Su búsqueda

Discusses several common definitions of the terms giftedness and talent, with particular emphasis on the models proposed by J. S. Renzulli (1979) and S. J. Cohn (1981). The critique of these 2 models leads to a clear differentiation between giftedness and talent: the former is associated with domains of abilities that foster and explain exceptional performance in varied fields of activities, that is, talents. Thus, an individual can be gifted without necessarily being talented (as in the case of underachievers), but not vice versa. Several factors that can act as catalysts for the actualization of giftedness in specific talents are discussed, particularly motivation and environmental quality. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Examines several definitions of the concepts giftedness and talent, particularly those of J. S. Renzulli (1979) and S. J. Cohn (1981). Criticism of their models leads to a proposal for differential definitions, where giftedness is associated with skill domains that underlie and explain exceptional performance in different fields of activity. An individual can be gifted without necessarily being talented, as attested by the phenomenon of underachievement. However, the inverse is not true. Several factors, such as motivation and environment, which act as catalysts for actualization of giftedness in specific talents, are discussed. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) presents the talent development process (P) as the transformation of outstanding natural abilities, or gifts (G), into outstanding systematically developed skills which define expertise, or talent (T) 3 in a particular occupational field. This developmental sequence constitutes the heart of the DMGT. Three types of catalysts help or hinder that process: (a) interpersonal (I) catalysts, like personal traits and self-management processes; (b) environmental (E) catalysts, like socio-demographic factors, psychological influences (e.g., from parents, teachers, or peers), or special talent development facilities and programs; and (c) chance (C). The DMGT includes a 5-level metric-based (MB) system to operationalize the prevalence of gifted or talented individuals, with a basic 'top 10 per cent' threshold for mild giftedness or talent, through successive 10 per cent cuts for moderate, high, exceptional and extreme levels. Complex interactions between the six components are surveyed. The text ends with a proposed answer to a fundamental question: 'What factor(s) make(s) a difference, on average, between those who emerge among the talented and those who remain average?'. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Replies to the comments of J. H. Borland (see record 1999-10122-002), D. K. Detterman and J. Ruthsatz (see record 1999-10122-003), D. H. Feldman (see record 1999-10122-004), E. A. Hany (see record 1999-10122-005), and N. M. Robinson (see record 1999-10122-006) on the original article by F. Gagné (see record 1999-10122-001) concerning his structured statements about the nature of human abilities, talents, and gifts. Gagné defends the worthiness of his quest to achieve some consensus among professionals in the field of gifted education over the definition of the core concepts of giftedness and talent and also, the validity and usefulness of his distinction between high natural abilities (gifts) and high systematically developed ones (talents) in comparison to alternative proposals. He finally reiterates, in the light of the criticisms received, the basic arguments supporting his conviction that his own differentiation between giftedness and talent is the most appropriate and defensible solution to gifted education's terminological conundrum. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on the article by J. A. Sloboda and M. J. Howe (see record 1991-30071-001) examining the backgrounds of promising young musicians. Gagné demonstrates that the authors incorrectly interpreted their data because they did not acknowledge the role of musical giftedness as a significant determinant of the large differences observed in their sample between exceptional and average students. Gagné intends to show that their results cannot be correctly interpreted without introducing musical aptitudes as a significant causal factor. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Addresses the laxity in terminology that afflicts the field of gifted education, especially the definitions of 2 central constructs: giftedness and talent. A differentiated model is proposed, based on a distinction between 2 types of abilities, natural abilities and systematically developed skills, labeled respectively gifts (or aptitudes) and talents. Both types of abilities are described and exemplified. The model is used as a guide for a series of comments on the appropriate use of labels to describe more accurately the target population(s), emphasizing the predominance of intellectually gifted and academically talented pupils. Four other labels that have been used to describe gifted and talented children and adults are discussed (i.e., precocity, ableness, genius, and prodigy). (A correction concerning this article appears in Roeper Review, 1996[Feb–Mar], Vol 18[3], 231. The correct version of Figure 1 is presented.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Presents a critical analysis of 13 validation studies of peer nomination forms (PNFs), which are growing in popularity as a screening technique for giftedness. A 4-step blueprint for research on their psychometric qualities is also described: (1) developing a taxonomy of abilities or talents to be assessed by peers; (2) drafting experimental PNFs; (3) evaluating their reliabilities, especially interjudge agreement; and (4) conducting rigorous validity studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

