Abstract
It is a global challenge to meet the needs of non-native gifted students in the classroom. This case study investigates how Finland, a country with a high-achieving school system and a growing multicultural student population, serves its non-native gifted students. In interviews at a Finnish teacher training school, non-native gifted students and their parents and teachers described their school experiences. The interviews were analyzed for patterns in two categories: instructional strategies and curriculum design. The findings highlight the fact that Finland’s education system is based on egalitarian approaches to learning in inclusive educational settings. The results show that teachers are differentiating for their gifted students and parents and students recognize this.
1. Introduction
This case study aims to ascertain the experiences of non-native gifted students in a Finnish teacher training school through the practices of teachers (n= 4) and the experiences of students (n = 5) and their parents (n = 4).
A popular and important topic of research in the gifted education sphere is how to serve diverse gifted students [1,2]. For decades, gifted education researchers have recognized and understood the inequalities within gifted education [1,3,4]. Despite the depth and breadth of this research, little has changed regarding equitable services for diverse gifted students [4,5]. Culturally diverse students are still less likely to be seen as gifted, presented with challenging instructional materials, placed in advanced-level classes, or included in enrichment or accelerated programs [4].
Gifted education varies from country to country [6]. In the United States of America, for instance, most school districts formally identify students as gifted [4]. These students are most often white, Asian, and/or wealthy, making students of color and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds under-identified and under-served by gifted programs [4]. A recent study on gifted Syrian refugees in Jordan found immigrants to be under-identified, and therefore, underserved by the education system [7]. In England, they shut down “elitist” and “inequitable” gifted programs in favor of differentiated instruction for all by classroom teachers [6]. In Finland, the focus on equality leads to a lack of formal mention of gifted students with more emphasis on meeting individual learning needs in the classroom [8]. According to Dai and Chen: “It is inevitable that different values and priorities influence the ways we conceptualize giftedness and define the mission of gifted education” [9].
All over the world, gifted students from diverse backgrounds, particularly those from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds, are underserved and overlooked [7,10,11]. According to Davis and Moore, “Although many of these children possess tremendous talents that are of value to their nations, gifted children of color, especially those from economically disadvantaged communities, tend to be the most underrepresented in gifted and advanced programs worldwide” [10] (p. xv). International research evidence shows that schools around the world are not meeting the needs of diverse gifted students.
In an increasingly connected and globalized world, we must prepare our gifted learners to use their talents to “improve human conditions” [12] (p. 156). Dr. Renzulli states that the intended outcome of this goal is “to increase the reservoir of people who will use their talents to create a better world” [12] (p. 156). Often, systems and structures that serve gifted students do not adequately serve students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) backgrounds [11]. Finnish gifted education researcher, Dr. Kirsi Tirri, explained that gifted students have a right to educational opportunities that meet their needs and advance their future: “This is especially critical for gifted students who face disability, poverty, low socioeconomics, poorly educated parents, and/or live in non-native speaking homes” [8]. It is a global challenge to meet the needs of different learners in a variety of subjects [13].
The terms to describe gifted students vary all over the world. Words may include highly able, talented, high ability, high potential, and gifted and talented. There is also a wide range of definitions of giftedness [9,14]. This study will use the term gifted to describe students with specific cognitive, creative, psychosocial, and psychomotor abilities (see Appendix A). This definition comes from the National Association for Gifted Children’s guidebook on Traits of Giftedness.
When discussing non-native gifted students, this study refers to students who are not part of the dominant Finnish culture. The students may also be from linguistically and economically diverse backgrounds. They qualified for this study by not being native to Finland. This means that either they or their parents immigrated to Finland from another country.
1.1. Theoretical Framework
Ford provides a theoretical framework on how to develop the potential of diverse gifted learners [15]. Ford explains three aspects that fuel the continued lack of services for culturally diverse students in gifted education—deficit thinking, white privilege, and colorblind ideology. This theory on underrepresentation explains that to develop the potential of diverse gifted learners, schools and systems must first eliminate deficit thinking, recognize white privilege, and disrupt colorblind ideology. There needs to be an “attitudinal or philosophical change” in how schools actualize the education of underserved gifted students [16]. Our study will look for these elements in student, teacher, and parent responses to interview questions (Table 1).
Table 1.
Ford’s Theory on Reasons for Underrepresentation [15].
Ford’s theory on underrepresentation lays the foundation for understanding best practices in serving gifted students from ethnically diverse backgrounds in partnership with Baldwin’s research.
Alexinia Young Baldwin detailed important considerations when serving gifted students from diverse backgrounds in her research. Her practical approach to curriculum and instruction for diverse gifted learners guides this study. Culturally Diverse Students who are Gifted [1] outlines how to develop organizational and instructional strategies that lead to effective support for diverse learners. Baldwin “expressed the urgency and the great possibilities present in recognizing the high quality of students from diverse backgrounds”. [1] (p. 140). Aspects of these practical recommendations for stakeholders in gifted education are the framework for this case study. The two main aspects of program planning that will guide this study are curriculum design and instructional system. The identification components of this theory will also not be included because there are no formal identification protocols in Finland [8]. “A total program plan that recognizes the potential for growth in culturally diverse students is an important factor in meeting the educational needs for gifted children of all cultural groupings” [1]. These recommendations serve as a framework for the rest of the study (Table 2).
