Week 1, Robb, C.M., Harel Ben Shahar, T., Meyer, K., Vetter, B., Steenbeek, H.W., Sardoč, M. & Den
Hartigh, R.J.R. (2025), Talent Policy: Problems and Solutions. The Political Quarterly.
-The urgency in the modern world to find skilled individuals has led to the widespread adoption of
policies built on 3 fundamentally flawed and scientifically unsupported assumptions:
Talent is a predetermined fixed trait.
Talent can be readily identified at an early stage.
Early performance is a reliable predictor of future excellence.
-The flawed assumptions gave rise to a set of common talent development practices that share a
problematic theoretical core. These practices are characterized by 2 primary features:
Early identification of individuals deemed talented.
Targeted, specific training to this^ exclusive group.
-Evidence shows that talent is a dynamic, non-linear, and content-dependent process; an individual’s
abilities aren’t fixed but change over time often in unpredictable ways, co-constructed through
interactions with their environment.
-The flawed empirical approach is sustained by a conceptual confusion that conflates achieved skill
with potential.
-A more accurate, evidence-based model would shift from the conventional framework of
interpersonal comparison to an intrapersonal comparison perspective:
Interpersonal comparison: Defines talent by comparing one individual’s skill level against
others.
-Leads to exclusionary policies based on potentially misleading snapshots in time.
Intrapersonal comparison: Defines talent by identifying which of an individual’s own skills
has the greatest potential for development.
-Implies a shift toward supporting individuals in developing their personal strengths,
regardless of their current ranking against peers.
-Reforming talent strategy is not just a matter of efficiency but an ethical necessity (because flawed
talent programs can be damaging).
-The available research points to 3 clear policy improvements:
Integrate multidisciplinary research: policymakers must collaborate with experts from diverse
fields to build strategies on a solid scientific and conceptual foundation.
Move beyond early and exclusive selection: Policy must shift away from early selection based
on unreliable predictions. Access to development programs should be widened to include
individuals who may not be top performers at a given moment but possess the potential for
high achievement.
-Selection criteria should incorporate intrapersonal comparisons and consider contextual
factors like motivation.
Adopt multiple and flexible pathways: Developmental systems must abandon the one-way
ticket model of selection or permanent exclusion. Recognizing that development is dynamic,
policies must create multiple and flexible pathways.
Terms
-Talent identification: The practice of selecting individuals who are perceived to have the potential
for future excellence.
-Dynamic development: The principle that an individual’s abilities are not fixed but undergo non-
,linear and often unpredictable changes through complex interactions with their environment.
-Exclusive practices: Policies, particularly in corporate settings, that provide special treatment,
training, and resources to a small group of individuals who have been singled out as demonstrating
excellent potential.
-Interpersonal comparison (of talent): An assessment framework that defines talent by comparing
one person’s current skill level against that of their peers. This approach underpins most traditional,
exclusionary talent policies.
-Intrapersonal comparison (of talent): An assessment framework that identifies talent by
determining which of an individual's own skills and abilities holds the greatest potential for future
development.
-Iterated abilities: A conceptual understanding of talent as the abilities to reliably express a high level
of skill development, when in the right circumstances. This focuses on the dynamic process of skill
development rather than a fixed level of achievement.
Chapter 2
-The lack of a single, universally accepted definition for giftedness and talent directly influences how
individuals are identified and how educational programs are designed.
-Existing definitions of giftedness fall into 4 primary categories:
Psychometric: Defines giftedness based on high scores on instruments measuring intelligence
or creativity.
Performance: Identifies giftedness based on demonstrated high achievement, such as being a
top student.
Labelling: Views giftedness as a socially conferred label, accorded by an expert, rather than
an inherent trait.
Specific: focuses on domain-specific strengths in areas like music, mathematics, or athletics.
-There is an inconsistent distinction between giftedness and talent, with researchers using the terms
synonymously, hierarchically, or to differentiate between potential and achievement.
-To address the limitations of treating giftedness as a fixed trait, the modern Delphic definition offers
a probability-based alternative grounded in expert opinion about future achievement:
Talented persons: Individuals who may one day achieve domain-specific excellence.
