196 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Let./Vol. 71 (137)
 Št./No. 2/2020
 Str./pp. 196–212
ISSN 0038 0474 Eva Klimecká
Labelling of gifted children in the family 
from the perspective of teachers and its 
manifestations at school 
Abstract: This paper presents the results of a study that explores the structure of labelling gifted 
children and its effects on the family environment from the perspective of teachers. The study, which 
was performed based on a focus group of 19 teachers from the Czech Republic, covered aspects of clas-
sroom teaching as well as communications with the parents of gifted children. Qualitative data was 
analysed using open and axial coding. The results show that parents are apprehensive of their child being 
identified as »gifted« at counselling centres because of the formalization of this process. Following the 
identification of giftedness, the teachers recorded changes in the attitudes of children and parents. In 
the case of the children, the internalization of typical characteristics of this population occurs in both a 
negative and positive sense. The teachers indicated two attitudes in the parents: they either exaggerated 
the child’s giftedness, which occasionally led to interference with the curriculum of educators or they 
approached the giftedness with apprehension—both of these stances reflecting susceptibility to certain 
myths on giftedness. Upon transition of the child from ISCED 1 to 2, we registered the tendency of 
the parents to underrate the negative consequences of labelling. The elimination of labelling is passive 
(not professional)—that is, by ignoring or deviating from institutional practices and procedures put in 
place to enhance the development of giftedness. 
Keywords: gifted child, parent of a gifted child, teacher of a gifted pupil, labelling, focus group.
UDC: 376
Scientific article
Eva Klimecká, PhD., Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Faculty of Humanities, Research Centre of FoH, 
Štefánikova 5760, 76001 Zlín, Czech Republic; e-mail:machu@utb.cz

 Klimecká     197
Introduction
The family environment plays an inimitable role in the development of 
giftedness in a child, evidence for which is evident in giftedness models. In both 
Mönks’ Multifactor Model of Giftedness and Gagné’s Differentiated Model of 
Giftedness and Talent (Pfeiffer 2015), the family was revealed to be a key factor  
of giftedness.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the development of care for the gifted 
individual has also been linked to negative consequences. These problems are 
related to an inadequate understanding of the »gifted« label, thereby resulting in 
social isolation of gifted children or a negative change in their social and emotional 
development. 
The detection of the causes and consequences of the negative aspects of the 
gifted label is generally focused on the school environment (see Clark 2013; Gates 
2010; Heward 2013) or the peer environment (Cross and Coleman 1993). Analyses 
of the family environment of gifted children in connection with the issue of labelling 
have generally remained beyond the focus of interest. However , in her longitudinal 
studies, Freeman (2013) drew attention to the importance of labelling within the 
family environment. Another research from family environment has been conducted 
by Schilling et. al. (2006), Ziegler and Stoeger (2010), Olszewski-Kubilius et al. 
(2014), and Yildiz et al. (2019).
The objective of our research is to explore the structure of the labelling of 
gifted children within the family environment on the basis of its ramifications on 
school teaching and on the communications of the teacher with the parents of gifted 
children. We sought to broadly examine the situation from the perspective of the 
teachers who come into intensive contact with gifted children. We assume that as 
a consequence of the collaboration among families and schools, the child manifests 
certain signs of labelling modelled from the family environment. 

198 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
The conception of giftedness
Based on the definition given by Heward and Ford (2013), we define gifted-
ness as the heightened ability of an individual within a selected area valued by the 
sociocultural environment which is targeted to be quantitatively and qualitatively 
more developed as compared with her/his peers. We also base our definition on the 
concepts of demonstrated performance as well as multidimensionality—that is, the 
child manifests signs of giftedness and has undergone a comprehensive diagnostics 
of the projected giftedness (Dai 2009).  
In our research, a gifted child is one who manifests signs of intellectual gif-
tedness and has undergone formal in-depth pedagogical-psychological dentification 
of giftedness. The formal identification of giftedness in the Czech Republic has 
been created by education counselling facilities (see NUV 2018). The assumption 
for initiation of the formal identification is the consent from the legal guardian of 
a child. Based on the output of the identification, within the school, the pupil is 
placed into one of four levels—that is, supportive measures are taken which define 
the quality and quantity of curriculum modification (Tomlinson 2013). The formal 
process of identification ensures formal obligations both on the part of the school 
and the counselling centres (e.g. the creation, application, and evaluation of indi-
vidual learning contracts; see VUP 2007, pp 115-116). Informal means of identifying 
giftedness also exist, but its outputs cannot be formally recognized formally . 
According to the Giftedness strategy 2020 (MSMT 2014), inclusion is a dominant 
direction of the development of programs for gifted children in the Czech Republic. 
The most gifted pupils receive education at inclusive schools. When these pupils 
enter educational level ISCED 2, they are given the option of studying at lower 
secondary schools which feature certain attributes of selectiveness.
The labelling of gifted children
The labelling theory focuses on the process of assigning labels to a student 
during the course of an evaluation of the individual’s characteristics, skills, and 
abilities. Once a label has been assigned, there is a change in the attitudes of the 
professionals who come into contact with the individual. The attitude of the broader 
social public shifts as well—for example, often exclusion and an unwelcome change 
of self-identity appear, which can lead to stigmatization (Matsueda 2014, Manor-
-Bullock et al. 1995). 
Conditioned by the official identification, the gifted label applied to students 
is acted upon and its projected characteristics expanded upon by a set of subjects 
which are intended to develop the giftedness of the individual and/or to enhance 
the learning materials and strategies of the subjects that the individual studies. 
The giftedness label comes to be internalized by the child not only in the school, in 
family, and among peers, but also in the broader public arena (Gates 2010).
The unique cognitive, social, and emotional characteristics which gifted chil-
dren are identified with result in an attempt to meet putative specific educational 

      199
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
and instructional needs. Some of these typical but (potentially) negative character-
istics may include emotional intensity , perfectionism, avoidance of risks, extensive 
self-criticism, underachievement, rejection of giftedness, depression, and exclusion 
from team identification and group activities (Zakreski 2018). In this context, sup-
porters of the labelling theory contend that these typical problems of gifted children 
would not exist without the stigma attached to the label (Barab and Plucker 2002).
Freeman (2013) claims that the term »gifted« comes with a certain set of 
connotations, with these truths, half-truths, and misconceptions existing in the 
society in the form of myths regarding gifted children (e.g. Treffinger 2009; Leavitt 
2017). Portešová et al. (2014) attempted to categorize the stated projections which 
appear in empiric studies, thereby establishing three main categories. The first one 
is related to the essence of giftedness and its identification—for example, gifted-
ness manifests by itself without a concentrated effort and a gifted individual will 
excel in all areas of education. The next category is related to social and emotional 
characteristics—for example, that gifted individuals are inclined towards suicidal 
behaviour; they have problems in establishing social contacts; and they suffer from 
bouts of depression. This category includes myths related to elitism—for example, 
gifted children will grow up to be gifted adults with high-paying jobs, etc. The third 
category concerns the education of gifted pupils, namely that gifted children do not 
have any problems at school.
In relation to labelling, studies also mention errors in social perception, which 
may significantly impact attitudes towards gifted children. This, for example, in-
cludes the halo effect, stereotype threat, and the Pygmalion effect (Brigham and 
Bakkem 2014).
Heward and Ford (2013) claim that, while labelling is an unavoidable part 
of the care of the gifted, changes in the curriculum for the gifted must be applied 
ethically, professionally, and purposefully (Gates 2010). 
Labelling of gifted children in the family environment
Gifted children may not feel comfortable with this label, a discomfort which is 
manifested mainly in their communication with peers and in the broader social en-
vironment (Robinson 1990; Cross and Coleman 1993). Gifted individuals themselves 
as well as their families associate negative implications with the label. Matthews 
et al. (2014) ascertained that the parents of gifted children avoid the presentation 
of their children’s giftedness before the parents of non-gifted children for fear of 
being judged. They further ascertained that the parents of gifted children preferred 
to share information regarding the giftedness with other parents of gifted children.
Further, the labelling process also transforms the specific attitudes of the 
parents to the education of gifted children, which may also be reflected in the 
personalities of the children. Parents have come to expect that the formal identi-
fication of giftedness brings with it an increased probability of emotional disturb-
ance (Freeman 2013). The study by Eren et al. (2018) highlights, for example, 
the assumption of parents that their gifted children will perform very highly in 

200 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
the academic field as well as experience greater emotional intensity and social  
isolation.
Wirthwein et al. (2019) ascertained how parents evaluate their children in 
terms of personality and academic characteristics. The parents of adolescents who 
are labelled as gifted rated their children higher on motivation, intelligence, self-
concept, school results, and general knowledge than did the parents of adolescents 
who are not labelled as gifted. 
According to Ziegler and Stoeger (2010), parents who labelled their children 
as gifted were themselves found to be more achievement-oriented and they tended 
to diminish their children’s emotional expression, typically producing less well-ad-
justed children than non-labelling parents. Matthews et al. (2014) also state that the 
parents of identified gifted children perceive a certain level of emotional sensitivity 
and social specificity in their children. 
With regard to the general attitudes of the parents of identified gifted children, 
giftedness is associated with the presumption that such children come from sound 
and supportive domestic backgrounds, since, as they see it, the manifestation of 
giftedness does not occur in a passive environment. Moreover , according to McCoach 
and Siegle (2007), there are variables which form the positive attitudes towards 
giftedness. The family of a gifted child logically assumes that their child manifests 
several specific characteristics to which parents must respond—for example, main-
taining more intensive contact with the gifted child as well as the perception of 
the self or the individual as a gifted person. Other characteristics related to these 
parents—such as higher education, higher socio-economic status, and participation 
in life-long education—also appear often in research studies. 
Methodology
Aim of research
The objective of this research was to examine the process of labelling gifted 
children in the family environment on the basis of the manifestations of certain 
characteristics observed in the course of school teaching and in communications 
between the teacher and parents of (potentially) gifted children. We examined the 
entire situation from the viewpoint of the teachers who come into contact with 
identified gifted children and their parents. 
Participants
A total of 19 primary schoolteachers from the Zlín Region of the Czech Re-
public participated in the research survey; of these, 15 were women and 4 were 
men. These teachers currently work with identified intellectually gifted pupils 
in their classes. All the participants were qualified teachers and work mainly at 
the ISCED 1 level. Teachers came from schools which are members of National  

