"The Effects of Bullying Among Middle School Gifted and Talented Children"

Gifted Children and Bullying 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Chapter I

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim.

Accept no one's definition of your life, but define yourself” (page 6).

Harvey S. Firestone (2001)

Introduction

The link between bullying and school violence has drawn increased attention ever since

the Columbine High School massacre which occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999. This massacre

at the Jefferson County, Colorado high school left twelve students and one teacher dead, with

twenty-one other students injured directly, and three more injured while trying to escape. The

two gun-wielding high school seniors, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were both identified as

gifted and were bullied for most of their formative years due to this identification of academic

success. An analysis by officials of the U.S. Secret Service found that “this bullying caused the

premeditated shooting, ending with Harris and Klebold committing suicide following the direct

act” (Newman, et al. 2004, p. 380).

Gifted children who are bullied and tormented often turn their rage on others, and in

some situations, they suffer silently and turn the despair inwards. In 2002, J. Daniel Scruggs was

a slight-built twelve-year-old boy with an IQ of 139 and attended Washington Middle School in

Meriden, Connecticut where he excelled in their gifted program, particularly in science and

mathematics. However, Scruggs was a lonely kid who was tormented at school because he often

wore mismatched clothes, acted ‘nerdy’ and was told that he smelled by his classmates. Very

often during the course of his school day, Scruggs was hit, punched, kicked, spit on and laughed

at, and ‘Kick Me’ signs were often affixed to his back; he had been thrown down a flight of stairs

several times, and sometimes made to eat his lunch off the cafeteria floor. Many of the teachers


and administrators were aware of the abuse but failed to intervene because they felt this was

normal middle school behavior amongst peers, in essence “innocent rights of passage”

(McIntosh, 2006, p. 4). On January 2, 2002, Scruggs walked into his bedroom closet and hung

himself.

Statement of the Problem

All children are vulnerable to the effects of bullying, but gifted children differ from other

children in several significant ways. Most gifted children are already very intense and anxious, as

well as highly sensitive due to their own and others’ high expectations of them. Gifted children

consider social justice issues very important to them, and “with their own hyper-sensitivity to

self-criticism and perfectionalism, they struggle to make sense of this cruelty and aggression;

many times blaming themselves and withdrawing socially in order to hide from bullies” (Clark,

2008, p. 151). These gifted and talented children are “more susceptible to the severe emotional

damage that bullying can inflict” (Bosworth, 2009, p. 342). Take into consideration that gifted

students “tend to strive towards perfectionalism and consider their lives less fulfilling without the

pursuit of high goals, some impossibly high” (Lumsden, 2002, p. 346). Due to these tendencies,

“gifted students possess a multitude of behaviors ranging from healthy to dysfunctional”

(Lumsden, 2002, p. 346).

Attributes of ‘healthy’ behavior among gifted children include “an intense need for order

and organization, time-management skills, self-acceptance of mistakes and efficiency in

correcting, meeting high parental expectations, and great pleasure in achievement” (Bosworth,

2009, p. 343). “They have a use of positive coping strategies within a structured gifted climate

and they view personal efforts as an important part of success and happiness” (Clark, 2008, p.

187-188).


Attributes of ‘dysfunctional’ behavior among gifted children consist of “anxiety about

making errors, extremely high standards for oneself which are sometimes unachievable, and

perceived excessive expectations and criticism from others” (Clark, 2008, p. 188). This causes

the “questioning of one’s own judgment, the lack of effective coping strategies, and the need for

constant approval and acceptance” (Clark, 2008, p. 189). Bullying children within the gifted and

talented population is “an overlooked problem that leaves many of these students emotionally

shattered, which creates additional issues such as extreme depression and anxiety that may

manifest itself into violence or suicide” (Romain, 1997, p. 16).

Research Method and Questions

Researchers have been actively seeking answers to many commonly asked questions

involving adolescent bullying and victimization; however, “posttraumatic stress and dissociation

are limited areas of study in relationship to bullying, particularly among gifted children” (Rigby,

2003, p. 16).

The Reynolds Bully Victimization Scale for Schools (BVS) is designed to assess bullying

behavior and bully-victimization experiences in children and adolescents. This assessment is

used to identify students who are bullied as well as those who are doing the bullying. Measured

through the Reynolds Bully Victimization Distress Scale (BVDS), the scale “evaluates

internalized symptoms such as depression, anxiety and fear, as well as externalized symptoms

such as anger, acting-out, and defiance” (Reynolds, 2009, p. 8).

The BVS and BVDS are the most commonly used standardized instruments to form a

comprehensive picture of a child’s experience of peer-related threat, level of distress, and anxiety

related to school safety. These benchmarks are used to identify a child in need of intervention, or

for identifying what students perceive as a threatening or unsafe aspect of their school


environment. The limitations of both the BVS and the BVDS are that neither is specific to the

needs of gifted children. Therefore, “an interdisciplinary approach for assessment has been

formulated to assess the wide scale psychological impacts associated with bullying to include

intrapersonal and interpersonal difficulties associated specifically to gifted children” (Reynolds,

2009, p. 3).

In order to understand the research methods for this study, take an opportunity to review

the categories of questions which will be presented in order to formulate the data regarding the

bullying of gifted and talented children in the middle school environment. Category One

questions will pertain to how safe gifted and talented students feel about bullying. Questions will

include how safe do they feel in their general and elective classrooms, as opposed to their gifted

classrooms; as well as areas such as the gymnasium and athletic fields, cafeteria, and hallways.

These questions will extend the safety issue out to walking to and from school, as well as taking

the school bus with all the other students of the school. Category Two will allow them to discuss

how others treat them, with questions such as how often do other students bully them by laying

their hands on them, including incidents of hitting, kicking, pushing, or hurting their body

otherwise. Questions will ask how often do other students bully them by saying mean things to

them, things which hurt their feelings, how often do other students bully them by spreading mean

rumors about them, and how often do other students bully them by leaving them out of their

activities. Further insight will be acquired by asking in what grade is the student or students

which bully them, and have they ever told or asked for help when being bullied.

Category Three will question what they have seen or heard, such as how often

they have seen another student bully others by laying their hands on them or by saying mean

things to them, things which hurt their feelings. Also, how often have they seen another student


bully others by spreading mean rumors about them, and how often have they seen another

student bully others by leaving them out of their activities. Category Four questions will ask how

they reacted, such as what have they done when they have seen a student being hit, kicked,

pushed, punched or otherwise physically hurt in school or on the school bus; and if they helped a

student in a bully situation, what was the outcome, and whether it was positive or negative.

Category Five pertains specifically to gangs due to the demographics of the subjects, such as do

they know of students in their school who are members of a gang, or are wanna-be’s of a gang;

and exactly how much of a problem do they think gangs are in their school. Category Six will

complete the questionnaire with an essay question asking how much of a problem do they think

bullying is in their school. Participants will be asked to give some examples and specific

situations, and no names are to be included.

Rationale for the Study

The significance of this study is not to review bullying in gifted and talented children

versus common classroom children; however, it is to study the prevalence and impact that

bullying has on gifted and talented children specifically. The most common type of bullying

during the middle school years is “name-calling, teasing about appearance, pushing and shoving,

and insults regarding their intelligence and grades” (Smith, et al. 2008, p. 3). Regular children

get bullied too but gifted children are most often bullied based on their school performance,

which “turns their strength into a weakness and a source of shame” (Smith, et al. 2008, p. 7).

Certain challenges due to emotional immaturity come automatically with exceptional intellectual

abilities, therefore, gifted children are extremely sensitive to bullying.

Take into consideration the general traits exhibited within the gifted community, such as

what gifted children say. Statements such as “If I can’t do it perfectly, what’s the point? I should


excel at everything I do. The task should be done before anything else and every detail should be

perfect” (Clark, 2008, p. 57). These statements manifest themselves into more intense and

depressed reactions, such as “I’d better not make a mistake or people will think I’m stupid.

Everything should be clearly black or white. Gray is a sign of confused thinking” (Clark, 2008,

p. 57-58). Also, take into consideration other general traits exhibited within the gifted

community, such as what gifted children think and feel. Mostly they are “deeply embarrassed

about mistakes that they make and disgusted with themselves when criticized, anxious when

stating an opinion rather than a fact and afraid of rejection, and afraid of appearing incompetent

or stupid” (Clark, 2008, p. 59). Therefore, plagued by self-hate when feeling guilty about letting

others down, these attributes lead to them being “discouraged, anxious and exhausted due to

being unable to ever relax, and stressed when their routine is interrupted” (Clark, 2008, p. 59).

