After the International Mathematical Olympiad: The Educational/Career Decisions and the Development of Mathematical Talent of Former Australian Olympians

Abstract

This study investigated the educational and career experiences of former Australian Olympians after their participation in the International Mathematical Olympiad. For this purpose, 15 former Olympians were engaged in interviews about how they developed their mathematical talent at university, how they selected their careers, and how they developed their mathematical talent within their careers. Thematic analysis was undertaken on the collected data. The resulting themes provided useful insights into the reasoning behind the selection of one’s area of study, the nature of the study experience, the factors considered in the career decision, and the nature of mathematical development in one’s career. Among other conclusions, the study suggested the applicability of two theories (i.e., the theory of work adjustment and the megamodel of talent development) in understanding the educational/career decisions of this group, the need for more systematic gifted education provisions within tertiary settings, and a prominent “brain drain” effect.

Keywords

International Mathematical Olympiad mathematics education career

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achter

J. A.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Eftekhari-Sanjani

(1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 777-786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.777

Agarwal

Ohyama

(2013). Industry or academia, basic or applied? Career choices and earnings trajectories of scientists. Management Science, 59(4), 950-970. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1582

Alley-Young

(2017). White House Big Data Initiative. In Encyclopedia of Big Data (pp. 1-5). SpringerLink.

Andreescu

Gallian

J. A.

Kane

Mertz

J. E.

(2008). Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 55(10), 1248-1260. http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017, October 23). 2016 Census community profiles. https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/036?opendocument

Barry

Woods

Warnecke

Stirling

Martin

(2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 468-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1425979

Bartley-Buntz

Kronborg

(2018). Mathematically able female adolescents’ perceptions of acceleration in mathematics. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 27(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2018.0004

Beine

Noël

Ragot

(2014). Determinants of the international mobility of students. Economics of Education Review, 41(August), 40-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.003

Bian

Leslie

S. J.

Murphy

M. C.

Cimpian

(2018). Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76(May), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006

10.

Boyatzis

(1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

12.

Brown

van Leeuwen

Mitch

(2004). The history of the modern career: An introduction. In Mitch

Brown

van Leeuwen

(Eds.), Origins of the modern career (pp. 3-41). Ashgate.

13.

Bryman

(2016). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

14.

Campbell

J. R.

(1996). Early identification of mathematical talent has long term positive consequences for career contributions. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)86728-6

15.

Campbell

J. R.

Cho

Tirri

K. A. H.

(2017). Mathematics and science Olympiad studies: The outcomes of Olympiads and contributing factors to talent development of Olympians. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 5(2), 49-60.

16.

Campbell

J. R.

Walberg

H. J.

(2010). Olympiad studies: Competitions provide alternatives to developing talents that serve national interests. Roeper Review, 33(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530202

17.

Campbell

(1996). Development of exceptional academic talent: International research studies. Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 479-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)86726-2

18.

Chen

C. P.

Wong

(2013). Career counseling for gifted students. Australian Journal of Career Development, 22(3), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416213507909

19.

Choi

K. M.

(2013). Influences of formal schooling on Inter-national Mathematical Olympiad winners from Korea. Roeper Review, 35(3), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794890

20.

Davis

Simmt

(2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-2372-4.

21.

Eddles-Hirsch

(2019). The role of social context in the talent development process at the higher education level. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 28(2), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2019.0013

22.

Good

Rattan

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659

23.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In Brown

(Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85-148). Jossey-Bass.

24.

Greene

M. J.

(2006). Helping build lives: Career and life development of gifted and talented students. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.5330/prsc.10.1.b55j504360m48424

25.

Guay

Senécal

Gauthier

Fernet

(2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.165

26.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage.

27.

Hou

Leung

S. A.

(2011). Vocational aspirations of Chinese high school students and their parents’ expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.008

28.

Jodl

K. M.

Michael

Malanchuk

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

(2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72(4), 1247-1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00345

29.

Joffe

(2011). Thematic analysis. In Harper

Thompson

A. R.

(Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy (pp. 209-223). John Wiley.

30.

Jung

J. Y.

(2019). The career decisions of gifted students and other high ability groups. Routledge.

31.

Jung

J. Y.

(2020). The career decisions of gifted students: An Asian-Pacific perspective. In Smith

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1-18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_65-1

32.

Jung

J. Y.

Young

(2017). Occupational/career indecision for economically disadvantaged high school students of high intellectual ability: A mixed methods cognitive process model. Psychology in the Schools, 54(7), 718-735. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22023

33.

Jung

J. Y.

Young

(2019). The occupational/career decision-making processes of intellectually gifted adolescents from economically disadvantaged backgrounds: A mixed methods perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218804575

34.

