In the 21st century support for gifted education and talent, as are many other earlier values and solutions, is being reassessed. In the age of rapidly changing values, keeping provision up-to-date is achieved through the continual rethinking, reviewing and challenging the concept of giftedness and talent. The perception and our understanding of what is described as ‘talent’ is a social product; that is, it is culture-dependent, but it does have some basic characteristics which are universal and which help us understand what is meant by the term ‘talent’ both in the past and the present. However, talent is not a homogeneous concept, even though it is often depicted as such in talent support, scientific studies of talent and talent models alike. Talents with different development histories have different needs and the environment necessary for development can differ substantially by age and talent forms. Consequently, provision should not be homogeneous, either. In the present study, through a rethinking of the talent concept, I propose an approach which favours network-based functioning, an approach better suited for use in today’s culture.
AmabileTM (1985) Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48(2): 393–399.
2.
BarrettKCMorganGA (1995) Continuities and discontinuities in mastery motivation during infancy and toddlerhood: A conceptualization and review. In: MacturkRHMorganGA (eds) Mastery Motivation: Origins, Conceptualizations And Applications, Volume 12, Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing corporation, pp. 57−94.
3.
CsermelyP (2008) Creative elements: Network-based predictions of active centres in proteins, cellular and social networks. Trends in Biochemical Sciences33(12): 569–576.
4.
CsikszentmihályiM (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
5.
EricssonKAKrampeRTHTesch-RömerC (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review100(3): 363–406.
6.
FreemanJ (2006) Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted29(4): 384–403.
7.
GagnéF (1999) My convictions about the nature of human abilities, gifts and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted22: 109–136.
8.
GagnéF (2000) Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In: HellerKAMonksFJSternbergRJSubotnikRF (eds) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 67–79.
9.
GagnéF (2003) Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In: ColangeloNDavisGA (eds) Handbook of Gifted Education. 3rd edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 60–74.
GladwellM (2008) Outliers. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
12.
GrossMUM (1993) Nurturing the talents of exceptionally gifted individuals. In: International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 473–490.
13.
GyarmathyÉ (2007) A tehetség – Háttere és gondozásának gyakorlata. [Giftedness – Its Background and Treatment in Practice] Budapest, Hungary: ELTE Kiadó.
14.
GyarmathyÉ (2013) Diszlexia, a tanulás/tanítási és a tudományok a digitális kultúrában: Egy tranziens korszak dilemmái. [Dyslexia, learning/education and the sciences in the digital culture: The dilemmas of a transient age.]Magyar Tudomány174(9): 1086–1094.
15.
HarsányiI (1994) Tehetségvédelem. [Talent protection.] Budapest, Hungary: Magyar Tehetséggondozó Társaság.
16.
HollingworthL S (1926) Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture. New York, NY: Macmillan.
17.
HollingworthLS (1931) The child of very superior intelligence as a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene15(1): 3–16.
18.
HollingworthLS (1942) Children Above IQ 180. New York, NY: World Book.
19.
KovácsnéNE (2000) Komplex Instrukciós Program. [Complex instruction programme] In: KleinSSoponyiD (eds) A tanulás szabadsága Magyarországon. EDGE2000, pp. 357–367.
20.
KovácsnéNE (2005) A társas interakció mint tudásgyarapító tényező a heterogén osztályokban. [Social interaction as a knowledge-promoting factor in heterogeneous classes.]Iskolakultúra15(5): 16–25.
MezrichB (2009) The Accidental Billionaires. New York, NY: Doubleday, Random House.
27.
SzilviaP-S (2012a) Creative climate as a means to promote creativity in the classroom. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology10(3): 1011–1034.
28.
SzilviaP-S (2012b) Kreatív klíma az iskolában. [The creative climate in school.]Tehetség19(2): 5–7.
29.
RenzulliJ (1978) What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappa60(3): 180–184, 261.
30.
RenzulliJ (1986) The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In: SternbergRJDavidsonJE (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–92.
31.
SieglerRSKotovskyK (1986) Conclusions and integration. In: SternbergRDavidsonJE (eds) (1990) Conception of Giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 417–426.
32.
SternbergRJ (1993) Procedures for identifying intellectual potential in gifted: A perspective on alternative ‘Metaphors of Mind’. In: HellerKAMönksFJPassowAH (eds) International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 185–208.
33.
SternbergRJDavidsonJE (1990) Conception of Giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
TannenbaumA (1986) Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In: SternbergRJDavidsonJE (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–52.
35.
TermanLM (1926) Mental and Physical Traits of Thousand Gifted Children. Genetic Studies of Genius. Volume 1, 2nd edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
ZieglerAStoegerH (2004) Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science46(3): 324–342.
