Exploring mental representations of prospective teachers about gifted education using associative group analysis

ABSTRACT

Teachers’ mental representations significantly shape their attitudes and guide their professional behavior. This study focuses on identifying prospective teachers’ mental representations of gifted students and their education, using the AGA technique. In a cross-sectional study, 480 prospective teachers (M_age = 20.73 years) listed the associations about two selected concepts (i.e., gifted student and gifted education). The identified semantic categories of the prospective teachers’ associations indicate that the participants’ mental representations of gifted students primarily concern the psychosocial characteristics. These mental representations suggest that gifted students excel academically in general or in specific domains. Other psychosocial characteristics of gifted students are underrepresented, including characteristics of twice-exceptional gifted students. The analysis of associations with the concept of gifted education, on the other hand, shows the dominance of the semantic category of concrete didactic-methodological adaptations, with additional and challenging tasks predominating. Prospective teachers in their final year of study more frequently express associations with weaknesses in the implementation of gifted education in practice than prospective teachers in their first year of study. In general, the mental representations reflect an awareness of the importance of gifted education in terms of an enumeration of active working methods, differentiation, and critical reflection on existing practice.

KEYWORDS:

• associative group analysis
• attitudes
• gifted students
• mental representations
• prospective teachers
• teacher education

Introduction

Mental representations can be defined as structures that are formed in the process of creating the meaning of concepts in our minds with the help of language. They enable us to organize and classify concepts according to the complex relationships between them and represent a connecting link between concepts and language in a particular culture (Hall, 1997; Newen & Vosgerau, 2020). Mental representations are constructed through learning (Piaget, 2002); the mental world is built in terms of concept maps, and at the same time language is used to communicate at the level of personal meanings between members of the same group or culture, generally in life and work. Mental representations are used to relate abstract ideas and information to more concrete experiences, making those experiences more familiar and easier to understand. They influence the conceptual understanding of individual experiences and guide people’ mental frameworks (Godor, 2019). Various cognitive and affective factors (e.g. perceptions, conceptual reorganizations, attitudes) influence mental representations in terms of their potential change, as well as various biases (Carbon & Hesslinger, 2013). Three main dimensions have been proposed to adequately reflect mental representation models (Button et al., 2001). The first, the content dimension, encompasses teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding their relationship with a student or group of students. The second, the affective dimension, includes both positive and negative emotional experiences of teachers in their relationship with a student or group of students. Finally, the third dimension is information processing, which includes the ways in which teachers communicate their experiences (Bosman et al., 2019). Teachers’ mental representations describe the professional concepts with which they operate verbally or nonverbally daily and derive from their experiences and the outcomes of their interactions with the school environment and students (Pianta et al., 2003; Sternberg, 2008). Teachers’ implicit attitudes (i.e. mental representations) differ from explicit attitudes primarily in that implicit attitudes reflect the affective component, whereas explicit attitudes reflect the cognitive component of attitudes (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2007). The relationship between implicit attitudes and teacher behavior is bidirectional, with implicit attitudes thought to influence both teachers’ judgments of students and teacher behavior (Pit-ten et al., 2019).

Teachers’ attitudes include personal or subjective theories of teaching and learning and subjective theories about students’ characteristics that significantly influence students’ motivation and satisfaction in a particular subject through the teacher’s methods of teaching and actions (Decker et al., 2015; Fives & Buehl, 2012; Pajares, 1992). Attitudes form early in professional development and teachers develop their educational beliefs before even beginning their formal education (Bohner & Wänke, 2002; Pajares, 1992).

Teachers make an important contribution to students’ educational experience (Swanson & Lord, 2013) and have a greater impact on their achievement than any other factor (Flynt & Brozo, 2009). Szymanski et al. (2018) point out that teachers’ attitudes and behaviors have more impact on gifted students than on any other group of students, as it is usually teachers who recognize these students as gifted and individualize and differentiate work in the classroom for them.

Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education

Teachers’ positive attitudes not only affect classroom practices, but also indirectly affect the attitudes and behaviors of gifted classmates (peers) and contribute to a stimulating classroom climate that ensures optimal development of gifted students (Al Makhalid, 2012). Ozcan (2016) describes the attitudes of prospective teachers as key to their development and the successful teaching of gifted students. Similarly, Troxclair (2013) emphasizes the importance of appropriate attitudes of prospective teachers, based upon accurate information about the nature and needs of gifted students.

Although the quality of gifted provisions is strongly dependent on teachers’ opinions and attitudes toward gifted students, research findings indicate that pre- and in-service teachers have both positive, ambivalent, and negative mental representations about gifted students (e.g. Akgül, 2021; Antoun et al., 2022; Juriševič & Žerak, 2019; Matrić & Duh, 2019; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Preckel et al., 2015; Troxclair, 2013). Teachers’ misconceptions about giftedness and gifted education (Allotey et al., 2020, Carman, 2011; Cross et al., 2018; Matheis et al., 2017; Woo et al., 2022) can affect gifted students’ learning and psychosocial development. Research shows that teachers hold stereotypical beliefs about gifted students. Especially prominent is the belief that the high intellectual abilities of gifted students are accompanied by social, emotional, or behavioral problems (Matrić & Duh, 2019; Preckel et al., 2015). Matheis et al. (2017) report that prospective teachers’ beliefs about gifted students are consistent with the disharmony hypothesis, which states that gifted students have high intellectual abilities and deficits in noncognitive domains (emotional and social skills). Furthermore, Baudson and Preckel (2016) found that teachers perceive gifted students as more capable, but less prosocial and more maladjusted in comparison with average-ability students. Moreover, Sanchez et al. (2022) report that adult social representations reflect performative conceptions of gifted students and associate giftedness mainly with exceptional intelligence, but also with difficulties in socioemotional development. In addition, Carman (2011) reported on pre- and in-service teachers’ stereotypical assumptions about gifted students in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, learning interests, talents, certain personality dimensions, and physical appearances (e.g. wearing glasses). Likewise, Troxclair (2013) reveals that prospective teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students reflect societal myths, particularly regarding ability grouping, acceleration, and elitism. On the other hand, Perković Krijan et al. (2015) report that teachers have positive attitudes about the needs, support, and social value of gifted education, although they do not support special provisions (i.e. acceleration and ability grouping) for gifted students. Using metaphor analysis, Olthouse (2014) found that prospective teachers’ mental representations about gifted students reflect a perception of giftedness in terms of quick memorization of facts and demonstrated accomplishments. Prospective teachers perceive giftedness primarily in the general sense of being above average in all areas and express positive mental representations about gifted students, suggesting that they will properly understand and address their educational needs and will favor specific adaptations (e.g. acceleration and enrichment activities). Godor (2019) showed that teachers’ reported metaphors are related to their teaching practices and address the problem of discontinuity between teachers’ personal mental representations and gifted students’ actual learning needs, which can lead to potentially incoherent differentiation and individualization in the classroom. Likewise, studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs about curriculum differentiation and individualization for gifted students contribute significantly to the implementation of effective practices (Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2017; Yuen et al., 2018). Laine et al. (2016) found that elementary school teachers internalized the multidimensional meaning of giftedness, which they perceived as domain-specific rather than domain-general. In addition, teachers conceptualized giftedness through cognitive characteristics of gifted students as well as creative and motivational characteristics. On the other hand, the results of a quantitative study of prospective teachers’ mental representations (Bain et al., 2007) indicate that they have a very broad understanding of the concept of giftedness and exhibit egalitarian mental representations and a lack of understanding of the educational needs of gifted students. Schroth and Helfer (2009) claim that traditional conceptions of giftedness are prevalent among teachers, particularly in relation to general intellectual abilities and high learning achievements, while some specific talents of gifted students (e.g. in the field of art) and gifted students who underperform academically are neglected. Teachers’ mental representations of student giftedness influence their competence to identify potentially gifted students (Olthouse, 2014). Sternberg and Kaufman (2018) emphasize that for this reason, regardless of theoretical starting points, when identifying gifted students, attention should be paid to the use of more diverse measures and the consideration of personality traits such as engagement, goal orientation, and commitment, as well as contextual factors, such as the cultivation of giftedness and the socialization of the gifted students.

The Associative group analysis (AGA)

From the above, it can be concluded that prospective teachers’ mental representations, as highly influential cognitions for student teaching and learning can be explored in a variety of ways (Kagan, 1990; Pit-ten et al., 2019), including implicit methods, i.e. the technique of group associations AGA (Associative Group Analysis; Szalay & Brent, 1967). The AGA technique indirectly measures an individual’s perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs through free verbal associations. It is often used for inferential research on cross-cultural differences, using language as a means of communication for participants to express their thoughts, experiences, and behavioral intentions (Ross et al., 2005). AGA is a method for in-depth analysis of participants’ mental representational systems that uses thematic stimulus words to elicit literal responses that convey meanings, perceptions, and emotions. The goal is to reconstruct a subjective view of the world by analyzing free associations evoked by selected key themes (words) (Peterson & Martin, 2003).

Research problem

Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their education are a key factor of quality assurance in gifted education (Szymanski et al., 2018). Therefore, the university environment where prospective teachers are educated represents a fundamental context in which teachers can acquire knowledge and experiences that contribute to the development of a professional, evidence-based pedagogical approach. For higher education institutions that educate teachers, an understanding of prospective teachers’ prior knowledge is required in order to perform this task in a quality way (e.g. to encourage, guide, and support prospective teachers professionally). This involves a knowledge of how prospective teachers think about the topics discussed, what their personal experiences, concepts, and attitudes are, and how these can be cultivated in the educational context. A review of the literature shows that this area is still under-researched despite its importance. The aim of the present study was therefore to find out how prospective teachers think about gifted students and their education before they enter educational practice. Specifically, we were interested in examining the perceptual and cognitive factors related to prospective teachers’ associations with two fundamental concepts in the area of working with gifted students in school: (1) the gifted student and (2) gifted education, using the AGA approach.

The study was guided by the following research questions

1. What are the mental representations of prospective teachers about gifted students and their education?

2. How do prospective teachers’ mental representations of gifted students and their education differ between freshman (“novices”) and final-year prospective teachers (“experts”).

Method

Participants

The purposive sample included 480 students (65.7% of students enrolled) from the Faculty of Education at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, all of whom were enrolled in first-cycle study programs, with 284 first-year students (67.6% of students enrolled) and 196 final-year students (63% of students enrolled). Students from different study programs participated, i.e. Primary Education (24%), Social Pedagogy (7.1%), Two-Subject Teacher (20.6%), Fine Arts (7.9%), Special and Rehabilitation Pedagogy (14%), Speech and Language Therapy and Surdopedagogy (7.5%), Preschool Education (19%). Among the participants there were 444 women (92.5%) and 36 men (7.5%), reflecting the gender ratio at the faculty (9.8% of male students), which is in line with the proportion of male prospective teachers (13% of students) in Slovenia (see SURS, 2021). The average age of participant was 20.73 years (SD = 1.87). The grade point average (GPA) of the participants was 8.30 (SD = 1.87, min = 6, max = 10).

Instrument

The AGA (Associative Group Analysis) technique, developed by Szalay and Brent (1967), is a group technique for evaluating the responses of all subjects in a certain group. It measures subjective meanings in the form of participants’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs indirectly, through free associations in response to given stimulus words in order to assess similarities and differences between belief systems (Ross et al., 2005). AGA defines the stimulus word as a key unit in the perceptual-representational system and analyzes the free verbal association to determine the vertical and horizontal structure of the belief system. Participants’ responses to a given stimulus word are compiled into a group response list to examine: (1) the meaning composition of selected words, (2) the dominance or importance of themes, and (3) the pattern of affinities between themes (Kelly, 1985). This method relies on a flexible and open-ended analytic approach to assess subjective mental representations that determine behavioral outcomes (Peterson & Martin, 2003).

In the present study, AGA was used to qualitatively analyze the mental representations of prospective teachers and the differences between them in relation to the year of study in the established semantic structures. Rather than asking direct questions and limiting responses to predetermined answer choices (Peterson & Martin, 2003), the technique AGA was used to assess the mental representations that identify prospective teachers’ views of gifted students and their education. Our goal in using this method was to capture the implicit attitudes that would normally elude more structured assessment methods typically used in quantitative research. The technique was used collectively, that is, the responses of all participants were evaluated to determine the meaning structure of the concepts of two stimulating phrases: gifted student and gifted education. For each stimulating phrase, participants wrote associations in a limited amount of time (i.e. one minute). Semantic categories were formed from the associations, regardless of the year of study (initial, final).

Design and procedure

A mixed-method approach was used in the research. Students voluntarily performed the AGA technique during a lecture following standardized instructions. This was followed by transcription of the data. The associations were then analyzed using the AGA method. After the key of every fifth questionnaire, 50 subjects were selected from each of the two groups. Atypical associations were excluded from further analysis, and the rest were scored with weighted frequencies from 1 to 6.

Table

Response rank	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Weighted frequency	6	5	4	3	3	3	3	2	2	1

The subsequent steps were: transcription of the associations of each group; grouping the associations according to the content (synonyms metaphors, words in different orders or in different parts of speech); unifying the expressions in both groups; and adding the weighted values. According to the method of open coding, a set of about 50 associations was divided into six (i.e. concept gifted student) or seven (i.e. concept gifted education) semantic categories.

Results

Both groups, the initial-year and the final-year prospective teachers, expressed more associations with the concept gifted student than with the concept gifted education (M_initial = 6.4 associations and M_final = 6.9 associations with gifted students vs. M_initial = 5.4 associations and M_final = 5.9 associations with gifted education). For both concepts, the initial-year prospective teachers expressed more associations than the final-year prospective teachers (52% of all associations with the first concept and 52.5% of all associations with the second concept). The average number of associations per participant was 6.15, which is slightly less than predicted by Pečjak (1994, in Pergar Kuščer, 1998), according to which the respondent should write on average seven associations in one minute.

Analysis of semantic categories based on the prospective teachers’ associations with the concept of gifted student

In both groups, the largest share of semantic space is occupied by Category A: Conceptualization of giftedness (f%_initial = 34, f%_final = 34) (Table 1), e.g. smart, and above average, in which the profiles of the compared groups are similar. This is followed by Category B: Domains of giftedness (f%_initial = 17, f%_final = 29), e.g. learning achievements and art, where a greater proportion of associations were contributed by final-year prospective teachers and Category C: learning and motivational characteristics (f%_initial = 23, f%_final = 16), e.g. curious, and diligent, in which initial-year students contributed more associations. Smaller, relatively evenly distributed shares in the semantic space are occupied by the following categories: Category D: Cognitive characteristics (f%_initial = 15, f%_final = 14), e.g. divergent thinking, creative, Category E: Socio-emotional characteristics (f%_initial = 7, f%_final = 4), e.g. socially skillful, antisocial, and Category F: Social context (f%_initial = 4, f%_final = 3), e.g. criticism of identification procedure, taking advantage of gifted student status. Initial-year students’ associations represent the higher sum of weighted frequencies (Σ_initial = 1053, Σ_final = 880).

Table 1. Gifted student: the structure of semantic categories.

