It' s all a matter of perspective: student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented.

Significant research exists to document the changed perception that occurs in teachers, family members, and peers when children are identified as gifted. The influence of these changes on gifted students is less understood. What is the attitude of gifted adolescents toward being identified as gifted and how do they perceive that others view their giftedness?

This seminal question has been considered in three studies. Kerr, Colangelo, and Gaeth (1988) evaluated gifted adolescents' views of their own giftedness and their perceptions of how their giftedness was perceived by others. Although the participants perceived their giftedness as strongly positive in terms of personal growth and academics, it was viewed as strongly negative in terms of social relations with others. Manaster, Chart, Watt, and Wiehe (1994) refined Kerr et al.'s research and detailed subtle differences, specifically in the negative social impact category. Finally, relying heavily on the research of both Kerr et al. and Manaster et al., Moulton, Moulton, Housewright, and Bailey (1998) conducted a study of 14 gifted students' perceptions of the positive and negative aspects of being labeled gifted and talented. The study had limitations: the number of participants was small, the numbers of male and female subjects were unbalanced, and there was no comparison group. Nevertheless, their research resulted in the publication of a list of the five most positive and the five most negative attributes of being labeled gifted, as determined by gifted students themselves, and suggested negative psychological, emotional, and social consequences of the gifted label. Among the most negative attributes were stereotyping and pressure/expectations of parents and teachers. Positive attributes included personal issues such as internal gratification plus school issues such as advanced learning and special experiences in gifted classes.

The purpose of this study is to explore in greater depth student perceptions of the effects of being labeled gifted and talented by replicating the research model of P. Moulton et al. (1998) with a larger and balanced subject group. Additionally, because previous studies have viewed gifted students as a single collective group, this study seeks to determine whether student perceptions vary depending on the student's degree of giftedness.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A review of the literature on the perceptions of peers, family members, and teachers toward gifted students provides the context to evaluate gifted students' perceptions of the effects of the gifted label. Cross (1999) portrayed gifted students as living in a world that sends them mixed messages, many of which convey unfavorable notions about the meaning of giftedness.

Peer Perceptions

Both historic and current documents provide insight into the social advantages and disadvantages of being labeled gifted and talented. Tannenbaum (1962) published a comprehensive work evaluating adolescent attitudes toward academic brilliance. Although the personal attribute of giftedness was not a stigma in and of itself, it became an unacceptable attribute when combined with other traits such as lack of interest in sports or greater-than-average time commitment to schoolwork. Two years later, Torrence (1964) devoted an entire chapter of his book Education and the Creative Potential to an exploration of the negative peer sanctions used against highly creative children by groups to keep their most creative and talented members in check.

Patchett and Gauthier (1991) noted that the word gifted comes with a set of publicly recognized connotations that instill respect, yet some children experience problems in relationships specifically because they have been labeled as gifted. Many studies of the relationship between giftedness and social adjustment, however, suggest that gifted students are at least as well-adjusted as their same-aged peers (Coleman & Fults, 1983; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Karnes & Wherry, 1981). Nevertheless, Swiatek (1998) reported on the social challenges of giftedness and the coping strategies utilized by gifted adolescents to reduce perceived social stigma. Although Swiatek made no claim as to whether the social stigma actually exists, Halperin and Luria (1989) found strong evidence of negative stereotyping of children labeled as gifted.

Parent-Sibling Perceptions

There is significant disagreement in the literature regarding the impact on families of labeling gifted youngsters.

Cornell (1989) reported that parent use of the term gifted was negatively associated with several indices of adjustment. Children whose mothers used the term reported relatively lower self-concept, higher levels of anxiety, and lower rankings by their classmates on a peer sociogram. Furthermore, Cornell (1983) found that nongifted siblings of gifted children are significantly less well-adjusted than nongifted children in families without gifted siblings. It was assumed that the label gifted had negative effects on the nonlabeled sibling because one child in the family received positive attention due to the label.

