Conceptions of giftedness and expertise put to the empirical test

Abstract

Recent handbooks of giftedness or expertise propose a plethora of conceptions on the development of excellent performance but, to our knowledge, there are no comparative studies that provide empirical evidence of their validity to guide researchers and practitioners in their adoption of a particular conception. This study sought to close that gap by conducting an empirical comparison of the major approaches to giftedness and expertise currently in use: the IQ model, the performance model, the moderator model, and the systemic model. The four models were tested in a longitudinal study with a sample of N=350 German students attending university preparatory schools; 25% of the sample had been assigned to special classes for the gifted. The construct and predictive validity of the four models were tested by means of structural equation modeling. Theoretical considerations along with our results indicated a differentiation among the models whereby some could only predict while others could also explain the emergence of excellent performance and thereby yield valuable information for the design of interventions. The empirical comparison of the approaches showed that they were unequally suited for the two challenges. For prediction purposes, the performance approach proved best while, for explanations, the moderator and systemic approaches were the most promising candidates. Even so, the latter did demonstrate conceptual and/or methodological problems. The IQ approach was superseded by the other approaches on both prediction and explanation. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. Creating a Reasoned Basis for Theory ChoiceThe field of giftedness research currently faces some theoretical and methodological challenges (for a detailed overview, see Harder, 2012c). One of the major problems is that extant theories of giftedness and expertise research differ greatly in their explanations of outstanding performance while we lack a reasoned basis for deciding which theory to apply to our research or practical questions (cf. Ziegler, 2005). This paper is a first step towards building an empirical foundation for rational decisions for or against a theory, by providing an empirical comparison of current theories explaining outstanding performance.Recent handbooks of giftedness present several conceptions of giftedness but no comparative empirical studies (Heller, Mönks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2002;Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). While there is some theoretical underpinning and empirical evidence for all of these conceptions -as the authors proposing the conception usually outline -the quality of the validating studies varies greatly and is often flawed (cf. Harder, 2012c;Ziegler & Heller, 2002). Amidst such competing conceptions, we need to know which theory is best suited to guide our research and practice instead of basing our decisions on personal taste and selective corroborative evidence. Demands on Theories of Giftedness and ExpertiseA good theory needs to fulfil the demands of researchers and pr...

Learning resources and talent development from a systemic point of view

“…However, the empirical basis of ELC to date evinces five blind spots we seek to address in a series of three studies. First, with regard to alternative theories of talent development in the academic domain, it has yet to be shown that ELC add incremental value over IQ, which is, besides prior achievements, the most frequently used measure to predict academic achievements . This will be the main objective of study 1.…”

“…First, with regard to alternative theories of talent development in the academic domain, it has yet to be shown that ELC add incremental value over IQ, which is, besides prior achievements, the most frequently used measure to predict academic achievements. 16 This will be the main objective of study 1. Second, most studies have been conducted in the academic domain, such as the school and university settings.…”

Identifying a Culture of Excellence

“…The concept 'excellence' is socially constructed and related to general notions of students, learning and teaching (Dai & Chen, 2013). Researchers differ on conceptualizations of talent, giftedness and explanations of outstanding performances (Harder et al, 2014;Ambrose, 2010in: Laine et al, 2016. Authors such as Matthews and Foster (2006), Johnson (2005) and Dai and Chen (2013) introduce paradigms of giftedness.…”

Social Acceptance of High‐Ability Youth: Multiple Perspectives and Contextual Influences

“…In the field of giftedness research, a plethora of conceptual models and definitions of giftedness have been proposed (Harder, Vialle, & Ziegler, ; Subotnik, Olszewski‐Kubilius, & Worrell, ). Despite their differences, most contemporary models are developmental and contextual in nature, asserting that outstanding ability in a particular domain may gradually develop into outstanding talent (e.g., achievement, eminence), depending on contextual influences, including appropriate instruction and coaching, and personal influences, such as personality, motivational and psychosocial characteristics (Al‐Shabatat, ; Gagné, ; Harder et al., ; Subotnik et al., ). Also, although contemporary models acknowledge different domains of giftedness (e.g., artistic, leadership), intellectual giftedness has been the most studied domain (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Morris, ).…”