	Initial year		Final year
	f	%	f	%
Conceptualization of giftedness	359	34	296	34
Smart	211		119
Above average	72		78
Capable	43		16
Talent	28		9
Strong areas	3		22
Gifted	0		21
Student with special needs	2		11
Twice exceptional	0		12
Gardner	0		8
Domains of giftedness	177	17	259	29
Academic performance	40		84
Art	76		44
Multitalented	16		57
Mathematics	17		24
Gifted in one specific domain	14		25
Sports	14		15
Gifted in one or more domains	0		10
Learning and motivational characteristics	238	23	143	16
Curious	45		41
Diligent	48		25
Successful	20		26
Participates in lessons	44		0
Knowledgeable	27		6
Active	0		23
Skillful	19		0
Bored	8		11
Organized	4		11
Non-stereotypical traits	10		0
Independent	10		0
Restless during class	3		0
Cognitive characteristics	157	15	125	14
Divergent thinking	53		31
Creative	35		44
Receptive	51		16
Logical reasoning	11		26
Critical	2		8
Playful	5		0
Socio-emotional characteristics	77	7	34	4
Socially adept	48		19
Asocial	10		8
Managerial	13		0
Perfectionist	0		7
Satisfied	6		0
Social context	45	4	23	3
Critique of identification	22		0
Benefit utilization	11		0
Nerd	0		11
An overlooked talent	6		5
Stigmatization	0		7
Society pressure	6		0

Analysis of semantic categories based on the prospective teachers’ associations with the concept of gifted education

Both of the groups compared (Table 2) occupy the largest proportion in semantic Category A: Didactic-methodological adaptations (f%_initial = 49, f%_final = 47), e.g. additional tasks, additional lessons, more difficult tasks. This is followed by semantic Category B: Negative aspects of gifted education (f%_initial = 11, f%_final = 17), e.g. criticism of the implementation of gifted education in practice, criticism of the identification process. The latter indicates greater criticality and awareness of the issues in Slovenian gifted education among final-year prospective teachers. The remaining semantic categories contribute to the meaning structure of the concept with smaller, relatively evenly distributed proportions between initial- and final-year prospective teachers, namely, Category C: Environments (f%_initial = 14, f%_final = 11), e.g. primary school, extracurricular activities, Category D: Teachers’ competences to work with gifted students (f%_initial = 9,5, f%_final = 12), e.g. more demanding teacher preparation, teachers’ lesson plan preparation, Category E: Conceptualization of giftedness (f%_initial = 9.5, f%_final = 7), e.g. arts domain, testing, Category F: Motivational and psychological incentives (f%_initial = 6, f%_final = 5), and Category G: Home and family (f%_initial = 1, f%_final = 1), the last categories representing the lowest proportion of associations. The sum of all weighted frequencies is again slightly higher among the initial-year students (Σ_initial = 1134, Σ_final = 965).

Table 2. Gifted education: the structure of semantic categories.

	Initial year		Final year
	f	%	f	%
Didactic-methodical adaptations	554	49	458	47
Additional tasks	167		50
Additional lessons	92		106
More demanding tasks	103		48
Customized work	35		42
Work strategies	17		51
Competitions	41		19
Differentiation and individualization	0		52
Project work	23		6
Group work	23		6
Individual work	21		7
Miscellaneous activities	21		7
Individualized plan	11		16
Interdisciplinary cooperation	0		18
Problem tasks	14		4
Creative workshops	7		10
Acceleration	0		16
Negative aspects of gifted education	125	11	161	17
Critique of practical implementation	66		113
Critique of identification	25		21
Critique of unequal educational opportunities	21		0
Gifted students’ overload	8		7
Teachers’ incompetence	5		9
Excessive emphasis on giftedness	0		11
Environment	161	14	104	11
Elementary school	39		51
Extracurricular activities	51		37
Camps for gifted students	24		11
Study	24		5
Additional education	15		0
High school, gymnasium	8		0
Competence to work with gifted	108	9.5	112	12
A more demanding job as a teacher	45		21
Teacher preparation	42		15
A challenge	0		30
Teacher training	0		26
Easier work of a teacher	12		4
School counseling service	9		5
Faculty of education	0		11
Conceptualization	108	9.5	72	7
Culture and art	45		0
Testing	10		28
Socially adept	13		6
Strong areas	0		18
Smart	16		0
Student independence	5		8
Importance	10		0
School subjects	1		9
Potential	3		3
Gifted in one domain	5		0
Motivational and psychological incentives	69	6	50	5
Encouragement and support	37		30
Aspirations of gifted	25		3
Higher expectations	7		17
Home and family	9	1	8	1
Home and family	9		0
The role of parents	0		8

Discussion

The meaning of the concept gifted student within the semantic categories A: Conceptualization of giftedness, and B: Domains of giftedness partially indicate the professionally supported understanding of the concept of giftedness of gifted students among the participants, as defined in the White Paper on Education in Slovenia (Juriševič, 2011). In line with a school culture that accepts giftedness only in certain areas, and reflecting the prevailing stereotypes about academically gifted students (IEA, 2018), the participants in our sample also locate giftedness primarily in the school environment or highlight a particular learning area, especially mathematical giftedness, followed by art, while the area of sports, for example, is rarely mentioned by students as an association in terms of exceptional psychomotor skills. Similar findings are reported by other researchers (Olthouse, 2014; Schroth & Helfer, 2009), who emphasize the importance of an adequate understanding and conceptualization of giftedness among preservice teachers, as this has a crucial impact on their teaching practice. In this context, Sternberg and Kaufman (2018) highlight the fact that the conceptualization of giftedness is influenced by both explicit and implicit theories of giftedness, which implies that teacher education needs to take into account teachers achieved professional knowledge as well as their personal or subjective conceptions of giftedness and the characteristics of gifted students.

Despite the finding that the participants in the study are critical of the mass identification of gifted students, which is indeed a problem in Slovenian schools (Juriševič, 2012b, 2020), their mental representations also include related concepts, such as talent and strengths, indicating a rather vague conception of giftedness. There is a risk that this leads to a generalized belief of the type “every student is gifted.” It is therefore important that teachers gain a more accurate understanding of the concept and acquire the knowledge needed to distinguish between strengths in specific areas, which all students have, and giftedness, which is defined based on professional criteria and usually means excellence in a particular area (Juriševič, 2012b, 2018). Olszewski-Kubilius et al. (2018) dispel the misconception that any student could be gifted if only they had the right opportunities and emphasize the importance of ability in terms of domain-specific talent development.

From the content analysis of the associations, it can also be noted that the semantic categories related to the characteristics of gifted students are directly related to the domains of the characteristics of gifted students that are recognized by the broader professional community (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2018), namely: intellectual-cognitive, learning-achievement, motivational, and socio-emotional domains. Some of the perceptions of gifted students in the intellectual-cognitive domain (e.g. curious, knowledgeable, independent, creative, critical) are consistent with research showing that academically gifted students exhibit higher levels of openness to experience compared to their peers (Juriševič & Worrell, 2019; Mammadov, 2023; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). This is consistent with recent research showing that gifted students have low scores on neuroticism and high scores on openness and report high life satisfaction, perceived social support, and academic achievement (Mammadov, 2023). The mental representations of the participants in these categories are also consistent with the characteristics that are most frequently identified in gifted students by Slovenian teachers among the various traits and behaviors of the students in the classroom, namely, independence, interest in schoolwork, quick accomplishment of given tasks, curiosity, complexity, positive self-image, friendliness, motivation, preparedness to help others, high academic achievements, etc. (Matrić & Duh, 2019).

A negligible part of the structure of the meaning of the term gifted student is represented by negative traits (e.g. asocial, perfectionist), which are consistent with the disharmony hypothesis (Neihart & Yeo, 2018) and can also be found in some twice-exceptional students (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Matheis et al., 2017; Neihart et al., 2002). The low proportion of the students’ mental representations in this regard reflects their uncertainty and possibly indicates a lack of knowledge about the characteristics of gifted students. As researchers have pointed out (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Neihart, 2008), prospective teachers must also be sensitized to the psychosocial needs of twice-exceptional students, who present a particular educational and psychological challenge in the field of gifted education (Cross, 2018; Neihart et al., 2002).

