##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Practitioners and researchers in the field of gifted education recognize cognitive and psychosocial variables as determining influences in the successful development of talent. Gifted children seem to manifest both signs of intelligence and strong abilities especially in sectors related to their interests provided that they are identified in time and they are appropriately motivated. The aim of the article is not only to present contemporary inclusive methods or both gifted and talented children’s education in European countries but also to focus on how such students are educated when it comes to the Greek curricula.  This review paper further pinpoints the certain conditions under which Greek educational settings of gifted and talented students can become both feasible and effective. Τherefore, it concludes that gifted pupils of all levels in Greece often attend school classes without their individual abilities having been previously recognized in depth, nor their intrinsic needs having been sufficiently met, either. Additionally, the current school system actually fails to take full advantage of gifted students’ potential, a fact that obviously disrupts their motivation and impedes their school performance.

References

  1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: making sense of global challenges. Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w.
     Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: an evidential synthesis. In AERA Annual Meeting, 9–13 April 2007 (pp. 1–21). Chicago: AERA.
     Google Scholar
  3. Antoniou, A.S., & Xypolita, (2012). Suggestions for dealing with underperformance in gifted students. Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on “Quality in Education: Trends and Prospects,” p. 11–13 May 2012.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bicknell, B. (2009). Multiple perspectives on the education of mathematically gifted and talented students. Massey University, New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington). Retrieved November 29, 2019, from DSpace database http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/890/02whole.pdf?sequence=1.
     Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, L.J., & Cross, T.L. (2001). Being Gifted. WaCo, T.X: Pruficck Press.
     Google Scholar
  6. Press. Diezmann, M. C. (2005). Challenging mathematically gifted primary students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 14 (1), 50–57. Retrieved from QUT Database December 5, 2013 http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5922/1/5922.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
     Google Scholar
  8. Dimitriadis, C. (2012). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A Review of Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (2), 59–76. Doi: 10.1177/0016986211433200. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/56/2/59.full.pdf+html.
     Google Scholar
  9. Duan, X., Shi, J., & Zhou, D. (2010). Developmental changes in processing speed: Influence of accelerated education for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 85–91.
     Google Scholar
  10. Eurydice, (2007). Levels of Autonomy and Responsibilities of Teachers in Europe. The information network on education in Europe, Belgium.
     Google Scholar
  11. Gross M.U.M. (2003). International Perspectives in N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (eds), Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
     Google Scholar
  12. Heward, W. L. (2011). Children with special needs. An introduction to Special Education. A. Davazoglou & K. Kokkinos (eds.), (Ch. Lymperopoulou, trans.). Athens: Topos.
     Google Scholar
  13. Kim M. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Enrichment Programs on Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 60(2), 102–116. doi:10.1177/0016986216630607.
     Google Scholar
  14. Laine, S. Hotulainen, R., & Tirri K. (2019). Finnish elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education. Roeper Review, 41(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019. 1592794
     Google Scholar
  15. Laine S. & Tirri K. (2016). How Finnish elementary school teachers meet the needs of their gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015. 1108185.
     Google Scholar
  16. Mann, L. E. (2006). Creativity: The Essence of Mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30 (2), 236–260. Doi: 10.4219/jeg-2006-264. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from http://www.multiage.ca/free-downloadcreativity-the-essence-of-mathematics-researchgate-teachers-plan/readingfree-download-creativity-the-essence-of-mathematics-researchgate-teachersplan/.
     Google Scholar
  17. Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Washington, DC:US. Government Printing Office.
     Google Scholar
  18. Matsagouras, E. (2005). The education of children with high Learning skills: Suggestions for the Greek educational system. Conference of the Department of Education Sciences of PTEE-University of Athens.
     Google Scholar
  19. Matsagouras, E. (2008). Educating children with High Learning Abilities. Differentiated inclusive education. Athens, Gutenberg.
     Google Scholar
  20. Meletea, E. T. (2004). Humanize technology: interactive multicultural educational network and global curriculum development for gifted talented students. The 9th Conference of the European Council for High Ability: “Educational Technology for Gifted Education: From Information Age to Knowledge Era.” (ECHA, 09–13 September 2004, Pamplona, Navarra (Spain).
     Google Scholar
  21. National Association for Gifted Children (2020). Grouping. Updated.
     Google Scholar
  22. Neihart, M. (2008). Identifying and providing services to twice exceptional children. In S. L. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory research and best practice, (pp. 115–137). New York, N.Y.: Springer.
     Google Scholar
  23. Niederer, K.et al. (2010). Identification of mathematically gifted children in New Zealand. High Ability Studies, 14 (1), 71–84. http://epublishing.ekt.gr.
     Google Scholar
  24. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds). Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 203–234). Prufrock Press
     Google Scholar
  25. Onal, N., & Buyuk, U. (2021). Science education for gifted students opinions of students parents and teachers. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v8no1a15.
     Google Scholar
  26. Papachristou, E. (2020). The necessity of gifted education in Greek Schools. European Journal of Special Education Research, 6(3), 1–7. ISSN 2501-2428. Available at: https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejse/article/view/3376/6012.
     Google Scholar
  27. Pigiaki, P. (1995). Fundamental errors made in the design and introduction of career education into Greek schools. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 3(1), 33–50.
     Google Scholar
  28. Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
     Google Scholar
  29. Reed, F. C. (2004). Mathematically gifted in the heterogeneously grouped mathematics classroom: What is a teacher to do? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XV (3), 89–95.
     Google Scholar
  30. Renzulli, J.S. (2003). Conceptions of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital, in N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (eds), Handbook of Gifted Education, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
     Google Scholar
  31. Rimm, S. B., & Lovance, K. J. (1992). How acceleration may prevent underachievement syndrome. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 9–14.
     Google Scholar
  32. Sekowski, A. E., & Lubianka, B. (2015). Education of Gifted Students in Europe. Gifted Education International, 31(1), 73–90.
     Google Scholar
  33. Sastre-Riba, S., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Santarén-Rosell, M., Urraca-Martínez, M. L. (2015). Evaluation of satisfaction in an extracurricular enrichment program for high-intellectual ability participants. Psicothema, 27, 166–173.
     Google Scholar
  34. Siegle, D. (2019). Seeing is believing using virtual and augmented reality to enhance student learning. Gifted Child Today, 42(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518804854.
     Google Scholar
  35. Skandalaki, E. (2006). Charismatic students: General characteristics and manner of manifestation in the classroom. Ways of supporting students, adapting teaching objectives. Presentation at PEK Piraeus.
     Google Scholar
  36. Smutny, J.F., Walker, S.Y., & Meckstroth, E.A. (1997). Teaching young, gifted children in the regular classroom: identifying, nurturing, and challenging ages 4–9. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing Inc.
     Google Scholar
  37. Starida, M. (1995). Issues of quality in Greek teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 18(1), 115–121. doi: 10.1080/0261976950180109.
     Google Scholar
  38. Sternberg R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness. In T. L. Cross and P.
     Google Scholar
  39. Thomaidou, L. (1999). High intelligence: grace or problem? Bulletin of the Pediatric Clinic of the University of Athens, 46 (12), 56–60.
     Google Scholar
  40. Tirri K., & Toom A. (2020). The moral role of pedagogy as the science and art of teaching. In K. Tirri and A. Toom (Eds,), Pedagogy in basic and higher education- current developments and challenges pedagogy in basic and higher education: Current developments and challenges (pp. 3–13). In tech Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502.
     Google Scholar
  41. Tirri, K. (2021). Giftedness in the Finnish educational culture. Gifted Education International. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211054204.
     Google Scholar
  42. Tomlinson, S. (2012). The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education, 38 (3), 267–286. Doi: 10.1080/03054985.2012.692055.
     Google Scholar
  43. Tsiamis, A. (2006). Charitable children live among us. Athena. Publisher Gregory.
     Google Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd
     Google Scholar
  45. UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and education: all means all. Global education monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
     Google Scholar
  46. Van Tassel-Baska J. (2003). Curriculum and instructional planning and design for gifted learners. Denver, col: love publishing company.
     Google Scholar
  47. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: an analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358.
     Google Scholar
  48. Vlamos, MP, Vlamou, M. & Dimakos, M. G. (2000). Data processing by mathematical talents. Mentor Issue 2, 149–165. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://www.pischools.gr/publications/mentor/.
     Google Scholar
  49. Wills, L. & Munro, J. (2009). Changing the teaching for the underachieving able child: the ruyton school experience. In D. Montgomery (ed), Able, Gifted and Talented Underachievers. Oxford: Wiley/Blackweln.
     Google Scholar