These findings directly contradict published studies by Colangelo and Brower (1987a) who examined the long-term effects of labeling on gifted youngsters and their siblings. Investigating the self-evaluation and self-esteem of 25 pairs of gifted and nongifted siblings, Colangelo and Brower reported that, although gifted students scored significantly higher on academic self-concept, they did not differ from their siblings on general self-esteem, even 5 years after they were identified as gifted. A second study by Colangelo and Brower (1987b) evaluated 67 families with gifted youngsters who had been identified during junior high school. The results indicated a change in the family's perception of the gifted child over time. Siblings ultimately perceived themselves to be significantly happier about the gifted youngster's participation in a special educational program than the gifted youngster perceived his or her siblings to be. Finally, a study of children's perceptions of their sibling relationship when one of them is labeled gifted by their mother suggests that labeling does not necessarily negatively affect the sibling relationship (Tuttle & Cornell, 1993). Labeling effects, however, differ as a function of birth order. Though labeling is associated with a more positive relationship when firstborns are labeled, the relationship is less positive when secondborns are labeled.

Teacher Perceptions and Academic Challenge

As early as 1953, Epstein published an article evaluating teacher attitudes and misinformation about gifted children. It is significant that many of the observations in 1953 are still relevant today. Teachers' perceptions of students labeled as gifted and talented often correspond to the level of teacher training in gifted education or teachers' beliefs regarding diversity.

Teachers of students from kindergarten through 12th grade were surveyed to determine the relationship between the teachers' self-reported understanding of programs for the gifted and their attitude toward children leaving the classroom to take part in these programs. Not surprisingly, teachers with less knowledge of the programs viewed gifted students more negatively (Nicely, Small, & Furman, 1980).

The research of Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) demonstrated that teachers' perceptions of gifted students differed significantly and could be correlated with two factors: whether teachers had taken courses or workshops on gifted education and the grade level that teachers taught. Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) and Hanninen (1988) found definite and measurable differences between experts and novices, teachers trained and untrained in the area of gifted education. The differences were reflected in the teacher-learning process through the use of critical thinking skills and in student-teacher interactions. Clearly, teacher perceptions are colored by their knowledge of gifted programs and their training in the field of gifted education. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that teacher perceptions produced measurable differences in the classroom.

In the studies by Kerr et al. (1988) and Moulton et al. (1998), gifted students identified academic advantage as a positive attribute of the gifted label. It should be noted that the participants were adolescents enrolled in university-based gifted programs. Academic challenge in heterogeneous classrooms may be difficult to quantify and is often associated with differentiated instruction. Brighton (2003) examined 48 middle school content-teachers' beliefs about teaching in diverse classrooms to determine how these beliefs affected their willingness and capacity to differentiate instruction and assessment. Teachers whose preexisting beliefs aligned with the philosophy of addressing academic diversity exhibited the greatest success in classroom differentiation not only for special education students but also for gifted students. The research does not assert that gifted students recognized successful differentiation as academic challenge nor does it specifically address teacher perceptions of the gifted label. Negative teacher perceptions of the gifted label were furthered by preexisting views of diversity, however, when the label Hispanic limited-English-proficient was added (Fernandez, Gay, Lucky, & Gavilan, 1998).

Perceptions of Self

According to Davis and Rimm (2004), labels cause children to perceive themselves differently. In 1993, Hoge and Renzulli explored the issues of (a) whether the self-concepts of gifted and average children differ, (b) the effects of labeling on self-esteem, and (c) the impact of special placement on self-concept. In a thorough review of literature and analysis of results, the authors determined that gifted children display only a moderately higher self-concept than more average children. Hoge and Renzulli's further examination of the literature, however, indicated insufficient data to reliably answer the second and third questions in the study. In other words, they could not find reliable data to determine the effects of labeling on self-esteem.

