STEM Excellence and Leadership Program: Increasing the Level of STEM Challenge and Engagement for High-Achieving Students in Economically Disadvantaged Rural Communities

Abstract

High-achieving students in economically disadvantaged, rural schools lack access to advanced coursework necessary to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educational and employment goals at the highest levels, contributing to the excellence gap. Out-of-school STEM programming offers one pathway to students’ talent development. Using a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods research design, this study was conducted to evaluate the experiences of 78 high-achieving students and their 32 teachers, participating in an extracurricular, school-based, STEM talent development program for rural students from economically disadvantaged communities. Findings suggest that students and teachers expressed satisfaction with program participation and that they thought more creatively and critically about their work. Results also showed that students’ perceptions of the mathematics and science activities were significantly different, which informs ways to improve programming for future high-achieving, rural students. These findings expand the literature supporting the use of informal STEM education environments for underserved gifted populations to increase engagement in and access to challenging curricula.

Keywords

gifted programming rural STEM talent development low-income students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America after 3pm: Key findings. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM-2014/AA3PM_Key_Findings.pdf

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol.2). Iowa City: The University of Lowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline

S. G.

Ihrig

L. M.

Mahatmya

(2017). Closing the excellence gap: Investigation of an expanded talent search model for student selection into an extracurricular STEM program in rural middle schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 250–261. doi:10.1177/0016986217701833

Assouline

S. G.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45–59.

Avery

L. M.

(2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory Into Practice, 52, 28–35.

Business Roundtable. (2014). CEOs say skills gap threatens U.S. economic future. Retrieved from http://businessroundtable.org/media/news-releases/ceos-say-skills-gap-threatens-us-economic-future

Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. (2015). STEM identity and engagement around diverse youth. Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/knowledge-base/stem-identity-and-engagement-among-diverse-youth

Congress.gov . (2015). H.R. 1806—America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1806/text

Croft

Wood

S. M.

(2015). Professional development for teachers and school counselors: Empowering a change in perception and practice of acceleration. In Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 181–188). Iowa City: The University of Lowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

10.

Duschl

R. A.

Schweingruber

H. A.

Shouse

A. W.

(Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

11.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2005). Applying Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–101). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12.

Greene

M. J.

(2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25(2), 65–72.

13.

Greene

M. J.

(2006). Helping build lives: Career and life development of gifted and talented students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 34–42.

14.

Holdren

J. P.

Lander

(2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

15.

Jacobs

J. E.

Finken

L. L.

Griffin

N. L.

Wright

J. D.

(1998). The career plans of science-talented rural adolescent girls. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 681–704.

16.

Kitano

M. K.

(2007). Poverty, diversity, and promise. In Van Tassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners: Conference proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners (pp. 31–35). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

17.

Kittleson

Morgan

J. T.

(2012). Schools in balance: Comparing Iowa physics teachers and teaching in large and small schools. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 39, 8–12.

18.

Lapan

R. T.

Tucker

Kim

Kosciulek

J. F.

(2003). Preparing rural adolescents for post-high school transitions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 329–342.

19.

Lawrence Hall of Science. (2009). Great explorations in math and science (GEMS). Berkley, CA: Author.

20.

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, 316–345.

21.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

Swiatek

M. A.

(1999). Elementary student talent searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 265–272.

22.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Milgram

R. M.

Hong

(1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77–87.

24.

Monk

D. H.

(2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155–174.

25.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

26.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2001). Navigation series middle school bundle 6–8. Reston, VA: Author.

27.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://informalscience.org/research/ic-000-000-002-024/LSIE

28.

National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

29.

National Rural Education Association. (2016). The voice of rural schools and communities. Available from http://www.nrea.net/

30.

National Science Board. (2014). Re-visiting the STEM workforce: A companion to the science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

31.

Newman

J. L.

Dantzler

Coleman

A. N.

(2015). Science in action: How middle school students are changing their world through STEM service learning projects. Theory Into Practice, 54, 47–54.

32.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

S.-Y.

(2005). How schools use talent search scores for gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 27, 233–240.

33.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Limburg-Weber

(1999). Options for middle school and secondary level gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 4–11.

34.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(2016). Aiming talent development toward creative eminence in the 21st century. Roeper Review, 38, 140–152.

35.

Osborne

J. A.

Simon

S. B.

Collins

(2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.

36.

Plucker

J. A.

Harris

(2015). Acceleration and economically vulnerable children. In Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 181–188). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

37.

Plucker

J. A.

Peters

S. J.

(2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

38.

Rogers

K. B.

(2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 19–29). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

39.

Schafft

K. A.

Jackson

A. Y.

(Eds.). (2011). Rural education for the twenty-first century: Identity, place, and community in a globalizing world. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

40.

Schwartz

S. E.

Noam

G. G.

(2007). Informal science learning in afterschool settings: A natural fit? Retrieved from http://informalscience.org/research/ic-000-000-008-501/Informal_Science_Learning_in_Afterschool

41.

Shymansky

Wang

T. L.

Annetta

Everett

Yore

L. D.

(2013). The impact of a multiyear systemic reform effort on rural elementary school students’ science achievement. School Science & Mathematics, 113, 69–79.

42.

Southern

W. T.

Jones

E. D.

(2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

Van Tassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 9–18). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

43.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). SMPY in the beginning. In Benbow

C. P.

Lubinski

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

44.

Stanley

J. C.

(2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16, 5–14.

45.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2007). The talent search model: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 320–329.

46.

Tai

R. H.

Liu

C. Q.

Maltese

A. V.

Fan

(2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.

47.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

48.

VanTassel-Baska

Hubbard

G. F.

(2015). Serving the rural gifted child through advanced curriculum. In Stambaugh

Wood

S. M.

(Eds.), Serving gifted students in rural settings (pp. 155–178). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

49.

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, 860–871.

50.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Wettersten

K. B.

Guilmino

Herrick

C. G.

Hunter

P. J.

Kim

G. Y.

Jagow

. . . McCormick

(2005). Predicting educational and vocational attitudes among rural high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 658–663.