The Davidson Fellows - Iowa Research Online - University of Iowa [PDF]

University of Iowa

Iowa Research Online Theses and Dissertations

Summer 2011

The Davidson Fellows: case studies in science talent development Ann M. Batenburg University of Iowa

Copyright 2011 Ann M. Batenburg This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1202 Recommended Citation Batenburg, Ann M.. "The Davidson Fellows: case studies in science talent development." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2011. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.t5eiq9t9.

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons

!

!

THE DAVIDSON FELLOWS: CASE STUDIES IN SCIENCE TALENT DEVELOPMENT

by Ann M. Batenburg

An Abstract Of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Teaching and Learning (Elementary Education) in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa

July 2011

Thesis Supervisors:

Professor Peter Hlebowitsh Professor David F. Lohman

!

!

!

1

ABSTRACT This study examined the talent development of five Davidson Fellowship science winners using the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent. The Davidson Fellowship program recognizes students under the age of 18 who have completed a significant piece of original work in one of six fields: science, technology, mathematics, music, literature, or philosophy. Parents of four of the Fellows also participated in the multiple-case study, which used semi-structured phone interviews to gather data. The cross-case analysis of this multiple-case study revealed that the Fellows traveled multiple pathways to success. Each Fellow and his family took advantage of different educational options, formal and informal. No consistent educational programming existed across participants from different schools in different areas of the country, except AP® courses and science fairs. The Fellows encountered a number of different negative catalysts in the environment, including a lack of challenge in the public schools, inconsistent treatment by teachers and administrators, variable availability of challenging school and extracurricular opportunities, difficulties with peers, and challenging logistical arrangements necessary for participation in extracurricular opportunities. The strength of these negative catalysts was offset by a number of protective factors, or positive catalysts. The positive catalysts were both strong and numerous in each of the Fellows. Each Fellow presented evidence of very high ability. They were healthy. They were raised in supportive learning environments that encouraged taking risks, striving for excellence, and improvement over earning good grades. They had multiple supportive adults in their lives: parents, teachers, and mentors who created a layered support system. When one adult was not available, there were others on whom the student could depend in a crisis. The parent relationship was particularly strong. Each Fellow reported, and each of the parents confirmed, a uniquely supportive relationship with their parents marked by mutual respect and admiration. Each Fellow presented

2

strong motivation for his work. Each displayed a candid awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses, and a willingness to confront and apply himself to remedy weaknesses. They all presented compelling evidence of a tenacious perseverance. Stronger than the negative catalysts, these positive catalysts worked in concert to protect the individual against failure or resignation. Abstract Approved:

__________________________________ Thesis Supervisor __________________________________ Title and Department __________________________________ Date __________________________________ Thesis Supervisor __________________________________ Title and Department __________________________________ Date

THE DAVIDSON FELLOWS: CASE STUDIES IN SCIENCE TALENT DEVELOPMENT

by Ann M. Batenburg

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Teaching and Learning (Elementary Education) in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa

July 2011

Thesis Supervisors:

Professor Peter Hlebowitsh Professor David F. Lohman

Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ___________________________ PH.D. THESIS ____________ This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of Ann M. Batenburg has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Teaching and Learning (Elementary Education) at the July 2011 graduation. Thesis Committee:

__________________________________ Peter Hlebowitsh, Thesis Supervisor __________________________________ David F. Lohman, Thesis Supervisor __________________________________ Susan G. Assouline __________________________________ Leslie Schrier __________________________________ John Dunkhase

To Todd, Amber and ThD

ii

You got a gift, Roy, but that's not enough. You rely too much on your gift, you'll fail. The Natural