In essence, they are accustomed to easy success and praised for work requiring modest

effort, and they often do not develop a work ethic or learn to meet a challenge. When these

children grow up, they seek applause constantly without knowing how to get it. Children held to

impossibly high standards and deprived of praise may get “caught in a cycle of hopeless,

misdirected perfectionism, trying to please parents, teachers, or bosses who never can be

satisfied” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p.14). “The words that are put on them when they’re young are

likely to stay with them the rest of their lives” (McIntosh, 2006, p. 5). It is important to

remember that although gifted children are cognitively advanced, the same cannot be said of

them physically, socially and emotionally. In actuality, their emotional maturity is even less

developed due to their excelled anxieties and stress-levels. Teachers, administrators, parents, and

even counselors usually miss the indicators of stress; and “the lack of opportunity for gifted

students to discuss these social and emotional issues contributes to their vulnerability to bullying


(McIntosh, 2006, p. 5).

Bullying creates a sense of fear that disrupts the learning environment, and we must

actively address the impact of bullies on school climate and academic success of students.

Administration, educators, parents, coaches and even trained counselors may miss the indicators

of their distress, and the lack of these opportunities for gifted students to discuss concerns related

to social and emotional development potentially contributes to vulnerability A student that has

bullied can have far-reaching effects in a school and “create a climate of fear and intimidation

not only in his or her victims, but in fellow students” as well; therefore, students who bully, their

victims and bystanders are all affected (Milsom, et al. 2006, p. 38). Bullying sets a tense

environment in a school and as addressed earlier, can lead to violence towards others or suicide

by the victims. Although freedom from the fear and shame of bullying does not necessarily

ensure academic success for all students, it is indeed “a necessary condition to promote effective

learning in a positive classroom culture” (Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 363).

Anticipated Outcome

Once scores and summaries have been created, this study intends to reflect different

approaches to bullying issues among the gifted and talented population of middle school

children, providing information intended for positive intervention programs. Approaches will

include “the responsibility to the victim by assisting in developing the skills and capacity to

resist bullying,” and intervention techniques to deter it from occurring or re-occurring (Reynolds,

2009, p. 12). Administrators, teachers, counselors, and school personnel have a responsibility to

the bullies as well, to treat them with consequences and a firm manner in order to deter their

behavior. Providing these problem solving skills to school staff and administrators, they would

have the tools required to “reach constructive outcomes and develop programs to support


emotional and social rehabilitation for the bully and the victim” (Reynolds, 2009, p. 12).

Being bullied has already been “recognized as a health problem for children because of

their association and adjustment problems in adolescence, and leads to poor mental health and

even violent and suicidal tendencies” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p. 77). It is therefore important to

assess how these children are affected, reflect on the outcome of this study and those within the

literature review, and create pro-active programs and classroom environments to nurture the

specific needs for these gifted and talented children, considering that their needs have shown to

be more pronounced and profound.

Definition of Terms

Gifted and Talented

Gifted and talented students are those who give “evidence of high achievement capability

in such areas as intellectual, creative or artistic, or in specific academic fields; and who need

services or activities provided on the gifted and talented curriculum in order to fully develop

those capabilities” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p. 19). Children capable of high performance include

those with demonstrated achievement or potential ability in any of the following areas, including

“general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking,

leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability” (Milsom, et al. 2006, p.

37).

Bullying

When using the term bullying, it is used to describe a child being “teased, terrorized or

systematically victimized by his or her peers” (Burrill, 2006, p. 85). Further descriptions include

the concept that there is a difference in power between peers in this bullying dynamic in which

“one imposes negative consequences towards another individual” (Burrill, 2006, p. 87). Bullying


has also often been defined as “a behavior that occurs repeatedly over time as well as behavior

that can occur as an isolated incident” (Juvonen, et al.2003, p. 1233). For the purposes of this

study, bullying will refer to “one or more perpetrators, directly or indirectly; and attacking a

victim or a group of victims, one time only or repeatedly over time” (McIntosh, 2006, p. 4).

Organization of the Study

This study has been organized within five chapters. Chapter 1 includes an introduction to

the study, statement of the problem, the research method and questions, the rationale for the

study, the anticipated outcome, the definitions of terms, and the organization of the study.

Chapter 2 is comprised of a literature review, dealing with studies previously done on the effects

of bullying on gifted and talented middle school children; as well as the instruments of measure

used to conduct these studies. Chapter 3 provides an introduction to the methodology of the

study, as well as the purpose of the study, and research questions. Within the methodology

section are also descriptions of the setting, participants, measures, instruments, and procedure

used for the study, as well as the rationale for the study. Chapter 4 includes the purpose of the

study and the research questions implemented, as well as the presentation of the data and results.

Chapter 5 concludes this study with the findings and a summary of the findings, the implications

of the study, and recommendations for further studies.


CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW


Chapter II

“We are not all the same, we do not all have the same kinds of minds;

education works most effectively for most individuals if these differences

are taken into account rather than denied or ignored” (p. 36).

H. Gardner (1995)

Introduction

Research began in the early 1970’s in the areas of bullying and victimization, and

researchers have been actively seeking answers to many commonly asked questions such as

“which children bully, who are the targeted victims, where does it happen, why does it happen,

how can we prevent it, how can we identify it, what causes it, what are the effects, and is it

getting worse?” (Peterson, 2004, p. 135). Existing literature agrees that bullying is “a complex

process that involves multiple facets on many levels” and studies conducted over the last 40

years provide evidence that there is some consistency pertaining to certain patterns and trends

(Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 341). This literature review will provide an overall perspective on the

effects of bullying on middle school gifted and talented children, including what constitutes a

gifted and talented child, as well as the definition of bullying, bullying and school climate,

psychiatric and psychological factors, meeting the social and emotional needs of bullies and their

victims, bullying intervention, and bully victimization instruments of measure.

Defining Giftedness and Talent

In order to fully understand the effects of bullying on gifted and talented children, it is

most important to be able to identify these children first. Through this identification process and

understanding of their unique makeup, we can further delve into why bullying impacts them

differently than the children in the common or traditional classroom settings or school


environments. Gifted children are those considered by educational systems to have significantly

higher than normal levels of one or more forms of intelligence. During the 20th century, these

children were often classified by the use of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) Tests but recent

developments in theories of intelligence have thrown doubt on the use of such tests exclusively.

The fact remains that “these students are beyond their peers and often feel they are alienated or

limited by those around them,” including but not limited to teachers, coaches, and administrators

(Bradshaw, et al. 2007, p. 362). Many schools in the United States now attempt to sort out these

students, and offer additional or specialized education and counseling in the hopes of nurturing

their giftedness and their talents.

Gifted and talented children are capable of high performance, and include those children

which demonstrate achievement or potential in such categories as general intellectual ability,

specific academic aptitude, and creative or productive thinking. Over the years, these categories

have been expanded to include leadership ability, psychomotor skills, and visual and performing

arts. Using these categories, “a school system could expect to identify 10%-15% of its student

population as gifted or talented” (Clark, 2008, p. 28). Understanding each of these categories

allows for a better understanding of giftedness as a concept more meaningfully with parents,

administrators, school board members, gifted advisory committees, researchers, and anyone who

needs to understand the dynamics of the term.

Identification of Gifted and Talented Children

The process of identifying students for gifted and talented programs must be based on

measurable practices, and in recent years there has been a focus on identifying those students that

are typically under-represented. This includes “culturally and linguistically diverse and low-

income students, and the use of alternative assessments such as verbal ability tests and creativity


profiles” (Lane, et al. 2006, p. 391). The assessments referenced below are aimed to be inclusive

of students from different cultures, races, and economic circumstances. In addition, the use of

multiple assessments in the identification process is done not only to identify those students that

are in need of instruction beyond the regular curriculum, but also “those students who display the

potential for high-level learning beyond their current accessibility” (Lane, et al. 2006, p. 394).

General intellectual ability or talent is usually defined in terms of “a high

intelligence test score or a series of test scores, and in which the student has measured two

standard deviations above the mean” (Reynolds, 2009, p. 2). These children are often recognized

by their “wide-ranging knowledge of general information as well as high levels of vocabulary,

abstract word knowledge, abstract reasoning, and memory” (Schuler, 2002, p. 3). Additionally,

they tend to have longer attention spans, they understand directions and complete tasks

independently as well as do more than is expected on an assignment, and they use complex,

normally compound sentences. Since they grasp new concepts quite easily, they ask probing

questions and apply information to formulate solutions. Specific academic aptitude or talent

applies to students identified by their outstanding performance on an achievement or aptitude test

in one particular area such as language arts, mathematics, science, history or social studies, or

foreign language. In their particular area, they are self-motivated and risk-takers, and able to

recognize relationships between concepts and comprehend their meanings. Furthermore, they

“analyze and reason out complicated theories and apply their knowledge to reason things out”

(Schuler, 2002, p. 3). These students “normally score on the 97th percentile or higher on standard

achievement tests” such as the Virginia Standards of Learning, and later on higher education

tests such as the PSAT and the SAT (Reynolds, 2009, p. 3).

Creative and productive thinking is “the ability to produce new


ideas by bringing together elements usually thought of as independent or dissimilar, and the

aptitude for developing new meanings that have real-life relevance and social conscious value”

(Piechowski, 1999, p. 218). Characteristics of creative and productive students include

“openness to experience, setting personal standards for evaluation, ability to play with ideas,

willingness to take risks, preference for complexity, tolerance for ambiguity, positive self-image,

and the ability to become submerged in a task” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 218). Creative and

productive students are identified through the use of tests such as the Torrance Test of Creative

Thinking (TTCT) or through demonstrated creative performance. Recently, the Minnesota Tests

of Creative Thinking (MTCT) have been used in order to assess verbal and nonverbal tasks, and

uses techniques outside the norm to scale these tasks such as taking common problems and

applying an impossibilities task, or develop a just-suppose theory. Gifted students with talent in

the arts demonstrate special aptitude in visual arts, music, dance, drama, or other related studies.

These students can be assessed and identified by using task descriptions such as the Creative

Products Scales (CPS). Indicators of these tests include the inclusive assessment of particular

cognitive abilities as well as “problem-solving skills, perseverance, and high levels of

motivation” (Cukierkorn, 2008, p. 27).

Leadership ability is identified as the ability to direct individuals or groups to a common

decision or action, and students “who demonstrate giftedness in leadership ability use group

skills and negotiation techniques in difficult or controversial situations” (Polgar, 2007, p. 78).

These skills are normally recognized through “a student’s keen interest in problem solving, and

some of the characteristics include self-confidence, responsibility, cooperation, a tendency to

dominate, and the ability to adapt readily to new situations” (Polgar, 2007, p. 78). These students

can normally be identified through using instruments such as the Fundamental Interpersonal


Relations Orientation Behavior Assessment (FIRO-B).

Psychomotor ability involves kinesthetic motor skills such as practical, spatial,

mechanical, and physical skills; however, it is seldom used as a criterion in acceptance into a

gifted program. Updated criterion now includes classroom observations of students’ behaviors,

collected by the use of Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) designed to assess “student characteristics

and behaviors, and student interviews provide useful supplemental data” (Lane, 2006, p. 418).

Teachers and administrators use GRS in the identification process because they are “based on a

multidimensional model of giftedness” (Pfeiffer, 2006, p. 107). The levels of achievement

possible for each demonstration or performance are defined by the use of rubrics. Rubrics are

often developed within these scales with the quality of achievement defined, and “rated from 1 to

6, with 6 being high, and there can be as few as three levels of achievement: minimum,

competent, and exemplary” (Koth, et al. 2008, p. 101). When these rubrics are developed, there

is an understanding of the expectations and quality of the demonstration or performance that

must be met for each level of evaluation. This knowledge of expectations and quality allows for

a fair and meaningful evaluation, and “observing the various levels of proficiency provides better

information on the strengths and weaknesses of the student” (Koth, et al. 2008, p. 101).

These gifted and talented children are not only different from the general adolescent

population, but they are different among themselves in personality types, usually measured by

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Personality dimensions have also shown to be

associated with academic achievement, intelligence, and talent development; and normally fall

into two categories, attitude-related types and function-related types. Using the indicator scales,

these children exhibit either extraversion or introversion traits. The extraverted types normally

develop “a strong awareness of their environment and have a strong propensity to influence


others, but are highly unlikely to be influenced by others” (Sak, 2004, p. 72). These children

usually seem “confident, accessible, and expansive in their manner” but harbor a need for

acceptance and praise” (Sak, 2004, p. 72). Introverts, on the contrary, are somewhat “more

independent and idea-oriented than extraverts, as they usually get their excitement from the inner

world” (Sak, 2004, p. 73). They may sometimes seem “lost in thought or inaccessible

emotionally” but they too harbor a need for acceptance and praise (Sak, 2004, p. 73). Using these

two dimensions of extraversion and introversion, indicators provide data between two different

types of judgment used by gifted children. Feeling types usually “value harmony and human

relationships, and make decisions subjectively with a consideration of society’s values” (Sak,

2004, p. 75). In contrast, thinking types emphasize logic and objectivity in reasoning, and “this

preference suppresses values and uses impersonal feelings in making objective decisions” (Sak,

2004, p. 77).

Using these categories as a guideline, “gifted and talented children are those identified by

professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high

performance” (Schuler, 2002, p. 4). Gifted and talented children are usually not the first group

that comes to mind when educators think of diverse populations or differentiated instruction,

however, “these students constitute a distinct group of individuals who, as a result of their gifts,

share common experiences and have unique needs” (Shepard, 2008, p. 11). In accordance with

these unique needs, many gifted programs have developed their own multidimensional screening

processes, such as the one referenced below. These are the children who require differentiated

educational programs and counseling services beyond those normally provided by the regular

school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.


Table 1: Multidimensional Screening Process

Step One: 1. Nominations - teacher, principal, counselor, parents, peer, self

2. Teacher report on student functioning

3. Family history and student background

4. Peer identification

5. Student inventory of works, achievements, and interests

6. Variety of tests

Step Two: Development of Profile (done by Coordinator)

Step Three: Coordinator decision to refer to committee and parental consent to refer

Step Four: Development of Case Study (Coordinator)

1. Screening data 2. Parent interviews 3. Test protocols

a. Individual intelligence b. Content area c. Creativity (tests)

Step Five: Committee meeting for consideration

Committee decision to identify and place in appropriate program

Parental decision to place

Step Six: Placement in Gifted Program

Step Seven: Assessment for Individual Educational Plan (IEP)

1. Case study material

2. Functional assessment

Step Eight: Assessment of Appropriate Educational Program and IEP Plan

Growing Up Gifted: Part II: Educating the Gifted Student, Chapter 6: Assessment and

Identification of Gifted Students, by B. Clark, Columbus: Pearson Publishing, Seventh Edition,

Copyright 2008, p. 203.


Mental Self-Management and Multiple Intelligences

Robert Sternberg (1982) had suggested that giftedness is a type of mental-self

management, and “the mental management of one’s life in a constructive, purposeful way

normally possesses three basic elements which include adapting to environments, selecting new

environments, and shaping new environments” (Clark, 2008, p. 66). According to Sternberg, “the

key psychological basis of intellectual giftedness resides in insight skills that include separating

relevant information from irrelevant, combining isolated pieces of information into a unified

whole, and relating newly acquired information to information acquired in the past, as well as

activating prior knowledge” (Clark, 2008, p. 67). Sternberg emphasized problem-solving abilities

and viewed the gifted student as one who processes information rapidly and uses insight abilities.

Researchers continue to challenge the traditional definitions of intelligence, and Sternberg

developed the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence which suggests there are actually three

dimensions to intelligence, thus three components to consider when testing for giftedness.

Compotential intelligence consists of mental mechanisms for processing information,

experiential intelligence involves dealing with new tasks or situations, and the ability to use

mental processes automatically, and contextual intelligence as the ability to adapt to, select, and

shape the environment (Clark, 2008, p. 37-38).

Howard Gardner (1983) suggested a concept of multiple intelligences, stating that there

are “several ways of viewing the world including linguistic, logical or mathematical, musical,

bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence” (Gagne, et al. 2003, p. 69).

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is more widely known among educators because it

reflects what teachers already know, which is there are many different ways of being smart.

Gardner developed his theory by combining studies of the brain with research on the contextual


aspects of intelligence. He believed that “only if we expand and reformulate our view of what

counts as human intellect, we will be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and

more effective ways of educating it” (Clark, 2008, p. 37). These processes resulted in three types

of giftedness, according to Gardner, and modified the concept of intelligence. The first type of

giftedness being analytic giftedness, which is “the academic type of reasoning, measured by

intelligence tests” (Clark, 2008, p. 38). The second type as synthetic giftedness, which refers to

creative and intuitive thinking; and the third as practical giftedness, which is “the ability to apply

analytical and synthetic abilities to everyday problems and issues successfully” (Clark, 2008, p.

38). In the process of formulating his original theory, Gardner drew from a wide range of studies

on subjects including prodigies, gifted individuals, brain-damaged patients, normal children and

adults, and individuals of diverse cultures; and developed the seven steps to optimizing learning.

Gardner’s theory addresses many areas that had not previously been seen as a part of

intelligence, and “he brings additional clarity to the critical importance of the interaction of both

genetics and environment in its development” (Clark, 2008, p. 37).

Table 2: The Seven Steps to Optimizing Learning

Step 1: Understand brain development as a basis for learning Integrative Standards
Step 2: Create a responsive learning environment * Intuitive
Step 3: Integrate the intellectual process * Cognitive
Step 4: Establish the continuum for learning * Affective
Step 5: Assess the student's level of mastery * Physical
Step 6: Differentiated and individualize teaching and learning * Sensing
Step 7: Evaluate teaching and learning, reflect and reform

Growing Up Gifted: Part II: Educating the Gifted Student, Chapter 7: Optimizing Learning:

Using Brain Research in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms, by B. Clark, Columbus:

Pearson Publishing, Seventh Edition, Copyright 2008, p. 227.


