The Past,Present,and Future of Research on Mathematical Giftedness: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

There is a well-established historical background of research on mathematical giftedness that can be traced back to the early 1900s. An overarching purpose of this research was to review and explore the existing research and its evolution since its emergence in educational and psychological studies. Thus, we examined the past, present, and future of research on mathematical giftedness using a bibliometric analysis. Our findings provided extensive insights into the intellectual structure of the extant literature on mathematical giftedness, including the leading journals, articles, countries, authors, institutions, and networks among researchers as well as key research topics that were investigated in the literature. Perhaps one of the most striking findings of this study was about the productivity in the field over the years as the bibliometric analysis indicated a decline in the number of publications that were published in the last several years. We discussed possible factors behind the recession in research investigations on mathematical giftedness and provided significant implications of the findings to inform future research.

Keywords

bibliometric analysis mathematically gifted mathematically talented exceptional mathematical promise mathematically precocious

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agarwal

Durairajanayagam

Tatagari

Esteves

S. C.

Harlev

Henkel

Roychoudhury

Homa

Puchalt

N. G.

Ramasamy

Majzoub

K. D.

Tvrda

Assidi

Kesari

Sharma

Banihani

Abu-Elmagd

. . . Bashiri

(2016). Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian Journal of Andrology, 18(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.171582

Bahar

A. K.

(2013). The influence of cognitive abilities on mathematical problem solving performance. The University of Arizona. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/293594

Bahar

A. K.

Maker

C. J.

(2020). Culturally responsive assessments of mathematical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20906130

Bahar

A. K.

Maker

C. J.

Scherbakova

(2021). The role of teachers’ implementation of the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) model in developing creative problem solving in mathematics. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 26–39. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.134990209201977

Ball

Tunger

(2006). Science indicators revisited- Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information Services & Use, 26(4), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2006-26404

Benbow

C. P.

(1986). Physiological correlates of extreme intellectual precocity. Neuropsychologia, 24(5), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(86)90011-4

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, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00049244

Benbow

C. P.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). Inequity in equity: How current educational equity policies place able students at risk. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249

Bradford

S. C.

(1934). Sources of information on scientific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 137, 85–86.

10.

Bradford

S. C.

(1985). Sources of information on specific subjects. Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 17–180.

11.

Burnham

J. F.

(2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1

12.

Chen

(2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

13.

Chen

(2014). The citespace manual. College of Computing and Informatics, 1, 1–84.

14.

Chuang

K. Y.

Chuang

Y. C.

Y. S.

(2011). Bibliometric analysis of public health research in Africa: The overall trend and regional comparisons. South African Journal of Science, 107(5–6), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v107i5/6.309

15.

Cobo

M. J.

López Herrera

A. G.

Herrera Viedma

Herrera

(2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

16.

Cornejo-Araya

C. A.

Gómez-Araya

C. A.

Muñoz-Huerta

Y. P.

Reyes-Vergara

C. P.

(2021). What do we know about giftedness and underachievement? A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(2), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1481

17.

Donthu

Kumar

Mukherjee

Pandey

Lim

W. M.

(2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.04.070

18.

Ellegaard

Wallin

J. A.

(2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105, 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z

19.

Elsevier. (2022). Research platforms. https://www.elsevier.com/tr-tr/research-platforms

20.

Ericsson

K. A.

Krampe

R. T.

Tesch-Römer

(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

21.

Falagas

M. E.

Pitsouni

E. I.

Malietzis

G. A.

Pappas

(2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

22.

Gardner

(1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

23.

George

W. C.

(1976). Accelerating mathematics instruction for the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(3), 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627602000307

24.

George

W. C.

Stanley

J. C.

(1979). The study of mathematically precocious youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(3), 518–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627902300313

25.

Hanh

H. P.

Lan

D. C.

Quynh

B. D.

V. T.

Vinh

L. A.

(2022). Mathematical gifted education in East Asia and the West: A comparative review and case study of Vietnam. Vietnam Journal of Educational Sciences, 18(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-8957/22210109

26.

Hawkins

D. T.

(2001). Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science. Information Research, 7(1). http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

27.

Hernández-Torrano

Kuzhabekova

(2020). The state and development of research in the field of gifted education over 60 years: A bibliometric study of four gifted education journals (1957–2017). High Ability Studies, 31(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1601071

28.

Hodges

Mun

R. U. E.

Oveross

M. K.

Ottwein

(2021). Assessing the scholarly reach of Terman’s work. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220928322

29.

