Talent Development in Gifted Education

Theory, Research, and Practice

Joyce VanTassel-Baska

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367903978
• eBook ISBN: 9781000416169
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume brings together experts in gifted education to explore critical perspectives in talent development across the lifespan, guiding readers toward a deeper understanding of advanced learners and their education. Chapters in the first section delve into the foundational theory, research, and models of practice underpinning gifted education and talent development, while the second section examines the practical applications of talent development in assessment, programming, and ongoing research. The book concludes with an exploration of talent throughout the lifespan, featuring detailed case vignettes to illustrate development across diverse fields of practice. Ideal for researchers as well as students of gifted education and creativity studies, this comprehensive handbook challenges readers to interrogate what they think they know about giftedness and talent development.

PART I

The Foundational Concepts of Talent Development

1

INTRODUCTION TO THE TALENT DEVELOPMENT HANDBOOK

Joyce VanTassel-Baska

Introduction to Ideas That Undergird the Talent Development Enterprise

At a philosophical level, the idea of talent development has long been grounded in one of two views, either a view of human ability as something an individual possesses as a part of their genetic material that they bring at birth into their environment. Or, by contrast, talent development represents ability shaped by the environment as humans grow and develop. These two views have always been labeled the “nature or nurture” argument, and have guided the way we have approached the educational processes of talent development. Schools have either placed great emphasis on finding the right students for services, based on top scores on relevant tests, or invested energy in creating advanced services from which students might benefit.

More contemporary views of genetics now allow us to see that both genes and environment help shape ability, and that an opportunity-rich environment can release genetic power untapped without such intervention. Now we know it is the interaction of individual potential with environmental stimulation that activates advanced behavior (Plomin, 2018), and that no genetic markers for high ability can easily be teased out at this point in history. Just as Plato looked for ability in young men and then provided the basic education to make philosopher kings, so in contemporary gifted education models, we still seek to identify students who demonstrate potential and then provide appropriate advanced instruction in areas not imagined in ancient Greece.

Our bedrock theoretical frameworks for talent development have always been found in the psychological theories of intelligence that frame our understanding of students who demonstrate advanced development of cognitive capacities. The theory of individual differences in psychology (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986) has provided the basis for thinking about the range of students who exhibit advanced cognitive development and the interventions that would work with them. These theorists suggest that individual human cognition varies in predictable ways that can be assessed and addressed to promote individual and societal betterment. Studies of giftedness across more than 150 years have continued to document these individual differences and how they matter in respect to human productivity in a variety of domains (Gottfredson, 1981; Jensen, 1998; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000). Humans vary not only in the degree of their capacities but also in the domains in which they excel (Thurstone, 1938), based on clusters of such abilities that intersect in the constellation of career activation and fulfillment (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000). Precocity within those domains is the most obvious manifestation of this capacity (Stanley, 1988). Conceptions of giftedness, however, continue to diverge and expand as researchers grapple with the real world issues associated with providing services to a diverse population of learners (Sternberg & Ambrose, 2021).

The theory of expertise has also influenced our thinking about talent development. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) and Bereiter (2002) among other scholars have viewed learning as the steady accrual of knowledge in specific areas that lead to mastery of the rules, standards, and domain-specific procedures, with rewards going to those at the top of the ladder of demonstrating such (i.e., master chess players, swimmers, and musicians). A specific domain or field defines what constitutes expertise, with individuals working to attain that standard, typically over at least 10 years. Closely linked to these ideas is the work of Ericsson and a theory of deliberate practice that is key to people achieving at the highest level within given domains. In a study of chess players and short-distance runners, Ericsson (Ericsson & Pool, 2016) maintained that talent development is about the process, not the person, and was unwilling to acknowledge that individual talent was a variable of importance in accounting for high-level performance. Rather sustained and targeted practice was the variable of greatest importance. Nor did he acknowledge a level of performance beyond expertise that might be deemed “creative breakthroughs within domains”. In contrast, Csziksenmihalyi (1988) has posited that talent develops through the interaction of the person, the product, and the domain, suggesting that the high level performers in individual fields themselves decide who is talented through the assessment of the products created by rising talent.

Educational Theories That Inform the Talent Development Process

Childhood giftedness may best be seen, not as a mirror of the multi-faceted definitions of adult giftedness, but rather as preliminary evidence of potential in one or more areas that may be identified through multiple approaches. These approaches include the use of valid and reliable instruments that assess general and specific abilities but may not be the only evidence of merit in decision-making about educational intervention. Most identification protocols are supplemented with the actual products of students or grades, recommendations from teachers and parents, and student initiative. Programs for the gifted use such preliminary evidence of potential, however, as the basis for designing programs and curriculum that would advance the learning of students who show advanced aptitudes, motivations, and interests in relevant domains that can be offered through the school.

Most successful among those interventions has been the use of a variety of acceleration approaches that have shown patterns of growth across the years of schooling for many gifted and talented youth when compared to equally able non-accelerated learners in specific domains of learning like math (Swiatek, 2007) and across domains (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011). Research on various forms of acceleration have substantiated the advantages to students of such interventions across decades (Assouline et al., 2014). The grouping of gifted learners together for sustained periods of time also has facilitated advanced levels of achievement (Steenbergen-Hu et al, 2016).

The concept of educational differentiation or zone of proximal development may be traced back to Vygotsky's (1978) intervention theory, which centers on the importance of focusing on learners as individuals and providing individual support for their developing abilities, especially in reading, suggesting that the stage of inner speech should be considered the highest level to reach. In his theory of interactionism, Vygotsky (1962) also supported the idea that people learn best in relation to others, that accomplishments are best viewed as communal rather than singular, leading to models of learning that emphasize the use of small groups, with teachers primarily as facilitators of that learning (Dewey, 1975).

As our understanding of human capacity has evolved, the theory of positive psychology has emerged (Csikszentmihalyi,1996), suggesting that we might learn more from studying exemplars of human development rather than individuals with pathologies and that the focus of learning should promote creative endeavors rather than a closed fixed pattern of accomplishment as seen through the application of our current standards-based approach. Novak's 12-year longitudinal work (2005) with primary students exposed to concepts in science, for example, suggested that younger students are capable of handling more concept-based abstraction and creative thought in science than previously assumed. New standards in science that include concept learning early have now acknowledged this capability (National Research Council [NRC], 2005).

Also underlying the concept of talent development is a set of theories that have impacted our basic approach to teaching and learning in important ways. Contemporary theories have challenged the idea that individual cognition exists (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Greeno, 1998). Rather, it is suggested that individuals are part of a system of learning that involves specific contexts that can promote or impede learning. Optimal learning conditions are described as those that allow for a common problem or issue that is addressed by a community of learners who can each contribute their specific or unique capabilities. This theory has been the basis for many of the comprehensive school reform projects over the last 20 years and has also been supported by many minority researchers (Banks, 1991; Ford,2013), who see more value in an open system of learning that does not prejudge who has advanced cognitive ability and more importantly, who does not. This argument supports a collaborative learning environment that promotes the learning of all and is illustrated by the use of project-based learning.

Domain-Specific Giftedness as a Springboard to Talent Development

The conception of domain-specific giftedness has been a part of the literature of this field from the beginning. The early works of Spearman (1904), Thurstone (1938), and Cattell (1963) all suggested the presence of both general and specific areas of ability. Carroll's (1993) re-analysis of all data from earlier factor-analytic studies supports a hierarchy of three strata that position g-factor intelligence as the top stratum, with more specific factors underlying it. Many researchers today would agree, as a practical matter, that intelligence is the ability to think abstractly, reason logically, learn quickly (Neisser et al., 1996; Sternberg, 2001; Kauffman et al., 2012); to apply that thinking to complex problems (Sternberg & Ambrose, 2021); and to adapt to an environment (Perkins,1995). Finally, that real world giftedness and creativity are both manifested in a specific domain (Piirto, 2004; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2021).

Indeed, general intelligence requires an outlet in a specific domain in order to be productive and useful. Therefore, extraordinary performance in a domain can be considered a cornerstone of giftedness (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2018). A conception of specific domain giftedness does not negate the importance of general ability, however. While general ability may vary, it contributes to specific abilities that may be more critical to success in a field (Jensen, 1998). For example, in fields such as genetics and mathematical modeling, the level of abstract thinking required to make a contribution may exceed three standard deviations above the norm in general ability while writing a novel may require only a more modest level (120 IQ or higher) even though verbal reasoning ability would be expected to be higher. Some research supports the threshold effect, suggesting that a minimum level of general ability is necessary for creative contributions in domains, but that higher levels of general ability are not necessary for high-level performance (e.g., Cox, 1926). Longitudinal research, however, has suggested significant and important differences even between the top 1% and the top 0.5% in respect to human accomplishments, favoring the more selective group (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). This recent finding challenges a belief in the threshold effect in regard to performance at the top.

Although non-intellective qualities such as persistence and intense curiosity may often accompany general intelligence and specific knowledge and skills in order for giftedness to be displayed, the interdependence of general with specific domain aptitudes is the activating catalytic force. Non-intellective qualities are perhaps best viewed a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of tables and figures
• About the Editor
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Part I The Foundational Concepts of Talent Development
• Part II The Processes of Talent Development
• Part III The Internal Processes That Facilitate Talent Development
• Part IV Talent Trajectories across the Lifespan
• Index