Joseph Renzulli (1986) stated that gifted behavior reflects “an interaction among the

basic clusters of human straits which include above-average general or specific abilities, high

levels of task commitment and motivation, and high levels of creativity” (Gagne, et al. 2003, p.

71). Gifted and talented children are those who possess or are capable of developing these

composite of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance.

While a few students will demonstrate these behaviors consistently and across the disciplines,

other students may demonstrate them in specific activities and interest areas. Renzulli contends

that the most effective approach to educating high-ability students is for teachers to choose

content, instruction, activities, and opportunities according to a student’s learning needs and

challenges. “Higher-order thinking, investigations, innovative learning links, and creativity are

all essential teaching techniques in order to empower learners and inspire teachers” (Evans,

2008, p. 85). The recent growth of charter schools have become a more promising environment

for gifted and talented children as well due to their ability to “provide varied instructional

programs and employ recommended practices, such as acceleration and project-based learning”

(Buchanan, et al. 2006, p. 128).

Differentiating Between Giftedness and Talent

The definitions of giftedness and talent “designate the possession and use of superior

natural abilities, aptitudes or gifts, in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an

individual at least among the top 10% of his or her peers” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p. 31-32).

Francoys Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) proposes that there

are four aptitude domains, which are intellectual, creative, socioaffective, and sensorimotor.

These natural abilities “whose development and level of expression is partially controlled by the

individual’s genetic endowment, can be observed in every task children are confronted with in


the course of their schooling” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p. 41). The intellectual domain consists of

fluid reasoning, including inductive and deductive; as well as memory, a keen sense of

observation, and judgment skills. The creative domain is mostly inventiveness and imagination,

with skills in retrieval fluency and problem-solving. Within the socioaffective domain lies

perceptiveness, and empathy and tact within the communication skills; with a strength in

influence due to advanced leadership and persuasion skills. Finally, the sensorimotor domain are

advanced visual, auditory, and olfactory skills, with an aptitude for strength, endurance, and

coordination. The developmental process is dependent on the learning, training, and practice of

these aptitude domains, and supports Gagne’s theory that “giftedness designates the possession

and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities, called aptitudes or gifts, in at

least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age

peers” (Delisle, et al. 2002, p. 44).

If this model which supports multiple intelligences is applied to educational curriculum,

by providing lesson plans and programs “in a way that all students are encouraged to develop

their stronger area, and at the same time educators provide opportunities to enhance the learning

process in the less strong areas, academic success may be attainable for all children in our school

system” (Delisle, et al. 2002, 45-46). For instance, the intellectual abilities needed to learn to

read, speak a foreign language, or understand a new mathematical concept, the creative abilities

needed to solve many different kinds of problems and produce original work, or the social

abilities that children use daily with classmates, teachers, administrators, coaches, and parents.

Table 3: Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

Catalysts (Positive/Negative Impacts)

GIFTEDNESS MOTIVATION TEMPERMENT TALENT


Aptitude PERSONALITY Field

Domains Domains

Intellectual Initiative Adaptability Academics

reasoning, verbal, needs, attitude, English, History,

spatial, judgment, interests, values, Math, Science,

memory perseverance competitiveness, Foreign Language

Creative self-esteem Games of Strategy

originality, humor, chess, puzzles, video

interpretive DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS Technology

Socioaffective Learning - Training - Practicing mechanic, model

leadership, empathy, Arts

self-awareness ENVIRONMENT PERSONS visual, drama, music

Sensorimotor home, school, parents, peers, Social Action

strength, endurance, relatives, church teachers, coaches tutoring, politics

flexibility UNDERTAKINGS EVENTS Business

Others activities, sports, encounters, trips, sales, manufacturing

ESP, gift of healing community events vacations Athletics / Sports

When Gifted Children Don’t Have All The Answers, Chapter 2: Identifying Gifted Children, by

J. Delisle and J. Galbraith, Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc., Copyright 2002, p. 45.

High aptitudes or gifts can be observed more easily and directly in young children

because “environmental influences and systematic learning have exerted their moderating

influence in a limited way only” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 221). However, “they still show

themselves in older children and even in adults through the facility and speed with which


individuals acquire new skills in any given field of human activity” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 223).

The easier or faster the learning process, the greater the natural abilities and achievements

through aptitude, and “talents progressively emerge from the transformation of these high

aptitudes onto the well-trained and systematically developed skills characteristic of a particular

field of human activity or performance” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 223). These fields can be

extremely diverse and given natural ability can express itself in many different ways, depending

on the field of activity preferred and adopted by the individual. For example, manual dexterity as

a natural physical ability can be modeled into the particular skills or talents of a painter, a pianist,

a jewelry maker, or a video-game designer. Similarly, intelligence as a natural ability can be

modeled into the figurative language of a poet, the scientific reasoning of a chemist, the

mechanics of an architect, or the strategic planning of an athlete.

Defining Intelligence

The attempts to define giftedness in one way or another are reliant on intelligence and to

better understand giftedness, a closer look will be taken on the concept of intelligence.

Significant efforts have been made to measure intelligence but since the concept is elusive, test

constructors aim at testing what they feel are typical manifestations of intelligence in behaviors.

Often these tests of intelligence create other terms in defining a child, and educators become

confused regarding the actual intellectual ability of their students. The term ‘genius’ used to be

widely employed but now is reserved for reference only to the “phenomenally or profoundly

gifted person” (Evans, 2008, p. 84). The term ‘talented’ tends to be used when referring to a

particular strength or ability of a person” (Evans, 2008, p. 85). However, thought should be given

to whether the talent is truly a gift or is it rather an ability that has become a highly developed

skill through practice. Terms such as ‘prodigy’ or ‘precocious’ are more commonly used when a


child shows a “decidedly advanced degree of skill in a particular endeavor at an early age, as

well as a very disciplined type of motivation” (Evans, 2008, p. 84).

‘Superior’ is a comparative term, meaning that when the term is used, it should be

“referenced in accordance to whom or what group is the student superior to and to what degree”

(Evans, 2008, p. 84). A child may be “markedly superior to the majority of children in a specific

mental ability such as verbal comprehension, and at the same time be equally inferior in another

specific mental ability such as psychomotor” (Evans, 2008, p. 84). ‘Rapid learner’ is a helpful

term in understanding giftedness because it is “a distinct characteristic manifested by the

identified gifted child” and the term ‘exceptional’ is appropriate when referring to the gifted

children being different in their characteristics of intelligence (Evans, 2008, p. 85). The term

which is used often in referencing gifted children is ‘elitism,’ which means the choice, best, or

superior part or class of persons. However, the misunderstanding of this word has given the

negative connotation of implying snobbishness, selectivity, and unfair special attention or

treatment. The fact is that gifted and talented children are elite in the same way someone is a

record champion holder or a leader in their field, and the negative connotations of the word need

not apply since they are not accurate in their definition, thus they are not credible.

The levels of giftedness are measured by intelligence tests and although most IQ tests do

not have the capacity to discriminate accurately at higher levels, they are able to provide a range

to distinguish levels of aptitude. “The Stanford-Binet is the only test that has a sufficient ceiling

to identify the basic bright child from the profoundly gifted; and teamed with the use of the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, they provide the guidelines for the assessment of the

gifted population” (Parker, 2008, p. 102). As of 2008, the ranges are as follows:

Bright: 115+, or 1 in 6 (84th percentile)


Moderately Gifted: 130+, or 1 in 50 (97.9th percentile)

Highly Gifted: 145+, or 1 in 1,000 (99.9th percentile)

Exceptionally Gifted: 160+, or 1 in 30,000 (pp.997th percentile)

Profoundly Gifted: 15+, or 1 in 3 million (99.99997th percentile)

David Perkins (1995) synthesized much of the research and theories of intelligence and

grouped them into three strands. Neural intelligence is “rooted in a biological system and

determined by neural efficiency, which is the brain’s physical process” (Peterson, 2003, p. 66).

Experiential intelligence involves know-how or knowledge of typical patterns and situations and

as a result, “intelligence is a matter of experience with thinking in particular contexts” (Peterson,

2003, p. 66). Reflective intelligence is “based on knowledge of thinking strategies” which

means knowing how to think (Peterson, 2003, p. 67). This includes how to monitor one’s

thinking and how to persist, and Perkins contends that “not one, but all three strands contribute to

intelligence and behavior” (Peterson, 2003, p. 68-69).

