Is high ability necesssary for high achievement? A review of recent empirical findings on the conditions for attaining expertise

Abstract

The paper confronts two views on the conditions for attaining exceptional (expert) achievements: a viewpoint whereby giftedness, defined as exceptional innate ability, constitutes a necessary requirement for the emergence of such achievements, and the expert-performance oriented approach whereby the level of achievement, including a superior one, depends exclusively on the amount of deliberate practice. Adopting one of the two views implies different educational practices, hence it is essential to assess their scientific foundation. To begin with, we present and analyse the given viewpoints with regard to their respective positions on the following questions: What is the contribution of ability and of practice in explaining/predicting levels of achievement? Is there an upper limit on the development of competencies through practice, which might be attributed to abilities? Are there significant individual variations in the dynamics of acquiring expertise? May each instance of exceptional achievement be explained by deliberate practice? Further, we offer a review of relevant studies in order to formulate empirically based answers to the above stated questions. We conclude that the dynamics and outcomes of the process of acquiring expertise cannot be understood and predicted solely on the basis of deliberate practice, but that they depend significantly on the existence of a gift, i.e., an exceptional natural ability. With respect to educational implications, we find that available scientific evidence yields some support for "pedagogical optimism" - the belief that most students can develop a high level of competency by way of mentor-guided practice and feedback - yet that it also strongly calls for differentiated and individualised instruction based on differences in abilities.