TEACHERS AS TRANSFORMERS:
WITHIN THE DIFFERENTIATED MODEL OF GIFTEDNESS AND TALENT
Sharon Mansfield
Massey University
Abstract
This article looks at the advantages to be taken from a model that can define and describe the natural
abilities or gifts possessed by very young children, along with all of the moderating factors that act
upon these abilities as children progress along a developmental path, as well as resulting competencies
or talents.
These advantages include the potential to meet all of the guiding principles advanced by New Zealand
researchers as significant factors requiring attention in our gifted education process, together with
providing an avenue to meet identified issues of current concern.
Use of the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent as a guiding model could provide fruitful
redirection away from the current emphasis on a narrow range of talents and the pursuit of excellence
in these as an outcome. Greater ultimate value may be derived from an early focus on a full range of
natural abilities, and profiling of these, together with the intrapersonal and environmental factors
that require support for optimum development.
Introduction
Gagne has designed a developmental theory titled the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
(DMGT) (Gagne, 1985, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2009) with the aim of describing how
“excellence” within any field comes to be. This article describes the components of his model and also
discusses the interaction between them. Gagne’s basic premise is to make a distinction between
“outstanding natural abilities” to which he assigns the term “aptitudes” and “specific expert skills” he
terms “competencies”. His model focuses on describing the process these basic building blocks go
through as they transform into systematically developed abilities. In this way then, he differentiates
between giftedness as raw capacity and talent as developed ability.
This distinction gives rise to some important implications for schools as they wrestle with the
understandings needed to design and implement policies and practices for the education of their
gifted and talented students. Within this article, discussion is provided around issues of central
importance in this respect, namely:
1.
2.
3.
Identification – who exactly is it we are looking to identify and how should we find them?
How can we respond to gifted and talented learners in ways that are appropriate for all the
sub-groups of gifted and talented learners?
The Equity vs Excellence debate – what are the goals of gifted education? What are some of
the barriers that stand in the way of their realization?
It is with these issues in mind that I will be attempting to outline how Gagne’s Differentiated Model
of Giftedness and Talent sits as a solution within the New Zealand context, and how you as a teacher
can make a real difference.
Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) comprises six components, each being
assigned an identifying acronym. As described in the diagram below, (Gagne, 2009) the components
demonstrate the progression from Natural Abilities or Gifts (G) to Competencies or Talents (T). This
progression is facilitated through the Developmental Process (D), which is either assisted or hindered
by factors that Gagne describes as catalysts. He groups these into Environmental (E) or
Intrapersonal (I) and also includes the Chance component (C) as a factor that can impact on all of the
contributing components of the model. This model is one that is being continuously refined with the
diagram below being the latest version.
Gagne, 2009
Gagne (1995) noted and discussed a “plethora of definitions” with very little consensus over the
meaning of the terms gifted and talented. He recognised that ambiguity over exactly what
constitutes gifted and talented was not helpful in advancing the special educational needs of gifted
students. Gagne proposed that, despite the two terms being often used synonymously, there was a
clear and appropriate distinction to be gainfully made.
GIFTEDNESS designates the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities, called aptitudes, in at
least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers.
TALENT designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities, called
competencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places an
individual at least among the top 10% of age peers who are or have been active in that field.
(Gagne, 2009)
Whereas both terms define an above average level of human ability, he saw that a useful
differentiation could be applied to account for the beginning and end points of the developmental
process that human abilities go through as they are transformed from basic ability into systematically
developed skills. While acknowledging the genetic origin of these natural abilities, Gagne also
recognised the impact that environmental stimulation, daily use as well as informal and formal training
has on their development (Gagne, 1995).
He initially identified four “domains”, namely intellectual, physical, creativity and socio-affective
abilities, as being separate areas of ability that can be observed at an early age, with such large
variance from the norm that could not be accounted for by any form of external teaching. In
subsequent years Gagne has continued to refine his model and now includes a perceptual domain, along
with a division in the physical domain to differentiate between muscular and motor control facilities.
He recognised that along with areas of natural ability were genetically determined temperamental
dispositions or personality traits such as will power, resilience and ethical behaviour and that these,
along with environmental factors, i.e. the places, the people and the educational processes that a
student is exposed to, would have an impact on the development of skills.
