What Boosts Talent Development? Examining Predictors of Academic Growth in Secondary School Among Academically Advanced Youth Across 21 Years

Abstract

We examined 482,418 students who took the ACT in the seventh grade and again in high school, taking an exploratory analytic approach to examine academic growth trends from 1996 to 2017. Predictors included sociodemographics, interests, high school (HS) characteristics, HS coursework and GPA, and extracurriculars, which explained 25% of the variance in academic growth. Overall, growth improved from 2005 to 2017, but growth for low-income and Hispanic students was stagnant. Catholic and private school students had the highest growth; homeschooled and high-poverty public school students had the lowest. High growth was associated with STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) elective HS courses and advanced AP, accelerated, and honors courses. Students with investigative and conventional interests had higher growth. Some extracurriculars had significant relationships with academic growth, though the effects were small.

Keywords

academically gifted academic talent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACT. (2009). ACT Interest Inventory Technical Manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT. (2016). The ACT profile report: National, graduating class 2016. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT. (2017). The ACT Technical Manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Allen

(2016). How do 7th graders who take the ACT test score as 11th or 12th graders? ACT Technical Brief. Iowa City, IA: ACT.

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

A. E.

(Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses that hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted and Talented Education.

Assouline

S. G.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45-59. doi:10.1177/0734282911433946

Assouline

S. G.

Whiteman

C. S.

(2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 380-402. doi:10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Augustine

(2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Azano

A. P.

Callahan

C. M.

Missett

T. C.

Brunner

(2014). Understanding the experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 88-100. doi:10.1177/1932202X14524405

10.

Bastedo

M. N.

Jaquette

(2011). Running in place: Low income students and the dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 318-339. doi:10.3102/0162373711406718

11.

Benbow

C. P.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249-292. doi:doi:10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249

12.

Benjamin

(2018). Factors influencing learning. In Biswas-Diener

Diener

(Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF. Retrieved from https://nobaproject.com/modules/factors-influencing-learning

13.

Betebenner

D. W.

(2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 42-51. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x

14.

Bleske-Rechek

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations. Psychological Science, 15, 217-224. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00655.x

15.

Braun

Jenkins

Grigg

(2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (U.S. Department of Education NCES 2006-461). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf

16.

Brody

L. E.

Mills

C. J.

(1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296. doi:10.1177/002221949703000304

17.

Broh

B. A.

(2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why? Sociology of Education, 75, 69-95. doi:10.2307/3090254

18.

Castellano

K. E.

A. D.

(2013). A practitioner’s guide to growth models. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

19.

Castellano

K. E.

A. D.

(2015). Practical differences among aggregate-level conditional status metrics: From median student growth percentile to value-added models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 35-68. doi:10.3102/1076998614548485

20.

Coleman

J. S.

Hoffer

Kilgore

(1982). High school achievement. New York, NY: Basic Books.

21.

Cohen

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

22.

College Board. (2016). About the SAT. Retrieved from https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat

23.

Cooper

Valentine

J. C.

Nye

Lindsay

J. J.

(1999). Relationships between five after-school activities and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 369-378. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.369

24.

Dynarski

S. M.

(2018). ACT/SAT for all: A cheap, effective way to narrow income gaps in college. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/act-sat-for-all-a-cheap-effective-way-to-narrow-income-gaps-in-college/

25.

Executive Office of the President of the United States. (2016). Artificial intelligence, automation, and the economy. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-Intelligence-Automation-Economy.PDF

26.

Glander

(2016). Documentation to the 2014-15 Common Core of Data (CCD) Universe Files (NCES 2016-077). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

27.

Gohm

C. L.

Humphreys

L. G.

Yao

(1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515-531. doi:doi:10.3102/00028312035003515

28.

Hanushek

E. A.

Woessmann

(2015). The knowledge capital of nations: Education and the economics of growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.

29.

Heckman

(2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54, 3-56.

30.

Heckman

J. J.

Stixrud

Urzua

(2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behaviors (Working Paper No. 12006). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

31.

Hertzog

N. B.

Chung

R. U.

(2015). Outcomes for students on the fast track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of Washington. Roeper Review, 37, 39-49. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.976324

32.

Holland

J. L.

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

33.

Hyman

(2017). ACT for all: The effect of mandatory college entrance exams on postsecondary attainment and choice. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 281-311. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00206

34.

Jones

Gloeckner

(2004). First-year college performance: A study of home school graduates and traditional school graduates. Journal of College Admission, Spring, 17-20. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ682484.pdf

35.

Kobrin

J. L

Patterson

B. F.

Shaw

E. J.

Mattern

K. D.

Barbuti

S. M.

(2008). Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year college grade point average (College Board Research Report No. 2008-5). New York, NY: College Board.

36.

Kolluri

(2018). Advanced Placement: The dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 88, 671-711. doi:10.3102/0034654318787268

37.

Kuncel

N. R.

Hezlett

S. A.

Ones

D. S.

(2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148-161. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148

38.

Kunzman

Gaither

(2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 2, 4-59.

39.

Lewin

(2013). Where the SAT and ACT dominate. New York Times. Retrieved from https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/04/education/edlife/where-the-sat-and-act-dominate.html

40.

Loveless

(2016). How well are American students learning? The 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brown-Center-Report-2016.pdf

41.

Lubienski

C. A.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x

43.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Kell

H. J.

(2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 24, 2217-2232. doi:10.1177/0956797614551371

44.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Ryan

(1995). Stability of vocational interests among the intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 196-200. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.196

45.

Lubinski

Webb

R. M.

Morelock

M. J.

Benbow

C. P.

(2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718

46.

Makel

M. C.

Wai

Putallaz

Malone

P. S.

(2015). The academic gap: An international comparison of the time allocation of academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 177-189. doi:10.1177/0016986215578746

47.

Marsh

H. W.

Kleitman

(2002). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the non-linear. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 464-514. doi:10.17763/haer.72.4.051388703v7v7736

48.

National Science Technology Council. (2016). The national artificial intelligence research and development strategic plan. Executive office of the President of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.nitrd.gov/PUBS/national_ai_rd_strategic_plan.pdf

49.

The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program. (2016). The federal big data research and development strategic plan. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=scholcom

50.

Nye

C. D.

Rounds

Drasgow

(2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384-403. doi:10.1177/1745691612449021

51.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(1998). Talent search: Purposes, rationale, and role in gifted education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 9, 106-113. doi:10.1177/1932202X9800900303

52.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences. Psychological Science, 18, 948-952. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x

53.

Petersen

P. E.

Llaudet

(2006, August). On the public-private school achievement debate. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ellaudet/files/on_the_public-private_school_achievement_debate.pdf

54.

Plucker

J. A.

Peters

S. J.

(2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

55.

Puryear

J. S.

Kettler

(2017). Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 143-152. doi:10.1177/0016986217690229

56.

Reis

S. M.

(2002). Internal barriers, personal issues, and decisions faced by gifted and talented females. Gifted Child Today, Winter, 1-21. Retrieved from https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/internal_barriers_gifted_females/

57.

Reis

S. M.

Baum

S. M.

Burke

(2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 217-230. doi:10.1177/0016986214534976

58.

Rindermann

Thompson

(2011). Cognitive capitalism: The effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scientific achievement and economic freedom. Psychological Science, 22, 754-763. doi:10.1177/0956797611407207

59.

Rubin

D. B.

(1996). Multiple Imputation after 18+ Years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473-489.

60.

Rudner

L. M.

(1999). Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 8. doi:doi:10.14507/epaa.v7n8.1999

61.

Sackett

P. R.

Kuncel

N. R.

Beatty

A. S.

Rigdon

J. L.

Shen

Kiger

T. B.

(2012). The role of socioeconomic status in SAT-grade relationships and in college admissions decisions. Psychological Science, 23, 1000-1007. doi:10.1177/0956797612438732

62.

Sanchez

Buddin

(2016). How accurate are self-reported high school courses, course grades, and grade point averages? (ACT Research Report 2016-3). Iowa City, IA: ACT.

63.

Sawyer

(2008). Benefits of additional high school course work and improved course performance in preparing students for college (ACT Research Report 2008-1). Iowa City, IA: ACT.

64.

Schiel

(1998). Academic benefits in high school of an intensive summer program for academically talented seventh graders (ACT Research Report 1998-4). Iowa City, IA: ACT.

65.

Schmitt

Keeney

Oswald

F. L.

Pleskac

T. J.

Billington

A. Q.

Sinha

Zorzie

(2009). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1479-1497. doi:10.1037/a0016810

66.

Snyder

(2013). An evaluative study of the academic achievement of homeschooled students versus traditionally schooled students attending a Catholic university. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 16, 288-308. doi:10.15365/joce.1602042013

67.

Steenbergen-Hu

Makel

M. C.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K-12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86, 849-899. doi:10.3102/0034654316675417

68.

Rounds

(2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology: Developmental, 6, 189. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189

69.

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. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

70.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484

71.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in science technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871. doi:10.1037/a0019454

72.

Wai

Worrell

F. C.

(2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 122-128. doi:10.1177/2372732215621310

73.

Webb

R. M.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397-420. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.397

74.

Welner

K. G.

(1999). Contextualizing homeschooling data: A response to Rudner. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7. doi:10.14507/epaa.v7n13.1999

75.

Wenglinsky

(2007). Are private high schools better academically than public high schools? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

76.

West

M. R.

Woessmann

(2010). Every Catholic child in a Catholic school: Historical resistance to state schooling, contemporary private competition and student achievement across countries. Economic Journal, 120, F229-F255. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02375.x

77.

Witham

J. H.

(1997). Public or private schools: A dilemma for gifted students? Roeper Review, 19, 137-141. doi:10.1080/02783199709553809

78.

Wyner

J. S.

Bridgeland

J. M.

DiIulio

J. J.

(2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

79.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564

80.

Zakaria

(2016). In defense of a liberal education. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.