Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Implementing the DMGT’s Constructs of Giftedness and Talent: What, Why and How?

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

  • 226 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter begins with a brief history of the Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). It focusses on its introduction to Australian educators, and its rapid spread to all its states, making it the most widely discussed talent development model in that country. However, recent analyses of policy and advocacy documents suggest that few of the model’s constituent elements are implemented in policies or school practices, even its key differentiated constructs of giftedness and talent. Keeping in mind all potential users worldwide, I attempt to alleviate this problem in three ways. First, I discuss the three main assumptions behind the giftedness/talent differentiation (the What): (a) the commonly accepted distinction between aptitudes (gifts) and achievements (talents); (b) the relative ease of differentiated assessment; and (c) the role of aptitudes as building blocks of competencies (knowledge and skills). Second, I focus on the close relationship (the Why) between intellectual aptitudes, commonly measured as IQ scores, and academic achievements to assess the relative prevalence of intellectually gifted (GI) and academically talented (TA) students (conjunctive view) within the larger group of GI or TA students (disjunctive view). In spite of a strong (r = 0.5) average correlation between IQ scores and school grades, my analysis reveals that the conjunctive population of GI and TA students represents at best 20% of the disjunctive population (GI or TA); in other words, a large majority of these students are either ‘gifted non-talented’ or ‘non-gifted talented’. Thirdly, I propose practical applications (the How) for this empirically confirmed differentiation, namely, how it affects (a) the types of students most commonly identified as ‘gifted’ when both types of assessment tools are used; (b) the proper terminology to adopt depending on the aptitude-achievement profiles of students; and (c) the impact of differently selected ‘gifted’ samples on research analysis and interpretation. I conclude that the stranglehold that the ‘gifted’ label has on the field’s terminology, unchanged since the initial appearance of the DMGT over three decades ago, will make it difficult for agents of change (academics and local professionals) to successfully implement the DMGT’s conceptual views without very targeted initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACARA. (2018). See section on “Student diversity: Gifted and talented students’ webpage.” Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-talented-students

  • Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 41, 713–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assouline, S. G., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Colangelo, N. (2018). Acceleration and the talent search model: Transforming the school culture. In S. Pfeiffer, M. Foley-Nicpon, & E. Shaunessy-Dedrick (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 333–346). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister-Tyrrell, M. (2017). Gagné’s DMGT 2.0: A possible model of unification and shared understandings. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 26(2), 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, J., & Gagné, F. (2006). Estimating the size of the gifted/talented population from multiple identification criteria. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 131–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodersen, A. V., Brunner, M. M., & Missett, T. C. (2018). Traditional identification instruments. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 103–115). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40, 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). From the editor. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82, 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within the gifted or talented populations. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (1999). Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 191–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2004). An imperative, but, alas, improbable consensus! Roeper Review, 27, 12–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2013a). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent Development and Excellence, 5, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2013b). Yes, giftedness (aka “innate” talent) does exist! In S. B. Kaufman (Ed.), The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice (pp. 191–221). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2017). The integrative model of talent development (IMTD): From theory to educational applications. In J. A. Plucker, A. N. Rinn, & M. C. Makel (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 149–182). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2018a). Academic talent development: Theory and best practices. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 163–183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (2018b). Expertise development from an IMTD perspective. In D. Z. Hambrick, G. Campitelli, & B. N. Macnamara (Eds.), The science of expertise: Behavioral, neural, and genetic approaches to complex skill (pp. 307–327). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F., & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Analyzing musical prodigiousness using Gagné’s integrative model of talent development. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, education, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 3–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, M., & Tay, J. (2017). Using cluster grouping to improve student achievement, equity, and teacher practices. In J. A. Plucker, A. N. Rinn, & M. C. Makel (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 65–90). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make big differences. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23. Retrieved from http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. C. (2018). Reflecting on the DMGT in the Australian context: Response to Merrotsy. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 27(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2018.0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, N. B., Mun, R. U., DuRuz, B., & Holliday, A. A. (2018). Identification of strengths and talents in young children. In S. Pfeiffer, M. Foley-Nicpon, & E. Shaunessy-Dedrick (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 301–316). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A. R. (1998). The ‘g’ factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Preager.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopic, V. S., Neiderhiser, J. M., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (2017). Behavioral genetics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronborg, L., & Cornejo-Araya, C. A. (2018). Gifted educational provisions for gifted and highly able students in Victorian schools, Australia. Universitas Psychologica, 17(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-5.gepg

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, I. M., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T., & Jackson, C. A. (2003). A historical perspective on the content of the SAT. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lohman, D. F. (1999). Minding our p’s and q’s: On finding relationships between learning and intelligence. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 55–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Aptitudes, skills, and proficiencies. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), The handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–59). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, S. C., Pais-Ribeiro, J. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2011). The role of positive psychology constructs in predicting mental health and academic achievement in children and adolescents: A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 1049–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrotsy, P. (2015). Supporting outstanding learners. In A. Ashman (Ed.), Education for inclusion and diversity (5th ed., pp. 233–262). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrotsy, P. (2017). Gagné’s differentiated model of giftedness and talent in Australian education. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 26(2), 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, R. D. (1997). Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept: A longitudinal perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW Education. (2018). https://education.nsw.gov.au/public-schools/selective-high-schools-and-opportunity-classes/year-7/the-test#Test1

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, N. M., & Reis, S. (2016). Foreword. In M. Neihart, S. I. Pfeiffer, & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (2nd ed., pp. XIII–XXVI). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2013). Underachieving gifted students. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 377–387). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speirs Neumeister, K. (2016). Perfectionism in gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. I. Pfeiffer, & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (2nd ed., pp. 29–39). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

  • Veas, A., Castejon, J.-L., O’Reilly, C., & Ziegler, A. (2018). Mediation analysis of the relationship between educational capital, learning capital, and underachievement among gifted secondary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218799436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, N. (1983). Webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary. (J. L. McKetchnie, Ed.). (Deluxe 2nd edition). New York: Dorset & Baber.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, QC, Canada

    Françoys Gagné

Authors
  1. Françoys Gagné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Françoys Gagné .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Susen R. Smith

Section Editor information

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Waikato, Waikato, New Zealand

    Roger Moltzen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Gagné, F. (2019). Implementing the DMGT’s Constructs of Giftedness and Talent: What, Why and How?. In: Smith, S. (eds) Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_3-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_3-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3021-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3021-6

  • eBook Packages: Living Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics