Academic Talent Development (ATD)

​

DEFINITION

A DMGT-inspired ATD program designates a structured long-term program of learning activities anchored in a constantly challenging academic curriculum and directed toward the attainment of high-level excellence goals. More concretely, an ATD program meets seven defining characteristics:

​

1. An enriched (K-12) curriculum; 

2. Systematic daily enrichment; 

3. Full-time ability grouping; 

4. Customized/accelerated pacing; 

5. Explicit personal excellence goals;

6. Highly selective access;

7. Early (K or Grade 1) implementation.

​

​

SUPPORTIVE PUBLICATIONS

​

Most of the publications cited below originated in my research laboratory. A few others appear because they played an important role in the development of the DMGT-inspired ATD model. 

 

About the validity of identification by teachers

(a) Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors?  Comments on Pegnato and Birch's (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124-126.

(b) Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.

 

The PDF document includes both my GCQ article and the commented 1959 article. My short article was honored as best article of the year by the editors of GCQ.

​

On the nature of intelligence 

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.  Intelligence, 24, 13-23.

 

Commonly presented as the MSOI document. It defends the validity and usefulness of the concept of intelligence and its usual measurement with IQ scores. It proposes the definition of intelligence I prefer by far to any I have seen. Take time to read the last pages, that tell the story behind the creation of this controversial document.

​

A DMGT-endorsed philosophy of education 

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, xx, 576-583.

 

Here is a key quote: 

“Individuals come into the world with different aptitudes, and, over the course of their lives, they develop different interests and proclivities. In an ideal approach to educational practice (...) each youngster would learn at an ideal rate. Over time, the cumulative gap between students would grow. Students would travel at their own optimal rates, and some would go faster than others in different areas of work. (…) The kind of schools we need would not hold as an ideal that all students get to the same destinations at the same time. They would embrace the idea that good schools increase the variance in student performance and at the same time escalate the mean."  (p. 580)

 

IQ vs Motivation
Gagné, F., & St Père, F. (2001). When IQ is controlled, does motivation still predict achievement? Intelligence, 30, 71-100.

​

The title is self-explanatory, and the answer is ‘Much less’ !

​

On the [positive] impact of early entrance to school.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26, 128-138.

​

This often quoted article summarizes the special methodology and conclusive results of Ms. Gagnier’s PhD dissertation.

​

On the virtues of accelerative enrichment.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (volume I). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

​

Other documents on the same subject can be downloaded from: www.accelerationinstitute.org. 

​

Individual differences in academic achievement

Gagné, F. (2005). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153.

​

One of very few articles on the subject, it describes the breadth of individual differences in academic achievement, and defends the ‘fan spread effect,’  the progressive increase with time in individual differences in achievement (see Eisner article above).

​

Playing God (!) on the subject of academic talent development

​

(a) Gagné, F (2007), Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 93-118. (full text)

​

This article, which I still consider fully relevant almost two decades after its writing, was initially presented as a keynote speech at the 15th World conference on Gifted & Talented Children (Adelaide, Australia, 2003). It represents a very important text on my convictions about appropriate principles and procedures for talent identification and development. I consider it the first official presentation of the principles that gave rise to the ATD model.

​

(b) Gagné, F. (2012), Unpublished production by author. (Summary for handouts)

​

(c) Proposing an 11th commandment

Gagné, F. (2008). Talent development: Exposing the weakest link. Revista Española de Pedagogía. LXVI (240), 221-240.

 

This article defends the relevance of adding an 11th commandment: 

“THOU SHALT … ADVOCATE UNREMITTINGLY!”

 

A special journal issue targeting the ATD

(a) Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development and excellence, 3, 3-22.

(b) Gagné, F. (2011). « Some » equity through meritocracy: A rejoinder to 32 comments. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 131-164.

​

Note. The PDF document includes the complete issue, namely the target article, the 32 peer comments, and my detailed response.

​

Abstract of target article. The equity issue with regard to the underrepresentation of socioeconomically and ethnically disadvantaged students in gifted education has its source in judgments of unfair identification practices. After describing that issue and its factual basis, I show: (a) that an often overlooked statistical phenomenon exacerbates the disproportions; (b) that similar and even much larger disproportions exist in and outside general education without any advocacy group bringing out accusations of unfair access rules; and (c) that the source of our field’s equity issue resides in the fact that most current gifted programs have little to do with “real” academic talent development, inspired by a meritocratic ideology. Using basic definitions from my Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), as well as a detailed definition of the talent development process, I argue that if most gifted programs were reoriented to follow the DMGT’s Academic Talent Development (ATD) model, the equity issue would lose its relevance. 

 

Combining the DMGT with ATD

Gagné, F. (2020). Developing Academic Talent: DGMT-based principles and best practices. In C. Fischer, C. Fischer‐Ontrup, F. Käpnick, N. Neuber, C. Solzbacher & P. Zwitserlood (Hrsg.), Begabungsförderung. Leistungsentwicklung. Bildungsgerechtigkeit. Für alle! Beiträge aus der Begabungsförderung. Reihe: Begabungsförderung: Individuelle Förderung und Inklusive Bildung, Band 10 (S. 335–344).Münster [u.a.]: Waxmann.

 

This text [in English] brings together a short summary of the DMGT, and then describes the rationale and implementation of proper ATD programs.

​