Gifted persons: Individuals who will probably one day achieve domain-specific excellence.
Experts: individuals who have already achieved excellence in a specific domain.
-The evolution from simplistic ideas toward more complex, context-are excellence was driven by the
failure of early models to predict real-world excellence:
Early approaches of giftedness were monocausal -> equated giftedness with a high IQ.
However, it failed to show a link to exceptional career success. This lead to multidimensional
models that include a bundle of causal factors (e.g., creativity and motivation).
Systemic theories advanced beyond multidimensional models by focusing on the interactions
between factors; giftedness is not situated solely within the individual but emerges from the
integrated system of the person and their environment.
A significant shift moved the focus from static traits to the dynamic learning processes
leading to excellence.
-Expertise approach: Studied the learning pathways of experts, highlighting the role of
deliberate practice. Has been viewed as a new sort of monocausal conception of giftedness,
because it focuses on 1 factor (practice).
, -Actiotope model. Centres on learning actions, viewing excellence as a gradual expansion of
the individual action repertoire.
Divergence hypothesis: linked high intelligence to negative traits. Was refuted by for example
Terman.
-Modern research has rejected the deficit-oriented view, focusing on identifying resources
that support positive development.
-Conceptions of giftedness are not universal but are culturally embedded constructs:
Western conceptions: historically founded on entity theories (fixed ability), emphasizes
individualism, characterized by mind-body dualism, values innate ability.
East Asian conceptions: more concerned with educability and malleable views, values
interdependence and collectivism, often reflects holistic outlooks (e.g., Confucianism), places
a special emphasis on effort.
-A caveat remains: Equating East Asian high achievement with Western giftedness is problematic due
to the restricted focus of East Asian academic achievement.
-A significant conceptual chasm exist between modern academic theory and its practical application
in gifted education, where simplified, traditional methods often persist:
There is a Western bias; shortage of cross-cultural research.
In practice, most identification relies on a single criterion like an IQ score, which is
scientifically suspect and prone to bias. To address this, 4 theoretical approaches to
diagnostics have been developed:
-Status-oriented: The traditional approach, aiming to identify an individual’s relative position
in a population.
-Intervention-oriented: Focusing on identifying causes of underachievement (the gap
between potential and performance).
-Development-oriented: A dynamic approach that makes prognoses for ongoing
development by assessing learning in authentic settings.
-Support-oriented: Most integrated approach. Actively constructs developmental
opportunities and blurs the line between identification and education.
Gifted education provision: Practice remains focused on acceleration and enrichment.
However, research on their effectiveness is mixed and hampered by documented
methodological shortcomings, including inappropriate control groups and the misapplication
of statistical methods, casting doubt on many of the field’s conclusions.
-2 promising developments are shaping the future of the field:
E-mentoring: Computer-mediated communication may finally unlock the potential of high-
quality, one-on-one expert mentoring. By overcoming historical cost and logistical barriers, e-
mentoring could enable a rapid global expansion of effective talent development
opportunities.
Equity in gifted education: The underrepresentation of minority and disadvantaged students
is a critical issue. The proposed solution is to move beyond refining identification instruments
and fundamentally redesign programs to be rooted in the outlooks and cultures of the group
it should be serving, creating more socially and culturally adaptive models.
Terms
-Actiotope Model: A model of giftedness where learning actions, not personality traits, are central.
-Deliberate practice: Considerable quantities of intensive, highly structured practice crucial for
, achieving excellence.
-Delphic definition: A probability-based approach defining giftedness based on expert opinions about
likely future development.
-Development-Oriented diagnostics: A dynamic approach focused on prognoses for continued
achievement by assessing learning behaviour over time.
-Divergence Hypothesis: The disproven historical assumption that gifted individuals display frequent
behavioural or psychological problems.
-ENTER Model: A five-phase heuristic framework (Explore, Narrow, Transform, Evaluate, Review) for
adaptable gifted identification.
Expertise Approach: A research method examining the learning pathways of individuals who have
already achieved exceptional performance.