Gagne considers undeveloped natural abilities to be the “constituent elements” of systematically
developed skills and thus defines talents as the skills that develop as these “building blocks” are
applied to a particular context or field (Gagne, 1995).
One very important outcome of viewing the concept of giftedness and talent through the lens that
Gagne presents is the implication that a child can, by virtue of having naturally high abilities, be
recognised as gifted from a very early age. As the child matures these abilities will develop however
the course such development takes is dependent upon the impact of what Gagne describes in his model
as “catalysts”, that is to say, the influences of environmental and intrapersonal factors. He also
includes the chance factor as influential in the eventual successful or otherwise outcome of the
developmental process. The outcome of a successful developmental process is the maturing of these
basic abilities into exceptional competencies or talents. Thus, a person is described as gifted to
highlight that they have exceptional abilities and, when they have favourably developed these abilities
they may be described as gifted and talented, however to be described as talented necessarily implies
giftedness as a prerequisite. A further implication is therefore that while such a child will always
(barring exceptional mishap) remain gifted, only when a high level of performance has been attained
can they be described as talented. This is important because it alludes to the common phenomenon in
our schools, and in life, of gifted underachievement, and points us in the direction of beginning to
understand and therefore remedy this (Gagne, 2000). It supports the important understandings that
if, through unfavourable catalytic circumstances, a child’s abilities fail to manifest into talents, the
basic constituents of their giftedness do not disappear and therefore neither do their special
educational needs; in fact, they are likely to be even more in need of intervention and support.
Identification – who exactly is it we are looking to identify and how should we find them?
The following set of principles espouses specific issues to be reflected on within the New Zealand
context.
Schools should consider the following principles in creating, adapting, or adopting their definitions of
giftedness and talent. A school-based definition needs to:
• Recognise both performance and potential;
• Acknowledge that gifted and talented students demonstrate exceptionality in relation to their peers of
the same age, culture, or circumstances;
• Reflect a multi-categorical approach which includes an array of special abilities;
• Recognise multicultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and customs;
• Provide for differentiated educational opportunities for gifted and talented students, including social and
emotional support;
• Acknowledge that giftedness is evidenced in all societal groups, regardless of culture, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, gender, or disability (learning, physical, or behavioural); and
• Recognise that a student may be gifted in one or more areas.
(Riley, Bevan-Brown, Bicknell, Carroll-Lind & Kearney, 2004, p.15)
Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent is based upon the precept that giftedness is
descriptive of natural abilities that place an individual in the top 10% of ability range in relation to
their peers, which then translates, if met with optimal conditions within a developmental process, into
talents or competencies, again placed at the top 10% of performance. Thus this model meets well the
first two principles outlined above.
Gagne’s model is an effective device in supporting a broadening of conception from the historically
narrow recognition of giftedness as a measure of academic ability, to one where exceptional abilities
in any of six distinct domains of natural ability are recognised, and where identification is aimed
towards individuals who exhibit aptitudes or natural abilities, as well as those have developed skills in a
particular field of human activity. This fits well with recommended practice in New Zealand, where
the Ministry of Education acknowledges that gifted and talented students are wide ranging in their
abilities and should include those with “general intellectual abilities, academic aptitude, creative
abilities, leadership ability, physical abilities and abilities in the visual and performing arts” (MOE,
2000), although it is interesting to note that while the first four are closely aligned with Gagne’s
domains, the last abilities in the arts would actually fall within his description of developed talents.
There is ample room within the structure of the model also to recognise alternative beliefs, values,
attitudes and customs and thereby tailor its application to account for New Zealand’s multicultural
society. It is important to note that although culture is specifically accounted for within the Mileu
subcategory of Environmental catalytic features, the effect of culture should be viewed as pervading
every aspect of the developmental process. Therefore, in order to meet identified concerns
surrounding the under representation and provision for culturally diverse students, (Bevan-Brown
2004, Riley et al, 2004, ERO, 2008,) it will be necessary to adapt the Model and specifically account
for Culture as a differentiating factor in the way abilities and qualities are viewed within New
Zealand. This adaptation needs to also flow through into the resulting fields or talents which should
be determined by the needs and values of the prevailing culture.
The need for gifted and talented students to be provided with differentiated programmes is likewise
acknowledged as an Environmental catalytic factor that will impact upon the success or otherwise of
the transformation process of gifts into talents.
When we recognise that the scope of giftedness and talent lies in a much broader range than
intellectual aptitude alone, we also see that the methods used to identify individuals within these
categories consequently need to be broad ranging as well.
Different measures will yield information of differing value depending upon exactly what it is that one
is seeking to assess. In line with his model of differentiation between giftedness and talent, Gagne
noted the different types of assessment available to determine levels of natural ability or giftedness,
and for fields of talent, although he points out some aptitudes are more easily measured than others
(Gagne 1995).
An advantage to be capitalised on by adopting this thinking into the identification process is in
avoiding the common but somewhat superficial practice of identifying high achieving academic
students who have successfully negotiated and benefited from a systematic program of training and
practice, but failing to account for gifted students who are in need of programme modifications
and/or extra support with any of the catalytic aspects of Gagne’s model in order to reach their
potential. In fact Gagne has gone so far as to give students in the former group an acronym of their
own – IGAT as in intellectually gifted and academically talented – and points out himself that this
group are those most often and most likely to be targeted by current gifted and talented educational
provisions (Gagne, 1995). This assertion is supported by the Education Review Office’s 2008 National
Report into New Zealand school’s gifted and talented provision (ERO, 2008), which found schools here
acknowledged catering for diversity beyond traditional areas of academic and sporting achievement to
be challenging.
How can we respond to gifted and talented learners in ways that are appropriate for all the
sub-groups of gifted and talented learners?
Gifted and talented learners, as a group in general, require differentiated educational opportunities.
It is common in New Zealand also to see IGAT students provided for, but less often students whose
gifts and talents fall outside this arena. Also minority groups are less likely to be identified and
consequently provided appropriate programmes. This means the principle for schools to “acknowledge
that giftedness is evidenced in all societal groups, regardless of culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, gender, or disability (learning, physical, or behavioural)” (Riley, Bevan-Brown, Bicknell, CarrollLind & Kearney, 2004, pg 10) is one that must be accounted for within what ever programme is
implemented.
The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent provides an appropriate avenue through which to
fulfil these criteria.
Firstly, it assists us to recognise that there are base-line characteristics that will be found in gifted
children; i.e. those that fit around what are described by Gagne as the Natural Abilities which he
reminds us are at least partly genetically endowed. These characteristics are observable from a very
early age and can be seen in all learning situations a child is faced with, e.g. where the child learns new
material and masters skills much faster than their peers (Gagne, 2000).
From here however, the pathways travelled become significantly diverse, as the catalytic factors
influence the developmental course of individuals. Also children with similar sets of natural abilities
may choose to pursue different directions and apply their gifts in the pursuit of any of a wide range
of possible directions. It therefore becomes significant to consider each of these factors and how
schools can work to maximise benefits and/or minimise damage that can occur through each one.
Some are of course much more open to modification than others, however most could well be noted as
part of a profiling exercise and taken into account when consideration is given to appropriate
programming (Gagne, 1995).
Gagne has worked on trying to prioritise the relative importance of each component in an attempt to
answer “What makes a difference?” (Gagne, 2003). Again, he has formulated an acronym to spell out
this hierarchy of causal impacts – C.GIPE which places Chance at the top and Environmental Catalysts
at the lowest level. The importance he places on Chance is interesting when we reflect that Chance is
the one factor that, by its very nature, we have little control over. Gagne’s position is that Chance has
significant influence over every other aspect of the talent development process, due to the role of
Chance in two of the most significant contributing factors of our lives; firstly, the random assignment
of our genetic make-up and secondly, the family and social background into which we are born
(Atkinson, 1978).
The hierarchy of importance could though, be usefully viewed in terms of identifying the factors we
do have influence over and where our efforts as educators might be best directed in order to most
effectively facilitate the talent development process. While we cannot have any influence over the
cards a child is dealt in terms of their genetic makeup, or their family and social background, we are in
the privileged position of being able to facilitate the positive development of many of the causal
factors. And while we cannot change the Natural Abilities outlined in Gagne’s model, we can make sure
we know what to look for in order to identify these early in a child’s education, so that they can be
given scope and encouragement to blossom. In designing our gifted and talented policies and
programmes, we can be aware and make sure that we are correctly distinguishing the characteristics
of gifted children from those of talented children. We can know that our place in Gagne’s Model is
that of an Environmental Catalyst, and as such we are placed to have either a positive or negative
impact on the Natural Abilities of a child as these are “processed”.
