High-Ability Students’ Participation in Specialized Instructional Delivery Models

Abstract

Established in the early 1970s, the talent search model has garnered strong theoretical and programming support for addressing the academic needs of highly able students. The two main components of the talent search model are discovery (identification) and development (programming) of academic talent. Discovery of academically talented elementary and middle school students occurs via the process of above-level testing, usually offered through university-based centers. The essence of talent search program intervention is acceleration, which has robust research support as the most effective intervention for high-ability students. Whereas talent search identification and programming are university based, talent search participants receive nearly all of their instruction in K-12 settings, where academic acceleration is less likely to be implemented. In this investigation, a large sample of talent search participants (n = 5,844) were asked questions designed to measure the various ways in which the students study mathematics, science, and language arts (writing and reading) in the K-12 setting. More than two thirds of the study sample reported that they were taught in the regular classroom, learning the same material, at the same level and pace as nongifted peers. The type of curriculum differentiation or program delivery model (e.g., small-group instruction) reported by the students varied according to subject area, with the greatest percentage of reports of differentiated delivery in mathematics. Main effects were found for gender, grade, and ability. Implications for school-based accelerative interventions are presented.

Keywords

high-ability science math language arts gender

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACT, Inc. (1997). EXPLORE [educational assessment]. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Archambault

F. X.

Westberg

K. L.

Brown

S. W.

Hallmark

B. W.

Emmons

C. L.

Zhang

(1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Assouline

S. G.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

A.E.

(2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45-59.

Bartkovich

K. G.

Mezynski

(1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 73-78.

Benbow

C. P.

(1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.

Bloom

B. S.

(1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Bloom

B. S.

Sosniak

L. A.

(1981). Talent development vs. schooling. Educational Leadership, 39, 86-94.

Brody

L. E.

(2009). The Johns Hopkins talent search model for identifying and developing exceptional mathematical and verbal abilities. In Shavinina

L. V.

(Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 999-1016). New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.

11.

Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children. (2011). 2010-2011 State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

12.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rathunde

Whalen

(1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Kanevsky

(2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 279-299.

14.

Kirk

R. E.

(1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.

15.

Lubinski

(2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23-38). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.

16.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

Benbow

C. P.

Assouline

S. G.

Brody

L. E.

(2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 204-218). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

17.

McCarthy

(1998). Assimilating the talent search model into the school day. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 114-129.

18.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf

19.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2004). Talent searches and accelerated programming for gifted students. In Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.69-76). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.

20.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2005). The center for talent development at Northwestern University: An example of replication and reformation. High Ability Studies, 16, 55-69.

21.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

S.-Y.

(2005). How schools use talent search scores for gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 27, 233-240.

22.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

S.-Y.

(2011). Gender and other group differences in performance on off-level tests: Changes in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 54-73.

23.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.

24.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

25.

Robinson

N. S.

Robinson

H. B.

(1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1982, pp.79-94.

26.

Rogers

K. B.

(2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396.

27.

Stanley

J. C.

(1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 166-171.

28.

Stanley

J. C.

(2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16, 5-14.

29.

Stanley

J. C.

Keating

D. P.

Fox

(1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

30.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.

31.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2007). The talent search model past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 320-329.

32.

Swiatek

M. A.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

O’Donoghue

C. C.

(2000). Gender differences in above-level EXPLORE scores of gifted third through sixth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 718-723.

33.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STSM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871.

34.

Warne

R. T.

(2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34, 183-193.