talent development: exposing the weakest link' · 2018-05-08 · talent development: exposing...

Talent Development:Exposing the Weakest Link'

by Françoys GAGNÉUnimsité du Québec à Montreal (Canada)

1. Talent Development: Exposing the field of gifted education will be in a betterWeakest Link position to design interventions that

For talent to emerge, causal effectively counteract that AchiUe's heel,

contributions from many sources are g^fore addressing the core question,required, among them high natural ^e must identify all the links that buildabilities (called gifts), motivation, the talent development chain. For thatperseverance, supporting parents and purpose, I will briefly describe a talentteachers, as well as long-term investment theory I have developed over the pastm learning, training, and practicing. And twenty-five years; it is called theas a person seeks a higher achievement Differentiated Model of Giftedness andgoal, these contributing factors will need Talent (DMGT). The DMGT identifies allto manifest themselves more intensively, significant causal influences in the talentEminence is rarely bestowed on those development process. Among currentwho chose the easy road to skilled per- conceptions of giftedness (Sternberg &formance. As we look at talent Davidson, 2005), the DMGT stands alonedevelopment from its first manifestations in its clear, and well-operationalizedto its peak achievements, we can observe definitions of two key concepts in the field ê Sthe contribution of each of the causal ofgifted education: giftedness and talent. 1 1factors just mentioned. Together, they Space being limited, I will survey its ? »constitute a series of links in the causal components and structure just enough to o |,chain that account for the emergence of enlighten readers who have never ° ^talent in any field of human activity. The encountered this theory. Interested g.^present text aims to examine the relative readers will find detailed presentations ^̂ g-strength of these causal links in order to of the DMGT in various recent sources Z'^pinpoint the weakest among them. Aware (Gagné, 2003, 2004, 2005a, in press; Van ° ""of the weakest link, professionals in the Rossum & Gagné, 2005).

This article is based on a keynote presentation at the Seventeenth Biannual Conference of the World Council for Giftedand Talented Children, held in Warwick, England, August 5-9, 2007. The title was chosen as a tongue-in-cheekreference to a popular game show created in England, but now internationally popular.

O

221

Françoys GAGNÉ

2. The Differentiated Modei ofGiftedness and Taient (DMG7]

As shown in Figure 1, the DMGTbríngs together six components: gifts (G),talents (T), the talent developmentprocess (fl), intrapersonal catalysts (7),

environmental catalysts {E), and the(C), They can be grouped

trios: (a) the talent/ / ^ rT} T\\

'supporting cast' trío (/, E, C).

FIGURE 1: The D/fferent/atec/ Model of Giftedness and Ta/ent (DMGT.2007).

o'S-OJI—I

CM

GIFTEDNESS (G) •mtOp10%

NATURALABILITIES (NAT)

OCXMAINS KJU

NTEUECTUAL (GOGeneral Intelflgenu (g betörtFidd. alstaSlzH rMsoningV^ifaal. numcrtcal. spadalMemory, «ens« of observation

Inventiveness ( p gImagination, orlglnsllty (art4,

retrieval fluency.

[4Commurúeatton ftaet.

perceptlveneas. eloquence)Influence (leaderahip. ú i

PHYSICAL tCMSensory: vIsuaX audltoiy,

oHactbe, etc.Motor power, endurance,

balance, coonfinalion. e t c

CATALYSTS

INTRAPERSONAL mPHYSICAUMENML CHARACTEnSTICS

(Appearance, handicaps, health!(Tempefanwnt. parunality Iralts, well being)

SELF.MANA6EMENT (.> Maturity)AWARENESS O F SELF/OmEIIS

(StrenjtlH & weaknesses, emotions)

MonvAnoN/votmoN(Needs, interests, pasmona, values)(Resource allocation, adaptive stntegles. effort)

DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS (O)InformaVformal laaming & practicing

î̂—j Positive/ 1 ^negattmftnfWrts

ENVIRONMENTAL (E)mUEU: physical, cuhural. social, familial, e tc

PERSONS: parents, teache«, peers, rrwntors, e tc

PROVISIONS: programs, activities, services, e tc

EV0ITS: encounters, avravds, acddents. e tc

TALENT ÍT)• top 10%

SYSTEMATICALLYDEVELOPED

COMPETENCIES(SYSO£V)

HELOS m

ACADEMICS: language, sclerKe.humanities, etc.

ARTS: visual, drema. music, etc

BUSINESS: sales, entreprenaurship,management, etc^

LEtSLMS: chess, video games,puzajes, etc

SOCiAL ACTION: media, puhtlcoffice, e tc

SPORTS: indnldual & team.

TECHNOLOGY: trades & crafts,electrónica, computers, etc

10 0̂ 1Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT.2007)

•o E

> o

A. The talent development trioThe first trio includes the three

components whose interactionsummarízes the essence of the DMGT'sconception of talent development, namelythe progressive transformation of giftsinto talents. Here are formal definitionsfor the two target concepts.

Giftedness designates the possessionand use of untrained and spontaneously

expressed outstanding natural abihtiesor aptitudes (called gifts), in at least oneability domain, to a degree that placesan individual at least among the top 10%of age peers.

Talent designates the outstandingmastery of systematically developedcompetencies (knowledge and skills) inat least one field of human activity to adegree that places an individual at least

222

Talent Development: Exposing the Weakest Link

among the top 10% of'leaming peers'(all tural abilities or gifts into the well-those who have accumulated a similar trained and systematically developedamount of learning time from either competencies characteristic of a particu-current or past training). lar field of human activity. On the

potential-performance continuum, talentsGifts (G), The^DMGT distinguishes represent the performance pole, thus the

four natural ability domains (see Figure outcome of the talent development1): intellectual (Gi), creative (Gc), social process. Talent fields can be extremely(Gs), and physical {Gp). These natural diverse. Figure 1 shows examples ofabilities, whose development and level of talent fields relevant to school-agedexpression is partially controlled by the youth. A given natural ability can expressindividual's genetic endowment, can be itself in many different ways, dependingobserved in every task children are on the field(s) of activity adopted by anconfronted with in the course of their individual. For example, manualschooling. For instance, think of the na- dexterity can be modeled into the parti-tural intellectual abilities needed to leam cular skills of a pianist, a painter, or ato read, speak a foreign language, or video-game player. Similarly, intelligenceunderstand new mathematical concepts; can be modeled into the scientificthe natural creative abilities needed to reasoning of a chemist, the game analysissolve different kinds of problems and pro- of a chess player, or the strategicduce original work in science, literature, planning of an athlete,and art; the natural physical abilitiesinvolved in sports, music, and sculpture; Developmental process (D). In thisthe natural social abilities that children theory, natural abilities or aptitudes actuse daily in interactions with classmates, ^s the "raw materials" or constituentteachers, and parents. Gifts can be elements of talents. The process of talentobserved more easily and directly in development manifests itself when theyoung children because environmental child or adolescent engages in systematicinfluences and systematic learning have learning and practicing. The higher theexerted their moderating influence in a ^^^el of talent sought, the more intensivelimited way. However, they still show this process will be. Developmental | »themselves in older children and even in processes can take three different forms. 1 1adults through the facility and speed with (a) Maturation is a process largely | |which individuals acquire new controlled by the genetic endowment. It g g.competencies (knowledge and skills) in ensures the growth and transformation »-gany given field of human activity. Said of all biological structures and ^ fdiflerently, ease/speed in leaming is the physiological processes, called | |trademark of giftedness. endophenotypes (Gottesman & Todd,

