Eline
Staying at work. The role of expectancies and beliefs in
health and workplace interventions.
Morken, Frøydis
Reading and writing processing in dyslexia
2016
H
Løvoll, Helga Synnevåg
Inside the outdoor experience. On the distinction
between pleasant and interesting feelings and their
implication in the motivational process.
Hjeltnes, Aslak
Facing social fears: An investigation of mindfulness-
based stress reduction for young adults with social
anxiety disorder
Øyeflaten, Irene Larsen
Long-term sick leave and work rehabilitation. Prognostic
factors for return to work.
Henriksen, Roger Ekeberg
Social relationships, stress and infection risk in mother
and child
Johnsen, Iren
«Only a friend» - The bereavement process of young
adults who have lost a friend to a traumatic death. A
mixed methods study.
Helle, Siri
Cannabis use in non-affective psychoses: Relationship
to age at onset, cognitive functioning and social cognition
Glambek, Mats
Workplace bullying and expulsion in working life. A
representative study addressing prospective
associations and explanatory conditions.
Oanes, Camilla Jensen
Tilbakemelding i terapi. På hvilke måter opplever
terapeuter at tilbakemeldingsprosedyrer kan virke inn på
terapeutiske praksiser?
Reknes, Iselin
Exposure to workplace bullying among nurses: Health
outcomes and individual coping
Chimhutu, Victor
Results-Based Financing (RBF) in the health sector of a
low-income country. From agenda setting to
implementation: The case of Tanzania
Ness, Ingunn Johanne
The Room of Opportunity. Understanding how
knowledge and ideas are constructed in multidisciplinary
groups working with developing innovative ideas.
Hollekim, Ragnhild
Contemporary discourses on children and parenting in
Norway. An empirical study based on two cases.
Doran, Rouven
Eco-friendly travelling: The relevance of perceived norms
and social comparison
2017
V
Katisi, Masego
The power of context in health partnerships: Exploring
synergy and antagony between external and internal
ideologies in implementing Safe Male Circumcision
(SMC) for HIV prevention in Botswana
XIX
Jamaludin, Nor Lelawati Binti
The “why” and “how” of International Students’
Ambassadorship Roles in International Education
Berthelsen, Mona
Effects of shift work and psychological and social work
factors on mental distress. Studies of onshore/offshore
workers and nurses in Norway.
Krane, Vibeke
Lærer-elev-relasjoner, elevers psykiske helse og frafall i
videregående skole – en eksplorerende studie om
samarbeid og den store betydningen av de små ting
Søvik, Margaret Ljosnes
Evaluating the implementation of the Empowering
Coaching™ program in Norway
Tonheim, Milfrid
A troublesome transition: Social reintegration of girl
soldiers returning ‘home’
Senneseth, Mette
Improving social network support for partners facing
spousal cancer while caring for minors. A randomized
controlled trial.
Urke, Helga Bjørnøy
Child health and child care of very young children in
Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
Bakhturidze, George
Public Participation in Tobacco Control Policy-making in
Georgia
Fismen, Anne-Siri
Adolescent eating habits. Trends and socio-economic
status.
2017
H
Hagatun, Susanne
Internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia.
A randomised controlled trial in Norway.
Eichele, Heike
Electrophysiological Correlates of Performance
Monitoring in Children with Tourette Syndrome. A
developmental perspective.
Risan, Ulf Patrick
Accommodating trauma in police interviews. An
exploration of rapport in investigative interviews of
traumatized victims.
Sandhåland, Hilde
Safety on board offshore vessels: A study of
shipboard factors and situation awareness
Blågestad, Tone Fidje
Less pain – better sleep and mood?
Interrelatedness of pain, sleep and mood in total
hip arthroplasty patients
Kronstad, Morten
Frå skulebenk til deadlines. Korleis nettjournalistar
og journaliststudentar lærer, og korleis dei utviklar
journalistfagleg kunnskap
Vedaa, Øystein
Shift work: The importance of sufficient time for
rest between shifts.
Steine, Iris Mulders
Predictors of symptoms outcomes among adult
survivors of sexual abuse: The role of abuse
characteristics, cumulative childhood
maltreatment, genetic variants, and perceived
social support.
