The development of academic talent: A mandate for educational best practice

The case could be made that all of education should be about talent development, a view of schooling that focuses on the optimal, not the minimal, development of each student, Ms. VanTassel-Baska suggests.

The earliest Western concepts of talent focused on what today we might call identification: observing and judging performance in specific domains valued by a society. This view has not changed very much since the days of ancient Greece. What has changed is that we have researched various constructs related to talent, such as giftedness, creativity, and motivation; our society has enlarged the domains of value to include more academic and nonacademic areas of learning; and our ways of observing talent have become more refined through testing specific aptitudes and general reasoning abilities. A monolithic view of giftedness simply as high intelligence has been displaced in favor of a multifaceted view of talents and abilities. That view continues to be extended and amplified in many ways.

In recent years there has also been a shift toward an emphasis on talent development as the central metaphor for gifted education. This contemporary trend might be traced to the publication of Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind, a work that excited the imaginations of many educators and inspired them to think about applying Gardner’s ideas about multiple intelligences to classroom contexts and curricula.¹ Another precipitating event was the publication of National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent, a report that pointed out schooling practices that inhibit the development of America’s talented youths.² These two events in education have spawned many editorials, articles, and reactions from general educators and educators of the gifted; both groups see the trend in highly positive ways.³

Yet it is clear that the shift toward thinking about education as a talent development enterprise did not originate with Gardner or the national report. The work of Julian Stanley and his colleagues in the 1970s, for example, provided a major emphasis on precocious talent in specific academic areas.⁴ A. Harry Passow’ s work with Project Talent in the 1960s also focused the field on looking for talent to emerge in students through classroom-based approaches. Calvin Taylor in the 1960s and 1970s developed the “multiple talent totem poles,” providing a theoretical and research base for the popular program Talents Unlimited, recommended for use with most learners.

The case could be made that all of education should be about talent development, a view of schooling that focuses on the optimal, not the minimal, development of each student. Based on such an idea, many educational institutions have reformed their practice using talent development ideas. Whole schools have been founded and many others have been reorganized around the talent development concept as it applies to all learners.⁵

The more specialized talent search model for finding precocious talent identifies and serves more than 200,000 students per year through four national searches. Talent development efforts in the arts, especially through private lessons and tutorials, continue to thrive.⁶ And parents, as the engineers of their own children’s talent development processes, are becoming ever more discerning about appropriate opportunities at given stages of development.

High-level talent development

Many researchers in the past 20 years have focused sharply on the processes of talent development that matter the most in producing high-level talent in various domains. Benjamin Bloom contributed important insights about the relationship between talent development in the academic domain and talent development in the arts and in sports, noting that the processes were virtually the same.⁷ Key variables in the external environment that he cited included supportive parents or surrogates; excellent teaching in the talent area; special experiences, including competitions that served both to motivate and to encourage the next stage of the development of talent; and motivational encouragement to pursue the talent development process. Bloom also noted the importance of internal variables in the process, such as willingness to practice and train, strong interest in and commitment to the talent area, and the ability to learn rapidly and well.

More recently, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel Whalen have studied the talent development process in adolescence.⁸ Their findings contribute greatly to our understanding of talent development that is based as much on connative elements, such as intrinsic motivation and optimal experience, as on a strictly cognitive model. These researchers noted two personality variables that are important to the process of talent development: concentration and openness to experience. They also found that there was a strong need for the identification of talent in a culturally valued area in order for optimal development to occur. Moreover, talented adolescents need both support and challenge from their families and their teachers.

Just as Bloom and Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues have documented certain insights about talent development by studying world-class contemporary performers in various fields and talented adolescents on the verge of high-level achievement, 75 years of research exists on the talent development processes of eminent individuals in various fields, cultures, and eras. Catherine Cox’s landmark work documented the roles of intelligence, family support, and personal perseverance as critical variables in the lives of 300 eminent personalities.⁹ Other work on eminent personalities has focused on themes of adversity, creative productivity, and hard work.¹⁰ It would appear that eminent individuals across fields have exhibited common characteristics and behaviors that may have accounted for their greatness. What emerges from this literature that is particularly compelling is the strong sense of the interplay of internal and external variables that affected the process.