2003), which underlie phenotypicTa/ewis m As defined in the JDMGT, abilities, (b) Spontaneous learning

talents progressively emerge from the corresponds essentially to knowledge andtransformation of these outstanding na- skills acquired as part of daily activities.

223

o <

Françoys GAGNÉ

_ o.2 «^M o

l•S E

SxM -J

•> O

Much of what is called 'practicalintelligence' (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986)is the result of such unstructuredlearning activities. The generalknowledge, language skills, social skillsor manual skills mastered hy youngchildren hefore they enter the schoolsystem result in large part from suchunstructured activities, (c) Systematicleaming is characterized not only hy aconscious intention to attain specificlearning goals, hut also hy asystematically planned sequence oflearning steps to achieve these goals.When that systematic leaming reacheshigh levels, Ericsson's concept ofdeliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, &Tesch-Römer, 1993) hecomes a centralpart of the leaming process. This thirdtype is not necessarily formal. In its non-formal type, it corresponds to autodidacticor self-taught learning, done most of thetime as a leisure activity. Still, the mostcommon learning process remains formalor institutionally hased, and leads to anofficial diploma recognizing competenceor talent.

As a general rule, these threeprocesses contribute in inverseproportions to the development of giftsand talents respectively. In the case ofgifts, the major developmental agent ismaturation, closely followed hy informalleaming; it is the opposite in the case oftalents, with formal institutional leamingaccounting for most of the developmentalactivity, and spontaneous leaming havinga more modest contribution.

The prevalence question. Anydefinition of normative concepts must

specify how suhjects differ from the normand what it means in terms of theprevalence of the population suhsumedby the lahel. In the DMGT, the thresholdfor both giftedness and talent is placedat the 90th percentile. In other words,those who belong to the top 10% of therelevant reference group in terms of na-tural ahility (for giftedness) orachievement (for talent) receive therelevant lahel. This generous choice ofthreshold is counterbalanced by the useof five successive levels of giftedness ortalent based on the metric system (Gagné,1998). Thus, within the top 10% of"mildly" gifted or talented persons, theDMGT identifies the following fourprogressively more selective subgroups,labeled "moderately" (top 1%), "highly"(top 1:1,000), "exceptionally" (top1:10,000), and "extremely," or"profoundly" as some scholars prefer (top1:100,000), respectively.

ß. The 'supporting cast' trioThe talent development process is

facilitated (or hindered) by the action oftwo types of catalysts; intrapersonal andenvironmental (see Figure 1). The lastcomponent, chance, temporarilyassociated with the catalysts, will haveits precise role revised in the near future.

Intrapersonal catalysts (I). Theintrapersonal catalysts include physicaland psychological factors, many of themunder the partial influence of the geneticendowment. Among the psychologicalcatalysts, motivation and volition play acmcial role in initiating the process oftalent development, guiding it and

224


sustaining it tbrough obstacles, boredom, offering a program for talented students).and occasional failure. Self-management But, strictly speaking, it is not a causalgives structure and efficiency to the talent factor. Just like the type of infiuencedevelopment process, as it does to other (positive vs. negative), chancedaily activities. Hereditary predisposi- characterizes the predictabilitytions to bebave in certain ways (controllable vs. uncontrollable) of(temperament) and acquired styles of elements belonging to three otherbehavior (e.g., traits and disorders) also components (G, /, or E), Chance's crucialcontribute significantly to support and involvement is well summarized bystimulate, or slow down and even block, Atkinson's (1978) statement tbat alltalent development. human accomplishments can be ascribed

to "two crucial rolls of tbe dice over whichEnvironmental catalysts (E). The no individual exerts any personal con-

environment manifests its significant trol. These are the accidents of birth andimpact in four different ways. The milieu background. One roll of the dice determi-exerts its infiuence both at a macroscopic nes an individual's heredity; the other,level (e.g., geographic, demographic, his formative environment" (p. 221).sociological) and at a more microscopiclevel (e.g., size of family, age and gender Q y^g ^ ¡^^ ^f jgjg f̂01 siblmgs, socioeconomic status). Many , •different persons, not only parents and oei/eiopmenrteachers, but also siblings and peers, may ^«^ ^^e model to become a theory, thehave positive or negative influences on ^^ components need to be dynamicallyan individual's talent development associated. Here are a few rules andprocess. Gifted education programs Principles of the theory part of thewithin or outside the school belong to'the DMGT,provisions category, as do similar typesof programs in other fields; these more ^- ^««^^ overview. The relationshipssystematic forms of intervention among the six components are expressed ^^contribute to foster the talent through a complex pattern of interactions. P |

cuo

o <

IIo 31

fl>

IV) a;t—»TO~ O

development process, while their absence "^^^ "^^st fundamental one is the causalcan affect that process negatively, relationship between natural abilitiesFinally, significant euenis (tbe death of a (gifts) and competencies (talents),parent, a príze or award, a major accident illustrated by tbe large central arrow in g |or illness) can alter tbe course of talent Figure 1. Because gifts are thedevelopment one way or the other. constituent elements (or raw materíals)

of talents, it follows that the presence ofChance (C). Chance could be added as talents implies underlying gifts. But that

a fifth causal factor associated with the statement needs to be qualified. Ofenvironment (e.g., the chance of being course, / and E catalysts, as well as thebom in a particular family; tbe chance of D component, play a significantthe school in which the child is enrolled facilitating (or hindering) role in the