      201
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
network of giftedness support (MŠMT 2014). The aim of this membership is active 
cooperation and sharing information regarding problematics of giftedness. These 
teachers usually deal with giftedness at their schools (as school counsellors or 
giftedness support coordinators). 
Data collection
We conducted the qualitative research in the form of two face-to-face unstruc-
tured focus groups (Carey and Asbur 2012) with a total of 19 respondents, having 
met in the first half of 2019. Interviews were conducted in relation to the research 
problem. The main topics were initiation of identification process in cooperation 
with parents; process of identification; determining the individual educational 
plan in cooperation with the child and parents; and realization of the individual 
educational plan and its progress. The duration of each interview was 60 minutes. 
A response to the interview questions was voluntary for the participants. Further, 
individual and group attitudes were ascertained, and interactions among group 
members were reflected in the data collection process (see Hancock et al. 2016).
Data analysis
A qualitative analysis of the obtained answers was conducted during data 
processing. In our survey, we used selected techniques of the grounded theory, 
open coding, and axial coding (Charmaz 2006). First, electronic transcripts of the 
interviews were made, following which significance segments were identified in 
the texts and marked with codes. This was followed by a grouping of the codes into 
categories of similar significance, recurrent renaming of the codes and reorgan-
ization of categories, and allocation of the most important major categories along 
with description and explanation. 
We attempted to increase data validation by investigator triangulation (Archibald 
2015). The data was analysed by two researchers. They coded separately during 
the identification of significant segments and marking them with codes. Then, they 
worked together to establish the coding procedure and identify categories during 
axial coding. 
Findings
The qualitative analysis revealed to us several partial and major thematic 
categories. Certain contexts emerged among the categories which signposted the 
process of labelling of gifted children in the family environment as well as mani-
festations of the label in school teaching. 

202 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
Identification of giftedness
In accordance with the labelling theory, the major categories were retained 
in our research design.
Interest in informal identification: Teachers consider the informal identific-
ation of giftedness in the child as being highly desirable among parents, who can 
then receive their first official feedback that their child has manifested signs of 
giftedness. Thus, the parents’ assumptions regarding the quality and scope of the 
giftedness of their child as well as the subsequent developmental issues involved are 
confirmed. The quoted passages here and below are translations of the comments 
of teachers regarding their experiences with parents. »The parents are interested 
in identification, they are curious; it is also considered modern to know; they want 
to get confirmation that the child is gifted, and at present they have only compared 
the child to the children of their friends. They want to get assurance that they shall 
further provide proper guidance to the child.« »The families have a huge interest 
in tests given at Mensa; They also have a huge interest in the identification which 
we perform ourselves in our school.«
Apprehension related to identification at the counselling centre: The teachers 
have ascertained that the formal identification of giftedness in Education Counselling 
Facilities is greatly feared by parents due to the ensuing formal obligations to the 
school and the counselling centre that the parents are required to fulfil. »They tell 
us that the informal confirmation (of giftedness) which is provided in our school 
suffices for them; they do not want to deal with counselling centres and do not want 
to incessantly psychologize the child; an examination at the counselling centre is 
not popular; the parents are afraid of a positive identification, as they do not know 
what to expect. They are afraid of the official obligations involved.«
A visible change
A further category represents teacher testimonies that describe certain changes 
in the behaviour of formally identified gifted children, which reflects the attitudes 
of their parents. 
First meeting after formal identification: Like the school, the family is inter-
ested in consulting diagnostic authorities regarding the results in order to define the 
changes that will take place in the education of the gifted pupil. In these meetings, 
the parents are provided with advanced advice regarding the issue, with mothers 
in particular generally displaying a strong interest in delineating the educational 
conditions suitable for their child. »After the results of the identification are ob-
tained, we (teachers) immediately make contact; most parents collaborate with 
us even prior to counselling, and we regularly discuss their child and options for 
the development of their giftedness. Mainly mothers communicate with us; these 
women are themselves more intellectually gifted and better informed—for example, 
with more accurate and recent information about giftedness. They know quite a lot 
about intelligence, about what the gifted do, how they behave and what they need.«

