Student Study Skills or Giftedness, which is More Important?

Published On: Tuesday, December 8, 2020|Categories: Education Info, Learning Strategies, Parents, Teachers|

An overview: What is a student with “giftedness” (and why do we spend so much time trying to find them)?

Nature, or nurture? These three simple words constitute a central question, one underpinning almost every field of cognitive science, anthropology, biology and even philosophy.

It transcends constraint by nearly any discipline: hovering as a specter, a ghast or ghost that haunts every corner of knowledge-based study.

Unsurprisingly, it pops up in education too.

In this article, we are going to break down some core concepts in “giftedness” studies within education.

Furthermore, we are going to argue that the definitions of “gifted and talented” used in this nature/nurture debate in schooling are not properly formulated.

If you have ever worked in or even been to most modern schools, you will have inevitably heard the phrase “gifted and talented”.

The phrase gained initial traction in the late 1990s and through into the 2000s, when educational needs specialists began to use the term to describe the top five percent of students in terms of grade attainment at school.

This was quickly adapted to include the top ten percent of all academic achievers across a year group.

A problem with this definition quickly emerged, however, as problems tend to do.

What use is a phrase that only describes a type of attainment?

The completely descriptive quality of the term as it was made it practically useless – the field of education did not need even further categorization of high-level learners.

So, the definition was adapted, as all good definitions eventually are. We now use the phrase “gifted and talented” or “giftedness” to describe students that have a very particular type of academic “potential”.

What we have here is an attempted change from a kind of linguistic and educational descriptivism: the claim that children who attain good grades are inherently more “gifted” than others.

This shift is a move to a type of prescriptivism, the idea that students who display a certain set of traits should be more “gifted” than others.

Presumably, this predictive quality implies a consequent rise in grades or general academic performance.

Another assumption also begins to emerge in this redefining of what “gifted and talented is” – that if we can find these students and nurture their specific educational needs, we can get a flourishing academic spirit.

The original goals of education can be hard to imagine, but the ability to pass down cultivated knowledge is certainly one.

As a result of this original intent, it makes sense for educators to be excited by this.

The prospect of being able to track and give extra attention to those who might be predisposed to be better retain knowledge is naturally attractive for those who make teaching a career.

It also makes classes easier if the students want to learn, needless to say.

There has been a perennial concern in teachers and educators recently regarding this.

Studies are constantly undertaken at the moment to try and identify these students early and mentor them to greatness.

The question remains: is this worth it?

What is better – choosing specific students to focus your resources into nurturing or spreading your resources into boosting every student, regardless of latent “talent”?

Here is where the nature versus nurture debate rears its head in education.

Who do we nurture? Do we only choose specific students to focus our nurturing powers on as educators, or do we try to bring up as many “ungifted” students as possible?

Or: is that the actual question?

In this post, we are going to contend that the clichéd idea of “all students being talented” does hold true, and that the concept of “gifted and talented” students is one that focuses too much on abilities within STEM and English.

If instead we focus on developing fundamental study skills within our students, we can elevate all of them at once.

This will help nurture those who are often written off within our education system as not “gifted” – and that the term itself can be harmful to those we do label as “gifted”.

So, if you want to find out more about the different debates in this area, and how the idea of being “gifted” is not as clear cut as it may seem, read on!

How are we defining “study skills”?

What is a study skill?

Well, if we look at modern research on the topic, we can see that study skills are generally defined in the following ways:

Time Management
Note Taking and Study Aids
Test Strategies
Test Anxiety Management
Organizing and Processing Information
Attitude and Motivation
Learning to read for central ideas/themes

While the above study was done on university students, similar themes apply for younger students as well.

These are all elements for successful study, and without the proper incorporation of each element, students may not flourish within a learning environment.

This is the set of criteria we are placing up against “giftedness” in this article.

The Hare and the Tortoise: Burnout and Loci of Control

According to Psychology Today, someone’s “locus of control” is their belief system with regards to the causes of their individual experiences.

Further to that, it also includes the factors influencing their successes and failures.

This is usually presented in two different forms: internal and external.

An internal locus of control means that a person attributes their success to their own efforts and abilities. An external locus of control indicates a person who attributes their failings and success to outside sources.

Studies have shown that people who have an external locus of control – where they do not have a say in their own failings and successes, are less likely to put effort into learning.

Alongside this, those with an external locus of control are more likely to develop severe anxiety – as the path of their life appears to be too deterministic, more down to luck or fate than their own agency.

This then brings us to the question: What does the term “gifted and talented” mean in this context?

When children are lumped into this category, it is because they have the aforementioned “potential”.

