The present qualitative study was conducted in response to federal initiatives aimed at increasing the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) schools in the United States; and to better understand STEM high school administrators’, teachers’, and students’ perceptions of the characteristics of the curricular and instructional strategies and practices representative of their schools. Six STEM high schools with diverse organizational models were purposively selected to represent varied geographical regions, socioeconomic and ethnic groups, and levels of entrance criteria. During 2-day site visits at each school, administrators, teachers, and students were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) a common vision of a challenging and engaging learning environment, (b) a focus on applying curricular and instructional strategies and practices to real-world problems, and (c) an appreciation for academic and affective support in the challenging learning environment. Interested stakeholders might discover strategies and practices to support their respective missions.
BirksM.ChapmanY.FrancisK. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13, 68-75.
4.
BloomB. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook I). New York, NY: Longman.
5.
BloomB. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
6.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BronfenbrennerU. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In HusénT.PostlethwaiteT. N. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
8.
Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs in K-12 STEM Education & National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158
9.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; & Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
10.
CostaA. L. (2001). Teacher behaviors that enable student thinking. In CostaA. L. (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd. ed., pp. 359-369). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
CrossT. L.FrazierA. D. (2010). Guiding the psychosocial development of gifted students attending specialized residential schools. Roeper Review, 32, 32-41.
13.
De WittN. (1961). Education and professional employment in the U.S.S.R. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
14.
GagnéF. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GallM. D.RhodyT. (1987). Review of research on questioning techniques. In WilenW. W. (Ed.), Questions, questioning, techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 23-48). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
HébertT. P. (2011). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
18.
Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education. (n.d.). The motivation to learn begins with a problem. Retrieved from http://www.udel.edu/inst/
19.
JonesB. M. (2009). Profiles of state-supported residential math and science schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 472-501.
20.
KolloffP. B. (2003). State-supported residential high schools. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 238-245). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
LundgrenD. D.LaugenR. C.LindemanC. A.ShapiroM. J.ThomasJ. (2011). Schools like ours: Realizing our STEM future. Lynchburg, VA: National Consortium for Specialized Schools of Mathematics, Science, and Technology.
22.
LynchS. J.BehrendT.BurtonE. P.MeansB. (2013, April6-9). Inclusive STEM-focused high schools: STEM education policy and opportunity structures. Paper presented at the NARST 2013 Annual Conference in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
23.
MarshallS. P. (2010). Re-imagining specialized STEM academies: Igniting and nurturing decidedly different minds by design. Roeper Review, 32, 48-60.
24.
MarshallS. P.McGeeG. W.McLarenE.VealC. C. (2011). Discovering and developing diverse STEM talent: Enabling academically talented urban youth to flourish. Gifted Child Today, 34, 16-23.
25.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
29.
National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? (Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
30.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70.
31.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PfeifferS. I. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of giftedness in children. New York, NY: Springer.
34.
PfeifferS. I.OverstreetM.ParkA. (2010). The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: A nationwide survey. Roeper Review, 32, 25-31.
RappK. E. (2008). Special schools. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 617-628). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
38.
RedfieldD. L.RousseauE. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 237-245.
39.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
40.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
RobertsJ. L. (2010). Lessons learned: Advocating for a specialized school of mathematics and science. Roeper Review, 32, 42-47.
42.
RobertsJ. L. (2013). The Gatton Academy: A case study of a state residential high school with a focus on mathematics and science. Gifted Child Today, 36, 193-200.
43.
SamsonG. E.StrykowskiB.WeinteinT.WalbergH. J. (1987). The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 290-295.
44.
SaylerM. F. (2006). Special schools for the gifted and talented. In DixonF. A.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 547-559). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
45.
ScottC. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the U.S. Journal of STEM Education, 13(5), 30-39.
46.
ScottP. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.
47.
ShaunessyE. (2005). Questioning strategies for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
48.
SobelI. (1978). The human capital revolution in economic development: Its current history and status. Comparative Education Review, 22, 278-308.
49.
StanleyJ. C. (1987). State residential high schools for mathematically talented youth. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 770-772.
50.
StepienW.GallagherS. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25-28.
51.
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. (2011). What makes for successful K-12 STEM education: A closer look at the effective STEM education approaches (Serial No. 112-42). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70588/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70588.pdf
52.
SubotnikR.EdmistonA.RayhackK. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. In CsermelyP.KorlevicK.SulyokK. (Eds.), Science education, models and networking of student research training under 21 (pp. 28-38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
53.
SubotnikR. F.JarvinL. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343-357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SubotnikR. F.KolarC.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CrossT. L. (2010). Specialized science high schools: Exploring contributions of the model to adolescent talent development. Roeper Review, 32, 5-6.
55.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
56.
SubotnikR. F.TaiR. H.RickoffR.AlmarodeJ. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years?Roeper Review, 32, 7-16.
57.
TaiR. H.LiuC. Q.MalteseA. V.FanX. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144.
58.
TannenbaumA. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan.
59.
TannenbaumA. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
TannerD.TannerL. N. (1980). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
61.
ThomasD. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246.
62.
ThomasJ. (2000). First year findings: NCSSSMST longitudinal study of gifted students. NCSSSMST Journal, 5(2), 4-6.
63.
ThomasJ.LoveB. L. (2002). An analysis of post-graduation experiences among gifted secondary students. NCSSSMST Journal, 6(1), 3-8.
64.
ThomasJ.WilliamsC. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17-24.
65.
TomlinsonC. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
66.
TomlinsonC. A.EidsonC. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum grades K-5. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
67.
TomlinsonC. A.ImbeauM. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
68.
TomlinsonC. A.JarvisJ. (2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning & instruction. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 599-628). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
69.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
70.
WinneP. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13-50.