Huang

M. H.

Chang

Y. W.

(2011). A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: Using direct citation and co-authorship analysis. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511407141

30.

Imbeau

M. B.

(1999). A century of gifted education: A reflection of who and what made a difference. Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 40–43. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/century-gifted-education/docview/203253843/se-2

31.

Johnsen

S. K.

Sheffield

L. J.

(2013). Using the Common Core State Standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003239413

32.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615

33.

Krutetskii

V. A.

(1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. The University of Chicago Press.(Original work published 1968)

34.

Leikin

(2010). Teaching the mathematically gifted. Gifted Education International, 27(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294100270020

35.

Leikin

(2021). When practice needs more research: The nature and nurture of mathematical giftedness. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 53(7), 1579–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01276-9

36.

Lubinski

(2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476

37.

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(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.000

38.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862209254

39.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371

40.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

McCabe

K. O.

Bernstein

B. O.

(2023). Composing meaningful lives: Exceptional women and men at age 50. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67, 278–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231175831

41.

Lubinski

Humphreys

L. G.

(1990a). A broadly based analysis of mathematical giftedness. Intelligence, 14(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(90)90022-L

42.

Lubinski

Humphreys

L. G.

(1990b). Assessing spurious “moderator effects”: Illustrated substantively with the hypothesized (“synergistic”) relation between spatial visualization and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.385

43.

Lubinski

Humphreys

L. G.

(1992). Some bodily and medical correlates of mathematical giftedness and commensurate levels of socioeconomic status. Intelligence, 16(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(92)90027-O

44.

Makel

M. C.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Putallaz

Benbow

C. P.

(2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27, 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735

45.

Marland

S. P.

(1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Vol. 1. Report to Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. U.S. Government Printing Office.

46.

Martyn

(1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026352

47.

Mongeon

Paul-Hus

(2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

48.

Myers

Carey

Szűcs

(2017). Cognitive and neural correlates of mathematical giftedness in adults and children: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01646

49.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2016). Providing opportunities for students with exceptional mathematical promise: A position of the national council of teachers of mathematics.

50.

Navas-Sánchez

F. J.

Alemán-Gómez

Sánchez-Gonzalez

Guzmán-De-Villoria

J. A.

Franco

Robles

Arango

Desco

(2014). White matter microstructure correlates of mathematical giftedness and intelligence quotient. Human Brain Mapping, 35(6), 2619–2631. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22355

51.

Norris

Oppenheim

(2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001

52.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029481

53.

Rousseeuw

P. J.

(1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7

54.

Sheffield

L. J.

(2006). Mathematically promising students from the space age to the information age. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1039

55.

Song

Zhang

Dong

(2016). A review of emerging trends in global PPP research: Analysis and visualization. Scientometrics, 107, 1111–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1918-1

56.

Sowell

E. J.

(1993). Programs for mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862930370030

57.

Sowell

E. J.

Zeigler

A. J.

Bergwall

Cartwright

R. M.

(1990). Identification and description of mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986290034004

58.

Sriraman

(2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving experiences of four gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-425

59.

Stanley

J. C.

(1993). Boys and girls who reason well mathematically . In Bock

G. R.

Ackrill

(Eds.), Ciba Foundation, The origins and development of high ability (pp. 119–138). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470514498.ch8

60.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth. In Benbow

C. P.

Lubinski

D. J.

(Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225–235). Johns Hopkins University Press.

61.

Stanley

J. C.

(2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.216

62.

Stanley

J. C.

Keating

D. P.

Fox

L. H.

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

63.

Sullivan

G. M.

(2011). Getting off the “gold standard”: Randomized controlled trials and education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00147.1

64.

Super

D. E.

Bachrach

P. B.

(1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. Teachers College, Columbia University.

65.

Terman

L. M.

(1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9(6), 221.

66.

Van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

67.

Van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

. (2021). VOSviewer manual. Univeristeit Leiden.

68.

Van Raan

. (2014). Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. In Blockmans

Engwall

Weaire

(Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 17–28). Portland Press.

69.

Vieira

E. S.

Gomes

J. A. N. F

. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81, 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0

70.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127

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

72.

Yurtcu

Guzeller

C. O.

Gurlen

(2021). A bibliometric study on creativity in the gifted. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(2), 980–991. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.763250

73.

Zhang

Gan

J. Q.

Wang

(2017). Neurocognitive mechanisms of mathematical giftedness: A literature review. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 6(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2015.1119692