      203
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
Internalization of »typical« characteristics of the gifted: Here, the pupil is gradu-
ally accepting her/his status as a gifted pupil, which affects the entire personality 
of the child, including cognitive and affective aspects. This leads to the strength-
ening of the cognitive signs of giftedness; the child becomes more motivated and 
active; he/she demonstrates qualities of giftedness more frequently. On the other 
hand, the pupils internalize and deepen inappropriate behaviour characteristics 
which are precipitously explained by the parents as typical signs of giftedness, as 
indicated by the respondents. »All of a sudden, it seems to us that the pupils are 
beginning to behave differently in school. It’s as if the change occurred overnight. 
They have greater motivation, more learning zeal.« »But their parents incessantly 
justify their children’s unacceptable behavior. I have the feeling that what was 
earlier considered as negative is suddenly now excused by the identification. Out 
of nowhere, misconduct is taken by the parents to be an expression of exceptional 
an expression of giftedness.«
Educational needs from the pupil’s viewpoint: Not only the parents but also 
the gifted children become well-informed regarding giftedness. However , according 
to the teachers, rather often, students unsuitably adapt themselves to teaching re-
quirements. If the children’s immediate desires are not accommodated, they revolt 
against the teacher. Thus, the children begin labelling themselves as »gifted« in 
their own discourse. »It is clear from the pupils that the parents talk a lot about 
the issue at home. Even the children know a lot about giftedness, they are little 
psychologists; one boy started revolting against me quite a lot. He told me that 
he was gifted and the gifted don’t have to repeat school exercises; they refuse to 
cooperate, and expect special treatment as compared with their peers, which is 
impossible in terms of teaching.« »For instance, a pupil completely refused to allow 
me to write a note in his exercise book, saying that doing so is not for the gifted.«
Assumption and demanding good marks: For identified gifted children and 
also for parents and teachers, there is a tendency to begin assuming favourable 
educational results. The children themselves make an effort to earn good marks 
and they are exposed to a greater number of external motivation elements in the 
home environment. Occasionally, parents hold teachers responsible for their chil-
dren receiving low grades. On the other hand, one of the respondents admitted 
that the teachers may also be susceptible to pressure from the giftedness label and 
assume that the gifted pupil will naturally achieve better results. »Children must 
get excellent marks at all costs, but sometimes this is not the case. When they get a 
low mark, they cry and say that if the mark stands their father would scold them or 
not buy them one thing or another , or that they will not be admitted to some school 
in the future.« »The parents thus often search for errors in us—for example, that 
we are incapable of transferring the learning content in an interesting manner or 
that we are poor at testing, which they blame the lack of excellent marks on; but 
I have read a study that identification of giftedness improves their study results 
immediately . So honestly , are we not extending privileges to these children? Are we 
not afraid that we are doing something wrong ourselves when they get poor marks?«

204 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
Apprehension of the development of giftedness
With regard to the development of the giftedness of children, the results from 
our group of teachers generally reflect two opinions. The parents either themselves 
attempt to develop the child intensively in a specific gifted area to aid the student 
in her/his efforts—for example, even to the point of interfering with teaching that 
takes place at school. The other tendency is an opposite reaction from parents—that 
is, to approach the development of giftedness with trepidation or even fear in order 
not to spoil the results of the child’s schooling. 
Development exclusively in the area of giftedness: Even if the identification at a 
counselling centre is comprehensive, the parents often focus on the development of 
the child in one of the more pronounced areas of her/his giftedness. They somewhat 
forget about the other elements of the child’s personality . »Quite often the parents 
blindly see only the giftedness and forget about everything else; They do not see 
that he is perhaps weaker in language, they constantly focus only on mathematics 
and logic, which the child is gifted in. And in this area, they make an effort to 
overburden the child. He likely also has other extra-curricular activities related to 
mathematics. It is necessary to realize that each person is good at something and 
that the gifted child at age of eight does possess self-service skills.«
The need of the parents to intervene in teaching: According to the teachers, 
numerous parents are members of associations that deal with gifted children. The 
teachers perceive some of the actions of these associations negatively , particularly 
those that lead to the parents’ excessive interference with school teaching. In 
addition, apart from parents, other family members who are aware of the issues 
involved may also be adversely affected. »The parents frequently visit a local club 
for gifted children and their parents. I personally see negative consequences from 
this in some the parents actions. They bring me various worksheets from the clubs 
which they insist I give to their son during our lessons. I try to explain to them to 
no avail that this is unsuitable in the lessons and that they should engage in these 
activities outside school time.« »Grandmothers—former educators themselves—
are typical in this aspect. They come to our class and instead of just observing 
the progress of the lesson, they become impatient and intervene in the activities. 
A colleague had a problem with a mother who presented herself as a member of 
Mensa. She wanted to be informed about everything that took place in school and 
somehow found problems with everything.«
The important thing is not to mess up: The teachers also perceived the opposite 
tendency in a few parents, specifically fears concerning the development of the gif-
tedness of their children. They seek to preserve their son’s or daughter’s childhood 
and they do not want learning material designed for older students administered 
to their children. »This also includes parents who after an initial feeling of elation 
begin to fear aspects of the development of the giftedness of own children. They 
present the argument that if pushed, their children would lose their childhood, 
that they would grow up too quickly, and be left only with the obligations that 
await them in adulthood. They are afraid that they would destroy something by 
making this change.«

