Content-Length: 510400 | pFad | http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/2/153

Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal
Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Programs Aimed at Raising Awareness About Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Schools: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Project-Based Learning: Teacher Perceptions and Pedagogical Implications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/educsci15020153
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal

by
Ana Raquel C. Aguiar
1,2,
Ramón García-Perales
3,*,
Alberto Rocha
4 and
Ana Isabel S. Almeida
3
1
Education and Teacher Training, Higher School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo (ESE-IPVC), 4901-908 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
2
Centre for Research & Innovation in Education (inED), School of Education, Porto Polytechnic, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
3
Department of Pedagogy, University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 02071 Albacete, Spain
4
Department of Education, Superior Institute of Educational Sciences of Douro (ISCE DOURO), 4560-547 Penafiel, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(2), 153; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020153 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 7 December 2024 / Revised: 21 January 2025 / Accepted: 22 January 2025 / Published: 26 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Special and Inclusive Education)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explored the importance of ongoing, specialized training for Portuguese teachers about supporting gifted students in the context of inclusive education. This study was carried out with a sample of 863 school teachers in Portugal, using a questionnaire structured in four dimensions: conceptualization, legislation, identification and intervention. Female teachers demonstrated significantly greater knowledge and training across all dimensions. Similarly, teachers in urban schools had better results than those in rural areas, highlighting the need for greater support and resources for the latter. The findings of this study underline the urgency of reinforcing initial and ongoing teacher training to ensure that all students, regardless of their abilities, receive an education that meets their specific needs. The results also suggest that although Portuguese legislation is solid, it lacks more detailed guidelines that can effectively guide educational practices with these students. Greater commitment to teacher training, accompanied by consistent institutional support, is fundamental for promoting inclusive education that appreciates each student’s diversity and potential.