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to acknowledge and thank the Davidson Institute for Talent Development and The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development for their support in completing this project.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 The Davidson Fellowship...........................................................................................2 Background Information ............................................................................................2 Brief Literature Review..............................................................................................6 Bloom ....................................................................................................................7 Feldman .................................................................................................................7 Gross......................................................................................................................8 Subotnik.................................................................................................................8 Feist .......................................................................................................................9 Csikszentmihalyi .................................................................................................10 SMPY ..................................................................................................................11 Conceptual Orientation: Investment Theory, the Star Model, and the DMGT........12 Investment Theory...............................................................................................13 The Start Model...................................................................................................15 The DMGT ..........................................................................................................15 Research Questions and Hypotheses........................................................................21 General Outline of Dissertation................................................................................22 Conclusion................................................................................................................23 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................25 Introduction ..............................................................................................................25 Natural Abilities .......................................................................................................25 Natural Abilities Defined ....................................................................................25 Literature Related to Natural Abilities ................................................................30 Developmental Process ............................................................................................43 Developmental Process Defined..........................................................................43 Literature Related to Developmental Process .....................................................44 Systematically Developed Competencies ................................................................51 Systematically Developed Competencies Defined..............................................51 Literature Related to Systematically Developed Competencies .........................51 Intrapersonal Catalysts .............................................................................................54 Intrapersonal Catalysts Defined ..........................................................................54 Literature Related to Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................55 Environmental Catalysts ..........................................................................................61 Environmental Catalysts Defined........................................................................61 Literature Related to Environmental Catalysts....................................................62 Milieu ..................................................................................................................63 Complex Interactions...........................................................................................65 Parents .................................................................................................................68 Teachers...............................................................................................................69 Mentors................................................................................................................71 Provisions ............................................................................................................73 Provisions for Spatial Ability ..............................................................................75 v

Political Milieu ....................................................................................................77 Conclusion................................................................................................................82 3. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................83 Introduction ..............................................................................................................83 Participants ...............................................................................................................84 Qualitative Research Methods .................................................................................85 Multiple Case Study Procedure................................................................................86 Interview Questions..................................................................................................86 Reliability, Validity, and Limitations.......................................................................95 Positioning................................................................................................................98 Summary ..................................................................................................................99 4. CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................................100 Introduction ............................................................................................................100 Case Study 1: Prithwis ...........................................................................................101 Introduction .......................................................................................................101 Systematically Developed Competencies..........................................................101 Natural Abilities ................................................................................................102 Developmental Process .....................................................................................103 Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................................................104 Environmental Catalysts....................................................................................106 Conclusion.........................................................................................................116 Case Study 2: Collin...............................................................................................117 Introduction .......................................................................................................117 Systematically Developed Competencies..........................................................118 Natural Abilities ................................................................................................120 Developmental Process .....................................................................................121 Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................................................127 Environmental Catalysts....................................................................................130 Conclusion.........................................................................................................136 Case Study 3: Sikandar ..........................................................................................137 Introduction .......................................................................................................137 Systematically Developed Competencies..........................................................138 Natural Abilities ................................................................................................142 Developmental Process .....................................................................................143 Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................................................147 Environmental Catalysts....................................................................................153 Conclusion.........................................................................................................158 Case Study 4: Nolan...............................................................................................159 Introduction .......................................................................................................159 Systematically Developed Competencies..........................................................159 Natural Abilities ................................................................................................170 Developmental Process .....................................................................................172 Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................................................175 Environmental Catalysts....................................................................................181 Conclusion.........................................................................................................189 Case Study 5: Roman .............................................................................................191 Introduction .......................................................................................................191 Systematically Developed Competencies..........................................................191 Natural Abilities ................................................................................................195 Developmental Process .....................................................................................195 vi

Intrapersonal Catalysts ......................................................................................200 Environmental Catalysts....................................................................................201 Conclusion.........................................................................................................206 5. CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS.........................207 Natural Abilities .....................................................................................................207 Intrapersonal Catalysts ...........................................................................................211 Environmental Catalysts ........................................................................................216 Developmental Process ..........................................................................................224 6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................227 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................234

vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for IQ and Creativity Test Scores (Z Scores for the Four Ability Groups: Gifted, Creative, Intelligent, and Average .................................37 2. The French Cross-Fostering Study (Martinez, 2000) ...................................................63 3. Interview Questions for Students..................................................................................89 4. Interview Questions for Parents....................................................................................94