As the concept of intelligence becomes more multidimensional, the concept of giftedness

also evolves; and if intelligence is not a single quality, there cannot be a single definition of

giftedness. Schools are becoming more specific about identifying abilities and areas of strength

rather than giving students the generic gifted label. If intelligence is not static and can be learned,

then the assumption is that giftedness and talent can be developed. This further supports the need

for the use of multiple assessments in the identification process, as well as the need to be able to

identify the characteristics of gifted students. Therefore, you not only identify those students that

are in need of instruction beyond the regular curriculum, but also “those students who display the

potential for high-level learning beyond their current accessibility” (Lane, 2006, p. 394).

Table 4: Characteristics for Helping to Identify Gifted Students


Positive Negative

Characteristics Characteristics
able to generate many ideas FLUENCY many dominate others, may

to solutions and problems have difficulty closing task
has high tolerance for FLEXIBILITY may be impatient with details

ambiguity or restrictions, unproductive
able to express ideas in ORIGINALITY may be considered unusual or

unique ways, fantasy, fun CREATIVITY silly, may refuse authority
interested in a wide variety of CURIOSITY may ignore activities in order

things, asks many questions to pursue individual interests
has knowledge which is KNOWLEDGE may be intolerant of others,

unusually advanced for age, SKILLS may dominate, bored with

progress at a more rapid pace routine
relates positively to peers and SOCIAL may have difficulty relating

adults RELATIONSHIPS to peers and adults
persistent, self-motivated and TASK COMMITMENT may have difficulty bringing

able to stay on task task to closure
Adapted from Challenge: Reading and Teaching The Gifted Child, by Judy Luker, Good Apple

Press, www.sengifted.com, Copyright February 2002, Volume 48, p. 21.

Special Needs of Gifted Children

In order to understand the true meaning of giftedness, it is necessary that we separate the

concept of giftedness from academic or talented achievement. High achievers are those who are

motivated to do well in school, and gifted students may be high achievers or they may be high

school dropouts. They have learning needs that differ from other students, just as

developmentally delayed students have different learning needs as well. “When giftedness is

seen as the ‘mirror image of retardation,’ it becomes clear that there is a responsibility to meet

their needs, whether or not they are high achievers” (Lind, 2001, p. 4). In the past, the concept of


giftedness was associated primarily with a high IQ and it was assumed that gifted students were

born with high intelligence which was identified by their grades and test scores, and were

capable of excelling in all areas of school and life. These assumptions are still prevalent, but

there have been a lot changes due to “cognitive science, developmental psychology, and new

understandings of how learning takes place” which are influencing the way gifted is defined and

how the special needs are conceptualized (Polgar, 2007, p. 79).

Many students who are achieving A’s may be severely underachieving and by the same

token for gifted children, achieving an A may not be a goal. The real purpose of education is to

learn new information, and students who achieve A’s based on what they have already learned

are gaining daily practice in underachievement. All students have a right to struggle and

struggling is essential to growth, and it means that the student is stretching to attain new power in

learning. “Gifted students actually enjoy struggling to master new material and when not

pressured about their grades, they welcome the challenge” (Polgar, 2007, p. 79). Teachers have

an enormous impact on the lives of their gifted students, and underachieving students have been

salvaged by one or more teachers who took an interest in them. The investment of time and

energy in differentiating the curriculum for gifted students can inspire them to have higher

aspirations, to win scholarships, to choose demanding and fulfilling careers, and to use their gifts

for the betterment of society.

Defining Bullying

Now that the identification process for gifted and talented children has been presented,

we can further explore the research on why bullying impacts these children differently than the

children in the common or traditional classroom settings or school environments. When using the

term bullying, it is often used to describe a child being “teased, terrorized or systematically


victimized by his or her peers” (Burrill, 2006, p. 85). Further descriptions include the concept

that there is a difference in power between peers in this bullying dynamic in which “one imposes

negative consequences towards another individual” (Burrill, 2006, p. 87). Bullying has also often

been defined as “a behavior that occurs repeatedly over time as well as behavior that can occur

as an isolated incident” (Juvonen, et al. 2003, p. 1233). Berthold and Hoover (1987) argued that

bullying exists when students are “exposed repeatedly or over time to a negative action on the

part of one or more students” (Berthold, et al. 2008, p. 65). Bullying is invoked when

“aggression is directed on purpose to one student by another student that enjoys physical or

psychological power over a victim” (Berthold, et al. 2008, p. 65). Mobbing occurs when “an

individual is bullied collectively by several bullies” and these behaviors range from

psychological abuse to physical altercations (Burrill, 2006, p. 89). Victims tend to worry, dislike

themselves and “desire to stay home from school for the sake of their physical safety” (Berthold,

et al. 2008, p. 72).

Relational aggression is also considered a form of bullying, which is essentially “non-

physical aggression but deeply psychological” (Peterson, et al. 2007, p. 149). This form uses

peer and social relationships as the weapon to harm someone, meaning that the bully threatens to

destroy a victim’s relationship with the few peers and friends they presently have, thus

destroying their social life. Examples of this type of bullying include spreading rumors, ignoring

the victim completely, and telling others to specifically ignore the victim. Burrill’s study (1990)

shows that “relational aggression is more common in girls than in boys, as girls have a tendency

to place a higher value on friendships and social status than boys” (Burrill, 2006, p. 88). Burrill

suggests that “boys are more likely to use physical means of aggression on their victims which

gains them social power, ultimately rewarding them for their negative behavior” (Burrill, 2006,


p. 89). Bullies are more likely than other students to spend time at home without adult

supervision; they drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, cheat on tests, and bring weapons to school.

Bullies also fare poorly as adults, and they are “more likely to receive attention from law

enforcement officials, as well as seek mental health services from early adolescence into their

adulthood” (Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 359). The aggression they exhibit from their childhood

tends to become a lifestyle as they grow older, and “these types of antisocial behavior lead to

failure in school, failure in the work force, and failure in their interpersonal relationships”

(Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 360).

The primary purpose of the Berthold and Hoover (1987) study was to examine the

relationship between bullying and risk factors among 591 fourth through sixth grade students in a

mid-sized Midwestern town in the U.S. They found that “more than one-third of the respondents

reportedly experienced bullying, while one-fifth reported that they themselves did the bullying”

(Berthold, et al. 2008, p. 73). Implications of this study were outlined including various bullying

intervention strategies and suggestions for assessment and therapeutic approaches of addressing

the presence of psychological symptoms, such as posttraumatic stress and dissociation.

Additionally, technology has brought us a new type of problem called cyberbullying, and

this social cruelty is widespread, growing, and children are often not telling anyone.

Cyberbullying can include sending mean or threatening messages or images, pretending to be

someone else to make a person look bad, or sharing private information about another person.

Cyberbullying is the sending or posting of harmful or cruel texts or images using the Internet or

other digital communication devices such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM), text messages or

digital images sent on mobile phones, social networking sites such as FaceBook and MySpace,

web pages, blogs, virtual worlds, chat rooms or discussion groups, and interactive game sites


such as Xbox. “The biggest problem with this type of bullying is that it can be difficult to trace,

can happen at any time, day or night; and the messages can be sent out quickly to a large group

of people” (Kirk, 2009, p. 24). Cyberbullying can be conducted 24 hours a day and 7 days a

week, making the victim a perpetual target at any moment in time. The harassment can be

anonymous, and a single message posted online or sent to a mobile phone can be spread and

circulated to a wide audience quickly and efficiently. Hurtful or embarrassing messages or

images can remain online indefinitely to damage the child's reputation, social life and

friendships, and possibly their self-image.

Many researchers agree that the duration of bullying, the number of bullies, and

the profile of the victims are all very integral factors in the bullying victimization process. There

are also different types of bullying dynamics, “such as direct bullying as an open verbal or

physical attack on an individual, and indirect bullying which indicates that much of the bullying

is proactive aggression” (McIntosh, 2006, p. 5). Proactive aggression, as described by McIntosh,

is aggressive behavior that usually occurs “without any apparent provocation or threat on the part

of the victim” (McIntosh, 2006, p. 5). For the purposes of this study, bullying will refer to “one

or more perpetrators, directly or indirectly; and attacking a victim or a group of victims, one time

only or repeatedly over time” (McIntosh, 2006, p. 4).

Bullying and School Climate

In the Bosworth and Simon study (2001), bullying was examined as a “continuum of

mild to extreme behaviors” in order to improve identification and targeting of those individuals

most at risk for bullying (Bosworth, et al. 2009 p. 342). “Demographic, behavioral, and

psychosocial correlates were tested on a continuous measure of bullying behaviors, and were

rated according to the number and frequency of the behaviors” (Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 342).


Among the 558 middle school students surveyed in the study, only 20% reported no bullying

behavior and in multiple regression analysis, it was found that misconduct, anger, and beliefs

supported in violence encouraged bullying behavior. However, confidence in using non-violent

strategies, and intentions of using non-violence or alternative strategies were associated with the

lowering of the levels of bullying behavior. Although boys reported more bullying behavior than

did girls, “gender was not a significant predictor in the multiple regression analysis” (Bosworth,

et al. 2009, p. 361). These studies were inconsistent with the perspective that early adolescents

were either bullies or non-bullies, and indicated the need for a comprehensive approach to

preventing bullying behavior.