In line with the empirical findings of contemporary research (Bergold et al., 2021; Mammadov, 2023; Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2018; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011), the results of the present study show that the students’ mental representations contradict the hypothesis of disharmonious development of gifted students, which presupposes exceptional abilities and achievements in the academic domain, as well as psychosocial and emotional deficits and problems (Baudson, 2016; Matheis et al., 2019; Sanchez et al., 2022). In contrast, Matheis et al. (2017) reported that prospective teachers perceive gifted students as highly intelligent but maladjusted, which corresponds to the disharmony hypothesis, even though empirical findings do not support behavioral problems as a characteristic of gifted students (Bergold et al., 2021; Neihart & Yeo, 2018).

The participants in our study perceive gifted students as being above average or outstanding compared to most of their peers in a variety of domains, not just school, which could also reflect a one-dimensional conceptualization of the term “gifted student” that emphasizes the other extreme pole on the continuum of harmony development. Alternatively, it could reflect the participants’ actual knowledge of contemporary research showing that gifted students’ development is associated with positive personal characteristics and healthy psychosocial adjustment (Bergold et al., 2015; Freeman, 2010; Juriševič & Worrell, 2019; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011).

The associations with the stimulus phrase gifted education within the most represented semantic category of didactic-methodological adaptation confirm an internal awareness of the specific psychosocial and learning needs of gifted students, assuming that associations trigger prior experience (Sternberg, 2008). It also partly reflects an awareness of the implementation in practice, that is, a familiarity with the second part of the definition of gifted students in the Primary School Act: “/ … /The school shall provide these students with appropriate conditions for education by adapting the content, methods, and forms of work, and enabling them to be involved in additional classes, other forms of individual and group support, and other forms of work” (ZOsn-H – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli [Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Elementary School Act], 2011). The first category semantically coincides with gifted students’ career orientation and needs (i.e. development of their talents in specific domains, individualized program, curriculum adjustments, counseling, etc.), which have been identified by Slovenian teachers as important for gifted students’ development (Matrić & Duh, 2019). Interestingly, only few final-year prospective teachers mentioned acceleration as a way to meet the learning needs of gifted students, which is consistent with previous research (Lassig, 2009; Laine et al., 2019, Troxclair, 2013; Woo et al., 2022) reporting that teachers have negative attitudes toward ability grouping and acceleration, in part because of the increasing negative consequences of labeling. Nonetheless, the learning characteristics of gifted students require more advanced and accelerated learning opportunities in which they can engage more broadly and deeply with subject content (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2018). However, some of the associations among final-year prospective teachers that address gifted education revealed an understanding of the importance of differentiated and individualized instruction to meet the learning needs of gifted students (Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2017; Yuen et al., 2018).

Although the participants declaratively express positive attitudes toward gifted education, they point to many shortcomings in its implementation in practice. Criticism of the systemic framework and the reality of implementation of specific adjustments for gifted students in practice were also demonstrated in a study by Loboda et al. (2020), in which prospective teachers reported about the non-implementation of specific adjustments and activities for gifted students and were critical of the gifted identification process. This is in line with the findings of other Slovenian researchers, who address the issue of the high proportion of identified gifted students (Boben, 2012; Juriševič, 2012b; Žagar, 2012). Another important aspect that emerges in the students’ perceptions of gifted education is criticism of unequal educational opportunities for gifted students, which may be due to the participants’ prior experiences with different gifted education programs depending on location and school type (Juriševič, 2020; Makarovič, 2002). Differences in the programs offered to gifted students may be related to their achievement and the development of their giftedness in a specific domain. Similarly, previous studies in the United States suggest that gifted students attending small, rural schools and gifted students attending schools with a higher prevalence of economic disadvantage do not have similar or equal access to gifted education services (Kettler et al., 2015).

