Theory and Practice of Talent Search
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32405/2413-4139-2020-1(28)-59-69Keywords:
giftedness, talent, educational programs, additional educational services, accelerated training, enriched trainingAbstract
Psychologists, teachers, and all other specialists, who are at least tied to the educational process, have
for several decades been concerned with the problems of the theoretical foundations of diagnosis of giftedness,
the identification of gifted individuals and the organization of their training, which would be in line with their
capabilities and inquiries. An analysis of the experience gained from this problem suggests the possibility of
conditionally dividing the directions of its overcoming into several groups. The groups are divided into those
that are localized within the institution, go beyond the educational institution, but do not cover the whole country, spread across the country, beyond the borders of one country. These practical actions and the theoretical
positions that underlie them are called the special program for gifted ones. Such programs are broader in their
content than educational programs, which are only one of their components. Local, regional, state and inter
national special programs for gifted researchers are attracting special attention. In a few decades, countless
analytical studies of their positive and negative aspects have been made.
The article describes the most famous programs for finding gifted students. The leader in such programs
in terms of researchers' attention and theoretical and practical value is the talent search program developed by
J. Stanley. The Duke University's Talent Identification Program (Duke TIP) holds a leading position as the first
“transplant” of the regional model of the talent search for CTM developed by J. Stanley. P. Oljewski-Kubilius
described the use of J. Stanley's talent search model at the Northwestern University (USA). The Rocky Mountain Talent Search (RMTS) program at Denver University has also been developed on the basis of the talent
search model proposed by J. Stanley. The studies analyzed demonstrate how individual universities, using the
J. Stanley talent search model, develop and implement their own search and support programs for gifted youth.
In addition, there are programs that aim to identify gifted individuals and offer them educational programs
tailored to the specifics of their talents. The Study of Exceptional Talent (SET) program identifies students who
demonstrate extreme-developed mathematical abilities and / or verbal understanding and helps them find educational programs of the level they need to maximize their potential. The article presents examples of programs
for the search of gifted and talented children in various academic, technical, organizational and artistic fields.
At the same time, the main task of finding talents and creating conditions for their effective development is solving the problem of equal access to quality education.
Downloads
References
1. Ybarra, L. (2005). Beyond national borders: the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth
reaching out to gifted children from throughout the world. High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No 1. P. 15–26.
2. Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. A. (2008). National Picture of Talent Search
and Talent Search Educational Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 52. No.1. P. 55–69.
3. Barnett, L. B., Albert, M. E., & Brody, L. E. (2005). The Center for Talented Youth talent search and
academic programs. High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 27–40.
4. Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., & Assouline, S. G. (1993). Identifying Mathematically Talented El
ementary Students: Using the Lower Level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 37. No. 3. P.118–123.
5. Swiatek, M. A. (2007). The Talent Search Model. Past, Present, and Future. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Vol. 51. No.4. P. 320–329.
6. Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. 2005. Talent search research: what have we learned? High Ability
Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 97–111.
7. Putallaz, M., Baldwin, J., & Selph, H. (2005). The Duke University Talent Identification Program.
High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 41–54.
8. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2005). The Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University: an
example of replication and reformation. High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 55–69.
9. Rigby, K. (2005). ‘Rocky Mountain Talent Search’ at the University of Denver. High Ability Studies.
Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 71–75.
10. Arancibia, V., Lissi, M. R., & Narea, M. (2008). Impact in the school system of a strategy for
identifying and selecting academically talented students: the experience of Program PENTA-UC. High
Ability Studies. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 53–65.
11. Brody, L. E. (2005). The Study of Exceptional Talent. High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1.
P. 87–96.
12. Hartas, D., Lindsay, G., & Muijs, D. (2008). Identifying and selecting able students for the NAGTY
summer school: emerging issues and future considerations. High Ability Studies. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 5–18.
13. Saxon, J. A., Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., & Wittig, C. V. (2003). Camp Invention: A Creative,
Inquiry-Based Summer Enrichment Program for Elementary Students. The Journal of Creative Behavior.
Vol. 37. No. 1. P. 64–74.
14. Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School Factors and the Underachievement of Gifted
Students in a Talent Search Summer Program. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 51. No. 2. P. 167–181.
15. Linn-Cohen, R., & Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Unlocking the GATE to Differentiation: A Qualitative
Study of Two Self-Contained Gifted Classes. JEG. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 227–259.
16. Feldhusen, J. F., Asher, J. W., & Hoover, S. M. (1984). Problems in the Identification of Giftedness,
Talent, or Ability. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 149–151.
17. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical,
practical, and creative skills. Intelligence. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 321–350.
18. Male, R. A., & Perrone, Ph. (1980). Identifying Talent and Giftedness. Part II. Roeper Review.
Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 9–11.
19. Brown, C. N. (1997). Gifted Identification as a Constitutional Issue. Roeper Review. Vol. 19. No.
3. P. 157–160.
20. Sarouphim, K. M. (2001). DISCOVER: Concurrent Validity, Gender Differences, and Identification
of Minority Students. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 130–138.
21. Reed, C. F. (2007). We Can Identify and Serve ESOL GATE Students: A Case Study. GCT. Vol. 30.
No. 2. P. 16–22.
22. Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and Excellence: Providing Access to Gifted Education
for Culturally Diverse. JSGE. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 141–146.
23. Visually Talented Students: A National Search (1985). School Arts. Vol. 85. No. 2. P. 44–45.
24. Richardson, C. P. (1990). Measuring Musical Giftedness. Music Educators Journal. Vol. 76. No.
7. P. 40–45.
25. Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2001). Identifying Artistically Talented Students in Four Rural
Communities in the United States. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 104–114.
26. Pledgie, Th. K. (1982). Giftedness among Handicapped Children: Identification and Programming
Development. Journal of Special Education. Vol. 16. No. 2. P. 221–227.
27. Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2005). An Evaluation of the Elementary Student Talent
Search by Families and Schools. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 247–259.
28. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing Minority Children’s Participation in Gifted Classes
Using the NNAT: A Response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 49. No. 1. P. 29–36.
29. Adey Ph. (1991). Pulling yourself up by your own thinking. High Ability Studies. Vol. 2. No. P. 28–34.
30. Feldman, D. (1979). Toward a Nonelitist Conception of Giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 60. No.
9. P. 660–663.
31. Hargrove, K. (2008). From the Classroom: Meeting Social and Emotional Needs in the Days of High
Stakes Testing. GCT. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 45–46.
