Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory1

Abstract The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) presents the talent development process (P) as the transformation of outstanding natural abilities, or gifts (G), into outstanding systematically developed skills which define expertise, or talent (T) 3 in a particular occupational field. This developmental sequence constitutes the heart of the DMGT. Three types of catalysts help or hinder that process: (a) interpersonal (I) catalysts, like personal traits and self‐management processes; (b) environmental (E) catalysts, like socio‐demographic factors, psychological influences (e.g., from parents, teachers, or peers), or special talent development facilities and programs; and (c) chance (C). The DMGT includes a 5‐level metric‐based (MB) system to operationalize the prevalence of gifted or talented individuals, with a basic ‘top 10 per cent’ threshold for mild giftedness or talent, through successive 10 per cent cuts for moderate, high, exceptional and extreme levels. Complex interactions between the six components are surveyed. The text ends with a proposed answer to a fundamental question: ‘What factor(s) make(s) a difference, on average, between those who emerge among the talented and those who remain average?’ Notes The present article is an adaptation of two recent presentations of the DMGT (see Gagné, Citation2003, Citationin press, a). I did examine closely Snow’s very unorthodox definition of aptitude (Snow & Lohman, Citation1984; Snow, Citation1992). It is much too complex to present here. Suffice it to say that I found too many points of disagreement to endorse that view and integrate it in the structure of the DMGT. The gifted label appears specific to the field of education; rarely does one sees the term employed by educators in arts, or by professionals in sports; there, the common expressions for giftedness are ‘talent’ or ‘natural talent’. If the DMGT were more generally endorsed outside of general education, we might see a more frequent use of the expression physical or psychomotor giftedness. Then, talent would more specifically apply to outstanding performance. When I conceived the DMGT at the turn of the 1980s, I decided to adopt the term ‘domain’ for categories of natural abilities (gifts) and the term ‘field’ for talent areas; I hoped in that way to reduce confusion when discussing these two category systems. Csikszentmihalyi (see Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, Citation1986) independently proposed a very distinct differentiation, which he described as follows: If by ‘domain’ we mean a culturally structured pattern of opportunities for action, requiring a distinctive set of sensori‐motor and cognitive skills—in short, a symbolic system such as music, math ematics, or athletics—we may designate by ‘field’ the social organization of a domain. A field includes all the statuses pertinent to the domain; it specifies the habitual patterns of behavior—or roles—expected from persons who occupy the various statuses. (pp. 278–279) That differentiation differs totally from my own. Note the perfect overlap between domains and fields; in terms of numbers and potential subcategories, both concepts would be identical, since the concept of field is just the analysis of a domain from a sociological, legal, and administrative perspective. My own definition of field does not distinguish these two perspectives. Because I analyze the phenomenon of talent development from a less macrocospic or societal outlook, and more from a psycho‐educational point of view, such a distinction is, to me, of limited usefulness. The International Labour Organization (ILO) created decades ago an International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) designed to classify as logically as possible all past, present, and future occupations worldwide. The ISCO was last revised in 1988 by the Fourteenth Conference of Labour Statisticians, and renamed ISCO‐88 (see http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/class/isco.htm; accessed 18 November 2004). It includes almost ten thousand distinct occupations grouped into a hierarchical system of ten major, 27 sub‐major, over a hundred minor and hundreds of unit categories. The ten major categories are: 1) legislators, senior officials, and managers; 2) professionals; 3) technicians and associate professionals; 4) clerks; 5) service and sales workers; 6) agricultural and fisheries workers; 7) crafts and related trades workers; 8) plant and machine operators; 9) elementary occupations; and 10) the army. Most of these occupations—except maybe those in the ninth category—offer sufficient range in the level of skills to be mastered to make possible the differentiated identification of competent versus talented individuals. Moon recently proposed a structure closely related to my self‐management sub‐component. She defines it as follows: ‘The development of personal talent involves the acquisition of a number of specific skills from the personal domain, skills such as personal decision‐making and self‐regulation. The development of these skills, in turn, is facilitated by strong executive abilities’ (2003, p. 8). That quote shows that the two major types of skills defining her personal talent strongly overlap the motivation (decision‐making) and volition (goal attainment) dimensions of my self‐management sub‐component. The adjective ‘outstanding’ was carefully chosen to approximate the level of marginality I had in mind for the basic level of giftedness and talent. The term ‘superior’ appeared too generous, whereas the term ‘exceptional’ conveys the image of a more restrictive subgroup. Of course, I totally avoid ‘extraordinary’, except to describe very high levels of natural ability or achievement; I would place that level just below ‘prodigious’. Unfortunately, many professionals in the field do not exhibit the same carefulness in their qualifications of gifted or talented behavior. Such agreement recently happened in the field of nutrition with the generalization of the Body Mass Index [weight in kilos/(height in meters)2]. Professionals in that field agreed on the following operationalizations: underweight (< 20), normal (20–25), overweight (26–29), and obese (30 +). These shared thresholds make possible geographical comparisons, as well as age‐group comparisons. Feldhusen defines giftedness as follows: ‘Our composite conception of giftedness then includes (a) general intellectual ability, (b) positive self‐concept, (c) achievement motivation, and (d) talent’ (1986, p. 112). Renzulli presents the following definition: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three clusters of human traits—these clusters being above average general and/or specific abilities, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented children are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance’ (1986, p. 73).