Peterson found that the actual school climate leads to the vulnerability of gifted children

to bullying, with one student subject stating “our classes are different, so the other students don’t

even know us” (Peterson, et al. 2006, p. 258). Furthermore, another student subject of the study

stated that “there are groups that are protected, such as you don’t say bad things about different

races; but there are other groups, if something’s said, nobody does anything – like smart or gay

people, or groups that people are uncomfortable thinking about. The administration may say they

do something about it, but they don’t” (Peterson, et al. 2006, p. 258). Since many gifted children

are perfectionistic, they feel that telling an adult what is happening is “a reflection on their ability

to control their lives” (Schuler, 2002, p. 3). To their detriment, however, many adults tell these

children that this is a form of tattling, snitching, or story-telling, therefore, leading these children

to distrust all adults and withdraw into themselves, often causing them to suffer silently as

situations escalate from their tormentors.

Some studies in the past have challenged the myth that gifted children do not have unique

social and emotional concerns, and when the myth prevails, “pertinent concerns are not


recognized and addressed formally or informally, proactively or reactively” (Milsom, et al. 2006,

p. 36). Administration, educators, parents, coaches, and even trained counselors may miss the

indicators of their distress, and “the lack of these opportunities for gifted students to discuss

concerns related to social and emotional development potentially contributes to vulnerability”

(Milsom, et al. 2006, p. 38). A student that has bullied can have far-reaching effects in a school

and “create a climate of fear and intimidation not only in his or her victims, but in fellow

students” as well; therefore, students who bully, their victims, and bystanders are all affected

(Branson, et al. 2009, p. 8). When asked the number one reason for not returning to school, “10%

of high school dropouts reported fear of being harassed, teased, or attacked” (Walker, 2009, p.

7). Similarly, more than one-third of middle students felt unsafe at school because of bullying

and did not report such behaviors to school personnel because they were “scared, lacked the

confidence or parental support to make a report, and felt that adults would not be supportive of

their dilemma” (Walker, 2009, p. 8).

Teachers and administrators working with gifted children should be aware that these

students can and do drop out, and individual case studies need to be taken into account when

researching this trend. Although many drop out for the same general reasons that regular students

do, such as disinterest, a need to find employment, or they are underachievers; teachers and

administrators should be “particularly sensitive to gifted students who show attendance

problems, discipline problems, or academic problems” (Matthews, 2006, p. 220). Gifted

programs continue to strive to “identify and serve an even greater proportion of students from

non-mainstream cultural and economic backgrounds,” however, with this also comes the issues

of discrimination and harassment, thus raising the probability that these students will be bullied

due to their academic and environmental makeup (Branson, et al. 2009, p. 15). It is becoming


increasingly important to “understand how giftedness or talent may interact with socioeconomic

and cultural factors to influence students’ educational decisions” (Matthews, 2006, p. 220).

Improving understanding will hopefully lead to more effective bullying interventions and

reduced dropout rates.

Peterson and Ray (2006) surveyed 432 gifted and talented eighth graders in eleven states

regarding bullying during their school years and used structured interviews to explore the lived

experiences of being bullied or being a bully. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods,

they researched “bullying as related to giftedness by examining prevalence and the effects of

bullying among gifted individuals specifically” (Peterson, et al. 2007, p. 149). They found that

“67% had experienced bullying by the eighth grade, 16% defined themselves as bullies, and 29%

had violent thoughts” with the vast majority expressing depression, hopelessness, unexpressed

rage, and most often school absenteeism as responses to their bullying experiences (Peterson, et

al. 2007, p. 152). Further analysis of the interview information and data found that even just one

incident was distressing for some. “All children are affected adversely by bullying, but gifted

children differ from other children in significant ways, and what they experience may be

qualitatively different,” said Peterson, whose study was conducted at the time with doctoral

candidate Karen Ray (Peterson, et al. 2006, pg. 149). “It is important to remember that although

cognitively these children are advanced; physically, socially and emotionally, they may not be”

(Peterson, et al. 2006, p. 259). “The most disturbing thing about this study is that we do not

know what those violent thoughts are,” was Peterson’s major concern upon completion of the

study (Peterson, et al. 2007, p. 167). Peterson states that they could be anything from kicking a

trash can to blowing up the school but they have no concrete evidence. However, just the fact

that there are violent thoughts should be enough to make everyone stand up and pay attention,


and Peterson calls for further studies to identify these perpetrators and their level of aggression.

Although most studies have found that gifted children, especially those with high verbal

aptitude, are more sensitive than their less-gifted peers and worry more about their social

standing, we must remember than most regular kids get bullied as well. The issue is that “gifted

kids are bullied based on their superior school performance, which makes the child’s strength

into a weakness” (Peterson, 2003, p. 65). Inevitably, their advanced academic or talent

performance turns into a source of shame for the child and unable to cope with this shame, they

turn to violence to deal with their frustrations. Due to the fact that bullying behaviors arouse a

sense of fear and can lead to major physical altercations that disrupt the learning cycle,

“educators are urged to address actively the impact of bullies on their school culture and on the

academic success of all students” (Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 362). Bosworth and Simon (2001)

concluded that freedom from fear of bullying is not enough to ensure successful learning, but it

is “a necessary condition for effective learning” (Bosworth, et al. 2009, p. 363).

In the last decade, “Columbine-style plots involving students as young as twelve have

been erupted in more than half a dozen American communities” (Peterson, 2009, p. 282).

Bullying has been cited as the motive in the majority of these incidents, all because “the

conspirators were considered different due to their academic precocious” (Peterson, 2009, p.

282). In 2003, sixteen-year-old Jaysen Kettl was sentenced to four years in prison plus ten years

of probation for conspiracy to commit capital murder by killing twenty fellow high school

students plus four of his teachers. Kettl acknowledged that he first started having problems in

school when he was about nine due to his high grades and good relationships with his teachers,

but all took a turn for the worse when he entered Vidor High School in Orange, Texas. The same

students he had attended intermediate school with took to “name-calling, mocking, stealing his


school books, and pushing him down the stairs” (Walker, 2009, p. 8). After confiding in what

Kettl considered the few friends he had that he was a homosexual, the bullying became more

violent when his sexuality was made public. He turned to the school administration and even

security and asked for help and protection, and he attested that they did nothing. Through this

process, he met three other students all going through similar experiences in the high school, and

“a strong bond was formed based on mutual misery” (Walker, 2009, p. 8). Kettl and the four

other students created a book which named all the students that bullied them over the years and

named the teachers that did nothing to stop the bullying, and the book went into detail on how

they planned to kill these individuals. Although the plot was foiled three days prior to taking

effect due to one girl in Kettl’s group turning them in after confiding to her parents, Kettl attested

that he just wanted the people in his book to get off his back and there was nothing he could do

to change it besides the plan he came up with; and even if he could go back and change things,

he said “high school is nothing but hell nowadays anyway” (Walker, 2009, p. 8).

Statistics show that “up to 85% of bullying happens in front of a large group, and a

playground or classroom makes a great theater” (Schuler, 2002, p. 3). During the school years

there are many physical and emotional changes in girls and “many girls will go along with

bullying or not intervene because they just want to ‘fit in’ themselves” (Phoenix, et al. 2003, p.

162). In addition to the behavioral and psychosocial measures in these studies, many participants

answered questions which led to the revelation that they “perceived access to guns as a relevant

correlate” (Walker, 2009, p. 8). Immediate access to firearms brings an increased risk for

homicide, suicide, and even unintentional firearm deaths through horseplay or carelessness.

Psychiatric and Psychological Factors

Previous research suggests various psychiatric and psychological factors contribute to


bully victimization, however, posttraumatic stress and dissociation are presently limited areas of

study in relation to bullying. The overall purpose of the Burrill study (1990) was to address the

socially relevant issue of bullying in schools across grade level, age, and gender. A correlation

study was conducted with 147 middle school children using a bully index and a victimization

index, and the measures included anxiety, depression, anger, stress, and dissociation. However,

these measures did not note differences across the original factors measured, they were actually

noticed between regular classroom children, special education children, and talented and gifted

children, “with the talented and gifted children scoring highest among the bullying victimization

scale” (Burrill, 2006, p. 87). Research related to giftedness has not focused on the inner life of

gifted children and adolescents until recently, and “the inability to respond to negative behaviors

from others is related to the vulnerability to bullying” (Robinson, et al. 2006, p. xi). Robinson

noted that the most highly gifted and talented, because of their normally poor fit to school

programs, are the most vulnerable to poor peer relations. The issue precipitates itself in the

situation that they are “unable in finding compatible friends, especially when they are young and

their social sphere is restricted to a particular classroom, school, neighborhood, or small town”

(Robinson, et al. 2006, p. xii). Due to these dynamics, they are “likely to be less socially adept,

more introverted, and more inhibited than other gifted children” (Robinson, et al. 2006, p. xxiv).

