Talent searches for seventh and eighth graders have extensive empirical support, and the model has been successfully extended to elementary students. Research has focused on participants earning high scores on above-level tests, however, not typical participants. Here, 597 families and 93 schools that participated in the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary Students (C-MITES) Elementary Student Talent Search (ESTS) completed follow-up surveys designed to measure the typical participant’s satisfaction with the program and use of test scores. Families were very satisfied with their ESTS experience, but above-level test scores were not often used by schools. The most common use of the scores was to qualify students for extracurricular programs. School personnel appear to lack understanding of the information to be gained from above-level test scores despite literature provided to them by the talent searches. Talent search organizations need to find creative ways of educating schools about their services so that benefits to all participants can be maximized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACT. (2001). EXPLORE technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.
2.
Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (1997). Talent searches: A model for the discovery and development of academic talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 170-179). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Developing mathematical talent: A guide for challenging and educating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
Benbow, C. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability?Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 51-61.
5.
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., & Suchy, B. (1996). The impact of SMPY’s educational programs from the perspective of the participant. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 266-300). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
Benbow, C. P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY’s first class. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51-78). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
Center for Talented Youth. (2000). Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University: Programs and related opportunities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
8.
Center for Talented Youth. (2003). Center for Talented Youth homepage. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.cty.jhu.edu
9.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Lu, W.-H. (1994). Using EXPLORE as an above-level instrument in the search for elementary student talent. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 281-297). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
11.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
12.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Why the public schools will continue to neglect the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 12(2), 55-59.
13.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Secondary services, opportunities, and activities for talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 189-197). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
14.
Fox, L. H. (1976). Identification and program planning: Models and methods. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 32-54). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
George, W. C. (1979). The talent-search concept: An identification strategy for the intellectually gifted. Journal of Special Education, 13, 221-237.
16.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 255-281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., & Assouline, S. G. (1993). Identifying mathematically talented elementary students: Using the Lower Level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 118-123.
18.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 204-218). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Kuhnel, A. (1995). Mathematics enrichment for talented elementary students: Carnegie Mellon University’s summer enrichment program for mathematically talented students. Gifted Child Today, 18(4), 28-32.
20.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Swiatek, M. A. (1999). Elementary student talent searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 265-272.
21.
McCarthy, C. R. (1998). Assimilating the talent search model into the school day. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 114-123.
22.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Talent search: Purposes, rationale, and role in gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 106-113.
23.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment and acceleration: An overview and new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edition, pp. 113-125). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
24.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35.
25.
Stanley, J. C. (1976). Use of tests to discover talent. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 3-22). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
Stanley, J. C. (1977-78). The predictive value of the SAT for brilliant seventh- and eighth-graders. The College Board Review, 106, 31-37.
27.
Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). A 10-year longitudinal follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 138-150.
28.
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved?Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 118-130.
29.
Talent Identification Program, Duke University. (1985). A guide to the talent search for local school personnel. Durham, NC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 028 276)
30.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prining Office. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 743)
31.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1984). The talent search as an identification model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 172-176.
32.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1996). Contributions of the talent-search concept to gifted education. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 236-245). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
33.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1998). A critique of the talent searches: Issues, problems, and possibilities. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 139-144.
34.
Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Psychologist, 52, 1070-1081.