Some research contributions on talent development at the presecondary level have been studies of prodigies.¹¹ These young people show advanced development at the level of an expert adult, as in the cases of music and chess prodigies. For prodigies, the ages of 10 to 13are critical in accessing formal modes of advanced development in a field through mentors, models, contests, and apprenticeships.¹²

Another line of research has focused strongly on interventions for precocious youths. The talent search projects at Johns Hopkins, Duke, Denver, and Northwestern Universities have all conducted intensive research on the benefits of acceleration in various forms. Studies show that gifted students who undertook accelerated coursework as preteens continue to benefit years later, when they choose more prestigious schools, take on more challenging coursework, and show strong motivation for pursuing further education and productive career paths.¹³ Recent evidence also suggests that students benefit not only from acceleration of academic coursework but also from acceleration of choices based on vocational interests and predispositions.¹⁴ Perhaps the greatest contribution of the research from these projects is the demonstration that chronological age is not the most relevant determinant for readiness to learn certain kinds of knowledge, that talented students are capable of learning advanced material at a substantially faster rate than their agemates, and that this capacity is in evidence from a very early age.¹⁵

The careful use of diagnostic/ prescriptive approaches ensures that students are neither bored nor frustrated by the level of work.

A model for schools

The talent search projects provide a viable model for schools to emulate, incorporating all the necessary elements to help programs support a focus on talent development. Three elements are critical. First is a flexible philosophy with regard to age and grade placement. The program must be founded on a belief that able students can handle much more at earlier ages than is usually thought possible and that it is more important to find their challenge levels than to pay attention to age or grade considerations.

Second, there must be a commitment to use tests to improve curriculum and instruction. The purpose of tests is not to pigeonhole students but rather to indicate their readiness for advanced and challenging work. The careful use of diagnostic/ prescriptive approaches ensures that students are neither bored nor frustrated by the level of work.¹⁶ Furthermore, there must be a tight relationship between what is tested and the instruction that follows in order to facilitate higher-level understanding of important concepts.

The third critical element is a strong support structure for teachers and administrators. The setting out of specific procedures for program development and implementation ensures that those conducting the program have sufficient guidance to guarantee effectiveness.

It is also not incidental that extended-year programs are used to implement this talent development model. Summer programs, Saturday programs, and after-school programs have proliferated in the past 20 years in order to provide appropriate learning experiences for students in grades 5 through 12.¹⁷ Many of these extended-year models are creative and flexible in their scheduling and effectively use shorter time frames for basic work and longer time frames for more challenging learning opportunities, not unlike the recent recommendations emanating from the U.S. Department of Education’s Prisoners of Time study.¹⁸

Also central to the success of the talent development model is the use of instructors who are knowledgeable in their disciplines and committed to the proposition that able students can learn more in a shorter period of time than our traditional models of education have suggested.¹⁹

Finally, the talent development model includes ongoing research to determine the effectiveness of the approach.

It is notable that many elements of the talent search and development model overlap with practices promoted by the current reform agenda:

• using tests as diagnostic tools to help place students in the curriculum;
• using high curriculum standards to set appropriately high levels of challenge for each student;
• assessing learning in nontraditional ways that capture the maximum capacity of students to perform;
• emphasizing core domains of learning;
• using action research coupled with longitudinal approaches; and
• establishing meaningful collaboration between universities and K-12

Social support for talent development

Contrary to popular belief, talented individuals do not make it on their own. Not only is the process of talent development lengthy and rigorous, but the need for support from others is crucial for ultimate success. One important support structure is the family.²⁰ Research continues to attest to the strong role that parents play in advancing a child’s educational aspirations and opportunities. Parents fulfill the role of support in a variety of ways, including direct teaching.²¹ Virtually all the talent development literature resounds with the importance of parents as nurturers, encouragers, and even direct facilitators of all educational experiences for their children. Pablo Casals’ mother, who gave up her home life to travel with her son so that he could study cello with the best teacher in Barcelona, represents the prototypical self-sacrifice described in much of the talent development literature.

Contrary to popular belief, talented individuals do not make it on their own.