For example, we are able to influence the development of the child’s fluid reasoning ability by allowing
this process to be practised and validating its place in the learning process, even when it may appear
to conflict with more sequential and organised reasoning. We can encourage verbal skills, even when
they may appear excessive and beyond acceptable “norms”. We can value high ability within areas of
imagination and inventiveness and encourage their application and growth. And even with the all
important but mostly uncontrollable Chance factor, we can encourage the development of
intrapersonal factors such as autonomy, passion, perseverance and resilience, so that the child will be
best placed to recognise and take advantage of opportunity when it happens along (Austin, 1978).
The Equity vs Excellence debate – what are the goals of gifted education? What are some of
the barriers that stand in the way of their realization?
Within New Zealand, as is the case internationally, gifted education has struggled to be recognised as
a field with any valid substance to its claims of need. The education of gifted students continues to
be seen as low priority by most, fed by beliefs that gifted and talented students are the cream that
already has an advantage, and therefore gifted and talented programmes are viewed as “extras” – the
luxury items that are always the first to go when budgets require to be trimmed.
There are two commonly used rebuttals to this argument, the first being that all students are entitled
to an education that engages and challenges them; they are entitled to learn and achieve personal
excellence, to have their abilities and talents recognised, affirmed and their learning needs addressed
(MOE, 2007). To withhold necessary educational modifications from a group of students simply
because their abilities and talents place them at a higher level than most other students, to expect
them to moulder away in an environment that provides little positive stimulation and yet remain
motivated, and to expect them to achieve success in spite of an inappropriate curriculum, is in short,
inequitable.
The second imperative comes more from an economic position – that which considers the provision of
resources for gifted and talented students to be an investment in the national future, and encourages
the pursuit of excellence in terms of an outcome for the ultimate benefit of all.
The New Zealand Government has in recent years mandated gifted education and recognised both
equity and excellence as valid in their reasoning for its importance (MOE, 2004). However, recent
research (Riley et al, 2004, ERO, 2008) has shown that while some schools have made excellent
progress with designing and implementing policies and practices, there are still large gaps in provision
for gifted and talented students, particularly in relation to a lack of professional development,
support and resourcing for schools, and in the lack of inclusion of under-represented sub-groups of
gifted and talented students. A range of categories of giftedness and talent in which students are
identified and provided for is frequently overlooked, e.g. cultural, spiritual and emotional giftedness,
as are the social and emotional needs of gifted and talented students (Riley et al , 2004).
So how does Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent sit within this present situation?
Firstly as stated earlier, Gagne has presented his work as a model of how excellence in any field comes
to be. Therefore, if our goal is to produce students who are capable of top performance in any given
career, then this model describes for us all the components that we need to take account of in
pursuing this.
Gagne (1995) professed the title of “gifted education” to in fact be a misnomer as he says it is not
usually development of the natural abilities that gifted children possess at the beginning of their
formal education process that are the aim of such programmes. He suggests “talent development” as a
more accurate descriptor, in terms of the definitions within his model, of the common goals of current
programmes.
It is certainly the case within New Zealand that certain specific talents are commonly targeted within
gifted education initiatives, and that these areas of ability are limited in scope (MOE 2004). If we
pay attention to the broader range of abilities that are highlighted in the DMGT, then we will be more
successful at identifying and providing for a greater number of gifted and talented children.
Secondly, we can look at equitable outcomes as a goal of gifted and talented education programmes.
The suggestion that talent development may be a more accurate description of current programmes
also implies that excellence is the goal. If however we place equal emphasis on the value of successful
outcomes judged from a more individual and personal viewpoint, then we should move our focus from
Gagne’s competencies as the end result and the inherent benefit to society gained, and balance this
with the need for development from the beginning point – the natural abilities. In this way, identified
gaps in provision – the narrow range of abilities and also the lack of appropriate attention to the
special social and emotional needs of gifted students can be addressed. In identifying the “building
blocks” and then accounting for the environmental and inter-personal factors that impact upon them,
we can create a more balanced and holistic view of the child and their needs and respond
appropriately. The goal of excellence is not discounted but its attainment is more likely to be reached
for a wider range of gifted students with enhanced results both for them personally and for society
also.