225

Françoys GAGNÉ

developmental process. As causal agents developed with regard to academic talentthey take away from gifts part of the development. As defined in the DMGT,predictive power for talent emergence, academic talent refers to the high levelthus reducing the causal power of gifts knowledge and reasoning skills learnedto a moderate level. Consequently, at low in the various subject matters of the K-levels of talent, we could observe 12 curriculum. It is best measured byindividuals with natural abilities below school exams or standardizedthe gifted level reaching talent-level achievement tests. Academic talent canperformances through strong inputs from be observed as early as Grade 1, andintrapersonal and/or environmental continues to be measured as long as thecatalysts, as well as from the student remains in the educationaldevelopmental process itself (amount and system. Most of the scientific literatureintensity oflearning and practicing). This described below originates from thatmoderate relationship between gifts and specific context. Yet, I recently foundtalents also means that gifts can remain strong support for its extrapolation toundeveloped, as witnessed by the well- talent development in sports. I only haveknown phenomenon of academic space here to briefly survey some of theunderachievement among intellectually major arguments buttressing mygifted children. As shown by the arrows proposed hierarchy (for extendedin Figure 1, the causal components discussions, see Gagné 2003, 2004,usually act through the developmental 2005a).process, facilitating or hindering theleaming activities and thus the perfor- The highest rank given to themanee. giftedness component follows from the

role of natural abilities as the building2. What makes a difference? Are blocks of the knowledge and skills that

some components generally recognized as ¿efine a specific talent field. In theexercising more powerful influences on educational field, the most relevant na-talent emergence? It is possible to find tural abilities are cognitive. So, it is not

• | B in the scientific literature strong surprising that the best predictor of1 1 defenders for each of the DMGTs academic talent is an IQ test, an excellent^ I components. It is clear, for instance, that measure of general cognitive abilities^ 2 dedicated environmentalists (e.g.. Bloom, (Jensen, 1980, 1998). In grade school,I Si 1985) will choose the E catalysts; others most correlations between IQ scores and•̂ ' (e.g., Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, standardized achievement tests easily

1993; Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, reach .60. Even in high school settings,2007) defend the role of practice as the the correlations usually remain aroundcrucial element in talent development. 50.My own review of the existing literaturehas brought me to propose the following The placement of intrapersonalhierarchy among the four components: G, catalysts in second rank brings up twoI, D, E. Note that this hierarchy was questions: (a) why they follow gifts, and

226

oOJ

eg

oo"o

= •


(b) why they precede the developmental directly from the intrapersonal andprocess. The research literature (e.g., environmental catalysts. It is passion,Walberg, 1984) suggests that the best competitiveness, parental support, coach"contenders" to prominence among admonitions, or other I or E elements thatintrapersonal catalysts would be help maintain a steady regimen ofmotivation-related constructs, namely learning and practice, especially when theinterest —or passion— and perseverance, learner encounters obstacles.But, what does research say about thesecontenders? Virtually every comparative Relegating the environmentalstudy of the relative explanatory power catalysts to the bottom of the causalof motivational constructs over IQ hierarchy contradicts common sense, asmeasures has shown a clear superioríty well as much of the social sciencesof the latter. After reviewing the literature. Most analysts perceiveliterature. Gagné and St Père (2001) environmentalism as the leading ideologyconcluded that IQ scores were on avera- in the behavioral sciences (Cohen, 1999;ge five times more powerful than Harrís, 1998; Pinker, 1997; Tooby &motivation or volition in explaining indi- Cosmides, 1992). Yet, over the last twovidual differences in school achievement, decades, researchers in behavioral

genetics have strongly questioned theThe second question concerns the causal predominance of environmental

priority of intrapersonal catalysts over inputs, thus tríggering a heated debatethe D component. A group of scholars, (see Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg,led by K. A. Erícsson (e.g., 1996), have Hetheríngton, & Bomstein, 2000). Thosebeen arguing for a strong causal who oppose the predominance ofrelationship between level of talent and environmental interpretations advanceamount -and quality- of practice, three major arguments. The first one,almost to the exclusion of other causal commonly labeled'the nature of nurture,'sources, especially natural abilities states that most environmental measures(Erícsson et al., 2007; Howe, Davidson, are partly infiuenced by the genotype,& Sloboda, 1998). Their extreme position which artificially inflates theirtriggered numerous objections in the contribution. For example, Scarr andscholarly world (see comments in Howe Carter-Saltzman (1982) demonstrated 1 1et al., 1998). What they repeatedly that the teaching abilities of mothers 1 1overlook in their studies is the large in- were strongly associated with their g g.dividual differences within the groups intelligence level. Rowe (1994) gives many §"gthey compare (e.g., amateurs vs. additional examples of the genotype's ^ | "professionals; or music soloists vs. music infiuence on 'social' measures. The second è | .teachers). In other words, Ericsson's 'road argument invokes the phenomenologicalto excellence' implies much more than perspective, according to whichjust "practice makes perfect." Moreover, environmental influences areto use a common metaphor, the D 'engine' continuously filtered through the eyes ofneeds fuel to run, and that fuel comes the persons who are targeted by them.

227

O <

'S «

Françoys GAGNÉ

That perceptual filtering gives more which, when compared to all others, playsimportance to intrapersonal catalysts, on average the least significant role instrengthening the argument in favor of the emergence of academic talent. Intheir placement immediately after the G statistical terms, it would be the causalcomponent. Finally, the growing interest factor whose unique explanatory powerin the study of resilience (O'Connell is smallest in a multiple regressionHiggins, 1994), the ability of some equation. So, which of the fourindividuals to achieve high personal components deserves the label of weakestmaturity in spite of having suffered link? It is important to specifyexceptionally negative environmental immediately that the following discussioninfluences, suggests that major applies strictly to the development ofenvironmental obstacles can be academic talents within the K-12surmounted (see Gagné, 2000, for a vivid educational system, or its equivalentillustration). outside North America. Applying this

analysis to other fields, like arts.As a final note, creating a hierarchy technology or sports, would possibly lead

should not make us forget that (a) all to a different diagnosis. I have not donecomponents play a crucial role in the the necessary research to ascertain howtalent developments process, and (b) that the present analysis would apply in othereach individual story of talent emergence fields,reveals a unique mixture of the four cau-sal components. Said differently, the ¡^ Examining enwonmental cataiystsemergence of talents results from acomplex choreography between the four The above discussion of the GIDEcausal components, a choreography hierarchy pomts to my proposed answer,unique to each individual situation. Indeed, by positioning the E component

at the bottom of that hierarchy, I was3. The Weakest Link: Origin and ?^^^^^"f the environmental catalysts as

® the weakest link on average m the chainimpacts of causes accounting for talent emergence.

The above survey of the DMGT has But do the four sub-components (see Fi-^ identified four major causal links —G, I, gure 1) ofthat catalyst share equally that

D, and E—, each of them broken down weakest role, or does one of them emergeI ^ into various sub-components that act as more than the others?« °= more specific causal links. Which of themS S should be judged the weakest link? This Two unlikely candidates. I will"I ,| expression will have here a somewhat promptly put aside two of the sub-

different meaning than in common usage, components: special events andThe expression targets the link most at significant persons. In the case of specialrisk to break when a chain is strongly events, we only have access to anecdotalpulled. In the present case, the expression evidence in support of their presence,'weakest link'refers to the causal element making it difficult to assess their

oo"oo

M


prevalence and significance in the talent chance factors, were judged leastdevelopment histories of individuals. In important. Schader (2001) replicated thatthe second case, we have a somewhat si- methodology with a large group of U.S.milar problem. On the one hand, each female Olympians, and ohtained very si-young leamer has parents, teachers and/ milar results. That same methodologyor coaches, siblings (most of the time), was also used with students and teacherssome extended family, as well as friends, in music programs (Gagné & Blanchard,In that sense, that suh-component cannot 2004). Again, the same four causal factorshe considered weak: there is at least a got the highest ranks, but aptitudes weresmall group of these potential role figu- judged to play the most important role,res around each child. But, do they play These choices again relegateda significant causal role in the talent environmental influences (parentaldevelopment process? Again, the supervision, family musical life) to theavailable evidence remains mostly bottom of the list, with the chance fac-anecdotal. A few researchers did explore tor. In summary, although some datathe heliefs of professionals and other would support a perceived limited causalrelevant groups (e.g., college students, role -of course hy comparison to themusic students, athletes) on the question other components— from surroundingof relative causal importance of various individuals, there is not enough empiricalfactors (e.g.. Gagné, Blanchard, & Begin, information to choose that sub-component1999; Van Rossum & Gagné, 1994). For as the weakest link,example. Gagné, Blanchard, & Begin(1998) queried hundreds of young A localized candidate. Among the lastathletes and their trainers. They gave two suh-components, the 'milieu'them a list of nine different represents the large-scale geographic, cul-characteristics (interest, perseverance, tural, and socio-economic dimensions ofphysical aptitudes, personal qualities, the environment. It encompasses a largeparental support, sport-centered family diversity of factors that tend to impactenvironment, amount of practice, quality talent development more indirectly thanof coaching, chance factors), asking them directly. For instance, a country's climateto choose two (ranks 1 and 2) that best will influence which sports will he prac-distinguished very successful athletes ticable. That country's economy will, to(national or intemational eminence) from some extent determine how much will beless successful ones (regional excellence), available to build and maintain sport fa-as well as two others (ranks 8 and 9) cilities. Religious beliefs will frequentlythat least distinguished them, influence -think of the talibans- whatPerseverance came ahead of all others kind of education will be offered, and towith an average ranking of 2.79, followed whom. Cultural and historicalby three almost equally important factors: circumstances will impact which talentaptitudes (3.83), practice (3.89), and fields become available (Csikszentmihalyipersonality (4.04). The three & Robinson, 1986). But, for our purposes,environmental catalysts, as well as the most direct and relevant element of

o

X

229

Françoys GAGNÉ

that sub-component is the educational environmental sub-components: Provi-system, hardware (schools, personnel) as sions. This sub-component was earlierwell as software (curricula). Worldwide described with regard to the specificdifferences between countries in terms needs of gifted and talented students,of tbe quantity and quality of education Because the fundamental characteristicsystems are huge. In dozens of less ofthese students is their easier and fasterdeveloped countries (e.g., sub-Saharan learning ability, the key conceptAfrica, central and south Asia, some Arab subsuming all specific provisions for thesestates), where a majority of the students is 'enrichment' [1], namely apopulation survives with just a few learning environment and curriculumdollars per day, a large proportion of that offers more than the regularschool-age children do not have access to classroom environment and itseven the most basic form of education, curriculum. That enriched learningIn a recent report (Education For All, environment can be analyzed according2006), a UNESCO researcb team reveals to two major dimensions: content andsobering statistics. For example, close to format. With regard to content,80 million school-aged children do not go enríchment can take four different forms:to school at all, and tens of millions more Density, Diflîculty, Depth, and Diversity,do not attend school regularly. Moreover, I call them the four Ds of enríchmentnot only do these countries lack teachers (Gagné, 2007). They are named here in—well trained or not— but they suffer order of decreasing importance. Themostfrom high levels of teacher absenteeism, important form, enríchment in density.It does not mean that intellectually gifted corresponds essentially to faster pacing:children do not exist in these countries; more learning per unit of time. It isaccording to the DMGT definition of sometimes called curriculum compactinggiftedness, these countríes have their top (Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1992). This type10% just like other countríes. But they of enríchment leads almost spontaneously

00 lack the basic educational facilities so to academic acceleration. If students can§ common in developed countries. These cover the curriculum twice as fast as the

statistics make it clear that, in many average student, then they should be ablecountries, the 'educational milieu' sub- to cover the curriculum of two gradecomponent would easily receive the title levels in just one year. With regard toof weakest link. But, focusing on format, two major options are commonlydeveloped countries, where students mentioned: homogeneous grouping

If.. receive a good and free education all the (ideally full-time) and accelerativeI Ë way up to the end of high school, does it enríchment, like early entrance to school,£ I mean that gifted and talented students grade skipping, and the well-known

are automatically offered educational Advanced Placement Program inservices appropriate to their needs? American high schools. I find the

expression 'accelerative enríchment' veryThe real culprit. The answer to that important because it reinforces the idea

question bríngs us to the last of the four that enrichment and acceleration should

o

CMCM

2

•S ^


not be presented as divergent avenues enrichment in the regular classroom,(one or the other). Indeed, every type of part-time and full-time special classes,acceleration is inherently enriching mentorships, special schools, earlybecause they all incorporate some form entrance to school, continuous progress,of enrichment in density. the College Board's Advanced Placement

Program, dual enrollment). For each typeIn order for this sub-component to mentioned, they included a few questions

become the weakest link, we must that would allow them to judge how welldemonstrate that neither enriched that particular provision wascontent nor relevant administrative implemented in the district. The resultsprovisions are generally available in the were not very encouraging. First, abouteducational systems of developed 75% of the districts sampled did not com-countries. Because of the availability of plete the survey, not a very good sign ofempirical data, I will take as prototype active involvement in gifted and talentedthe United States of America. Nobody will services! Among the 1172 school districtsquestion their status as one of the few sending back completed surveys, 5930countries where talented students are different services were mentioned, aboutvery well served. So, how often do 4.5 on average per district out of thetalented students receive appropriate sixteen options proposed. But, althoughpacing and enrichment? According to two the authors had defined very generousmajor studies, published 25 and 15 years criteria for "substantial" implementation,ago respectively, the answer is: "Almost they judged that fewer than half of thesenever." Here are a few details. services reached a minimal threshold of

quality. For instance, the most commonTwenty-five years ago, the Richardson provision offered, enrichment activities in

Foundation financed a large survey of the regular classroom, was mentioned by |enrichment practices in U.S. school almost 60% of the school districts. Yet, |districts. The results were published in a the survey analysts judged that only 25% flittle book called Educating Ahle of them were ofl"ering it with a minimal ¿ jLearners: Programs and Promising quality level. Here are some of the -° IPractices (Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985). problems mentioned. I fOne of my early readings in the field, S |that little book strongly influenced my If we look at the Enrichment 1 1 !beliefs and convictions concerning the programs [in the regular classroom], g g.special enrichment provisions that ought we see that 58 percent of those .̂ "gto be prioritized. The authors devoted a reporting said that the students were ^¡gchapter to summarize the methodology involved in enrichment activities of ^ | .and results of their national survey of some kind for fewer than three hoursenrichment provisions. They queried the a week. That hardly constitutes atotal population of over four thousand "program" of enrichment. Thoseschool districts on their use of sixteen activities involved "all the class" indifferent types of provisions (e.g., 26 percent of the cases, which means

231

Françoys GAGNÉ

oOJ

1°• g TO

that there was no special effort among curriculum and their instruction tothat 26 percent to offer programs meet the needs of gifted students"specifically geared to the needs of able (Archambault, et al., -1993, 5).learners. (Cox et al., 1985, pp. 37-38).

These studies confirm that the vastIn other words, only about 15% of the majoríty of gifted and talented students

respondents were judged to offer their ^^ U.S. elementary and middle schoolstalented students a minimally substantial bave almost no access to even the mostversion of the most simple form of basic forms of enríchment, let alone moreenríchment provision. As for the other advanced or consistent services. Is itfifteen types of provisions, the better at the high school level? Maybe apercentages were even lower. About a bit better, thanks to some honors classes,decade later, the National Research the Advanced Placement Program, and aCenter of the Gifted and Talented few special 'Governor's schools' for highly(NRCGT) conducted a large survey of talented students in grades 11 and 12.ongoing enríchment practices in U.S. Unfortunately, I know of no recentschool districts (Archambault et a l , systematic survey of such provisions in1993). Again, the results were, to put it Amerícan high schools. Finally, I firmlymildly, disquieting. A representative U.S. believe that the above diagnosis appliessample of over 7000 third- and fourth- by and large to all other developedgrade teachers received a detailed countríes. It also applies indirectly to less-questionnaire "designed to determine the developed countríes, since the need for aextent to which gifted and talented well-structured nationwide educationalstudents are receiving differential system becomes a much higher - andeducation in the regular classroom bard to reach- príoríty than the specificsetting" (Archambault et al., 1993,2). The educational needs of any specialresults revealed that most of the population, especially intellectually giftedenriching activities were offered just a children,few times per month. Moreover, theseactivities usually targeted the whole ß. Impact OH talent emergence

^ ... class, leaving little specific enríchment One would expect that this lack ofo ra for academically talented students. The enríchment provisions would significantlym o authors concluded as follows: affect the emergence of academically'= ^ ^ talented students. Yet, they are present

"The results of this survey paint a in every classroom. Every teacher willdisturbing picture of the types of easily identify at least two or threeinstructional services gifted students students who clearly stand out becausereceive in regular classrooms across of their constant high performances. Howthe United States. It is clear from the can academic talent emerge when schoolsresults that teachers in regular third do so little to foster its development?

J l and fourth grade classrooms make There is one very simple answer, andAtf id only minor modifications in the many more less simple ones.

232


A simple answer. The very simple adopt the DMGT's threshold of top 10%,answer points at the definition of talent, we would still have only a partial answer.Recall that the DMGT defines talent as Indeed, being in the top 10% certainlythe mastery of systematically developed marks the target group as clearly aboveknowledge and skills to a level that places the majority of average performers, butthe learners among the top 10% of their it says little about the objectivepeer group. That type of definition is exceptionality of their achievements. Ittypical of 'normative' concepts, concepts says also nothing about the size of indi-that target 'special' sub-populations vidual differences within that small groupwithin a larger population. Normative ofhigh achievers. There is some empiricalconcepts abound. Think of terms like evidence that could help estimate thepoverty, beauty, spiciness, obesity, extent of the negative impact-if any-tallness, city (vs. town), mountain (vs. of the lack of enrichment provisions,hill). Even the concept of planet is Some paint a rather optimistic picture,normative, as we learned through the others less so.controversial demotion of Pluto less thantwo years ago. Normative concepts are Some optimistic evidence. In a recentoperationalized through the identification study (Gagné, 2005b), I tried to answerof a threshold, below-or above-which various questions about individualobjects will -or will not- receive the differences in academic achievement. Inormative label. For example, one of the adopted as my database the normsmost common measures of obesity is the prepared by the pubhsher of the IowaBody Mass Index or BMI (National Tests of Basic Skills {ITBS, 2001). TheInstitute of Health, 1998). Nutritionists ITBS is a standardized achievement testdecided that people with a BMI of 25 to administered in thousands of schools in29 would be called overweight, while the the United States. It has many forms that §,label 'obese' required a BMI of 30 or more, cover grades 1 to 9. One of them is called ^In the case of the planet Pluto, scientists the Survey Battery. The ITBS norms are -̂used a series of criteria, among them size based on grade level samples of ¡^^and sphericity, to determine which celes- approximately 20,000 students. The raw P | .tial bodies deserved the label of planet, scores obtained by students on any form | ^These examples show that all normative can be transformed into various S -Sconcepts require some degree of standardized scales (e.g., percentiles, | oconsensus among professionals as to how stanines), among them a 'developmental ^ g.

ö »the threshold between the haves and the standard scale' (SS). The SS scalehave-nots will be specified. In the field of transforms raw scores from any grade ^ ^gifted education, no agreement has yet level into a single continuum, thusbeen reached concerning the position of allowing comparisons between studentsthe threshold separating the gifted -or across all grades covered by the test. Thetalented- fi-om more average peers. SS scale values range from 110, the

lowest score in Grade 1, to 369, theBut, even if professionals decided to highest score in Grade 9.

233

Françoys GAGNÉ

CM

Ö

Table 1 shows the grade level means in another way, as shown in theand ranges of the ITBS Survey Battery rightmost column of Table 1. Taking thedevelopmental scores. Note how the Grade 5 subgroup as the target group,lowest score barely increases between let us see how many of them achieve asgrades 1 and 9. Note also how the range well —as measured on the SS scale— asof within-grade achievements increases the average Grade 6 student (mean SSsubstantially over the nine grade levels, score of 228). The answer is 33%, or ahoutfrom 90 SS units in Grade 1 to 220 SS a third of that cohort. The comparisonsunits in Grade 9; that widening gap is with average Grade 7, Grade 8, andcommonly called a 'fan spread' effect Grade 9 students reveal corresponding(Lohman, 1999). Note finally from the se- percentages of 20%, 10%, and 4%. Inries of means that the amount of basic other words, no fewer than 4% (aboutacademic knowledge, as measured with one in twenty-five, or approximately onethis instrument, increases by 110 SS per classroom on average) of that large'units' (260 - 150) hetween the end of representative sample of Grade 5Grade 1 and the end of Grade 9. students performed at the level of an ave-Interestingly, that span equals the range rage Grade 9 student. That's an academicof scores hetween the average Grade 9 advance of four school years. Similarstudent (SS = 260) and the highest percentages of academic advance can beachiever in Grade 9 (SS = 369). In other computed for students from other gradewords, there is as much difference in levels. These percentages confirm thatbasic knowledge mastered between the significant numbers of K-12 studentstop achievers in Grade 9 and their ave- achieve well heyond their grade levelrage peers than there is between avera-ge students eight school years apart! Thelarge size of the individual differencesamong high achievers can be illustrated

TABLE 1 : Descriptive statistics based on the 1993 norms of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills.

peers, even though most of them neverbenefited from any form of enrichmentprovisions.

Grade level

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

Mean SS score

¡150

1169

186

• 200

^^2151

228

:240

,250

260

1 Range

1 110-1991

I 120-229

1130-259

140-289

^ 140^309 ^

'140-329

150-339

150-359

150-369

% of 'exceeders'

—

—

—

33

20

10

4

Data adapted from Table 1 in Gagné, 2005, page 143.

' Percentage of Grade 5 students who exceed the mean SS score for grade levels 5 to 9.


The other side of the coin. We have deviation in test scores of slower studentsjust observed clear signs that many are common. [#] The gains associatedintellectually gifted students succeed in with advanced and accelerated classes aretransforming their natural reasoning especially large. Classes in whichabilities into bigh levels of academic talented children cover four grades intalent. But, what would happen if the three years, for example, boostmajoríty of these talented students had achievement levels a good deal. Enríchedregular access to good enrichment classes boost student achievement byprovisions from their early years in the more moderate amounts. The averageK-12 educational system. Are there signs boost from these classes is four monthsthat these provisions would have a on a grade-equivalent scale (Kulik, 2003,significant impact on student 279).achievement and adaptation? Indeedthere are such signs. For instance, let's Let's look now at accelerativeconsider the administrative procedure of provisions; they generated the largesthomogeneous grouping. Dozens of studies number of evaluation studies. In herhave been conducted over the past five seminal dissertation, Rogers (1991)decades on that subject, using different identified no less than 314, as well as 19forms of homogeneous grouping (e.g., literature reviews, covering a dozentracking or XYZ grouping, cross-grade different modalities of accelerativegrouping, honors classes), as well as enríchment. In a recent review of varíousdifferent methodologies (e.g., case studies, meta-analyses, Kulik (2005) concluded ascorrelational, experimental). Different follows,researchers independently reviewed thesestudies, reaching sometimes quite Th^ meta-analytic results show thatdivergent conclusions. Kulik (2003) bright students almost always benefit |recently surveyed these reviews. Here are from accelerated programs of instruction. r^some of his observations. Two major findings support this f

conclusion. First, on achievement tests, i^^XYZ programs usually have negligible bright accelerated youngsters usually P | .

effects on the achievement of students in perform like their bright, older non- | ^middle and low groups and small effects accelerated classmates. Second, the | fon the achievement of students in high accelerated youngsters usually score ° ^'groups... Evaluation results are very almost one grade-level higher ondifferent for programs in which groups achievement tests than bríght, same-agefollow curricula adjusted to their skill non-accelerated students do. [#] Thelevels. Cross-grade and within-class results from studies comparinggrouping programs in reading and accelerated students with older pupils arearíthmetic, for example, adjust currícula especially impressive because theto group skills, and these programs make accelerated students are at a clearimportant contributions to student disadvantage in these comparisons. Inachievement. Gains of one standard most studies of this sort, the accelerated

235

ro a.

Françoys GAGNÉ

oCVJ

CVJCVJ

00o

CO °

students are at least one year younger undoubtedly increase the students'than their non-accelerated classmates academic performance by a significant(Kulik, 2005, 20). margin.

All in all, large-scale evaluation The normative and ipsativestudies of various forms of enrichment perspectives outlined above becomeprovisions confirm their significant munitions for two opposing groups. Onpositive academic impact, as well as some the one hand, a large proportion ofmore modest socio-affective advantages educators, administrators as well as(Lubinski, 2005). Note that most of the teachers, bring up the large numbers ofprovisions evaluated had been high and exceptional achievers to supportimplemented for rarely more than a year, their position, namely maintainingWhat would the impact be if students enrichment provisions toward the bottomhad access to adequate enrichment f̂ the education system's priority list,provisions over the whole course of their They assert: "See? Talent emergesK-12 education? One can only wonder! ^^y^^y, B^g^t kids shine whether or not

they get special services! There is no4. Conclusions urgent need to plan special provisions for

The divergent data presented above ^hem." They point out simultaneously atunderiine the complexity of assessing the ^ ̂ ^^^ l^g^i" percentage of low achieversimpact of lack of enrichment provisions who struggle every day just to remainfor gifted and talented students. Still, afloat as teachers introduce newenough evidence exists to extract two knowledge. Where should the prioritiesconclusions. On the one hand, the lack of be put? Who should get immediateenrichment provisions does not seem to attention? For them, the answer is clear,affect drastically the emergence of On the other hand, educators who favoracademically talented students. Thanks enrichment services advance the ipsativeto the strength of the other causal viewpoint. They bring fori;h the positive

„ „ components, a majority of young academic and social impacts ofI I intellectually gifted students achieve well enrichment provisions, and try to1 1 enough to receive the normative label of convince their colleagues that talentedf ¡ 'academically talented.' On the other students could progress at a much fasterI i hand, the confirmed effectiveness of well- Pace if a substantial proportion of their| = : structured enrichment provisions waiting time disappeared through

strongly suggests that there is much room enrichment in density. Moreover, thatfor ipsative improvement, namely a better enriched environment would contributeactualization of these gifted students' simultaneously to increase theirpotentialities. If the weakest link: was motivation for learning, strengthen theirreinforced through permanent social and emotional well-being, as wellenrichment provisions over the course of as prepare them better to face latertheir K-12 education, that would learning challenges.


At this point in time, as confirmed bythe identity of the weakest link, thedefenders of the low priority positionclearly dominate in the educationalcommunity of all developed countríes. Thefact that this domination has enduredsince the very beginning of our modemeducational system says a lot about themajor challenge facing scholars andeducators who believe in the specialeducational rights of intellectually giftedstudents. In order to confront that majorideological challenge, we will need toinvest all our energies on planningpowerful advocacy strategies. The Behn/Blank Center in Iowa, and GERRIC inAustralia, generously supportedfinancially by the Templeton Foundation,recently targeted the subject ofaccelerative enrichment; they showedwhat good advocacy could look like(Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004).But, that is just one initiative addressingone specific enríchment provision. Muchmore will be required if we hope to seeenríchment provisions lose their 'weakestlink' label in the near future. And that'much more' should become THE príorítyin the field of gifted education. As Irecently argued in proposing an eleventhcommandment (Gagné, 2006) to myinitial list of ten (Gagné, 2007): "Thoushalt advocate... unremittingly!"

Address of the author: Françoys Gagné, Université duQuébec à Montreal, Département de psychologie, Casepostale 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal(Québec) H3C 3P8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 7.XI.2007

Notes[1] Although many scholars and professionals perceive

the term "enrichment" as politically incorrect, I believewe should insist on its use instead of the termdifferentiation preferred by most professionals in thefield. In my view, the term enrichment clearly descri-bes the specific type of differentiation appropriate fortalented students.

BibliographyARCHAMBAULT, F. X. JR.; WESTBERG, K. L.; BRQWNS, S.

W.; HALLMARK, B. W.; EMMQNS, C. L. and ZHANG,W. (1993) Regular classroom practices with giftedstudents: Results of a national survey of classroomteachers (Storrs, CT, The National Research Centerof the Gifted and Talented).

ATKINSQN, J. W. (1978) Motivational determinants ofintellective performance and cumulative achievement,in J. W. ATKINSQN and J. Q. RAYNOR (eds.)Personality, motivation, and achievement, pp. 221-242 (New York, Wiley).

BLQQM, B. S. (ed.) (1985) Developing talent in young people(New York, Ballantine Books).

CQHEN, D. B. (1999) Stranger in the nest (New York, Wiley).

CQLANGELQ, N.; ASSQULINE, S. and GRQSS, M. U. M.(2004) A nation deceived: How schools hold backAmerica's brightest students. Vol. I and II (Iowa City,lA, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank InternationalCenter for Gifted Education and Talent Development).

CQLLINS, W. A.; MACCQBY, E. E.; STEINBERG, L.;HETHERINGTQN, E. M. and BORNSTEIN, M. H. (2000)Contemporary research on parenting: The case forNature and Nurture, American Psychologist, 55, pp.218-232.

CQX, J.; DANIEL, N. and BQSTON, B. Q. (1985) Educatingable learners: Programs and promising practices(Austin, TX, University of Texas Press).

CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. and RQBINSQN, R. E. (1986) Culture,time, and the development of talent, in R. J.STERNBERG and J. E. DAVIDSQN (eds.) Conceptionsof giftedness, pp. 264-284 (Cambridge, UK,Cambridge University Press).

EDUCATION FQR ALL (2006) Strong foundations: Earlychildhood care and education (EFA global monitoringreport 2007) (Paris, UNESCQ Publishing).

O 31

00 "O<D

tvj a.

237

Françoys GAGNÉ

o

CVI

CJÉ

_ o

iSoo .*IC CM

ERICSSON, K. A. (Ed.) (1996) The road to excellence: Theacquisition of expert performance in the arts andsciences, sports, and games (Mahwah, NJ, LawrenceErlbaum).

ERICSSON, K. A.; KRAMPE, R. T. and TESCH-RÖMER, C.(1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisitionof expert performance. Psychological Review, 100,pp. 363406.

ERICSSON, K. A.; RORING, R. W. and NANDAGOPAL, K.(2007) Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly su-perior performance: an account based on theexpert-performance framework. High /Ability Studies,18, pp. 3-56.

GAGNÉ, F. (1998) A proposal for subcategories within thegifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly,42, pp. 87-95.

GAGNÉ, F. (2000) Understanding the complex choreographyof talent development through DMGT-based analysis,in K. A. HELLER; F. J. MONKS; R. J. STERNBERG andR. SUBOTNIK (eds.) International Handbook forResearch on Giftedness and Talent (2"'' ed.), pp. 67-79 (Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press).

GAGNÉ, F. (2003) Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGTas a Developmental Theory, in N. COLANGELO and G.A. DAVIS (eds.) Handbook of gifted education {3"^ed.), pp. 60-74 (Boston, Allyn & Bacon).

GAGNÉ, F. (2004) Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGTas a Developmental Theory, High Ability Studies, 15,pp. 119-147.

GAGNÉ, F. (2005a) From gifts to talents: The DMGT as adevelopmental model, in R. J. STERNBERG and J. E.DAVIDSON (eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2"'' ed.),pp. 98-119 (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge UniversityPress).

GAGNÉ, F. (2005b) From noncompetence to exceptionaltalent: Exploring the range of academic achievementwithin and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly,49, pp. 139-153.

GAGNÉ, F. (2006) The eleventh commandment. Unpublishedkeynote address presented (virtually through Internetwebcam) at the Australian National Conference onGifted/Talented Education, held in Perth, Australia.

GAGNÉ, F. (2007) Ten commandments for academic talentdevelopment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51 , pp. 93-118.

GAGNÉ, F. (in press) The differentiated model of giftednessand talent (DMGT), in J. S. RENZULLI (ed.) Systems

and models for developing programs for the giftedand talented (2"'' ed.) (Connecticut, Creative LearningPress).

GAGNÉ, F. and ST PÈRE, F. (2002) When IQ is controlled,does motivation still predict achievement?. Intelligence,30, pp. 71-100.

GAGNÉ, F. and BLANCHARD, D. (2003) Beliefs of musiceducators and students concerning the majordeterminants of musical talent, in K. E. BEHNE; G.KLEINEN, and H. DE LA MOTTE-HABER (eds.)Musikpsychologie. Jahrbuch der DeutschenGesellschaft fíir Musikpsychologie, vol 17: MusikalischeBegabung und Expertise, pp. 32-49 (Göttingen,Germany, Hogrefe-Verlag).

GAGNÉ, F.; BLANCHARD, D. and BEGIN, J. (1998) Beliefsof trainers, athletes, professors and students inphysical education, concerning the major determinantsof talent in sports. Unpublished research report.Montreal, Université du Québec à Montréal,Département de Psychologie.

GAGNÉ, F.; BLANCHARD, D. and BEGIN, J. (1999) Beliefsof American and Quebec educators and studentsconcerning the major determinants of academic talent,in F. A. DIXON and C. M. ADAMS (eds.) 1999 ResearchBriefs, pp. 1-16 (Washington, DC, National Associationfor Gifted Children).

GOTTESMAN, I. I. and TQDD, D. G. (2003) Theendophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology andstrategic intentions, American Journal of Psychiatry,160, pp. 636-645.

HARRIS, J. R. (1998) The nurture assumption (New York,Free Press).

HOWE, M. J. A.; DAVIDSON, J. W. and SLOBODA, J. A.(1998) Innate talents: Reality or myth?. Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 21 , pp. 399442.

IOWA TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (2001) Itasca, IL, Riverside.

JENSEN, A. R. (1980) Bias in mental testing (New York,Free Press).

JENSEN, A. R. (1998) The 'g' factor: The science of mentalability (Westport, CT, Preager).

KULIK, J. A. (2003) Grouping and tracking, in N. COLANGELOand G. A. DAVIS (eds.) Handbook of gifted education[3"^ ed.), pp. 268-281 (Boston, Allyn & Bacon).

KULIK, J. A. (2005) Meta-analytic studies of acceleration, inN. COLANGELO; S. G. ASSOULINE and M. U. M.

238


GROSS (eds.) A Nation deceived: How schools holdback America's brightest students, Vol. II, pp.13-22(Iowa City, lA, Belin/Blank Center for GiftedEducation).

LOHMAN, D. F. (1999) Minding our p's and q's: On findingrelationships between learning and intelligence, inACKERMAN, P. L.; KYLLONEN, P. C. and ROBERTS,R. D. (eds.) Learning and individual differences:Process, trait, and content determinants, pp. 55-76(Washington, DC, American Psychological Association).

LUBINSKI, D. (2005) Long-term effects of educationalacceleration, in N. COLANGELO; S. G. ASSOULINEand M. U. M. GROSS (eds.) A Nation deceived: Howschools hold back America's brightest students, Vol.II, pp. 23-37 (Iowa City, lA, Belin/Blank Center forGifted Education).

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH (1998) Clinical guidelineson the identification, evaluation, and treatment ofoverweight and obesity in adults: The evidence report(Bethesda, MD, Author).

O'CONNELL HIGGINS, G. (1994) Resilient adults: Overcominga cruel past (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

PINKER, S. (1997) How the mind works (New York, W. W.Norton).

RENZULLI, J. S.; SMITH, L. H. and REIS, S. M. (1992)Curriculum compacting; The complete guide tomodifying the regular curriculum for high abilitystudents (Mansfield Center, CT, Creative LearningPress).

ROWE, D. C. (1994) The limits of family influence: genes,experience, and behavior (New York, Guilford Press).

SCARR, S. and CARTER-SALTZMAN, L. (1982) Genetics andintelligence, in R. J. STERNBERG (ed.) Handbook ofhuman intelligence, pp. 792-896 (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

SCHADER, R. M. (2001) Perceptions of elite female athletesregarding success attributions and the role of parentalinfluence on talent development (Unpublished Ph. D.dissertation. University of Connecticutt, School ofEducation).

TOOBY, J. and COSMIDES, L. (1992) The psychologicalfoundations of culture, in J. M. BARKOW; L. COSMIDESand J. TOOBY (eds.) The adapted mind: Evolutionarypsychology and the generation of culture, pp. 19-136(New York, Oxford University Press).

VAN ROSSUM, J. H. A. and GAGNÉ, F. (1994) Rankings ofpredictors of athletic performance by top levelcoaches, European Journal for High Abilities, 5, pp.68-78.

VAN ROSSUM, J. H. A. and GAGNÉ, F. (2005) Talentdevelopment in sports, in DIXON, F. A. and MOON, S.M. (eds.) The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education,pp. 281-316 (Waco, TX, Prufrock Press).

WALBERG, H. J. (1984) Improving the productivity ofAmerica's schools. Educational Leadership, May, 41:8,pp. 19-27.

Resumen:El desarrollo del talento: sobre eleslabón más débil

En este trabajo se analizan, en pri-mer lugar, los factores causales implica-dos en la aparición del talento de acuerdocon el modelo diferenciado desuperdotación y talento del autor(DMGT). Después se describen los seiscomponentes del modelo y se establecenalgunas de las relaciones entre ellos. Apartir de las precisiones que se realizanacerca del subcomponente de "provisiónde enriquecimiento", dentro del compo-nente de los "catalizadores ambientales",se precisa que éste es, en general, el nexocausal más débil en la aparición y desa-rrollo del talento justificándose esta elec-ción. Se analizan diversas implicacionesderivadas de este becho y se apunta aldesarrollo de programas como el únicomodo efectivo para asegurar una implan-tación mayor en las escuelas de activida-des de enriquecimiento.

Descriptores: Superdotación, talento,desarrollo del talento, catalizadoresintrapersonales, ambiente, medidas deenriquecimiento.

31O

901 S.

s00 "Oro a.tsj O)

239

Françoys GAGNÉ

CMCN

Summary:Talent Development: Exposing theWeakest Link

This article first surveys the variouscausal factors involved in the emergenceof academic talent as they appear in theauthor's Differentiated Model ofGiftedness and Talent (DMGT). Themodel's six components are descríbe, aswell as some interactions between tbem.The author then pinpoints the sub-component 'enríchment provisions' withinthe component 'environmental catalysts'as the weakest causal contributor totalent emergence on average, explainingbow that choice was made. Variousimpacts of that weakest link status arediscussed, leading to a plea for majoradvocacy programs as the only effectiveway to ensure a much largerimplementation of enríchment provisionsin schools.

Key Words: Giftedness, talent, talentdevelopment, intrapersonal catalysts,environment, enrichment provisions,advocacy.

talent development: exposing the weakest link' · 2018-05-08 · talent development: exposing...

Documents