{"title":"Yolŋu方式与DMGT(人才发展):不匹配","authors":"Genevieve Thraves, Miriam Dhurrkay","doi":"10.21505/ajge.2023.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent [DMGT] has enjoyed widespread uptake in Australia. Little work has been done, though, to determine if this popular model can account for culturally diverse views of its fundamental concepts. This article reports a study that compared the talent development infrastructure of Gagné’s DMGT (with a particular focus on the DMGT 2.0) with talent development from a Yolŋu (an Australian Aboriginal group) worldview. This comparison reveals that there is a tension between the DMGT’s formal process (D) and the Yolŋu’s more responsive approach to talent development. There is greater alignment, though, when the DMGT 2.0’s catalysts are considered; however, both the Intrapersonal (I) and Environmental (E) catalysts are mediated by the Yolŋu’s cultural context. Ultimately, the DMGT has some difficulty housing Yolŋu approaches to talent development.","PeriodicalId":38285,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Yolŋu Way and the DMGT (Talent Development): A Mismatch\",\"authors\":\"Genevieve Thraves, Miriam Dhurrkay\",\"doi\":\"10.21505/ajge.2023.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent [DMGT] has enjoyed widespread uptake in Australia. Little work has been done, though, to determine if this popular model can account for culturally diverse views of its fundamental concepts. This article reports a study that compared the talent development infrastructure of Gagné’s DMGT (with a particular focus on the DMGT 2.0) with talent development from a Yolŋu (an Australian Aboriginal group) worldview. This comparison reveals that there is a tension between the DMGT’s formal process (D) and the Yolŋu’s more responsive approach to talent development. There is greater alignment, though, when the DMGT 2.0’s catalysts are considered; however, both the Intrapersonal (I) and Environmental (E) catalysts are mediated by the Yolŋu’s cultural context. Ultimately, the DMGT has some difficulty housing Yolŋu approaches to talent development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2023.0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2023.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Yolŋu Way and the DMGT (Talent Development): A Mismatch
Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent [DMGT] has enjoyed widespread uptake in Australia. Little work has been done, though, to determine if this popular model can account for culturally diverse views of its fundamental concepts. This article reports a study that compared the talent development infrastructure of Gagné’s DMGT (with a particular focus on the DMGT 2.0) with talent development from a Yolŋu (an Australian Aboriginal group) worldview. This comparison reveals that there is a tension between the DMGT’s formal process (D) and the Yolŋu’s more responsive approach to talent development. There is greater alignment, though, when the DMGT 2.0’s catalysts are considered; however, both the Intrapersonal (I) and Environmental (E) catalysts are mediated by the Yolŋu’s cultural context. Ultimately, the DMGT has some difficulty housing Yolŋu approaches to talent development.