The development of a first-rate talent must be a high priority in families, but even when the child’s talent is at a lower level the family must still provide the support and challenge necessary for development. Troubled families also contribute in important ways to the process. Robert Albert found families of creative individuals to have a “wobble” effect -the parents were somewhat removed emotionally from the children, thus allowing a child’s creative energy to be self-directed rather than parent-supervised.²² Moreover, the absence of parents through death or divorce appears to catalyze some talented individuals to develop their capacities to very high levels.

Mentors appear to affect talent development in a profoundly positive way.²³ Mentors may be seen as emotional supports as well as sources of cognitive stimulation for talented individuals. In fact, the more emotional connections established through socioeconomic background, ethnic background, or gender, the more efficacious the match may be. The mentor can be a family member, a teacher, or someone deliberately sought out to provide an important boost to the talent development process at a crucial stage.

Crystallizing experiences also have a role to play in talent development. Gardner’s notion of such experiences emphasizes that moment when an individual is able to discern that a powerful experience represents a direction to take and a commitment to a lifelong pattern of work.²⁴ Other researchers have recognized the crucial role of real-world apprenticeship experiences in solidifying the talent development process.²⁵

The internal world of the individual

If academic talent is to thrive, then we must also be concerned about the internal life of individuals, the habits of mind they develop, the lifestyles they adopt, and the values they hold about work and education. The literature on talent development clearly elucidates the individual’s own responsibilities for developing talent.²⁶ Thus we must nurture in students a strong sense of self-discipline and of the importance of owning and asserting their own talent.

Implications for schools

What can schools do to assist in the overall talent development enterprise? It would appear that there is much that could be done. The movement for national content standards encourages schools to focus on higher-level concepts, skills, and ideas. Adopting the talent search model is a second way of bringing about a focus on talent development. Purposeful testing, high-powered curriculum and instruction from knowledgeable teachers, efficient use of time, and rigorous assessment of learning combine to create a coherent approach to meaningful learning. This model raises the role of school administrators to architects and engineers rather than merely managers, and it also assumes that teachers can motivate students to perform at levels well beyond more typical age and grade placements.

A third way to enable talent development to take hold in schools would be to change the values that pervade schools as social institutions. In the current grip of egalitarian mania, when equal outcomes — not equal opportunities — are stressed, the values associated with talent development often receive limited attention. Schools must recognize that their first obligation is to teach students not only how to learn but also what is important to know. Schools must show that they value excellence. One way to do so is to honor talent in multiple domains.²⁷ For example, schools need to consider pep rallies for National Merit finalists and award-winning musicians as well as for football and basketball players.

Another way that schools could demonstrate a commitment to academic excellence would be to institute the College Board Advanced Placement (AP) program in all disciplines (26 are available), with courses articulated up to the AP level for promising students in grades 5-12. The AP program provides college-level coursework for students in high school and can function as a design-down model for more rigorous curriculum experiences during the elementary and middle school years. All talented learners should have the option of taking at least three AP courses during their secondary school experience.

Schools also need to be able to take a flexible approach to curriculum and scheduling. Students should have access to advanced curriculum at whatever age readiness can be demonstrated.²⁸ Time should be regarded as a variable that can be manipulated in whatever ways will promote advanced learning for all students.

The development of academic talent is an important part of any education reform agenda. The talent development model has the power to mobilize American education at elementary and secondary levels to move beyond limited and ineffective gifted programs and the mediocrity that grips so many of our schools. It has the appeal to mobilize parents to support it. After all, shouldn’t all of education today be in the business of developing talent at whatever levels possible? The tool kit is open and awaits only strong intentions matched to skillful use by conscientious practitioners.

1. Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: Basic Books, 1983).
2. National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (Washington, C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993).
3. Donald Treffinger and John F. Feldhusen, “Talent Recognition and Development: Successor to Gifted Education,” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 19, 1996, pp. 181-93.
4. Julian Stanley, Daniel Keating, and Lynn Fox, Mathematical Talent: Discovery, Description, and Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974).
5. Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice (New York: Basic Books, 1993).
6. Gilbert Clark and Enid Zimmerman, “What Do We Know About Artistically Talented Students and Their Teachers?,” Journal of Art and Design Education, 13, 1994, pp. 275-86.
7. Benjamin Bloom, Developing Talent in Young People (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985).
8. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel Whalen, Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success and Failure (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
9. Catherine Cox, The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Mental Geniuses (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1926).
10. Robert Albert, “Observations and Suggestions Regarding Giftedness, Familial Influences, and the Achievement of Eminence,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 22, 1978, pp. 201-11; Mildred Goertzel, Victor Goertzel, and Ted Goertzel, Three Hundred Eminent Personalities (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978); Dean K. Simonton, Greatness: Who Makes History and Why (New York: Guilford, 1994); and R. Ochse, Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
11. David Feldman; Nature’s Gambit (New York: Basic Books, 1986).
12. David Feldman, “Intelligences, Symbol Systems, Skills, Domains, and Fields: A Sketch of a Developmental Theory of Intelligence,” in Hilda Roselli and Gary A. Maclaughlin, eds., Proceedings from the Bush Symposium on Intelligence: Theory into Practice, Blueprinting for the Future (Tampa: University of South Florida, 1992), pp. 78-99.
13. Julian Stanley, “Varieties of Intellectual Talent;’ Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 31, 1997, pp. 93-119; Linda E. Brody and Camilla P. Benbow, “Accelerative Strategies: How Effective Are They for the Gifted?,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 3, 1987, pp. 105-10; and Marie A. Swiatek and Camilla P. Benbow, “Ten-Year Longitudinal Follow-up of Ability-Matched Accelerated and Unaccelerated Gifted Students,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 83, 1991, pp. 528-38.
14. David Lubinski and Camilla P. Benbow, “The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth: The First Three Decades of a Planned 50-Year Study of lntellectual Talent,” in Rena Subotnik and Karen D. Arnold, eds., Beyond Terman: Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of Giftedness and Talent (Norwood, NJ.: Ablex, 1994), pp. 255-81.
15. Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Paula Olszewski, Patterns of Influence on Gifted Learners: The Home, the Self, and the School (New York: Teachers College Press, 1989); and Nancy Robinson et al., “The Structure of Abilities in Math-Precocious Young Children: Gender Similarities and Differences,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 88, 1996, pp. 341-52.
16. Anne Lupkowski and Susan Assouline, Jane and Johnny Love Math: Recognizing and Encouraging Mathematical Talent in Elementary Students (Unionville, N.Y.: Royal Fireworks Press, 1992).
17. Nicholas Colangelo and Gary Davis, eds., Handbook of Gifted Education, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997).
18. National Education Commission on Time and Learning, Prisoners of Time (Washington, C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1995).
19. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, , Excellence in Educating the Gifted and Talented Learner (Denver: Love Publishing, 1998).
20. Bloom, cit.
21. Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey and Howard Sandler, “Parental Involvement in Children’s Education: Why Does It Make a Difference?,” Teachers College Record, vol. 97, 1995, pp. 310-31.
22. Robert Albert, “Family Positions and the Attainment of Eminence: A Study of Special Family Positions and Special Family Experiences,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 24, 1980, pp. 87-95.
23. Mary Pleiss and John F. Feldhusen, “Mentors, Role Models, and Heroes in the Lives of Gifted Children,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 30, 1995, pp. 159-69.
24. Joseph Walters and Howard Gardner, “The Crystallizing Experience: Discovering an Intellectual Gift,” in Robert Sternberg and Janet E. Davidson, eds., Conceptions of Giftedness (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 306-31.
25. Joseph Renzulli, The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented (Mansfield Center, Conn.: Creative Learning Press, 1977); and John F. Feldhusen and Margaret E. Kolloff, “An Approach to Career Education for the Gifted,” Roeper Review, vol. 2, 1979, pp. 13-17.
26. Ochse, cit.
27. John Feldhusen, “A Call for Overhaul: Gifted Education Overlooks Talent,” School Administrator, April 1995, pp. 10-11.
28. Swiatek and Benbow, cit.; and Brody and Benbow, op. cit.

This article was originally published in The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 79, No. 10 (Jun., 1998), pp. 760-763.