Abstract
Empirical testing of talent development models or contextual developmental models of giftedness is enhanced by longitudinal research that considers contextual factors as well as individual/psychological factors. Relying on findings from the longitudinal TALENT project in Flanders, we aimed to shed light on the role of social-contextual factors (i.e., relationships with teachers, peers, and parents) and psychological (i.e., motivational) factors in the developmental process of transforming high cognitive ability into high achievement levels. Also, we aimed to gain insight into which developmental processes are specific to high-ability students and which are generalizable across ability levels. The findings provided longitudinal evidence for the key role of social-contextual and motivational resources in the process of academic talent development. Overall, they call for further integration of giftedness models with general developmental theories and elaboration of the role of social-contextual factors.
Giftedness and Talent Development
In the field of giftedness research, numerous definitions and models of giftedness have been proposed (Dai & Chen, 2014; Harder et al., 2014; Subotnik et al., 2011). Despite their differences, most contemporary models are developmental and contextual in nature, asserting that outstanding ability in a particular domain may gradually develop into outstanding talent (e.g., achievement, eminence), depending on social-contextual and intrapersonal factors (Al-Shabatat, 2013; Gagné, 2004; Harder et al., 2014; Subotnik et al., 2011). This is a central idea across different theoretical models and gifted education paradigms (Dai & Chen, 2014). The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT; Gagné, 2004) positions the developmental sequence from natural abilities (gifts) to systematically developed skills (talents) at its heart. This developmental process is assumed to be supported or hindered by three types of catalysts: intrapersonal factors, environmental factors, and chance. Intellectual, socio-affective, psychomotor, and creative abilities are considered as distinct broad domains of giftedness. The Talent Development Megamodel (TDMM; Subotnik et al., 2011) and the Talent Development in Achievement Domains model (TAD; Preckel et al., 2020) distinguish different ability domains with differential developmental trajectories. They describe the process of talent development as “moving from potential, often signaled by general abilities to increasingly more specific skills and competences” (Preckel et al., in press). The development of high achievement in a particular domain is seen as dependent upon individual psychological factors beyond abilities (i.e., interests, motivation, self-regulation) and interactions of the individual with their environment (Preckel et al., in press). The TDMM is particularly focused on identifying teachable factors in successful talent development, such as psychosocial skills, that increase the likelihood of high-ability students taking opportunities offered to them by supporters or by chance. Systemic models such as the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (AGM; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017) emphasize that the development of excellent performance is dependent upon the complex interplay of individual and environmental resources (Ziegler & Vialle, in press).
Empirical testing of talent development models or contextual developmental models of giftedness is enhanced by longitudinal research that considers contextual factors as well as individual/psychological factors. However, up until now such longitudinal research has remained very limited (Preckel et al., in press; Rinn, 2024). The role of social-contextual factors and individual psychosocial factors in the development of high achievement levels remains especially understudied (Rinn, 2024). Knowing which social experiences and skills facilitate the transformation of high potential into excellent performance would allow for better support of the talent development process. Also, putting theoretical models to the empirical test is important to further refine and revise them, and may possibly even contribute to their integration.
In the remainder of this article, we will refer to academic talent development to denote the process of transforming (more general) cognitive abilities into (more domain-specific) academic skills or achievements, a process that is facilitated or hindered by environmental and individual resources. As the research reported in this paper covers the developmental stages of childhood and early adolescence, we argue that general cognitive ability or intelligence is a relevant starting point (reflecting the aptitude level in the TAD) for an increasingly differentiated academic talent development process. Academic achievement is considered a relevant outcome of the talent development process during childhood and adolescence (reflecting the competence level in the TAD). In addition, we focus on academic engagement and well-being as important developmental outcomes, as in our view gifted education and talent development should not only be aimed at effectuating cognitive talent, but also at maximizing student motivation, well-being, and personal growth.
General or Specific Developmental Processes?
When looking at processes that support academic talent development, a key question is to what extent these processes are specific to youth with high academic potential or generalizable to youth in general. Several models aimed at explaining (under)achievement among high-ability students rely on general motivational and developmental theory, while also assuming giftedness-specific processes (Siegle et al., 2017; Siegle & McCoach, 2005; Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). For example, the Pathways to Underachievement Model (Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013) ascribes a key role to students’ competence and value-related beliefs in predicting (under)achievement, thereby relying on general expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). At the same time, however, the model proposes unique psychological processes leading to underachievement among gifted students, based on their high ability and the related educational and interpersonal experiences they encounter in response to, for instance, being underchallenged in education or because of being labeled as gifted.
To safeguard parsimony in model development, it is important to investigate to what extent the development of high-ability students can be understood from general processes and to what extent specific developmental processes take place. From the perspective of inclusive educational practice, it is also relevant to know which processes are conducive to the development of all students and which are specific to students with high ability. In that way, educators’ efforts can be directed as efficiently as possible. Gaining insight into which developmental processes are general and which are specific requires comparative longitudinal research among high ability and typically developing students.
Article Goals
This article has two main objectives. First, we aim to shed light on the role of social-contextual factors and psychological (i.e., motivational) factors in the developmental process of transforming high cognitive ability into high achievement levels (Rinn, 2024). In the TDMM, these psychological factors are labeled as psychosocial skills (Subotnik et al., 2011). Regarding the social-contextual factors, we focus on the role of peers, teachers, and parents, as relationships and interactions with these proximal social actors are considered the motor of child development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). By examining the role of social-contextual factors in the development of student engagement and well-being, we also contribute to addressing the question of “under which conditions” psychosocial skill development might occur (Rinn, 2024).
Second, we aim to gain insight into which developmental processes are specific to high-ability students and which are generalizable across ability levels, which begins to answer the question “for whom?” when considering which psychosocial skills are most relevant in the development of academic talent (Rinn, 2024). This is important for further parsimonious theory building as well as for educational practice. To this end, (longitudinal) effects of social-contextual factors and psychological factors will be compared across student ability levels (e.g., comparing high-ability and typically developing students). Depending on the specific study, developmental outcomes considered are (under)achievement, student engagement, and/or well-being.
To answer these research questions, this paper summarizes and reflects on relevant findings from the TALENT project in Flanders (Verschueren et al., 2017).
TALENT Project: Samples and Measures
The TALENT project (TAiLoring EducatioN and care to Talents of Youth; PI: Karine Verschueren) was led by three Flemish universities (KU Leuven, Ghent University, and the University of Antwerp) and was set up and executed in close collaboration with key stakeholders in education (Verschueren et al., 2017; Verschueren et al., in press). As part of the project, two large-scale longitudinal studies were conducted on two independent samples. Whereas the first sample (i.e., SiBO sample) had already been recruited in the context of a previous project (i.e., the SiBO project; Schoolloopbanen in het BasisOnderwijs [School trajectories in Primary Education]), the second sample (i.e., Talent sample) was recruited as part of the TALENT project. In both studies general cognitive ability was assessed using standardized tests measuring both fluid and crystallized intelligence. Based on the threshold used in the DMGT (Gagné, 2004), students achieving scores in the 90th percentile or above were considered as high-ability students. These students were compared with students with average cognitive ability.
Sample 1 (SiBO sample) involved 5,740 students from 172 schools (Maes et al., 2002). The sample was followed from kindergarten through secondary school. Students and teachers completed annual questionnaires (e.g., assessing student engagement, well-being, relationships with teachers and peers) throughout primary school. In addition, students completed yearly standardized achievement tests until the end of primary school. Students attending secondary schools with 10 or more study participants (n = 530 secondary schools 1 ) were followed and invited to complete questionnaires and standardized achievement tests in Grades 7 and 11 as well. Also, administrative data were gathered on students’ school trajectory (e.g., grade retention, academic track selection, and completion). Based on a standardized cognitive ability assessment in Grade 3, 630 students were considered high ability (i.e., top 10% compared to representative age group; see Ramos et al., 2021; Ramos et al., 2023, for more information on the sample).