Summary
The major point of difference in Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent is his
contention that there is, and should be, a clear distinction to be made between the concepts of
giftedness and talent. This difference is the basis upon which he has designed a description of the
process by which the Natural Abilities or Gifts possessed by young children are transformed (or not)
into Competencies or Talents. It also provides the means to satisfy the required principles of gifted
and talented education in New Zealand to recognise both performance (talents) and potential (gifts).
Gagne’s DMGT clearly distinguishes both separate domains of ability and fields of talent, and specifies
gifted and talented children to be those whose gifts or talents place them within the top 10% abilitywise of their age peers. This aspect of his model meets the requirement for New Zealand schools to
ensure their definitions are multi-categorical and acknowledge children who demonstrate
exceptionality in relation to their peers.
Requirements within New Zealand for school-based definitions to recognise multicultural values,
beliefs, attitudes, and customs is met within the DMGT with Culture specifically noted under the subheading of Mileu as an Environmental Catalyst, whereby it has, in a conjunctive relationship with all
other catalysts, a direct impact upon the developmental process, and subsequently on resultant
talents. Similarly, Provisions describe the range of programming options that are necessary for
successful transformation of gifts into talents, providing satisfaction of the requirement in New
Zealand for provision of differentiated educational opportunities.
Gagne has identified a common tendency which has been borne out by research within the New
Zealand context, towards identifying a group that he has termed IGAT students (Intellectually Gifted
and Academically Talented). This highlights a “gap” in the way we are currently providing for our
gifted and talented students that the DMGT is well placed to remedy, through firstly providing for
early identification of a broad range of natural abilities and then awareness and specific targeting of
the catalytic factors required for optimum progression through the developmental process to
facilitate transformation of these abilities into competencies.
In New Zealand, gifted education fights an uphill battle for survival, despite that there are very
sound reasons to support its existence. Recent research has highlighted substantive gaps in provision
and identified many of the causes of these deficits. Utilisation of the DMGT as a guiding model for
definition of gifted and talented learners and then for responding to their needs in ways that will
enhance the likelihood of successful outcomes, is definitely a plausible solution. It is by no means a
simple process, but then with all the complexities inherent in the concept of giftedness and talent,
one would not expect that it should be so! However, it can be seen that for each guiding principle
advanced by the researchers, a satisfactory approach can be drawn from within the DMGT with which
to meet it. Moreover, application of the DMGT has the potential to remedy identified gaps in current
provision, if used in conjunction with necessary resourcing including professional development and
support, to help New Zealand teachers take their places as significantly positive influences in the
development process of our gifted children.
References:
Atkinson, J.W. (1978). Motivational determinants of intellective performance and cumulative
achievement. In J.W. Atkinson & J.O. Raynor (Eds.). Personality, motivation, and achievement. (pp. 221242). New York: Wiley.
Austin, J.H. (1978). Chase, chance, and creativity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bevan-Brown, J. (2004). Gifted and talented Maori learners. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen Gifted and
talented New Zealand perspectives (2nd ed., pp171 - 197) Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press
Bevan-Brown, J., Bicknell, B., Carroll-Lind, J., Kearney, A., & Riley, T. (2004). Gifted and talented
education in New Zealand schools: A summary of research on the extent, nature, and effectiveness of
planned approaches in New Zealand schools for identifying and providing for gifted and talented
students. Wellington: MOE.
Education Review Office. (2008). Schools’ provision for gifted and talented students. [Online]
Retrieved from the World Wide Web 16 July, 2009 from:
http://ero.govt.nz/ero/publishing.nsf/e11ffa331b366c54ca2569210006982f/197bf6ff0683516ecc25
75580073d8d3?OpenDocument#2008_1
Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
Gagne, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis
(Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: a developmental model and its impact on the language of
the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103-111.
Gagne, F. (1997). Critique of Morelock’s (1996) definitions of giftedness and talent [a]. Roeper Review,
20(2), 76.
Gagne, F. (2000) A differentiated model of giftedness and talent. Year 2000 update. [Online]
Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 16, 2009 from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000
019b/80/16/bf/70.pdf
Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N.
Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Gagne, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0 [Online] Retrieved from
the World Wide Web June 11, 2009 from:
http://www.giftedconference2009.org/presenter_files/gagne_p12_therealnature.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and talented students: meeting their needs in New Zealand
schools. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.