Talent Development as a Framework for Gifted Education

Abstract

When used informally, talent development refers to the deliberate cultivation of ability or giftedness in a specific domain. However, recent discussions have used talent development to refer to a particular framework for viewing giftedness and the education of gifted children. In this article, the authors will present their views on the meaning of talent development, its distinguishing and defining features, how these compare with more traditional views on giftedness, and the implications of a talent development perspective for educational practice.

Keywords

talent development cognitive development psychosocial development gifted education

“The talent development framework emphasizes the deliberate cultivation of psychosocial skills supportive of high achievement, persistence, and creativity rather than leaving these to chance.”

Overview of the Article

Recently, there has been a lot of “buzz” about the term talent development. Some might even say there has been a good deal of contentious discussion about it! The words “talent development” are frequently used by educators and psychologists but may mean very different things to different people. When used informally, talent development refers to the deliberate cultivation of ability or giftedness in a specific domain. However, recent discussions (Dai, 2010, 2011; Dai & Chen, 2014; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011) have used talent development to refer to a particular framework for viewing giftedness and the education of gifted children. In this article, the authors will present their views on the meaning of talent development, its distinguishing and defining features, how these compare with more traditional views on giftedness, and the implications of a talent development perspective for educational practice.

First, we start with a brief history of talent development, which might be perceived as a new concept but has its roots in the writings of many distinguished individuals in gifted education, including Don Treffinger, John Feldhusen, Carolyn Callahan, Joe Renzulli, and others (see Schroth, Collins, & Treffinger, 2012). In the late 1980s and the 1990s, there was a push by some leaders in the field to focus gifted education more on “recognizing and nurturing students’ talents than focusing primarily on identifying and labeling children as ‘gifted’” (Schroth et al., 2012, p. 39). These early views on talent development had some commonalities including a broader conception of intelligence and ability, beyond IQ; a recognition of the role of noncognitive traits in gifted achievement; and a focus on serving a broader range of gifted students with varied program models and services, especially typically under-identified students such as socio-economically disadvantaged, promising learners.

Despite the fact that the talent development framework is not new and was introduced to the field of gifted education almost 20 years ago, it is just starting to receive significant attention, analysis, and debate. There is an expression, “Timing is everything,” which applies to the current situation within gifted education. Sometimes, a field is not ready to receive ideas that challenge basic assumptions and practices. In addition, sometimes events propel a field to take stock, examine its core tenets and ask difficult questions about whether they are still valid or in need of revision.

Several forces are compelling gifted education, as a field, to do this questioning and rethinking. These include a tenuous commitment within states for gifted education (National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2013); the complete loss in 2011 and then partial restoration in 2013 of the only federal support for research on gifted children and gifted education practices (i.e., the federal Javits Act); a continuing national focus on achievement gaps between students reaching minimum standards of achievement rather than excellent levels; mixed state-level support for higher standards of achievement such as the Common Core State Standards and accompanying assessments; changes in the demographics of the U.S. school population; increasing numbers of children living in poverty coupled with growing income disparities among U.S. citizens; a stronger connection between socio-economic status and access to higher education and educational opportunity; the continuing under-representation of low-income, second language learners, and culturally and linguistically diverse students in existing gifted programs (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012); and new research on the malleability of intelligence and the process of talent development (Subotnik et al., 2011). To respond to these forces, gifted education must seek new approaches to identification and programming to adequately serve all gifted learners.

Rationale for the Talent Development Framework

So, why is talent development as a conceptual framework for understanding giftedness and designing educational programs and practices important now? Because talent development puts a greater focus on development of emergent talent and potential and therefore offers more opportunity and direction to address the needs of a wider range of gifted children, especially low-income and culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students. In addition, the approach is consistent with recent research on the malleability of ability and intelligence (Dweck, 2012; Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2005) and the contributions of educational access, opportunity, and noncognitive variables to high achievement (Farrington et al., 2012).