Hickey and Toth (1990) maintained that, whereas children prior to the 1970s reported personal anxiety and negative social consequences associated with the label, more recent studies do not support these findings. Feldhusen and Dai (1997) surveyed attitudes and perceptions of students enrolled in a residential summer program for gifted students. The results indicated that most of the students viewed their own ability as something that grows with effort; in other words, it is incremental. This corresponds to results indicating a preference for challenging educational opportunities and positive perceptions of social relationships with nongifted peers. Research by Guskin, Okolo, Zimmerman, and Peng (1986) further supports a positive perception from identified gifted students. Their survey results indicated that gifted students have highly favorable views of themselves, that they believe that giftedness can be attained by hard work, and that they also perceive others as treating them no differently or more favorably. Only a minority reported negative reactions from peers. The authors also reported that students perceived the gifted label as associated with high status, especially from parents and teachers. Finally, Hershey and Oliver (1988) reviewed and discussed several studies and publications on student perceptions of being labeled as gifted. They developed a survey to provide supportive evidence for the generalization that gifted students seem to have positive attitudes about being labeled and about participating in special programs. Although the study was informal and cannot provide definitive conclusions, it does support other research on the positive aspects of labeling.

Gifted: The Two-Faced Label (Robinson, 1989) aptly describes the dilemma faced by students labeled as gifted. Labeling is a social process that can have both positive and negative effects on the labeled student. And though a majority of students report positive or neutral comfort levels with the label of gifted, approximately 1 in 6 gifted students indicates extreme discomfort (Robinson, 1990).

In the literature, the gifted and talented label is often seen as a mixed blessing (Hickey & Toth, 1990). Kerr et al. (1988) reported that gifted adolescents viewed giftedness as having a positive effect on self but a negative or ambiguous effect on others. Giftedness was perceived as an advantage in terms of personal growth and academics but, at the same time, was perceived as having strongly negative social implications. Manaster et al. (1994) expanded upon the research of Kerr et al. by refining the scoring manual so that responses could be evaluated in different subsets. For example, the original study rated each student's attitude toward the effects of being gifted. The new study divided these effects into categories such as friends, teachers, parents, and classmates. The subjects were asked whether and how each of these groups treated gifted students differently because of their special abilities. Among other things, the results indicated that, though gifted students feel the effects of negative stereotypes, these negative stereotypes come from those who know them the least, their classmates in general, and not from those who know them the best, their parents, teachers, and friends. Moulton et al. (1998) continued the same research model and reported the five most positive and the five most negative perceptions of being labeled gifted. The five most positive attributes were internal gratification, unique identity, advanced learning in school, interaction with other gifted students, and special experiences in gifted and talented classes. Stereotyping remained one of the five most negative aspects. Also included among the five most negative attributes, and not reported previously in the literature, were pressure/expectations of parents and pressure/ expectations of teachers.

Levels of Giftedness

Gifted students are not a homogeneous group. Research frequently focuses on identification, programs, evaluation, or curriculum design and often does not consider the individual differences in gifted children (Dixon, 1998). An exception to this observation occurred in the publication of The Mac' Poppins Effect: Relationships Between Gifted Students' Self Concept and Adjustment (Jenkins-Friedman & Murphy, 1988). In studying the difference between actual/idealized and actual/public self-concepts, the authors determined that gifted students collectively displayed coherence between their actual/idealized and actual/public self-images and were therefore well-adjusted. However, when the data were evaluated by level of giftedness, students in the top and bottom quartiles of the gifted spectrum evidenced discrepancies that surprised the authors and led them to reconsider their analysis.

Unfortunately, few studies distinguish between levels of giftedness. Literature that specifically delineates "moderately gifted" from "highly gifted" students is limited and the Norman, Ramsay, Martray, and Roberts (1999) study is therefore unusual in its design. The researchers compared moderately gifted and highly gifted students on a battery of self-concept and adjustment measures. Although the findings did not support the hypothesized differences between the two subject groups, the authors nevertheless maintained that the study of giftedness would benefit from clearer descriptions of those identified as gifted and a delineation between highly and moderately gifted groups.

METHOD

Participants

Sixty-six sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students participated in this study, 31 females and 35 males, aged 12 to 14 years old. All were identified gifted students enrolled in a suburban public middle school in the Midwest and all were participants in the district's gifted program. The subjects were divided into two groups, gifted and highly gifted.

The school district's identification procedure utilized a six-part initial screening matrix that included scores on standardized achievement tests (Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress [MAP]), a standardized ability test (Cognitive Stability Index [CSI]), a teacher referral, and a parent referral. Both the teacher and parent referrals were scaled checklists. Students who reached a threshold score on the matrix were individually tested by a school psychologist who administered an individualized achievement test (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test [WIAT II]), and an individualized intelligence test (Whimbley Analytical Inventory [WASI]).

