The Bully’s Face: Using Art to Understand Bullying in Gifted Children

Abstract

This article discusses bullying among the author’s gifted sixth graders within their general education classes, in situations where the gifted were both victim and bully. There are few studies of the gifted child as bully. Using depth psychology, visual arts, and writing, the students constructed the bully and victim using torn paper and writing from both the perspective of the bully and victim. The author and her students charted the three stages of stress and specific ways to avoid or ameliorate these situations. The author contends that using creative art and depth psychology principles and respecting the unique psychology of the gifted student were pivotal in understanding this situation and determining helpful solutions. These include getting plenty of sleep, writing in a journal or diary, doing something physical such as dancing or sports, or talking to a friend.

Gifted Classroom Environments and the Creative Process: A Systematic Review

“…Westberg and Leppien (2018) discussed the importance of independent “investigations of real problems and solutions” (p. 13), and Coxon (2012) suggested that “children be provided with problems” that “require them to decide what evidence is relevant and to offer their own interpretations of what the evidence means” (p. 281). These learning experiences used interest-based inquiry to examine real-life issues that students wanted to solve in domains of interest (e.g., science, math, community activism; Firmender et al, 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Jo & Ku, 2011; Thompson, 2017) that were relevant to their current situations in school (e.g., bullying; Groman, 2019). The literature suggested that teachers harness student interest in local or global problems (e.g., environmental concerns, Beason-Manes, 2018; accessibility, Schroth & Helfer, 2017).…”

“…Hines et al (2019) advocated for the use of Torrance and Safter’s (1990) Incubation Model of Teaching to incorporate more opportunities for gifted students to seek “connections between content and ideas, or events from past experiences, present problems, and future images” (p. 39) beyond the classroom. Beyond just providing time for ideas to incubate, authors advocated for explicitly teaching students to defer judgment when they consider an idea (Beason-Manes, 2018; Firmender et al, 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Groman, 2019). Deferring judgment allowed students to record and carefully consider ideas before discarding them (Thompson, 2017) and required teachers to provide “adequate time” instead of asking students to complete tasks “on-demand” or on a “preset schedule” (Firmender et al, 2017, pp.…”

“…Five empirical articles were reviewed, of which two were qualitative (Chan & Yuen, 2015;Wu et al, 2019) and three were quantitative (Jo & Ku, 2011;Kettler & Bower, 2017;Sak, 2013). Of the remaining articles, most (n = 16) were practitioner-focused and written with classroom teachers as the primary audience (Beason-Manes, 2018;Chandra Handa, 2015;Coxon, 2012;Firmender et al, 2017;Fletcher, 2011;Gavin & Casa, 2013;Groman, 2019;Hagge, 2017;Hébert et al, 2014;Hines et al, 2019;Schroth & Helfer, 2017;Scott, 2011;Senne et al, 2016;Shively et al, 2018;Thompson, 2017;Westberg & Leppien, 2018), but several (n = 5) were more theoretical in nature with a broader audience that included researchers and school personnel (Miller, 2012;Renzulli, 2012;Renzulli & Reis, 2012;Subotnik, 2015;Subotnik et al, 2011). Overall, the 26 articles described learning environments for gifted students with an emphasis on classroom systems that promote and support creativity and the creative process.…”

“…Due to time constraints, educators often overlook the need to incorporate time for incubating ideas (Hines et al, 2019; Shively et al, 2018). Classrooms that support the creative process need to be intentional about teaching students to defer judgment when generating ideas and providing adequate time to do so (Gavin & Casa, 2013; Groman, 2019). The literature suggests that providing more time and deferring judgment are not domain-specific phenomena (Sawyer, 2012); however, being able to provide this extra time within existing structures will be largely dependent upon individual classrooms (i.e., values and norms) and school cultures (Hennessey, 2015).…”

“…This flexibility gives high-ability learners in the midst of guided and independent investigation one more layer of support for creative risk-taking (Hennessey, 2015). Specifically, makerspaces in a physical classroom can provide tangible materials and opportunities to build community through cooperative product manufacturing, assembly, and troubleshooting among groups of high-ability students (Groman, 2019). In digital environments, online communities can provide a virtual space to find resources, publish products, receive feedback and collaborate with peers, mentors, or experts across the globe.…”