Jay Matthews, in a recent article in the Washington Post titled “Why gifted education misses out?” (October 12th, 2011), questioned the efficacy of gifted programs. In truth, there is not a cohesive body of research on many of our “best practices” (acceleration and Talent Search testing and programming being notable exceptions), but some of the most compelling and recent research comes from studies that have shown the efficacy of gifted education practices and curricula with a broader range of learners, specifically, students in high poverty, Title 1 schools (Gavin, Casa, Firmender, & Carroll, 2013; Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011; VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Brown, 2009). These studies demonstrate that challenging curriculum and differentiated instruction boost the achievement of traditionally identified gifted students but also low-income students with emergent talents.

Comparison of the Gifted Child and Talent Development Frameworks

Several authors have offered perspectives on the changing frameworks in gifted education. Subotnik et al. (2011) proposed a talent development framework based on research in psychological science. Dai (2011; Dai & Chen, 2014) explicate three current perspectives on gifted education practice and research—that is, talent development, the traditional gifted child approach, and the Response to Intervention framework. Matthews and Foster (2006) distinguish between the mystery (traditional) and mastery models of gifted education, while Peters, Matthews, McBee, and McCoach (2013) separate the traditional gifted education approach from their advanced academics model. In this article, we draw on an amalgam of these authors’ perspectives to define the “traditional” approach to gifted education that has historically permeated the field and contrast it with the emerging focus on talent development as proposed and defined by Subotnik et al. (2011).

Views on Ability

Table 1 provides a comparison of the traditional approach with giftedness and the talent development framework on major dimensions. For another perspective, see the works of David Dai (2011) and Dai and Chen (2014). As can be seen, underlying both approaches to giftedness is a belief in the importance of individual differences in ability. There is no doubt that individual differences in ability exist in children and that these, as measured by IQ or other tests, can validly predict school achievement and other important outcomes (Gottfredson, 1997). Gifted education, from any framework, is built on a belief in the importance of these individual differences.

Table 1.

Comparison of Traditional Gifted Child Perspective With Talent Development Perspective

Concepts	Traditional child	Talent development
Over-riding perspective	Primary emphasis on giftedness as a trait of an individual and giftedness as “being”	Primary emphasis on giftedness as a state one achieves into with opportunity, practice, study, and giftedness as “doing”
Ability	Individual differences in ability are the basis for gifted education	Same—but sees ability as malleable, especially with the provision of opportunity
	Ability is all or none—you have it or you don’tRecognizes importance of level of ability within gifted population—e.g., highly gifted	Ability is developmental & starts with potential, moves to competence and expertise and creative productivity in adulthood
General intelligence and domain-specific ability	General intelligence defines giftednessLess concerned about domain-specific academic abilities	General intelligence is seen as important at younger stages of talent development and foundational for domain-specific abilities
	Recognizes specific ability in performing arts	Importance of general ability varies by domain of talentPlaces greater emphasis on all domain-specific abilities, academic and performing arts
		Assessment of domain-specific abilities such as mathematical and verbal ability, are increasingly important with development
Achievement	An individual can be gifted irrespective of achievement	Potential and ability defines giftedness in younger childrenOutstanding achievement defines giftedness by secondary school
Psychosocial dimensions of talent	Some social-emotional attributes seen as enduring characteristics of all gifted individuals and defining of and inherent within giftedness	Not inherent in being giftedCharacteristics result from interaction between gifted individual, environment, influenced by culture and opportunity
	Gifted students can have unique psychological needs	Psychosocial skills are critical to talent development and these change with domain of talent and stage of developed talentPsychosocial skills are seen as malleable and, coachable, teachableEmphasizes deliberate cultivation of psychosocial skills to support giftedness and high achievement within domainsGifted students can have unique psychological needs
Educational programs	All forms of acceleration, enrichmentSpecialized schoolsOutside of school programs	Same but should be designed within domains of talent/abilityPrograms need to be different at different stages of talent development e.g. exposure for young children, acceleration and enrichment for older children, mentorships and apprenticeships for secondary students and beyond
Outcome of gifted education	Focus is on responding to student’s immediate needs for greater challenge and faster pacing and intellectual peer group	Cultivating domain-specific talents to a high degree
	Long-term outcome not often specified	Moving students to the next level of talent development—i.e., developing potential into competency, competency into expertise and expertise into creative achievement in adulthood

An important difference between these perspectives is a developmental focus on the nature of talent. In the traditional gifted child approach, exceptional ability and/or high intelligence are viewed as static traits—“you have it or you do not.” In the talent development perspective, ability and talent are viewed as malleable and changing over time. Specifically, in its earliest form, typically in very young children, talent is best described as potential for future achievement. As children develop and grow—and with nurturance, opportunity, effort, study, and practice—potential is developed into competence and expertise. The final stage of talent development, typically in adulthood, is creative productivity, staged artistry, and/or eminence within one’s field (Subotnik et al., 2011).

Children can vary in the timing or their progress through these stages as a result of opportunity. Some children start school having had literacy-rich early environments and lots of exposure to math and science. They are ready to start with an advanced curriculum and accelerated placement in school. Other students, particularly students from poverty, may have exceptional learning potential that is not obvious or demonstrated through advanced knowledge or achievement because of a lack of early stimulation and opportunity.

General and Specific Abilities

These two perspectives also differ is in the importance placed on general (e.g., IQ) versus specific abilities. In the traditional gifted child perspective, high general ability defines giftedness, typically in the form of high scores on IQ tests or other cognitive ability tests. In the talent development perspective, general ability is considered foundational to the development of more specific, more relevant domain-specific abilities. The specific abilities that are important vary by domain of talent and can include mathematical ability for STEM fields; verbal ability for fields such as the humanities and social sciences; musicality, pitch perception and audiation in music; flexibility and physical memory in dance; and technical and tactical skills in sports (Subotnik et al., 2011). From the talent development perspective, general ability is a better indicator of talent and academic potential in young children and in the earlier stages of talent development, with domain-specific academic abilities becoming increasingly important with development, particularly by middle and high school.

Because of its emphasis on domain-specific abilities, the talent development framework acknowledges that talent domains or areas, such as music, dance, sports, and academic fields, have unique trajectories (Subotnik et al., 2011). Trajectories also vary within domains such as between gymnastics and tennis in sports, voice and instrument in music, and mathematics and history in academics. The optimal age or time to start instruction or training also varies by domain, as does the typical time when production peaks and ends. For example, in sports, age of initial instruction is affected by physical attributes such as size and strength, as is length of participation (e.g., diminishing speed with age). In music, instruction in many instruments can start very early, while voice lessons typically do not begin until late adolescence or early adulthood. Children begin to study some academic areas at the start of school or even earlier, such as mathematics, but other subjects are not studied until college (e.g., psychology). Also, individuals can make major contributions to some fields, such as mathematics, at relatively young ages, while other fields require long years of preparation and accumulation of knowledge and expertise (Subotnik et al., 2011). These unique trajectories influence when identification and programming happen for different talent fields.

Research supports the importance of domain-specific abilities. Studies have shown, for example, that verbal versus quantitative tilt in abilities, that is, high scores on tests of verbal versus mathematical reasoning ability in middle-school students, is related to differences in domains of adult accomplishment with verbal tilt increasing the probability of accomplishments in the humanities and quantitative tilt increasing the probability of accomplishments in STEM fields (Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007; Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2005). Not only do domain-specific abilities matter but also the pattern of abilities is helpful in determining educational and future career paths that are the best match to a students’ profile of strengths. For example, high mathematical ability coupled with spatial ability is predictive of interest in engineering fields (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009).

Perspectives on Achievement

The traditional gifted child and talent development perspectives differ in their views of the role and importance of actual achievement in defining giftedness. In the gifted child approach, one can be gifted, typically on the basis of high IQ scores, with or without demonstrating commensurate levels of achievement. The definition of gifted is based on a child’s general intellectual ability relative to the population of same-aged children.

In the talent development perspective, the attribution of “gifted” is always relative to other high-functioning individuals within a domain (Subotnik et al., 2011). Given that the goal of talent development is to translate exceptional ability into actual achievement, achievement becomes increasingly important to defining giftedness as children develop. Eventually, you have to be gifted in something. By high school, what you can do with your abilities matters more than how high your test scores are. In adulthood, a reference that an individual is a “gifted writer” or a “gifted scientist” is based on demonstrated creative production relative to other writers or scientists. However, within the talent development perspective, achievement does not necessarily have to be school achievement. It can consist of exceptional products or performances generated outside of school (Subotnik et al., 2011).

