In gifted education, identification is often misunderstood. Critics ask whether it’s fair for some students to move ahead, or whether we should focus more on learners who are behind. These questions come from a standards-based mindset where success means reaching the same benchmark at the same time. But this narrow view obscures the reality that many advanced learners coast, mask their needs, or disengage because they aren’t given opportunities to grow.
A more useful frame centers on growth. Achievement means every child is learning. Advanced learning means a student can grow at a faster pace or explore deeper content. Gifted identification, then, becomes a tool to match learners to opportunities—not a reward, label, or gatekeeper.
With today’s long history of assessments from early intelligence testing to creativity measures, dynamic assessments, portfolios, and above-grade-level tools, we now have more options than ever. But the heart of modern identification lies in framing for purpose and equity. Before selecting any test or tool, schools must ask: What is the purpose of this measure? What program or support will follow? Many systems still face persistent disproportionality, and one size never fits all. Purposeful identification requires aligning tools with intended outcomes, selecting assessments that reduce or eliminate bias, and making sure the tools and outcomes are aligned to the advanced learning programs we will offer.
Looking ahead, the field must continue to refine practice. This means keeping a clear lens on what works when, where, and for which students. It means developing new approaches that rely less on opportunity-dependent knowledge and more on fundamental cognitive skills. It means expanding dynamic assessments that capture problem solving in action and using course-embedded assessments and rubrics to observe readiness as it unfolds. And as AI tools mature, educators can use them to sort patterns, surface inequities, and support—not replace—professional judgment.
The take-home message is simple: No single tool will ever identify every advanced learner. Testing has value, but only as part of a larger body of evidence. In addition, gifted identification and programming must be designed together with clear goals and a commitment to equity.
When we combine purpose, thoughtful assessment, and responsive programming, we move closer to an advanced learning ecosystem that truly serves all students in a 21st-century landscape (my next session review expands on this idea!).
As I work with my team on revising our gifted education plan for our school division, we will closely audit our identification tools as well as how they each connect to our program offerings. Have you done a similar audit before? What tips do you have for us? Share them in the comments below! ~Ann
Here are my teacher, Mrs. Johnson, and me with Dr. Emily Mofield and Dr. Brian Housand!
This session was HANDS-DOWN one of my favorites that I attended! I learned so much (plus I’m a huge Emily Mofield fan), and I plan to take back everything all my new knowledge to my Gifted & Talent Development Resource Teachers team.
At this year’s NAGC conference, Dr. Emily Mofield (Lipscomb University) and Dr. Brian Housand (University of North Carolina- Wilmington) delivered a session that felt both energizing and grounding. They had a reassuring message for us: the real power of artificial intelligence is found in our ability to remain authentic humans and to help our students do the same. While many educators worry about AI diminishing critical thinking or stripping away authenticity, Dr. Mofield and Dr. Housand showed us how AI can strengthen, not weaken, the traits gifted learners already possess.
Their framework centers around four superpowers our gifted students have that AI does not: courage, curiosity, wisdom, and discernment. When we use AI intentionally, these superpowers grow stronger. When we design tasks that require students to stay in the driver’s seat, AI becomes the sidekick and our gifted learners become the superheroes.
Below is an overview of each superpower and the opportunities they offer.
Courage
Productive struggle is at the heart of gifted growth (see my blog post review about motivation and optimal brain development for more information about this). Courage is what allows our students to stay in the struggle long enough to learn something meaningful. Dr. Mofield demonstrated how we can use AI to make productive struggle visible and purposeful by building custom bots that elevate rigor.
By programming bots with Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity icons, Paul’s Elements of Reasoning, universal themes, and literary analysis tools, she created a Socratic Seminar bot with four personas- The Curious Connector, the Text Detective, the Big Idea Builder, and the Respectful Challenger. These personas push students to consider multiple viewpoints and develop stronger arguments.
In this model, the student plays the lead role. AI becomes the data scout, map maker, challenger, or simulator. The student explores, organizes, analyzes, and innovates while AI offers structure or intellectual friction. It is a perfect way to ensure that the student is doing the THINKING and that AI is doing the SUPPORTING.
Some suggestions Dr. Mofield gave for helpful prompts for courage are:
Write an argument that disagrees with mine so I can respond.
Give me three perspectives that challenge my view so I can decide which one to address.
A quick courage checklist:
Are students wrestling with ideas rather than receiving them?
Does the task require evidence, reasoning, or revision?
Does AI push the thinking in some way?
Curiosity
Dr. Housand kicked off the next part of the session by telling us that, “Curiosity may not kill the cat after all because satisfaction brings it back.” Our gifted learners are wired to wonder, question, and follow their ideas into unexpected places. Dr. Housand framed this as joyous exploration, the pure desire to seek new information and experience the joy of learning.
AI can either shut curiosity down or open it up. The key is to use AI as a question builder rather than an answering machine. A simple prompt like “Pose five intriguing questions about ____ that do not have simple answers” immediately shifts the task from recall to wonder.
Dr. Housand introduced the “Rabbit Hole OS” inspired by the “5 Whys” questioning technique used by Toyota founder Sakichi Toyoda. This mini-system guides learners deeper into their own questions instead of speeding toward quick answers.
He also shared the Curiosity League, a playful framework with thirteen personas that model creativity, synthesis, discovery, and meaning making. From the Wonderer to the Historian to the Skeptic, students can try on different ways of being curious with AI as a supportive partner. (Sidebar- he has a book about this coming out soon. I can’t wait to get it!)
A curiosity checklist:
Are learners asking questions that lead to discovery?
Are they in the driver’s seat?
Does AI extend their wonderings?
Are students encouraged to follow their curiosity?
Wisdom
One of the hallmarks of gifted education is helping students to build expertise and think like practitioners. Wisdom helps them use metacognition to evaluate their choices, tools, and strategies. Dr. Mofield and Dr. Housand reminded us that teaching is a series of invitations into the hero’s journey. Every academic task is a call to adventure, followed by a test of power, and ultimately a transformation.
They encouraged students to ask reflective questions at each stage:
Call to Adventure
What do I already know?
What is my goal?
What role should AI play?
Test of Power
What new questions does this raise?
What did AI add that I had not considered?
Where do I disagree with AI?
Transformation
How has my learning changed?
What will I do differently next time?
How did AI shape my next steps?
AI can also act as a “Meta Mate” (I love this term!) with prompts like:
Ask me questions that make me reflect on my reasoning.
Help me identify gaps in my argument.
A wisdom checklist:
Are students reflecting on their thinking before, during, and after using AI?
Are they critiquing AI instead of accepting it?
Are they comparing their ideas to AI’s suggestions?
Discernment
Discernment asks three essential questions. Is it true? Is it meaningful? Is it mine? He shared a powerful quote with all of us from the book, Future Shock by Alvin Toffler (note: this is an Amazon Affiliate Link from which I make a small commission): “The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
This is SO important for us as educators to understand so we can help our students be master discerners. In a world where AI can sound confident even when it is wrong, gifted learners need strong internal filters. To help students practice discernment, Dr. Mofield and Dr. Housand offered a simple process: Wait. Wonder. Weigh. Discernment teaches students to pause before they accept information.
They also encouraged students to explore multiple sides of an issue by generating two opposing persuasive arguments. This helps students notice assumptions, missing information, questionable evidence, and attempts to influence tone.
Helpful reflection questions include:
What assumptions is AI making?
What is being left out?
Who might be persuaded by this viewpoint?
What will I remember the next time I read something from AI?
A discernment checklist:
Are students evaluating information for credibility and bias?
Are they weighing multiple perspectives?
Does the task reward slow, thoughtful reasoning over fast answers?
Is AI being used to challenge assumptions and deepen understanding?
Final Thoughts
I really loved the metaphor of the hero’s journey that was used throughout much of this presentation. As Dr. Mofield and Dr. Housand told us, in every hero’s journey there is always a mentor. In gifted education, that mentor is us! When we teach our students to use AI with courage, curiosity, wisdom, and discernment, we create thinkers who remain unmistakably human. AI may be the sidekick, but our gifted learners are always the superheroes.
So, what do you think about this information? How are you handling AI with your gifted students? What challenges and wins have you had? Please share them in the comments below so we can all learn from each other! ~Ann
At this year’s NAGC conference, I had the chance to attend an excellent session led by Wendy Behrens, M.A.Ed., Gifted Education Specialist for the Minnesota Department of Education, and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Ph.D., Administrator of the Acceleration Institute and Research at the University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center. Their focus was clear: if we want to meet the needs of advanced learners in meaningful and equitable ways, we must think about acceleration not as a last resort, but as a purposeful tool for talent development.
One of the early resources they highlighted is the National Inventors Hall of Fame YouTube channel. It features short documentaries of inductees and is a powerful reminder of what happens when talent is nurtured early and well.
Gifted Education or Talent Development?
Ms. Behrens and Dr. Lupkowski-Shoplik began by addressing an important distinction. Traditional gifted education programs often look for the all-around gifted student, which can unintentionally overlook students with strong and uneven academic profiles. Talent development, however, focuses on nurturing specific strengths. It allows schools to cast a wider net, reach more bright students, and tailor services to areas where a student genuinely needs advanced learning opportunities.
Two Forms of Acceleration
Schools generally think about acceleration in two ways.
Grade-based acceleration, which moves a student ahead one or more grade levels (skipping). Subject-based acceleration, which advances a student in a specific academic area.
Their session focused on subject acceleration, which is ideal for students who show high ability in one or two domains but may not be ready for a full grade skip. Some students may have already been grade skipped, yet still need deeper challenge in a particular area. Subject acceleration gives them access to the right level of content without upending their entire school experience.
Considerations for Acceleration, In General
Let me pause my review for a minute to interject some thoughts about this intervention for highly advanced students. Many people have mixed feelings about acceleration- both whole grade skipping and subject-based (technically, subject-based acceleration is grade skipping, just for one subject instead of the whole grade level). Acceleration is one of the most well-researched areas of gifted education and overall is a successful intervention. Still, in our standards-based teaching reality, it is often hard to grade-skip students. To skip over a whole year of standards in one or more subject areas can create holes in the student’s learning. It takes a very carefully crafted Acceleration Plan to help the parents of the accelerated students know what their child is skipping so that they can fill in the gaps for him or her.
In cases where I support schools that are considering acceleration for a student, I first ask them this simple question that I learned many years ago from Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska while earning my Master’s degree and Gifted Endorsement at William & Mary: Is the teacher having to differentiate above-grade level for every single thing being taught? If so, the child might be a candidate for whole-grade acceleration. If this level of differentiation is happening in only one or two subject areas, then the student may be a candidate for subject acceleration. The Iowa Acceleration Scales can help the Acceleration Child Study Team at the school make the best decision for the student in these cases.
For students who need more challenge and differentiation and who are not candidates for whole-grade or subject acceleration, it is likely that one of the other 18 forms of acceleration can help meet their academic needs. The types of acceleration that have worked very well in my school divisions over the years are: compacted curriculum, telescoped curriculum, Advanced Placement courses in high school, Dual Enrollment courses in high school, and graduating early from high school by taking extra classes in the summers. The Acceleration Institute at the Belin-Blank Center has a wealth of information and research about acceleration if you’d like to learn more about this topic. Now, back to my review…
Why Subject Acceleration Works
The presenters described several advantages of subject acceleration.
The classroom teacher does not have to hunt for advanced materials.
Students are more likely to learn alongside intellectual peers.
Students earn credit for the work they complete [if they are accelerated to high school-level courses].
Students stay engaged because they are finally working at the right level.
This approach supports students with uneven academic profiles and helps prevent the boredom, underachievement, and school disengagement that can develop when bright learners sit through repeated content.
What Schools Need to Consider
Successful subject acceleration requires thoughtful planning. Schools should account for scheduling, transportation, credit and placement policies, and long-term trajectories. A student advanced in math today may need access to college-level coursework before high school graduation. These decisions work best when they are made with a long view. Once again, the Acceleration Institute has many resources about acceleration that would be helpful for school divisions.
How Do We Identify Students Who Need Acceleration?
Ms. Behrens emphasized that parent, teacher, or student nomination is not enough. An equitable system includes universal screening and multiple data sources such as:
grade-level achievement tests and subtest patterns
end-of-unit or end-of-year assessments
above grade-level standardized testing two or more years ahead
teacher observation and rating scales
review by a team rather than a single individual
Minnesota uses the statewide MCA tests as one data point, but they are designed as a check on school performance, not student-level readiness. Many states might also have state-level achievement assessments such as these. Schools must look beyond them to build an accurate profile of need.
A Framework for Placement and Planning
The presenters shared a clear procedure for acceleration decision-making that schools can follow.
Review the student’s academic profile.
Evaluate readiness using mastery data and social-emotional considerations.
Collaborate across roles. This includes the gifted specialist, administrators, current teachers, and receiving teachers [the school’s gifted specialist MUST be a part of any team studying acceleration as a student intervention].
Develop a written acceleration plan with goals, instructional settings, and supports.
Monitor progress with formative assessments.
Adjust as needed based on student performance and feedback.
Plan for the long term. Revisit the plan and determine next steps in the talent development pathway.
As I mentioned earlier, many school divisions use the Iowa Acceleration Scales for a thorough, whole-student approach to making decisions about acceleration.
Big Take-Aways for Schools and Families
Acceleration is an important talent development tool.
Subject acceleration aligns instruction with readiness and passion, which unlocks student potential.
Early access to advanced content supports deeper learning and long-term achievement.
Collaboration ensures better experiences for students and teachers.
Acceleration should be paired with enrichment for a balanced program.
Ms. Behrens and Dr. Lupkowski-Shoplik reminded us that subject acceleration represents a flexible and impactful way to meet the needs of advanced learners. When done with intention, it can open the door to meaningful growth for students whose talents are ready for the next step.
Does your school division use subject acceleration, or any of the other forms of acceleration? Share your experiences with acceleration in the comments below. Let’s have a conversation! ~Ann
As educators of gifted and high ability learners, we talk a lot about challenge, potential, and talent development. What we do not talk about nearly enough is motivation. At NAGC25, Dr. Pamela Clinkenbeard delivered a powerful session that blended neuroscience, classic motivation theory, and everyday classroom practice. I was excited to learn from her since the construct of academic intrinsic motivation was important to my dissertation, and she is a motivation expert in the field of gifted education! Her key message was clear: motivation is not something students either have or do not have. It is something we help shape through experience, challenge, and the learning environment we create.
Below is a summary of the big ideas that stood out to me, and how they connect to the work we do supporting gifted learners.
The Brain, Motivation, and Why Challenge Matters
Dr. Clinkenbeard opened with several foundational findings that should guide every gifted educator’s decisions about curriculum and instruction.
First, hard work pays off, especially when a learner is working on something they love at a level that stretches them.
Second, neuroplasticity is real. According to ChatGPT,
“Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to change and grow in response to experience. When we learn something new or practice a challenging skill, the brain strengthens existing connections and creates new ones. This means abilities are not fixed. With the right experiences and effort, the brain continues to develop throughout life.”
The brain changes throughout life, and both ability and motivation are influenced by experience. If we do not offer appropriate challenge, we are missing a key opportunity to support talent development.
She shared a helpful acronym: OBDRAC, Optimal Brain Development Requires Appropriate Challenge. Neuroscience shows that without challenging work, the brain misses opportunities to strengthen new pathways. For gifted learners, this is especially critical.
Dr. Clinkenbeard also pointed to research on executive function (EF) training in young children. Early improvement in EF skills slightly correlates with later academic outcomes, particularly in math. The takeaway for gifted programs is simple: high-level challenge and opportunities to think hard benefit learners long before formal identification.
Three Elements That Support Optimal Brain Development
Research continues to affirm three conditions that help students maximize their potential.
Appropriate challenge Gifted students need tasks that bring them to the edge of their thinking. Without it, engagement drops and growth stalls.
A focus on learning and growth instead of performance and competition When students connect learning to curiosity and improvement, motivation strengthens.
Opportunities to invest effort in areas of strength and interest Motivation grows when students spend meaningful time doing work they care about.
For gifted students who often cruise through grade-level content without effort, these conditions become nonnegotiable.
How Psychology and Education View Motivation
Psychology historically viewed motivation as a stable trait. Education tends to treat motivation as a state that can be influenced by the environment. Dr. Clinkenbeard noted that gifted motivation research aligns more closely with the educational perspective. In other words, gifted students are not motivated simply because they are gifted. Their motivation is shaped by the conditions around them.
Classic Motivation Theories and What They Mean for Gifted Learners
Dr. Clinkenbeard walked through five major theories that help us understand motivation in gifted students.
1. Expectancy and Value Theory
Students ask two questions: Can I do this (expectancy)? Do I want to do this (value)?
Gifted students often expect to succeed, but they may not value the task if it feels boring, repetitive, or disconnected from their interests. This is why underachievement sometimes looks like apathy rather than struggle.
2. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, including Flow
Gifted students tend to show slightly higher intrinsic motivation, but true engagement depends on the right mix of interest and challenge. This is where Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow comes in (read John Spencer’s great article about Flow Theory; you can also read Csikszentmihalyi’s book from my affiliate link- Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience). When challenge meets interest, the self-censoring part of the brain quiets. Jazz improvisation studies offer a vivid example of this effect.
Underachievement research adds another layer. Many formerly underachieving gifted adults credit one caring adult who supported them without judgment. Relationships matter for motivation.
3. Goal Theory and Mindset
Goal theory was a big part of my dissertation, and I always encourage teachers and parents to read Dr. Carol Dweck’s book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (this is an affiliate link from which I may earn from Amazon). It was a powerful read for me, and really tied into my findings of math achievement and math motivation of gifted elementary students.
A fixed mindset is when people believe that their intelligence is fixed since birth and cannot really change. The downside of a fixed mindset is that when learning gets tough, students can have imposter syndrome (this is when students worry that others will think they aren’t as smart as once thought because something is hard for them, or students may worry that their success has been due to luck). Thus, the fixed mindset and possible imposter syndrome keeps students from pushing themselves to try hard things.
Dr. Clinkenbeard reminded us that brain malleability exists from pre-birth through old age. A growth mindset (the belief that our ability can grow and change) is not a slogan. It is a neurological reality. “Our brain changes learning, and learning changes our brain!”
Her comparison of two classic profiles was striking:
Satisfied Sam earns average grades but pursues advanced projects independently (this exemplifies a growth mindset, also called mastery goals, since Sam is focused on mastering new learning). Safe Sally earns top grades but avoids challenge to protect her academic image (this exemplifies a fixed mindset, or performance goals, since Sally is concerned with keeping up grades over learning new things that might be challenging).
Which student is underachieving?
4. Self-Regulated Learning
Planning, monitoring, and reflection are essential skills, yet many gifted students underuse them. For students who have rarely struggled, challenges that require self-regulation can feel overwhelming. Productive struggle is not optional. It is how self-regulation develops.
5. Attribution Theory
How students explain success and failure deeply influences motivation. The healthiest attributions are internal and controllable.
Examples: I succeeded because I worked hard (the student is attributing success to hard work) I struggled because I used the wrong strategy (the student is attributing failure to the wrong strategy).
Gifted learners often receive messages about talent rather than effort, and this can distort their explanations for both success and failure.
Bringing Theory Into Practice: The TARGET Model
Dr. Clinkenbeard shared the TARGET model, a practical framework that treats motivation as something educators can influence.
T: Task Challenge, novelty, variety, and enthusiastic presentation matter. Issue for gifted learners: make sure the task is meaningfully differentiated.
A: Authority Give students age-appropriate choices in content, process, and product. Issue for gifted learners: coach them to choose challenge, not comfort.
R: Recognition Use praise and rewards carefully. Focus on improvement. Issue for gifted learners: avoid overpraising talent to prevent imposter syndrome.
G: Grouping Mixed-ability groups can build community, but gifted learners need peers who think at similar levels, too. Issue for gifted learners: avoid using gifted students as classroom tutors.
E: Evaluation Private, criterion-referenced, and centered on growth is better versus norm-referenced testing, when possible. Issue for gifted learners: accountability systems and adaptive tests can complicate differentiation at the high end.
T: Time Adjust pace and workload so students can reach mastery. Offer meaningful extension options. Issue for gifted learners: avoid giving more of the same.
Key Takeaways
Motivation among gifted learners is not a single pattern. It varies across populations and is shaped by experience. Definitions of giftedness also differ widely in research, which makes generalizations tricky.
One last interesting thing that I learned from Dr. Clinkenbeard: Aerobic exercise improves general cognitive functioning more than anything else. I always knew that aerobic activity was good for the heart, but I did not realize how important it was for cognitive functioning, too. Movement matters, so we need to make sure that our students are getting exercise every day!
She also emphasized strong evidence for talent development models grounded in neuroplasticity. Executive function can grow. Self-regulation can improve. Challenge rewires the brain. OBDRAC (Optimal Brain Development Requires Appropriate Challenge) is essential because neurogenesis requires effort.
Final Thoughts
This session reinforced so much of what we know about gifted learners. They need challenge. They need encouragement rooted in growth. They need opportunities to pursue their interests deeply. And they need adults who understand how motivation develops.
If you want to explore further, Dr. Clinkenbeard recommended to us to look into productive struggle research and the work of Siegle and McCoach on motivation.
So, what takeaways do you have from this motivation research? How have you handled instances of fixed mindset in your gifted students? Share your strategies with us in the comments below! ~Ann
At NAGC25, I had the chance to sit in on a session that reminded me why the arts should never sit on the sidelines of our instructional planning. Amanda O’Neil and Bobbie Parmann shared practical, bite size arts integration strategies they use every day in their fully arts integrated charter school. Their message was clear. When students actively create, interpret, and express ideas through the arts, they deepen their understanding in powerful and joyful ways. The teachers in their building see the difference in student engagement, confidence, and achievement because the arts are used as tools for thinking, not extra activities added to the end of a lesson.
Before diving into specific strategies, the presenters opened with a simple tool many of us know but often forget to use- Mood Meters. These inclusive openers invite every student into the learning space and give them vocabulary for self-awareness. You can make your own or find dozens of examples online. They set the stage for community, emotional regulation, and a classroom culture that values every student’s starting point.
So, why arts integration? Their school is fully immersed in it, and that means they have seen the long-term impact of arts integration first-hand. Arts integration is a teaching strategy that combines an art form with another content area so students can learn and demonstrate their understanding in new ways. The goal is for students to use the arts to make meaningful connections. Research continues to show that students in arts-integrated settings often outperform peers on assessments and tend to have stronger social skills, better behavior, and higher attendance (read a few articles about arts integration here and here and here).
Below are eight bite size strategies shared by O’Neil and Parmann that any teacher can bring into tomorrow’s lesson. They work beautifully for gifted and high ability learners who crave novelty, open-ended thinking, and creative expression.
1. “Reading” Music
Music is a universal language that helps students connect with story, emotion, and tone. This strategy invites students to listen to a piece of music, then answer a series of imaginative questions:
Is the main character human or not human?
What kind of clothing might they wear?
What is the setting?
What are they doing?
Students essentially craft a narrative from sound. It is perfect for novel studies. You can build a playlist for each chapter and ask students to justify their choices with textual evidence.
2. Portrait Study
Portraits are rich sources of inference, symbolism, and perspective. Students observe a portrait for two full minutes while paying attention to expression, setting, and objects. After students notice details, they discuss what those details reveal. Finally, they link the portrait to their lesson. This can deepen understanding in history, character study, and even science.
3. One Minute Tableau
Students create a frozen scene with their bodies to represent a topic. There is no talking, and each tableau should include a variety of levels.
Steps:
a. Assign a topic b. Groups plan their roles and poses quickly c. Students freeze for 10 to 20 seconds d. Classmates interpret the tableau and connect it to the concept e. Add options like evidence guessing, thought tapping, or accents
Teachers can use tableaux for character perspectives, historical debates, life cycles, equations in action, shapes, or storytelling sequences. Gifted students especially enjoy the problem solving, physical reasoning, and creativity this requires.
4. Six Word Story
Students summarize a big idea, event, or character arc using only six words. They must include a picture or very intentional facial expression to enhance the story.
Steps:
Identify the basic theme
Add imagery and an element of mystery
Refine tone and depth
Students can illustrate their six word stories or bring them to life through a tableau or short skit. This strategy supports precision, vocabulary, and synthesis.
5. Collaborative Doodle
Each student chooses a colored pencil, draws a noun in the center of the page, then passes it around while others add to it.
Steps: a. Group 3 to 5 students b. Draw the noun in the center c. Pass the paper until each student has contributed
Benefits include stress relief, vocabulary development, visual thinking, collaborative creativity, and perspective taking. This is one of the most versatile brain breaks because it builds community while exercising cognitive flexibility.
6. On and Off
This strategy uses physical expression as a form of response. The teacher gives a prompt, then students demonstrate their answer through facial expressions, poses, size, energy, or levels. This works well in any area of content and is especially useful for kinesthetic learners.
7. Zoom In Picture
Reveal a close up portion of an image related to the day’s topic. Students infer what it might be and how it connects to the lesson. Teachers can then ask specific, open-ended questions about what the students think the image is as more of it is slowly revealed. This supports divergent thinking, abstraction, and careful observation and can be an ideal strategy for warmups or discussion starters.
8. Improvised Expert
Students pretend to be an expert on an invented topic connected to the lesson. They answer classmates’ questions in character while weaving in vocabulary or content knowledge.
Possible imaginary roles: • Literary Therapist • Museum Curator from the year 2500 • Animal Communication Specialist • Expert on why gravity needs a day off • Museum Lighting Designer for a historical painting
This activity invites humor, encourages risk taking, and builds conceptual understanding through playful improvisation.
Arts integration does not require a full schedule redesign. It starts with small, thoughtful routines that invite students to think and communicate in new ways. These strategies remind us that creative expression is not an add on. It is a pathway to deeper learning for all students and a particularly energizing fit for gifted and high ability learners. Let your next unit begin with a sketch, a song, or a freeze-frame. Your students will surprise you with what they can do! And if you are already integrating arts strategies into teaching and learning in your classroom, please share a strategy or two in the comments below! Thank you! ~Ann
Slide of research about various ways to use norms in gifted identification.
At this year’s NAGC25 Annual Convention, one of the sessions that stayed with me was Dr. Austina De Bonte’s presentation on how a single Washington school district dramatically increased identification of historically underrepresented gifted students. Many of us know the research. Marcia Gentry and colleagues (2019) documented that countless gifted students are never identified, often due to structural barriers in our systems. We also know the best practice playbook: universal screening, local norms, multiple measures and pathways, thoughtful combination rules, high-quality rating scales, and ongoing professional learning. The challenge is that these practices are rarely implemented comprehensively because they require significant coordination and system-wide commitment.
That is what made the Blockbridge (a pseudonym) case study so compelling. This district achieved a sixteen-fold increase in the identification of underrepresented groups. They also increased the overall size of their gifted program by a factor of four. The obvious question is how did they make this level of change possible?
Dr. De Bonte conducted a qualitative study of the Blockbridge School to learn how they increased their gifted identification of underrepresented student groups so well. She interviewed 28 participants, including district leaders, program administrators, principals, and teachers. Her findings were organized through an educational theory framework and fell into three clusters of themes. Three themes were focused on practices, three on outcomes, and three on attitudes that supported the shift.
What Blockbridge Did
Blockbridge redesigned its identification system in ways that were both comprehensive and highly intentional. They implemented universal screening, used static local norms for students identified as low-income or multilingual, created multiple pathways into the program, and adopted OR rules instead of AND rules. One of their most interesting decisions was to create a first-grade NNAT3-only pathway. Students who met this threshold entered a talent pool and were immediately served in the gifted program. The district believed that when children were given the appropriate environment and expectations, they would rise to meet the challenge. The results confirmed that belief.
Their system used two phases. Phase I was universal screening in math, reading, and nonverbal reasoning. Phase II was deeper testing for students who needed additional data. This work was especially impressive in Washington because the state requires only one criterion for gifted identification, yet Blockbridge dug deeper into student data to find students.
Equity Strategies That Mattered
Several deliberate choices helped Blockbridge move their identification rates for underrepresented students so high:
Screening was done during the school day so every child participated (it used to be done on Saturdays).
The district implemented operational systems with the precision needed for such a complex process.
Universal screening occurred in kindergarten through eighth during the transition years while trying to find the best mix of proceses, then continued only in kindergarten, first, and fifth.
Students could qualify in math only, reading only, or in both areas.
OR rules allowed students to move forward when any single data point signaled potential (according to Google AI, “An ‘OR rule’ for gifted identification means a student can be identified as gifted if they meet the criteria in at least one of several categories, rather than needing to meet all criteria in a single category).”
The NNAT3 pathway opened doors for students whose academic scores had not yet caught up with their ability due to opportunity gaps.
Local Norms
Dr. De Bonte explained the difference between dynamic and static approaches to local norms. Dynamic norms use the top ten percent of students at each school or at the district level, keeping the number of identified students constant. Static norms use fixed cut scores that allow the number of identified students to change. Blockbridge selected static norms that were adjusted for students from low-income and multilingual backgrounds. This decision helped counteract systemic differences in opportunities to learn and was one of the major levers that improved equity.
Matching Students to Services
Blockbridge matched their service model to student needs rather than trying to make identification fit the service structure. Kindergarten and first-grade students received differentiation. In grades two through five, about forty percent of students received in-class differentiation with some math acceleration. The remaining sixty percent participated in accelerated self-contained classrooms. Middle schoolers had access to accelerated sections in core subjects. It was a scalable model that still honored readiness levels.
Professional Development
The district recognized that teachers often rely on personal experience when working with highly capable learners, which can limit consistency. The division actually did very little professional development with teachers regarding gifted identification.
Identification of Special Populations
One of the most notable outcomes of Blockbridge’s evolved gifted identification process was the increase in students identified from special populations including students with Section 504 plans, students receiving special education services, students from low-income households, and multilingual learners. From 2015–2016 to 2022–2023, underrepresented group identification increased sixteen-fold, and overall program participation increased four-fold. The OR rules seemed to boost identification for students with SPED and 504 plans even without static local norms applied to these groups.
Another surprise was how well students performed once identified. Students who qualified via the NNAT3-only pathway performed at similar levels to peers who qualified through traditional achievement-based pathways. In fact, the NNAT3 group was outperforming the achievement group, and none of the identified students were struggling.
How They Made It Happen
Three attitude-based factors emerged as essential.
Leadership set the direction from the top-down.
The district worked with an expert consultant and stayed aligned with best practice.
There was broad support for equity and a shared belief in opportunity and access (Dr. De Bonte reiterated the district leadership’s strong belief in equity multiple times during her session).
Not everything was perfect. As identification numbers grew, some stakeholders questioned the increase. Why were 28 percent of students identified as highly capable? Was this overidentification? Dr. De Bonte reminded us that national research tells us that around 14.9 percent of students are ready for the next level of academic work at any given moment. Many districts are under-identifying gifted students, not over-identifying.
Key Takeaways for School Districts
This was a qualitative study, so the findings are not causal. Even so, the lessons are powerful.
Universal screening is necessary but not sufficient. Without local norms, districts will miss students affected by the excellence gap.
OR rules significantly improve identification for twice-exceptional learners [and others].
Student success data showed that children thrive when placed at their appropriate learning level, including those who entered through non-traditional pathways.
Rating scales were not used. Blockbridge relied only on objective measures because they are cost effective, easier to scale, and less likely to be perceived as subjective or unfair.
Major systemic change can be driven from the top down. In this case, widespread buy-in was not present at the start.
Gifted programs have a moral purpose. Many bright learners already know most of their grade-level curriculum. When school is too easy, they miss opportunities to build learning habits and persistence, and twice exceptional students remain masked.
A helpful phrase emerged from this work: “Just Right Learning Level.” School should not be too easy for any child. Equity in gifted education is about ensuring appropriate challenge, not rationing opportunity.
Blockbridge shows what is possible when a district commits to equitable identification at scale. The gains did not come from one strategy. They came from a system of aligned practices carried out with clarity, purpose, and belief in every child’s potential. Dr. De Bonte’s session was a breath of fresh air in the equity conversation!
What experiences has your school districts had with gifted identification of students from underrepresented groups? Share them below in the comments. I’d love to hear how other school districts are working on this issue. ~Ann
I was looking for a session to help me bring back fresh ideas about how we can better support twice-exceptional learners, and this one was a standout at #NAGC25! Dr. Claire Hughes (Cleveland State University) and Sheyanne Smith (Nebraska Department of Education) blended research, systems thinking, and real-world educator experience into a clear message: Our MTSS processes, language, and IEP practices must evolve if we are serious about meeting the complex needs of our 2e students. And the good news? We are closer than we think.
What is MTSS?
MTSS stands for “Multi-Tiered Systems of Support.” It is a framework of proactive tiers of support to meet students’ needs wherever they may lie. Tier I encompasses high-quality core curriculum and instruction for all (universal). Tier II provides supplemental interventions for those who need it (targeted). Tier III serves students who have the greatest academic or behavioral needs (intensive intervention). MTSS is for all students; every educational, social-emotional, and behavioral need can be served through the MTSS model. When MTSS is implemented with fidelity, the effect size of its use with students is 1.09, meaning that students served with the proper interventions within the MTSS model will see MORE than one year’s growth for one year’s worth of time! (Almarode, J., Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2021). Rebounding and reinvesting. Where the evidence points for accelerating learning. A GOLD paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.)
Hughes grounded us in a simple definition of twice-exceptional (2e): twice-exceptional learners show evidence of both ability and disability. Because of the well-known masking effect, one can easily hide the other. These students have very real learning challenges, and they also bring tremendous assets to their schools. Our systems must recognize both.
Shifting to a Strengths-First Lens
A central theme of the session was the power of strengths-based thinking. Instead of focusing on what students cannot do (a deficit mindset), strengths-based approaches intentionally look for talents, capabilities, and positive attributes. This shift is not fluffy. It has a real impact on student motivation, confidence, and engagement.
The presenters pushed us to examine our own language. Are we unintentionally sending messages that limit students’ potential? They challenged us to replace phrases like “students with deficits” with:
Students with emerging needs
Students with advanced learning needs
Supports for meeting grade level standards and beyond
Individualized learning pathways
Every part of our system communicates our values, including manuals, agendas, and templates, so we should check all of it for deficit language.
Introducing the 5F Framework for IEPs
Hughes and Smith offered a refreshingly organized way to think about the IEP process: the 5F Model, a cycle grounded in intentionality and student-centered planning.
Framing – Building a shared understanding of the student’s unique profile Finding Strengths – Identifying talents, interests, and capabilities Formalizing Supports – Situating supports within the MTSS structure Forging Goals – Creating goals that both reduce barriers and build strengths Fulfilling Plans – Implementing plans with the right level of resources and monitoring
They argued that most IEP teams spend too much time on wordsmithing and not enough time on problem-solving. Their “IEP wish list” was refreshingly realistic:
Goals come directly from student data
Strengths drive everything
The team’s time is spent thinking, not formatting
AI handles the heavy lifting
MTSS: A System Built for Flexibility
One of the most important takeaways: MTSS is a framework, not a label, and when MTSS is done properly, it can serve every student exactly how he or she needs it. Hughes and Smith reminded us that supports are tiered, but students are not.
MTSS should respond to the student, not their eligibility category. A label is not required for a learner to receive help. In fact, Hughes spent time in the United Kingdom, and she said that she learned that in the U.K., students do not need a label at all before services begin.
The presenters also advocated for a more unified MTSS graphic, such as a single stacked pyramid instead of the classic MTSS diamond. Gifted education, special education, and general education belong within the same flexible, responsive framework. Many school divisions do not see the power of serving gifted needs through the MTSS model. I often tell my teachers and principals that gifted education and talent development is part of the continuum of services for all students, and should be firmly addressed through MTSS, as well.
A strong MTSS system improves:
Identification of advanced and struggling learners
Access to enrichment and challenge
Responsivity through teaming, data, and progress monitoring
Educational equity, ensuring students receive what they need when they need it
The Role of AI: Efficiency, Not Replacement
AI came up as a practical tool for:
Locating resources and research for 2e IEP development
Drafting asset-focused IEP goals
Streamlining template creation
Improving team efficiency
With the right prompts, AI can help teachers reduce paperwork, stay student-centered, and create more consistent, strengths-based plans.
Moving Forward Together
Hughes and Smith emphasized the need for:
Specialized training for educators working with 2e learners
Professional learning aligned to MTSS and NAGC Programming Standards
Intentional local planning that connects district strategic goals to gifted programming
Their closing message was one I will not forget: “Every 2e student deserves an educational plan that celebrates their strengths.”
This reminder, one I plan to bring back to my division, may be the most important: “We need to stop asking whether the student is responding to the system and start asking whether the system is responding to the student,” (from the Nebraska MTSS website).
What a powerful charge for all of us working in gifted education, special education, and MTSS! This was an exceptional session from start to finish!
What are your thoughts about the ideas I reviewed in this blog post? How does your division address 2e learners? Leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments below. Let’s have a conversation! ~Ann
One of the most eye-opening sessions I attended at NAGC25 was Teacher Rating Scales: Promises and Pitfalls presented by Dr. D. Betsy McCoach (Fordham University) and Dr. Karen Rambo-Hernandez (Texas A&M University). Their research, funded through multiple U.S. Department of Education Javits Grants, dives into a tool many of us rely on in gifted identification: teacher rating scales (TRS). And what they revealed was extremely important for gifted coordinators to know.
Big Questions
The presenters opened by discussing tools like the Hope Scale, which includes both academic and social-emotional indicators. They challenged us to think more deeply: If a student demonstrates a particular indicator, what program or service does the indicator actually suggest? What curriculum would meet that student’s needs? In other words, the scale should connect to something concrete—not sit in isolation.
The Teacher Effect: A Huge Source of Variance
One of the most striking findings of their research was the extent to which teachers themselves impact students’ scores.
We all know teachers vary in generosity- some rate more students highly, while others are more conservative. However, the data brought this to life in a sobering way.
In a West Virginia Javits study led by Dr. Rambo-Hernandez, teachers received either live half-day training or asynchronous modules on how to use rating scales. And yet, even with training of differing levels and types, large disparities remained. Teachers simply used the tool differently.
Dr. McCoach described this as Conditional Between-Teacher (Within-School) Variance: even after controlling for student ability and achievement (using the Cognitive Abilities Test- CogAT, the Measures of Academic Progress- MAP, and TRS data), differences between teachers persisted. In fact:
Ability and achievement barely predicted how students scored on teacher rating scales.
Teachers themselves accounted for one-third to one-half of the variance in rating scale results.
In plain terms? A student’s score reflected the teacher more than the student. As someone who has served as both a teacher and a coordinator, I felt that deeply.
How Many Gifted Students Are We Missing?
The most startling finding came from their comparison of cognitive scores with TRS results:
Among students scoring in the top 10% on the CogAT in their district, only 32.4% of them also scored in the top 10% on the TRS.
Let that sink in… we’re missing almost 70% of high-ability students when TRS are used as a gatekeeper.
Even when widening the TRS criteria:
Top 10% CogAT + top 20% TRS → only a 56.2% overlap
Top 10% CogAT + top 25% TRS → only a 63.6% overlap
Top 10% CogAT + top 30% TRS → only a 70.3% overlap
Even in the most generous scenario, we are still missing 30% of students. For anyone committed to equity in gifted education, this is unacceptable.
So What Do We Do Instead?
Thankfully, the session didn’t stop at the problem. Drs. McCoach and Rambo-Hernandez pointed us toward thoughtful, practical solutions.
1. Include Teacher Voice- Just Not as a Gatekeeper
Dr. Joe Renzulli’s “classic” suggestion still holds: Gather your talent pool using multiple measures (ability, achievement, talent-development products, etc.), then ask teachers: “Who is missing?” This reframes teachers as informants, not filters.
2. Provide Annual Rater Training
If you must use TRS:
Train teachers every year—even a 10-minute refresher matters.
Clarify what each number means (“What is a 1? What is a 2?”).
Build a shared frame of reference to improve inter-rater reliability.
This isn’t about perfection. It’s about tuning the instrument.
3. Advocate for Better Policy
If you have influence: push to use TRS as one of multiple data points, like in Virginia (no one score can get a student into a gifted program nor keep a student out of a gifted program). If using TRS, make sure to:
Train annually (see discussion above)
Review results for bias
Ensure no student is denied access to services because of a rating scale alone
The presenters were crystal clear about this point: Do NOT use teacher rating scales as universal screeners. They simply aren’t reliable enough, and we could miss too many students.
Final Thoughts
As a gifted coordinator, I walked away from this session with both urgency and clarity. Teacher rating scales can still play a role in our identification systems, but only when used carefully, responsibly, and alongside multiple measures.
If we truly believe in talent development for all students, then we must question the tools that inadvertently hold so many of them back. This session was a firm reminder that identification is not neutral, and that educators have a responsibility to keep refining our systems for fairness, access, and accuracy.
If you attended this session at #NAGC25 too, I’d love to hear your takeaways in the comments below. Even if you didn’t, but you’re working on improving your division’s identification practices, let’s connect! I love helping schools rethink systems to better spot potential. The more educators can work together to solve identification issues, the better off students will be! ~Ann
So, the wait was finally over and NAGC25 was here! My colleague and I arrived in time to settle into the Ballroom of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, PA, for the #NAGC25 opening keynote address (see us below!). The keynote was inspiring and provided a perfect message for all of us to kick off the conference!
My colleague and me arriving to the convention center to check-in! #NAGC25
I found myself laughing, nodding, and occasionally tearing up during Dwayne Reed’s keynote, “Being the Educator They Need.” If you’ve ever heard Teach Mr. Reed speak, you probably already know that he brings heart, humor, and a fierce belief in kids to every room he enters. This was my first time hearing him speak, and it was the first time I ever heard his viral song, “Welcome to the 4th Grade” (it was GREAT, by the way). His talk wasn’t about strategies, frameworks, or academic outcomes. It was about us- the humans in front of gifted children every day- and how who we are shapes what they can become.
As gifted educators, homeschool parents, and coordinators, we spend so much time designing high-level tasks, identifying potential, and nurturing talent. But Mr. Reed reminded us of a truth we sometimes forget: before we can challenge our students’ minds, we must connect with their hearts.
Or as he put it: “We must Maslow before they can Bloom.”
Mr. Reed gave the gifted educators in the room three very important tips to help us keep relationships first:
Tip #1: Who Am I? The First Question Every Educator Must Answer
Reed began with a simple but profound challenge: Kids can only make sense of who we are based on what we reveal about ourselves.
And wow, did that resonate.
When I was a child, I was endlessly curious about my teachers. Did they have kids? Where did they go to college? Did they like softball as much as I did? Back then, teachers rarely shared anything personal. So when I became a teacher, I made a decision: my students would know me as a person: my hobbies, my family, my quirks, my love of learning… I let them all in on my life!
And it changed everything.
Year after year, my strongest classroom moments came not just from unit plans or carefully crafted lessons, but from relationships- genuine, mutual relationships. Reed summarized this beautifully through Rita Pierson’s famous line:
“Kids won’t learn from people they don’t like.”
When students know us, they trust us, and trust is the foundation of challenge, risk-taking, creativity, and rigor, especially for gifted learners who can sometimes feel misunderstood or feel afraid to take a chance. I, myself, often tell teachers and principals that strong relationships are the foundation of achievement for kids.
Tip #2: Who Are They? Understanding Their Stories
After we understand ourselves, we must turn toward the children in front of us. Mr. Reed challenged us to ask: “Who are they?”
What are their passions? Their triggers? Their excitements? Their fears? Their stories?
Each gifted student carries a unique set of strengths and complexities. He spoke candidly about what some of our students face at home:
Abandonment
Abuse
Drug exposure
The foster system
Violence and gang pressures
Food insecurity
Depression
Suicidal ideation
The room was silent, and I instantly reflected about former students of mine who dealt with many of the situations Mr. Reed listed.
And then he said something I hope every educator remembers:
“We should not be meeting trauma with trauma; we need to meet trauma with compassion.”
We can’t always fix their circumstances. But we can meet them where they are. We can listen. We can follow up. We can show up consistently.
Tip #3: Who Are We? Building the Collective “We” in a Classroom
The final question Mr. Reed posed might be my favorite: “Who are we together?”
A classroom is not simply a group of individuals. It is a family in progress, a community we intentionally create. Mr. Reed reminded us that the difference between a good teacher and a great teacher isn’t charisma or cleverness. It’s intentionality!
We don’t build belonging by accident. We build it by choosing it. He gave us some ideas for being intentional, some of which were:
Greet students every day at the door- with their name, a smile, a handshake, or a fist bump,
Play games with your class (the goofy ones usually work best), and
Apologize when you mess up (model humanity).
Mr. Reed also reminded us that relationships don’t stop at the classroom door. Showing up for kids at sports events, recitals, birthdays, and community spaces builds trust in powerful ways- especially for gifted students who thrive on connection and recognition.
The Lasting Impact
As Mr. Reed closed, he reminded us that the lessons we teach stretch far beyond our walls. Our presence, our intentionality, and our belief in our students become memories they carry into adulthood. This concept really hit home for me since just this past summer, a former student of mine from almost 15 years ago reached out to me through my website. His email flooded me with emotion, and it validated my instinct so long ago to be real with my students:
“I just wanted to say hi and thank you. You were such a pivotal role model in my life while so much was hectic in my own home and you always believed in me and encouraged me to reach my full potential. Thank you for always being the authentic you and I’m so happy to see you excelling in life!”
Gifted kids, in particular, feel deeply. They remember who championed them, who saw them, who cared enough to understand their quirks, passions, sensitivities, and potential. And they remember who was there for them even if they don’t tell you how much they need you.
And that’s why this keynote by Dwayne Reed resonated with me so much.
Because being “the educator they need” isn’t about perfection. It’s about presence. It’s about seeing and being seen. It’s about choosing connection every single day.
Don’t ever forget the power of a strong relationship with your gifted students.
What stories do you have about the deep connections you might have made with a student? Share them in the comments below. I’d love to read them! ~Ann
One of the best ways to nurture your gifted or advanced child’s talents is by giving them gifts that open up possibilities rather than close them down. Open-ended, creative toys and materials allow kids and teens to explore, design, invent, and express themselves—without a single “right” answer. Whether your child is musical, artistic, logical, or imaginative, these gifts inspire self-directed learning and talent development across multiple domains. Here are five engaging activity-based gift ideas that are perfect for gifted and advanced learners of all ages.
Musical Instruments (ages 3+ and up)
Research continues to show that learning to play a musical instrument strengthens the brain, improves memory, and enhances creativity. Musical training activates both hemispheres of the brain and supports complex thinking skills—skills often found in gifted learners.
USC Study– Children’s brains develop faster with music training (2016)
EdSource– How music education sharpens the brain, tunes us up for life (2024)
For young children, simple instruments such as shakers, xylophones, or ukuleles encourage rhythm and pattern recognition. For older kids and teens, a keyboard or guitar can become an expressive outlet for creativity and emotion. With free YouTube tutorials and beginner apps, your child can explore music before you invest in lessons or higher-quality instruments. The goal isn’t perfection—it’s exploration, expression, and the joy of making music.
Do you remember creating long chains of dominoes just to watch them tumble? H5 Domino Creations takes that idea to the next level, allowing kids, teens, and families to design intricate domino runs filled with loops, bridges, and patterns.
This toy is fantastic for gifted learners who love engineering, cause-and-effect reasoning, and creative problem-solving. Much like Rube Goldberg machines, building domino runs requires patience, spatial reasoning, and precision—all valuable skills in STEM fields. Gifted kids who thrive on seeing their ideas come to life will be thrilled by the visual and auditory payoff of watching their designs in motion.
The Sphero Mini Coding Ball is a small, powerful toy that introduces children and teens to the world of coding and robotics. Through the app, kids can code their Sphero to roll, light up, and navigate obstacle courses they design themselves.
This toy is a perfect blend of logic, creativity, and experimentation—core traits of many gifted learners. It encourages persistence, strategic thinking, and iterative design as kids test and adjust their code. Whether your child dreams of inventing video games or designing technology that changes the world, the Sphero Mini is an engaging first step into computational thinking.
Art Kits for Every Age
Crayola Create & Carry Travel Art Set for Kids (ages 5+) and PRINA Art Sketch Kit (older children, teens, and adults) provide endless opportunities for self-expression. Many gifted children and teens have exceptional visual-spatial abilities and find comfort and joy in artistic creation.
These kits include a wide range of materials—markers, colored pencils, paints, and sketchbooks—so your child can experiment and develop a personal artistic style. My middle son especially loved pencil drawing, and we kept a portfolio of his evolving work through the years. For gifted learners, art is more than recreation—it’s reflection, problem-solving, and storytelling all in one.
Few things delight young authors more than a blank book waiting to be filled. For gifted students who love to write, illustrate, or create their own universes, blank books invite imaginative worlds to take shape.
Younger children (ages 5–9) might enjoy the softcover versions with spaces for drawings and simple stories, while older kids and teens (ages 10–14) can use hardcover versions for novels, comic books, poetry collections, or even research journals. In my classroom, my gifted students treasured these books as creative outlets, and I’ve saved several that my own children made at home. Each one tells a story of curiosity, originality, and persistence.
Wrapping It Up
I hope these open-ended, creative gift ideas inspire your child to explore their interests and express their talents this holiday season. Musical instruments, coding kits, art sets, domino creations, and blank books all have one thing in common—they empower kids and teens to take ownership of their learning and follow their curiosity.
If you’ve enjoyed this post, be sure to check out the full Holiday 2025 Shopping Guide for Gifted and Advanced Children and Teens (covered in my last 3 blog posts), where I share even more recommendations for curious minds and creative thinkers.
What open-ended gifts have inspired your gifted child? I’d love to hear your ideas in the comments below.
Wishing you a joyful and wonder-filled holiday season! ~ Ann
Teaching for Talent 