Technology is an increasingly omnipresent and rapidly changing component of today’s world. As a result, there is an urgency to develop talent in the field of computer science (CS). The purpose of this article is to examine ways that educational systems can develop students’ talents to fill the need for skilled CS professionals. We provide an overview of the talent development megamodel as an exemplar of talent development frameworks and discuss ways to tailor it to fit CS talent trajectories. We describe three key components in a CS talent trajectory: early access to materials and programs; support from mentors; and the development of psychosocial skills. We introduce a proposed model, the computer science talent development model (CSTDM), for finding and developing talents in computer science in K–12 settings. CSTDM includes advanced STEM learning opportunities beginning in middle school, a focus on the development of psychosocial skills, and guidance for students regarding STEM career development.
AllenJ. K.RobbinsM. A.PayneY. D.BrownK. B. (2016). Using enrichment clusters to address the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628568
2.
AngeliC.VoogtJ.FluckA.WebbM.CoxM.Malyn-SmithJ.ZagamiJ. (2016). A K–6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.
3.
BennerG. J.KutashK.NelsonJ. R.FisherM. B. (2013). Closing the achievement gap of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders through multi-tiered systems of support. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0018
4.
BinghamA. J.WitkowskyP. (2022). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. In VanoverC.MihasP.SaldañaJ. (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative research: After the interview (1st ed., pp. 133–148). Sage.
5.
BloomB. J. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In BloomB. J. (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507–549). Ballantine Books.
6.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
7.
BrightS.PereiraN.OzenZ.KaratasT.MatosB.Castillo-HermosillaH. (2022, November). Fostering SEL skills in STEM curricula for underrepresented gifted students [Paper presentation]. National Association for Gifted Children 69th Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
8.
Buitrago FlórezF.CasallasR.HernándezM.ReyesA.RestrepoS.DaniesG. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
9.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
10.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function (Working Paper No. 11). http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
ChenC.HaduongP.BrennanK.SonnertG.SadlerP. (2019). The effects of first programming language on college students’ computing attitude and achievement: A comparison of graphical and textual languages. Computer Science Education, 29(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1547564
13.
ChenH. R.HsuW. C. (2022). Do flipped learning and adaptive instruction improve student learning outcome? A case study of a computer programming course in Taiwan. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 768183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768183
14.
ChenW.-R.ChenM.-F. (2020). Practice and evaluation of enrichment programs for the gifted and talented learners. Gifted Education International, 36(2), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420917878
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
17.
CramerK. M.Castro-OlivoS. (2016). Effects of a culturally adapted social-emotional learning intervention program on students’ mental health. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-015-0057-7
18.
EbrahimiNejadH. (2017, June). A systematic literature review: Defining and developing engineering competencies [Conference presentation]. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–27526
19.
HamiltonL. S.DossC. J. (2020). Supports for social and emotional learning in schools: Findings from the American teacher panel. RAND Corporation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609431
20.
HodgesJ.McIntoshJ.GentryM. (2017). The effect of an out-of-school enrichment program on the academic achievement of high-potential students from low-income families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17715304
21.
HoppM. D. S.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (2020). The supporting role of mentees’ peers in online mentoring: A longitudinal social network analysis of peer influence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1929. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01929
22.
HuY.ChenC.-H.SuC.-Y. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness and moderators of block-based visual programming on student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1467–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120945935
23.
IderisN.BaharudinS. M.HamzahN. (2019). The effectiveness of scratch in collaborative learning on higher-order thinking skills in programming subject among year-six students. In Proceedings of the 4th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2018) (pp. 421–425). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/acpch-18.2019.99
24.
JacobsonL. A.WillifordA. P.PiantaR. C. (2011). The role of executive function in children’s competent adjustment to middle school. Child Neuropsychology, 17(3), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2010.535654
25.
JenE. (2015). Incorporating a small-group affective curriculum model into a diverse, summer program for talented youth: A design based research study (Publication No. 1120) [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University]. Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Dissertations. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/1120
26.
JenE.GentryM.MoonS. M. (2017). High-ability students’ perspectives on an affective curriculum in a diverse, university-based summer residential enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722839
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
29.
LeeS. Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PeternelG. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330562
30.
LinW.-L.ShihY.-L.WangS.-W.TangY.-W. (2018). Improving junior high students’ thinking and creative abilities with an executive function training program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.007
31.
MaiorcaC.RobertsT.JacksonC.BushS.DelaneyA.Mohr-SchroederM. J.SoledadS. Y. (2021). Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10038-9
32.
MaloneyJ.BurdL.KafaiY.RuskN.SilvermanB.ResnickM. (2004). Scratch: A sneak preview [Education]. In Proceedings. Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (pp. 104–109). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/C5.2004.33
33.
MillerR.GentryM. (2010). Developing talents among high-potential students from low-income families in an out-of-school enrichment program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 594–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100403
Olszewski-KubiliusP.MakelM. C.PluckerJ.SubotnikR. F. (2017). Universal principles of learning require unique applications for gifted students. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 58(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000118
36.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.DavisL. C.WorrellF. C. (2019). Benchmarking psychosocial skills important for talent development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(168), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20318
37.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2015a). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095077
38.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2015b). Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00190.x
39.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2021). Programming for talent development beyond the classroom. In RobinsJ. H.JollyJ. L.KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods & materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 439–455). Routledge.
40.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C.WardmanJ.TanL. S.LeeS. Y. (2021). Sociocultural perspectives on the talent development mega-model. In SmithS. R. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 101–127). Springer International Handbooks of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_4
41.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C.SubotnikR. F.Foley-NicponM. (2019). Reflections on talent development in academics. In SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (Eds.), The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent (pp. 225–236). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-011
42.
PereiraN.DesmetO. (2021, August). A comprehensive, dynamic, talent scouting protocol to identify gifted students from traditionally underserved populations [Paper presentation]. 2021 World Council for Gifted and Talented Children World Conference.
43.
PereiraN.PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). The My Class Activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 568–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X100210
44.
PetersonJ. S.JenE. (2018). The Peterson Proactive Developmental Attention model: A framework for nurturing the rest of the whole gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218763874
45.
PreckelF.GolleJ.GrabnerR.JarvinL.KozbeltA.MüllensiefenD.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SchneiderW.SubotnikR.VockM.WorrellF. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895030
46.
ReisS. M.RenzulliS. J.RenzulliJ. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
47.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Creative Learning Press.
RozaliN. F.ZaidN. M. (2017, May). Code puzzle: ActionScript 2.0 learning application based on problem based learning approach. In 2017 6th ICT International Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC) (pp. 1–4). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICT-ISPC.2017.8075329
50.
SamuelsW. E.TournakiN.BlackmanS.ZilinskiC. (2016). Executive functioning predicts academic achievement in middle school: A four-year longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 109(5), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979913
51.
StoegerH.DuanX.SchirnerS.GreindlT.ZieglerA. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032
52.
StoegerH.HeilemannM.DebatinT.HoppM. D.SchirnerS.ZieglerA. (2021). Nine years of online mentoring for secondary school girls in STEM: An empirical comparison of three mentoring formats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14476
53.
StoegerH.HoppM.ZieglerA. (2017). Online mentoring as an extracurricular measure to encourage talented girls in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics): An empirical study of one-on-one versus group mentoring. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217702215
54.
StoegerH.LuoL.ZieglerA. (2024). Attracting and developing STEMM talent toward excellence and innovation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1533(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15108
55.
StoegerH.SchirnerS.LaemmleL.ObergriesserS.HeilemannM.ZieglerA. (2016). A contextual perspective on talented female participants and their development in extracurricular STEM programs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13116
56.
SuQ.GuoS. (2023). STEM-based principles and strategies to cultivate students’ social and emotional learning. STEM Education Review, 1(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.54844/stemer.2023.0374
57.
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
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2019). Transitioning from introductory block-based and text-based environments to professional programming languages in high school computer science classrooms. Computers & Education, 142, 103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103646
61.
WilloughbyM. T.WylieA. C.LittleM. H. (2019). Testing longitudinal associations between executive function and academic achievement. Developmental Psychology, 55(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000664
62.
WorrellF. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: A response to comments on “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education.”Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456080
63.
WorrellF. C.SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2022). Giftedness and eminence: Clarifying the relationship. Gifted and Talented International, 36(1–2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2022.2049461
64.
XuZ.RitzhauptA. D.TianF.UmapathyK. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1565233
65.
ZhuM.WangC. (2023). Core competencies of K–12 computer science education from the perspectives of college faculties and K–12 teachers. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v6i2.161
66.
ZieglerA.StoegerH. (2023). Talent denied: Equity and excellence gaps in STEMM. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1530(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15083
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.