The associations in the environment category reflect the characteristics of the Slovenian education system, in which the identification of gifted students takes place in elementary schools and extracurricular activities (including camps for gifted students), which represent an important component of gifted education (Juriševič, 2011, 2020; Juriševič & Žerak, 2019). The participants in the present study expressed an awareness of the demands and challenges (e.g. content acceleration, differentiated curriculum) that teaching gifted students can present for a teacher, which means they are aware of the important role of the teacher in supporting and addressing the learning needs of gifted students. In terms of quality teaching in gifted education, VanTassel-Baska (2005) argues that teachers who teach gifted students should have expertise in disciplinary content knowledge, should maintain positive interactions with students, and should use a variety of teaching strategies, including student-centered teaching, stimulating questioning, and effective classroom management.

In the context of the growing agenda for inclusive education, prospective teachers need to be prepared to teach students with different intellectual abilities and be ready to deal with the demands of diverse students (Matheis et al., 2017). Our findings highlight the importance of prospective teachers’ positive mental representations about gifted education, as they may relate to the expectations teachers have regarding gifted students, thus influencing their behavior toward these students.

Conclusion

Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education are crucial to their development, and their mental representations provide us a unique insight into their thought processes about gifted students. Not only does this represent an interesting area of research, but it also has great application value in enabling teacher educators to optimally focus the study process on cultivating teachers’ cognitions (Huang, 2015). Specifically, in gifted education, there is a practical relationship between prospective teachers’ mental representations, their beliefs and attitudes about teaching, and classroom practice (Godor, 2019).

The mental representations of the prospective teachers in the present study reflect a general or cursory understanding of the concept of the gifted student and primarily situate it within the school setting or in academic field. Second, participants have a detailed knowledge of the psychological characteristics of gifted students (Juriševič & Worrell, 2019; Mammadov, 2023; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011) and view giftedness as an advantage associated with positive personal characteristics (i.e. emotional stability and openness to experience). Among the associations with the concept of gifted education, the semantic categories of didactic-methodological adaptations and critiques of existing practices of working with gifted students stand out. This result may reflect the general educational atmosphere in Slovenia and the lack of a national strategy for working with gifted students, as well as the lack of specific training for teachers the field of gifted education (Juriševič, 2011, 2020). The associations also show a preference for additional training in gifted education and an awareness of the importance of the teachers’ professional competence in teaching gifted students.

Prospective teachers’ mental representations about gifted education form the basis for new knowledge, so specific interventions that affect teachers’ perceptions of gifted students may prove useful in changing teachers’ beliefs about gifted education. The qualitative findings obtained provide guidelines for designing more specific content in the study process and for developing professional, evidence-based pedagogical approaches to gifted education in terms of flexible learning. By developing appropriate mental representations about giftedness in prospective teachers, it is possible to influence their positive attitudes toward gifted education and increase their sensitivity to understanding the educational needs of gifted students in the broader context of inclusion (Juriševič, 2012a).

The AGA technique is rarely used in teacher education (an exception being Ross et al., 2005), and it would be useful to further explore its potential for understanding key processes in gifted education. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the present study with respect to the AGA technique, particularly with respect to language and choice of stimulus terms, as the authors of the technique, Szalay and Brent (1967), recommend the use of a word rather than a phrase, which likely influences the quality and quantity of word associations. In addition, it should be noted that associations with selected terms are influenced by language and the broader sociocultural context. Accordingly, it would be valuable to use the AGA technique in the future with consideration of perceived challenges and to more thoroughly examine the relationship between teachers’ behaviors in educational settings and their mental representations. Overall, addressing misconceptions about gifted students (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2018; Preckel et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 2022) though evidence-based professional development courses for teachers could promote higher quality assurance in gifted education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).