      205
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
Future plans and reality
Even if the parents are more or less satisfied with the current school, 
they eventually become interested in the placement of their child in a lower 
secondary school (ISCED 2). If the pupil continues at the same school in 
the next class/grade, the teachers often register the family’s loss of interest 
in the child’s giftedness and in retaining communication with the teacher. 
Thus, the autonomous development of giftedness is entrusted more to the  
child.
Transition to lower secondary school: Lower secondary schools are charac-
terized by a certain preference for selecting children with a greater potential for 
development, with the parents perceiving this tendency as being suitable for the 
further development of their own child’s giftedness. »They often plan their chil-
dren’s transition to lower secondary school. At the upper primary school level, we 
retain hardly any children with a gifted certification.«
Reduced interest as the child gets older: In upper primary schools, the re-
sponsibility for development of the giftedness is largely transferred to the child. 
The family’s need to communicate with the school declines substantially . The par-
ents generally abandon the extension of identification in the counselling centre, 
which—according to the teachers—creates increasing demands for the development 
of giftedness in the home environment. »My experience is that such interest on the 
part of the parents gradually declines at the upper primary school level. The need 
to communicate with the teachers also declines substantially . Their child maintains 
relatively good marks, so there is nothing to resolve. In upper primary school, this 
already becomes slightly more complicated, as the number of subjects is greater 
and there are more teachers involved. We place higher demands on these pupils. 
Yet nothing goes well without help from the parents with their child’s homework. 
This is perhaps another reason parents should be willing to extend their child’s 
diagnosis at the counselling centre.«
Summary, discussion, and research limits 
The objective of this research was to explore the structure of labelling intel-
lectually gifted children within the family environment on the basis of its manifest-
ations in school teaching and communications of the teachers with the parents of 
gifted children; the ramifications of the labelling process were described from the 
perspectives of the teachers of such children. 

206 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
1. Identification of giftedness Interest in informal identification 
Apprehension of identification at the counselling centre
2. A visible change First meeting after formal identification 
Internalization of “typical” characteristics of the gifted Educational needs 
from the pupil’s viewpoint 
Assumption and demanding good marks
3. Apprehension of the 
development of giftedness
Development exclusively in the area of giftedness The need of the parents 
to intervene in teaching
The important thing is not to mess up
4. Future plans and reality Transition to lower secondary school 
Less interest as the child gets older
Table 1: Major and partial thematic categories
Ad 1) (see Table 1) As in Matthews (2014), it was ascertained that the parents 
indicate an initial interest in the identification of giftedness and want to learn 
more about the giftedness of their children. However, in the opinion of teachers, 
parents are interested in its informal variant. Parents are apprehensive of formal 
identification, as they are reluctant to assume formal obligations to the institutions 
involved. The responses of the teachers we surveyed also indicate apprehension 
among parents regarding the incessant psychologization of the child as well as 
trepidations concerning explanations to uninformed parents of the ramifications 
their child’s giftedness. We also agree with this author that it is very important for 
the parents to actively share experiences with the parents of other gifted children.
Ad 2) According to our findings, after the formal identification of giftedness, 
changes occur in the attitudes and behaviour of the children and/or their parents. 
As indicated in certain research (Gottfried et al. 2005), it follows that these changes 
in the attitudes generally become obvious after the inclusion of the children in a 
gifted program. However, other research (Matthew 2009; Gibbons et al. 1994) do 
not register any differences prior to or after inclusion in a gifted program. These 
cases included summer programs with limited time intervals. Therefore, it can be 
assumed that changes in the attitudes of the gifted children and/or their parents 
are triggered only after the inclusion of children in development programs with a 
long-term perspective. 
The following changes were ascertained immediately after acceptance of the 
label: the teachers registered a change in the personalities of the children charac-
terized by the internalization of the typical characteristics of the gifted, including 
manifestations in the cognitive, affective, and social areas in both negative and 
positive ways. Here, self-labelling (Gates 2010) comes into play along with the in-
ternalization of the generally applicable attitudes to giftedness (Barab and Plucker 
2002; Leavitt 2017). 
Further manifestations confirm the acceptance of the gifted label by the pupils. 
The teachers acknowledge that the gifted children, like their parents, acquire an 
extensive knowledge of giftedness. According to teachers, the gifted children come 
to adapt their education needs in unsuitable ways; they demand special treatment 

      207
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
and if such demands are not met, they revolt against the teacher. The children 
internalize the label and begin referring to themselves as »gifted«. These children 
generally now make a greater effort to earn better grades and they are exposed to 
a greater number of external motivation elements in the home environment. The 
teachers admit that in this respect they themselves may give in to labelling pres-
sure and give the gifted pupil better grades. According to the labelling theory (see 
above), such behaviour is manifested among educators either as an unconscious 
error in the social perception of the gifted pupil (Brigham and Bakkem 2014) or as 
a conscious attribution of better grades from teachers with a poorer pedagogical 
self-assessment, which may be caused by a lack of general teaching experience and/
or by a (perceived) lack of training and experience in working with gifted pupils 
(Kočvarová et al. 2017).
In summary, it is possible to assume that gifted children internalize the at-
titudes of their parents towards their giftedness. Like their parents, the children 
focus on achievement-oriented goals, like the assumption that they simply possess 
higher intelligence (Wirthwein et al. 2019; Ziegler and Stoeger 2010). Further, 
both children and parents internalize the assumption that giftedness is related to 
emotional intensity and social isolation (Ritchotte and Jolly 2014; Eren et al. 2018).
Ad 3) Regarding the further development of children, the teachers reflect two 
attitudes of the parents, who either disproportionally exaggerate the processes 
involved in enhancing the child’s giftedness or approach giftedness with fear. In 
the first case, the parents assume that their child will perform academically at 
a very high level (Eren et al. 2018). In our research, the parents focused on the 
development of the child in one major component of giftedness, while other areas 
were pushed to the background. According to the teachers, some parents want to 
take control of the education and training of their children to the point that they 
even excessively interfere with the competences of the teacher . The counter to such 
attitudes are those of the parents who are susceptible to common myths regarding 
giftedness—for example, »the gifted need not learn how to read, write and count 
at pre-school age otherwise they shall be bored in school« (Carp 2017). 
Ad 4) In time, particularly upon the child entering a higher educational level, 
a larger share of the responsibility for the development of giftedness is transferred 
to the child, with a few parents also noting a decrease in the outward interest of 
teachers in the development of their child. This transition of autonomy to child 
significantly reduces the need for the family to communicate with the school. The 
parents abandon the extension of diagnostics in the counselling centre, which—
according to the teachers—is related to the increasing demands to work with the 
gifted child in the home environment as well as the unwillingness for the gifted 
child to work in formal institutions outside the home. Other parents, at this time, 
place their children in lower secondary schools, a step which the parents perceive 
as a new path towards the further development of giftedness. At this point, the 
repetition of the formal diagnosis is the exception rather than the rule, since due 
to the exclusivity of the selected pupils, programs are already in place for the en-
richment and acceleration of the school curriculum. Thus, we ascertain that the 

208 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
giftedness label and its consequences become more undesirable when the child 
enters adolescence (Robinson 1990). 
The research has also revealed a certain tendency towards attempts at reducing 
and alleviating the negative consequences of labelling. Unfortunately , this process 
is passive—that is, it generally occurs through the deviation from formal identi-
fication and the formal development of giftedness. In contrast to these tendencies, 
the negative consequences of labelling must be eliminated by targeted teaching 
and psychological procedures based on ethics and professionalism (Heward and 
Ford 2013).
It must be noted that we have attempted to examine labelling from an under-re-
searched perspective—the consequences of the label of being »gifted« within the 
family environment from the perspective of teachers. A number of rather negative 
consequences resulting from labelling were revealed, a few of which the parents 
themselves would be unaware of or unwilling to comment upon—for example, in-
stances of excessive interference with teaching and the assumption and even the 
demand that their children will receive good grades. 
Limitations of the study
The first possible shortcoming of this study is the context in which the labelling 
was monitored. We were only concerned with the children identified as gifted for the 
first time. It is evident that with children who have formally been labelled in this 
manner several times over the course of their educational track, the consequences 
of labelling are stronger than is the case with gifted children who have not under-
gone this entire process. Thus, the results of this study are applicable only in the 
presented context and cannot be generalised.
A further limitation involves the selection of educators for the focus group. 
The criteria that was selected substantially influenced the attitudes to giftedness 
that we found—that is, these observations and opinions came strictly from teachers 
who have worked with gifted pupils. We assume that these teachers approach the 
presented topic with a much more positive attitude than would be the case with a 
more broadly representative selected target group. Another factor leading to the 
affirmative outcomes—although not necessarily a dominant one—is that our re-
spondents consisted predominantly of women, who according to Bégin and Gagné 
(1994) display a more positive attitude to giftedness. However, considering the 
entire group of respondents, it was evident that they generally exhibited a positive 
attitude towards giftedness, thereby revealing established variables such as having 
or maintaining intensive contact with a gifted child, relevant university education, 
and participation in life-long education in relation to the issue of giftedness (Mc-
Coach and Siegle 2007).
Further limitations stem from the type of data collection and analysis of the 
results. A researcher approaches a study with certain assumptions which may 
consciously or unconsciously influence the design and execution content of inter-
views by the researcher. Similarly, data analysis may also be prone to elements of 

