What does giftedness look like?

This column will address the current conception of giftedness in Australia. This is a controversial issue as there is no universal definition and, as it is a social construct, diverse cultures have different interpretations of what constitutes giftedness. In the educational context, educators’ conceptions and definitions of giftedness determines which students get identified for gifted programming. Misunderstandings can occur if educators and parents are not informed about current understanding of gifted identification and practice to support this student population. Whilst there are literally hundreds of conceptions and models of giftedness, in this column I will be concentrating on the most widely used model in Australia today.

“Currently Gagné`s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) is the most commonly used and recommended model in Australia”

Currently Gagné`s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) is the most commonly used and recommended model in Australia. It has been referenced in two Senate inquiries and has been influential in the development of gifted education policies throughout Australia. A key aspect of this model is that it differentiates giftedness from talent. Gifted individuals are perceived as those in the top 10% of their age group who possess superior, untrained natural abilities in one or more of the following four domains: intellectual; socio-affective; creative or physical domain. Talented individuals on the other hand are the top 10% of individuals whose gifts have been systematically developed in at least one of the following fields: academics; technical; science and technology; the arts; social service; administration, sales, business operations and sports. This multi domain perception of giftedness means that whilst IQ testing may be useful to identify students gifted in the intellectual domain, other types of both objective and subjective assessment are needed to determine giftedness in the other domains. For example, an IQ test may not be best suited to a student that is gifted in the creative domain, indeed, they might spend their time interpreting the questions on the test in several different ways and not complete the test in time.

Another important aspect of this model is the perception that in order for a gift to transfer into a talent it needs to go through a developmental process that can be either positively or negatively affected by various environmental, personal, and intrapersonal catalysts. For example, a young child may arrive in Year K eager to learn but may disengage internally from the learning process due to external factors such as an undemanding curriculum. In this conception of giftedness then, the underachieving student is recognised and the importance of understanding both the cognitive and social-emotional needs of gifted students is highlighted. The student that is gifted, but also has a learning disability is also recognised, as in this construct of giftedness a student can perform at an exceptional level in one domain but may not perform well in others. It is important that parent and educators understand current thinking on giftedness so that gifted students’ unique abilities can be recognised and developed. Both my own experience in teaching educators at the postgraduate level, as well as current research demonstrates that there is a lack of understanding in our schools on how to go about identifying and accommodating gifted students. This is largely due to the fact that gifted education is rarely taught in preservice teaching education programs. This means that outdated myths and models that still circulate in our society are often still referenced and applied. I hope you have enjoyed this column and as a result of reading it have a better understanding of current conceptions of giftedness.