Based on the outcome of the school psychologist's testing, the district categorized students as gifted or highly gifted. Highly gifted students were defined as those in the top 3% of like-aged peers; gifted students were defined as those in the upper 4-15% of like-aged peers. Forty-one gifted students and 25 highly gifted students participated in this study.

Procedure

As in the study by Moulton et al. (1998), a two-part survey was developed based on participant responses to an open-ended questionnaire in which each student was asked to generate a list of the 10 most positive and 10 most negative attributes of being labeled gifted and talented. Student responses were collated and like items combined. All student responses were included in the final survey (see appendix).

For the survey, participants were given two separate lists of attributes, one containing 14 positive attributes and one containing 14 negative attributes. Students were asked to rank the items in each list from 1 to 14, assigning 1 to the least positive/negative and 14 to the most positive/negative.

Results for each item were separated by subject group, totaled, and averaged. The five highest ranked averages for each group were identified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Positive Perceptions

The gifted and talented label allowed the participants of this study access to gifted programming. Both the gifted and highly gifted groups agreed that, as identified gifted students, they enjoyed going to class more and were not bored in school (see Tables 1 and 2). They appreciated the different curricula to which they were exposed and perceived that they had better teachers. Overall, the most positive perceptions were academic in nature and these perceptions were shared by both the gifted and highly gifted groups.

Beyond the top five academic attributes on which the gifted and highly gifted groups essentially agreed, the most striking differences between the two groups were found in perceptions that were social in nature. Highly gifted students, for example, ranked the positive attribute of making friends as 6 out of 14, immediately following the five academic attributes. More moderately gifted students ranked making new friends in the bottom five positive perceptions and ranked interacting with other gifted students in the bottom half. Because highly gifted students, by definition, are further from the norm than their moderately gifted counterparts, it may be that, through their gifted label, highly gifted students found a peer group, new friends and gifted students with whom they could interact. It may also be that social interactions with nongifted classmates are more positive for the moderately gifted group because they perceive the social aspects of the gifted label as less important.

A second discrepancy between the gifted and highly gifted groups should be noted. The moderately gifted group perceived increased self-confidence (7 out of 14) and making parents happy/proud (4 out of 14) as highly positive attributes of the gifted and talented label. The highly gifted group ranked both of these attributes in the lower half. This discrepancy could point to differing social/emotional needs of the two groups.

Most research refers to gifted students as a single, collective group. Differing perceptions of the gifted and highly gifted students in this study suggest that researchers should exhibit caution in drawing conclusions for the gifted group as a whole.

Negative Perceptions

The negative perceptions of both survey groups were very similar. Both groups perceived more homework/schoolwork, teacher assumptions about giftedness, and expectations of others as three of the five most negative aspects of the gifted label (see Tables 3 and 4). Additionally, pressure from parents, teachers, or both was identified as a strong negative perception.

One of the most negative perceptions for both survey groups was the perception that they received more homework/schoolwork. Unfortunately, there is insufficient information to determine the source of this perception. The gifted program in which the students were enrolled provides differentiation in and out of the regular language arts classroom through the coordinated efforts of the gifted language arts teacher and the classroom teacher. It is impossible to tell whether the students were referring to teachers within the program, teachers in general, or specific teachers from their past when they ranked this negative attribute. It is also likely that gifted students in the regular classroom receive the same assignments as their nongifted classmates but put more time into completion of those assignments due to the internal and external pressures that were identified as the remaining top five negative perceptions. Additional study is necessary to determine whether this is a local issue related to a specific program/teacher or a global issue related to gifted programming.

The results regarding pressure/expectations of teachers and parents support the findings of Moulton et al. (1998); pressure/expectations from teachers and parents were ranked in the top five negative aspects by both survey groups.

Previous research (Brighton, 2003; Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992; Fernandez et al., 1998; Hanninen, 1988; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Nicely et al., 1980) documented the various influences on teacher perceptions of gifted students. Nevertheless, both student survey groups listed teacher assumptions about giftedness as the fourth most negative attribute of the gifted label. The need for teacher training/staff development in this area is self-evident.

Stereotyping

Throughout the literature (Kerr et al., 1988; Manaster et al., 1994; Moulton et al., 1998), stereotyping is identified as a significant negative attribute of the gifted label. The current study reaches a notably different conclusion. The negative perception that people punish gifted students for being smart was ranked the lowest of all negative attributes: 14 out of 14 by the highly gifted group and 13 out of 14 by the gifted group. Stereotyping was also ranked very low by both groups: 12 out of 14 by the highly gifted group and 9 out of 14 by the gifted group. Additional negative perceptions that could be attributed to stereotyping such as being taken advantage of by others, perceptions of nongifted students, and the impact on relationships with friends were also included in the survey. All of these perceptions were ranked in the lower half by both survey groups.

The discrepancy between this study's results regarding stereotyping and previously published research is significant. The strengths of this study include a sizeable subject pool, almost five times greater than previous studies. In addition, the subject pool was balanced for gender and differentiated between levels of giftedness. The nature of the participant pool might offer a possible explanation for the discrepancy in results. Previous studies surveyed gifted students enrolled in summer programs or university programs. No mention is made of the level of gifted programming available at the participants' home schools where the stereotyping likely occurred. The current study surveyed students enrolled in a gifted program that is incorporated into the public school and supported by administrators, teachers, parents, and the community. The gifted program is fully integrated into the culture of the school and gifted students divide their time between homogeneous classes of gifted peers and heterogeneous classes.

The integration of the gifted program may provide an explanation for the low ranking of stereotyping as a negative perception of gifted students. Additional study in this area is necessary. Nevertheless, this research appears to indicate that the negative social stigma often attributed to the gifted label can be minimized. Careful inclusion of gifted programming may be the key to ending the negative stereotyping of gifted students.

DOI: 10.1080/02783190903177580

APPENDIX

Student-Generated Attributes of the Gifted Label

Positive perceptions                     Negative perceptions

Exposed to different curriculum          Separated from friends for
                                           classes
Made new friends                         Parent expectations/pressure
Special experiences in gifted classes    Expectations of others (not
                                           teachers or parents)
Interaction with other gifted students   Feeling more pressure than
                                           others to do well
Greater academic challenges              Teacher expectations/pressure
Enjoy going to class more/not bored      Teacher assumptions about
                                           giftedness
Receive greater opportunities            More homework/schoolwork
My friends look on me as being smart     Impact on relationship with
                                           friends
People look up to you (give respect)     Stereotyped by others
Teacher perceptions                      Being taken advantage of by
                                           others
Self-confidence, sense of uniqueness     Perceptions of nongifted
                                           students
Makes parents happy/proud                Gifted program not valued by
                                           others
Became a better writer                   People punish you for being
                                           smart
Better teachers                          Scheduling issues related to
                                           being in gifted program

Received 24 October 2006; accepted 5 November 2007.

REFERENCES

Brighton, C. M. (2003). The effects of middle school teachers" beliefs on classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 177 206. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from Wilson Select Document Reproductions Service.

Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987a). Gifted youngsters and their siblings: Long-term impact of labeling on their academic and personal self-concepts. Roeper Review, 10, 101 103.

Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987b). Labeling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 75-78.

Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1983). Self-concept and the gifted child. Roeper Review, 5, 444.7.

Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers" perception of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151-154.

Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322-335.

Cornell, D. G. (1989). Child adjustment and parent use of the term "gifted." Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 59-64.

Cross, T. L. (1999). How gifted students cope with mixed messages. Gifted Child Today, 22, 32 33.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dixon, F. A. (1998). Social and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 80-94.

Epstein, M. (1953). Teachers look at gifted children. Peabody Journal q[" Education, 31(1), 26 34. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from http://www.jstor.org/

Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students' attitudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(1), 15-20.

Fernandez, A. T., Gay, L. R., Lucky, L. F., & Gavilan, M. R. (1998). Teacher perceptions of gifted Hispanic limited English proficient students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(3), 335-351.

Retrieved February 17, 2006, from Wilson Select Document Reproductions Service.

Guskin, S. L., Okolo, C., Zimmerman, E., & Peng, C. J. (1986). Being labeled gifted or talented: Meanings and effects perceived by students in special programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 61-65. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ337553)

Halperin, J. J., & Luria, Z. (1989). Labels of giftedness and gender-typicality: Effects on adults' judgments of children's traits. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 301-310. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ397791)

Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10, 139-144.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen. J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-123. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ489445)

Hershey, M., & Oliver, E. (1988). The effects of the label gifted on students identified for special programs. Roeper Review, 11, 33-34.

Hickey, M. G., & Toth, L. (1990). The effects of labeling children gifted: A review of the literature. Early Child Development, 63, 149-151. Retrieved March 29.2006, from EducationAbs database.

Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 4494-65. Retrieved March 29. 2006, from http://www.jstor.org/

Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149 196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Murphy, D. L. (1988). The Mary Poppins effect: Relationships between gifted students" self concept and adjustment. Roeper Review, 11, 26-30.

Karnes, F. A., & Wherry, J. N. (1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as measured by the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. Psychological Reports, 49, 903-906.

Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents' attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245-247.

Manaster, G. J., Chart, J. C., Watt, C., & Wiehe, J. (1994). Gifted adolescents' attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 176-178.

Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K. (1998). Gifted and talented: Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21, 153-154. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from Wilson Select Document Reproductions Service.

Nicely, R. F., Small, J. D., & Furman, R. L. (1980). Teachers" attitudes toward gifted children and programs--Implications for instructional leadership. Education, 101(I), 12-16. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from Academic Search Premier database.

Norman. A. D., Ramsay, S. G., Martray, C. R., & Roberts, J. L. (1999). Relationship between the levels of giftedness and psychosocial adjustment. Roeper Review, 22, 5-9.

Patchett, R. F., & Gauthier, Y. (1991). Parent and teacher perceptions of giftedness and a program for the gifted. BC Journal of Special Education (British Columbia), 15(1), 25-38.

Robinson, A. (1989). Gifted: The two-faced label. Gifted Child Today, 12, 34-36.

Robinson, A. (1990). Does that describe me? Adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 245-255.

Swiatek, M. A. (1998). Helping gifted adolescents cope with social stigma. Gifted Child Today, 21, 42-46.

Tannenbaum, A. (1962). Adolescent attitudes toward academic brilliance. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications.

Torrence, E. P. (1964). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Tuttle, D. H., & Cornell, D. G. (1993). Maternal labeling of gifted children: Effects on the sibling relationship. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 402-410.

AUTHOR BIO 

Judith Ellen Berlin (MA in gifted education) is the second of three generations of teachers and has extensive teaching experience that includes every academic discipline in grades kindergarten through 8. Berlin currently teaches identified gifted students in Glenview, Illinois. E-mail: [e-mail]

Address correspondence to Judith Ellen Berlin, 2421 Cardinal Lane, Wilmette, IL 60091. E-mail: [e-mail]

TABLE 1
Positive Perceptions of Highly
Gifted Group

Rank    Perception

1       Special experiences
2       Receive greater opportunities
3       Exposed to different curriculum
4       Enjoyed going to class/not bored
5       Better teachers

TABLE 2
Positive Perceptions of Moderately
Gifted Group

Rank     Perception

1        Receive greater opportunities
2        Enjoyed going to class more/not bored
3        Better teachers
4        Makes parent's happy/proud
5        Exposed to different curriculum

TABLE 3
Negative Perceptions of Highly Gifted Group

Rank    Perception

1       More homework/schoolwork
2       Internal pressure to do well
3       Parent expectations/pressure
4       Teacher assumptions about giftedness
5       Higher expectations of people (excluding parents and
          teachers) and teacher expectations/pressure (tie)

TABLE 4
Negative Perceptions of Moderately Gifted Group

Rank    Perception

1       Parent expectations/pressure
2       More homework/schoolwork
3       Internal pressure to do well
4       Teacher assumptions about giftedness
5       Higher expectations of people (excluding parents and teachers)