Psychosocial Dimensions of Giftedness and Talent

In the gifted child approach, social, emotional, and psychological characteristics are viewed as defining of giftedness, for example, asynchrony. Gifted individuals differ from non-gifted individuals in these areas BECAUSE of their giftedness. In this perspective, some social-emotional characteristics are inherent in being gifted and their unique psychology emanates from these characteristics.

In the talent development framework, the unique psychology of gifted children results from striving to be different, exceptional, and pursuing a path less traveled and from being out of synch with others in a particular cultural or social context, rather than inherent in being gifted. Gifted children whose talents are not recognized or nurtured by their families or schools or valued within their culture may struggle with under-achievement, low self-concept, and lack of peer support. A child whose family has very high expectations for exceptional levels of achievement may struggle with perfectionism and anxiety. Gifted children whose parents and teachers do not model or teach resiliency or coping skills may opt out of courses or program when the level of challenge increases. Gifted children can have unique psychological needs, but these are not inherent in being gifted. Rather, they are the result of the interaction between an individual’s characteristics and the environment, and are influenced by culture and opportunity.

Research shows that gifted children are as variable in social-emotional characteristics as are non-gifted children and there is little empirical support for many of the long lists of characteristics attributed to gifted students as a group. Neither is there strong empirical evidence of their emotional fragility or vulnerabilities as a result of being gifted (Neihart, 1999), although this is a common view held by teachers and parents (Baudson & Preckel, 2013). Positive and negative attributes are a result of the interaction between the child and his or her environment, which is highly individualistic and is the case for every child.

Research has also shown that psychosocial skills, such as self-confidence, mind-sets, and resilience, are important determiners of whether students can progress to higher and higher levels of talent development—and these are malleable, teachable, and coachable (Subotnik et al., 2011; Subotnik, Pillmeier, & Jarvin, 2009). The particular psychosocial skills that are needed vary depending on the stage of talent development. For example, growth mind-sets and teachability or being open to instruction and feedback from teachers and mentors are critical when children are learning the foundational techniques and knowledge of a domain, whereas independent thinking and the confidence to challenge and question instructors are important when individuals are more advanced in their fields (Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). The talent development framework emphasizes the deliberate cultivation of psychosocial skills supportive of high achievement, persistence, and creativity rather than leaving these to chance.

Educational Programming

The traditional gifted child approach and the talent development perspective are similar in that both promote the deliberate cultivation of exceptional ability through special programming within and outside of school. For some fields, such as athletics, music, and dance, much of talent development takes place outside of school through special programs and individual lessons. The development of academic talent requires early programming including both enrichment and accelerative opportunities. One difference is that, from the talent development perspective, the nature of the opportunities offered should be matched to the domain of talent and the stage of talent development. Early exposure through enrichment is important for young children to bring out and develop potential and interest. Enrichment, faster-paced classes, and all forms of acceleration are important for children who are developing skills and acquiring knowledge within their talent areas and are ready to move ahead at a faster pace. For older children, special programs should enable students to do authentic work, more similar to the work of professionals within the field, through mentorships, apprenticeships, and university-based summer programs, which also help socialize individuals into the culture of the talent field (Olszewski-Kubilius, in press).

Outcome of Gifted Education

Finally, an important distinction between the gifted child and talent development frameworks is the purported outcome of gifted programming. In the gifted child approach, the immediate goal is to provide educational programs that are a better match to students’ learning pace and level of developed talent and knowledge. However, the long-term goal is often unspecified and/or varies greatly by school or district or model used (Dai, 2010).