Now while sports and the arts are occasionally considered here, more often than not children are placed into “gifted and talented” streams due to an “innate” proficiency in English, Math and STEM subjects.

We have then, a set of students and children who show particular proficiency in certain academic areas being set up as having a type of “potential” in those areas.

Several problems begin to emerge here.

When we call a child gifted, do we remove agency from them?
When we call some children “gifted”, do we remove agency from their peers?
When a child is called “gifted”, are we writing a cheque that they are unable to cash? And if so, how will that impact them?

The first point here refers back to our ideas of “loci of control”.

If a student is told that their performance is not down to their application of study skills, but instead is due to some inherent “talent”, do we not remove their locus of control?

The label of “gifted and talented” moves the attribution of academic success away from the child’s hard work and effort and onto some arcane “talent”.

Even if some children are predisposed to academic success in certain areas, why is it healthy to tell the child it is not down to their work ethic, but to a “gift”?

This further alienates “gifted and talented” students away from proper study techniques and skills, which they will inevitably require in higher academia, no matter their inherent skill in a subject.

Moreover, and bringing us to point number 2, what does this mean for “non-gifted” students?

Are we not further subjecting these other students to this strain of academic determinism when we tell them that they are inherently less likely to achieve than their more “gifted” peers?

The language of “giftedness” tends towards a very atomized idea of our students as disparate, detached entities rather than social beings.

Point number 3 as stated above maybe belies a problem with our definitions of giftedness.

This TedX talk tells the story of a fish out of water. Of a student who was whisked into the “gifted and talented” stream of students, and the impacts it had on their life.

The whirlwind involved here, of transitioning a thirteen year old into college education, is obviously a very radical example

It does, however, speak to a danger in the “gifted” conception of student talent.

We can be too eager as educators to streamline students into the “optimal” way of absorbing and interpreting “knowledge” for their more “talented” brains.

This can potentially rob the student of proper, informed consent as to their academic trajectory, turning them too quickly into what the speaker describes as an “ex-gifted” adult.

A great example of this can be taken from philosophical history.

The philosopher John Stuart Mill was trained as a boy to become the “ultimate utilitarian” by his father’s peer, Jeremy Bentham.

By age 8 he had memorized many Greek tales and symposiums, been taught several languages, and had intense mathematical training.

At age 21, as a direct result of this intense pressure, he had a mental breakdown that took him two years to make his way out of.

When we force our students into a narrow pathway, there can be terrible results.

The responsibility of the modern educator is first and foremost to their students’ wellbeing, and not to the nebulous and vague “potential” that some are deemed to have.

A more stringent grasp on the basics of study skills will automatically help your students more fully realize their “potentials” – whatever they may be.

So, what is to be done?

It seems as if our young charges, be they considered “gifted” or not, have a lot stacked against them.

In this next section, we will outline how some important educational concepts can be used to level the playing field a bit, and how properly implemented study skills can better impact all of your students.

Adapting Student Learning Outcomes.

Research shows that a key to general student success, outside of nurturing study skills, is to encourage students with proper “learning outcomes”.

When faced with a proper set of learning outcomes, students are less likely to see a lesson as a purely didactic transaction.

A lesson becomes transformed from a boring teacher dictating for an hour into a set of active problems for a student to engage with and solve.

Outcomes also need to be evaluated in terms of a student’s ability.

What this means for a class of students that might not all be considered “gifted” is fairly simple.

When you plot your Learning Outcomes, make sure they are open-ended enough that they can fit your entire class.

If you have students that might be more advanced than others, consider setting some generic “extension” activities that engage with more difficult connotations of the lesson topic.

This will sate the appetite for knowledge that certain students have, while not drawing too much of your attention from your other students.

K12 Learning methods versus “giftedness”

One of the problems that a lot of students face is that the classic K12 system does not allow for students from all backgrounds to flourish.

Students from more privileged backgrounds are typically found to be “gifted”.

The higher “critical thinking” capabilities of these students allegedly better suit them for further education.

This paper shows that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are often missed by “gifted and talented” programs, and that the programs were often aimed at more well-off students.

This is not always the case, but is an alarming example, nonetheless. It shows a real gap in the typical “gifted and talented” model for honing learner talent.

It is a further shame as classic K12 learning methods are actually well suited for immersing an educator in the student’s talents and abilities.

If we focused more on an application of study skills best practices here, rather than pursue the vague and poorly defined profile of a “gifted” student, positive impact can be made.

Students who are typically overlooked can have a real chance to flourish, and students that normally perform well can be encouraged to help their peers in this process.