Table 2.
Baldwin’s Recommendations for Serving Diverse Gifted Learners [1].
For this study, the focus is on two of the five Program Planning components: Curriculum Design and Instructional System. Students, teachers, and parents are the participants in this study. This case study does not measure evaluation because there is no overall program for gifted students in Finland to evaluate.
1.2. Context of the Study
This study is relevant and unique because Finland is the setting. First, Finland is a model for education reform all over the world because of its consistent success in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international measure of student achievement [17]. Second, Finland has seen an increase in immigrant and multicultural populations over the last few years [18]. Last, Finland’s focus on egalitarian approaches to teaching and learning has led to no national policy for gifted learners [9]. While there is a body of research on gifted education in Finland, there is a gap in research on the intersection of gifted education and non-native students.
1.2.1. Finland’s International Prominence
After a fairly recent reform of the education system and consistent success in international assessments, many other countries look to Finland as an example. Some researchers even call Finland “a supermodel with regard to education” [19] (p. 1) On an international scale, Finland consistently outperforms most countries on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The PISA is a worldwide measure of student performance in mathematics, science, and reading. Finland scored higher than the average in all three domains in 2018 [20,21,22]. Often, Finland is a “target for educational tourism” because of this success [18].
Despite consistent top rankings, there has been a slight decline in PISA scores over the past few years. Some researchers theorize that this decline is happening because students, including gifted learners, do not have opportunities to move out of their comfort zone [9,23]. Other researchers wonder if the increase in immigration over the last few years caused this decline in PISA scores [24].
1.2.2. Finland’s Multicultural Student Population
Finland is a mostly homogenous country with less immigration than many other European countries. In the last twenty years, however, there has been an increase in immigration. According to Migri, Finland’s immigration services, most immigrants are from Russia, Ukraine, India, China, and Somalia. They come to Finland seeking work or asylum [25]. Social mobility is relatively high amongst immigrants, with little difference compared to the native population [26]. This shows that there has been some success with the integration of immigrants into Finnish society.
There are several ways Finland is responding to increasing numbers of non-native students in their schools. There has been a recent focus on understanding multicultural issues in some teacher preparation programs [18,27]. According to the Finnish National Agency for Education, “linguistic and cultural diversity are paid attention to in the national core curricula” [28]. One of the agency’s main goals is to “increase equality and open-mindedness in education” [28]. In a study conducted in 2018 about the educational trajectories of immigrant-origin youth, the study found that students were hopeful, with high academic aims and career aspirations [29]. While there have been efforts to serve this growing multicultural study body, PISA scores showed non-native students performed worse than native Finnish students in all areas [18]. Finnish schools are still learning how to best serve their new multicultural populations.
With the changing population in Finnish schools and a trend towards a more multicultural student population, serving gifted students from non-native backgrounds has become essential. According to Sinkkonen and Kyttälä, “students with multicultural backgrounds may be in danger if schools cannot meet these new challenges. To teach heterogeneous groups, it is essential to find good practices that can create effective educational methods aimed at increasing equality and social integration” [18] (p. 180). Thus, it is also important to look at how teachers and schools play a role in the Finnish education system.
1.2.3. Inclusive Education in Finland
The goal of the Finnish education system is to provide equal learning opportunities for all students regardless of their background [18]. “The Nordic countries have a long tradition of fair and equal educational systems that aim to provide equal access to education irrespective of social status, economic situation, gender, language, religious or ethnic background” [19] (p. 1). Finland is one of the Nordic welfare states in which equality and inclusiveness are the main guiding values in educational policy [30,31]. Typically, in policies, the term equality is used to describe educational practices over equity. Since Finland’s education reform in the 1970s, they have taken an egalitarian approach to teaching and learning. Inclusive classrooms are the norm in the Finnish education system.
The UNESCO Salamanca Statement is the basis for defining inclusion in the Finnish education system. The Salamanca Statement reads:
The guiding principle that informs this framework is that schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, linguistic, or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic, or cultural minorities, and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas and groups.[31]
The term inclusion often refers more to the services of students with disabilities. The Salamanca Statement broadens this definition of inclusion by mentioning meeting the needs of gifted children as well as students from diverse backgrounds. Inclusive practices in Finland aim to reach all students as listed in the above statement.
In practice, Finland’s inclusive education approach differs depending on the classroom and the teacher [14,23,32]. Teachers in Finland have autonomy over their instructional decisions. While differentiation and inclusion are the expectation for all in this educational model, gifted students are often overlooked. With no clear definition of giftedness, these traits are sometimes seen as fixed and not something to nurture [33]. Gifted researchers in Finland believe that gifted students “have a need and a right to educational opportunities and learning that meets their special needs” [33].
