Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-7
After the International Mathematical Olympiad: The Educational/Career Decisions and the Development of Mathematical Talent of Former Australian Olympians
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.
AchterJ. A.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.Eftekhari-SanjaniH. (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
2.
AgarwalR.OhyamaA. (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
3.
Alley-YoungG. (2017). White House Big Data Initiative. In Encyclopedia of Big Data (pp. 1-5). SpringerLink.
4.
AndreescuT.GallianJ. A.KaneJ.MertzJ. 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
BarryK.WoodsM.WarneckeE.StirlingC.MartinA. (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
7.
Bartley-BuntzJ.KronborgL. (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
BianL.LeslieS. J.MurphyM. C.CimpianA. (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
BrownJ.van LeeuwenM.MitchD. (2004). The history of the modern career: An introduction. In MitchD.BrownJ.van LeeuwenM. (Eds.), Origins of the modern career (pp. 3-41). Ashgate.
13.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
14.
CampbellJ. 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.
CampbellJ. R.ChoS.TirriK. 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.
CampbellJ. R.WalbergH. 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.
CampbellJ.WuW. (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.
ChenC. P.WongJ. (2013). Career counseling for gifted students. Australian Journal of Career Development, 22(3), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416213507909
19.
ChoiK. 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.
DavisB.SimmtE. (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-HirschK. (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.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. 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.
GottfredsonL. S. (2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In BrownD. (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85-148). Jossey-Bass.
GuayF.SenécalC.GauthierL.FernetC. (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.
GuestG.MacQueenK. M.NameyE. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage.
27.
HouZ.LeungS. 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.
JodlK. M.MichaelA.MalanchukO.EcclesJ. S.SameroffA. (2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72(4), 1247-1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00345
29.
JoffeH. (2011). Thematic analysis. In HarperD.ThompsonA. R. (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy (pp. 209-223). John Wiley.
30.
JungJ. Y. (2019). The career decisions of gifted students and other high ability groups. Routledge.
31.
JungJ. Y. (2020). The career decisions of gifted students: An Asian-Pacific perspective. In SmithS. (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.
JungJ. Y.YoungM. (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.
JungJ. Y.YoungM. (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.
KerrB.SodanoS. (2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 168-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072702250426
35.
KimK. 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.
KingN. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In CassellC.SymonG. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257-270). Sage.
37.
KuzelA. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
LeeK. H.SriramanB. (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.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 374(6219), 262-265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
41.
LillymanS.BennettC. (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.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic observation. Sage.
43.
LindholmL. 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.
LofquistL. H.DawisR. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment-correspondence counseling. University of Minnesota Press.
45.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. 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.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
47.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.KellH. 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.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.WebbR. M.Bleske-RechekA. (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.
McCabeK. O.LubinskiD.BenbowC. 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.
MollenkampC.FlemingC. (2006, March9). Why students of Professor El Karoui are in demand. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
51.
MuratoriM. C.SmithC. 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.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. 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.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
54.
PerroneK. M.CivilettoC. L.WebbL. K.FitchJ. 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.
PerroneK. M.WrightS. L.KsiazakT. M.CraneA. L.VannatterA. (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.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. 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.
ProsserJ. (2011). Visual methodology: Towards a more seeing research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 479-496). Sage.
58.
PyhältöK.ToomA.StubbJ.LonkaK. (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.
RinnA. N.BishopJ. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795
SajjadiS. H.RejskindF. G.ShoreB. 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.
SaulM. (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.
SaxL. J.KannyM. A.Riggers-PiehlT. A.WhangH.PaulsonL. 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.
SegersJ.InceogluI.VloeberghsD.BartramD.HenderickxE. (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-HuS.MakelM. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (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.
StephanP. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199-1235.
68.
StoreyJ. A. (2000). “Fracture lines” in the career environment. In CollinA.YoungR. A. (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 21-36). Cambridge University Press.
69.
StörmerE.PatschaC.PrendergastJ.DaheimC.RhisiartM.GloverP.BeckH. (2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. U. K. Commission for Employment and Skills.
70.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. 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.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. 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.
ValeR. 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.
VockM.KöllerO.NagyG. (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.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. 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.
WangM.YeF.DegolJ. 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.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. 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.
ZixiuZ.PengzhiL.XiaoyongT. (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.
