This is a 6-year study of academically talented students, 12 to 16 years old, who completed a 1-year course in high school biology, chemistry, or physics in 3 weeks at a residential summer program. Students demonstrated subject mastery by taking College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) science achievement tests. Their mean scores were higher than those of high school juniors and seniors. Also examined were the relationships between students' achievement in science and mathematical and verbal aptitude test scores, or age. Mathematical ability seemed to be a better predictor of science achievement than verbal ability. Except for biology, there was no significant relationship between achievement and age. Follow-up studies of achievement indicated that students aecelerated in science performed well in subsequent science courses at their regular schools. The study suggests that academically talented students could begin high school sciences earlier than is currently allowed in most American schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W. H. (Ed.). (1971). The College Board Admissions Testing Program. New York : College Entrance Examination Board.
2.
Bartkovich, K.G., & Mezynski, K. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior high school students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 73-80.
3.
Benbow, C.P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY's first class. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51-78). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Blurton, C. (1983). Science talent: The elusive gift. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 654-664.
5.
Coombes, L.C., & Keeves, J. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries. New York: Halstead.
6.
Durden, W.G. (1987, June). The Johns Hopkins University Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth (CTY): One aspect—mathematics . Paper presented at Fordermaβnahmen fur mathematisch besonders befähigte Schüler im Vergleich, Hamburg, Germany.
7.
George, W.C., & Denham, S.A. (1976). Curriculum experimentation for the mathematically talented. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 103-131). Baltimore, MD: TheJohns Hopkins University Press.
8.
Hallinan, M.T. (1990). The effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Slavin's best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 501-504.
9.
Hansen, R.A., & Neujahr, J. (1976). Career development of high school students talented in science. Science Education, 60, 453-462.
10.
Keating, D.P. (1975). Precocious cognitive development at the level of formal operations. Child Development, 46, 276-280.
11.
Keating, D.P., & Schaefer, R.A. (1975). Ability and sex differences in the acquisition of formal operations. Developmental Psychology , 11, 531-532.
12.
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students . Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.
13.
Lord, L., Linnon, N., Coo, W.J., Allman, W.F., & Anderson, E. (1988, March 14). What puts the whiz in whiz kids. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 48-50.
14.
Lynch, S. (1990a). Credit and placement issues for the academically talented following summer studies in science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 27-30.
15.
Lynch, S. (1990b). Fast-paced sciences for the academically talented: Issues of age and competence. Science Education, 74(6), 585-596. MAPS Users Manual. ( 1987). New York: The College Board .
16.
Miller, F. (1982). College Physics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich.
17.
Mills, C. (1989). [Achievement and attitudes follow-up study for students who took fast-paced science and mathematics in 1988-89]. Unpublished raw data, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth.
18.
O'Conner, P.R., Davis, J.E., MacNab, W.K., & McClellan, A.L. (1982). Chemistry: Experiments and Principles. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.
19.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative leaming for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 9-27.
Rogers, K.B. (1986). Do the gifted think and leam differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17-39.
22.
Schraer, W.D., & Stolze, H.J. (1983).Biology: The Study of Life. Newton, MA: Cebco, Allyn and Bacon.
23.
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-337.
24.
Slavin, R. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-500.
25.
Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Ability grouping, cooperative leaming, and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 3-8.
26.
Stanley, J.C. (1976). Special fast-math classes taught by college professors to fourth- through twelfth-graders. In D. P. Keating (Ed.) Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 132-159). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Stanley, J.C., & Benbow C.P. (1986). Youths who reason extremely well mathematically . In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 361-387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Stanley, J.C., & Stanley, B.S.K. (1986). High-school biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 23, 237-250.
29.
Stevenson, H.W., Lee, S.-Y., & Stigler, J.W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693-699.
30.
Walker, H.M., & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
31.
Welsh, P. (1990, September 16). Fast-track trap: How "ability grouping" hurts our schools, kids, and families. The Washington Post , pp. B1, B4.
32.
Zak, P.M., Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Several factors associated with success as an undergraduate chemistry major. College and University, 58, 303-312.
