Gagné’s (Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112, 1985), Gagné’s (International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, 69–87, 1993), Gagné’s (International handbook for research on giftedness and talent, 67–79, 2000), Gagné’s (Buiding gifts into talents: Overview of the DMGT 2.0, 2008), Gagné’s (Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, 61–80, 2009), Gagné’s (Talent Development and Excellence, 5, 5–19, 2013), Gagné’s (From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice, 149–182, 2017), Gagné’s (Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT, 2020), Gagné’s (Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development, 2021a) Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talents [DMGT] has enjoyed longstanding popularity among Australian educators (Bannister-Tyrrell, Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 26(2), 43–50, 2017; Gagné, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 71–99, 2021b; Phillipson & Ziegler, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 31–70, 2020). In particular, the DMGT 2.0 (2008, 2009) (See Fig. 4.1), which was then referred to as the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talents, has had a lasting impact on the Australian educational landscape. Despite the longevity of the DMGT in the Australian context, there has been little attempt by researchers to validate the DMGT’s central concepts (Phillipson & Ziegler, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 31–70, 2020), or to determine whether the model has applicability across cultures. This is problematic, as giftedness has long been recognised as a cultural constructGiftednesscultural construct, and what is valued as giftedness and talents might differ for different cultural groups (Thraves & Bannister-Tyrrell, TalentEd, 29(2), 18–32, 2017; Thraves et al., Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(1), 5–22, 2021). Such cultural mismatchYolŋumismatch with DMGT is a likely contributor to underachievement (Cooper, Gifted Education International, 19(2), 114–125, 2005), possibly preventing extraordinary achievement in some historically marginalised groups. In light of this issue, this paper will report the findings of a study that sought to consider whether the DMGT 2.0 is flexible enough to capture the views of talents held by Elders of the Yolnu, an Australian Aboriginal cultural group.

‘Yolŋu Way’ and Talents Within the DMGT 2.0: A Fundamentally Uncomfortable Fit

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Genevieve Thraves

摘要

Gagné’s (Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112, 1985), Gagné’s (International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, 69–87, 1993), Gagné’s (International handbook for research on giftedness and talent, 67–79, 2000), Gagné’s (Buiding gifts into talents: Overview of the DMGT 2.0, 2008), Gagné’s (Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, 61–80, 2009), Gagné’s (Talent Development and Excellence, 5, 5–19, 2013), Gagné’s (From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice, 149–182, 2017), Gagné’s (Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT, 2020), Gagné’s (Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development, 2021a) Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talents [DMGT] has enjoyed longstanding popularity among Australian educators (Bannister-Tyrrell, Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 26(2), 43–50, 2017; Gagné, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 71–99, 2021b; Phillipson & Ziegler, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 31–70, 2020). In particular, the DMGT 2.0 (2008, 2009) (See Fig. 4.1), which was then referred to as the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talents, has had a lasting impact on the Australian educational landscape. Despite the longevity of the DMGT in the Australian context, there has been little attempt by researchers to validate the DMGT’s central concepts (Phillipson & Ziegler, Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific, 31–70, 2020), or to determine whether the model has applicability across cultures. This is problematic, as giftedness has long been recognised as a cultural constructGiftednesscultural construct, and what is valued as giftedness and talents might differ for different cultural groups (Thraves & Bannister-Tyrrell, TalentEd, 29(2), 18–32, 2017; Thraves et al., Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(1), 5–22, 2021). Such cultural mismatchYolŋumismatch with DMGT is a likely contributor to underachievement (Cooper, Gifted Education International, 19(2), 114–125, 2005), possibly preventing extraordinary achievement in some historically marginalised groups. In light of this issue, this paper will report the findings of a study that sought to consider whether the DMGT 2.0 is flexible enough to capture the views of talents held by Elders of the Yolnu, an Australian Aboriginal cultural group.