      209
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
subjectivity . In order to attempt to alleviate potential bias, it was decided that the 
data would be analysed jointly by two researchers, who would arrive at a certain 
compromise in the designation of the codes and the allocation of categories. On the 
other hand, the subjectivity of the researcher who has been trained in the issue 
has been perceived as being positive in most cases, as the researcher’s experience 
facilitates situations of theoretical saturation (Clarke 2015).
The research limitations may be partially eliminated with subsequent qualit-
ative research, which would be based on interviews with the parents and/or pupils, 
or by the observation of the pupils in the home or school environment.
Conclusion
We examined the process of labelling gifted children in the family from the 
perspective of teachers. The main results reveal that parents are apprehensive of 
their child being identified as gifted because of the formalization of this process. 
Following the identification of giftedness, the teachers recorded changes in the 
attitudes of children and parents. Upon transition of the child from ISCED 1 to 2, 
we registered the tendency of the parents to underrate the negative consequences 
of labelling by ignoring or deviating from institutional practices and procedures 
put in place to enhance the development of giftedness. 
Labelling has positive and negative consequences. The elimination of these 
potential negative consequences must be undertaken through the professional 
and ethical treatment (not by ignoring the specific needs of gifted individuals). 
Therefore, the results of the study highlight the need for professional work with 
parents of gifted children.
References
Archibald, M. M.  (2015). Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for 
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, issue 3, pp. 228–250.
Barab, S. A. and Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart context? Cognition, ability, 
and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. 
Educational Psychologist, 37, issue 5, pp. 165–182.
Bégin, J. and Gagné, F . (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review 
of the literature and blueprints for future research. Journal for the Education of the 
Gifted, 17, issue 2, pp. 161–179.
Brigham, F . J. and Bakken, J. P . (2014). Assesment of individuals who are gifted and talen-
ted. In: A. F . Rotatori, J. P . Bakken and F . E. Obiakor (eds.). Gifted education: Current 
perspectives and issues. UK: Emerald, pp. 21–40.
Carey, M. A. and Asbury, J. E. (2012). Focus Group Research. London: Routledge.
Carp, A. (2017). Some thoughts on gifted education and creativity . International Journal on 
Mathematics Education, 49, issue 1, pp. 159–168. 

210 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at 
home. NJ: Pearson.
Clarke, A. (2015). From grounded theory to situational analysis. What’s new? Why? How? 
In: J. M. Morse (ed.). Developing grounded theory. NY: Left Coast Press, pp. 194–235.
Cross, T . L. and Coleman, L. J. (1993). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: an explo-
ration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roepper Review, 16, issue 1, pp. 37–40.
Dai, D. Y . (2009). Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness. In: L. V . Shavinina. 
International handbook on giftedness. USA: Springer, pp. 39–80.
Eren, F ., Ömerelli Çete, A., Avcil, S. and Baykara, B. (2018). Emotional and behavioral cha-
racteristics of gifted children and their families. Arch Neuropsychiatry, 55, pp. 105−112.
Freeman, J. (2013). The long-term effects of families and educational provision on gifted 
children. Education and Child Psychology, 30, issue 2, pp. 7–17.
Gates, J. (2010). Children with gifts and talents: Looking beyond traditional labels. Roeper 
Review, 32, issue 3, pp. 200–206. 
Gibbons, F . X., Benbow, C. P ., and Gerrard, M. (1994). From top dog to bottom half: Social 
comparison strategies in response to poor performance. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 67, issue 4, pp. 638–652.
Gottfried, A. W., Cook, C. R., and Gottfried, A. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of 
adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 
issue 2, pp. 172–186. 
Hancock, M. E., Amankwaa, L., Revell, M. A., and Mueller, D. (2016). Focus group data 
saturation: A new approach to data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21, issue 11, pp. 
2124–2130.
Heward, W . L., and Ford, D. Y . (2013). Gifted and talented. In: W . L. Heward (ed.). Exceptional 
children. An introduction to special education. Ohio: Pearson Education, pp. 453–491.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 
analysis. London: Sage.
Kočvarová, I., Machů, E. and Petrůjová J. (2017). Self-assessment of teachers working with 
gifted pupils in terms of their work experience and education. Proceedings of ICERI2016 
Conference 14th-16th November 2016, Seville, Spain, pp. 8148–8153.
Leavitt, M. (2017). Your passport to gifted education. USA: Springer. 
Manor-Bullock, R., Look, C., and Dixon, D. N. (1995). Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? 
The impact of high achievement on social interactions. Journal for the Education of 
the Gifted, 18, issue 3, pp. 319–338.
Matsueda, R. L. (2014). The natural history of labelling theory. In: D. P . Farrington and J. 
Murray (eds.). Labelling theory: empirical tests. New Brunswick and London: Transac-
tion Publishers, pp. 13–44. 
Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A. and Jolly , J. L. (2014). What’s wrong with giftedness? Par-
ents’ perceptions of the gifted label. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 
24, issue 4, pp. 372–393.
McCoach, D. B. and Siegle, D. (2007). What predics teachers’attitudes toward the gifted? 
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, issue 3, pp. 246–255.
MSMT . (2014). Giftedness strategy. Retrieved from: http://www.msmt.cz/areas-of-work/sport-
and-youth/giftedness-strategy-2020?highlightWords=gifted (accessed on 10. 3. 2020).

      211
 
Labelling of gifted children in the family from the perspective of teachers and its manifestations ...
 
NUV . (2018). Standard komplexní diagnostiky mimořádného (intelektového) nadání. Retrieved 
from:http://www.nuv.cz/uploads/rovne_prilezitosti_ve_vzdelavani/nadani/diagnostika/
standard_diagnostiky_mn_2018_12_06.pdf (accessed on 10. 3. 2020).
Olszewski-Kubilius, P ., Lee, S.Y. and Thomson, D. (2014). Family environment and social 
development in gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, issue 3, pp. 199–216.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & sons.
Portešová, Š., Budíková, M., and Juhová, D. (2014). Myths about gifted learners from the 
perspective of teachers. The New Educational review, 37, issue 3, pp. 229–242.
Robinson, A. (1990). Does that describe me? Adolescents’acceptance of the gifted label. 
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, issue 3, pp. 245–255.
Schilling, S. R., Sparfeldt, J. R. and Rost, D. H. (2006). Families with gifted adolescents. 
Educational Psychology, 26, issue 1, pp. 19–32. 
Tomlinson, C. A. (2013). Differentiated instruction. In: C. M. Callahan and H. L. Herberg-
Davis (eds.). Fundamentals of gifted education, considering multiple perspectives. New 
York and London: Routledge, pp. 287–300.
Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Demythologizing gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, issue 
4, pp. 229–232.
VUP . (2007). Framework education programme for elementary education. Retrieved from: 
http://www.vuppraha.rvp.cz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/RVP_ZV_EN_final.pdf (ac-
cessed on 10. 3. 2020).
Wirthwein, L., Bergold, S., Preckel F . and Steinmayr , R. (2019). Personality and school func-
tioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents: Self-perceptions and parents‘ 
assessments. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, pp. 16–29.
Yildiz, A. Baltaci, S.  and Aytekin, C. (2019). A comparison of parents of gifted students and 
non-gifted students: A case of expectations from mathematics education. Cukurova 
University Faculty of Education Journal, 48, issue 1, pp. 452–497.
Zakreski, M. J. (2018). When emotional intensity and cognitive rigidity collide: What can 
counselors and reachers do? Gifted Child Today, 41, issue 4, pp. 208–216. 
Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2010). Research on a modified framework of implicit personality 
theories. Learning and individual differences. Journal of Psychology and Education, 
20, issue 4, pp. 318–326.

212 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Klimecká
 
Eva KLIMECKÁ (Univerza v Zlinu, Češka)
OZNAČEVANJE NADARJENIH OTROK IN NJIHOVI VPLIVI NA DRUŽINSKO OKOLJE Z 
VIDIKA UČITELJEV
Povzetek: V prispevku so predstavljeni rezultati študije, ki raziskuje strukturo označevanja nadarjenih 
otrok in njihovih vplivov na družinsko okolje z vidika učiteljev. Študija, ki je bila izvedena na podlagi 
fokusne skupine 19 učiteljev iz Češke republike, je zajemala vidike poučevanja v razredu in tudi komu-
nikacijo s starši nadarjenih otrok. Kvalitativni podatki so bili analizirani z odprtim in osnim kodiranjem. 
Rezultati kažejo, da se starši bojijo identifikacije otrok v svetovalnem centru zaradi formalizacije tega 
postopka. Po ugotovitvi nadarjenosti so učitelji zabeležili spremembe v stališčih otrok in staršev. Pri 
otrocih se ponotranje značilnih značilnosti te populacije pojavlja tako v negativnem kot pozitivnem 
smislu. Učitelji so pri starših navedli 2 stališči: bodisi so pretiravali z otrokovo nadarjenostjo, kar je 
včasih privedlo do vmešavanja v učni načrt vzgojiteljev, ali pa so se do nadarjenosti približali strahu, pri 
čemer sta oba stališča odražala dovzetnost za določene mite o nadarjenosti. Po prehodu otroka z ISCED 
1 na 2 smo zabeležili nagnjenost staršev, da podcenjujejo negativne posledice označevanja. Odprava 
označevanja je pasivna, tj z ignoriranjem ali odstopanjem od institucionalnih praks in postopkov, ki so 
vzpostavljeni za izboljšanje razvoja nadarjenosti.
Ključne besede: nadarjeni otrok, starš nadarjenega otroka, učitelj nadarjenega učenca, označevanje, 
fokusna skupina.
E-naslov: machu@utb.cz