Typical and Atypical Gifted students: What Meaning and Purpose?

The question of giftedness has garnered exponential interest in recent years within the fields of psychology and education, as well as in the media. The distinctions allowing for a split into two groups—typical and atypical gifted individuals—are debated, yet they are presented on blogs and personal development sites as self-evident without ever being questioned. For readers needing an introduction, although it is not the focus of this article, gifted individuals are generally defined as those with exceptionally high intellectual abilities compared to the norm, identified through an IQ test showing a score above 130, with only this test being considered by institutions. However, this definition encompasses a wide range of profiles with a multitude of characteristics that are more developed in some individuals than in others or are simply absent. We will address some of these characteristics. They are therefore classified into two main categories: typical and atypical gifted individuals. This article aims to examine this distinction in depth, critique its relevance, and analyze the specific support targeting this classification.

Typical and Atypical Distinction

The distinction between typical and atypical gifted individuals is primarily based on behavioral characteristics, specific talents or gifts, and cognitive performance. Typical gifted individuals exhibit relatively balanced intellectual, emotional, and social development without other associated specificities. It is sometimes suggested that they generally perform well in the traditional school system, are often socially well-adjusted, and show emotional stability. Jean-Charles Terrassier (Terrassier, 1981), a French psychologist, significantly contributed to the popularization of this distinction with his concept of "dyschrony." In contrast, atypical gifted individuals, or "dysynchronous," are characterized by significant gaps between their intellectual development and their emotional or social development. This dyschrony can lead to adaptation difficulties, emotional disorders, or behavioral issues. However, Franck Ramus (2017) reports no worse academic results for gifted individuals compared to the general population and does not discuss this in terms of typical or atypical profiles. Therefore, there is no study today that affirms that one gifted profile performs better academically than another.

According to Terrassier, atypical gifted individuals often struggle to find their place in a school and social environment that does not understand or support their specific needs. Atypical gifted individuals may have characteristics that mask their giftedness. They may exhibit uneven development profiles, with exceptional talents in some areas while facing difficulties in others. These individuals may also present learning disabilities, behavioral problems, or neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD or autism spectrum disorders. The complexity of their profile often makes diagnosis and support more challenging. Ellen Winner, in "Gifted Children: Myths and Realities," emphasizes that these children may be misunderstood and underestimated in traditional educational systems. Alain Kermadec (Kermadec, 2010) in his book "Les surdoués et les autres" also notes that atypical gifted individuals are often misdiagnosed with behavioral or learning disorders due to the apparent incongruity between their intellectual abilities and their academic performance. Olivier Revol (Revol, 2014), a neuropsychiatrist, also points out that these children often go unnoticed in the traditional educational system because their talents are masked or overshadowed by their challenges.

This distinction also poses challenges and questions regarding its validity, implications, and utility, but most importantly, it raises the question of how to support atypical gifted individuals who score below 130 on their IQ test and are therefore not recognized by the educational system and thus do not receive adequate support.

Limits of This Distinction

The distinction between typical and atypical gifted individuals is not without controversy. Several researchers, practitioners, and authors question the rigidity of this classification, arguing that it does not faithfully reflect the complexity and diversity of gifted profiles. Critics argue that the typical/atypical dichotomy can lead to stereotypes and misunderstandings, thus hindering a nuanced understanding of the needs of gifted individuals.

According to Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983), an American psychologist known for his theory of multiple intelligences, giftedness is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to rigid categories. Gardner specifies that each individual possesses a unique set of abilities and skills that manifest in various ways. This perspective challenges the notion that gifted individuals can be easily classified as typical or atypical, emphasizing instead the need for individualized approaches for each gifted child.

Alain Sotto, in "Les enfants intellectuellement précoces," cites several authors who critique the binary division between typical and atypical gifted individuals. For instance, American psychologist Linda Silverman (Silverman, 2012), known for her work on high-potential children, emphasizes that the diversity of gifted profiles requires a more flexible and inclusive approach. She also suggests that each gifted child presents unique characteristics that cannot be captured by simple categories and indicates that the focus should be on understanding individual needs rather than rigid classification.

Moreover, the profiles of gifted individuals can fluctuate over time and depending on environmental and educational contexts (Terrassier, 2007). This dynamic perspective suggests that the typical/atypical classification may be too static and not account for the rapid changes in needs and abilities during childhood and adolescence. While this binary classification helps to conceptualize the diversity of gifted characteristics, it does not do justice to the complexity of personalities and needs.

The Challenge of Support

Educational programs and psychological interventions designed specifically for typical gifted individuals are also subject to criticism. While these programs aim to address the specific needs of different gifted profiles, their effectiveness and relevance are often questioned.

Programs for typical gifted individuals generally focus on academic enrichment and intellectual challenges. However, as noted by French psychologist Olivier Revol (Revol, 2014), these programs may neglect the emotional and social needs of children, particularly those who do not easily adapt to traditional school expectations. It is even more important for atypical gifted individuals to benefit from more holistic educational approaches that take into account their emotional and social development in addition to their intellectual abilities. This is where coaching becomes crucial.

In parallel, programs designed for atypical gifted individuals, which often emphasize emotional and social support, may sometimes lack academic rigor. James T. Webb (Webb, 2016), an American psychologist and author of several books on giftedness, argues that these programs may inadvertently lower academic expectations for these children, not providing them with the intellectual challenges they need to fully develop. Webb underscores the importance of balancing emotional and social support with stimulating academic opportunities for all gifted children, regardless of their profile.

Finally, the typical/atypical distinction can sometimes lead to standardized interventions that do not account for the individual needs of each child. French psychologist Arielle Adda (Adda, 2003), specialized in giftedness, emphasizes that interventions must be personalized and flexible, tailored to the unique characteristics of each child. The rigidity of programs based on classifications can limit the effectiveness of interventions and may not adequately address the needs of gifted individuals.

Conclusion

The distinction between typical and atypical offers an interesting perspective on the diversity of gifted profiles, but the rigidity of this classification can limit a nuanced understanding of children's needs and hinder the effectiveness of educational and psychological interventions. It is crucial to recognize the complexity and diversity of gifted characteristics and to develop flexible and individualized approaches to meet their specific needs. Ongoing research and multidisciplinary perspectives are essential to improve our understanding and support for high-potential children, enabling them to thrive both academically and socially.

Franck Ramus (2017), in his blog "Ramus Méninges," critiques prevailing ideas about gifted individuals and highlights studies showing that most high-potential children perform better academically than average, contradicting the myth of widespread suffering among them. However, for atypical gifted individuals, academic and social challenges may be more pronounced, requiring additional attention and support.

This is where coaching comes into play, offering comprehensive support that goes beyond the rigid limits of traditional educational or psychological approaches. Personalized coaching allows for:
1. Adaptation of Learning Methods:Gifted children sometimes have a unique learning style closely tied to their intrinsic motivation, which is not always present in conventional schooling. Coaching can identify and adapt teaching methods that suit each child best, ensuring more efficient knowledge acquisition.
2. Emotional and Social Support: Gifted individuals may face emotional and social difficulties. Coaching provides a safe space to address these issues and find solutions, fostering emotional development.
3. Development of Non-Cognitive Skills: Beyond academic skills, coaching can help children develop abilities such as time management, organization, finding meaning to spark motivation, conflict resolution, critical thinking, rigor, creativity, etc.
4. Flexibility and Individualization: Unlike traditional approaches, coaching is flexible and adapts to the individual needs of each child, allowing for changes that are felt even within the family sphere.

A holistic and tailored approach can significantly enhance their academic and personal experience, helping them reach their full potential without being limited by traditional educational frameworks. I offer these services only for French speakers to ensure a perfect understanding of cultural elements; I cannot settle for approximations.

References

- Adda, A. (2003). L’enfant doué : L’intelligence réconciliée. Paris: Odile Jacob.
- Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
- Kermadec, A. (2010). Les surdoués et les autres. Paris: L'Harmattan.
- Silverman, L. K. (2012). Giftedness 101. New York: Springer.
- Revol, O. (2014). On m'avait dit que j'étais trop sensible.
- Terrassier, J.-C. (2007). Les enfants surdoués ou la précocité embarrassante. Paris: ESF Éditeur.
- Webb, J. T. (2016). Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.
- Winner, E. (1996). Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. Basic Books.
- Ramus, F. (2017). La pseudoscience des surdoués. Blog Ramus Méninges. Retrieved from: https://www.ramus-meninges.fr/2017/02/03/la-pseudoscience-des-surdoues/