1.2.4. Gifted Education in Finland
Because of the emphasis on equality rather than equity, there is no official national policy regarding gifted education in Finland [33]. There are no pull-out programs, identification protocols, or special schools for academically gifted children. Formal identification of students as gifted is not a practice in the Finnish education system [32,33]. There is no clear definition of gifted students to guide teachers and administrators.
Despite the lack of formal gifted education policies, the needs of gifted students are being met in a variety of ways [6,33]. Teachers differentiate for the needs of their students [33]. Starting in kindergarten, gifted students receive instruction based on their intellectual abilities [33]. Most Finnish teachers know gifted students need more challenging assignments [34]. Finnish teachers are expected to meet the special needs of all of their students through differentiated and personalized instruction. This approach to education emphasizes support for all learners, which includes gifted students [33,34]. Based on these ideals, Finland is seen as having effective strategies for teaching gifted learners.
These instructional practices are expected in Finland, but they may not always be carried out in practice. Many teachers focus on meeting the needs of their lowest-achieving students and overlook their gifted students. The findings of Tirri and Laine state: “Often, the gifts and talents of gifted students are not identified at school or they are not supported effectively. There are many reasons for this, such as a lack of teachers’ knowledge about gifted students and their special learning needs or a lack of knowledge of evidence-based practices proven to be effective with gifted learners” [14]. These reasons can lead to misconceptions about how to serve gifted students in the classroom.
1.2.5. Finnish Teacher Training Schools
In Finland, teachers are considered ethical professionals with the freedom to plan, organize, and evaluate their own teaching [32]. Researchers Malinen, Väisänen, and Savolainen assert: “Teacher education in Finland is organized in eight universities in eleven campuses that are spread across the country, covering all geographical regions from south to north and from west to east” [35].
The setting for this research study is a teacher training school in a major city in Finland. There are 940 pupils and 110 employees at this school. According to the school’s website, the mission is to “foster partnership as our school spirit, characterized by openness, honesty, mutual respect, fairness, shared responsibility, and safety”. It aims to “protect and nurture” diversity because the school is “home to people of different backgrounds, ages, and positions” [36]. The school is located in a middle-class district. It serves students based on the neighborhood school principle [37].
2. Data and Methods
2.1. Author Positionality
As researchers conducting this study, it is important for us to acknowledge our positionality and how it may have influenced the research process and interpretation of data. We approached this study as impartial observers with backgrounds in educational research and a shared interest in understanding the challenges faced by non-native gifted students within different educational systems.
It is important to note that the primary author of this study is a monolingual American researcher who conducted research on a culture outside of her own. Recognizing the potential challenges and limitations associated with researching a culture different from her own, the primary author relied on the expertise and insights of the two other contributing authors who have firsthand experience and knowledge of the Finnish culture. Their perspectives were crucial in honoring and valuing the Finnish culture throughout the research process.
2.2. Methodology
This case study aims to investigate the experiences of non-native gifted students and their parents and teachers in a Finnish teacher training school through in-person and video interviews.
The setting for this case study was a Finnish teacher training school in the spring of 2022–2023. The school had primary and secondary levels. There were 940 pupils and 110 employees at this school.
A monolingual English speaker and two bilingual Finnish/English speakers developed the nomination form in English (see Appendix B). It could have been translated to Finnish upon request. It was an online survey that was sent to all teachers at the teacher training school via email. It had eleven questions. The survey collected information about student demographics, students’ gifted characteristics, and teacher demographics. It served as a way to collect information about potential participants. The National Association for Gifted Children developed and published the gifted characteristics [38]. The researchers encouraged teachers to fill out the form if they had a gifted student from a multicultural background in their class.
After the formal nomination process, the researchers contacted parents for permission to interview their children and their interest in participating in the study. Once parents granted permission, researchers scheduled the interviews with parents, students, and teachers.
Three researchers developed the interview protocols in English (see Appendix C). The bilingual researchers translated the interview protocols to Finnish, and the researchers compared it to the English version.
The researchers conducted open-ended interviews with school teachers, students, and parents during the spring of 2022 and 2023. The participants interviewed included a subject teacher who taught non-native gifted students in secondary grades (n = 1), class-teachers whose students were in elementary grades (n = 3) and gifted students from non-native backgrounds teachers had nominated (n = 5), and parents of two nominated students (n = 4).
Teachers selected potential student participants based on their extensive training and professionalism regarding their students’ needs. While their teachers nominated the participants, they were not required to participate, and thus voluntarily did so. The parent interviews were conducted in English and teacher interviews were conducted in English and Finnish based on participant preference. The student interviews were conducted in English or Finnish also based on participant preference. All parent and teacher interviews were conducted via video conference for 20–30 min. The student interviews were conducted via video conference or in-person for 10–20 min.
The interview questions included a variety of questions related to the student’s experiences with challenging instruction in school. If the students went to school in another country, they were asked to compare their experiences. The interview questions for parents included questions about how they perceived their child’s experiences in the school with challenging instruction. The interview questions for the teachers included questions about the instructional decisions and scenario-based questions.