In the talent development framework, the immediate goal is to educate and prepare children, both with intellectual and psychosocial skills, so that they can move to the next stage of talent development. The long-term goal of gifted education is to enable more gifted individuals to become creative producers in adulthood and achieve at the highest levels within their fields (Subotnik et al., 2011). Recognizing that the path is long, filled with chance events and difficult choices, and influenced by values and opportunities, it is not expected that all or even many gifted children will get there. However, the goal of talent development is to prepare children with the knowledge, training, support, and psychosocial skills they need to be able to function at the highest levels in a field. Individuals may choose not to proceed on a path toward eminence, but hopefully the choice is based on values and preferences rather than fear of failure or lack of confidence, inadequate preparation, or lack of opportunity. By having the highest levels of achievement and creativity as the long-term goal for gifted adults, many more gifted children will necessarily be put on paths toward excellent levels of achievement in their chosen areas of interest and talent.

Implications for Practice of the Talent Development Perspective on Giftedness

Table 2 lists some of the implications of features of the talent development perspective for identification and the design of educational programs and support services for gifted learners. In the section below, we highlight some of the main implications for practice.

Table 2.

Implications for Practice of Talent Development Framework

	Implications for practice
Domain-specific abilities	IQ test and general ability tests are useful, especially with young children and with students who have had limited opportunities to learn, e.g., low-income studentsDomain-specific assessments need to be used no later than middle school but a variety of assessments can be used, depending upon the domain, e.g., tests, auditions and judgments by professionals and experts, portfoliosCritical to match assessment to the domain of talent
Domain-specific developmental trajectories	Students need different kinds of instruction/programming at different stages of talent development (e.g., exposure via enrichment to domains for younger children, development of skills and competency within domains for older children, opportunities to pursue special interests via independent projects for secondary students)Articulated sequence of programs K-12 within major domains that enable students to move ahead at a faster pace and provide continuous skill developmentEarly exposure to domains for all students via enrichment in early grades, especially for low-income studentsEarlier exposure to some fields, such as philosophy or engineering, typically not studied until collegeMore varied program models for secondary students are needed (e.g., mentorships, research opportunities, apprenticeships)—beyond AP and IB.Ways to capture late bloomers via enrichment or multiple entry points to talent development paths must be in placeFocus on talent development needs to extend beyond Grade 12All teachers need deeper content expertise, secondary teachers need multiple content area expertise
Ability is malleable	Ongoing assessment so as to identify late bloomers and students whose talents emerge later due to poverty or lack of early opportunityCreation of multiple opportunities and multiple paths for students to enter gifted programs (e.g., testing and portfolios)Intense frontloading of opportunities in early years for students from poverty, under-identified gifted studentsPreparatory programs to help students qualify for school gifted programsReverse the typical process of “identification, followed by programming” to offering opportunities for the development of abilities first, followed by assessment for placement—especially critical for students who have had fewer opportunities to learn due to poverty, etc.
Psychosocial characteristics are essential and teachable	Must be actively and deliberately cultivated via programming, counseling, and mentoring of studentsMust involve parents in assisting with psychosocial skill development at homeDevelop a plan for what skills to focus on at different stages of talent development (e.g., attitudes toward effort and ability, attitudes toward competition, resiliency, and coping skills, a scholar identity)Understand what psychosocial skills are most important for particular domains of talent, e.g., performing arts versus academic domains
Opportunity must be available and taken	Programming and educational opportunities should be available earlier for all children, especially low-income childrenMultiple types of opportunities for students at different stages of developed talent need to be available at every level of schooling in major domains (e.g., enrichment for students with emergent talent and motivation, acceleration for students with well-developed ability and high motivation)Include children in programs with high motivation and achievement even if ability is somewhat lower
Creative productivity in adulthood and eminence are the desired outcomes	Opportunities to engage in creative production must be available to students earlierCultivation of attitudes and mind-sets (e.g., openness, risk-taking) conducive to being a creative producer needs to be deliberate and a part of programmingEmotional support for students choosing a path of creative productivity needs to be continuousProgramming for students needs to go beyond high school and extend into the post-secondary years of education and development

Implications for Identification

The identification of gifted learners has always been a focus of practitioners and researchers in gifted education. Many articles have been written about this—concerning which tests to use, how to use them, with many selection systems promoted by various theorists (Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009). With its emphasis on the developmental nature of talent as well as domain-specific abilities, the identification of giftedness will be different depending on the domain of talent as well as the stage of talent development. In some talent domains, such as music, art, and mathematics, exceptional ability and interest can be obvious very early—during the preschool years (Olszewski-Kubilius, Limburg-Weber, & Pfeiffer, 2003), particularly among children whose families can provide early exposure and enrichment. Assessment of these abilities and talent development, through private lessons (music) or acceleration (math), can begin early as well.

