A research team consisting of educators of gifted students, a scientist, and experts in measurement developed a performance-based assessment of life science skills and abilities. Four high schools in the Southwestern United States were the settings for field testing and implementation. Five levels of ratings were given: unknown, maybe, probably, definitely, and wow. The majority of student scores were in the maybe and probably categories. Using six new measures (concept maps in life and physical science, math problem solving, spatial analytical performance assessment, life science performance assessment and physical science performance assessment), 23 students (M2) were selected for participation in science laboratories at an R1 university along with 20 students (M1) selected by conventional means. When the nine attribute scores of the performance-based assessment were compared, no significant difference was found t(41), p > .38, between M1 and M2 students. Performance-based assessments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) will provide an alternative and a complement to standard achievement tests. They have the potential to identify and nurture exceptionally talented high school students across all demographic groups.
AlfaizF. S.PeaseR.MakerC. J. (2020).
Culturally responsive assessment of physical science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20920572
2.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity.
Springer.
3.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Westview Press.
4.
AmabileT. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In KesslerriE. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139).
Sage.
BacharachV. R.BaumeisterA. A.FurrR. M. (2003).
Racial and gender science achievement gaps in secondary education. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
164(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320309597507
7.
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/10.1177/1932202X20906130
8.
CarterL.Darling-HammondL. (2016). Teaching diverse learners. In GitomerD. H.BellC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching on teaching (5th ed., pp. 593–637).
American Educational Research Association.
9.
ClasenD. R.MiddletonJ. A.ConnellT. J. (1994).
Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly,
38(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800104
10.
DeHaanR. L. (2009).
Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. Life Sciences Education,
8(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
11.
DikliS. (2003).
Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
2(3), 13–19.
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.
FordD. Y. (1998).
The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education,
32(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200102
15.
FordD. Y. (2006).
Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education,
64(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967284
16.
FordD. Y.WhitingG. W. (2006).
Underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted education: Recommendations for nondiscriminatory assessment (Part 1). Gifted Education Press Quarterly,
20(2), 2–6.
17.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
Basic Books.
18.
GardnerH. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In GiffordB.O’ConnorM. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77–120).
Springer.
19.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
Basic Books.
GetzelsJ.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art.
John Wiley.
22.
GonzalezH. B.KuenziJ. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer.
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
23.
GuignardJ. H.KermarrecS.TordjmanS. (2016).
Relationships between intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences,
52, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.006
24.
HerasM.Ruiz-MallénI. (2017).
Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: How to measure the impact?International Journal Science Education,
39(18), 2482–2507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643
KindP. M.KindV. (2007).
Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education,
43(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225
27.
KleinS. P.JovanovicJ.StecherB. M.McCaffreyD.ShavelsonR. J.HaertelE.ComfortK. (1997).
Gender and racial/ethnic differences on performance assessments in science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
19(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002083
28.
KohlhaasK.LinH. H.ChuK. L. (2010).
Disaggregated outcomes of gender, ethnicity, and poverty on fifth grade science performance. RMLE Online,
33(7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2010.11462070
29.
KuoP. H. (2016).
Effects of synchronous web-based instruction on students’ thinking styles and creativity.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,
12(3), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1234a
30.
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
31.
MakerC. J. (2005). The DISCOVER project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners [Senior Scholars Series Monograph]. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
32.
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.
33.
MakerC. J. (2020a). Identifying exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Increasing diversity and assessing creative problem-solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 161–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20918203
34.
MakerC. J. (2020b).
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
35.
MakerC. J.AnuruthwongU. (2003). The miracle of learning: The prism model [Conference session]. In Proceedings of the 15th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Students, Adelaide, Australia. World Council for Gifted and Talented Students.
36.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2005). Teaching models in education of the gifted (3rd ed.).
Pro-Ed.
37.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.).
Pro-Ed.
38.
MakerC. J.ZimmermanR. H. (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
39.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003).
Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
47(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
40.
MilgramR. M.HongE. (1993).
Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. Roeper Review,
15(3), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553487
41.
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.
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital.
National Science Foundation.
44.
NeillD. M.MedinaN. J. (1989).
Standardized testing: Harmful to educational health. The Phi Delta Kappan,
70(9), 688–697.
45.
NielsonA. B. (1994).
Traditional identification: Elitist, racist, sexist? New evidence.CAG Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted,
24(3), 18–31.
46.
OakesJ.LiptonM.AndersonL.StillmanJ. (2013). Teaching to change the world.
Paradigm.
47.
PeaseR.VukeM. H.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
48.
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) Gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education.
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
49.
QuartaroliM.ShermanF. (2011). Problem-based learning: Valuing cultural diversity in science education with native students. In ReyhnerJ.GilbertW. S.LockardL. (Eds.), Honoring our heritage: Culturally appropriate approaches to indigenous education (pp. 57–74).
Northern Arizona University. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/∼jar/HOH/HOH-4.pdf
50.
QuinnD. M.CoocN. (2015).
Science achievement gaps by gender and race/ethnicity in elementary and middle school: Trends and predictors. Educational Researcher,
44(6), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15598539
51.
ReinosoJ. L. (2011).
Real-life problem solving: Examining the effects of alcohol within a community on the Navajo nation. Gifted Education International,
27(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700306
52.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978).
What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
60(3), 180–184.
53.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented.
Creative Learning Press.
54.
ResnickL. B.ResnickD. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In GiffordB. R.O’ConnorM. C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude achievement and instruction (pp. 37–76).
Springer Science and Business Media.
55.
Ruiz-PrimoM. (2003). A framework to examine cognitive validity [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.
56.
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.
57.
Ruiz-PrimoM. (2009). Towards a framework for assessing 21st century science skills. In Workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills, National Research Council. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072612.pdf
58.
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
59.
SakU.AyasM. B. (2013).
Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling,
55(3), 316–329.
60.
SandriO. J. (2013).
Exploring the role and value of creativity in education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research,
19(6), 765–778. http://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.749978
61.
SarouphimK. M. (2001).
DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
45(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500206
62.
SarouphimK. M. (2002).
DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
14(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-385
63.
SarouphimK. M.MakerC. J. (2010).
Ethnic and gender differences in identifying gifted students: A multi-cultural analysis. International Education,
39(2), 42–56.
64.
SaveryJ. R. (1999). Enhancing motivation and learning through collaboration and the use of problems. In FellowsS.AhmetK. (Eds.), Inspiring students: Case studies in motivating the learner (pp. 33–42).
Kogan Page.
65.
SaveryJ. R.DuffyT. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In WilsonB. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148).
Educational Technology.
66.
ShavelsonR.Ruiz-PrimoM.LiM.AyalaC. (2002). Evaluating new approaches to assessing learning (CSE Technical Report No. 604). Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/University of California.
67.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
Cambridge University Press.
68.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life.
First Agency.
69.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity.
Cambridge University Press.
70.
SternbergR. J. (2005).
The theory of successful intelligence. Revista Interamericana De Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology,
39(2), 189–202.
71.
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
WuI. C.PeaseR.MakerC. J. (2019).
Students’ perceptions of a special program for developing exceptional talent in STEM. Journal of Advanced Academics,
30(4), 474–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19864690
79.
YinY. (2005). The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University.