All interviews were recorded with permission from the participants. Bilingual researchers transcribed the Finnish interviews into English, and the translated interviews were reviewed by bilingual researchers to assure that the intended meaning was maintained. There were 13 participants.
This study involved five students (Table 3). Three students identified as female and two identified as male. The students were in grades 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 when they were interviewed. These interviews were conducted in English or Finnish depending on the student’s comfort level with the language. There was one student from a Polish and English background, one student from an Estonian background, two students from a Russian background and, one student from a Chinese background.
Table 3.
Student Participants.
2.3. Student Profiles
The participants in this case study were five students from multicultural backgrounds whose teachers identified as gifted. Important criteria for the selection of these particular students were their advanced abilities and their non-native backgrounds. The students were all willing to share their school experiences.
Ela (each of the students was assigned a pseudonym) was born to an English-Polish family. Her early schooling took place in England. Her native language was English. She was an elementary student at the time of the interview. Her teacher described her as having the following characteristics: interest in problem-solving, intellectual curiosity, persistence, independence in work, diversity of abilities, creativeness, high expectations of self, and perseverance.
Sara was an elementary student. She was born to Estonian parents and moved to Finland at the age of two. She spoke Estonian, Finnish, and English. Her interview was conducted in Finnish. Her teacher recognized above-average cognitive abilities in her and nominated her for this study.
Hannu is an elementary student of Chinese origin. Although he spoke Chinese, his preference for language in the study was Finnish. Hannu’s teacher noticed his interest in problem-solving, persistent and goal-directed behavior, as well as his independence in work and study. Additionally, he showed talent in mathematics. Given his exceptional abilities, Hannu was selected to participate in this research study.
Raheem was a secondary student of Russian descent. Both his mother and father were of the same origin. Raheem’s preference for this interview was Finnish. Raheem demonstrated impressive cognitive abilities as a quick learner with a strong interest in problem-solving, intellectual curiosity, and independence in study. Moreover, he had a keen sense of humor, was highly energetic, flexible, and socially skillful. Although the teacher had only taught him for ten lessons, Raheem’s potential and exceptional qualities were apparent and qualified him for this research study.
Ada was Russian. She was in secondary level at the time of her interview. Her mother tongue was Russian, but she also spoke English and Finnish. She was nominated for the study because of her cognitive, creative, and behavioral characteristics.
2.4. Parent Profiles
There were four parents interviewed for this study (Table 4). They were two sets of parents. Each couple had a child nominated for this study. The couples were interviewed together resulting in two interviews for four total parents.
Table 4.
Parent Participants.
2.5. Teacher Profiles
Four teachers agreed to be interviewed for this study (Table 5). There was one subject teacher and three elementary teachers. They were all Finnish and female. These interviews were conducted in English and Finnish. Two of the four teachers nominated students to be interviewed for this study.
Table 5.
Teacher Participants.
2.6. Data Analysis
The data collected from interviews with teachers, parents, and students were analyzed using a hybrid coding approach [39]. First a deductive coding process was used and then an inductive coding process. The analysis focused on pre-determined categories (Table 6) derived from the theoretical framework based on Baldwin’s research [1] for the deductive coding. The two main categories were curriculum design and instructional systems. Then, within those two categories, subcategories were determined based on a close reading of the interview transcripts. These subcategories—differentiation, culturally responsive, relationships building, grouping, and teacher knowledge—were formed based on inductive coding. This approach allowed for a systematic examination of the data, aligning the identified categories with the theoretical underpinnings of the study then delving deeper into the data to identify new themes. According to Swain’s description of a hybrid approach, this “method is particularly suitable for relatively small qualitative research studies” [39]. This case study has less than 30 interviews, making a hybrid approach to coding a good fit.
Table 6.
Main Categories and Subcategories.
The interview questions focused on the experiences of students, parents, and teachers. Since there are no official identification protocols in Finland, the questions were mostly about curriculum design and instructional systems. Subcategories were developed for each topic (Table 6). For curriculum design, the categories that emerged from inductive coding were differentiation and culturally responsive strategies. For instructional systems, the categories were relationship building and grouping and teacher knowledge. These categories served as a framework for understanding the experiences of these non-native gifted students.
The initial analysis involved a careful reading of the interview transcripts to identify recurring ideas, concepts, or perspectives related to the response. Codes were generated through an iterative process, ensuring that the identified themes were grounded in the participants’ responses. Examples of the categorization process (Table 7) include a review of the interview transcript for a code.
Table 7.
Examples of the categorization process.
The authors who conducted the interviews and analyzed the data engaged in frequent discussions and negotiations. Discrepancies in coding decisions were resolved through consensus and mutual agreement.
Through discussions and negotiations among the authors, the data analysis of the interviews provided insights into the experiences of teachers, parents, and students in serving non-native gifted learners in Finland.
3. Results
The analysis of the collected data revealed several key findings regarding the experiences of non-native gifted students in this teacher training school. The major themes that emerged from the data analysis were organized first by the pre-determined categories and then by the subcategories that emerged.