Giftedness and Talent: Conceptually overlapping terms with no single, universally accepted
definition.
-Intervention-Oriented Diagnostics: A diagnostic approach focused on identifying causes of
underachievement.
-Labeling Definitions: Definitions viewing giftedness as a socially accorded label rather than an
inherent trait.
-Monocausal Conceptions: Early theories equating giftedness with a single factor, usually high IQ.
-Multidimensional Models: Models that include a "bundle" of causal factors beyond a single trait.
-Performance Definitions: Definitions that identify individuals as gifted based on demonstrated high
achievements.
-Psychometric Definitions: Definitions that classify individuals as gifted based on high scores on
psychometric tests.
-Status-Oriented Diagnostics: The traditional diagnostic approach aiming to identify gifted
individuals by their relative position in a population.
-Support-Oriented Diagnostics: An approach that integrates identification and education by
continuously adapting a learning path toward excellence.
-Systemic Theories: Advanced models focusing on the interactions between individual and
contextual factors.
Chapter 40
-Trait Theory Perspective: The foundational historical perspective in gifted education. Individual
differences are explained by attributing them to underlying, stable traits, primarily general
intelligence (g). exceptional performance is a direct result of possessing a high quantity of a key trait.
-Limitation of the trait theory: The tendency toward circular or tautological reasoning: the evidence
for the trait is the very behaviour the trait is supposed to explain.
-Cognitive Psychology Perspective: This approach opens the ‘black box’ to describe the specific,
interdependent components that give rise to gifted performance:
Executive function: This system manages and controls cognitive processes (e.g., planning and
suppressing automated responses when performing novel tasks).
Attention: A limited resource that functions as a selection mechanism, allowing a finite
amount of information to enter our consciousness for processing.
Working memory: This system briefly stores and actively processes or manipulates
information. Its capacity is extremely limited but can be effectively increased through
‘chunking’, where individual items are grouped into larger, meaningful units.
-Evidence indicates that gifted children differ from their peers in working memory capacity and their
spontaneous use of effective metacognitive strategies.
-The cognitive psychology perspective provides a true causal explanation for gifted performance.
Hartigh, R.J.R. (2025), Talent Policy: Problems and Solutions. The Political Quarterly.
-The urgency in the modern world to find skilled individuals has led to the widespread adoption of
policies built on 3 fundamentally flawed and scientifically unsupported assumptions:
Talent is a predetermined fixed trait.
Talent can be readily identified at an early stage.
Early performance is a reliable predictor of future excellence.
-The flawed assumptions gave rise to a set of common talent development practices that share a
problematic theoretical core. These practices are characterized by 2 primary features:
Early identification of individuals deemed talented.
Targeted, specific training to this^ exclusive group.
-Evidence shows that talent is a dynamic, non-linear, and content-dependent process; an individual’s
abilities aren’t fixed but change over time often in unpredictable ways, co-constructed through
interactions with their environment.
-The flawed empirical approach is sustained by a conceptual confusion that conflates achieved skill
with potential.
-A more accurate, evidence-based model would shift from the conventional framework of
interpersonal comparison to an intrapersonal comparison perspective:
Interpersonal comparison: Defines talent by comparing one individual’s skill level against
others.
-Leads to exclusionary policies based on potentially misleading snapshots in time.
Intrapersonal comparison: Defines talent by identifying which of an individual’s own skills
has the greatest potential for development.
-Implies a shift toward supporting individuals in developing their personal strengths,
regardless of their current ranking against peers.
-Reforming talent strategy is not just a matter of efficiency but an ethical necessity (because flawed
talent programs can be damaging).
-The available research points to 3 clear policy improvements:
Integrate multidisciplinary research: policymakers must collaborate with experts from diverse
fields to build strategies on a solid scientific and conceptual foundation.
Move beyond early and exclusive selection: Policy must shift away from early selection based
on unreliable predictions. Access to development programs should be widened to include
individuals who may not be top performers at a given moment but possess the potential for
high achievement.
-Selection criteria should incorporate intrapersonal comparisons and consider contextual
factors like motivation.