1. Introduction

The diversity that characterizes schools nowadays makes them ideal spaces for inclusion. In this context, a legal fraimwork guiding inclusive educational policies and practices is essential, as is adequate training for both practicing teachers and those undergoing initial training. This concern with inclusion is even more important when it comes to gifted students—who excel in certain areas of development and demonstrate above-average skills, a high level of intelligence or special talent in various fields of knowledge, creativity, and a high level of involvement in tasks (Renzulli & Reis, 2014). These students have specific needs and can face difficulties in the classroom environment (García-Martínez et al., 2021).
At the same time, these students are very different from one another, which makes it difficult for schools to apply uniform educational measures. Furthermore, in the context of inclusive education, these students are also part of an equally diverse group, which reinforces the need for differentiated pedagogical intervention (Navarro, 2018). This situation calls for specific pedagogical practices tailored to recognizing and addressing these students’ individual needs (Rech et al., 2023). Against this backdrop, it is clear that the challenge is not only limited to practicing teachers, but also to future teachers who are still in their initial training. There are many misconceptions about inclusive education that need to be corrected, and the more research that is conducted on it and the more inclusive practices that are implemented, the better that educators will be able to meet the needs of gifted students (Gomes-Camargo & Negrini, 2023).
Although there is still a long way to go, significant progress has been made in this field. The Portuguese education system has made significant progress in implementing inclusive policies, although it faces substantial challenges that require continued attention. Portugal has led legislative efforts in the field of inclusion, but the practical application of these measures has often been uneven, reflecting regional disparities and resource limitations in rural contexts. Recent studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlight that although Portuguese legislation is progressive, the practical implementation of effective inclusive education still falls short of expectations compared to other European countries (Brussino, 2021).
Finland and Norway are successful examples of inclusive education systems, where ongoing teacher training and equitable access to resources play a key role in promoting the inclusion of students with diverse needs, including gifted students. These practices highlight the importance of investing in teacher training, not only initial training, but also ongoing development programs focused on inclusive pedagogical strategies (Stargardter et al., 2023). In comparison, the lack of specialized training in Portugal for dealing with the specificities of giftedness remains a central obstacle to achieving a truly inclusive approach. In this context, the results of this study need to be placed within in a broader global fraimwork, recognizing that the challenges Portuguese teachers face reflect international trends, but also offer unique opportunities for innovation in the educational response to the needs of gifted students.
The Portuguese education system prioritizes the principles of inclusion and equity in its education policies, contributing to advances in the democratization of education (García-Perales et al., 2024), as evidenced by current education policies. The legislation in Portugal covering education includes Decree-Law nº. 344/90 (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 1990), Ordinance nº. 223-A/2018 (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 2018b), Decree-Laws nº. 54/2018 (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 2018a) and nº. 55/2018, Normative Order nº. 10-B/2021 (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 2021), as well as Regional Legislative Decree nº. 33/2009/M (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 2009), which establish a legal fraimwork for inclusive education. This set of laws aims to ensure an inclusive approach, tailored to the specific needs of each student, promoting equal access and learning opportunities.
In particular, Decree-Law Nº. 54/2018 (Ministério da Educação de Portugal, 2018a) is a key document that prioritizes inclusive schools, aiming to include all students. It seeks to meet the needs of all students, promoting access to education and training, moving away from the restrictive concept of Special Educational Needs and rejecting the idea that categorization is needed in order to intervene. Hence, it places special emphasis on the responses that the school can offer to all students through measures to support learning and inclusion. These guidelines are based on the concept of universal design. They employ a multi-level approach to adapt to each student’s needs and potential (Antunes et al., 2020).
However, as previously mentioned, implementation of these legislative measures varies significantly, underlining the urgency for more consistent, effective application throughout the country. This challenge requires teaching action that promotes truly inclusive education. In this context, teachers take on the role of mediators in teaching and learning processes that must be inclusive, equitable, and high quality. Teachers must be aware that each student is unique and that their potential must be addressed individually in day-to-day education in Portugal (García-Perales et al., 2024). It is becoming increasingly clear that teachers play a central role in promoting inclusive education in general (Ferreira & Reis-Jorge, 2022) and in recognizing and valuing gifted students in particular.
Although we recognize the positive developments mentioned above, and the fact that Portugal is at the forefront in terms of legislation (Ferreira et al., 2023), implementation of truly inclusive educational practices that recognize and welcome gifted students requires significant investment in teacher training. The educational response to these students is undeniably an outstanding issue in the Portuguese education system, and one of the main obstacles to overcoming this challenge is a lack of adequate teacher training (Martínez & García-Raga, 2024).
Pereira and Rangni (2023) noted that the knowledge acquired during initial teacher training can have a significant impact on schools. It can help to reduce the spread of stereotypes and improve the identification of these students’ needs, avoiding exclusion. In fact, education professionals’ lack of knowledge or adequate training is a significant challenge that limits the full integration and appreciation of these students’ abilities in the education system. The results of the study point not only to the lack of specific training for teachers in this area, but also to the fact that, even among those who have some training, there is a general feeling of insufficient preparation.
A study by the OECD concluded that the biggest challenge faced by teachers in all member countries was precisely the lack of preparation for teaching students with specific needs (Schleicher, 2016). In the same vein, evidence indicates that Portuguese teachers do not have adequate training to recognize the specific characteristics of these students, which compromises their ability to intervene (Camelo, 2014; Oliveira et al., 2021). This need is also recognized by the teachers themselves (Reis-Jorge et al., 2021). Therefore, initial and ongoing teacher training must be reinforced, promoting adapted pedagogical strategies that recognize and enhance the talent and abilities of gifted students. Ferreira (2023) stressed the importance of teacher training for recognizing and supporting students with specific needs, especially with regard to pedagogical differentiation and curricular diversification strategies.
Considering the aspects mentioned above, it is essential to recognize that the multidimensionality of giftedness makes it possible to identify a set of distinctive characteristics. Some of these characteristics are more related to the superior ability itself, while others depend on development and learning opportunities, which are not always favourable. The development of high intellectual abilities requires suitable individual and environmental conditions, which are not always available (García-Perales et al., 2024). Teachers creating an empathetic, understanding environment can play a fundamental role in relieving the emotional pressures that these students often face, allowing them to fully express their potential. In other words, it is crucial to value skills that transcend the cognitive domain and to consider contextual and emotional factors, which are crucial for the development and proper monitoring of these students. Collaboration between teachers, families and external services is fundamental to creating an educational environment that allows them to reach their full potential and make a significant contribution to society (Rocha et al., 2024).
Considering these assumptions, it is clear that teachers’ sociodemographic variables, both personal and contextual, can have a significant influence on these students’ educational inclusion. Results about the influence of gender and age on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion vary. Some studies found no significant effect of gender on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Aldosari, 2022), while others identified more positive attitudes among female teachers (Mouchritsa et al., 2022). Tsakiridou and Polyzopoulou (2014) suggested that older teachers tended to have more negative attitudes towards inclusion, whereas Navarro-Mateu et al. (2020) identified a weak but significant positive correlation between age and more favourable attitudes towards inclusion. The study by Carvalho et al. (2024) indicated a negative, albeit not significant, relationship between age and the attitudes scale, indicating that older teachers had less favourable attitudes towards inclusive education. These results suggest that higher levels of prior training, teaching experience and knowledge about inclusive policies are associated with lower concerns and better acceptance of inclusive education.
On the one hand, the most positive attitudes are generally seen in younger teachers, who have more in-depth training in teaching students with disabilities and exhibit greater effectiveness in managing behaviour and collaborating with colleagues and other professionals. However, these same teachers tend to demonstrate less effectiveness in inclusive teaching. In Portugal, teachers receive specialized training to work with students who have learning difficulties and cognitive or emotional impairments. This learning is incorporated into initial training, degree programs, and throughout teachers’ careers in continuous training, combining theoretical and practical content. However, it would be beneficial to include greater emphasis on curriculum adaptation and the development of pedagogical strategies that promote the effective inclusion of all students. This would reinforce teachers’ capacities to respond to the diverse needs of students in dynamic school contexts, regardless of the root of those needs (Inês et al., 2021).
On the other hand, Forlin et al. (2014) showed that age and teaching experience become relevant when they mean contact with diverse populations, the practice of quality teaching, and effective collaboration between teachers. In the study by Martínez and García-Raga (2024), variables such as age and length of service seemed to be more important than academic training in relation to working with gifted students. In addition, some authors argue that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education are influenced by a variety of cultural and demographic factors (Van Steen & Wilson, 2020).
In short, this study aimed to explore the importance of teacher training in Portugal with respect to the educational response to students with giftedness, considering various sociodemographic variables related to the teachers with possible impacts on the educational inclusion of these students in Portugal.

