While the education policy landscape changes, those who work in schools will agree on one constant. All young people – regardless of their background, context, attainment levels or any other labels they may acquire – can benefit from and deserve to have their specific needs catered for. This is no less the case for the more able than for any other group. We must ensure that these learners experience high-quality challenge and support to develop their abilities.
As Sir Michael Wilshaw stated in 2016, “if provision for the brightest children is good, it is likely that other groups of learners are also being well served.”
Education is concerned with enhancing learning. Our evidence base is evolving, as we learn from one another, from other countries and increasingly from other disciplines. In this “Perspectives on More Able” series, NACE aims to shine a spotlight on effective policy and practice for the more able, providing a forum for views, opinions and debate.
NACE is collaborating with York St John University on research and resources to help schools support more able learners with higher levels of perfectionism. In this blog post, the university’s Marianne E. Etherson, Michael C. Grugan, Luke F. Olsson, and Professor Andrew P. Hill present the findings of a review of research examining perfectionism in more able learners and highlight how distinct dimensions of perfectionism influence learning outcomes in the classroom.
Perfectionism can both enhance and hinder the educational experiences of learners. While perfectionism reflects an extreme requirement for perfection and might motivate learners to work hard and strive for success, perfectionism can also hinder healthy adjustment in learning environments. Learners who are perfectionistic, for instance, often report greater negative reactions to mistakes and tend to respond more adversely to failure.
The extent to which perfectionism impedes performance and wellbeing will depend on which of the two main dimensions of perfectionism are most prominent in the student. The two main dimensions of perfectionism are perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns:
Perfectionistic strivings capture the extent to which individuals set and strive for unrealistically high personal standards.
By contrast, perfectionistic concerns capture the extent to which individuals are excessively concerned about mistakes, fear negative evaluation, and worry that their performance is never good enough.
These two dimensions can be exhibited to different degrees in students, with some being higher in both and others exhibiting one more than the other. Research suggests that perfectionistic concerns is most problematic dimension in the classroom and generally has the biggest influence on learners.
In order to gain a better understanding of the influence of perfectionism in more able learners, we worked with NACE to conduct a comprehensive review of research in this area. Using a thorough and systematic search, we found 36 studies, published over the last 24 years, that included over 10,000 able learners. The research was drawn from across the world, but predominantly from the USA and China. Studies included in the review typically utilised questionnaires to measure perfectionism and a range of different outcomes such as academic performance, problem-solving, creativity, self-esteem, motivation, wellbeing, happiness, depression and life satisfaction.
In terms of the findings of the studies, we found perfectionistic concerns to be related to greater depression, neuroticism, and alienation from parents, as well as lower motivation, self-esteem, and creativity in the classroom.
By contrast, perfectionistic strivings exhibited both positive and negative qualities. Perfectionistic strivings, for instance, were related to better academic performance and life satisfaction but were also related to lower happiness and creativity.
Some studies examined combinations of perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic strivings. These studies found groups exhibiting higher levels of perfectionistic concerns contributed to more debilitating emotional and wellbeing outcomes, such as lower happiness and self-esteem, and greater adjustment issues.
Our review, which will be published in Educational Psychology Review, is a touchstone for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers who want to better understand the consequences of perfectionism in more able learners. Likewise, our review provides an important foundation for interventions and curriculum-based programmes aimed at reducing perfectionism in able learners.
In line with our findings, those working with more able learners need to be mindful of the consequences of perfectionism and seek to reduce both perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, but especially perfectionistic concerns.
To do so, teachers can play an instrumental role in creating environments that are less perfectionistic and focus on creativity, problem-solving and appropriate levels of challenge. Likewise, teachers can help more able students reframe setbacks as a normal part of the learning process and opportunities for growth and development, being mindful that more able learners often find setbacks more stressful.
The idea that things need to be done perfectly also needs to be challenged and discussed. Learners will need to be helped to recognise perfectionistic ways of responding to mistakes such as self-criticism and practice replacing them with more positive responses such as self-compassion and kindness.
Finally, schools will need to ensure that they have appropriate policies and referral mechanisms to provide support for more able learners who develop some of the extreme consequences of perfectionism such as burnout and depressive symptoms. While perfectionism may not lead to these types of outcomes for all learners, it is a possibility that teachers will need to be prepared for and be able to help recognise early signs.
York St John University and NACE are collaborating on research and resources to help schools support learners with high levels of perfectionism. Resources are currently being trialled with NACE member and R&D Hub Haybridge High School, and will be made more widely available in the coming year.
References:
Flett, G. L. & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). A proposed framework for preventing perfectionism and promoting resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 899-912.
Grugan, M. C., Hill, A. P., Madigan, D. J., Donachie, T. C., Olsson, L. F., & Etherson, M. E. (Accepted). Educational Psychology Review.
Madigan, D. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of perfectionism and academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 967-989.
Osenk, I., Williamson, P., & Wade, T. D. (2020). Does perfectionism or pursuit of excellence contribute to successful learning? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 32, 972-983.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Williams, K. K., & Cross, T. L. (2009). Gifted high school students’ perspectives on the development of perfectionism. Roeper Review, 31, 198-206.
Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Intellectual giftedness and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 391-414.
Posted By NACE,
13 May 2019
Updated: 12 August 2021
At NACE, we regularly hear from school leaders and practitioners who are striving to improve provision for highly able young people – but coming up against barriers to doing so, often due to widespread myths and misconceptions about this group.
Here are some of the most common, and the reasons they need to be discarded…
Myth #1. More able learners will do well regardless; they don’t need extra support.
The reality… Just like any other student, more able learners benefit from guidance and support to develop their abilities. They should not simply be left to “find their own way”.
It is also a mistake to assume that high ability in one or more fields translates to competence and/or maturity in many or all areas – including academic, physical, social and emotional development. More able learners may need help to overcome barriers such as socio-economic disadvantage, low cultural capital, gaps in their learning or underdeveloped language skills. Learners may have one or more special educational needs or disabilities alongside high learning potential or ability (dual and multiple exceptionality/DME).
In addition, many more able learners could benefit from specialised support for specific challenges that can come with high ability – such as perfectionism, imposter syndrome, low self-esteem, social difficulties, and a range of internal and external pressures. All are likely to benefit from support and guidance in accessing relevant wider experiences and making decisions about future education and career options.
It is also important to avoid assuming that high ability equals high motivation. Highly able learners may become bored and disengaged due to a lack of challenge or appropriate support. Some may feel overwhelmed by competing interests, abilities and activities (in- and out-of-school). Some may be averse to challenging themselves or taking risks, and/or feel uncomfortable with being perceived as highly able.
Being able to attain high grades with minimal effort can also lead to independent learning and metacognitive skills being underdeveloped, meaning learners will struggle when they do eventually face challenge. Like all students, the more able need the right environment and support to develop effective learning behaviours and attitudes.
Myth #2. All young people are potentially “more able” – so focusing on a specific group is pointless.
The reality… With developments in understanding around neuroplasticity, the impact of mindset, effort and environment, there is now widespread recognition that ability is fluid and developmental. However, it is still the case that some people have the potential to achieve particularly highly in one or more fields. It is important to recognise this and to ensure these individuals are given the opportunities and support to develop as fully as possible.
While more research is needed, there is evidence to show that certain approaches are particularly effective for more able learners – and that focusing on understanding and responding to their needs has an impact. For example, more able learners commonly have a capacity to learn at a significantly faster rate and in greater depth; educators need to cater for this appropriately. Research also suggests they are particularly likely to benefit from approaches in which independent learning is nurtured.
What is true is that identifying more able learners is a complex and ongoing process, requiring consideration of multiple sources of data and observation; a focus on providing regular opportunities for ability to be explored and shown; and an awareness of the factors that can lead to ability being hidden or underdeveloped. However, these challenges should not be used as an excuse to avoid attempting to identify and respond to high ability.
Myth #3. More able learners are “easy” to teach and support.
The reality… In fact, effectively responding to the needs of more able learners can be quite a challenge! More able learners need teachers who are highly knowledgeable in their subject, skilled in recognising and responding to their needs, capable of providing sufficiently challenging materials and support, and able to build a supportive and stimulating environment and relationship. Alongside professional experience, educators can benefit from specific training in this area, and schools should seek to ensure that all staff are equipped to recognise and effectively provide for the most able.
It is also a mistake to assume that high ability equates to model behaviour. More able learners can be prone to any of the same behavioural, emotional or social issues as any other student. As touched on above (myth #1), they may also be prone to becoming bored and/or disengaged, which can lead to disruptive or frustrating behaviour. Teachers also need to be able to understand and respond to issues such as perfectionism, imposter syndrome, low self-esteem, social difficulties, and various other sources of anxiety/stress which more able learners can face.
Myth #4. More able learners are a homogenous group; the same approach works for all.
The reality… Each more able learner is an individual, with different interests, needs and aptitudes. Some may thrive on independent learning, others may benefit from much more teacher input and/or interaction with peers. Some will enjoy taking on leadership roles, others will shy away from the limelight.
However, while it is important to recognise that there is no single “right” approach, it is equally imperative that this does not become an excuse to avoid offering targeted provision for more able learners. While individual needs and context will always be key, there is also research and effective practice available to help schools meet the needs of the more able – and all schools have a duty to do so.
Myth #5. Focusing on the more able is elitist and should not be a priority for schools/society.
The reality… All young people – regardless of their background, context, attainment levels or any other labels – can benefit from and deserve to have their specific needs catered for. This is no less the case for the more able than for any other group. Their needs are no less nor more important than those of any others.
However, well-intentioned attempts to increase equity in education can – ironically – lead to the most able being neglected. As Gabriel Heller Sahlgren noted in a recent review of existing research in the field: “[A]s governments in general tend to focus in particular on increasing equity and raising achievement among low-performing pupils, the needs of gifted children are often ignored in western countries.”
Misconceptions about elitism are often closely tied up with outdated views about ability (or “giftedness”) as inherent and fixed, and the more able as a very small and rigidly identified group. As touched on above (myth #2), there is now widespread recognition that ability is fluid and developmental, and that identification and provision for the more able should be ongoing and holistic.
There is also a growing consensus that focusing on high-quality provision for the most able can lead to benefits for a much larger cohort – helping to raise standards, aspirations and outcomes for all learners, and contributing to school- and system-wide improvements. More widely, we all benefit from a system and society which seeks to ensure every individual has opportunities to develop his/her abilities as fully as possible.
References:
Heller Sahlgren, G. (2018), What works in gifted education? Centre for Education Economics.
Video: NACE members discuss common misconceptions about more able learners, and how their schools are responding.
An independent charity founded 40 years ago, the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE) works with member schools, education leaders and practitioners to improve provision for more able learners, driving whole-school improvement and raising achievement for all. NACE believes that all able children and young people, regardless of background, should be recognised and have the opportunity to realise their potential. We offer practical resources, support and CPD to help schools review and improve the quality of policy and provision for more able learners within a context of challenge and high standards for all.
Blog Home
All Blogs
Print Page
RSS