There are two categories of self-concept that help identify gifted students, “the academic

self-concept, which most often they rate quite highly in; and the social-self concept, an area that

receives a very low rating” (Pittinsky, et al. 2008, p. 134). All children need positive responses

from others, starting with their home and school environment, in order to “experience well-being

and self-satisfaction” (Pittinsky, et al. 2008, p. 134). Responses received by gifted children from

those outside of the family are often less than positive and can lower their views of themselves,


usually from statements such as “if you are so gifted, figure it out; you seem to know everything”

(Clark, 2008, p. 146). This gifted label can create problems within itself, as these children feel

different and alienated, and unable to find a group to belong. Unfortunately, many teachers do

not relate to these children in ways other than their levels of achievement, and these children

have “a need to feel valued for some reason other than their giftedness” (Clark, 2008, p. 148).

Most gifted and talented children are already very intense and anxious, as well as highly

sensitive due to their own and others’ high expectations of them. They consider social justice

issues very important, and with their own hyper-sensitivity to self-criticism and perfectionalism,

they struggle to make sense of this cruelty and aggression. They develop low self-esteem which

results in even higher levels of anxiety, less effectiveness, and even destructive behavior; and

begin to believe themselves to be powerless and even unworthy of love or attention. Many times

they blame themselves for the lack of adult support, and respond by withdrawing socially in

order to hide from bullies. In essence, their vulnerable areas have been attacked, and “gifted

children become more susceptible to the severe emotional damage that bullying can inflict”

(Schuler, 2002, p. 3).

Table 5: Vulnerable Areas for Gifted Children

Personal Characteristics Motivation School Conditions

Perfectionism leads to self- Too easy or difficult a task If individuality is not valued,

criticism, competition, and/or limits the student's possibility then social isolation occurs

unrealistic expectations for success

Supersensitivity to social The student feels fear from Teachers have unrealistic

feedback leads to withdrawal high expectations expectations of high success

in all areas consistently


Desire for independence leads Desires and abilities may not Teachers are uncomfortable

to attempts to control the match opportunities, no with differentness, they fear

situation positive image of the future superior student knowledge

Given an intense desire to Unable to control emotions, School activities are not

satisfy curiosity, the student easily frustrated, ashamed, differentiated or challenging,

feels restricted in analyzing the angry at obstacles offer no depth or complexity

problem in the time allocated

Using advanced problem The student doesn't have The school district does not

solving, student manipulates accurate self-knowledge provide any appropriate

peers and adults about his or her ability educational provisions

Desiring complexity, the The student doesn't have the No positive role model is

student is not interested in energy to persist to the present

memorization or repetition completion of a goal

Adapted from Giftedness, Conflict, and Underachievement, by J.R. Whitmore, Boston: Allyn

and Bacon, Copyright 1980, p. 143.

Many victims suffer in silence, struggling to understand bullying, make futile attempts to

halt bullying, despair when it continues, and formulate violent thoughts. Most victims associate

not being well-known or popular as the reason for being bullied, and most definitely for being

clustered within a gifted program which identifies them for their select abilities and focuses on

differentiation, therefore, once again setting them apart from the rest of the school population.

Differentiation is designed for instruction in mixed-ability classroom regarding multiple

intelligences, as referenced earlier; and not for meeting the special needs of gifted children.

Many peers, and even adults, do not understand the placement of students in these particular


classroom environments, and this distinction can be explained and understood quite simply by

referencing the following table.

Table 6: Differentiated Instruction for Mixed-Ability Classrooms

Differentiation is … Differentiation is not…
provision of a variety of ways to explore making all tasks the same, with adjustments by

curriculum content merely varying difficulty level of questions
provision of an array of processes for marking some students harder than others

understanding and owning information
provision of options for demonstrating or letting those who finish early play games for

exhibiting what has been learned enrichment
giving students extra problems, extra reports,

or extension assignments

Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learners in the Mixed-Ability Middle School

Classroom, Dr. Tracy Riley, Massey University, 2000 at http://www.kidsource.com/

kidsource/content/diff_instruction.html.

Certainly a victim’s apparent tendency not to tell adults about being bullied means that

parents and school personnel are often not aware of the extent of the bullying. Bullying often

occurs under the radar, and is “even normalized by adults as a ‘basic rite of passage’ into

adulthood” (Peterson, 2009, p. 280). These behaviors invalidate the feelings of the victim and

children who try to cope or adapt pay a big price, particularly when it comes to their health. They

experience significant physical and mental health problems including, but not limited to “high

stress much like post-traumatic stress disorder; and chronic stress which causes physical changes

in the brain that can lead to depression” (Peterson, 2009, p. 281). Stress is also linked with high

blood pressure, phobias both real and perceived, insomnia, bad dreams and bed-wetting, and

eating disorders. Additionally, “many gifted children suffer from extreme self-criticism, and self-


destructive behavior caused by perceived inadequacies” (Peterson, 2009, p. 281). These

conditions cause many to self-medicate with stolen or illegal substances and alcohol, followed by

finally dropping out of school in order to remove themselves from the source of their stress.

Gifted children that have difficulty coping tend to choose one of three patterns for

adjusting to their world. They may choose to withdraw and isolate themselves, and this occurs

most often when a situation seems hopeless. They may become disruptive or even class clowns

in order to gain acceptance, but this behavior is normally carried to a point that “teachers and

peers reject such attempts as being inappropriate or silly, and view the child as a nuisance” (Van

Tassel, et al. 2008, p. 55). Finally, some gifted children may hide their superior intelligence, but

this results in “loss of function, and growth cannot be nurtured through this subterfuge” (Van

Tassel, et al. 2008, p. 55). Gifted students, particularly those inhibited by their need for

perfectionism both academically and socially, now account for “as much as 20% of students who

drop out of high school” (Van Tassel, et al. 2008, p. 61).

Table 7: Perfectionism At-A-Glance

How A Perfectionist Acts
overcommits self rarely delegates to others hard time making choices

always has to be in control competes fiercely arrives late often

does last-minute cramming gets carried away with details never satisfied with their work

frequently criticizes others refuses to hear criticism of self checks on other peoples work

makes negative comments calls self 'stupid' procrastinates

How A Perfectionist Thinks

"If I can't do it perfectly, what's the point in doing it at all?"

“Every detail of a job should be perfect.”


“I always have to stay ahead of the others.”

"I'm a wonderful person if I do well; I'm a lousy person if I do poorly."

"I'd better not make a mistake here, or people will think I am stupid."

"Everything should be clearly black or white. Grays are a sign of confused thinking."

How A Perfectionist Feels

anxious and nervous deeply ashamed of mistakes worried about details

afraid of rejection angry if routine is interrupted discouraged

ashamed of having fears ashamed of being rejected plagued by self-hatred

exhausted, unable to relax afraid of appearing incompetent disgusted by criticism

When Gifted Children Don’t Have All The Answers, Chapter 3: Emotional Dimensions of

Giftedness, by J. Delisle and J. Galbraith, Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc., Copyright

2002, p. 65-66.

Social and Emotional Needs

School officials, peers, and adults at one time assumed that gifted and talented

children did not have unique social and emotional needs. “Positive stereotypes prevailed based

on media images of confident and motivated students, athletes, actors and actresses, and

musicians;” and these media images did not reflect the underlying concerns of their social and

emotional well-being (Young, et al. 2004, p. 529). Early identification of giftedness may have

also “contributed to the notion that high academic capability means solid mental and physical

health, and future success in higher education, careers, and interpersonal relationships” (Young,

et al. 2004, p. 533). Federal education mandates have also shown little concern for the well-being

of gifted children, and even the field of gifted education itself has not advocated as strongly as it


could have for “proactive approaches to promote healthy social and emotional development”

(Walker, 2009, p. 8). Even past literature suggests that “characteristics of giftedness such as

sensitivity, intensity and overexcitability are not only overlooked risk factors, but detrimental to

a child’s overall well-being if not equipped with coping skills” (Robinson, et al. 2006, p. xi).

Gifted individuals differ greatly from less able age peers and among themselves in the actual

degree of characteristics associated with giftedness, making it “difficult sometimes to identify,

anticipate, and react to social and emotional concerns” (Young, et al. 2004, p. 534). Giftedness

may also co-exist in a child with learning disabilities; therefore, further contributing to

frustration, behavioral problems, and bully victimization.

Asynchronous development is quite common in gifted and talented

children, and refers to “uneven intellectual, physical, and emotional development” (Breedlove,

2010, p. 48). The developmental rates are usually even within average children, including

physical, cognitive, social, and emotional. With above-average children, their rates of

development are a little faster than average children, however, they are still linked. The

developmental rates of these four categories for gifted and talented children are out-of-sync, with

each child normally developing in their own unique pattern. “These children are usually

cognitively gifted, however, there is a less rapid rate of development physically, socially, and

particularly emotionally” (Breedlove, 2010, p. 50). This out-of–sync development, also called

asynchronous, of gifted children is an integral part of who they are and how they interact with

the world; which explains why they may act like an adult one moment and throw a temper

tantrum the next. Overexcitabilities are “inborn intensities indicating

a heightened ability to respond to stimuli” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 325). These overexcitabilities

are found to a greater degree in gifted and talented individuals, as they are generally expressed in


forms of increased sensitivity, awareness, and intensity. “One who manifests several forms of

overexcitability sees reality in a different, stronger, and more multi-sided manner” and

experiencing the world in this unique way carries with it not only joys, but great frustrations as

well (Lind, 2001, p.1). There are five overexcitabilities and each once carries with it different

concerns, particularly in relation to the reactions to bullying.

Psychomotor overexcitability is a “heightened excitability of the neuromuscular system,”

and this includes a capacity of being active and energetic (Piechowski, 1999, p. 325). This

surplus of energy is usually demonstrated by “rapid speech, zealous enthusiasm, intense physical

activity, and a need for action” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 329). Many gifted children experience life

more intensely than others, and they react in big ways to small things. They often get tunnel

vision, which causes them to have trouble changing topics or transitioning to the next activity

smoothly. These children tend to not be able to sit still or be quiet, and many teachers and adults

find them disobedient and distracting; and “often they are misdiagnosed as Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 329). Sensual overexcitability is

expressed as a “heightened experience of sensual pleasure or displeasure emanating from sight,

smell, touch, taste, and hearing” and they have an early and increased appreciation for pleasures

such as music, art, and language (Lind, 2001, p. 2). These children may find clothing tags,

classroom noise, or smells in the cafeteria so distracting that they are unable to function at that

moment beyond their uncomfortableness.

Intellectual overexcitability is marked by “a need to seek understanding and truth, to gain

knowledge, and to analyze and synthesize” and these children are intensely curious, and usually

very avid readers (Lind, 2001, p.4). There is a strong moral focus which comes at this level, and

they tend to be concerned with issues such as AIDS, Gay and Lesbian Rights, animal cruelty,


cancer research, the environment, and war. Since these children are so independent and

outspoken, they often appear critical and impatient of others who “cannot sustain their

intellectual pace” (Lind, 2001, p. 4). Imaginational overexcitability reflects a “heightened play of

the imagination with rich association of images and impressions, frequent use of image and

metaphor, facility for invention and fantasy, detailed visualization, and elaborate dreams” (Lind,

2001, p. 4). These children often tend to mix truth with fiction, and create their own imaginary

private worlds with made-up companions and scenarios. They also often sit in class and draw or

write stories instead of doing their school work; and when they turn in assignments, they usually

“are tagged by some incredible idea which sends them off in a different direction from the

assigned task” (Lind, 2001, p. 4).

The last and most prevalent of the overexcitabilities in gifted and talented children

is emotional, which is “heightened, intense feelings, extremes of complex emotions,

identification with others’ feelings, and strong affective expression” (Lind, 2001, p. 6). These

children are often accused of overreacting to situations, and their feelings are so intense that they

cannot return to tasks at hand like homework, chores, or even playing. Often these children have

“extremely high energy levels, and require less sleep than their peers, having stopped napping at

a very early age” (Lind, 2001, p. 7). This extra energy leads them to prefer faster activities and

games, and a desire to get away from a lesson or a situation that has lost their interest. Since the

degree of social difficulties may increase in proportion to the level of giftedness, not only is a

profoundly gifted child likely to have very few intellectual or interest peers at school or in the

community, but also “schools may not be receptive or accommodating to the child” (Breedlove,

2010, p. 61). Even moderate giftedness may lead to a poor initial fit in school, with their social

and emotional discomfort levels increasing as they progress through their grade levels.


The moral development of gifted and talented children is also woven into their social and

emotional development, and from an early age “they show evidence of moral concerns, including

empathy, compassion, idealism, global concern, and advanced understanding and judgment of

moral issues” (Strip, et al. 2000, p. 47). These children are reported as being far beyond their

age-peers in understanding the “need for fairness, justice, and responsibility” (Strip, et al. 2000,

p. 48). Adolescent highly compassionate children are especially vulnerable because they have

“not yet developed effective ways to deal with strong emotional content,” and they are

overwhelmed by unclear directions, difficult situations, unfair treatment, and misunderstandings

(Strip, et al. 2000, p. 50). The attitudes of teachers and school personnel towards gifted children

clearly affect not only the students’ social and emotional well-being, but their educational

progression as well. The concerns of these children have been surveyed below, further enforcing

the issue that an “establishment of a moral climate within the school is required in order for all

students and school personnel to interactive positively” (Strip, et. al, 2000, p. 53).

Table 8: Gifted Kids on Giftedness

More than 1,000 gifted middle school children responded to an online survey regarding

their giftedness. Here are the responses to some of the questions:

Q: Gifted kids are often described as: easily bored when not intellectually challenged,

needing a lot of novelty, craving mental stimulation, and are often overexcitable.

In general, how true is this for you?

22% All of the time 41% Most of the time

29% Some of the time 8% Infrequently

Q: Gifted children are often described as: intuitive, insightful, perceptive, and able to

simultaneously see several points of view. In general, how true is this for you?




Q: Gifted children are often described as: introverted, preferring privacy, reflective,

quiet in large groups, and uncomfortable as the center of attention in a large group.

In general, how true is this for you?



Q: Gifted children are often described as: possessing a keen sense of justice, nonconforming,

and frequently questioning rules and authority. In general, how true is this for you?



When Gifted Children Don’t Have All The Answers, Chapter 1: What is Giftedness, by J. Delisle

and J. Galbraith, Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc., Copyright 2002, p. 35.

Being bullied has also been recognized as a major health problem for gifted children

because of their already present association with adjustment problems. This usually manifests

itself into “poor mental health with thoughts of suicide, and more extreme violent behavior such

as homicide perceived as justifiable retaliation” (Juvonen, et al. 2003, p. 1235). Juvonen (2002)

found in her research that the bullies themselves were actually psychologically stronger than the

victims, and had a higher social standing. These bullies are often popular within their groups, and

their groups possess other bullies; therefore making them a “higher population in respect to the

groups of non-bullies” (Juvonen, et al. 2003, p. 1235). To be able to intervene with bullying,

Juvonen stresses that it is important to recognize the unique problems of these gifted children

and address them directly with the assistance of parents, teachers, and school personnel. In


addition to recognizing these problems, school-wide antibullying approaches that aim to change

peer dynamics that support and maintain bullying should be developed and implemented. In

order to meet the social and emotional needs of these gifted children, a good school environment

should set “explicit standards or codes of appropriate student behavior” (Juvonen, et al. 2003, p.

1237). Administrators should also lay out clear expectations for their teachers and staff in

adhering to these standards, and recruit their assistance in gathering and reviewing feedback and

meeting set goals. Juvoven admits that a code of conduct may not be enough to eliminate

bullying, but “well-established policies with methods to investigate issues and resolve problems

as they arise provide all with a better opportunity to intervene on the behalf of students most

affected by bullying” (Juvonen, et al. 2003, p. 1237).

As educators struggle to reduce violence, dealing with all of these bullying behaviors has

truly come to the forefront. In order for effective programs to be developed and implemented, the

social and emotional needs of those bullied, as well as the bullies themselves, must be

understood and met. In the Bosworth study (2001), the first purpose was to “determine the

distribution of bullying behavior within a sample of urban middle school students” (Bosworth,

2009, p. 345-346). The bullying behavior was viewed on several levels and these levels included

mild teasing all the way to extreme violence, as well as a review of the actual cases reported and

the frequency of these reports. The second purpose was to describe the characteristics associated

with the bullying, such as which students were targeted, and what factors caused them to become

targets. Included in these variables were also the age, gender, grade, ethnicity, and socio-

economic status, such as whether they received free or reduced lunch. The third and final

purpose was to examine the extent of the psychosocial risks such as anger, feelings of

depression, and the tendency to have thoughts of violence. Included in this purpose was also the

"The Effects of Bullying Among Middle School Gifted and Talented Children"

"The Effects of Bullying Among Middle School Gifted and Talented Children"

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to "The Effects of Bullying Among Middle School Gifted and Talented Children"

Similar to "The Effects of Bullying Among Middle School Gifted and Talented Children" (20)

More from Helen Tsipliareles-Pryor

More from Helen Tsipliareles-Pryor (6)