This praxis article investigated how podcasting can enhance engagement, motivation, and meaningful experiences among Latiné elementary students who exhibit gifted potential but remain underserved by traditional identification methods. Conducted in a diverse urban school in the southeastern United States, the four-week project involved four fourth- and fifth-grade students in creating personal podcast episodes, allowing them to explore identity, interests, and storytelling through technology. Data from surveys, observations, and student work suggest that podcasting supports equitable access to advanced learning opportunities by fostering creativity, challenge, and belongingness. The project used holistic identification strategies and emphasized culturally relevant, student-driven learning. Findings revealed increased affective engagement and academic confidence, leading to the identification of three of the four students for gifted services. Results highlight podcasting's value for addressing opportunity and excellence gaps in gifted education. The findings underscore the importance of inclusive instructional approaches that amplify student voice and reveal potential not captured by conventional assessments.
BaumS. M.SchaderR. M.HébertT. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547632
2.
BloomL. A.DossK. (2021). Can creativity improve engagement and emotional wellbeing?NCAGT (North Carolina Association for Gifted & Talented) Newsletter.
CeciM.KumarV. (2016). A correlational study of creativity, happiness, motivation, and stress from creative pursuits. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9615-y
5.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
6.
Comas-DíazL. (2001). Hispanics, Latinos, or Americanos: The evolution of identity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.7.2.115
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
8.
DrewC. (2017). Edutaining audio: An exploration of education podcast design possibilities. Educational Media International, 54(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1324360
9.
DversnesG.Blikstad-BalasM. (2023). The potential of podcasts for exploratory talk in high school. Computers in the Schools, 40(3), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2196963
10.
EncisoP.KroneB.SolangeG. (2023). Re-imagining community and school through youth and artists’ critical superhero storytelling. Social Sciences, 12(6), 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060363
11.
EsquierdoJ. J.Arreguín-AndersonM. (2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment and GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041
12.
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
13.
FordD. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. Teachers College Press.
14.
FordD. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563
15.
FordD. Y.WhitingG. W. (2007). A mind is a terrible thing to erase: Black students’ underrepresentation in gifted education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 10(1-2), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.56829/muvo.10.1-2.604461l211051037
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
18.
GardnerH. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons (Rev. ed.). Basic Books/Hachette Book Group.
19.
GayG. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
20.
GentryM.WhitingG.GrayA. M. (2024). Systemic inequities in identification and representation of black youth with gifts and talents: Access, equity, and missingness in urban and other school locales. Urban Education, 59(6), 1730–1773. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859221095000
21.
GilsonC. M.LeeL. E. (2023). Cultivating a learning environment to support diverse gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 46(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231186454. (Original work published 2023)
22.
GrayA.GentryM. (2024). Hispanic and Latinx youth with gifts and talents: Access, representation, and missingness in gifted education across the United States. Journal of Latinos and Education, 23(2), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2023.2180365
23.
GuoJ.WoulfinS. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: An investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Review, 38(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741
24.
HuntL.Yoshida-EhrmannE. (2016). Linking schools of thought to schools of practice. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 39(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516644650
25.
KaraS.TekindurA. (2025). The effect of differentiated instruction on the academic achievement and opinions of 3rd-grade students in science education: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Intelligence, 13(10), Article 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13100126
26.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320
27.
LlopartM.Esteban-GuitartM. (2018). Funds of knowledge in 21st century societies: Inclusive educational practices for under-represented students. A literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1247913
28.
LohmanD. F. (2005). Identifying academically talented minority students. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
29.
MacapugayK.NakamuraB. (2024). The student empowerment through narrative, storytelling, engagement, and identity (SENSEI) framework for student and community empowerment: A culturally affirming pedagogy. Genealogy, 8(3), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8030094
30.
MartínezD. E.GonzalezK. E. (2021). Panethnicity as a reactive identity: Primary panethnic identification among latino-hispanics in the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(4), 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1752392
31.
MatthewsM. S. (2014). Alternative perspectives on identifying gifted learners: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 358–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14549355
32.
MatthewsM. S.McBeeM. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207299473
33.
MatthewsM. S.RhodesH. A. (2020). Examining identification practices and services for young advanced and gifted learners in selected North Carolina school districts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20908878
34.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-681
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003). The school attitude assessment survey-revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403063003005
37.
McGowanM. R.RungeT. J.PedersenJ. A. (2016). Using curriculum-based measures for identifying gifted learners. Roeper Review, 38(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1150376
38.
MertlerC. A. (2021). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
39.
MillsG. E. (2018). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.
40.
MollL. C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
41.
MooreJ. L.FlowersL. A. (2012). Increasing the representation of African American males in gifted and talented programs. In LewisS.CasserlyM.SimonC.UzzellR.PalaciosM. (Eds.), A call for change: Providing solutions for black male achievement (pp. 67–81). Council of the Great City Schools.
42.
MoraC. G. (2014). Making Hispanics: How activists, bureaucrats, and media constructed a new American. The University of Chicago Press.
43.
MoraC. G.OkamotoD. (2020). Boundary articulation and emergent identities: Asian and hispanic panethnicity in comparison 1970-1980. Social Problems, 67(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz003
44.
NacharN. (2008). The mann-whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples Come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.1.p013
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2004). Talent search: Purposes, rationale, and role in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800402
47.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
48.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. T. (2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
49.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK. E.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019). The effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education: A modeling study. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
50.
ReisS. M.PetersP. M. (2021). Research on the schoolwide enrichment model: Four decades of insights, innovation, and evolution. Gifted Education International, 37(2), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420963987
51.
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). Cambridge University Press.
52.
RhodesR. L.OchoaS. H.OrtizS. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. Guilford Press.
SnyderK. E.FongC. J.PainterJ. K.PittardC. M.BarrS. M.PatallE. A. (2019). Interventions for academically underachieving students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, Article 100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100294
55.
SolórzanoD. G.YossoT. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
56.
Speirs NeumeisterK. L.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503
57.
Steenbergen-HuS.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CalvertE. (2020). The effectiveness of current interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601
58.
SternbergR. J. (2003). WICS: A model of leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(4), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.11901997
59.
StringerE. T.AragónA. O. (2021). Action research (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
60.
TanC.-S.TanS.-A.HashimI.LeeM.-N.OngA. W.-H.YaacobS. (2019). Problem-solving ability and stress mediate the relationship between creativity and happiness. Creativity Research Journal, 31(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1568155
61.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000302
62.
VegaD.MooreI. I. I. L. J. (2018). Access to gifted education among African-American and latino males. Journal for Multicultural Education, 12(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2017-0006
63.
YehH. C.ChangW. Y.ChenH. Y.HengL. (2021). Effects of podcast-making on college students’ English speaking skills in higher education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(5), 2845–2867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10026-3
64.
YossoT. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
65.
ZackN. (eds) (2017). The Oxford handbook of philosophy and race. Oxford University Press.
66.
ZhouM.BrownD. (2020). Educational learning theories. Social Sci LibreTexts.