Sample 2 (Talent sample) involved 3,409 students from 166 classes in 27 regular secondary schools. 2 Students filled out questionnaires (e.g., assessing motivation, engagement, well-being, and relationships with parents, teachers, and peers) at the beginning and the end of Grade 7 and Grade 8 (four waves). In addition, parent, teacher, and peer ratings and school grades were gathered and standardized achievement tests were administered. We followed up with the sample in Grades 11 and 12, although less intensively. In this article, we only report on the data from the four first waves. Based on a standardized cognitive ability assessment at the start of Grade 7, 403 students were considered high ability (i.e., top 10% compared to the normed sample; see Lavrijsen et al. [2022] and Ramos et al. [2023] for more information on the sample). 3
Findings From the TALENT Project
Overview of Sample, Design, Variables, and Findings From the TALENT Project.
Overview of Variables, Measures, and Sample Items for the Reported Studies in the TALENT Project.
The Role of Social-Contextual Factors in Academic Talent Development
The TALENT project focused on the role of three important social agents in youth’s lives: peers, teachers, and parents. Although most of the reported studies do not directly examine the role of these social agents in students’ achievement, they all illuminate the role of the social context in promoting academic motivation and engagement, which have clearly demonstrated links with student achievement (e.g., Engels et al., 2021; Fredricks et al., 2004). By examining the role of social-contextual factors in the development of student engagement and well-being, these studies also contribute to answering the question of under which conditions psychosocial skill development might occur (Rinn, 2024).
Peers
Three studies focused on the role of peers in high- and average-ability students’ development. First, using cross-lagged panel modeling among students followed from Grade 4 to 6 (drawn from Sample 1) and controlling for teacher–student conflict, higher peer acceptance (i.e., the degree of acceptance by students in class) was found to predict higher school well-being (i.e., affective attitude towards school) over time, and no reverse effect was found. Multigroup analyses revealed similar associations for high-ability and average-ability students, indicating that being accepted by the peer group is important for students across ability levels (Weyns et al., 2021). Second, among students followed from late elementary (Grade 5) to early secondary school (Grade 7; Sample 1) multilevel modeling showed that higher student learning goal orientation (i.e., striving for mastery and increasing skills in learning situations) was predicted by higher perceived learning goal orientation of classroom peers. Also, more improvement of perceived classroom learning orientation over time predicted more improvement in individual student learning orientation over time. Longitudinal effects of classroom peers were similar for students with high versus average ability (Ramos et al., 2021). Third, relying on a sample of early secondary school students (Grade 7; Sample 2), the effect of peers’ engagement on the development of individual students’ engagement was examined. Student engagement was assessed using a multidimensional approach that distinguishes between behavioral engagement (i.e., action initiations, effort, and attention in class) and emotional engagement (i.e., emotional states during learning activities). In line with Skinner et al.’s (2008) conceptual model, engagement was also distinguished from disengagement, which refers to behaviors and emotions that reflect maladaptive motivational states. Multilevel modeling showed that higher levels of friends’ and classmates’ (dis)engagement predicted higher individual (dis)engagement levels over time. When controlling for different types of peer influences, behavioral engagement and emotional disengagement were uniquely predicted by friends’ (dis)engagement, whereas behavioral disengagement was uniquely predicted by classmates’ disengagement. Again, these effects were equally strong among high- and average-ability students, as reflected in the lack of interaction with ability level (Steenberghs et al., 2021).
In sum, these studies suggest a robust effect of being accepted by the peer group and of being surrounded by peers with high learning goal orientation and academic engagement for high-ability students’ well-being and motivational functioning, respectively. These peer effects appear to be as important for high-ability students as for typically developing students.