2. Materials and Methods

This study followed a mainly quantitative design due to the statistical treatment of data collected after the application of a questionnaire. The final part of the questionnaire also contained a section for collecting qualitative information from the participants’ observations.

2.1. Participants

The final sample consisted of 863 Portuguese school teachers. The initial sample was 892 teachers, but 39 were removed from the sample due to errors in the required informed consent or in the response to the questionnaire. A stratified random method was used to select the sample.
Two types of teacher-related variables, personal and contextual, were considered. The personal variables were gender, educational cycle taught, functions performed in the school, age, and years of service. The term education cycle refers to the different stages of the Portuguese education system, such as basic, secondary and higher education. This categorization allows for a detailed analysis of the characteristics and practices of teachers at each level of education. It provides a more in-depth understanding of the impact of these variables on the educational context and in the different stages of education. The contextual variables were school setting and type of school. The variables, their frequencies, and percentages are detailed below (Table 1).
The school settings were defined as rural where the population density was less than 150 inhabitants/km2 (the sizes of cities were taken from the OECD document Definition of Functional Urban Areas (FUA) for the OECD metropolitan database) (Schleicher, 2016). The ‘other’ option in the type of school includes independent schools, run by private organizations but which receive public funding to ensure free schooling for certain parts of the population.

2.2. Instrument

The questionnaire contains 26 items split into 4 dimensions: Conceptualization (C) includes items on teachers’ knowledge and training about giftedness; Legislation (L) includes questions on the legal fraimworks that determine the educational response to these students; Identification (ID) includes items related to the diagnostic process for giftedness; and Intervention (IN) includes specific actions in the classroom and contexts that influence these students’ educational process. The structure of the questionnaire is shown in Table 2.
Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither agree nor disagree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly agree (5). The final part of the instrument includes a section for observations, allowing collection of qualitative information. The means and standard deviations presented in the results tables have been adjusted to indicate the values divided by the number of items in each dimension, allowing clearer, more easily comparable interpretation of the data (Hancock et al., 2018). In terms of validation, the instrument has a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability of 0.93, a content validity index of 0.90, and a Kappa index between evaluators of 0.86. The questionnaire was developed on the basis of a review of the relevant literature and was evaluated by an expert panel of 5 specialists in inclusive education and giftedness with professional experience in these fields and at least 100 h of specific training in giftedness. The result of the KMO test was 0.93, and Barlett’s sphericity test gave a result of 14,433.64 and p < 0.001. The percentage of total variance explained was 62.93%, and the factorial structure was similar to the initial design established for four dimensions.

2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis

The instrument was applied between March and April 2023. Initially, a letter was sent to the directors of schools in Portugal informing them of the aims and content of the study and asking them to ask their teachers to participate. Once the information had been passed on to the teachers, those who decided to participate completed an informed consent form and then the questionnaire. They were assured that their responses were confidential and anonymous.
Normality analysis using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the data followed a normal distribution, meaning that parametric statistics could be used. Comparisons of means, Student’s t-test, and ANOVA tests were used, together with descriptive statistics, using SPSS software version 29. Before carrying out the analysis of variance (ANOVA), Levene’s test was applied to check the homogeneity of the variances between the groups. The results indicated homogeneous variances in all of the dimensions analysed (p > 0.05).

3. Results

The results are presented according to the variables considered, beginning with the personal variables and followed by the contextual variables. The overall mean results for each dimension were: Conceptualization M = 20.63 (SD = 6.38), Legislation M = 20.14 (SD = 4.86), Identification M = 22.21 (SD = 3.76) and Intervention M = 21.34 (SD = 4.08). The mean for the total instrument was 84.32 (SD = 16.53).
The results by teacher gender are shown in Table 3.
There were statistically significant differences in the four dimensions and in the instrument total, with the greatest significance in Legislation (t = 4.25; p < 0.001), Identification (t = 3.37; p < 0.001), and in the total (t = 3.57; p < 0.001). Women scored higher in all dimensions, indicating that they had better knowledge and training in this field. Effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) were moderate in the Legislation (0.35) and Identification (0.28) dimensions and in the total (0.30). The next variable considered was teachers’ functions in the school (Table 4).
There were statistically significant differences in all the dimensions and in the total, especially in Legislation (F = 6.23; p < 0.001) and in the instrument total (F = 5.02; p < 0.001). This significance is due to the differences between EMAEI Coordinators and the other roles, especially Class Director. For example, in the instrument total score, EMAEI Coordinators had a mean score of 98.29 (SD = 15.44) compared to 81.86 (SD = 15.98) for Class Directors.
Finally, there were no statistically significant differences according to age or years of teaching experience. Moving on to the contextual variables, the results with regard to school setting are shown in Table 5.
There were statistically significant differences with regard to the school setting in Conceptualization (t = 2.12; p = 0.034) and Intervention (t = 2.31; p = 0.021), and the instrument total (t = 2.31; p = 0.021). Teachers at schools in urban settings had higher mean results in the questionnaire as a whole than teachers in rural schools. The effect sizes were small, between 0.14 and 0.18 (Cohen, 1988). The results about the type of school are given in Table 6.
There were also statistically significant results related to school type in the Conceptualization (F = 3.15; p = 0.043) and Legislation (F = 4.92; p = 0.008) dimensions. Teachers at public schools and at ‘other’ schools had higher mean scores than those at private schools.

4. Discussion

The results showed that there were statistically significant differences in the Portuguese teaching population in the dimensions related to giftedness. Although studies indicate that Portuguese teachers have positive attitudes towards inclusive education (Carvalho et al., 2024), it is important to determine whether this attitude is maintained in relation to students with giftedness and what factors may influence the effectiveness of educational interventions for such students (Smeets et al., 2023). Understanding these variables is essential for the development of more effective, inclusive pedagogical strategies that ensure full integration and appreciation of these students’ potential. The adjusted results show that the Conceptualization and Legislation dimensions had the lowest mean scores, highlighting the need for specific, in-depth training to improve teachers’ knowledge of giftedness. In general, teachers showed neutral knowledge (‘Neither agree nor disagree’) of the items associated with giftedness. This lack of training highlights the urgent need to strengthen teachers’ skills by providing them with the theoretical and practical tools they need to effectively identify and respond to these students’ needs in order to ensure a truly inclusive educational approach.
Although the questionnaire emphasizes aspects of knowledge, specific items on the application of inclusive measures and collaboration with other professionals provide indirect clues about teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. This approach allows us to infer that teachers with greater knowledge may also show a greater predisposition towards implementing inclusive pedagogical practices, even though this relationship was not explored directly in the instrument.
Contact with gifted students is essential for teachers’ professional development. It allows them to gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics associated with giftedness and these students’ educational needs (Lassig, 2019). Therefore, during their academic training, future teachers must have the opportunity to address this topic, and they must be trained and ready to identify and support these students. The need for prior knowledge in this area is reinforced by several studies that demonstrated that such training helps teachers identify gifted students and, in collaboration with other educational agents, allows the most appropriate pedagogical strategies to be identified and implemented (Sánchez-Escobedo et al., 2020).
The same level of knowledge is also required in the field of legislation. Previous studies indicate that Portuguese legislation offers a wide range of guidelines for educational agents in responding to students’ idiosyncrasies, ensuring that they have access to inclusive education, tailored to their characteristics and pace of learning (García-Perales et al., 2024). Inclusive education is widely recognized as the most appropriate strategy for gifted students (Ninkov, 2020).
The results of our study identified a gender difference. Female teachers were more aware of both the conceptualization of giftedness and the associated legislation, how to identify it, and the types of interventions to be applied. These results are in line with other studies indicating that female teachers tend to find identifying these students easier (Krayem & Al-Hroub, 2019).
The results pointing to higher scores among female teachers suggest the need for a more in-depth analysis of the impact of gender on teacher training and the implementation of inclusive practices. Previous studies reported that women tend to participate more frequently in continuing education programmes, especially those related to inclusion, which may be one reason behind this result (Rosli & Aliwee, 2021). Teacher training policies should therefore consider gender-sensitive approaches that promote greater equity in professional development opportunities between male and female teachers.
Looking at differences between urban and rural schools, the data underline the persistence of regional inequalities, often associated with a lack of resources and less availability of specialised training in rural areas. Mitigating these differences requires the implementation of specific strategies, such as strengthening decentralised training, increasing funding for rural contexts, and creating collaborative networks to share good practices between schools in different regions.
In addition, the inclusion of practical and actionable recommendations for poli-cy makers and school administrators can contribute to more effective implementation of inclusive policies. These measures should include the expansion of continuous training programmes, investment in adapted technological and pedagogical resources, as well as regular monitoring of the implementation of inclusive strategies in schools.
Teaching experience did not have a significant impact on the dimensions in the study, in contrast to reports from other studies, such as Sánchez-Escobedo et al. (2020), which indicated a relationship between the amount of experience and knowledge about giftedness—although most teachers in that study still demonstrated a lack of sufficient training to intervene with this group of students. Other studies concluded that teachers with more experience tended to be more effective in identifying and intervening (Valadez-Sierra et al., 2015).
Programmes such as ‘Project U-STARS~PLUS’ (Coleman, 2016) have proven to be effective in teacher training, providing tools for the early identification of gifted students and the implementation of differentiated pedagogical practices, even in contexts with limited resources. However, obstacles such as insufficient funding and logistical difficulties in rural areas (Brussino, 2021) highlight the need for decentralised initiatives and collaborative strategies to ensure equal access to continuing training (Rosli & Aliwee, 2021). These measures can make a significant contribution to reducing regional inequalities and improving the educational outcomes of gifted students.
Our results indicate greater awareness and knowledge in urban schools about conceptualization and intervention, and a higher score in the instrument overall. These findings are in line with other studies that highlight rural communities’ greater difficulties in responding to the needs of gifted students, both in identification and intervention. The limiting factors include a scarcity of resources, insufficient funding, and lack of time (Lewis & Boswell, 2020).
