Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students

Abstract

Its better to have imprecise answers to the right questions than precise answers to the wrong questions.-Donald CampbellProcedures for identifying gifted and talented students are probably the most discussed and written about topic in our field. For the better part of the previous century, test scores dominated the identification process. Even with the advent of new theories of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983;Sternberg, 1985) and broadened conceptions of giftedness (e.g., Gagné, 1999;Renzulli, 1978Renzulli, , 1988Simonton, 1997), actual practices specified in state and district guidelines continue to be dominated by cognitive ability test scores. Recognition of the need for a broader base of identification criteria has progressed from theoretical and research-based advances to generally accepted recommendations included in standard textbooks in the field (

A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent

“…Insights into this component are mainly found in the giftedness literature, situated in the field of education (Brown et al, 2005;Mayer, 2005), but are also frequently applied by HR practitioners. Primarily based on the work of Gagné (1998Gagné ( , 2004, we propose the following definition of the ability component of talent, within which two distinct predictors can be identified-innate abilities, and systematic development:…”

“…The emphasis thus lies on the identification of those individuals who perform significantly better than others of the same age or experience due to the presence of rare talents (Brown et al 2005;Heller, 2004;Mayer, 2005;Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). In the HRM literature, it is typically argued that these employees deserve disproportionate investments because they are capable of enhancing organizational performance by their capacity to achieve excellence (Lepak & Snell, 1999).…”

Towards Optimal Education Including Self-Regulated Learning in Technology-Enhanced Preschools and Primary Schools

“…This means, for example, that four-year-old pupils who function at language or maths levels of six-or seven-yearold pupils are enabled to function at or above their actual performance level, even if these pupils are placed in their age group. Such cognitively gifted pupils are marginal pupils (about 10% of their age group) who score relatively highest as diagnosed with cognitive screening results as estimated by their infant day-care centre, parent(s) or preschool teacher, or as identified with a personality test or with national pupil monitoring tests in cognitive achievement (see also Brown et al, 2005;Gagné, 2011). Their appropriate placement in the curriculum and consequent educational stimulation will have positive effects on their cognitive, social, emotional and motivational performances (Durkin, 1966;Heckhausen, 1980;Mooij, 1999;Bailey et al, 2012;Sontag et al, 2012).…”

“…The common goal is to realise appropriate placement for the child in clearly structured development and learning processes, characterised by double diagnosis in important developmental or curricular domains, within two months of admission. Screening results are only one type of indicator and should not be taken as absolute (see also Brown et al, 2005). In the results section, we will present some qualitative and quantitative information about the screening procedure.…”

“…The differentiation of personal and environmental characteristics and the interactions between them makes the exact specification or identification of personal characteristics a difficult task. Brown et al (2005) conclude that various screenings or assessments based on various sources and points in time should be included to enable specification of personal characteristics to be promoted by home and education conditions.…”