Relational Personalization in Digital Gifted Learning: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review of Meaning, Teacher Role, and the Paradox of Inclusivity
Abstract
Abstract. Digital transformation has fundamentally changed how gifted students interact with knowledge, yet emotional alienation and inequitable access persist despite technological opportunities. To systematically understand the meaning and experience of digital learning for gifted students through qualitative synthesis of international literature. Systematic searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, MDPI, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar from January 2020 to September 2025. Peer-reviewed articles in English or Indonesian, published 2020-2025, focusing on digital learning for gifted/talented students in education, psychology, or learning technology fields, with full-text accessibility. Gifted students (high cognitive ability, above-average intellectual potential) engaged in digital learning environments across various educational contexts. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and selection following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Quality assessment used the CASP Qualitative Checklist. From 312 identified articles, 10 studies met inclusion criteria after systematic review. Three major themes emerged: (1) cognitive autonomy coupled with emotional loneliness in digital environments; (2) teachers' evolving role as human mediators amid algorithmic learning; (3) paradoxical inclusivity—technology expands access but fails to guarantee social acceptance. These findings reveal digital gifted learning success depends not only on technological sophistication but also on educational systems' capacity to restore relational and empathetic dimensions. Literature predominantly represents global/Western contexts with limited representation from Indonesian or Islamic educational settings. Secondary data analysis restricts depth of affective experience understanding. Digital gifted learning requires "relational personalization"—combining technological personalization with human connection, empathy, and meaning-making. Policymakers should balance efficiency with psychosocial wellbeing; curriculum developers must design collaborative, reflective learning; educators need professional development in meaning mediation, not just platform literacy.
Downloads
References
Abels, S., & Stinken-Rösner, L. (2022). Inclusive pedagogy and digital media in science education: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Inclusive Education Studies, 18(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jies.2022.18.2.134
Aleksieva, L. (2025). Preparing pre-service teachers for the digital transformation of education: Exploring university teacher educators’ views and practical strategies. Education Sciences, 15(4), 404.
Almukhambetova, A., & Hernández-Torrano, D. (2020). Gifted students’ adjustment and underachievement in university: An exploration from the self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 117-131.
Alshehri, A. H. A. (2022). Impact of Online Learning on Gifted Students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10(4), 849-867.
Andersen, K. (2025). The intertwining of inclusive and digital learning: A scoping review on digital learning in inclusive science education. DILeMa: Digital Learning and Inclusion Journal, 1(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.11576/dilema-7608
Ayeni, O. O., Al Hamad, N. M., Chisom, O. N., Osawaru, B., & Adewusi, O. E. (2024). AI in education: A review of personalized learning and educational technology. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(2), 261-271.
Birrell, K. (2025). Can AI tools enhance the learning outcomes of gifted KS2 students? Centre for Education Action Research (CEAR), Deira International School.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breviário, D. R., Oliveira, R. P., & Martins, M. G. (2025). Virtual reality as an inclusive tool for students with high skills and giftedness. Interseções: Revista de Educação e Inclusão, 2(1), 44–58.
Brevik, L. M., & Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2024). Teachers’ professional digital competence and gifted education in inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133, 104271.
Chieffo, D. P. R., Arcangeli, V., Delle Donne, V., Settimi, G., Massaroni, V., Marfoli, A., ... & Mercuri, E. M. (2025). Cognitive, Behavioral, and Learning Profiles of Children with Above-Average Cognitive Functioning: Insights from an Italian Clinical Sample. Children, 12(7), 926.
Damsgaard, J. B., Pilegaard, M., & Brinkmann, S. (2023). Embodied relational research: How can researchers' competences in exploring existential aspects be enhanced?. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 37(2), 424-433.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Dor-Haim, P., & Oplatka, I. (2021). Feelings of loneliness among school principals: Experiences, causes and copying strategies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(2), 261-276.
Drigas, A., Papanastasiou, G., & Skianis, C. (2023). The school of the future: The role of digital technologies, metacognition and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 18(9), 65.
Gabriel, F., Marrone, R., Van Sebille, Y., Kovanovic, V., & de Laat, M. (2022). Digital education strategies around the world: practices and policies. Irish Educational Studies, 41(1), 85-106.
Hollin, I. L., Craig, B. M., Coast, J., Beusterien, K., Vass, C., DiSantostefano, R., & Peay, H. (2020). Reporting formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey instruments: guidelines for authors and reviewers. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 13(1), 121-136.
Jelodari, Z., Mohammadi Zenouzagh, Z., & Hashamdar, M. (2025). Exploring PBL and e-PBL: Implications for 21st-century skills in EFL education. Discover Education, 4(311). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00773-3
Køster, A., & Fernandez, A. V. (2023). Investigating modes of being in the world: an introduction to phenomenologically grounded qualitative research. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 149-169.
Li, Z., & Zhang, W. (2025). Technology in education: Addressing legal and governance challenges in the digital era. Education and Information Technologies, 30(7), 8413-8443.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Martek, I., Wu, W., Oraee, M., & Hosseini, M. R. (2021). Educating the “T-shaped” BIM professional: Lessons from academia. In BIM Teaching and Learning Handbook (pp. 247-261). Routledge.
McAvoy, M., & O'Connor, P. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge companion to drama in education. London: Routledge.
Mossberg, F., Lundqvist, J., & Sund, L. (2024). An international scoping review focused on gifted and talented children: Early identification and inclusive education. Journal of Childhood, Education and Society, 5(3), 407-423.
Ninkov, I. (2020). Education policies for gifted children within a human rights paradigm: A comparative analysis. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 5(4), 280-289.
Nopas, D. S. (2025). Algorithmic learning or learner autonomy? Rethinking AI’s role in digital education. Qualitative Research Journal.
Ogunmakinde, O. E., Egbelakin, T., Sher, W., Omotayo, T., & Ogunnusi, M. (2024). Establishing the limitations of sustainable construction in developing countries: a systematic literature review using PRISMA. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 13(3), 609-624.
Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(n71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pannullo, L., Bosse, M., & Schulz, C. (2025). Digital inquiry-based science learning: Inclusive approaches and teacher readiness. Science Education International, 36(1), 45–63.
Tourón, J., & Santiago, R. (2015). The Flipped Classroom: How to improve teaching using learning technologies. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra Press.
Patrick, V. M., & Hollenbeck, C. R. (2021). Designing for all: Consumer response to inclusive design. Journal of consumer psychology, 31(2), 360-381.
Rathnasekara, K., Yatigammana, K., & Suraweera, N. (2025). Innovative pedagogical framework in K12 education: enhancing productivity and engagement of digital natives within resource-constrained environments. Quality Education for All, 2(1), 413-438.
Rizqiyah, N., Jauhari, A. H., Fawaied, M., & Maudy, M. (2025). REVOLUSI DIGITAL DALAM PENDIDIKAN: Peran Teknologi Dan Media Sosial Dalam Pembelajaran. PENERBIT KBM INDONESIA.
Ronksley-Pavia, M., & Neumann, M. M. (2022). Exploring educator leadership practices in gifted education to facilitate online learning experiences for (re) engaging gifted students. Education Sciences, 12(2), 99.
Sheffler, P., Rodriguez, T. M., Cheung, C. S., & Wu, R. (2022). Cognitive and metacognitive, motivational, and resource considerations for learning new skills across the lifespan. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13(2), e1585.
Stein, M., Keller, T., & Fischer, C. (2025). Development and pilot study of an asynchronous online enrichment course on mathematical proving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 37(4), 1–15.
Tanello, G. B. de F., Munhoz, D. R. M., & Riechi, T. I. J. de S. (2025). Neuropsychological game-based intervention with gifted students. SBGames Short Paper Series, Universidade Federal do Paraná.
Townend, G., Jolly, J. L., & Chew, A. (2024). Professional development in gifted education: A systematic literature review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 49(6), 76-104.
Vidal-Fernández, A., Martínez-Algora, C., & Román-González, M. (2025). Digital tools to support personalized education for gifted students: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091257
Volkotrubova, A., Kasymova, A., Hbur, Z., Kichuk, A., Koshova, S., & Khodakivska, S. (2024). AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO ORGANIZING THE FORMATION OF STUDENTS’COGNITIVE INDEPENDENCE IN CONDITIONS OF INTENSIFICATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES. Strategies for Policy in Science & Education/Strategii na Obrazovatelnata i Nauchnata Politika, 32(6).
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2020). Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions. Journal of research on technology in education, 52(3), 235-252.
Wicaksono, M. A., Pranoto, Y. K. S., & Diana. (2025). Learning strategies for gifted students in primary schools: A systematic review. Child Education Journal, 7(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.33086/cej.v7i2.7603
Copyright (c) 2025 Farid Imam Kholidin, Eklys Cheseda Makaria, Novi Rosita Rahmawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
