@phdthesis{Fleischmann2023,
  author    = {Fleischmann, Lorena},
  title     = {Talent Development in Academic Domains: A Follow-Up of Former Junior Students at Julius-Maximilians-Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-30281},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-302814},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The field of giftedness and gifted education has long been characterized by internal fragmentation and inconsistent definitions of core concepts (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2010; Coleman, 2006; McBee et al., 2012). It was only in recent years that increased efforts have been made to organize available research findings and thereby bring back greater uniformity to the field of giftedness and gifted education. For example, Preckel et al.'s (2020) Talent Development in Achievement Domains (TAD) framework integrates theoretical perspectives and empirical knowledge from different parts of the field. It is general in concept and can be applied to a wide range of achievement domains. By specifically focusing on measurable psychological constructs as well as their relevance at different stages of the talent development process, Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework is well suited as a starting point for generating more domain-specific talent development models. The present thesis represents one of the first attempts to empirically test the validity of Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework in academic domains using longitudinal data. The longitudinal data came from a sample of former junior students at Julius-Maximilians-Universit{\"a}t (JMU) W{\"u}rzburg who showed high academic achievement potential. There were two related research issues: Research Issue 1 first aimed to document in detail how the educational trajectories of former junior students unfold in the years following their Abitur. To this end, a follow-up was conducted among 208 young adults who had participated in the junior study program at JMU W{\"u}rzburg between the winter semester of 2004/2005 and the summer semester of 2011. The design of the follow-up questionnaire was based on a series of research questions that had emerged from the relevant literature on junior study programs in Germany. The follow-up ran from October 2019 to February 2020. The data were analyzed descriptively and documented as a detailed report. The results of Research Issue 1 revealed that the former junior students continued to be academically (and later professionally) successful long after their school years. For example, at the time of the follow-up, almost all former junior students had earned a bachelor's and a master's degree, most often with notable academic successes (e.g., scholarships, awards/prizes). In addition, more than half of those who responded had begun or already completed a doctoral degree, also recording special academic accomplishments (e.g., scientific publications, scholarships). A significant proportion of the former junior students had already entered the workforce at the time of their response. A look at their current professional situation revealed an above-average expression of success indicators (e.g., income, professional status). The clear majority of the former junior students reported that, even in retrospect, they would choose to take part in the junior study program at JMU W{\"u}rzburg again. Research Issue 2 aimed to determine the extent to which the structure of Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework could be empirically validated in academic domains. The educational trajectories of 84 former junior students at JMU W{\"u}rzburg who had chosen a subject from the same subject field in their regular studies as in their junior studies served as the data basis. The educational trajectories were compiled from the former junior students' follow-up data and from their data on the selection process for the junior study program at JMU W{\"u}rzburg. Combining the structural assumptions of Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework with relevant insights from individual academic disciplines made it possible to derive hypotheses regarding potential predictors and indicators of the talent development stages aptitude, competence, and expertise in academic domains. Structural equation models were used for data analysis. The results of Research Issue 2 suggested that the talent development stages aptitude, competence, and expertise, while being predictive of each other in their chronological order, could be satisfactorily modeled using framework-compliant indicators in academic domains. In comparison, the talent development stage transformational achievement could not (yet) be modeled based on the longitudinal data. Among the hypothesized predictors, former junior students' investigative interests and their metacognitive abilities reliably determined the talent development stages competence and expertise, whereas the remaining predictors did not make significant contributions. Taken together, the results of the present thesis suggest that the validity of Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework can only be partially confirmed in academic domains. Unlike the postulated indicators, the predictors in Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework do not seem to be easily generalizable to academic domains but to be highly specific with regard to the talent domain under consideration. Therefore, a natural progression of the present thesis would be to examine the structure of Preckel et al.'s (2020) TAD framework at the subordinate level of subject fields or even at the level of individual academic disciplines, for example.},
  subject      = {Hochbegabung},
  language  = {en}
}