Tanzanian Teachers and Students’ Conceptualizations of Giftedness and Talent

Study Context

This study was conducted in Tanzania, one of the countries in East Africa. Tanzania’s education system is subdivided into pre-primary education (1 year), primary education (6 years), ordinary secondary education (4 years), advanced secondary education (2 years), technical education (3 years), and a minimum of 3 years of higher education (MoEST, 2023). This study was conducted at the secondary education level in Tanzania’s SSS. These are government secondary schools recruiting high-performing students on either the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) or the Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (CSEE) nationwide to nurture their intellectual potential. Such students are referred to in this study as high-achieving because of their high academic performance, which has been the primary criterion for placing them in the SSS for decades (MoEVT, 2014). The secondary criterion has been considering the representation of students from across the country through a quota system believed to enhance national cohesion. However, relying on examination scores as a sole means of selecting the students is concerning because the literature supports multiple and multidimensional identification practices given the fluidity of giftedness and talent (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2012; Worrell & Erwin, 2011).

The introduction of special schools for the gifted and talented in the early 1990s attests to the Tanzanian government’s awareness of the presence of potentially gifted learners and the need to develop their abilities into different academic talents (Liwa, 2001; Mathias, 2010; MoEC, 1991, 1993; Possi, 2003), desiring to have proper means of identifying and nurturing gifted and talented students in the country (MoEC, 1995). However, a lack of comprehensive and robust identification procedures for the students has continued to exist (MoEST, 2021, 2022; MoEVT, 2014). Such a situation can partly be attributed to the existing educational policies regarding providing learning experiences consistent with the high-ability students’ academic potential. Although the existing educational policies have been playing a crucial role in guiding Tanzania’s education practices, their role in promoting gifted education through identifying and addressing the unique needs of gifted and talented students has been minimal.

Evidence suggests that a robust gifted education system can be realized through a comprehensive policy that articulates crucial aspects such as the context-specific conception of giftedness or talent, procedures for identifying gifted and talented learners, and teacher professional development in gifted education (Antoun & Plunkett, 2023; VanTassel-Baska, 2009). However, for several decades, references to gifted education evident in Tanzania’s education policies have been limited to recognizing the presence of high-ability learners and the desire to nurture their intellectual potential. For instance, the ETP of 2014, as reviewed in 2023, stated that “The Government will establish a system to identify and develop students with various talents and abilities at all levels of education” (MoEST, 2023, p. 44), This policy desire responds to the persistent lack of identification procedures that take broader aspects of giftedness and talent.

Lately, however, some progress has been signified by a definition of gifted and talented learners in Tanzania’s 2021/22–2025/26 National Strategy for Inclusive Education (MoEST, 2021). The strategy defines gifted and talented learners as those

who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (MoEST, 2021, p. 17)

Although the strategy is relevant in embracing the development of giftedness and talent, it does not outline all the essential components of a gifted education policy, as stated earlier (VanTassel-Baska, 2009). A possible explanation for the limited inclusion of gifted education components in the existing education policy is that it is not specific to giftedness and talent; instead, it is a holistic framework guiding national education in Tanzania. This policy gap can be bridged by developing a specific gifted education policy or a strategy for improving gifted education in the country.

Arguably, a lack of a comprehensive gifted education policy since the introduction of special secondary schools for high-ability students explains the current state of gifted education in Tanzania. However, the latest developments suggest a bright future for gifted education in the country, provided that research-based evidence informs such efforts. Like the policy issue, the curriculum used in the special schools for gifted and talented students represents yet another gap in providing for the high-ability students in Tanzania. Admittedly, when this research was conducted, a common (standard) curriculum was being implemented in Tanzania’s SSS just like in other secondary schools, contrary to the perceived need to differentiate curriculum and instruction for students being educated in special schools (Kaplan, 2013, 2019, 2022). This practice suggests a potential area of inquiry regarding how teachers optimize the development of students’ potential in the context of a common curriculum implementation.

Notwithstanding the potential for context-specific conceptualizations of giftedness and talent, empirical literature documenting such conceptions from the Tanzanian context before this research was unknown. For adequate education provision for high-ability students in SSSs, grounded in more explicitly, contextually relevant conceptualizations of giftedness and talent, it was deemed essential to find out how the teachers and students conceptualized giftedness and talent in Tanzania. Notably, there was a handful of information on gifted and talented education from the Tanzanian context (Liwa, 2001; Possi, 2003, 2007), especially regarding how teachers and students conceptualize giftedness and talent. Studying giftedness and talent helps educators and other education stakeholders dispel existing negative stereotypical thoughts and myths about giftedness and talent and individuals possessing these attributes in society (Subotnik et al., 2011). In Tanzania, the need for research-based evidence to support educational development for potentially gifted and talented students is vital, leading to this study.

Theoretical Framework

Gagné (2021a) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) guided this study. The DMGT’s major components are giftedness (aptitudes), talents, catalysts, and developmental process (Gagné, 2021b). Within this model, an individual’s giftedness refers to possessing and using outstanding natural abilities in at least one ability domain that places them among the top 10% of age peers (Gagné, 2010, 2021b). The natural abilities manifest in multiple domains, which can either be mental (i.e., intellectual, creative, social, or perceptual) or physical (i.e., muscular or motor control; Gagné, 2021b). These abilities are considered “building blocks” of an individual’s talent development in multiple fields (Gagné, 2021b). It means that, within the DMGT, talents have their genesis in natural abilities, which are slowly transformed into specific competencies through meaningful schooling (Gagné, 2004, 2010, 2015, 2021b). As such, talents are an individual’s outstanding mastery of systematically developed competencies in at least one field of human activity that places an individual at least among the top 10% of learning peers (Gagné, 2010; 2021b), The systematically developed gifts may lead to excellence in particular occupational fields such as academics, technical, science and technology, arts, and games (Gagné, 2010, 2021b).

