This article presents a new theory of talent development, evolving complexity theory (ECT), in the context of the changing theoretical directions as well as the landscape of gifted education. I argue that gifted education needs a new foundation that provides a broad psychosocial basis than what the notion of giftedness can afford. A focus on talent development rather than giftedness should be based on a theory of talent development that is truly developmental, treating the developing person as an open, dynamic, and adaptive system, changing oneself adaptively while interacting with environmental opportunities and challenges. To introduce ECT, I first delineate the meaning and significance of four dimensions or “parameters” of talent development undergirding this new theory: domain, person, development, and culture. I then describe how ECT explicates the developmental processes and transitions as the result of human adaptations to environmental opportunities and challenges. More specifically, ECT uses the constructs of characteristic and maximal adaptation to elucidate how domain, person, development, and culture jointly shape a particular line of talent development, and how cognitive, affective, and social processes interact to push and sustain a critical transition from characteristic adaptation to maximal adaptation, eventually leading to high-caliber performance and creative productivity. I finally discuss the theoretical contributions and practical utilities of ECT for future research and practice.
AckermanP. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85-93. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3802_3
2.
AckermanP. L. (2013). Personality and cognition. In KreitlerS. (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 62-75). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BambergerJ. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388-413). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BarabS. A.PluckerJ. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
6.
BarronB. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224. doi:10.1159/000094368
7.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
8.
BloomB. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
9.
BronfenbrennerU.CeciS. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568-586. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
10.
BrunerJ. (1979). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
11.
BussA. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.1378
12.
ChaseW. C.SimonH. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In ChaseW. C. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215-281). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
14.
CsermelyP. (2015, October). Cutting-edge research on talent development in Europe. Presentation at the Nuremberg Conference on Talent Development, Nuremberg, Germany.
15.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM.RathundeK.WhalenS. (1993). Talented teenager. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DaiD. Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144-151. doi:10.1080/02783190509554308
18.
DaiD. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
DaiD. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 705-730. doi:10.1177/0162353211416437
20.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151-168. doi:10.1177/0016986213490020
21.
DaiD. Y.LiX. (in press). Behind an accelerated STEM research career: Dynamic interplay of endogenous and exogenous forces in talent development.
22.
DaiD. Y.RenzulliJ. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114-130. doi:10.1177/0016986208315732
23.
DaiD. Y.Steenbergen-HuS.ZhouY. (2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 75-90. doi:10.1177/0016986214568719
24.
DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
EdelmanG. M. (1995). Memory and the individual soul: Against silly reductionism. In CornwellJ. (Ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 200-206). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
EricssonK. A.NandagopalK.RoringR. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287-311.
28.
FeistG. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
29.
FeistG. J. (2006). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10, 163-182. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.163
30.
FeldmanD. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York, NY: Basic Books.
31.
FeldmanD. H. (1994). Beyond universals in cognitive development (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
FeldmanD. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9-33). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
33.
FeldmanD. H. (2009, August). Giftedness and development: What kind of theory?Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
34.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
35.
FischerK. W.BidellT. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In DamonW.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical model of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313-399). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
36.
FreemanC. (1999). The crystallizing experience: A study of musical precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 75-84. doi:10.1177/001698629904300204
37.
GagnéF. (2005a). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
GagnéF. (2005b). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153. doi:10.1177/001698620504900204
39.
GagnéF. (2009). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs. antinat. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 155-198). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
41.
GaserC.SchlaugG. (2003). Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 9240-9245.
42.
GeeJ. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
GottfriedA. W.GottfriedA. E.CookC. R.MorrisP. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172-186. doi:10.1177/001698620504900206
44.
GottliebG. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioral influences on gene activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792-802. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.792-802
45.
GruberH. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247-263). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46.
GruberH. E.WallaceD. B. (2001). Creative work: The case of Charles Darwin. American Psychologist, 56, 346-349. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.346
47.
HidiS.RenningerK. A.KrappA. (2004). Interest, a motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
HorowitzF. D. (2000). Child development and the PITS: Simple questions, complex answers, and developmental theory. Child Development, 71, 1-10.
49.
HorowitzF. D. (2009). Introduction: A developmental understanding of giftedness and talent. In HorowitzF. D.SubotnikR. F.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 3-19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
50.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51.
LernerR. M. (2004). Genes and the promotion of positive human development: Hereditarian versus developmental systems perspectives. In CollC. G.BearerE. L.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development (pp. 1-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
LohmanD. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333-360.
53.
LubinskiD. (2010, May). Acceleration, individual differences, and the elephant in the classroom. Presentation at the Wallace Symposium on Talent Development, University of Iowa, IA.
54.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
55.
MarkusH.NuriusP. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
56.
McAdamsD. P.PalsJ. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204-217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
57.
McCallR. B. (1981). Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: A proposed integration with respect to mental development. Child Development, 52, 1-12. doi:10.2307/1129210
58.
MurrayH. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
59.
O’BoyleM. W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30, 181-186. doi:10.1080/02783190802199594
60.
PluckerJ. A.BarabS. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. A. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201-216). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
62.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63.
ShavininaL. (2009). A unique type of representation is the essence of giftedness: Toward a cognitive-developmental theory. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 231-257). New York, NY: Springer.
64.
SieglerR. S.KotovskyK. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall even the twain meet. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417-435). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
SimonH. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1969)
66.
SimontonD. K. (2005). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 270-286.
67.
SnowR. E. (1995). Foreword. In SaklofskeD. H.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. xi-xv). New York, NY: Plenum.
68.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness: A map of the terrain. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
69.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
70.
TannenbaumA. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27-42). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
71.
TomlinsonS. (1997). Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey on the science of education. Oxford Review of Education, 23, 365-383.
72.
WachsT. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufficient: The respective roles of single and multiple influences on individual development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
73.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484
74.
WaltersJ.GardnerH. (1986). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306-331). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive process used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
76.
WittyP. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In HenryN. B. (Ed.), Education of the gifted: The 57th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp. 41-63). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
77.
ZieglerA. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. N. (2012). Toward a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3-30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