This comprehensive volume explores the origins, development, and applications for Françoys Gagné’s Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). In an authoritative yet accessible style, Professor Gagné offers a holistic coverage of the DMGT, including its implications for the field, and its main divergent points with competing theories of talent development. Chapters guide readers through each of the five DMGT components, addressing the diversity of gifts, the contributions of Nature and Nurture, the most important personal qualities, the overemphasized power of outside agents, the key role of chance, and more. Filled with illustrative examples and vignettes from the author’s estimable career, this book is the authoritative resource for researchers and students looking to understand the DMGT and its unique role in shaping gifted education as we know it today. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)

This chapter pursues two main goals: (a) demonstrate that natural abilities—and their outstanding expression as gifts—really exist (the mainstream Pronat position), and that recent attacks by a few researchers who deny their existence (the Antinat position) can be easily parried empirically; (b) expose improper scholarly behavior by some Antinat researchers. Part I surveys the author's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) and analyzes the concept of natural ability, pointing out its main defining characteristics. Then, it demonstrates with extensive empirical evidence that general intelligence meets all defining criteria of a natural ability. Part II illustrates how some influent Antinat researchers systematically exclude relevant evidence, accumulate irrelevant information, ignore crucial objections, and select from published studies only the results that support their position. These repeated instances of ethically improper scientific behavior show their lack of openness to an objective examination of all the available evidence and reassessment of their entrenched beliefs (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the scientific literature, there is ambiguity in the distinction between the concepts of giftedness and talent. This paper examines several common definitions of these two terms, with particular emphasis on the models proposed by Renzulli (1979) and Cohn (1981). Our critique of these two models leads to a clear differentiation between giftedness and talent: the former is associated with domains of abilities which foster and explain exceptional performance in varied fields of activities, that is, talents. Thus, one can be gifted without necessarily being talented (as with the case of underachievers), but not vice versa. Several factors which can act as catalysts for the actualization of giftedness in specific talents are discussed, particularly motivation and environmental quality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Explored estimates of the percentage of gifted and talented persons in the population. 341 adults were asked their estimates; for half of them the target concept was "gifted" persons, while the other half were questioned about "talented" persons. Ss also indicated if they perceived a difference between being gifted and being talented, and if so what was the nature of that difference. Estimates varied greatly between Ss for both concepts; the average estimate was almost twice as large for talented persons (36%) as for gifted persons (17%); the perceived discrepancy was the same even for those Ss (20%) who judged the 2 concepts to be synonymous. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This chapter looks at the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) as a developmental model of giftedness and talent. Along with giftedness and talent, the DMGT introduces four components (see Figure 7.1) that help represent more accurately the complexity of the talent development process: intrapersonal catalysts (1C), environmental catalysts (EC), learning and practicing (LP), and chance (C). Moreover, as stated in the formal definitions previously mentioned, precise thresholds quantify the meaning of "outstanding." Finally, the DMGT discusses the long-term process of talent development, proposing various dynamic interactions among the six components. The present overview is structured around the three themes previously identified: (a) the six components, (b) the prevalence issue, and (c) the dynamics of talent development. In the final section, the author briefly highlight the main differences between the DMGT and other well-known conceptions of giftedness. The second part of this chapter succinctly covers two major questions (see Gagné, 2003b, for an extended discussion). First, what relationships do the six components of the DMGT entertain among themselves? Second, is it possible to create a hierarchy of the five factors in terms of their relative causal power? In other words, where lies the difference between those who become talented and those who do not? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

The research reported in this chapter tests the hypothesis that talents pertinent to the classroom ecosystem can be consistently recognized by peers and teachers through the behaviors manifested by the individual. The rate of talent acknowledgment and types of talents identified also are explored. Findings suggest that when the types of valued talents increase, the pool of talented individuals likewise expands (prevalence); however, the number of students recognized as displaying multiple talents also increases (polyvalence), thereby creating a talent-incubating dynamic. In conceptualizing the investigation, Gagné implicitly endorses the power of the classroom ecosystem through his use of peers as recognizers of talent. Ss consisted of 2,432 French-speaking upper-elementary pupils, about equally distributed between the sexes and between Grades 4 to 6. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: introduction)