3.1. Curriculum Design
3.1.1. Differentiation
Differentiation is a common practice for Finnish teachers [8]. In the interviews, many of the students talked about ways their teacher differentiated for them. All the teachers detailed ways they differentiated for their students. Both sets of parents mentioned how their children had differentiated tasks at school.
All the students talked about extra work or additional tasks as a strategy their teacher would use to challenge them, especially when they finished their work early. In her interview, Sara explained: “Yeah, for example, if I’m fast at the end of a project, they will give me first another book to read and then more math. Then, if I have done all of that, the teachers will give me other assignments as the challenge becomes more difficult”. All teachers mentioned giving their students extra tasks if they finished their work early.
Some of the students talked about having harder or above-grade-level assignments. Ela, the second-grader, described how her teacher challenged her by giving her third-grade-level math books because she mastered the second-grade skills. “I think she just pushes me to do like harder books. Now I’m on third-class books and that feels like it makes me feel more challenged”. Ada also described a similar practice. In her math books, there were more advanced tasks labeled the “blue tasks”. Her teacher encouraged her to try the harder blue tasks. “Like, for example, in math we have series and then at the end of each series there’s like a blue task that’s like considered hard, and those are when you have to put something in that you just learned. But it’s a much harder task”. One set of parents knew that their child had harder tasks to complete but could not describe them.
Three out of the five students mentioned completing projects as a way of being challenged in the classroom. It was not always clear from their responses if these projects were differentiated or if all students in the class were completing the same project. One student, however, described this type of practice, and he gave an example of being challenged in a physics presentation project: once all students had to make a presentation, but the teacher matched the project level to be appropriate for the student and his friend by giving the most challenging topic to them. One secondary-level teacher mentioned providing the opportunity to participate in competitions. She only offered these national and international competitions to her gifted students. One of the secondary teachers explained that she used projects to personalize the curriculum for her gifted students.
The parents did not comment on project-based learning. Both sets of parents knew that their child may have different tasks at school. Neither couple could explain those tasks in detail.
3.1.2. Culturally Responsive
Students were asked to consider how their cultural and ethnic background influenced their school. Teachers were asked how a student’s cultural background might affect instructional decisions in the classroom. Parents were asked to reflect on how their child’s multicultural background affected their schooling.
All of the teachers mentioned language as a major barrier to serving their non-native gifted students. One teacher explained that she always allowed students to speak in their native language to their peers who spoke the same language.
The teachers exhibited some colorblind ideals about students’ multicultural backgrounds. One of the teachers explained that a student’s multicultural background does not inform her decisions about curriculum or instruction. “Well, of course, it [multicultural background] should not. And actually, I think also I don’t consider it. When I’m thinking about my students, I really don’t even think about that as an issue at all”.
On the whole, students felt that their peers and teachers were aware of their multicultural background, but that it did not take away from or negatively impact their school experience. One secondary student may have had the most experience and the language to clearly communicate what it felt like to be gifted, a non-native Finn, and go to school in Finland. She said: “Like definitely I feel like I’m not entirely Finnish. So my culture and my ways of thinking and talking to people might differ, but I don’t feel that I’m getting any other kind of treatment than anybody else”. Two of the five students stated similar things, saying that they might be asked to speak in their native language or help another student from their culture, but mostly they felt they were treated equally to the other students.
3.2. Instructional System
3.2.1. Relationship Building
All the teachers discussed the importance of building relationships with their students as a means of serving their gifted students from multicultural backgrounds. One teacher explained that building relationships and understanding each student was important when making instructional decisions: “Look at the holistic perspective. So, look at the whole person, not just my subject”. The other teacher said, “that it is very important that they feel they belong to the group”.
One of the parents requested more communication from their child’s teacher so that they could better understand how the teacher was challenging their student. “Because there’s the pandemic, there’s been a much-reduced amount of contact, there’s not the usual sort of, like, in the first year, I suppose we would have maybe chatted to the teacher when picking her up. So which is what we did in the UK, for example. And then any issue was like brought up immediately in person or something like that. But the pandemic has made that sort of communication channel, in my opinion, a bit difficult. So I mean, I know there’s this messaging system…but it’s kind of impersonal”.
3.2.2. Grouping
Only one of the students mentioned working in groups or being grouped based on their abilities. He continued that it is more challenging for him when they are working in mixed groups, as quite often he needs to guide the group work and tell others what to do. The parents did not mention grouping. However, many teachers talked about grouping based on ability and/or cultural background. One teacher explained that she sometimes groups her gifted multicultural students with those from the same linguistic or cultural background if they need help with assignments. Another teacher explained a flexible ability grouping strategy she employed in math. She and her colleague took turns taking the advanced math group from both classes to provide accelerated learning. She explained that this was not a typical practice used in Finland, but she felt like it was working well.