Adopt multiple and flexible pathways: Developmental systems must abandon the one-way
ticket model of selection or permanent exclusion. Recognizing that development is dynamic,
policies must create multiple and flexible pathways.
Terms
-Talent identification: The practice of selecting individuals who are perceived to have the potential
for future excellence.
-Dynamic development: The principle that an individual’s abilities are not fixed but undergo non-
,linear and often unpredictable changes through complex interactions with their environment.
-Exclusive practices: Policies, particularly in corporate settings, that provide special treatment,
training, and resources to a small group of individuals who have been singled out as demonstrating
excellent potential.
-Interpersonal comparison (of talent): An assessment framework that defines talent by comparing
one person’s current skill level against that of their peers. This approach underpins most traditional,
exclusionary talent policies.
-Intrapersonal comparison (of talent): An assessment framework that identifies talent by
determining which of an individual's own skills and abilities holds the greatest potential for future
development.
-Iterated abilities: A conceptual understanding of talent as the abilities to reliably express a high level
of skill development, when in the right circumstances. This focuses on the dynamic process of skill
development rather than a fixed level of achievement.
Chapter 2
-The lack of a single, universally accepted definition for giftedness and talent directly influences how
individuals are identified and how educational programs are designed.
-Existing definitions of giftedness fall into 4 primary categories:
Psychometric: Defines giftedness based on high scores on instruments measuring intelligence
or creativity.
Performance: Identifies giftedness based on demonstrated high achievement, such as being a
top student.
Labelling: Views giftedness as a socially conferred label, accorded by an expert, rather than
an inherent trait.
Specific: focuses on domain-specific strengths in areas like music, mathematics, or athletics.
-There is an inconsistent distinction between giftedness and talent, with researchers using the terms
synonymously, hierarchically, or to differentiate between potential and achievement.
-To address the limitations of treating giftedness as a fixed trait, the modern Delphic definition offers
a probability-based alternative grounded in expert opinion about future achievement:
Talented persons: Individuals who may one day achieve domain-specific excellence.
Gifted persons: Individuals who will probably one day achieve domain-specific excellence.
Experts: individuals who have already achieved excellence in a specific domain.
-The evolution from simplistic ideas toward more complex, context-are excellence was driven by the
failure of early models to predict real-world excellence:
Early approaches of giftedness were monocausal -> equated giftedness with a high IQ.
However, it failed to show a link to exceptional career success. This lead to multidimensional
models that include a bundle of causal factors (e.g., creativity and motivation).
Systemic theories advanced beyond multidimensional models by focusing on the interactions
between factors; giftedness is not situated solely within the individual but emerges from the
integrated system of the person and their environment.
A significant shift moved the focus from static traits to the dynamic learning processes
leading to excellence.
-Expertise approach: Studied the learning pathways of experts, highlighting the role of
deliberate practice. Has been viewed as a new sort of monocausal conception of giftedness,
because it focuses on 1 factor (practice).
, -Actiotope model. Centres on learning actions, viewing excellence as a gradual expansion of
the individual action repertoire.
Divergence hypothesis: linked high intelligence to negative traits. Was refuted by for example
Terman.
-Modern research has rejected the deficit-oriented view, focusing on identifying resources
that support positive development.
-Conceptions of giftedness are not universal but are culturally embedded constructs:
Western conceptions: historically founded on entity theories (fixed ability), emphasizes
individualism, characterized by mind-body dualism, values innate ability.
East Asian conceptions: more concerned with educability and malleable views, values
interdependence and collectivism, often reflects holistic outlooks (e.g., Confucianism), places
a special emphasis on effort.
-A caveat remains: Equating East Asian high achievement with Western giftedness is problematic due
to the restricted focus of East Asian academic achievement.
-A significant conceptual chasm exist between modern academic theory and its practical application
in gifted education, where simplified, traditional methods often persist:
There is a Western bias; shortage of cross-cultural research.
In practice, most identification relies on a single criterion like an IQ score, which is
scientifically suspect and prone to bias. To address this, 4 theoretical approaches to
diagnostics have been developed:
-Status-oriented: The traditional approach, aiming to identify an individual’s relative position
in a population.