As a component of DMGT, catalysts incorporate factors that play a crucial role in transforming giftedness into talent (Gagné, 2021b). This role can be facilitative or inhibitive. Two types of catalysts are distinguished: environmental and intrapersonal (Gagné, 2021a, 2021b). Environmental catalysts are factors external to an individual, yet they may influence one’s talent development. This component comprises three distinct subcomponents, which are social, interpersonal, and educational environments (Gagné, 2021b). The social environment encompasses cultural background and socioeconomic status. The interpersonal environment highlights the influence of significant persons on one’s talent development, such as parents, teachers, peers, and mentors. The educational environment represents curricula and pedagogical strategies to support talent development (Gagné, 2004). Of interest to this study is the interpersonal environment subcomponent regarding the influence of teachers on developing students’ potential into talents in terms of their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent.

On the other hand, the intrapersonal catalysts constitute factors within the individual that either facilitate or inhibit the development of one’s gifts into talents. In this study, the intrapersonal catalysts of interest are high-ability students’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent and their impliceations for talent development in terms of the level of dedication and effort to this end. For example, when students conceive giftedness as something naturally given, their approach to developing their talents can be affected if they are misguided. This is so because how the students attach meaning to giftedness and talent can influence actualizing their full potential in terms of their motivation and volition to engage in learning (Gagné, 2010, 2021b).

Another component of the DMGT, the developmental process, is manifested through learning, training, and practice to transform outstanding natural abilities into talents (Gagné, 2004). It entails formal arrangements created for transforming giftedness into talent. It means that for one’s talent to be developed, the individual should gain access to systematically organized learning opportunities and activities based on established criteria and standards (Gagné, 2021b). In this study, the students gain access to SSS through their scores on either PSLE or CSEE to develop their academic talents. Such opportunities and activities include learning experiences offered to the learners within a specific learning environment, such as school, along with its associated pedagogical practices to implement it.

In the Tanzanian context, high-ability students’ receive learning experiences in the form of the common curriculum being implemented in secondary schools, in contrast to what Kaplan (2013) suggested on the relevance of having differentiated learning experiences for high-achieving learners educated in special schools. Thus, in this study, for the students’ high-ability potential to be developed into academic talents in the SSS, together with the catalysts, they need to be subjected to the developmental process through formalized schooling (Gagné, 2010, 2021b). In this context, the developmental process relates to formal education concerning the learning experiences in curriculum and associated instructional practices and other relevant resources needed for developing the students’ academic talents in Tanzania’s SSS.

Based on the descriptions in the preceding paragraphs, the DMGT is suited to this study because it first categorically conceptualizes giftedness and talent, acknowledging their developmental nature. Exploring how the teachers and students conceptualized giftedness and talent was believed to serve as a way of reconsidering the education for these students in the country. Second, the model considers the influence of various factors on the development of students’ talents in multiple domains. This study explored how students conceptualized giftedness and talent, providing an example of an intrapersonal catalyst described in the DMGT. On the other hand, teachers’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent provide an example of an environmental catalyst that can potentially influence the students’ actualization of their potential.

Third, previous studies similar to the current study used the DMGT (Makkonen et al., 2022; Mathias, 2010; Mhlolo & Mhlolo, 2024). For instance, Mhlolo and Mhlolo (2024) investigated how the needs of mathematically gifted children were being met in some selected primary schools in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The study found that teachers were less informed about gifted education, and the education system was not adequately responsive to the gifted students’ needs. Its use in these studies, especially from other contexts, shows the model’s suitability in understanding the various aspects of gifted education related to Tanzania. To extend the available research, using the model in this study has the potential to show how the perspectives of teachers and students from the Tanzanian context reflect its components relevant to this research.

Teachers and students must possess an appropriate understanding of giftedness and talent to develop the students’ gifts into talents effectively. How the Tanzanian teachers and students conceptualize giftedness and talent has been unexplored. Although the DMGT originated in the Western world and is mainly practiced in those contexts, using it in a non-Western context implies the possibility of the theory being used in the study context to guide gifted education provision. The adoption is relevant when gifted education in the study context is emerging, possibly because it lacks a context-specific theoretical basis for its advancement.

Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Giftedness and Talent

Teachers’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent are fundamental for working with high-ability students. The teachers’ conceptualizations of these constructs may either facilitate or impede educational provision to students, as these conceptions impact their instructional practices (Vreys et al., 2018). Like in other countries, Tanzanian teachers’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent are most likely bombarded with the existing, deep-rooted myths, stereotypes, and concerns about the need for differentiated educational experiences consistent with the students’ learning needs. Such myths include the idea that gifted students can achieve and make academic progress independently without special teaching, support, and services (Callahan, 2011; Subotnik et al., 2011). Similarly, concerns about elitism and educational inequality are leveled against the need to provide academically gifted and talented students with educational opportunities beyond the general education curriculum in many countries (Brown & Wishney, 2017; Fu, 2017). When myths and misconceptions about giftedness and talent prevail in society, the learning needs of gifted students may be ignored (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Importantly, when the teachers of high-ability students have misconceptions about giftedness and talent, their decisions to differentiate for these students are likely to be negatively affected (Laine et al., 2016; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Berman et al. (2012) reported that teachers’ preconceived ideas about gifted and talented students strongly influence their willingness to differentiate instruction for these students.

When teachers understand giftedness and talent appropriately, they can engage better in relevant instructional practices to develop the students’ academic talents (Laine et al., 2016; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Vreys et al., 2018). Teachers’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent can influence their ability to work with high-ability students (Dixon et al., 2014). This has led to a large body of empirical research to establish how teachers conceptualize giftedness and talent elsewhere (Jaffri, 2012; Laine et al., 2016; Leavitt & Geake, 2009; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007). Results from this research indicate a diversity of conceptions about giftedness, talent, and individuals possessing these attributes and their education. For instance, Laine et al. (2016) investigated Finnish primary and secondary school teachers’ conceptions of giftedness in their qualitative study. They found a diversified view of teachers about giftedness, indicating that cognitive, innovative, and motivational factors are important in differentiating the gifted from others. In addition, the study found that, in Finland, some teachers perceived giftedness as a developmental and malleable quality. It was also found that Finnish teachers had divergent views of giftedness due to a lack of training on the subject and strong egalitarian beliefs about educational provisions for high-ability students. The teachers were concerned about equity for all students. As a result, some were unsupportive of the gifted and their education.

