April 2011 Talent Development & Excellence Official Journal of the Editors-in-Chief: Albert Ziegler Jiannong Shi This journal Talent Development and Excellence is the official scholarly peer reviewed journal of the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE). The articles contain original research or theory on talent development, expertise, innovation, or excellence. The Journal is currently published twice annually. All published articles are assessed by a blind refereeing process and reviewed by at least two independent referees.
Editors-in-Chief are Prof. Albert Ziegler, Ulm University, Germany, and Prof. Jiannong Shi of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bejing. Manuscripts can be submitted electronically to either of them or to Editor@iratde.
Editors-in-Chief: Albert Ziegler, University of Ulm, Germany Jiannong Shi, Academy of Sciences, Beijng, China Editorial Assistant: Bettina Harder, University of Ulm, Germany International Advisory Board: Ai-Girl Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Barbara Schober, University of Vienna, Austria Carmen M. Cretu, University of IASI, Romania Elena Grigorenko, Yale University, USA Hans Gruber, University of Regensburg, Germany Ivan Ferbežer, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Javier Tourón, University of Navarra, Spain Mantak Yuen, University of Hong Kong, P. China Marion Porath, University of British Columbia, Canada Osamah Maajeeni, King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi- Arabia Peter Merrotsy, University of New England, Australia Petri Nokelainen, University of Tampere, Finland Robert Sternberg, Tufts University, USA Wilma Vialle, University of Wollongong, Australia Wolfgang Schneider, University of Würzburg, Germany Impressum: V.: Albert Ziegler, St. 25, 81673 München, Germany Talent Development & Excellence Volume 3 Number 1 2011 Contents Editorial 1 A.
Shi Target Article Academic Talent Development and the Equity Issue in Gifted Education 3 F. Gagné Commentaries Talent Development: From Possessing Gifts, to Functional Environmental 23 Interactions D. Araújo and K. Davids Stability of Racial Differences in Gifted Education: The Case for Stereotype Threat 27 J.
Baker Theory and Practice in One Conception 29 L. Balogh Implementation Concerns for Gagné’s Vision of Academic Talent Development 33 S. McKenna Whose Cultural Lens? End Points, Creativity, Opportunities and Barriers 37 L. Cohen Resolving Inequity from Meritocracy in Gifted Education 41 L.
Dimaano An Alternative English Perspective on Equity in Gifted Education 45 T. Dracup Culture Free Identification of Gifted Children: Based on Elementary Cognitive 51 Tasks X. Duan Reflections on a New Model Program for Academic Talent Development: Towards a 53 Fair and Nondiscriminatory Assessment Method in Gifted Education J. Fiebig A Wish for the Gifted and Talented 57 J.
Freeman One Swallow Does Not Make a Summer: Expansions on Gagné’s Six Constituent 59 Elements for Talent Development Programs R. Grassinger Ethnic and Socio-Economic Discrimination – Which Prevails? 63 Z. Guenther Meritocratic Principles Are Not Enough – Ways Toward a Fair Fostering of Talent 67 Development B. Harder Gifted Programs Need the Option of Acceleration 69 A.
Heinbokel Academic Talent Development for Every Talented Student 71 L. Hoogeveen The Neglected Gap Between Diagnosis and Implementation 75 E. Hotze On the Role of Basic Assumptions in the Debate on the Equity Issue in Gifted 79 Education B. Koichu Equality of Access in ATD Programs: The More Appropriate Method and Criteria 83 Q.
Liu The Neglected Importance of Emotions 85 D. Gobet Debating the Applicability of Gagné’s Talent Development Model in the Sport 89 Domain D. MacDonald Minorities and Giftedness 91 L. Beltrán Straight Talking Gifted and Talented Education 93 R.
Persson The Environmental Impact 95 M. Till Gifted-Program Provision Is at Least as Serious a Challenge as Identification 97 B. Shore Priority to Early Identification: Better Prevention than Remediation 101 J. Terrassier Equality and Equity in Educational Systems: A Universal Problem 103 J.
Tourón Inequity in Opportunity to Learn: A Talent Development Reality 107 J. VanTassel-Baska Inclusion and Differentiation for Children with High Potential 111 B. Wallace Where Are the Underachievers in the DMTG’s Academic Talent Development? 115 M. Brown Setting the Questions - Enlarging the Problem 119 S.
Patry Academic Talent Development: For All or Only Some? 123 D. Wood DMGT: Not the Last Straw That Breaks the Camel’s Back 127 J. Chu Response to Commentaries “Some” Equity Through Meritocracy: A Rejoinder to 32 Comments 131 F. Gagné Talent Development & Excellence 1 Vol.
1, 2011, 1 Editorial This issue of Talent Development and Excellence contains the first demonstration of an exceptional format for presenting and discussing new ideas: A target article and peer commentaries. As Editors-in in-chief, chief, we are extremely pleased that the first target article has been penned d by Prof. Françoys Gagné, Honorary Professor of Psychology at the Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada. He presents his position on academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education to our readers.
The peer commentaries address various various very potent aspects and pose a series of constructive questions. Since the driving function of peer commentaries is to stimulate discussion, Prof. Gagné wrote a rejoinder. The level of quality found among the peer commentaries was, in our view, a broad success.