-Intervention-oriented: Focusing on identifying causes of underachievement (the gap
between potential and performance).
-Development-oriented: A dynamic approach that makes prognoses for ongoing
development by assessing learning in authentic settings.
-Support-oriented: Most integrated approach. Actively constructs developmental
opportunities and blurs the line between identification and education.
Gifted education provision: Practice remains focused on acceleration and enrichment.
However, research on their effectiveness is mixed and hampered by documented
methodological shortcomings, including inappropriate control groups and the misapplication
of statistical methods, casting doubt on many of the field’s conclusions.
-2 promising developments are shaping the future of the field:
E-mentoring: Computer-mediated communication may finally unlock the potential of high-
quality, one-on-one expert mentoring. By overcoming historical cost and logistical barriers, e-
mentoring could enable a rapid global expansion of effective talent development
opportunities.
Equity in gifted education: The underrepresentation of minority and disadvantaged students
is a critical issue. The proposed solution is to move beyond refining identification instruments
and fundamentally redesign programs to be rooted in the outlooks and cultures of the group
it should be serving, creating more socially and culturally adaptive models.
Terms
-Actiotope Model: A model of giftedness where learning actions, not personality traits, are central.
-Deliberate practice: Considerable quantities of intensive, highly structured practice crucial for
, achieving excellence.
-Delphic definition: A probability-based approach defining giftedness based on expert opinions about
likely future development.
-Development-Oriented diagnostics: A dynamic approach focused on prognoses for continued
achievement by assessing learning behaviour over time.
-Divergence Hypothesis: The disproven historical assumption that gifted individuals display frequent
behavioural or psychological problems.
-ENTER Model: A five-phase heuristic framework (Explore, Narrow, Transform, Evaluate, Review) for
adaptable gifted identification.
Expertise Approach: A research method examining the learning pathways of individuals who have
already achieved exceptional performance.
Giftedness and Talent: Conceptually overlapping terms with no single, universally accepted
definition.
-Intervention-Oriented Diagnostics: A diagnostic approach focused on identifying causes of
underachievement.
-Labeling Definitions: Definitions viewing giftedness as a socially accorded label rather than an
inherent trait.
-Monocausal Conceptions: Early theories equating giftedness with a single factor, usually high IQ.
-Multidimensional Models: Models that include a "bundle" of causal factors beyond a single trait.
-Performance Definitions: Definitions that identify individuals as gifted based on demonstrated high
achievements.
-Psychometric Definitions: Definitions that classify individuals as gifted based on high scores on
psychometric tests.
-Status-Oriented Diagnostics: The traditional diagnostic approach aiming to identify gifted
individuals by their relative position in a population.
-Support-Oriented Diagnostics: An approach that integrates identification and education by
continuously adapting a learning path toward excellence.
-Systemic Theories: Advanced models focusing on the interactions between individual and
contextual factors.
Chapter 40
-Trait Theory Perspective: The foundational historical perspective in gifted education. Individual
differences are explained by attributing them to underlying, stable traits, primarily general
intelligence (g). exceptional performance is a direct result of possessing a high quantity of a key trait.
-Limitation of the trait theory: The tendency toward circular or tautological reasoning: the evidence
for the trait is the very behaviour the trait is supposed to explain.
-Cognitive Psychology Perspective: This approach opens the ‘black box’ to describe the specific,
interdependent components that give rise to gifted performance:
Executive function: This system manages and controls cognitive processes (e.g., planning and
suppressing automated responses when performing novel tasks).
Attention: A limited resource that functions as a selection mechanism, allowing a finite
amount of information to enter our consciousness for processing.
Working memory: This system briefly stores and actively processes or manipulates
information. Its capacity is extremely limited but can be effectively increased through
‘chunking’, where individual items are grouped into larger, meaningful units.
-Evidence indicates that gifted children differ from their peers in working memory capacity and their
spontaneous use of effective metacognitive strategies.
-The cognitive psychology perspective provides a true causal explanation for gifted performance.