Table 8 shows some direct quote examples from interviews with students. Meeting the needs of gifted students is important, and students like Ela and Sara felt more challenged when their teachers gave them harder assignments. Ela says that when she found the work too easy, she told her teacher, who would either give her a more challenging task or allow her to work on harder ones. Sara felt that her teacher pushed her to read harder books and gives her more difficult assignments when she quickly finished her work. While these students have different backgrounds, such as Ela’s English language education or Sara’s Russian heritage, they do not feel that this affects the way they are treated in class. Ada, for instance, acknowledges that she feels different from other students because of her culture, but does not believe that she is any differently treated. However, Sara noted that when working with Finnish students, they spoke Finnish, but were able to freely speak Russian when no Finnish students were present.
Table 8.
Student Interview Question Response Examples.
Some direct quotes from the parent interviews are displayed in Table 9. Several themes emerged from the quotes provided by the parents. The first section relates to the identification and development of talent. One parent expressed the importance of identifying their child’s strengths and nurturing them in the school environment. Another parent highlighted their child’s demand for additional challenging tasks in subjects where they found the material too slow and repetitive. The second question focuses on meeting the needs of gifted students. Parents shared their opinions that Finnish schools tend to concentrate more on struggling students and may overlook those who can perform well. Parents also discussed the importance of challenging tasks and assignments for their gifted children, which they felt were not always provided by teachers. The final question relates to the acknowledgment of the student’s background. One parent reported that their child’s proficiency in English resulted in some difficulties with Finnish terminology. However, another parent did not believe that their child’s non-Finnish name had any influence on their education.
Table 9.
Parent Interview Question Response Examples.
Table 10 shows sample responses from interviews with teachers. The responses are divided based on the topic of the interview question. In terms of identifying gifted students, teachers recognized the limitations of their identification and relied on their experience and knowledge to identify giftedness. They also acknowledged their role in researching and identifying giftedness in their class. Regarding meeting the needs of gifted students, teachers used different strategies such as challenging students with more difficult tasks. The teachers emphasized the importance of making sure gifted students felt like they belonged to the group. Finally, the teachers also recognized the importance of acknowledging the student’s backgrounds and allowing them to speak in their mother tongue, but gave no mention to recognizing cultural differences when designing and implementing the curriculum. The responses provide insights into how teachers recognize and address the needs of gifted students in their classrooms.
Table 10.
Teacher Interview Question Response Examples.
4. Discussion
This case study aimed to understand how the needs of non-native gifted students were being met in a Finnish teacher training school. In a society with a focus on equality and inclusion, it was interesting to see how non-native gifted students fit into this model.
4.1. Curriculum Design
The three components of curriculum design that Baldwin [1] outlines as essential when serving culturally diverse gifted students are (a) to provide diverse gifted students an opportunity to experience differentiated curriculum experiences that draw on their cultures, (b) to help students of all ethnic groups understand the bravery, the strength of character, and cleverness of various cultures, despite negative circumstance, and (c) to increase the knowledge of all students regarding the contributions of all ethnic groups. It is evident that teachers differentiate for their students.
There were no specific examples of integrating culturally relevant pedagogy into curriculum design. However, many teachers mentioned allowing non-native students to speak to their linguistic peers in their native language. Students commented on this practice as well. This allows students to comprehend curricular resources at a deeper level.
There was a clear emphasis on extra work for their gifted students. There are other attempts to differentiate that include projects, accelerated learning, and competitions. These attempts at serving gifted students are only based on ability and not student background.
4.2. Instructional System
On the whole, the students did not feel they were treated differently than others based on their cultural background. Ford theorizes that three factors that lead to inadequate gifted services for diverse students are deficit thinking, white privilege, and colorblind ideology [16]. Deficit thinking is when “educators hold negative, stereotypic, and counterproductive views about culturally diverse students and lower their expectations of these students accordingly” [16]. There was no evidence of deficit thinking in the teachers interviewed for this study. Parents and students also did not mention feeling less than others because they were non-native. White privilege is an interesting concept to consider when discussing it in the context of Finland. All teachers interviewed were Finnish and white and held the privileges that come along with this racial subgroup. The students were ethnically diverse and not from the dominant culture, but many would also be considered racially white. Colorblindness or culture-blindness is another barrier to overcoming underrepresentation [4]. “The philosophy and practice exist when educators/individuals intentionally or unintentionally suppress the importance of and role of culture in learning, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and expectations” [16]. Colorblindness happens when people do not see differences and treat everyone the same. It seemed unintentional on the part of the teachers to declare that they do not take their students’ cultures into account when making curricular and instructional decisions. It aligns with Finland’s focus on equality and egalitarian approaches to learning. It goes against moral and cultural values to treat students differently based on their identities.
4.3. Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to this study, which must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Firstly, the nomination form required Finnish teachers to identify students as gifted based on a list of characteristics. In a culture where teachers do not identify students as gifted, this practice may have been foreign and unfamiliar to many teachers. Therefore, many teachers may have chosen not to nominate students for this study.
This study began at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. International visitors were prohibited from entering Finnish schools at that time. It was difficult to promote the study when all communication with teachers was digital rather than in person. More teachers may have nominated students if there was a connection to the researcher in person. Additionally, most interviews had to be conducted via video conference because of the same reason. Interviews may have been longer and more detailed if they were conducted in-person.
Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that the training school used in this study is a special case, as the teachers are carefully selected based on high pedagogical and academic skills. Additionally, this school does not have a high percentage of students from non-native backgrounds. This means that the findings may not be representative of average schools in Finland or schools with more diverse populations. However, it is still a useful example of practices in serving non-native gifted students in Finland.
Overall, while this study provides valuable insights into the experiences of teachers, parents, and students in serving non-native gifted learners in Finland, the limitations must be considered when interpreting the findings. Further research with larger and more diverse samples would be beneficial to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Future descriptive research is needed to address the limitations of the current study and to begin addressing the large gaps in the research on this topic. It would be interesting to learn about the curricular and instructional practices of teachers in other comprehensive schools for non-native gifted learners. Multiple data sources such as direct observation would also be helpful as researchers build the research base in this area.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this case study examined how a teacher training school in Finland addresses the educational needs of non-native gifted students within its high-achieving school system and increasing multicultural student population. The findings underscored this Finnish school’s commitment to egalitarian approaches to learning and inclusive educational settings. Through interviews with non-native gifted students, their parents, and teachers, the study explored instructional strategies and curriculum design. The results revealed that teachers in this school differentiate their instruction to meet the unique needs of gifted students, and both parents and students acknowledged this effort.
These findings highlight the effectiveness of this school in catering to the needs of non-native gifted students. The emphasis on inclusive practices and differentiation demonstrates a commitment to providing equitable educational opportunities for all students, regardless of their cultural background.
It is important to note that further research and exploration are necessary to fully understand the specific strategies and policies employed by Finland in serving non-native gifted students. Additionally, future studies could investigate the long-term outcomes and academic trajectories of these students to assess the impact of Finland’s approach.
Overall, this case study contributes valuable insights to the global conversation on addressing the needs of culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted students worldwide, but it is only a small part of what is happening in Finland. This study shows results from a school that is known for best practices in education and the results may not be generalizable to most schools in Finland. With an increasing immigrant population in Finland, it is important to continue to analyze the educational experiences of non-native gifted students.
Author Contributions
Methodology, J.S., S.L. and K.T.; Data curation, J.S., S.L. and K.T.; Writing—original draft, J.S.; Writing—review & editing, S.L. and K.T.; Supervision, K.T.; Funding acquisition, J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
A grant from the Fulbright Finland Foundation supported this work.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Administrative Principal of Viikki Teacher Training School (15 November 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Gifted Characteristics
Table A1.
Traits of Giftedness [38]. No gifted individual is exactly the same, each with his own unique patterns and traits. There are many traits that gifted individuals have in common, but no gifted learner exhibits traits in every area. This list of traits may help you better understand giftedness.
Table A1.
Traits of Giftedness [38]. No gifted individual is exactly the same, each with his own unique patterns and traits. There are many traits that gifted individuals have in common, but no gifted learner exhibits traits in every area. This list of traits may help you better understand giftedness.
| Cognitive | Creative | Affective | Behavioral |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Unusual emotional depth and intensity
|
|
Appendix B. Nomination Form Items
| Item |
|---|
| Teacher First Name |
| Teacher Last Name |
| Preferred Email Address |
| Would you be willing to participate in an interview? |
| Student’s First Name |
| Student’s Last Name |
| Student’s Grade Level |
| Student’s Cultural Background |
| Student’s Native Language |
| Can the student participate in an interview in English? |
| Which gifted characteristics does this student exhibit? |
Appendix C. Interview Protocol
| Interview Questions |
|---|
| For parents: How does your child feel about school? What does your child’s teacher do to meet the needs of your child? What does your child’s teacher do to make the studies challenging? What are your hopes for your child’s future schooling? How does your child’s cultural/racial/ethnic background influence their education? |
| For students: What do you like about school? What do you not like about school? What does your teacher do to make your studies challenging? Describe one example of when you felt challenged in school. Do your classmates receive the same schoolwork as you? (For older students) Describe your past experiences with feeling challenged in school. (For students who went to school in other countries) How does this school experience compare to your past school experiences? How does your cultural/racial/ethnic background influence your education? Do you feel different from the native Finnish students in your classroom? Provide an example. |
| For teachers: Describe the student you nominated for this study. What traits of giftedness do they exhibit? Why did you nominate them for this study? How do you identify if a student is advanced in your classroom? Describe how you meet the needs of gifted students in your classroom. Describe how you challenge learners in your classroom. How does a child’s cultural/racial/ethnic background influence your instructional strategies? |
| Scenarios for teachers: You have a student in your class who just arrived in Finland from Syria. This student is seeking asylum with their family. The primary language at home is Arabic. The student speaks some English and no Finnish. You notice this student loves math. They take part in all math discussions in English. They are always eager for the math lessons to begin. After the first test, the student is amongst the top scorers in your class. How would you meet the needs of this student in your classroom? You have a student in your class whose mother is Finnish and whose father is Polish. The student speaks Polish, English, and Finnish. You notice this student is exceptionally creative. Their writing is the best in the class. Whenever there is free time, this student reads or continues writing their short stories. While they do not have a lot of friends or socialize much with their peers, they seem generally content in the classroom. How would you meet the needs of this student in your classroom? |
References
- Baldwin, A.Y. Culturally diverse students who are gifted. Exceptionality 2002, 10, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worrell, F.C.; Dixson, D.D. Achieving equity in gifted education: Ideas and issues. Gift. Child Q. 2022, 66, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briggs, C.J.; Reis, S. A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gift. Child Q. 2008, 52, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milner, H.R.; Ford, D.Y. Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Rev. 2007, 29, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, S. The challenge of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gift. Child Q. 2022, 66, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, E.; Boettger, H. Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavon. Pedagog. Stud. J. 2015, 4, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alodat, A.M.; Momani, F.A. Gifted Syrian refugees in Jordanian schools: Have we identified them? Gift. Talent. Int. 2018, 33, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirri, K. Teacher education is the key to changing the identification and teaching of the gifted. Roeper Rev. 2017, 39, 210–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, D.Y.; Chen, F. Three Paradigms of Gifted Education: In Search of Conceptual Clarity in Research and Practice. Gift. Child Q. 2013, 57, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.L.; Moore, J.L., III. Gifted Children of Color around the World: Diverse Needs, Exemplary Practices, and Directions for the Future; Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, N.P. Strategies for success: Gifted students from diverse cultural backgrounds reflect on what matters most. Excell. Educ. J. 2018, 7, 42–68. [Google Scholar]
- Renzulli, J.S. Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gift. Child Q. 2012, 56, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirri, K. Contemporary teacher education: A global perspective-introduction to a special collection of research. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirri, K.; Laine, S. Teacher education in inclusive education. In The Sage Handbook of Research on Teacher Education; Clandin, D.J., Husu, J., Eds.; Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 761–775. [Google Scholar]
- Ford, D.Y.; Grantham, T.C. Providing access for gifted culturally diverse students: From deficit thinking to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Pract. 2013, 42, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, D.Y. Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gift. Child Today 2010, 33, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahlberg, P. Finnish Lessons 3.0: What the World Can Learn from Educational Change in Finland, 3rd ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sinkkonen, H.; Kyttälä, M. Experiences of Finnish teachers working with immigrant students. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2014, 29, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holm, G. Justice through education in Nordic countries: Critical issues and perspectives. Educ. Inq. 2018, 9, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/34002216.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48631582.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-en (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Kuusisto, E.; Laine, S.; Tirri, K. How do school children and adolescents perceive the nature of talent development? A case study in Finland. Educ. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 4162957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahonen, A. Finland: Success through equity—The trajectories in PISA performance. In Improving a Country’s Education; Crato, N., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migri Immigration Statistics 2021: A Record-High Number of Applications for Residence Permits on the Basis of Work. Available online: https://migri.fi/en/-/immigration-statistics-2021-a-record-high-number-of-applications-for-residence-permits-on-the-basis-of-work (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Kilpi-Jakonen, E. Continuation to upper secondary education in Finland: Children of immigrants and the majority compared. Acta Sociol. 2011, 54, 77–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holm, G.; Londen, M. The discourse on multicultural education in Finland: Education for whom? Intercult. Educ. 2010, 21, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnish National Agency for Education Enhances Work That Supports Integration. Available online: https://www.oph.fi/en/news/2021/finnish-national-agency-education-enhances-work-supports-integration (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Holmberg, L.; Kalalahti, M.; Varjo, J.; Kivirauma, J.; Mäkelä, M.; Saarinen, M.; Zacheus, T.; Jahnukainen, M. Educational trajectories of immigrant-origin youths in Finland: A mixed method analysis. J. Educ. Work 2018, 31, 563–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnesen, A.L. Social Class, Inclusion and Exclusion—Teacher and Student Practices in Norwegian Urban Education; Pink, W.T., Noblit, G.W., Eds.; Second International Handbook of Urban Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Actions on Special Needs Education. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994.
- Tirri, K. Giftedness in the Finnish educational culture. Gift. Educ. Int. 2021, 38, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laine, S.; Tirri, K. How Finnish elementary schools meet the needs of their gifted students. High Abil. Stud. 2015, 27, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirri, K. The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. J. Educ. Teach. 2014, 40, 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malinen, O.-P.; Väisänen, P.; Savolainen, H. Teacher education in Finland: A review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. Curric. J. 2012, 23, 567–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viikki Teacher Training School. Available online: https://www.helsinki.fi/en/training-schools/viikki-teacher-training-school/our-school#teachers (accessed on 20 January 2022).
- Bernelius, V.; Vilkama, K. Pupils on the move: School catchment area segregation and residential mobility of urban families. Urban Stud. 2019, 56, 3095–3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, B. Growing up Gifted, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Swain, J. A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example; SAGE Research Methods Cases; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).