During the Cultivating Diverse Talent in STEM (CDTIS) Project, a team of scientists, teachers, and a researcher developed a performance-based assessment of high school students’ creative problem-solving skills and ability to apply physical science principles in practical ways. It was one of six measures to identify exceptionally talented students. Students identified using conventional methods (M1), with an average grade point average (GPA) of 3.93, had an average rating of 2.95 on a 5-point scale on the mechanical–technical assessment. The M2 students, who were from schools with high percentages of Hispanic, American Indian, and low socioeconomic status (SES) students, had an average GPA of 3.07 and an average rating of 3.27, demonstrating that this assessment can be an important way to change the cultural and economic balance of students identified as exceptionally talented in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Other researchers are encouraged to examine the validity of the mechanical–technical assessment to identify exceptionally talented students in different groups.
AustinL. B.ShoreB. M. (1993).
Concept mapping of high and average achieving students and experts. European Journal of Ability,
4(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445930040207
6.
BaharA. K.MakerC. 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/1932202X20906130
7.
CarterL.Darling-HammondL. (2016). Teaching diverse learners. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching on teaching (5th ed., pp. 593–637). American Educational Research Association.
8.
DeHaanR. L. (2009).
Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sciences Education,
8(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
9.
DeVriesM.Shires-GolonA. (2011). Making education relevant for gifted Native Americans: Teaching to their learning style. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 47–72). Prufrock Press.
10.
DinoR. (2017). Connected but different: Comparing and contrasting creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. In J. A. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 23–34). Prufrock Press.
11.
DonovanS.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
The National Academies Press.
12.
DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (2014). Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge for American education.
Harvard Education Press.
13.
ElvanÝ. N. C. E.GüvenE.AydogduM. (2010).
Effect of problem solving method on science process skills and academic achievement. Journal of Turkish Science Education,
7(4), 13–25.
14.
ErdimezO.TanS.ZimmermanR. (2017).
The use of concept maps as a tool to measure higher level thinking skills in elementary school science classes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists,
5(2), 1–20.
15.
FlanaganD.OrtizS. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment.
John Wiley.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
Basic Books.
18.
GardnerH. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77–120). Kluver.
GetzelsJ.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art.
John Wiley.
21.
GloverJ. A. (1976).
Comparative levels of creative ability among elementary school children. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
129(1), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1976.10534020
22.
GonzalezH. B.KuenziJ. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
23.
GriffithsS. E. (1996). The inter-observer reliability of the DISCOVER problem-solving assessment [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, The University of Arizona.
İngeçŞ. K. (2009).
Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education,
31(14), 1897–1915. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802275820
26.
IvcevicZ.KaufmanJ. C. (2013).
The can and cannot do attitude: How self-estimates of ability vary across ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Learning and Individual Differences,
27, 144–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.011
27.
JenkinsA. H. (2005).
Creativity and resilience in the African American experience. The Humanistic Psychologist,
33(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473333thp3301_3
28.
KaufmanJ. C. (2006).
Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology,
20, 1065–1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1255
29.
KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ.GentileC. A. (2004).
Differences in gender and ethnicity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior,
38(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01231.x
30.
LopezE.KimJ.NandagopalK.CardinN.ShavelsonR. J.PennJ. H. (2011).
Validating the use of concept-mapping as a diagnostic assessment tool in organic chemistry: Implications for teaching.Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
12(2), 133–141.
31.
MakerC. J. (1996).
Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly,
40(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000106
32.
Maker, C. J. (2005). The DISCOVER Project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners [Senior scholars series monograph]. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
33.
Maker, C. J. (2020a). Culturally responsive assessments of spatial analytical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20910697
34.
MakerC. J. (2020b).
Identifying exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Increasing diversity and assessing creative problem-solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 161–210.
35.
MakerC. J.AlhusainiA. A.PeaseR.ZimmermanR.AlamiriF. Y. (2015).
Developing creativity, talents, and interests across the lifespan: Centers for creativity and innovation. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education,
5(2), 83–109.
36.
MakerC. J.AnuruthwongU. (2003, August). The miracle of learning: The prism model [Conference session]. 15th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Students, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
37.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2005). Teaching models in education of the gifted (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
38.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
39.
MakerC. J.ZimmermanR. (2020). Concept maps as assessments of expertise: Understanding of the complexity and interrelationships of concepts in science. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 254–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20921770
40.
MillerL. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
41.
National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press.
42.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. National Science Foundation.
NovakJ. D.CañasA. J. (2006).
The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization,
5(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
45.
OakesJ.LiptonM.AndersonL.StillmanJ. (2013). Teaching to change the world.
Paradigm Publishers.
46.
PeaseR.VukeM.MakerC. J.MuammarO. M. (2020). A practical guide for implementing the STEM assessment results in classrooms: Using strength-based reports and real engagement in active problem solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 367–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20911643
47.
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
48.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978).
What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
60(3), 180–184.
49.
Ruiz-PrimoM. (2003, April). A framework to examine cognitive validity [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL, United States.
50.
Ruiz-PrimoM. (2007). Assessment in science and mathematics: Lessons learned. In M. Hoepfl & M. Lindstrom (Eds.), Assessment of technology education, CTTE 56th yearbook (pp. 203–232). Glencoe McGraw-Hill.
51.
Ruiz-PrimoM. (2009, February). Towards a framework for assessing 21st century science skills [Paper presentation]. Workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills, National Research Council, Washington, DC, United States.
52.
Ruiz-PrimoM.ShavelsonR.LiM.SchultzS. (2001).
On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment,
7(2), 99–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0702_2
53.
SandriO. J. (2013).
Exploring the role and value of creativity in education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research,
19(6), 765–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.749978
54.
SarouphimK. M. (1999).
Discovering multiple intelligences through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children,
65(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500201
55.
SarouphimK. M. (2009).
The use of a performance assessment for identifying gifted lebanese students: Is DISCOVER effective?Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
33(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300206
ShavelsonR.Ruiz-PrimoM.LiM.AyalaC. (2002). Evaluating new approaches to assessing learning (CSE: Technical Report 604).
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California,
Los Angeles.
58.
ShenJ.LiuO. L.ChangH. (2017).
Assessing students’ deep conceptual understanding in physical sciences: An example on sinking and floating. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
15(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9680-z
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. C.RauschM. K.CuadradoJ.ChungC. (2008).
Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children,
74(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301
61.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life.
First Agency Publishing.
62.
SternbergR. J. (1999).
Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0998
63.
SternbergR. J. (2005).
The theory of successful intelligence.Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology,
39(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940001500103
64.
SternbergR. J. (2010).
Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences,
20(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003
65.
TorranceE. P. (1971).
Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking biased against or in favor of “disadvantaged” groups?Gifted Child Quarterly,
15, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627101500201
66.
TracyB. (2015). Creativity and problem solving. AMACOM.
ZimmermanR.MakerC. J.AlfaizF. S. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of life science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20923981