Forty scholars have been able to participate in the discussion. We would therefore like to make two announcements: Anyone who wishes to see a specific topic as the subject of a target article, and feels this topic is appropriate for the type of discussions di being held in our journal, should send their suggestions directly to us. In the same vein, all persons who may be interested in participating in future peer commentaries should let themselves be registered in our e-mail e distribution lists by sending ing a short message to one of the following two addresses: editor@iratde.org or editor2@iratde.org At this point we would also like to remind you that it is also possible to submit electronic manuscripts for possible publication in Talent Development and Excellence through either of these two addresses. The Editors-in-Chief, Talent Development and Excellence Albert Ziegler Jiannong Shi ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 2885 (online) 2011 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence http://www.org Talent Development & Excellence Academic Talent Development and the Equity Issue in Gifted Education 3 Vol.
1, 2011, 3–22 Academic Talent Development and the Equity Issue in Gifted Education1 Françoys Gagné* Abstract: The equity issue with regard to the underrepresentation of socioeconomically and ethnically disadvantaged students in gifted education has its source in judgments of unfair identification practices. After describing that issue and its factual basis, I show: (a) that an often overlooked statistical phenomenon exacerbates the disproportions; (b) that similar and even much larger disproportions exist in and outside general education without any advocacy group bringing out accusations of unfair access rules; and (c) that the source of our field’s equity issue resides in the fact that most current gifted programs have little to do with “real” academic talent development, inspired by a meritocratic ideology. Using basic definitions from my Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), as well as a detailed definition of the talent development process, I argue that if most gifted programs were reoriented to follow the DMGT’s Academic Talent Development (ATD) model, the equity issue would lose its relevance. Keywords: achievement gap, equity, giftedness, talent, talent development, meritocracy, gifted programs, DMGT The equity issue in gifted education takes its name from expressed judgments by many professionals and scholars that members of disadvantaged groups suffer from unfair selection practices, which leads to their significant underrepresentation in gifted programs.
The disadvantaged concept targets mainly students from low SES strata and/or some ethnic minorities. Both groups significantly overlap. The equity issue is not specific to gifted programs in the USA. I chose to focus on its manifestation in that country because of the better availability of published data and position statements.
Moreover, for that same reason, I will center my discussion on ethnic disproportions (under, as well as over representations) in program participation. But it should be clear that both my diagnosis and the solution I propose apply to any form of underrepresentation in talent development programs, and extends to any country where the equity issue has been brought up. I will first briefly describe the equity issue as advocates of ethnic minorities, especially the African-American minority, portray it. I will then survey other talent development situations, within and outside general education, in most of which ethnic disproportions greatly exceed those observed in our field.
I will show that none of them generate accusations of unfair access practices, thus making the equity issue a phenomenon almost endemic or circumscribed to gifted education. As the main cause for that specificity I will target the fact that most U. gifted programs have little to do with “real” talent development. I will define the concept of talent development within the framework of my Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné, 2003, 2009a), then describe how it manifests itself in arts, sports, and general education.
I will then argue that a reorientation of our intervention priorities toward academic talent development programs based on a meritocratic ideology would not only render the equity issue irrelevant, but would offer the best answer to the special educational needs of academically talented students. * Université du Québec à Montréal, 8340 rue Odile, Brossard, QC, J4Y 2W4, Canada. Email: fygagne@gmail.com ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online) 2011 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence http://www. Gagné Gifted Education and Disadvantaged Populations How does the equity issue manifest itself in gifted education? Let us look first at the data, then at their interpretation, and, finally, at accusations expressed by minority advocates.
Survey of SES and Ethnic Disproportions The underrepresentation of disadvantaged students in gifted programs leaves no room for doubt. For example, using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study, Borland and Wright (2000) pointed out that “almost half of the eighth grade students identified as gifted and placed in gifted programs were from families in the top SES quartile, whereas about 9% were from the bottom quartile” (p. This represents a 5:1 ratio between the two extreme quartiles. Said differently, five times as many identified gifted students have parents in the top 25% of the socio-economic status (SES) scale compared with the bottom 25%.
For her part, Ford (2003) cited a series of statistics on the representation of various minority groups within gifted programs covering the 1978–1992 period. Table 1 shows the 1992 data, which do not differ substantially from earlier periods. I found Ford’s computation of her U and O indices somewhat misleading; I have proposed a much simpler way to assess degrees of under and over representation (see Reference Note 2). According to that revised formula, the prevalence of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted programs reaches approximately 60% (.58) of their respective population ratios.
In other words, strict proportionality would require that program coordinators identify nationally approximately 75% more Black and Hispanic students (e., for Blacks: missing. Note that one minority group, Asian students, shows an opposite effect, an overrepresentation of 75% (7% vs. A Situationally Amplified Phenomenon The disproportions presented in Table 1 are amplified by an unavoidable statistical phenomenon that affects the selection of populations or samples from the tail end – either tail – of a normal distribution of scores. It applies equally well to the selection of intellectually deficient individuals or intellectually gifted ones, to the selection of poor families or high-income families, to the selection of very slim individuals or obese ones, and so forth.
All these examples represent non-average or tail end populations. The statistical amplification phenomenon manifests itself when we compare percentages of selected individuals from two or more populations with different means, like Black/White IQ or academic achievement differences. As we select people farther from the mean, group disproportions in the percentage of selected individuals increase considerably; and, of course, that amplification effect grows as mean differences increase. But, even small mean differences between groups produce a very significant amplification effect.
To better illustrate the situation, let us use an example. It is a well-known fact that a moderate correlation exists between parental SES and their children’s IQ.