Høgheim, Sigve
Making math interesting: An experimental study of
interventions to encourage interest in mathematics
XX
2018
V
Brevik, Erlend Joramo
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Beyond the Core Symptoms of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Erevik, Eilin Kristine
User-generated alcohol-related content on social
media: Determinants and relation to offline alcohol
use
Hagen, Egon
Cognitive and psychological functioning in patients
with substance use disorder; from initial
assessment to one-year recovery
Adólfsdóttir, Steinunn
Subcomponents of executive functions: Effects of
age and brain maturations
Brattabø, Ingfrid Vaksdal
Detection of child maltreatment, the role of dental
health personnel – A national cross-sectional study
among public dental health personnel in Norway
Fylkesnes, Marte Knag
Frykt, forhandlinger og deltakelse. Ungdommer og
foreldre med etnisk minoritetsbakgrunn i møte
med den norske barnevernstjenesten.
Stiegler, Jan Reidar
Processing emotions in emotion-focused therapy.
Exploring the impact of the two-chair dialogue
intervention.
Egelandsdal, Kjetil
Clickers and Formative Feedback at University
Lectures. Exploring students and teachers’
reception and use of feedback from clicker
interventions.
Torjussen, Lars Petter Storm
Foreningen av visdom og veltalenhet – utkast til en
universitetsdidaktikk gjennom en kritikk og
videreføring av Skjervheims pedagogiske filosofi på
bakgrunn av Arendt og Foucault. Eller hvorfor
menneskelivet er mer som å spille fløyte enn å
bygge et hus.
Selvik, Sabreen
A childhood at refuges. Children with multiple
relocations at refuges for abused women.
2018
H
Leino, Tony Mathias
Structural game characteristics, game features,
financial outcomes and gambling behaviour
Raknes, Solfrid
Anxious Adolescents: Prevalence, Correlates, and
Preventive Cogntive Behavioural Interventions
Morken, Katharina Teresa
Enehaug
Mentalization-based treatment of female patients
with severe personality disorder and substance use
disorder
Braatveit, Kirsten Johanne
Intellectual disability among in-patients with
substance use disorders
Barua, Padmaja
Unequal Interdependencies: Exploring Power and
Agency in Domestic Work Relations in
Contemporary India
Darkwah, Ernest
Caring for “parentless” children. An exploration of
work-related experiences of caregivers in children’s
homes in Ghana.
Valdersnes, Kjersti Bergheim
Safety Climate perceptions in High Reliability
Organizations – the role of Psychological Capital
XXI
2019
V
Kongsgården, Petter
Vurderingspraksiser i teknologirike læringsmiljøer.
En undersøkelse av læreres vurderingspraksiser i
teknologirike læringsmiljøer og implikasjoner på
elevenes medvirkning i egen læringsprosess.
Vikene, Kjetil
Complexity in Rhythm and Parkinson’s disease:
Cognitive and Neuronal Correlates
Heradstveit, Ove
Alcohol- and drug use among adolescents. School-
related problems, childhood mental health
problems, and psychiatric diagnoses.
Riise, Eili Nygard
Concentrated exposure and response prevention for
obsessive-compulsive disorder in adolescents: the
Bergen 4-day treatment
Vik, Alexandra
Imaging the Aging Brain: From Morphometry to
Functional Connectivity
Krossbakken, Elfrid
Personal and Contextual Factors Influencing
Gaming Behaviour. Risk Factors and Prevention of
Video Game Addiction.
Solholm, Roar
Foreldrenes status og rolle i familie- og
nærmiljøbaserte intervensjoner for barn med
atferdsvansker
Baldomir, Andrea Margarita
Children at Risk and Mothering Networks in Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Analyses of Socialization and Law-
Abiding Practices in Public Early Childhood
Intervention.
Samuelsson, Martin Per
Education for Deliberative Democracy. Theoretical
assumptions and classroom practices.
Visted, Endre
Emotion regulation difficulties. The role in onset,
maintenance and recurrence of major depressive
disorder.
2019
H
Nordmo, Morten
Sleep and naval performance. The impact of
personality and leadership.
Sveinsdottir, Vigdis
Supported Employment and preventing Early
Disability (SEED)
Dwyer, Gerard Eric
New approaches to the use of magnetic resonance
spectroscopy for investigating the pathophysiology
of auditory-verbal hallucinations
Synnevåg, Ellen Strøm
Planning for Public Health. Balancing top-down and
bottom-up approaches in Norwegian municipalities.
Kvinge, Øystein Røsseland
Presentation in teacher education. A study of
student teachers’ transformation and representation
of subject content using semiotic technology.
Thorsen, Anders Lillevik
The emotional brain in obsessive-compulsive
disorder
Eldal, Kari
Sikkerheitsnettet som tek imot om eg fell – men som
også kan fange meg. Korleis erfarer menneske med
psykiske lidingar ei innlegging i psykisk helsevern?
Eit samarbeidsbasert forskingsprosjekt mellom
forskarar og brukarar.
XXII
Svendsen, Julie Lillebostad
Self-compassion - Relationship with mindfulness,
emotional stress symptoms and
psychophysiological flexibility
2020
V
Albæk, Ane Ugland
Walking children through a minefield. Qualitative
studies of professionals’ experiences addressing
abuse in child interviews.
Ludvigsen, Kristine
Creating Spaces for Formative Feedback in
Lectures. Understanding how use of educational
technology can support formative assessment in
lectures in higher education.
Hansen, Hege
Tidlig intervensjon og recoveryprosesser ved
førsteepisode psykose. En kvalitativ utforsking av
ulike perspektiver.
Nilsen, Sondre Aasen
After the Divorce: Academic Achievement, Mental
Health, and Health Complaints in Adolescence.
Heterogeneous associations by parental education,
family structure, and siblings.
Hovland, Runar Tengel
Kliniske tilbakemeldingssystemer i psykisk
helsevern – implementering og praktisering
Sæverot, Ane Malene
Bilde og pedagogikk. En empirisk undersøkelse av
ungdoms fortellinger om bilder.
Carlsen, Siv-Elin Leirvåg
Opioid maintenance treatment and social aspects of
quality of life for first-time enrolled patients. A
quantitative study.
Haugen, Lill Susann Ynnesdal
Meeting places in Norwegian community mental
health care: A participatory and community
psychological inquiry
2020
H
Markova, Valeria
How do immigrants in Norway interpret, view, and
prefer to cope with symptoms of depression? A
mixed method study
Anda-Ågotnes, Liss Gøril
Cognitive change in psychosis
Finserås, Turi Reiten
Assessment, reward characteristics and parental
mediation of Internet Gaming Disorder
Hagen, Susanne
«Helse i alt kommunen gjør? ...» - en undersøkelse
av samvariasjoner mellom kommunale faktorer og
norske kommuners bruk av folkehelsekoordinator,
fokus på levekår og prioritering av fordelingshensyn
blant sosioøkonomiske grupper.
Rajalingam, Dhaksshaginy
The impact of workplace bullying and repeated
social defeat on health complaints and behavioral
outcomes: A biopsychosocial perspective
Potrebny, Thomas
Temporal trends in psychological distress and
healthcare utilization among young people
2021
V
Hjetland, Gunnhild Johnsen
The effect of bright light on sleep in nursing home
patients with dementia
Marquardt, Lynn Anne
tDCS as treatment in neuro-psychiatric disorders.
The underlying neuronal mechanisms of tDCS
treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations.
XXIII
Sunde, Erlend
Effects of light interventions for adaptation to night
work: Simulated night work experiments
Kusztrits, Isabella
About psychotic-like experiences and auditory
verbal hallucinations. Transdiagnostic investigations
of neurobiological, cognitive, and emotional aspects
of a continuous phenomenon.
Halvorsen, Øyvind Wiik
Aktørskap hjå norsklærarar i vidaregåande skule –
Ein sosiokulturell intervjustudie
Fyhn, Tonje
Barriers and facilitators to increasing work
participation among people with moderate to severe
mental illness
Marti, Andrea Rørvik
Shift work, circadian rhythms, and the brain.
Identifying biological mechanisms underlying the
metabolic and cognitive consequences of work
timing, using a rat model.
Thomassen, Ådne Gabriel
Hardiness and mental health in military
organizations. Exploring mechanism and boundary
conditions.
Husabø, Elisabeth Bakke
Implementation of indicated anxiety prevention in
schools
Hagatun, Kari
The Educational Situation for Roma Pupils in
Norway. Silenced Narratives on Schooling and
Future.
Herrero-Arias, Raquel
Negotiating parenting culture, identity, and
belonging. The experiences of Southern European
parents raising their children in Norway.
Moltudal, Synnøve
Purposeful Actions in Leadership of Learning
Processes: A Mixed Methods Study of Classroom
Management in Digital Learning Environments
2021
H
Johnsen, Anja
Barn og unge i fattige familier: Selvoppfattet
skolekompetanse, etnisitet og akademisk resiliens.
Hvilke faktorer kan fremme skoleprestasjoner hos
barn og unge i risiko?
Eilertsen, Silje Elisabeth Hasmo
Who profits from concentrated exposure treatment
for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)? A quality
assurance project from the OCD-team in Bergen.
Chegeni, Razieh
Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids and Aggression in
Humans: Experimental Studies, Subgroups, and
Longitudinal Risk
Solstad, Stig Magne
Patients’ experiences with routine outcome monitoring
and clinical feedback systems in psychotherapy
Oldeide, Olin Blaalid
Local drug prevention - From policy to practice:
A qualitative case study of policy makers, outreach
social workers and at-risk youths
Steinkopf, Per Heine
«Being the Instrument of Change» Staff Experiences in
Developing Trauma-informed Practice in a Norwegian
Child Welfare Residential Care Unit.
Tsogli, Barbara
When predictions about the “what”, “where” and “when”
interact with statistical learning, from a behavioural and
neural perspective.
XXIV
2022
V
Simhan, Indra Laetitia
Seeing and being seen: An investigation of video
guidance processes with vulnerable parents of infants
Fekete, Orsolya Réka
Clubhouse Members’ Experiences of Being in Recovery
in Light of Salutogenesis
Madsø, Kristine Gustavsen
Momentary well-being in dementia: Observational
assessment of psychosocial interventions and music
therapy
Olaniyan, Oyeniyi Samuel
Embracing both sides of the same coin. Work-related
psychosocial risks and resources among child welfare
workers.
Harris, Samantha Marie
Mental health encounters between general practitioners
and individuals with a refugee background - Help
seeking and provision in the resettlement context
Larsen, Marit Hjellset
Service support and quality of life for youth in foster care
Vik, Berit Marie Dykesteen
dr.philos.
Effects of Music Training on Cortical Plasticity: Cognitive
Rehabilitation of Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury
Abamosa, Juhar Yasin
Pathways to Social Inclusion: The Role of Institutions in
the Social Inclusion of Refugees into Higher Education in
Norway. Policies and practices in focus.
Raudeberg, Rune
Improving the Methodology for Assessing Cognitive
Impairment in People with Schizophrenia Spectrum
Disorders
Ågotnes, Kari Wik
Work-related risk factors for workplace bullying. The
moderating effect of laissez-faire leadership.
Stokkebekk, Jan Kristian
Navigating Prolonged Conflict: Subject positions and
meaning constructions in postdivorce families
Valle, Roald
Skoleledelse og utdanningspolitikk. Hvordan beskrives
skoleledelse etter 1990?
Woodfin, Vivian Irena
Self-Compassion and Perfectionism
Aarestad, Sarah Helene
Treating the aftermath of exposure to workplace bullying
and preventing exclusion from working life. The effect of
individual resilience, return to work self-efficacy and
work-focused metacognitive and cognitive treatment.
Ampim, Gloria Abena
Transforming gender relations? Men’s involvement in
care for their partners and households at the time of
pregnancy in rural and urban Ghana – A qualitative study
Graphic design: Communication Division, UiB / Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon AS
uib.no
ISBN: 9788230851005 (print)
9788230864326 (PDF)