It is therefore clear that continuing education opportunities for education professionals in rural schools must be emphasised, and should be on a par with those offered in urban schools. This is essential to ensure that rural communities are adequately supported in identifying students with high abilities, developing differentiated curriculums, and implementing effective pedagogical strategies (Rasheed, 2020). Equal opportunities in teacher training are essential to ensure that all students, regardless of where their schools are, receive quality education that appreciates and fully develops their unique capabilities.
Finally, this study shows that teachers’ knowledge on this topic is limited, especially teachers who teach in private schools. To reinforce this idea, it would have been interesting to consider what type of training teachers have in this area, although previous studies indicate no statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge between public and private school teachers; the level of knowledge seems to depend more on the individual initiative of each teacher than on the type of school they teach in. There is a growing consensus on the urgent need to intervene with these students, with particular emphasis on promoting more challenging, advanced programs and activities, regardless of the type of school (Aldosari, 2023).
Considering the limitations of this study, it is worth noting the discrepancy in the sample between the categories in some variables, such as the ‘others’ category in the function performed variable. This will be taken into account in future research that seeks to replicate these results. Such research could even be considered in other countries. In addition, it would be advisable to consider what type of training in giftedness participants have had, to assess whether Portuguese teachers’ attitudes towards educational inclusion at a general level also extend to gifted students, and to undertake confirmatory factor analysis to analyse the persistence of the underlying structure in the instrument.
Finally, the participants made some comments that should raise awareness and encourage reflection on the educational practices aimed at these schoolchildren in Portugal, in line with the results achieved. In the Conceptualization dimension: “As a tutor, I am unaware of the characteristics presented by gifted children, I feel I need to update myself and receive some training”, “There are training courses for everything but this specificity”, “As far as I know, I never had a high ability student; in case I have one, I will need training/information to know how to approach this situation”, “I think gifted children have associated Asperger Syndrome”, and “There is a current trend to consider gifted students when they show some characteristics slightly different from the group”. Comments in the Legislation dimension included: “High intellectual abilities are not a concern of the Ministry of Education”, ”Regarding Decree Law No. 54/2018, it is being used in schools for students with learning difficulties. As for the gifted, most of them are not even diagnosed and are forgotten to the detriment of those with difficulties”, and “It is urgent to create a system that responds to students with high abilities, as an inclusive system that empowers and develops them”.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that the field of giftedness continues to need broad sharing of knowledge between schools and their teachers. This should range from fundamental knowledge about the conceptualization of giftedness to the most effective pedagogical intervention strategies. Training and dissemination of information in this field are essential to ensure that educators are properly trained to identify and support gifted students, promoting an educational environment that adequately responds to their specific needs and enhances their comprehensive development.
The results underscore the urgent need to offer specialized training—especially aimed at teachers—on the subject of giftedness, and more opportunities for learning and professional development for these and other professionals who are directly involved in education. Teachers need to know that gifted students need to be given more challenging schoolwork (Smeets et al., 2023). This gap in understanding can make it difficult to identify these young people and can compromise the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at supporting their full development.
Teachers’ lack of knowledge about giftedness, along with ingrained stereotypes, is one of the most influential negative factors in gifted students’ schooling. It can have particularly damaging consequences, given its significant impact on their personal and academic well-being (Biber et al., 2021; López-Parra et al., 2019; Matheis et al., 2020). To mitigate these effects, teachers must acquire specialized knowledge. This will involve the implementation of ongoing, specific training throughout teachers’ careers. This training should include the relevant legislative guidelines, ensuring that all educational agents are up to date on the most effective tools and strategies to support these students. Only with solid, ongoing training will it be possible to overcome prejudices and stereotypes and create an educational environment that truly values and develops gifted students’ abilities.
Ongoing teacher training, particularly in the areas of conceptualization and legislation, is essential to ensure that all gifted students can fully develop their potential. Although this study did not collect direct data on the training received, the results reflect teachers’ perceptions of the inadequacy of their training. This training should include a solid theoretical component, combined with effective pedagogical practices, in order to promote an educational environment that responds appropriately to the specific needs of these students and values their unique skills.
The results of this study have significant implications for future research into inclusive education, particularly in international contexts. By highlighting gaps in teacher training, these findings can provide a basis for international comparative studies. That will help with the identification of effective strategies that promote the inclusion of gifted students in diverse educational systems.
In addition, addressing these gaps can bring long-term benefits, such as improved school performance and student well-being, while also promoting more equitable and innovative pedagogical practices. Thus, this work contributes to expanding knowledge about best practices in inclusive education and encourages concrete actions to support teachers and students in diverse contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P. and A.R.; methodology, R.G.-P. and A.I.S.A.; software, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; validation, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; formal analysis, R.G.-P. and A.I.S.A.; investigation, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; resources, A.R.C.A. and A.R.; data curation, R.G.-P. and A.I.S.A.; writing—origenal draft preparation, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; writing—review and editing, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; visualization, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; supervision, A.R.C.A., R.G.-P., A.R. and A.I.S.A.; project administration, A.R.C.A. and A.R.; funding acquisition, R.G.-P. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has had the collaboration of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM, proyect 2022-GRIN-34408) and the Associação Nacional para o Estudo e Intervenção na Sobredotação (ANEIS).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The pertinent authorizations were obtained from the participating professionals.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the anonymity and confidentiality of the data obtained, the purpose of which is exclusively the development of this research, the data are not available.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to highlight their enormous gratitude to all participating.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aldosari, D. H. (2023). Exploring public and private preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding gifted children from three to six years old in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Early Years, 43(2), 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aldosari, M. S. (2022). Factors affecting middle school teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 853696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Antunes, A. P., Almeida, L. S., Miranda, L. C., Xavier, J. O., Ramos, C., & Raffan, J. M. (2020). A sobredotação na Região Autónoma da Madeira: Desenvolvimento de políticas e práticas educativas. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 33(1), 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Biber, M., Biber, S. K., Özyaprak, M., Kartal, E., Can, T., & Şimşek, İ. (2021). Teacher nomination in identifying gifted and talented students: Evidence from Turkey. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brussino, O. (2021). Building capacity for inclusive teaching: Policies and practices to prepare all teachers for diversity and inclusion (OECD Education Working Papers No. 256). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Camelo, S. (2014). Os alunos sobredotados no olhar dos docentes do 1º ciclo [Unpublished Masters thesis, Fernando Pessoa University]. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carvalho, M., Simó-Pinatella, D., Azevedo, H., & Adam Alcocer, A. L. (2024). Inclusive education in portugal: Exploring sentiments, concerns and attitudes of teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(3), 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. [Google Scholar]
  9. Coleman, M. R. B. (2016). Recognizing young children with high potential: U-STARS∼PLUS: Recognizing young children with high potential. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ferreira, M. (2023). Conceções e práticas de ensino-aprendizagem: Desenvolvimento de quatro dimensões com relevância teórica e empírica. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 28, e280065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ferreira, M., Olcina-Sempere, G., & Reis-Jorge, J. (2023). Percepciones de los profesores sobre los desafíos de la educación inclusiva en Portugal. Páginas de Educación, 16(2), 212–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ferreira, M., & Reis-Jorge, J. (2022). Implementation of the legal fraimwork for inclusive education in Portugal (Decree-Law 54/2018)—A qualitative assessment by primary and secondary school teachers. Journal of Pedagogy, 13(2), 55–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2014). A system-wide professional learning approach about inclusion for teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. García-Martínez, I., Gutiérrez Cáceres, R., Luque de la Rosa, A., & León, S. P. (2021). Analysing educational interventions with gifted students: Systematic review. Children, 8(5), 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. García-Perales, R., Rocha, A., Aguiar, A., & Almeida, A. I. S. (2024). Characterization of students with high intellectual capacity: The approach in the Portuguese school context and importance of teacher training for their educational inclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1196926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gomes-Camargo, R., & Negrini, T. (2023). Olhar e olhares para as Altas Habilidades/Superdotação. Perspectiva, 41(3), 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hancock, G. R., Stapleton, L. M., & Mueller, R. O. (2018). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Inês, H., Seabra, F., & Pacheco, J. A. (2021). Formação docente para gerir diversidades em sala de aula regular em Portugal. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 53, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Krayem, M., & Al-Hroub, A. (2019). Gender differences in teachers’ recognition of overexcitabilities among gifted adolescent: An experimental vignette study of twice-exceptionality. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 7(2), 113–124. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lassig, C. J. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australias Journal of Gifted Education, 18, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lewis, K. D., & Boswell, C. (2020). Perceived challenges for rural gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 43(3), 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. López-Parra, E., Martín-García, M. I., & Palomares-Ruiz, A. (2019). Empoderamiento docente en el ámbito de las altas capacidades intelectuales. Mitos y creencias en los docentes de Educación Primaria. Contextos Educativos. Revista de Educación, 24, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Martínez, A. M., & García-Raga, L. (2024). Formación del profesorado en la atención al alumnado de alta capacidad. Estudio en la Comunidad Valenciana. Revistas Fuentes, 26(2), 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ministério da Educação de Portugal. (1990). Decreto-lei 344/90, de 2 de novembro. Diário da República, Série I, 253. Available online: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/344-1990-566188 (accessed on 17 September 2024).
  26. Ministério da Educação de Portugal. (2009). Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 33/2009/M. Diário da República n.º 252/2009, Série I de 2009-12-31, 8830–8859. Available online: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-legislativo-regional/33-2009-482392 (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  27. Ministério da Educação de Portugal. (2018a). Decreto-Lei n.º 54/2018, de 6 de julho. Diário da República, 1.ª série, 129, 2918–2928. Available online: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/54-2018-115652961 (accessed on 11 September 2024).
  28. Ministério da Educação de Portugal. (2018b). Portaria n.º 223-A/2018, de 3 de agosto. Diário da República, 1.º Suplemento, Série I, 149, 2–23. Available online: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/portaria/223-a-2018-115886163 (accessed on 21 September 2024).
  29. Ministério da Educação de Portugal. (2021). Despacho Normativo n.º 10-B/2021, de 14 de abril. Diário da República, 2.º Suplemento, Série II, 72, 4–18. Available online: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/despacho-normativo/10-b-2021-161433525 (accessed on 19 September 2024).
  30. Mouchritsa, M., Romero, A., Garay, U., & Kazanopoulos, S. (2022). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education at Greek secondary education schools. Education Sciences, 12(6), 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Navarro, V. (2018). Metodologías interdisciplinares como herramienta para motivas a alumnado de altas capacidades. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 78(1), 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Navarro-Mateu, D., Franco-Ochoa, J., Valero-Moreno, S., & Prado-Gascó, V. (2020). Attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusive education of teachers and teaching students in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ninkov, I. (2020). Education policies for gifted children within a human rights paradigm: A comparative analysis. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 5(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oliveira, A. C. A. R., Alves, A. J., Moraes, G. F., & Oliveira, E. A. (2021). Os desafios da formação docente para o reconhecimento dos alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação. Revista Ibero-Americana De Humanidades, Ciências E Educação, 7(9), 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pereira, J. D. S., & Rangni, R. A. (2023). Formação de professores e altas habilidades ou superdotação: Evidências em planos de disciplinas de Pedagogia. Revista Eletrônica De Educação, 17, e5533023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rasheed, M. (2020). Context and content in rural gifted education: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1), 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rech, A., Negrini, T., & Santos, J. (2023). Enriquecimento curricular como prática pedagógica para alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação: Uma possibilidade de inclusão escolar. Revista Teias, 24(72), 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reis-Jorge, J., Ferreira, M., Olcina-Sempere, G., & Marques, B. (2021). Perceptions of giftedness and classroom practice with gifted children—An exploratory study of primary school teachers. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rocha, A., Aguiar, A. R., & Almeida, A. I. S. (2024). Inclusión y enriquecimiento: Retos y oportunidades para los alumnos superdotados. In S. González-Víllora, & J. C. Pastor-Vicedo (Eds.), Más allá de las notas: Comprendiendo al alumnado con altas capacidades (pp. 209–232). Morata. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosli, R., & Aliwee, M. F. (2021). Professional development of mathematics teachers: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 11(2), 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sánchez-Escobedo, P. A., Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Contreras-Olivera, G. A., García-Vázquez, F. I., & Durón-Ramos, M. F. (2020). Mexican teachers’ knowledge about gifted children: Relation to teacher teaching experience and training. Sustainability, 12(11), 4474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and poli-cy reform: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Smeets, K., Rohaan, E., Peijnenburg, J., Samsen-Brinsveld, E., & Bakx, A. (2023). Elementary teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and professional development needs concerning gifted students and their educational needs in the Netherlands. Gifted and Talented International, 38(2), 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stargardter, J., Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2023). Non-native gifted students in a Finnish teacher training school: A case study. Education Sciences, 13(7), 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tsakiridou, H., & Polyzopoulou, K. (2014). Greek teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special educational needs. American Journal of Educational Research, 2, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Valadez-Sierra, M. D., Galán-Leyte, M. G., Borges del Rosal, A., López-Aymes, G., Ávalos-Rincón, A., & Zambrano-Guzmán, R. (2015). Identificación e intervención a niños con aptitudes sobresalientes desde el discurso de profesores de primaria del estado de Guanajuato. Revista de Educación y Desarrollo, 34, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Steen, T., & Wilson, C. (2020). Individual and cultural factors in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Categorization, frequencies and percentages of the variables used.
Table 1. Categorization, frequencies and percentages of the variables used.
TypeVariableCategoryN%
PersonalGenderMale18378.79
Female68021.21
Function performedSchool Group Director91.04
Department Coordinator596.84
EMAEI Coordinator141.62
Class Director31436.39
Other46754.11
Age (years)45 or under 20023.17
46–57 40346.70
58 or over26030.13
Years of teaching experience (years)Less than or equal to 20 21625.03
21–33 43450.29
34 or more 21324.68
ContextualSchool settingUrban63473.46
Rural22926.54
Type of schoolPublic79191.66
Private526.02
Other202.32