Since its first appearance in Gifted Child Quarterly, the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) has evolved into a full-fledged theory of talent development now referred to as the DMGT 2.0. No chapter-length text can encompass all the details of its contents and dynamics. Consequently, I offer the present text as a "detailed overview"—a potential oxymoron!—of the updated DMGT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter surveys the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), a talent development theory whereby outstanding natural abilities, or gifts, are progressively transformed into outstanding systematically developed skills and knowledge, which define expertise or talent in a specific occupational field. The text briefly describes complex interactions among the six components that help or hinder that process, and succinctly answers a fundamental question: 'What factor(s) differentiate(s), on average, between those who emerge among the talented and those who remain average?' The field of gifted education defines its special population around two key concepts: giftedness and talent. For the vast majority of scholars, these two terms are considered synonyms. Yet, these same scholars keep mentioning one particular idea in almost every discussion of the giftedness construct, namely a distinction—implicit or explicit—between early emerging forms of giftedness, to some extent innate and usually manifested in childhood, and fully developed, adult forms of 'giftedness'. The distinction will be expressed with terms like potential versus achievement, aptitude versus realization, promise versus fulfillment. But it will rarely, if ever, systematically be operationalized. I believe it can be done. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

For most people, talent development is the implementation of specific resources aimed at fostering the growth of outstanding performances in specific occupational fields: natural and social sciences, technology, visual and performing arts, health and education, commerce, sports, and so forth. Considering this handbook focuses on the field of gifted education, this chapter similarly adopts as its focus the emergence of outstanding school achievements, from kindergarten forward. I analyze academic talent development (ATD) from two distinct perspectives: theoretical and practical. Each of these perspectives can be circumscribed by the following questions. Which personal and contextual causal influences contribute significantly to the emergence of excellence in school subjects? Which educational resources will maximize the transformation of outstanding aptitudes into academic excellence? These two questions will guide the contents of this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, the integrative model of talent development (IMTD), and especially its differentiating model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) component, will serve as the conceptual framework to answer the five following questions: (1) How does the DMGT distinguish gifts from talents? (2) How does the DMGT describe the talent development process? (3) Where do gifts come from; are they innate? (4) How can we best foster academic talent development? (5) What makes the DMGT/IMTD unique? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

definitions of giftedness (and talent) abound in the literature / so numerous are the definitions that Stankowski [1978] found it necessary to extract a more synthetic view through a classification system in five categories: (a) after the fact definitions focusing on adult prominent accomplishments, (b) IQ definitions specifying a particular threshold score, (c) talent definitions emphasizing outstanding performance in specific artistic and/or academic fields, (d) percentage definitions varying from a generous 20% or more to a strict 3% or less and (e) creativity definitions stressing original and productive accomplishments in a particular field Stankowski's system emphasizes the two general components implicitly or explicitly present in most definitions and models: (a) a "what is" statement pertaining to the core nature of the construct, its central or prototypical elements and (b) a "to whom" or "how many" statement about the size of the population targeted by the label / these two statements correspond to the usual distinction, in logic, between the comprehension of a concept and its extension; these two components will be examined separately (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter attempts to survey the scientific literature of the past few decades on the process of talent development in sports. We structure that overview around Gagné's (2003) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). We examine separately the relevant literature associated with each of the DMGT's five causal components: (a) natural abilities or gifts, (b) the developmental process itself, (c) intrapersonal catalysts, (d) environmental catalysts, and (e) chance factors. This survey brought us to a crucial integrative question: What makes the difference between reaching and not reaching high levels of talent in sports? We had to acknowledge that there was not yet a very clear and final answer to that complex question, and that the best way to summarize the existing literature was to speak of complex interactions between the components, acting differently from one athlete to the next, and from one stage to the next in a sports career. Of what use can this chapter be to educators in schools? What suggestions can the field of sports offer to teachers of gifted and talented adolescents, and to the professionals and school administrators responsible for planning, funding, and implementing enrichment programs in the school system? Two major observations come to mind. First, it seems clear that the vast majority of trainers and coaches in sports readily recognize the large breadth of individual differences in natural physical abilities. The second observation concerns the way professionals in sports foster the talent development process. Two key concepts could summarize typical programming activities in sports: ability grouping and accelerative enrichment. Implications of these observations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

[book section covering several chapters] "Deeper and Broader: The Pyramid of Talent Development in the Context of the Giftedness Construct" / Jane Piirto "Learning About the Nature of Gifts and Talents Through Peer and Teacher Nominations" / Françoys Gagné "Development of Social Giftedness and Gifted Personality in Context" / Cornelis F. M. van Lieshout "Talent in Sport: Significant Others in the Career of Top-Level Dutch Athletes" / Jacques H. A. van Rossum "Gifted Children's Early Years by Parental Interviews" / Maria Herskovits and Éva Gyarmathy (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)