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Visual model of the DMGT ...........................................................................................16 2. DMGT basements model: Foundation for natural abilities…...…...……………... ......20 3. Growth of general cognitive ability of the children from ages 43 months to 87 months ......................................................................................................................64 4. Mean scores of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test at 8 years of age .........................67

ix

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A 17-year-old young woman from New York, Danielle developed a method of recycling plastics that is cost-efficient and environmentally friendly. By exposing polymers to supercritical carbon dioxide, a phase of carbon dioxide that exhibits unique properties as a solvent, Danielle created a process of recycling that produces plastics that have equal or superior properties of the original material allowing for their continued use. Danielle’s process does not release toxins and may create a net loss of carbon dioxide. (http://www.davidsongifted.org) A 17-year-old young woman from New York, Sheela analyzed Paenibacillus larvae, the bacterium that causes American Foulbrood Disease (AFB), a fatal disease that attacks honeybee larvae. Sheela used the antimicrobial properties from the bees’ honeystomachs to create a safe, non-invasive and inexpensive preventative measure to protect honeybees in vivo from AFB. Because honeybees are critical to the pollination of flowering plants, including agricultural crops valued at billions of dollars per year, their continued survival is essential to ecosystems and economies worldwide. (http://www.davidsongifted.org) In her project, “Investigating an Allosteric Binding Site for a New Class of HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors,” Christine developed an approach to finding a more effective HIV treatment. She studied a region of the HIV protease, a protein crucial in the replication of HIV, and found that this region is a promising target for drugs to bind to change the shape of the protease, preventing it from performing its function. Christine’s research is an important contribution to the development of a new class of drugs to reduce the number of infections and deaths caused by HIV. (http://www.davidsongifted.org) Danielle, Sheela, and Christine, all former recipients of the Davidson Fellowship, were not graduate students or adult researchers in prestigious laboratories when they completed these projects. They were teenagers. Many had been working on their projects for several years when they won the Davidson Fellowship. One young researcher, for example, was 17 years old when he won, but his research with microbial fuel cells began when he was 13 years old (http://www.davidsongifted.org). This dissertation examines the factors that have contributed to the advanced science achievement of the Davidson Fellows. The main question asked in this

2

dissertation is: How have the different facets of the talent development process interacted to produce such a high level of competence at such a young age in the Davidson Fellows science winners? Sub questions include: What role do natural abilities play in the development of talent in science? How did intrapersonal catalysts help or hinder the development of talent in science? What were the environmental catalysts that had an impact on the process? How did the developmental process progress in these students? The Davidson Fellowship The Davidson Fellowship is a national talent award competition founded by the Davidson Institute for Talent Development (Davidson Institute) in 2001. It awards money to students under the age of 18 who have "completed a significant piece of work" in one of six academic areas, including science (http://www.davidsongifted.org). Studying how talent develops in the lives of eminent individuals is an important aspect of gifted education research. Some studies investigate eminent individuals later in life in an effort to uncover the factors that led to their achievements; other studies find gifted students in schools and follow them through to their careers outside of school. This study attempts to understand the talent development process while it is still developing in these accomplished teenagers. These young scientists have achieved a level of competence in their specific field usually reserved for adults, and have done it in an educational and political climate that has not favored gifted education. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine factors that have contributed to the advanced achievement of these students within this social context. Background Information Federally mandated programs and protections exist for nearly every group of public school student except gifted students. The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), or Title I, programs explicitly serve students in poverty. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protects the needs of children with

3

disabilities. The current incarnation of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, compels school districts to disaggregate data on the basis of gender, SES, race and ethnicity, English Language Learner and Special Education status. Proficiency is the goal of this legislation, not excellence, as there is no provision for gifted students in this law. Influencing students, particularly young women, to enter Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields has gained political traction in recent years, but the STEM issue is often discussed separately from gifted education. A recent report from the National Science Foundation begins to address this issue: “The National Science Board (Board) firmly believes that to ensure the long-term prosperity of our Nation, we must renew our collective commitment to excellence in education and the development of scientific talent. Currently, far too many of America’s best and brightest young men and women go unrecognized and underdeveloped, and, thus, fail to reach their full potential. This represents a loss for both the individual and society” (National Science Board, 2010). A strong message within this report addresses the needs of gifted education, but wraps those needs in the cloak of STEM education. The Board report in its first keystone recommendation states, “We cannot assume that our Nation’s most talented students will succeed on their own. Instead, we must offer coordinated, proactive, sustained formal and informal interventions to develop their abilities. Students should learn at a pace, depth, and breadth commensurate with their talents and interests and in a fashion that elicits engagement, intellectual curiosity, and creative problem solving—essential skills for future innovation.” (p. 11) The report includes two research goals relevant to the present study: • “Creating a research agenda on effective means for nurturing and developing the STEM talent in youth and early adulthood in order to accelerate the STEM productivity and creativity of such individuals over their careers.” • “Identifying strategies for nurturing the talents of those individuals in adolescence and early adulthood who are likely to become the next generation of high-level STEM professionals and innovators.”

4

The Board report encourages intervention for talented students, but makes no federal policy. Several potential reasons explain this lack of federal support for gifted education. One of the main reasons has to do with a national preoccupation with proficiency as opposed to excellence. One vision of gifted education implementation is the talent development model. Talent development seeks to identify and develop the strengths of all students, focusing on challenge and individual growth in specific content areas (Hertzog in Shavinina, 2009; Tannenbaum in Colangelo, 2003; Borland in Renzulli, et al., 2009). Talent development is based on a concern for an optimum education for everyone, which is in deep contrast to the existing legislative concern for minimal development of proficiency (VanTasselBaska, 1998). This dissertation shows how scientific talent has developed in specific individuals, and sheds light on how the education system impacted that process. The talent development model lies in opposition to many traditional gifted programs, so another potential reason for the lack of federal support lies within the field of gifted education itself. The field disagrees on the definition of giftedness and thus on how to identify or program for these children. Talent development is one side of this debate, and traditional, separate programming for the gifted is on the other side. Traditional gifted education programs generally utilize cut scores on standardized tests for admission, often include pull-out programs that may have nothing to do with the child’s individual skills, and encourage a feeling of elitism among stakeholders, as some are identified as gifted and some are not (Hertzog in Shavinina, 2009). This dissertation takes the talent development side of the argument, as expressed by Tannenbaum: “The objective is to elucidate the individuality of people and the uniqueness of the surrounds with which they interact” (in Colangelo, 2003, p. 48). For the approximately 3 million gifted children in the United States (www.nagc.org), special school-based services appear inconsistently. Only 27 states mandate identification of gifted students; only 24 mandate services for them. Merely 5

5

states provide mandated funds to all local education agencies; an additional 10 states provide discretionary funding by application (www.nagc.org). In total, only 8 states currently mandate and fully fund gifted education services in the public schools (www.davidsongifted.org). The lack of a federal mandate to guide identification and programming produces a wide variety of idiosyncratic programs; whereas, Special Education enjoys a federal mandate, uniform procedures and funding in all states. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) began with the best of intentions. In an effort to increase equity, current federal legislation reflects a national sense of responsibility to help low achievers reach for proficiency. Concerns for equity in the highest achieving students are not served by this position. Foisting ‘equality’ to the exclusion of excellence on schools hurts bright children, but it does not hurt all bright children equally. Rich parents of highly intelligent children can afford tutors or summer classes or enrichment opportunities. Poor families are simply stuck with the schools and districts they get. Is the cause of equity advanced by failing to help these children? (Davidson & Davidson, 2004) Gifted children all over the United States are often left to fend for themselves; gifted children in poverty are placed in an even more precarious position by the assumption that gifted children do not need our support. A final reason for the lack of federal support for gifted education is connected to the myth that gifted children will be fine on their own. This attitude might result from the feedback we have been given as children. Dweck (2006) discusses how children are differentially praised for effort or intelligence. Those children who are praised for effort develop a growth mindset; those who are praised for intelligence develop a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006). Those with growth mindsets believe one can develop and change one’s intelligence with practice, effort and motivation; those with fixed mindsets believe that intelligence is innate and unchangeable (Dweck, 2006). When students are in first grade, they have a growth mindset, associating effort with intelligence; those who work hard must be smart. By the time students are in sixth grade, a fixed mindset has taken over.