In a mixed-methods study in Malaysia, similar findings were reported by Jaffri (2012), whereby in-service and preservice teachers held the view that giftedness and talent are non-unitary concepts and can pertain to different domains, creativity, and general intellectual abilities. In this study, a dearth of information regarding gifted education leads to teachers’ lack of scientific understanding and knowledge to support gifted students in Malaysia. Speirs Neumeister et al. (2007) explored primary teachers’ understanding and teaching of gifted minority students in the United States. This study indicated that teachers’ view of giftedness was relatively narrow, and they more often identified giftedness by performance and ignored underachieving students due to cultural and background disadvantages. To address such concerns, Leavitt and Geake (2009) highlighted that teachers’ conceptions of giftedness can be broadened by attending appropriate training programs. In this way, teachers can conduct more multidimensional identification and provision. However, no empirical research from Tanzania reports on how teachers and high-ability students’ conceptualize giftedness and talent in SSSs.

In their mixed-methods study, Antoun et al. (2020) investigated primary school teachers’ understandings of giftedness from a Lebanese perspective concerning how they perceived highly able or gifted students in Lebanon. The findings showed that the teachers generally had positive perceptions of the students while acknowledging that they had insufficient knowledge of giftedness and the practices of gifted education, which largely are Western-oriented. The findings offered insights into the need for instituting gifted education courses in teacher education programs to acquaint teachers with appropriate knowledge of gifted education, including identifying students with gifted potential in the Lebanese context.

Students’ Conceptualizations of Giftedness and Talent

Research on high-ability students’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent seems sparse. Their voices are underrepresented in the field. This lack of students’ own voices undermines our understanding of how their potential could be advanced in different domains. Perhaps this study seeks to contribute to this gap in knowledge by showing how the students conceive the constructs in the Tanzanian context. Knowledge of how the students conceptualize giftedness and talent plays a vital role in working with the students to develop their talents. Although it appeared difficult to find empirical literature focusing on how students view giftedness and talent generally, some literature relating to their perceptions of giftedness could be found. Siegle et al. (2017) contended that academically high-achieving students’ perceptions of their intellectual ability may influence their academic success. Kaplan et al. (2019) regarded such perceptions as “self-perceptions and self-definitions” (p. 61).

Coleman et al. (2015), who synthesized the literature on the lived experiences of gifted students published over the previous 25 years, found that this cohort of learners had varied experiences as implicated in their kind of schooling, labeling, and how they identify themselves. It was indicated that the learning needs of gifted learners should be addressed by considering the social contexts of their learning and interaction with peers, teachers, and other members of the school community. In one study with elementary school pupils, Gallagher (2015) found that highly able learners exhibited less intellectual capacity than they possessed because they tried to fit in with their average-ability peers to avoid social rejection. Schmitt and Goebel (2015) reported similar findings in their case study research with high-ability students in a high school context in Indiana. The study explored the educational experiences of three high-ability students. Schmitt and Goebel (2015) found, among others, that the students perceived themselves as different from their peers due to their advanced learning skills, tended to fit in with their average peers, and preferred working with like-minded peers. Coleman et al. (2015) stated that “this denial of ability could be due to the student’s implicit definition of giftedness wherein giftedness equates to effortless learning, and not that giftedness is an outcome of hard work, dedication, practice, motivation, and persistence” (p. 361). This may negatively impact students’ academic talent development in Tanzania’s SSS; thus, understanding how they conceptualized giftedness and talent in those settings might help plan intervention strategies for these students.

In their quantitative study, Kuusisto et al. (2017) investigated whether students perceived intelligence and giftedness as developing or inherent and how their perspectives on talent development relate to their learning outcomes. The results showed that students perceived the nature of intelligence as more malleable than giftedness. Additionally, unlike the findings of previous studies, Kuusisto et al. found mixed results on the relationship between implicit beliefs about giftedness and students’ academic achievements, whereby both growth-oriented and fixed-oriented views of gifted had some influence on high academic achievement among students.

In a quantitative study, Dixon et al. (2016) investigated the structural representation of the self-perceived multiple intelligences concerning their culture and school experiences in primary school children in Dar es Salaam. The findings indicated that children’s perceptions of their multiple intelligences were strongly related to their cultural and school experiences. Given the examinations-oriented nature of the Tanzanian school system (MoEVT, 2014), Dixon et al. (2016) observed that teachers hardly addressed the educational needs of potentially gifted children in schools, as their pedagogical practices were entirely teacher-centric. The dominance of such instructional practices might impinge the development of a full range of learners’ potential. In the context where comprehensive official definitions of giftedness and talent were nonexistent, similar to the Finnish education context (Laine & Tirri, 2021), understanding how Tanzanian teachers and students conceptualized these constructs seemed crucial. This is because, for the teachers, such an understanding foregrounds effective instructional differentiation to address the learning needs of the students to develop their academic talents. For the students, it espouses how they commit to the learning process to actualize their full potential as described within the DMGT (Gagné, 2021a, 2021b). Notably, a concurrent exploration of teachers and students’ conceptualizations was meant to provide more substantial empirical evidence regarding how they understand the constructs within the context of SSS to enhance the provision of gifted services to high-ability students in Tanzania. Such an understanding can contribute to broader conceptions of the two constructs within Tanzania’s education system and practice. Ideally, in a context where gifted education is less developed, embracing the voices of teachers and students regarding their conceptualizations of the constructs helps ensure inclusivity in efforts to improve gifted education in the country.

Based on the preceding review of the related literature on teachers and students’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent, it can be reiterated that their informed understanding of giftedness and talent is important for meaningful teaching and learning. However, the study of giftedness and talent is rarely reflected in empirical literature under review based on the Tanzanian context. This silence implies that research regarding how teachers and students conceptualize giftedness and talent was needed to offer empirical evidence to provide relevant educational experiences to the students in the schools. Thus, the study addressed the following research question: How do teachers and students conceptualize giftedness and talent in Tanzania’s SSS?