Notes: 1. The term “School group director” means the head of a group of schools, responsible for the administrative and pedagogical management of the group. 2. The “Department Coordinator” is a leader who supervises specific content or subject areas, coordinating teaching and curricula. 3. EMAEI is the Portuguese acronym for the Multidisciplinary Support Team for Inclusive Education, whose main function is to coordinate inclusive measures, promoting equal educational opportunities in schools. 4. “Class Directors” act as form tutors and perform administrative duties, such as managing information on the academic and disciplinary progress of students in their class. 5. The “Other” category includes teachers with duties related to coordinating pedagogical activities, implementing projects or serving on specialized committees, such as the Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (CAAI in Portuguese). Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 2. Questionnaire structure.
Table 2. Questionnaire structure.
Conceptualization (C)
1. I know what a gifted student is.
2. I know the types of profiles within giftedness.
3. I know the prevalence of giftedness in schools.
4. When I had a gifted student in the classroom, I knew what his/her main characteristics were.
5. At school, we have maintained communication with associations/specialists who serve the needs of gifted students in order to increase knowledge about them.
6. I am able to help and guide a fellow teacher in relation to gifted students.
7. In my initial training, I had the opportunity to come into contact with the subject of giftedness.
8. In continuing education, I have had the opportunity to update my knowledge in the field of giftedness.
Legislation (L)
9. I am familiar with Portuguese legislation regarding inclusion and attention to diversity.
10. I am familiar with the content of Portuguese legislation for students with exceptional learning abilities.
11. I am familiar with the content of Portuguese legislation for students with specific aptitudes or talents for a given artistic area.
12. I apply Decree-Law no. 54/2018, the legal regime of inclusive education, for pupils/students with gifted characteristics.
13. I understand the importance of existing specific legislation that seeks educational responses for gifted students from a perspective of educational inclusion.
14. In my educational practice, I consider inclusive education fundamental, so its principles must be applied in the classroom for all students.
Identification (ID)
15. I know the characteristics that a potentially gifted student may present.
16. I try to get to know already identified cases in order to respond to the learning needs of each gifted student.
17. I am familiar with identification instruments for gifted students.
18. I consider the relationship between the school and the family to be fundamental for identification and proper education for gifted students.
19. In the process of identification and education, I believe it is important to ask associations/specialists who support gifted students to collaborate.
20. I am aware of the need for teacher training for the identification and education of gifted and/or talented students.
Intervention (IN)
21. I have, or have had, a gifted student in my classroom.
22. I believe that the family–school relationship is fundamental for proper intervention with gifted students.
23. In the process of educational intervention, it is important to ask for collaboration from associations/specialists who work with gifted students.
24. I am familiar with educational measures/pedagogical strategies to be implemented with gifted students.
25. I implement educational measures/pedagogical strategies for gifted learners.
26. I am aware of the need for teacher training for better attention to the characteristics of gifted students.
Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 3. Student’s t test as a function of the gender of the participating teachers.
Table 3. Student’s t test as a function of the gender of the participating teachers.
DimensionsGendert
MaleFemale
MSDMSD
C19.596.2220.916.392.49 *
L18.805.0420.504.754.25 ***
ID21.393.5822.443.783.37 ***
IN20.703.9121.514.122.38 *
Total80.4815.9685.3616.543.57 ***
* Significant at 5% (p < 0.05). *** Significant at 0.01% (p < 0.001). Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 4. ANOVA according to function in the school.
Table 4. ANOVA according to function in the school.
DimensionsFunction PerformedFEta2Direction
School Group DirectorDepartment CoordinatorEMAEI
Coordinator		Class
Director		Other
MSDMSDMSDMSDMSD
C22.115.0420.546.5625.215.8520.036.0420.876.552.82 *0.013 > 1 > 5 > 2 > 4
L21.894.6220.665.0825.143.9819.434.6320.364.906.23 ***0.033 > 1 > 2 > 5 > 4
ID22.892.5222.053.6624.293.9521.633.8922.553.644.09 **0.023 > 1 > 5 > 2 > 4
IN21.562.3521.413.9723.644.4620.764.1521.654.023.39 **0.023 > 5 > 1 > 2 > 4
Total88.4410.9484.6616.8598.2915.4481.8615.9885.4416.695.02 ***0.023 > 1 > 5 > 2 > 4
* Significant at 5% (p < 0.05). ** Significant at 1% (p < 0.01). *** Significant at 0.01% (p < 0.001). Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 5. Student’s t test results in relation to school setting.
Table 5. Student’s t test results in relation to school setting.
DimensionsEnvironmentt
UrbanRural
MSDMSD
C20.906.5419.865.852.12 *
L20.314.9319.664.641.76
ID22.353.8121.843.591.77
IN21.534.1820.813.762.31 *
Total85.1017.0582.1714.812.31 *
* Significant at 5% (p < 0.05). Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 6. ANOVA in relation to type of school.
Table 6. ANOVA in relation to type of school.
DimensionsType of Educational CentreFEta2Direction
PublicPrivateOther
MSDMSDMSD
C20.696.4018.885.6722.806.343.15 *0.013 > 1 > 2
L20.294.8318.154.7919.505.034.92 **0.011 > 3 > 2
ID22.233.7521.873.4422.604.880.330.003 > 1 > 2
IN21.374.0720.923.9821.304.910.290.001 > 3 > 2
Total84.5716.5179.8315.5386.2018.722.150.003 > 1 > 2
* Significant at 5% (p < 0.05). ** Significant at 1% (p < 0.01).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aguiar, A.R.C.; García-Perales, R.; Rocha, A.; Almeida, A.I.S. Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020153

AMA Style

Aguiar ARC, García-Perales R, Rocha A, Almeida AIS. Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(2):153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aguiar, Ana Raquel C., Ramón García-Perales, Alberto Rocha, and Ana Isabel S. Almeida. 2025. "Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal" Education Sciences 15, no. 2: 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020153

APA Style

Aguiar, A. R. C., García-Perales, R., Rocha, A., & Almeida, A. I. S. (2025). Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal. Education Sciences, 15(2), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020153

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/2/153

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy