Views and practices on gifted education in primary schools: A comparative study of England and Türki̇ye

Abstract

Gifted education encompasses the pedagogy, procedures, and theories for educating gifted and talented (G&T) children. Globally, the recognition of G&T children's needs has underscored the significance of this field. Governments typically adopt one of two policy approaches: one explicitly identifies and supports G&T children, as seen in Türkiye, while the other promotes equity by providing equal opportunities for all students, as in England. This research explores how primary school teachers in non-selective schools in England and Türkiye approach the education of G&T children. It examines national policy contexts, teachers' interpretations of 'giftedness and talent,' and the pedagogies and methods they employ. In England, data collection focused on London schools selected based on socio-economic levels and free school meal eligibility. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis applied. In Türkiye, a purposive literature review was undertaken, with the emerging themes from England's thematic analysis applied to analyse the data through deductive content analysis. Findings reveal that teachers in both countries primarily conceptualised giftedness and talent as academic success, emphasising cognitive traits like quick learning and strong memory. However, challenges differed significantly. In England, general education policies, such as rigid curricula and league tables, emerged as primary barriers to effectively addressing the needs of G&T children. Conversely, in Türkiye, teachers grappled with issues arising from both general and gifted education policies, including inadequate implementation and the lack of integration of gifted education into the primary school system. Common challenges included limited resources, insufficient teacher education, and time constraints. Educational practices also varied. England employed diverse identification systems, with academic performance playing a key role, while Türkiye used a consistent nationwide identification process. English teachers favoured differentiation and enrichment activities, whereas Turkish teachers relied heavily on supplementary programmes like Science and Art Centres (SACs). Concerns about acceleration and grouping practices emerged in both countries. Despite differing approaches, significant barriers remain in addressing the needs of G&T children effectively.