Methods

Participants

Teachers

The study involved 30 teachers as part of its sample. Purposive and convenience sampling strategies were used to sample them from the four study schools. The four schools seemed adequate in obtaining data to answer the research question effectively. Of these teachers, four were also heads of school. The DMGT acknowledges teachers’ role in supporting students’ talent development as an aspect of environmental catalysts (Gagné, 2021a). Given their practical experience working with the students, the teachers were recruited for this study. Such experience positioned them as individuals who provided insightful information on their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent in those schools. Their teaching experience was considered a prime factor for their selection, determined by their availability and willingness to participate in the study. The heads of school appointed a resident teacher to assist the researcher in selecting and accessing the teachers for the study based on their teaching experience of at least 5 years. However, due to teacher availability and willingness to participate in the FGDs, some teachers involved in the study had fewer than 5 years of experience.

Similarly, based on their positions, the heads of school provided information that complemented those of other teachers regarding their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent in their respective schools. In Tanzania, although heads of school have prescribed administrative roles, such prescriptions do not disqualify them from teaching the students in their schools. They are also eligible to teach when the number of teachers in most schools is inadequate. To achieve this study’s objective, including the heads of school in the study sample was inexcitably more relevant than their exclusion. Table 1 presents demographic information for participating teachers. The school heads are referred to in this study as the Head of School One (HoSC1) to HoSCI4, and the participating teachers are referred to as Teacher One (T1) to T8, depending on the number of teachers involved in a specific focus group discussion (FGD).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Participants.

Category 1: Teachers	Schools				Total
	SC1	SC2	SC3	SC4
	N	N	N	N	N	%
Sex
Female	2	4	–	3	9	30.0
Male	7	4	7	3	21	70.0
Education qualifications
Bachelor	8	7	6	5	26	86.7
Masters	1	1	1	1	4	13.3
Age (Years)
25–30	1	2	2	1	6	20.0
31–35	3	1	–	2	6	20.0
36–40	–	3	2	2	7	23.3
41–45	1	1	2	1	5	16.7
46–50	1	2	1	–	4	13.3
More than 50	2	–	–	–	2	6.7
Teaching experience (Years)
Less than 5	1	3	2	1	7	23.3
5–9	3	1	3	2	9	30.0
10–14	2	2	1	2	7	23.3
More than 15	2	3	1	1	7	23.3

Category 2: Students	Schools				Total
	SC1	SC2	SC3	SC4
	N	N	N	N/A	N	%
Sex
Boys	22	–	23		45	61.6
Girls	–	16	–	12	28	38.4
Educational level
Ordinary level	10	6	12	–	28	38.4
Advanced level	12	10	11	12	45	61.6
Total					103	100

Students

In this study, seeking students’ perspectives was relevant for a comprehensive understanding of how giftedness and talent were conceptualized in Tanzania’s SSS. Acknowledged as an aspect of environmental catalysts within the DMGT (Gagné, 2021a, 2021b), involving the students in this study contributes to a fuller understanding of talent development in the study context. Purposive and convenience sampling strategies were used to select 73 students who participated in the study (Bryman, 2012; Cohen et al., 2018). In particular, students with extended stays in the schools were preferred because they were considered vital in their conceptualizations of named constructs. The students were initially grouped into educational levels: A-Level (lasting for 2 years) and O-Level (lasting for 4 years). Several reasons made the stratification necessary. It facilitated the conduct of FGDs by ensuring students’ homogeneity in terms of their level of education to ensure the free sharing of their perspectives. It also ensured a better and broader understanding of the participants’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talents within the SSSs. Such an understanding was possible because the students from the two strata meant capturing diverse perspectives to enrich the study findings. Notably, the stratification was not meant to achieve a statistical representation of the views regarding their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent in the SSSs. Then, the students were conveniently selected based on these two strata with the help of resident teachers. The students were coded based on the established strata to maintain the anonymity of their perspectives such as Student One, School One, O-Level class (ST1, SC1–O) and Student 12, School One, A-Level class (ST12, SC1–A). Table 1 presents the demographic information for the 73 students.

Data Analysis

In this study, reflexive thematic analysis procedures organized around six stages, namely, data familiarization, data coding, generating initial themes, reviewing themes, naming themes, and writing the report, aided the analysis of the reported findings (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Terry et al., 2017). The data analysis to develop the themes was framed within the DMGT’s components relevant to this study, such as the various domains of giftedness and talent fields, along with their perceived genesis. For example, thematic maps highlighting the different aspects of data worth the theme in question were developed in refining and naming the themes. An example of this is given in Figures 1 and 2 on the themes “inborn ability versus learned ability” and “inherently diversity-embracing labels.” Like the other themes in the findings section, these illustrative themes attest to the critical components within the DMGT, suggesting its alignment with the reflexive thematic analysis adopted in this study. However, when using reflexive thematic analysis, the analysis does not follow a linear pattern covering the typical stages. Instead, it is usually done recursively until the data adequately produce the desired meaning to answer the research question(s). After data gathering, the audio data were repeated to achieve data familiarization. Data familiarization was also attained through transcribing and re-reading the transcripts. In transcribing the data, their accuracy was ensured by cross-checking it against the original audio data.OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Thematic map on the theme “inborn ability versus learned ability.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Thematic map on the theme inherently diversity-embracing label.

The analysis focused on the entire quote(s) given by the participant(s) to derive both surface and latent meanings as a basis for later theme development (Braun & Clarke, 2021a; Clarke & Braun, 2017). Such participants’ quotes were used as units of analysis to inform coding to achieve a surface and deeper understanding of the data and develop the themes. After data coding, initial themes were generated by establishing shared meaning among the codes. Consequently, after deeply reflecting on the initial themes against the data set, these themes were reviewed and renamed accordingly. Then, in reporting the findings, relevant participants’ quotations were used to support the interpretation of the data in response to the research question(s) addressed in this study. It is worth noting that the Swahili audio data were first translated into English transcripts by the author, who is bilingual in the two languages, consistent with what Chen and Boore (2010) suggested for effective translation. Then, I sent the Swahili and English transcripts to an expert translator at the University of Dar es Salaam to validate the translations. This way, the authenticity of the findings was enhanced.

