Transforming Gifted Education in Schools: Practical Applications of a Comprehensive Framework for Developing Academic Talent

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This is an excellent piece describing the practicalities of developing talents in school. The movement toward a talent development paradigm to take the place of gifted education is an important goal for the field. I am excited to see a primer like this in a journal for a more general education audience. The authors describe the tenets of the TDMM and recommend steps for implementing a comprehensive talent development program in schools. The paper is thorough in its description of the TDMM.

 

 I would like to see a talent development philosophy adopted in schools, but there are two places that I think are unrealistic for this implementation. First is the suggestion that “When creating programs that support talent development, the first step is to select the domains in which opportunities will be provided, distinguishing between the development of performers (e.g., actors, singers, athletes) and producers (e.g., composers, writers, scientists) [1]. The next step is to identify the knowledge and skills necessary for achievement at the highest levels in each domain, which requires working with professionals and domain experts” (p. 6).

 

The idea of a needs assessment involving families and community members to select the domains in which to provide opportunities is a good one. Schools cannot teach everything, so priorities must be clear. The second step, however, is not something most schools would be able to do. This seems like a state- or at minimum, division-level activity. Producing a curriculum with strong links to professional outcomes would likely occur outside the normal state standards. When would they have time? This seems like a need that should be explored further. Assigning the task of “identify[ing] the knowledge and skills necessary for achievement at the highest levels in each domain” (p. 6) to schools seems unrealistic.

 

A second concern I have is the apparent suggestion that a traditional gifted education program would exist alongside the talent development program. I may be incorrect in this, but on p. 4 is a description of what can be done with test scores: “Measures of general ability can be useful to educators as they can reveal the necessity for a faster pace of learning, and, combined with achievement indices, highlight the potential for grade or subject area acceleration before students’ interests coalesce or for those talent domains that emerge later (e.g., psychology or leadership).” In combination with the first column of Table 2, “Admission and Placement Options,” this sounds like a gifted program would continue. Students would be tested (identified) and placed in a program where they would receive advanced general instruction. In my way of thinking, a better approach would be to provide acceleration opportunities to all students, not only those who are tested at a certain level. As you note on p. 18, it is “increasingly problematic to rely on age as a proxy for readiness for specific curriculum.” This is true for those students who receive high test scores and those who would respond well to accelerated instruction.  I believe your model falls short of what is needed in the early years. Why would accelerative options only be anticipated at the competence stage? How are students to make the move from potential to competence if this isn’t planned for? All students should have access to the enrichment opportunities. Assessments such as those listed in the first column of Table 2 could be a way in to opportunities, but should not be used to exclude students. Based on interest and success in these accelerated opportunities, more can be offered to some students. Interest is key. I see this as the difference between building a talent development program and fostering a talent development philosophy schoolwide.

 

Psychosocial skills are described differently in Figure 2 and Tables 4-5. Figure 2 describes the skills needed, but the tables describe what needs to develop at the potential, competence, and expertise stages. These differ somewhat. I would like to see greater consistency. There is also not a path from the psychosocial skills to be developed at the potential stage and those needed at the competence stage. For example, instruction in time management, etc. is needed at the potential stage in order that “Demonstrating executive functioning skills” is possible at the competence stage. It seems there should be greater coherence in the services recommended and the outcomes required. Psychosocial skill development should be understood and planned for in the same way as other domain trajectories. There should be a developmental trajectory for these – they need to align with what is expected at the next competence stage. i.e. Self-assessment is a critical building block for “Taking responsibility for addressing weaknesses and building on strengths.” You have to plan for these skills to develop, as well. Executive functioning skills develop early. Empathy can be developed early. At what point would these skills be taught?

 

How does this plan avoid forcing students into a trajectory with no options? I’m thinking of Bloom’s (1985) concert pianists who regretted having few options when they tired of the concert pianist life, because they had been so solely focused on that career from an early age. How does the TDMM get around a Foreclosed identity (Marcia, 1993)?

 

Editing notes

 

Technically, Table 1 might be a table, but it seems more like a figure to me. Figure 1 could just as easily be a table.

Table 2 – Column 1 is inconsistent with the others. Seems like “Purpose” should appear before the types of assessments. What is the purpose of the assessments in Column 1?

 

Table 3 – I like this description. Column 1 “Students who show early indicators of ability and interest around a topic or domain and afforded opportunities for deeper exploration.” Change “and afforded” to “are afforded”

 

Table 7 – I would think “Finding talent development opportunities” would be a good topic at the Emergent and Competency stages.

 

Line 139 should be “programs”

Figure 2 under Expertise – misspelled “persistence”

Line 833 – misspelled “and”

Line 413 – missing “than” – “rather formally” should be “rather than formally”

Line 423 – should be plural “meetings”

Line 424 – should be “in” – “participation on” should be “participation in”

Line 548 – “far more people than currently have the potential to experience a lifetime of achievement and fulfillment and reach expertise.” – do you mean “far more people than at present will have”?

 

References

Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballantine.

Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 3-21). Springer.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you to Reviewer 2 for their supportive comments about this work and the usefulness of its application.  The reviewer's words reflected very much how we had hoped that the manuscript would be received. 

We also thank the reviewer for the listed suggestions.  We have addressed all of them in the revised document.