In other domains, such as writing or science, early interest may be obvious (e.g., early reading or creative word play or interest in scientific phenomenon), but systematic assessment and talent development may start later in elementary school. All gifted students, both those with latent talents, those whose abilities are just emerging, and those whose talents are developed to the point of being obvious to teachers and parents, can benefit from early enrichment, both inside and outside of school. This is especially critical for a student who, for any reason, has had fewer opportunities to learn in their early environments. Early enrichment and challenging instruction can serve to identify emerging talents, especially if provided by teachers trained to monitor and notice responses that indicate exceptional interest and/or reasoning ability (see the Young Scholars program in this issue or in Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012).

What is the role of IQ and tests of general cognitive reasoning ability in the talent development perspective? High general reasoning ability is the foundation on which more domain-specific abilities are built and emerge (Gottfredson, 2003). These tests are good indicators of potential and exceptional ability at the earliest stages of talent development, but by middle school, standardized tests or other valid and reliable assessments of specific abilities such as verbal and mathematical reasoning ability or spatial ability are needed and more helpful in determining placement and guiding students toward programming and options such as acceleration that respond to their abilities and develop them further. For example, students with both exceptional mathematical and spatial skills may be steered toward supplemental or school-based programs that emphasize engineering and physics. Students with exceptional mathematical reasoning abilities can benefit from acceleration in mathematics and enrichment in a broad range of mathematically oriented topics. Students with exceptional verbal reasoning abilities may be steered toward advanced classes and enrichment in the humanities.

For performance domains, such as music, art, theater, dance, and sports, identification methods that closely mirror performance situations, such as auditions, judged by experts and professionals who work in those domains, are appropriate (Subotnik et al., 2011). Even in some academic domains, such as writing or science, examples of work such as portfolios of creative writing pieces or samples of experiments conducted and lab reports might be more useful in identifying exceptional ability or talent, perhaps coupled with standardized test performance (Johnsen, 2004). The ultimate goal in the choice of tests or methods is achieving a match between the domain of ability and the assessment.

Under the talent development framework, there is an increased emphasis on demonstrated achievement as an indication of giftedness over time. While always keeping the doors open to advanced opportunities for late bloomers, by high school, what students can do with their abilities and their motivation and commitment should be given equal or greater emphasis than ability test scores in selecting students for talent development programs.

Identifying children who come from backgrounds of poverty and/or are culturally and linguistically different have some special challenges. Most state definitions include a focus on “potentially” gifted students or students who do not currently evidence high achievement (National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2013). Best practice for these students under a talent development model include the following:

Assessment that is ongoing—meaning educators are constantly looking for emerging talent and ability. Gifted programs with identification systems that assess students with one particular battery of tests at one point in time, will miss many children whose talents emerge later, often as a result of increased motivation and interest due to the provision of enrichment and opportunity. One way to accomplish this is to use a Levels of Service model (Treffinger, Young, Nassab, & Wittig, 2004) that includes acceleration and advanced classes for students who are ready to work ahead and at a faster pace—as well as enrichment opportunities at every grade level to capture students whose talents and motivation are just developing.

Assessment that is comprehensive, that includes a variety of different types of measures (e.g., test scores and/or portfolios of actual work) and allows for different paths into gifted and advanced programs. These paths might include qualifying for an advanced or accelerated program on the basis of test scores or via outstanding performance in a preparatory program, such as a pre-AP or pre-IB program (see the Nexus and Middle Years programs in Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012).

Selection procedures that take students’ previous opportunities to learn into consideration. This would include using data holistically, to identify not only students who reach high cutoff scores on tests but also students who are making rapid progress or demonstrating upward trajectories in response to more challenging curriculum and instruction. For example, second language learners who are rapidly acquiring English compared with other English as a second language (ESL) students may be indicative of exceptional verbal reasoning ability. Another approach is using local norms to select students who demonstrate the highest levels of achievement within a school or district when compared with students with similar backgrounds and similar educational experiences (Lohman, 2005; Lohman & Lakin, 2008).