Results

The study explored how the teachers and students conceptualized giftedness and talent in Tanzania’s SSS. The aim was to determine how the teachers and students conceptualized the two constructs and whether or not their conceptualizations reflected the existing theories, models, and empirical evidence. Data analysis led to the development of five themes: inborn ability versus learned ability, high ability in multiple fields versus high ability in a specific field, high ability in academic school subjects assessed through examinations versus high ability in performance-based learning experiences, characteristics of gifted and talented learners, and inherently diversity-embracing labels.

Discussion

This section discusses the findings from the study, which explored how Tanzanian teachers and students conceptualized giftedness and talent within the specific educational contexts of special schools. It was generally revealed that the teachers and students had overlapping conceptualizations of giftedness and talent. Their conceptualizations appeared to represent a confluence of traditional and developmental views of the constructs (Klimecká, 2022; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011), supporting the existing theories and research evidence conducted elsewhere. Some of those conceptualizations appear to reflect the Western and Eastern conceptions of the constructs, suggesting the potential to embrace some ideas from those contexts in advancing gifted education in Tanzania.

Regarding the theme of inborn ability versus learned ability, to a large extent, the findings revealed participants’ conceptualizations of giftedness as an inborn capacity that makes an individual demonstrate unique accomplishments. In contrast, talent was perceived as something that can be developed in the individual after birth. There was a general view that talent develops due to one’s grit and supportive environmental structures, entailing enormous investment in effort and appropriate resources. This conceptualization highlights the innateness of giftedness as intricately discussed in the DMGT, supporting the idea that giftedness is a natural quality on which one’s talent can be developed, provided that support structures are in place for it to grow (Gagné, 2004, 2005, 2021b). As such, the participants’ conceptualizations align well with the idea that giftedness serves as raw material for the students’ academic talent development (Gagné, 2004, 2005, 2010, 2021b). The findings support previous studies conducted elsewhere (Russell, 2018). In this case, the teachers need to have the appropriate knowledge to recognize such students’ potential and support their development through proper instruction to achieve excellence in different academic fields.

On one hand, participants’ conceptualizations of giftedness seem to reflect their traditional view of the construct, especially when some of them equated giftedness with students’ high IQs. To these participants, it may be argued that their understanding of giftedness was primarily related to the idea of a fixed mindset instead of a growth mindset, indicating their perceptions that giftedness is static and can hardly be changed. With such perceptions, myths about the development of individuals’ giftedness may be perpetuated among teachers and students, as environmental factors might be considered to have no bearing on one’s giftedness. On the other hand, the participating teachers and students’ conceptualizations of talent revealed their developmental view of it—that talent can be changed and developed over time due to interaction with their environment. The latter view supports the DMGT proposition regarding the malleability of giftedness and talent when subjected to an appropriate developmental process catalyzed by different factors (Gagné, 2004, 2005, 2021b). The conceptualizations are also in harmony with what is theorized by Olszewski-Kubilius et al. (2015) and Subotnik et al. (2011, 2021)—that talent development takes different trajectories and is modulated by a host of potential factors.

Accordingly, the DMDT on which this study was anchored strongly recognizes the role environmental factors have on transforming individuals’ high-ability potential into respective talents and academic talents in the context of this study. One such factor is the influence of teachers, which could be positive or negative. This relates, in part, to how teachers perceive giftedness and talent, the characteristics of their students, and their perceived educational needs. Their perceptions, in turn, may define how the teachers respond to those needs regarding their instruction to develop the students’ academic talents. When teachers strongly endorse entity or fixed views of giftedness and talent of their students instead of endorsing incremental or developmental views, the implications are that they may find it less efficacious in changing the students’ perceived abilities in terms of instruction. Such teachers might be influenced by the belief that what the students possess is sufficient for them to take a leading course for their learning to achieve excellence in different domains. Previous studies have stressed the importance of teacher efficacy in working with gifted and talented students (Dixon et al., 2014; Porta et al., 2022). Assuming that the students are exceptional and could do much of the learning assignments even without dedicated teacher instruction and guidance seemed to compromise academic talent development among students. Teachers’ limited knowledge of giftedness and talent appears to account for teachers’ seemingly inappropriate practices consistent with previous studies conducted elsewhere (Antoun et al., 2020; Antoun et al., 2022; Bangel et al., 2010; Dixon et al., 2014; Pablico, 2017; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008; Vreys et al., 2018; Yuen et al., 2018). It implies that teachers should have an appropriate understanding of giftedness and talent to foster the development of students’ abilities in different areas.

Regarding students’ conceptualizations, like teachers, some conceived giftedness and sometimes talent as something occurring beyond human control; it comes from God. With this understanding, such participants may hold entity beliefs about giftedness, implying that their potential to attribute their success to good luck may be heightened. This view may be misleading when linked to students’ school success because it may result in students’ diminished effort and motivation in their studies (e.g., believing that their success is guaranteed, whatever the circumstances). Theoretically, the fact is that deliberate effort from within individuals and the external environment in which they live is crucial to transforming one’s giftedness into talents (Gagné, 2015, 2021b; Subotnik et al., 2021). Thus, teachers and other persons working with gifted and talented students holding the belief that high-ability students require no effort for their success is damaging because it tends to overlook the role of their initiatives and commitment in realizing excellent performance (Subotnik et al., 2011, 2021). Consistent with Gagné’s (2021a, 2021b) central ideas, these conceptions differ slightly from the Eastern thinking of giftedness, such as the Confucian-heritage cultures, where individual hardwork is capitalized for developing one’s bestowed or inborn high ability into specific talents (Zhang, 2017). The findings align with previous studies conducted elsewhere (e.g., Siegle et al., 2017).

Practically, however, it may not be right to argue that one may be successful given their effort and practice in the absence of potential abilities (Subotnik et al., 2021; Worrell et al., 2019). That is why Gagné (2004, 2015, 2021a, 2021b) has consistently argued that academic talent development begins with the ability potential of an individual; it has its genesis in a person’s giftedness. Instead, it is made to underline the idea that, in some instances, gifted and talented learners may withhold their explicit effort and commitment to tasks due to the perceptions individuals around them hold about their high academic abilities (Karlen et al., 2019; Zschaler, 2019). Consequently, this may endanger the development of their academic talents; therefore, a growth mindset must be promoted in the students. Among all those working with the students, the teachers are foremost given their vital role in ensuring students’ academic talent development. Previous studies have also demonstrated that students with fixed mindset beliefs are more likely to avoid challenging tasks for fear of failure, which distorts their gifted and talented identities (Coleman et al., 2015; Gallagher, 2015; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). On the contrary, those holding incremental views are believed to appreciate the role of effort in their learning, for success breeds success (Gagné, 2004). However, as previous studies indicated (Siegle et al., 2017; Siegle et al., 2010), it is not always the case that students with fixed mindsets never appreciate the role of effort in their success.

The students’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent indicate that, in addition to being able to do things with seemingly much ease, especially when it comes to learning in class, the key to these constructs is individuals’ uniqueness and high quality of doing things. This understanding aligns well with the demonstrability and excellence criteria for giftedness (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995). According to Sternberg and Zhang (1995), the demonstrability criterion points to the view that one must show evidence of superior ability or achievement in one or more dimensions that determine giftedness based on some valid assessments and be able to solve problems through compelling alternative ways. However, this view attests to the traditional conceptions of giftedness linked to the high IQ characteristic of an individual. Relatedly, the excellence criterion identifies individuals as gifted when they are superior in some dimension or set of dimensions relative to peers (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995). The students’ voices also show that exceptionally doing things to benefit others is an essential quality of gifted and talented persons, supporting findings of previous studies (Chowkase, 2022; Klimecká, 2022; Maker, 2021; Sternberg, 2020; Sternberg et al., 2021) and the existing theoretical literature (Renzulli, 2005, 2012). This conceptualization is particularly relevant given the current emphasis on developing pro-social attributes in highly able students, one being concern for others in one’s society (Maker, 2021; Sternberg, 2020). Such conceptualization implies that the students in Tanzania SSS know their unique abilities and are willing to serve their immediate society. However, they seem concerned about whether the school system aligns with this desire, suggesting the inadequacy of the learning they receive in developing their academic talents.

Concerning the theme of high ability in multiple fields versus high ability in specific fields, the participants’ conceptualizations of giftedness as denoting an individual’s high ability in multiple fields or areas can be looked at in two dimensions. First, when it comes to school subjects, the participants viewed giftedness in light of one’s ability to excel in all the academic subjects related to the mental domain (Gagné, 2010, 2021b). Second, it was perceived in terms of one’s excellence in academic school subjects and beyond these subjects to include the areas of sports and arts as they relate to the physical domain (Gagné, 2010, 2021b). Akin to the described dimensions, on the other hand, the teachers and students’ conceptualizations that talent involves one’s excellence in a particular field emphasized their high ability in one school subject. In contrast, excellence in either the mental or physical domain accounted for the latter dimension.

Like in other developmental models (e.g., Renzulli, 2005; Subotnik et al., 2021), in the DMGT, giftedness is viewed as being domain-specific because it presents with it different fields or domains in which one’s giftedness can be manifested and developed (Gagné, 2005, 2010, 2021b). One such domain is the academic domain, which reflects the different school subjects in the Tanzanian context, the basis on which the students are selected to join their schooling in the SSS. Ideally, by joining these schools, the students are expected to receive challenging learning experiences to develop relevant academic talents. It is stated that the development of giftedness among individuals is not uniform; rather, it takes varying developmental trajectories across different domains realizable through different talents, one of them being academic talent (Subotnik et al., 2021). To better address the students’ learning needs in line with these possible domains, teachers’ awareness of student diversity in terms of their needs and interests is vital. Such understanding may help provide appropriate differentiated learning experiences to the students; hence, the different talents can be actualized.

Furthermore, the domain-specific nature of giftedness is ascribed to its inherently uneven profiling characteristic, as in the case of twice-exceptional students (Reis et al., 2014). As reflected in the findings, students may be gifted in some particular fields, like the arts or sports, without necessarily performing exceptionally in academic school subjects and vice-versa. Teachers need to acknowledge and embrace the domain-specific nature of giftedness when planning and implementing instruction for high-ability students. This is particularly relevant to Tanzania SSS, where students may have diverse learning needs reflecting the possible domains to demonstrate and channel their career paths.

In another theme, high ability in academic school subjects assessed through examinations versus high ability assessed through other means, from the findings, it was observed that some participants perceived giftedness as relating more closely to an individual’s high ability in academic school subjects assessed through written exams, but related talent to high ability in performance-based learning experiences. It entails one’s excellence in the academic and arts domains, respectively. The teachers and students’ conceptions that giftedness is an individual’s high ability in academic subjects rightly reflect what Renzulli (2012) termed as schoolhouse giftedness as opposed to creative-productive giftedness, which, based on the current findings, the majority of the teachers and students conceptualized talent as such. The participants’ conceptualizations that giftedness is more aligned with schoolhouse giftedness attest to previous studies (e.g., Antoun et al., 2020, 2022). For instance, in their study with Lebanese teachers, Antoun et al. (2020) demonstrated teachers’ conceptualizations of giftedness regarding learners’ high academic ability, attributing the perception to the country and society’s valuation of academic excellence as one of the indicators of giftedness. Scholars have argued that the benefits of schoolhouse giftedness are more individualistic, a perception that seems to explain why it is not worthwhile injecting considerable resources into the education of gifted and talented learners in some countries (Chowkase, 2022; Sternberg, 2020; Sternberg et al., 2021). This could partly be why there has been a hesitancy in having special educational provisions for high-ability learners across the school system in Tanzania through comprehensive policy articulation and continuity (Mathias, 2010; MoEST, 2021; MoEVT, 2014; Possi, 2003).