Teachers
Three studies focused on the role of teacher–student relationships. First, multilevel modeling in a sample of students followed from late elementary (Grade 5) to early secondary school (Grade 7; Sample 1) showed that higher perceived teacher–student relationship quality (i.e., perception of teacher support toward the student) predicted higher student learning goal orientation, and more improvement in teacher–student relationship quality predicted more improvement in student learning goal orientation over time. This relationship was equally strong for high- and average-ability students, as demonstrated by the lack of significant interaction with ability grouping (Ramos et al., 2021). Also, mean levels of perceived relationship quality did not differ between these groups. Second, based on an attachment perspective (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012), the role of affective teacher–student relationship quality for student engagement was examined among high-ability students followed from the beginning of Grade 7 until the end of Grade 8 (drawn from Sample 2). Multilevel growth curve modeling showed that positive, close teacher–student relationships predicted higher behavioral and emotional engagement over time, whereas negative, conflicted teacher–student relationships predicted more behavioral and emotional disengagement over time. Negative teacher–student relationships were even more detrimental for high-ability students with low-socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, predicting even higher levels of behavioral disengagement (Steenberghs et al., 2023). Additional analyses examined if these effects were similar in the general student population (Steenberghs, 2022). Results generally showed teacher–student relationship quality to be equally important for all students, regardless of their cognitive ability level. Third, relying on Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), the effects of teachers’ involvement (i.e., showing care and understanding to students), autonomy support (i.e., supporting students’ sense of self-determination and volition, providing meaningful learning tasks), and structure (i.e., providing clear instruction, feedback, and guidance) on students’ intrinsic motivation, behavioral engagement, and achievement in math classes were examined in a four-wave longitudinal study in Grades 7 and 8 (Study 2; Lavrijsen et al., 2024). Multilevel analyses generally revealed the unique importance of these teacher–student interaction dimensions for students’ motivation, engagement, and (to a lesser extent) achievement, both at the level of between-student differences and at the level of changes within students over time. Again, these associations were found to be generally equivalent for high- and average-ability students. High-ability students did report higher average levels of autonomy support from their math teachers than average-ability students (Lavrijsen et al., 2024). Fourth, in a cross-sectional study of Grade 7 students (drawn from Sample 2), we focused on an aspect of teaching, namely, the provision of adequate schoolwork challenge (Lavrijsen et al., 2021). Students who perceived their classes to be adequately challenging showed more intrinsic motivation and higher schoolwork engagement. Again, these effects were similar regardless of cognitive ability level (as indicated by a lack of interaction effects with cognitive ability). Of note, higher cognitive ability was significantly related with lower perceptions of adequate challenge.
In sum, these studies demonstrated the importance of supportive teacher–student relationships as well as of adequately challenging schoolwork for promoting high-ability students’ motivational and academic development in school. These effects generally applied to a similar extent for students with different ability levels, indicating the importance of teacher support and adequate challenge for all students.
Parents
Within the TALENT project, the role of parenting on high-ability students’ development has not yet been examined using longitudinal data. However, two cross-sectional studies were conducted that compared effects of parenting across student ability levels. First, among Grade 7 students (drawn from Sample 2), we examined the effects of parenting on two distinct dimensions of perfectionism: (a) Personal Standards perfectionism (i.e., setting ambitious goals) and (b) Concern Over Mistakes perfectionism (i.e., being overly concerned about making mistakes; Lavrijsen et al., 2020). Whereas the latter dimension of perfectionism conveys clear risks for maladaptive development, the first does not necessarily. Personal Standards perfectionism was predicted by high parental expectations, whereas the maladaptive Concern Over Mistakes perfectionism was robustly predicted by high parental criticism (i.e., critical, harsh, controlling communication) and high parental positive and negative conditional regard (i.e., showing more affection when the child meets parental academic expectations and less affection when they do not). These parenting dimensions were generally equally predictive of perfectionism for high- and average-ability youth.