Reversing the typical order of “identify giftedness first, then provide opportunities” to “provide opportunities first, especially in the early years, followed by assessment,” especially for students from poverty. Intense, challenging, content-rich preparatory programs can enable more students to develop their abilities to the point where they qualify for subsequent gifted programming (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012).

Implications for Programming

Because the nature of talent changes over time, under the talent development framework, optimal programming does also. For younger children, enrichment that exposes them to varied domains of talent and is challenging will develop interest and motivation as well as help parents and educators discern emerging abilities. For elementary and middle-school children, programming that focuses on developing content knowledge and technique through all forms of acceleration as well as enrichment to broaden and deepen students’ understanding of a subject or domain is needed. Early entrance to school, fast-paced classes, subject and grade acceleration, as well as enrichment seminars, after-school clubs, contests, and competitions are all options.

Secondary students require programming that continues skill development through advanced courses (through AP or IB courses) but also opportunities to pursue special interests through independent projects and more authentic work in a domain guided by adult professionals. Enrichment at this stage could include exposing students earlier to some domains of talent, typically not studied until college, such as sociology, philosophy, or engineering. Other program models include internships and mentorships focused on conducting research within a domain or working on real-world applications. At all stages of talent development, in-school opportunities should be supplemented with outside-of-school programs offered through community-based organizations, universities, or cultural institutions. Schools may also offer some of these through after-school programs or weekend programs but can also help by directing gifted students to other outside-of-school, supplemental opportunities. Research has shown that participation in a “high STEM dose” of pre-college educational activities such as competitions, academic clubs, as well as advanced and accelerated classes was related to a higher rate of notable STEM accomplishments in adulthood, indicating that opportunities within and outside of school matter (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010).

It is critical that programming for gifted and talented learners be in place for Grades K-12—and beyond. Currently, there are significant gaps in programming in most school districts and a lack of articulated program experiences (National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2013). Gifted programming might be available in some subject areas for only some grades. Most gifted programming in schools begins in middle school, thereby missing important years to identify and cultivate talent and ability. Similarly, programming for secondary gifted students consists mainly of AP or IB classes, when a much richer diet of opportunities is required. Gifted education specialists have not even considered the nature of talent development beyond high school. Of course, to deliver the variety of courses and programs needed by gifted students as they proceed through schooling, deeper content expertise on the part of teachers is required, including perhaps doctorates for some instructors at the secondary level, who must present more advanced and cross-disciplinary content to gifted students.

The talent development perspective recognizes that not only do talent domains have unique trajectories, so do gifted children. While talent development programs capitalize on motivation and interest, they engender and cultivate these as well. Some children come to school having had a great deal of early stimulation, enrichment and exposure to varied talent domains by parents, extended family members, and through participation in park district or community-based programs. They are ready to move ahead quickly toward the building of further competency, knowledge, and skills. Other children may come to school having had fewer opportunities to learn and ability or potential that is less evident and less developed. Schools and districts need to craft opportunities for students at different stages of talent development who are the same age or grade. This includes enrichment programs for students whose talents are just emerging and whose motivation and interest are just developing while simultaneously having accelerative programs for students with well-developed ability and high motivation.

Implications for Social, Emotional, and Psychological Development

Under the talent development framework, psychosocial skills are considered essential to the fruition of ability and potential into creative productivity in adulthood. In addition, these are viewed as skills that can be learned and coached, with particular skills being more important at particular stages of talent development (Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik, & Worrell, in press).

Gifted education specialists can help children acquire these psychosocial skills by deliberately building their development into educational programming. They can make sure they convey, through their verbal messages to children and feedback on projects and assignments, the importance of effort, study and practice, as well as ability—to success and achievement. Dweck has recommendations for the kinds of praise that promote growth and malleable mind-sets in children (Dweck, 2008). They can encourage and reward children for taking intellectual risks, such as putting their ideas forward to peers or a taking on a project that is difficult and requires working on the edges of their current competency level. Educators can support gifted children through difficult and critical transitions, such as when they move to a more challenging and competitive academic environment and help parents learn how to do this at home as well. They can model resiliency and strategies for coping productively with perceived failures and setbacks or temporary declines is academic self-concept.

Educators can create programs that give gifted children opportunities to discuss the potential stresses and strains of giftedness such as peer rejection, isolation, feeling different, or even bullying, including the use of biographies and films or adults from the community (Hébert, 2009). Educators can also enlist the aid of counselors, school psychologists, and social workers for gifted children who are being victimized or are extremely isolated, or suffer from debilitating anxiety, shyness, or perfectionism. Another direction would be to partner with sport psychologists, coaches, bandleaders, or theater instructors to benefit from the effective techniques those professionals have developed to enhance the likelihood of optimal performance on the part of the students they work with. The key idea is to approach the development of these as assiduously as cognitive skills, recognizing they are equally important to gifted students’ success and happiness.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, PhD, is the Director of the Center for Talent Development and a professor in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. She can be reached at p-olszewski-kubilius@northwestern.edu.

Dana Thomson, MSEd, is a doctoral student in the Applied Development and Educational Psychology program at Boston College. Previously, she served as Research Director at the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy. She may be reached at thomsond@bc.edu.

References

Baudson

T. J.

Preckel

(2013). Teachers’ implicit theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37-46.

Dai

D. Y.

(2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dai

D. Y.

(2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 705-731.

Dai

D. Y.

Chen

(2014). Paradigms of gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Dweck

C. S.

(2008). Mindsets: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and talent. In Subotnik

R. F.

Robinson

Callahan

C. M.

Johnson

(Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 7-18). Storrs, CT: National Center for Research on Giftedness and Talent.

Ericsson

K. A.

Nandagopal

Roring

R. W.

(2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287-311.

Farrington

C. A.

Roderick

Allensworth

Nagaoka

Keyes

T. S.

Johnson

D. W.

Beechum

N. O.

(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Firmender

J. M.

Carroll

S. R.

(2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 71-84.

10.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 25-52. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8

11.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 24-40). New York, NY: Pearson.

12.

Hébert

(2009). Guiding gifted teenagers to self-understanding through biography. In VanTAssel-Baska

J. L.

Cross

T. L.

Olenchak

F. R.

(Eds.), Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students (pp. 259-287). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

13.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

14.

Lohman

D. F.

(2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111-138.

15.

Lohman

D. F

Lakin

(2008). Nonverbal test scores as one component of an identification system: Integrating ability, achievement, and teacher ratings. In VanTassel-Baska

(Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 41-66). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

16.

Matthews

D. J.

Foster

J. F.

(2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69.

17.

National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2013). State of the states in gifted education 2012-2013. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991

19.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(in press). The role of outside of school programs in talent development for secondary students. In Moon

Dixon

(Eds.), Handbook of secondary gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

20.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

21.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Limburg-Weber

Pfeiffer

(Eds.). (2003). Early gifts: Recognizing and nurturing children’s talent. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

22.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(in press). Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for Counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development.

23.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948-952. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x

24.

Peters

S. J.

Matthews

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

(2013). Beyond gifted education. Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

25.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Little

C. A.

Muller

L. M.

Kaniskan

R. B.

(2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501.

26.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted & talents (2nd ed.). Storrs, CT: Creative Learning Press.

27.

Subotnik

R. F.

Jarvin

(2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343-357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.

29.

Subotnik

R. F.

Pillmeier

Jarvin

(2009). The psychosocial dimensions of creativity in mathematics. In Leikin

Berman

Koichu

(Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 165-179). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

30.

Schroth

S. T.

Collins

C. L.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2011). Talent development: From theoretical conceptions to practical applications. In Cross

T. L.

Cross

J. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 39-52). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

31.

Treffinger

D. J.

Young

G. C.

Nassab

C. A.

Wittig

C. V.

(2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

32.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

Feng

Brown

(2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title 1 classrooms. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 33, 7-37.

33.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484

34.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.

35.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871. doi:10.1037/a0019454