However, based on the present findings, students portrayed a strong sense of wanting to impact their society and fulfill their aspirations. They seemed aware of both personal benefits and societal contributions from their schooling. These desires can be achieved if the teachers and the school system acknowledge the diverse students’ interests and needs with well-designed means to address them. One such potential means relates to the case of how teachers conceptualize giftedness. When the teachers and school system strongly uphold a narrow view of giftedness towards the schoolhouse perspective, cultivating students’ abilities in other domains may be hampered. It is high time for the Tanzania education system to embrace the view that giftedness is multidimensional and can manifest in different fields to broaden students’ areas of interest rather than being confined to the academic aspects of their learning experiences. This suggestion, however, does not mean that the current efforts to promote academic excellence among students should be abandoned. Instead, it is worthwhile exerting similar efforts in other areas of students’ learning to enhance their learning experiences more fully in the country.

The theme of characteristics of gifted and talented individuals was also pertinent to the study’s findings. The theoretical and empirical literature has presented defining characteristics of gifted and talented students. In conceptualizing giftedness and talent, the participants tended to provide some of these defining characteristics along the intellectual (cognitive)–social-emotional (noncognitive) continuum. Yet others largely perceived such individuals as the same thing, hence their conflated conceptualization of giftedness and talent. To these participants, giftedness and talent can be used interchangeably, given that, whether gifted or talented, the individuals seem to have performed outstandingly on several things. Although the participants’ conflated conceptualizations of giftedness and talent are unsurprising, given that consensus has not been reached within the gifted and talented education field, they also suggest their potential misconceptions.

Importantly, in examining the participants’ conceptualizations, both positive and negative characteristics of gifted and talented individuals could be deduced, although the former was more prevalent. Towards a more cognitive extreme, the participants described the students as having high intellectual ability, enabling them to grasp academic concepts quickly in their everyday schooling. The findings showed participants described gifted and talented students as committed to learning tasks with high motivation to accomplish them. Teachers particularly mentioned curiosity as one of the attributes of gifted and talented students, given their inquiring minds during the teaching and learning processes. It was also revealed that gifted and talented students prefer learning by engaging in learning activities. Comparable results were found in previous studies conducted elsewhere (Akgül, 2021; Firat & Bildiren, 2022).

On the other hand, in terms of social and emotional aspects, some participants ascribed to problem behaviors of the students, like social isolation tendencies of gifted and talented students in the SSS. Literature has presented mixed results regarding the social aspects of gifted and talented students. Some indicate the students as socially maladjusted, supporting the disharmony hypothesis that high intellectual ability is inherently costly in terms of the individual students’ negative social and emotional characteristics (Baudson & Preckel, 2013, 2016; Matheis et al., 2017). For instance, in their study with German teachers, Baudson and Preckel (2016) revealed that teachers negatively perceived gifted students regarding their social competencies. However, the perceived problem behavior of the students in this study may indicate the mismatch between the students’ learning needs and the ability of the learning contexts of the schools to meet those needs (Baudson & Preckel, 2016). When teachers have misconceptions about the characteristics of gifted and talented learners, serious repercussions are likely to be translated into their classroom practices, more often failing to meet the learners’ needs. In the findings of this study, teachers seemed to hold similar misperceptions regarding their students, perhaps because of being less knowledgeable on the students and what matters to them in terms of their schooling to develop their academic talents.

Inherently diversity-embracing labels constituted another theme that reflected the participants’ conceptualizations of giftedness and talent within the Tanzanian special school contexts. The two aspects that stood out quite strongly were related to the twice-exceptionality and social backgrounds of the students enrolled in the SSS. Regarding the first aspect, like giftedness and talent, twice-exceptionality has been a rare concept in Tanzania’s educational research comparable to other educational contexts and research. Students who are gifted and talented with one or more disabilities are at risk of marginalization when it comes to developing their academic talents in terms of meeting their learning needs (Reis et al., 2014; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019). The reason is that twice-exceptional learners’ strengths are likely to be overlooked at the expense of their disabilities (Reis et al., 2014).

Paradoxically, twice-exceptional learners are unique and perhaps challenging to identify and provide for them because “their gifts may mask their disabilities and their disabilities may mask their gifts” (Reis et al., 2014, p. 222). Due to the masking effect, the common practice has been to overlook the dual needs of the students along the exceptionality continuum by treating them as average learners (McCoach et al., 2001; Reis et al., 2014). The masking makes it challenging to identify twice-exceptional students in schools, and when identified, they are prone to academic underachievement (Mofield & Parker Peters, 2019; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019; Wiley, 2020). This prevents the students from developing their academic talents. Within the DMGT, it is well-postulated that potentially gifted students may fail to attain competencies as their academic talents in the various academic subjects in the schools when their schooling is negatively affected by multiple factors. It is even more challenging for a country like Tanzania, where giftedness, talent, and, more importantly, twice-exceptionality are concepts yet to receive research attention and specific policy commitments. This situation perhaps explains why twice-exceptional learners were less represented for educational opportunities in the SSSs. The problem is overly similar to the contexts of the current study as participants’ voices regarding the students were relatively minimal, with few of them perceiving giftedness and talent in light of the twice-exceptionality sense.

As found in a study by Firat and Bildiren (2022), the current findings suggest that most teachers were entrenched with the perception that deficit and giftedness are naturally incompatible entities; as such, they cannot coexist in an individual. This kind of perception might have led to the participants’ inherent exclusion of individuals with disabilities from their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent despite the high-ability potential these individuals might have. However, in some of the interviews and FGDs conducted, the teachers and students expressed that all individuals may be gifted and talented, given that they are provided with appropriate support to demonstrate and exercise their potential. However, this view reflects the popular myth that “everyone is gifted.” The dangers of endorsing such a conception may include negligence in identifying and supporting the students’ high-ability potential through relevant provisions, as embraced in the DMGT. Nonetheless, the conceptualization seems inclusive enough to attract individuals who may have specific disabilities in combination with high ability potential. The view that twice-exceptional students may actualize their potential in the face of supportive structures coheres with the components of DMGT regarding the different factors to the development of individuals’ talents in other potential domains (Gagné, 2010, 2021b). Potentially gifted students may not necessarily actualize their academic talents because of some intervening factors in their learning.

Based on the findings of this study, it may sound more dissenting to argue that the number of twice-exceptional students in Tanzania SSS does represent the clear picture of the entire population of students who are potentially gifted and talented in combination with a disability. In addition to the selection criteria being used, an overly competitive, examinations-oriented education system can be one reason for this seeming underrepresentation of the students in the study schools. There is some evidence that the need to attend to the learning needs of twice-exceptional students is likely to be less prioritized when the education system strongly emphasizes the high academic achievement of its learners (Antoun et al., 2022). The evidence reflects the current practice with the high-ability students within the Tanzania SSSs. Such a practice may make students who are potentially gifted but tend to underachieve due to environmental deterrents and the conflicting nature of the disability and giftedness suffer from adverse environmental conditions in their schooling. Arguably, when the needs of gifted and talented students, including those of twice-exceptional learners, are redefined and well-articulated by policymakers and teachers, the education for the students can be made friendlier to reflect on and address their unique gifts and talents.

Regarding student diversity in terms of social backgrounds, there was evidence that some students come from low-income families. The use of a quota system and student examination performance to select the students justifies their presence in the schools. It supports the DMGT that gifted and talented students are inherently diverse and can be found in any society. It evidences that the gifted and talented are a heterogeneous group of learners presenting with their diverse needs, interests, learning profiles, characteristics, and social backgrounds (Reis & Renzulli, 2009) consistent with what is described in the DMGT (Gagné, 2010, 2015, 2021b). Although the current selection procedure of the students to join the SSSs appears to fall short of capturing a diverse population of high-ability students in terms of their manifest and latent academic abilities, its focus is on strengthening educational equity and national cohesion as students who access education in the SSS come from across the country regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds. This consideration is essential, especially when education for high-achieving learners has yet to reach maturity, as it is not considered across all educational levels. As can be anticipated, as gifted and talented education should take its entire course in the future in Tanzania, laying solid foundations based on equity in its provision is essential. The reason is that the underrepresentation of learners in gifted and talented education due to factors like social background and ethnicity has been a concern in some countries with firm foundations of gifted education (Crawford et al., 2020; Ford, 2014; Lamb et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2019).

Generally, a definite pattern emerged between teachers and students and across the study schools regarding how they conceptualized giftedness and talent. This finding is interesting because one could expect clear-cut differences in conceptualizations. Their professional teacher training would have shaped the former’s conceptualizations, whereas the latter did not yet have such professional training. The commonalities in conceptualizing giftedness and talent between teachers and students explain the potential role of implicit conceptualizations in influencing individuals’ understanding of different aspects of life (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995). It also suggests a lack of emphasis on giftedness and talent in teacher education programs to broaden teachers’ understanding of the topic, which would demonstrate marked differences between teachers and students’ conceptualizations in the schools.

Conclusions and Implications

The findings of this study have shown that teachers and students in Tanzania’s SSS had similar conceptualizations of giftedness and talent but with inherent misconceptions. Their conceptualizations indicate their narrow understandings of these two constructs reflected in their traditional view of high-ability potential in the context where heavy reliance on examinations and high grades is embraced. These conceptualizations suggest the potentially negative impact on the students’ academic talent development in Tanzania’s SSS, especially in those areas of talent related to domains other than academic excellence. The practice suggests employing various assessment procedures to identify a wide range of students’ potential and areas of talent rather than relying heavily on examinations. Such identification procedures with the quota system considered in placing the students in the schools can promote inclusive practices to obtain high-ability students with multiple potentials and not limited to academic talent.

Various educational implications can be singled out based on the study’s findings. Because the study revealed some misconceptions about giftedness and talent among the study participants, this points to the teachers’ limited exposure to gifted and talented education during their initial teacher training. Thus, it is worthwhile to include the study of giftedness and talent in initial teacher education programs to prepare future teachers. Equally, professional learning programs should be designed and implemented with the in-service teachers in Tanzania’s SSS to enhance their understanding of giftedness and talent for better identification and support the students in actualizing their academic talent through relevant instruction. Such training will challenge an understanding of their students and how to approach them during instructional practices.

The students’ limited understanding of giftedness and talent is unsurprising because they did not undergo professional training like the teachers. The exciting finding is that their conceptualizations of the two constructs paralleled those of teachers both in terms of their ideal understanding and potential misconceptions. Perhaps the students’ desire for more learning contributed to their prior learning experiences beyond the regular curricula. The educational implications include teachers acknowledging the students’ prior knowledge when working with them. The study suggests the need to promote growth mindsets among the teachers and students in the schools for successful academic talent development among the students. The promotion could involve school-based training on giftedness and talent for teachers to enhance their understanding of the constructs and eliminate misconceptions about gifted and talented students. Providing guidance and counseling services for students to strengthen their self-perceptions in the schools could potentially promote growth mindsets among them. Equipped with essential knowledge of giftedness and talent and how to counsel and guide gifted and talented students, the teachers in the schools will be better positioned to address the students’ learning needs and promote their growth mindsets in return.

The study contributes to the gifted and talented field regarding how Tanzanian teachers and students conceptualize giftedness and talent within their teaching and learning contexts. By bringing the students’ voices to the understanding of giftedness and talent, the study offers an essential contribution to the field, especially in contexts where gifted education is new. Notably, the study shows the possibility of extending the DMGT to the study of giftedness and talent in low-income contexts where meaningful promotion of high-ability learners and their education has been minimal for decades. Consequently, it can be adapted to serve as a framework to improve gifted education in those contexts due to its relevance. Also, the study allows international readers, researchers, and practitioners to reflect on and take potential steps toward incorporating giftedness and talent in their specific educational contexts by including students’ voices in such efforts.