Second, using structural equation modeling with the data from the same sample, the relationship was tested between parental mindset and person- and process-oriented feedback on academic success and failure with adolescent mindset (i.e., fixed mindset and effort beliefs). Parents’ fixed or entity beliefs about intelligence and their beliefs about the importance of effort for performing well converged with adolescents’ beliefs. Further, parental person-oriented feedback on students’ performance (e.g., praising the child for being a natural talent in a subject) increased the risk for a fixed mindset and reduced student beliefs in the importance of effort. Parental process-oriented feedback (e.g., praising the child for putting in effort) showed the opposite pattern. Multigroup analyses revealed that these structural relations did not differ according to cognitive ability level (high vs. average ability; Boncquet et al., 2022). There was some evidence for increased importance of parents providing process-oriented feedback to identified gifted (vs. nongifted) adolescents, although this was not consistently found across informants (Boncquet et al., 2022, Supplemental Files).
Taken together, these findings indicated that parents play a pivotal role in nurturing beliefs that are conducive to high achievement and well-being, both among high-ability adolescents and among their typically developing peers. Specifically, the results point to the importance of (a) providing process-oriented feedback on student performance, and of (b) avoiding person-oriented feedback, criticism, and acceptance that is conditional upon meeting parental standards for performance. There were some indications that the role of process-oriented feedback may even be more pronounced for labeled or identified gifted adolescents.
The Role of Psychological Factors in Academic Talent Development
In line with talent development and contextual developmental models, not only did the TALENT project focus on the role of social-contextual factors for academic talent development, but it also unraveled the role of individual, psychological (i.e., motivational) factors. Specifically, three studies examined the role of motivational variables in academic achievement and educational trajectories, taking a longitudinal and comparative perspective (i.e., comparing effects in high-ability students and their typically developing peers).
First, the role of students’ quality of motivation for school and their mindset (i.e., fixed mindset about intelligence and effort beliefs) for student engagement, learning, and achievement was investigated among a sample of students followed from the beginning of Grade 7 to the end of Grade 8 (Sample 2; Boncquet et al., 2023). Regarding quality of motivation, Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020) distinguishes between autonomous and controlled motivation. When students are autonomously motivated to learn they perceive learning as self-directed; they want to study because they find the learning material interesting or personally meaningful. Controlled motivation refers to studying because of internal or external pressure. Multilevel analyses generally revealed that, controlling for cognitive ability, autonomous motivation and effort beliefs predicted more favorable student outcomes, whereas controlled motivation and fixed mindset had negative effects. Regarding achievement specifically, robust positive effects were found for autonomous motivation (i.e., finding the learning material intrinsically interesting and/or personally meaningful) and effort beliefs. The effects emerged both at the level of between-person differences and at the level of within-person changes. The former means that if a person is more autonomously motivated than another person, they tend to have higher achievement as well. The latter means that when a person feels more autonomously motivated than usual at a particular time, their achievement at that time is also more favorable. The study also tested if effects differed according to ability level (assessed continuously). Less than 10% of the interaction effects with cognitive ability were significant, indicating that the motivational resources were generally conducive to learning outcomes for all students, regardless of ability level.
Second, using data from the end of primary until the end of secondary school (Sample 1), the role of learning goal orientation in student long-term educational outcomes was investigated (Ramos et al., 2021). Multilevel modeling showed that, controlling for prior math achievement and socioeconomic background, stronger learning goal orientation increased the probability of ending secondary education in the academic (vs. non-academic) track. Multigroup analyses indicated no differences in these predictive relations between high-ability students and typically developing students. No effects were found for grade retention as educational outcome (Ramos et al., 2021).
Third, we looked at the role of another motivational resource, namely, math self-concept or students’ perceptions of their math abilities, for student educational outcomes, using long-term longitudinal data from the end of primary until the end of secondary school (Sample 1; Ramos et al., 2023). Latent change modeling showed that higher math self-concept at the end of primary school and smaller decline in math self-concept during the transition predicted better math achievement in secondary school. These effects were found above and beyond effects of math achievement at the end of primary school. Multigroup analyses showed similar relations for high-ability students and for their average-ability peers. Moreover, for both ability groups, controlling for the effects of math achievement, higher math self-concept at the end of primary school and smaller decline predicted less grade retention at the end of secondary school. Although no differences emerged among ability groups regarding effects on achievement outcomes, math self-concept decline during the transition to secondary school had a stronger negative impact on later school well-being among the high-ability students compared to the typical developing students. Possibly, declining confidence in math abilities is more detrimental to high-ability students’ well-being in school because they tend to identify more with academics in general or, more particularly, with doing well in math (e.g., Villatte et al., 2014).
In sum, the motivational factors under study (i.e., autonomous motivation, effort beliefs, learning goal orientation, math self-concept) were found to be conducive to high-ability students’ achievement and high-stakes educational outcomes, such as timely graduation or academic track completion. In other words, high-ability students who lacked these motivational resources were more at risk for low academic performance outcomes. Although some effects were stronger or weaker when comparing high- and average-ability students, in general the role of motivational resources for academic performance appears to be similar and thus generalizable across ability levels.
Discussion
The overall purpose of this article was to shed light on the role of social-contextual factors and individual psychological factors in the academic talent development process, and to gain insight into which developmental processes are specific to high-ability students and which are generalizable across ability levels. These aims were addressed using findings from the TALENT project in Flanders (Verschueren et al., 2017). In this project, students achieving at and above the 90th percentile on standardized cognitive ability tests were considered as high-ability students and were compared with students with average cognitive ability. Main outcomes considered were academic performance, academic engagement, and school well-being.
The Role of Social-Contextual and Psychological Factors in Academic Talent Development
Overall, the findings provided convincing longitudinal evidence for the key role of social-contextual factors in the academic talent development process. To feel behaviorally and emotionally engaged in academics and to attain excellent performance levels in line with their cognitive abilities, high-ability students need supportive teachers and parents. Regarding teachers, evidence was found for the importance of close, caring, nonconflicted relationships; teacher autonomy support (i.e., supporting students’ sense of self-determination); teacher structure (i.e., providing clear instruction and feedback); and the provision of adequately challenging learning tasks. By offering these supports, teachers have been found to facilitate the development of students’ motivation, engagement, and performance. Regarding parental support that is conducive to high achievement and well-being, findings supported the importance of process-oriented feedback and of avoiding person-oriented feedback, criticism, and acceptance conditional upon meeting parental performance standards. Also, the findings showed that being surrounded by an accepting peer group that shows engagement for learning facilitates students’ academic talent development process.
Gifted education and talent development programs need to nurture positive interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers, as our findings support that they are the motor of academic and psychosocial development also among students with high cognitive ability. Within the general student population, several programs have been developed to improve teachers’ classroom support and the quality of dyadic teacher–student relationships (e.g., Allen et al., 2011; Kincade et al., 2020; Spilt et al., 2022). To the best of our knowledge, their effects have not been previously tested among high-ability students. To support positive relationships with peers, several interventions have been found effective in the general student population (e.g., DeRosier, 2004; Leflot et al., 2013; Witvliet et al., 2009). Also, teachers have been found to play a central role in shaping students’ classroom peer relationships. As “social architects” in the classroom, they can help to improve individual students’ acceptance among their classroom peers (Farmer et al., 2011; McAuliffe et al., 2009), for example, by creating an inclusive classroom climate accepting of individual differences (American Psychological Association, 2017). In addition to nurturing positive relationships with teachers and peers, talent development programs could include psychoeducation for parents, in which the importance of parental feedback and support are discussed.
Also, the findings convincingly demonstrated the role of psychological (i.e., motivational) factors in effectuating high cognitive potential. Motivational resources such as autonomous motivation, effort beliefs, and academic competence beliefs were found to be conducive to high-ability students’ academic performance. Gifted education and academic talent development programs should thus aim explicitly at supporting students’ motivation and self-beliefs. Not only should they pay attention to providing educational challenge and complex or accelerated curriculum, but they should also provide insight into the key role of these psychosocial factors in academic talent development and students’ personal growth. Talent development programs should also provide opportunities and supports to nurture these beliefs, attitudes, and skills (Dixson et al., 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2019).
Regarding theory development, the findings of the TALENT project studies generally supported assumptions from contemporary contextual developmental models of giftedness and talent development (e.g., Gagné, 2004; Preckel et al., 2020; Subotnik et al., 2011) and models on gifted underachievement (e.g., Siegle & McCoach, 2005). They provided longitudinal evidence for the hypothesized facilitating or hindering role of contextual and intrapersonal, psychosocial factors in the process of transforming high cognitive abilities into high achievement. At the same time, they may provide an impetus for elaborating these models and particularly their account of social-contextual factors. Although contemporary models acknowledge the general importance of supports in the home and school environment, the relevant parenting and teaching dimensions could be specified more. Also, the role of peers could be included more explicitly.
General or Specific Developmental Processes?
Regarding the question of which developmental processes are specific to high-ability students and which are generalizable across ability levels, the comparative longitudinal findings from the TALENT project mainly point to general processes being at work. This means that, in general, receiving support from peers, teachers, and parents; feeling competent; finding academic work personally relevant; and other motivational resources appear to be as important for high-ability students’ development as they are for typical students. There were some indications for stronger effects of social-contextual and motivational factors among high-ability students (e.g., process-oriented feedback being more important for identified gifted students; declining math self-concept being more detrimental for high-ability students’ well-being), yet overall associations were similar across ability levels.
It may not be surprising to find that interpersonal and intrapersonal processes theorized to apply to human beings in general also apply to the subgroup of individuals with high cognitive ability. As such, the current data further substantiate the call for integrating research and theoretical models in the field of giftedness with general developmental, educational and psychological theories (American Psychological Association, 2017; Winner, 2000). In terms of educational implications, the current findings suggest that measures taken to meet the developmental and educational needs of a subgroup of students may benefit other students too. Or, phrased differently, many aspects of “good teaching” or “good parenting” in general also appear to benefit the development of high-ability students.
However, at this point, it would be rash to conclude that all processes are general and that no separate models are needed to explain the development and achievement of gifted students. First, the reviewed studies were all conducted in primary and secondary education, which can be considered early stages of academic talent development according to the TDMM and TAD (Preckel et al., 2020; Subotnik et al., 2011). More differences may emerge in later stages of academic talent development, in tertiary education or beyond, when individuals are really specializing in a talent domain (e.g., Dixson et al., 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2019). Second, in the comparative quantitative studies conducted so far, the focus has been on interpersonal and motivational resources that are assumed to be important for all students, relying on general developmental and motivational theory. In comparative research it is in fact challenging to study potential specific predictors that can yet be assessed meaningfully in high ability as well as other students. To bring these specific factors and processes to the surface, additional qualitative research may be needed. Third, the studies reported compared students within the top 10% in terms of cognitive ability with average-ability students. It cannot be ruled out that more extreme groups in terms of cognitive abilities may show more unique resources and challenges for their development. Fourth, all studies included in this review were variable-oriented, looking at associations between predictor and outcome variables. Possibly, more group differences are revealed when looking at constellations or patterns of variables. Person-oriented approaches are appropriate to examine how different factors combine into distinct profiles or pathways, and thus to identify groups of individuals with similar variable patterns or profiles (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Laursen & Hoff, 2006; Ramos et al., 2021). Research by Ramos (2023) on the Talent data (Study 2) indeed revealed specific motivational pathways among high-ability students as compared to other students. Specifically, in this subgroup latent profile analysis yielded the three motivational developmental pathways expected from the Pathways to Underachievement Model (i.e., adaptive motivational beliefs, maladaptive competence beliefs, declining value beliefs) (see Ramos et al., 2023). In contrast, within the total sample, another profile solution emerged, namely, profiles with adaptive, moderately maladaptive, and highly maladaptive beliefs, with the maladaptive groups combining both low competence and low value beliefs. The development of motivational beliefs thus seems more differentiated among high-ability students than among the general student population.
Universalism Without Uniformity
Even if further research confirms that similar resources are important for all students’ development, regardless of their ability level, the way these concepts are implemented or “filled in” may need to be different. This idea is in line with the “universalism without uniformity” principle, which integrates universalist and relativist perspectives in cultural psychology (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993; Soenens et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2007).
For instance, as described above, experiencing appropriate challenge in class was found to predict students’ motivation and engagement in school regardless of students’ ability level (Lavrijsen et al., 2021). However, what constitutes “appropriate” challenge will arguably differ for students with different ability levels. In other words, to achieve similar levels of perceived academic challenge, teachers will need to provide more advanced or enriched curriculum to students with high cognitive ability. Similarly, although perceived teacher structure (i.e., perceived feedback, guidance) was found to be equally conducive to high- and average-ability students’ motivation and engagement (Lavrijsen et al., 2024), the way this feedback or guidance should take shape (i.e., the level of detail, the frequency) in order to support student motivation and engagement may differ depending on students’ cognitive abilities (American Psychological Association, 2017; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2017). For educational practice and teacher professionalization, this implies that knowledge of general developmental and educational theory and principles should be complemented with specific knowledge about how to implement these general principles in educating high-ability students.
Unique Challenges Because of General Processes?
A major objective of this research was to gain insight into which developmental processes are general and which are specific to high-ability students by conducting comparative, longitudinal research. Reflecting further on the issue of general versus specific developmental processes, we argue that both can apply at the same time. High-ability students may face some particular or unique challenges because of general processes that are at work. For example, being identified as academically gifted may increase the risk for person-oriented praise (“you are a whiz kid”), which in turn may increase maladaptive motivational outcomes because of general psychological processes. Or, being academically underchallenged and receiving excellent grades without effort may decrease the level of process-oriented praise (how can you praise effort if no effort is exerted?), which in turn decreases adaptive motivational outcomes because of general psychological processes. Being among the best students in primary school increases the likelihood of experiencing academic self-concept decline when transitioning to higher achieving classes in secondary school because of general social comparison processes (i.e., Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect; see Marsh & Parker, 1984). Thus, “general” processes may lead to “unique” challenges for high-ability students, because of the interpersonal or educational experiences they are more likely to encounter.
Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research
Relying on findings from the longitudinal TALENT project in Flanders, we aimed to shed light on the role of social-contextual factors and individual, psychological factors in the talent development process and at gaining insight into which developmental processes are specific to high-ability students and which are generalizable across ability levels. The longitudinal findings demonstrated the key role of social-contextual and motivational resources in the academic talent development process. Also, they showed these resources to be important to all students’ development, regardless of ability level.
Overall, these findings provided crucial longitudinal support for contemporary contextual developmental models of giftedness, while also calling for further integration of these giftedness models with general developmental and motivational theories and elaboration of the role of social-contextual factors. Whereas the current studies largely examined the role of social-contextual and motivational factors separately, it may be interesting for future research to investigate their interactive effects. This approach will yield more insight into the complex interplay of both types of resources in the development of excellent performance (Ziegler & Vialle, in press). Also, the current studies focused on high general cognitive ability, which was considered a relevant “starting point” in childhood and early adolescence for an increasingly differentiated academic talent development process (see also Preckel et al., in press). However, it remains to be investigated if similar social-contextual and motivational factors play a role in the development of domain-specific abilities or aptitudes, such as mathematical abilities, into talents.
Further, the findings call for more research on the question of general versus specific developmental processes. This future research may focus on later stages of talent development, on differential concretizations of general factors, or on factors theorized to be more salient in the educational or interpersonal experiences of high-ability students. Also, we advocate the use of a person-oriented approach to complement current variable-oriented studies. Person-oriented studies will allow for looking at subgroups with distinct profiles of variables and will thus shed light both on within-group differences and on between-group profile differences.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (G048223N) and Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven (C14-20-057).