Kerr

Sodano

(2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 168-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072702250426

35.

Kim

K. N.

(2012). Trajectories of female student’s career decision between high school and college: Organizationally separate but developmentally linked. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(2012), 349-562. https://doi.org/1010.1007/s12564-012-9217-x

36.

King

(2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell

Symon

(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257-270). Sage.

37.

Kuzel

(1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.

38.

Lee

(2014). Conducting cognitive interviews in cross-national settings. Assessment, 20(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112436671

39.

Lee

K. H.

Sriraman

(2012). Gifted girls and nonmathematical aspirations: A longitudinal case study of two gifted Korean girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211426899

40.

Leslie

S. J.

Cimpian

Meyer

Freeland

(2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 374(6219), 262-265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375

41.

Lillyman

Bennett

(2014). Providing a positive learning experience for international students studying at UK universities: A literature review. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240914529859

42.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic observation. Sage.

43.

Lindholm

L. A.

(2004). Pathways to the professoriate: The role of self, others, and environment in shaping academic career aspirations. Journal of Higher Education, 75(6), 603-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11773579

44.

Lofquist

L. H.

Dawis

R. V.

(1991). Essentials of person-environment-correspondence counseling. University of Minnesota Press.

45.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x

46.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447

47.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Kell

H. J.

(2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2217-2232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371

48.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Webb

R. M.

Bleske-Rechek

(2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17(3), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x

49.

McCabe

K. O.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2019). Who shines most among the brightest? A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 390-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000239

50.

Mollenkamp

Fleming

(2006, March 9). Why students of Professor El Karoui are in demand. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.

51.

Muratori

M. C.

Smith

C. K.

(2015). Guiding the talent and career development of the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00193.x

52.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948-952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x

53.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

54.

Perrone

K. M.

Civiletto

C. L.

Webb

L. K.

Fitch

J. C.

(2004). Perceived barriers to and supports of attainment of career and family goals among academically talented individuals. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(2), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.11.2.114

55.

Perrone

K. M.

Wright

S. L.

Ksiazak

T. M.

Crane

A. L.

Vannatter

(2010). Looking back on lessons learned: Gifted adults reflect on their experiences in advanced classes. Roeper Review, 32(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783191003587918

56.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244

57.

Prosser

(2011). Visual methodology: Towards a more seeing research. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 479-496). Sage.

58.

Pyhältö

Toom

Stubb

Lonka

(2012). Challenges of becoming a scholar: A study of doctoral students’ problems and wellbeing. International Scholarly Research Network Education, 7(2012), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/934941

59.

Rinn

A. N.

Bishop

(2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795

60.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

61.

Rysiew

Shore

Leeb

(1999). Mulitpotentiality, giftedness, and career choice: A review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(4), 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02469.x

62.

Sajjadi

S. H.

Rejskind

F. G.

Shore

B. M.

(2001). Is multipotentiality a problem or not? A new look at the data. High Ability Studies, 12(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130124556

63.

Saul

(2011). More than a system: What we can learn from the International Mathematical Olympiad. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 410-416. https://www.ams.org/notices/201103/rtx110300410p.pdf

64.

Sax

L. J.

Kanny

M. A.

Riggers-Piehl

T. A.

Whang

Paulson

L. N.

(2015). “But I’m not good at math”: The changing salience of mathematical self-concept in shaping women’s and men’s STEM aspirations. Research in Higher Education, 56(2015), 813-842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x

65.

Segers

Inceoglu

Vloeberghs

Bartram

Henderickx

(2008). Protean and boundaryless careers: A study on potential motivators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 212-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.05.001

66.

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-12students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899. https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417

67.

Stephan

P. E.

(1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199-1235.

68.

Storey

J. A.

(2000). “Fracture lines” in the career environment. In Collin

Young

R. A.

(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 21-36). Cambridge University Press.

69.

Störmer

Patscha

Prendergast

Daheim

Rhisiart

Glover

Beck

(2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. U. K. Commission for Employment and Skills.

70.

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(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

71.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176-188. https://doi.org/1177/0016986212456079

72.

Vale

R. D.

(2010). It’s a wonderful life: A career as an academic scientist. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 21(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E09-08-0678.

73.

Vock

Köller

Nagy

(2013). Vocational interests of intellectually gifted and highly achieving young adults. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02063.x

74.

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(4), 860-871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454

75.

Wang

Degol

J. L.

(2017). Who chooses STEM careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(8), 1805-1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8

76.

Webb

R. M.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 785-794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785

77.

Zixiu

Pengzhi

Xiaoyong

(1996). Nurturing factors that promote Mathematics achievement in Mainland China. Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 535-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)86730-4

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB