Mentoring Talented Science Students: Knowing the Options

Abstract

The dilemma that propelled Jeff and his older brother Mark to an international high school science competition began when their mother, who feared they would contract the West Nile virus, insisted that the boys cover any exposed skin when outside. Determined to prove that it was not necessary to wear long sleeved shirts and pants on hot summer days, Jeff and Mark explored methods to assess their chances of contracting the West Nile virus if bitten by a mosquito in their Connecticut hometown. “The Science Boys,” a title bestowed by a local newspaper reporter (Murphy, 2004), worked with chemistry teacher and mentor David White, who helped the boys master a powerful software program necessary for their investigation. Jeff and Mark's curiosity, persistence and hard work led to their participation in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science and Technology and a prize of $100,000. Why were Jeff and Mark successful in their endeavor when evidence shows that many students with high aptitude in science fail to live up to their potential?

This paper explores the issues around the development of pupils with high level potential in science.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bondy

Brillman

Kaufman

(2007). The top of the class: The complete list of the 1,300 top U.S. schools. Newsweek. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from HYPERLINK “http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380/?sort=Rank&count=1236&start=0&limit=100&year=2007&Search=undefined” http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380/?sort=Rank&count=1236&start=0&limit=100&year=2007&Search=undefined

Brandwein

P. F.

(1981). The gifted student as future scientist. Ventura County, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute.

Brandwein

P. F.

(1995). Science talent in the young as expressed within the ecologies of achievement (RBDM 9510). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Callahan

C. M.

(2003). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs for talented students in American high schools: A focus on science and mathematics (RM03176). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Cavanaugh

(2006, June 7). NAEP scores show few budding scientists. Education Week [Electronic Version], 25(39), 5–16.

The College Board (2006). Advanced placement: Report to the nation. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from HYPERLINK “http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/ap/2006/2006_ap-report-nation.pdf” http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/ap/2006/2006_ap-report-nation.pdf

Crosby

F.J.

(1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In Murrell

A. J.

Crosby

F. J.

Ely

R. J.

(Eds.), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rathunde

Whalen

(1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Downing

Crosby

Blake-Beard

(2005). The perceived importance of developmental relationships on women undergraduates' pursuit of science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 419–426.

12.

Fort

D. C.

(1990). From gifts to talents in science. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 664–671.

13.

Gavin

K. M.

(1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women's college. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 476.

14.

Hardcastle

(1988). Spiritual connections: Proteges' reflections on significant mentorships. Theory into Practice, 27, 201.

15.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

Kyburg

R. M.

(2006). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: A “fit” for gifted learners? (RM06222). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Center on the Gifted and Talented.

16.

Hilton

T. L.

Hsia

Solorzano

D. G.

Benton

N. L.

(1989). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.

17.

Hoff

Cavanaugh

(2007). Math-science bills advance in Congress. Education Week, 26(35), 1, 23.

18.

Intel STS. (2007). About Intel STS: Background. Retrieved October 24, 2007. HYPERLINK “http://www.sciserv.org/sts/about/background.asp” http://www.sciserv.org/sts/about/background.asp .

19.

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2007). International Baccalaureate: Quality education for a better world. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from HYPERLINK “http://www.ibo.org/”http://www.ibo.org/

20.

Johnson

D. T.

Boyce

L. N.

VanTassel-Baska

(1995). Science curriculum review: Evaluating materials for high-ability learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 36–44.

21.

King

D. A.

(2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.

22.

Kolloff

P. B.

(2003). State-supported residential high schools. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 238–246). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

23.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Association for Psychological Science. 1, 316–344.

24.

Moncur

(2007). The Quotations Page. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from HYPERLINK “http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/9429.html” http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/9429.html

25.

Moss

D. M.

(2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON Project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science and Technology, 12, 21–30.

26.

Murphy

M. M.

(2004, June 13). The science boys. Northeast: The Sunday Magazine of The Hartford Courant, pp. 1, 5–8.

27.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

28.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (1988). Science learning matters. Princeton, N. J.: Ablex.

29.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

30.

National Science Foundation. (1978). The status of pre-college education in mathematics and social science educational practices in U. S. schools: An overview and summary of three studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

31.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). Science education statistics. Retrieved June 2003 from http://www.nsta.org/presrel/factsheet.asp .

32.

Passow

A. H.

(1957). Developing a science program for rapid learners. Science Education, 41, 104–112.

33.

Passow

A. H.

(1988a). The educating and schooling of the community of artisans in science. In: Brandwein

P. F.

Passow

A. H.

(Eds.), Gifted Young in Science: Potential through performance (pp. 27–38). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

34.

Passow

A. H.

(1988b). School, university, laboratory and museum cooperation in identifying and nurturing potential scientists. In: Brandwein

P. F.

Passow

A. H.

(Eds.), Gifted Young in Science: Potential through performance (pp. 245–253). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

35.

Powell

(2005). Science education: Hothouse high. Nature, 435, 874–875.

36.

Rand

Gibb

L. H.

(1989). A model program gifted girls in science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 142–155.

37.

Reis

S. M.

(1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative learning Press.

38.

Reis

S. M.

Graham

(2005). NEEDED: Teachers to encourage girls in math, science, and technology. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 14–21.

39.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2003). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 33–40, 57–58.

40.

Renzulli

J. S.

Leppien

Hays

T. S.

(2000). Multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press.

41.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment model triad 1. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(7), 7–20.

42.

Sosniak

(1985). Becoming an outstanding research neurologist. In: Bloom

B. S.

(Ed.), Developing Talent in Young Children (pp. 348–408). New York: Ballantine.

43.

Subotnik

R. F.

(1988). Factors from the structure of intellect model associated with gifted adolescents' problem finding in science: Research with Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(1), 42–54.

44.

Subotnik

R. F.

(1992). Talent developed: Conversations with masters of the arts and sciences. Master at the mind's work: An interview with Dr. Frank Wilczek. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 370–381.

45.

Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(1996). Success and sacrifice: The costs of fulfillment for women in science. In: Arnold

Noble

K. D.

Subotnik

R. F.

(eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 263–280). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

46.

Subotnik

R. F.

Duschl

R. A.

Selmon

E. H.

(1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72.

47.

Subotnik

R. F

Steiner

C. L.

(1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse science talent search winners. In: Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

48.

Subotnik

R. F.

Stone

K. M.

Steiner

(2001). Lost generation of elite talent in science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(1), 33.

49.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Kaplan

S. N.

Renzulli

J. S.

Purcell

Leppien

Burns

(2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

50.

Tyler-Wood

T. L.

Mortenson

Putney

Cass

M. A.

(2000). An effective mathematics and science curriculum option for secondary gifted education. Roeper Review, 22, 266–270.

51.

U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2007). All technologies report. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/all_tech.pdf

52.

VanTassel-Baska

Bass

Ries

Poland

Avery

L. D.

(1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.

53.

VanTassel-Baska

Kulieke

M. J.

(1987). The role of community-based scientific resources in developing scientific talent: A case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 111–115.

54.

Viadero

(2005, October 19). Panel urges U.S. push to raise math, science achievement. Education Week [Electronic Version], 25(8), 6.

55.

Yeats

W. B.

(2005). The mentor: An academic advising journal. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from the Pennsylvania State University Center for Excellence in Academic Advising Web site: HYPERLINK“http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/foru0506.htm”http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/foru0506.htm