6

Effort is seen as a sign of lack of intelligence: if one has to work hard, then one must not be that smart (Dweck, 2006). That things come easy to those who are intelligent is a widespread notion and may lead to the myth that the gifted will be fine on their own. It may also lead to the “measles model” of gifted education: the idea that giftedness is a condition that one either has or does not have. In the egalitarian fight to bring everyone up to proficiency, why would a legislature offer services to children for whom everything comes easily and do not work hard for their grades? If we had a growth mindset as a culture, our goals of schooling might better reflect the idea of helping each child reach their potential, instead of meeting a minimum proficiency standard. The Board report (2010) is clear, “Every student in America deserves the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential.” Numerous studies of eminent individuals and gifted students show that students work hard to develop talent, and that they need a great deal of help along the way to be successful (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1991; Gross, 1993). The weak correlations between early gifts and adult eminence (around 0.2) speak to the fact that gifted kids are clearly not fine on their own (Simonton, 2008). Terman and Odin in 1947 noted the same thing: We have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated. Why this is so, what circumstances affect the fruition of human talent, are questions of such transcendent importance that they should be investigated by every method that promises the slightest reduction of our present ignorance. (p. 351) The present study echoes this question asked over sixty years ago. How did the Davidson Fellows achieve a level of adult accomplishment at such a young age? Brief Literature Review “Educators of the gifted assume that highly intelligent children benefit from and may even require special educational opportunities that nurture their considerable potential” (Subotnik & Arnold, 1994, p. 1). Empirical studies investigate this assumption and provide the rationale for identification and special programming for these students. Beyond Terman’s original study, numerous studies of gifted children exist in the

7

literature similar to this proposed study. Bloom’s 1985 retrospective study of talent development interviewed people who had attained world-class competence in a number of different fields. Feldman (1991) studied prodigies. Gross (1993) investigated highly gifted children in Australia; Subotnik (1993) studied the Westinghouse/Intel Science Talent Search winners, as did Feist (2006). Csikszentmihalyi investigated Talented Teenagers in 1997. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth has been ongoing since 1971. Bloom Bloom (1985) interviewed 21 pianists, 20 sculptors, 21 Olympic swimmers, 18 tennis players, 20 research mathematicians, and 20 research neurologists concerning their memories of how they developed their talent. Bloom asserted that initial ability did not matter; it was the long years of focused practice and help along the way that allowed these people to achieve world-class competence in their field (Bloom, 1985). Unfortunately, Bloom did not appear to collect any data regarding the initial ability of his subjects. Retrospective interviews were conducted with the subject before he or she turned 35 years old to make sure they could remember well what had occurred in their early lives, and interviews were conducted with parents and teachers as well. Bloom found that, in addition to a number of other family and environmental factors, a sense of fulfillment was a necessary piece in developing talent (Bloom, 1985). Feldman Feldman (1991) focused on prodigies in his study, defining prodigy as a child under the age of 10 (Feldman, 1991). Feldman used the term co-incidence to refer to the many, interconnected factors at work in the lives of these children that helped them develop their talent; indeed, he felt that we could see the process of talent development better in these children, because they stand out from the norm so sharply. He studied 6 boys in the fields of chess, musical composition, math, and writing. Though none of these children had accomplished a significant piece of work yet, Feldman concluded that three

8

factors had an important impact on their talent development. First, the family often provided a child’s first teacher and significant material resources to the child’s education. Second, the domain influenced the development of talent; some talent domains lend themselves more easily to early learning because of their structure. Finally, psychological factors such as motivation played an important role. An epilogue lets us know what happened to these children ten years after the study, and not all of them stayed with their early interests. Gross Gross (1993) studied highly exceptional children in Australia. She focused on 15 children between the ages of 5 and 13 who scored at or above IQ 160 on the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale (L-M). Gross focused on these children to show that programming for gifted children was largely geared toward those children who were moderately gifted and was inappropriate for highly gifted children. She found that highly gifted children had specific academic, social, and emotional needs that were not being met by the educational system. She argued that the culture of egalitarianism in Australia had a negative influence on the creation of appropriate programming for gifted children. References to Tannenbaum and Gagné’s models of talent development were included, but the study did not follow these models explicitly. Gross used the multiple-case study methodology supported by Yin (Gross, 1993), and found, like Feldman, that a number of factors, such as ability, family support, and motivation, contributed in concert to the development of talent. Subotnik Subotnik (1988, 1993, and 1994) studied the 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners to investigate the factors led to initial achievement in science or math, and then retention in the fields of math and science, the role of mentors in this process, and the effects of winning the Westinghouse contest. She found that curiosity led these participants to research, and classroom exposure to scientific controversy was moderate;

9

she also found that men and women had different views of success (Subotnik, 1988). Men attributed their success to intelligence and creativity, and women gave credit to hard work and dedication (Subotnik, 1988). Subotnik’s longitudinal study was carried out via surveys mailed to the winners over a period of several years in order to capture the transition from high school to employment. The factors that led to attrition included: the subjects thought the life of the scientist was unappealing, a lack of mentoring and proper guidance, and low-quality science instruction (Subotnik, 1994). The present study tells the story behind many of these findings and fills in the details that are not possible to collect in a short-answer survey. Feist More recently, Feist (2006) surveyed four cohorts of Westinghouse winners from the years 1965, 1975, 1985, and 1995 and current members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine career outcomes, gender differences, and age of talent recognition in the nation’s best scientists. For the first study of the Westinghouse winners, surveys distributed asked about when interest and talent in science appeared, how productivity changed over the lifespan, what effect gender difference had on productivity, and numerous other questions. Results showed that both men and women had similar levels of education and number of honors received in undergraduate and graduate school, similar ages when they knew they wanted to pursue science, and similar attributions for why they pursued science (Feist, 2006). Men and women were not equally likely to stay in science after high school or maintain a career in science (Feist, 2006). The second study of NAS members revealed that early levels of high productivity predict continued productivity across the lifespan (Feist, 2006, p. 28). The results showed that 75% of the NAS sample knew they wanted to be a scientist by age 20, with 25% of them knowing by age 14 (Feist, 2006, p. 29). There was also a significant relationship between early productivity and impact on the field (Feist, 2006). This study showed “the

10

younger NAS members were when they and others recognized their scientific talent, when they wanted to be a scientist and when they first conducted scientific research, the younger they were when they published their first paper” (Feist, 2006, p. 30). The earlier one publishes, the more productive one will be and the greater the impact one will have on one’s field (Feist, 2006). So, early recognition and development of talent has multiple positive effects. There were no gender differences in age of first publication, age when talent was recognized by others, age when subjects conducted their first study, or age when subjects earned their PhD (Feist, 2006). Women were slightly less likely to go into physical sciences, slightly older when they knew they wanted to be scientists, and were cited by peers less often (Feist, 2006). Women were more likely to be interested in science because “it solved important problems, it could help humanity, and because satisfied their curiosity about the world,” but both men and women were interested in science because “it matched their talent, were good at it, found it esthetically appealing, and liked its logical and rigorous nature” (Feist, 2006, p. 31). Csikszentmihalyi Csikszentmihalyi’s Talented Teenagers (1997) studied 208 ninth and tenth graders in two suburban Chicago high schools in order to discover “what makes it possible, given similar environmental conditions, for some teenagers to continue cultivating their talent while other equally gifted teens give up and never develop their abilities” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, pp. 1 and 43). Csikszentmihalyi asserts that the proportion of gifted children exceeds that of gifted adults, thus raising questions about the emotional and motivational elements of daily life that might serve to help and hinder talent development in five talent domains: mathematics, science, music, athletics, and art (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). He wanted to discover what causes children to drop out of their talent areas during the “hazardous passage through adolescence.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 2)

11

Csikszentmihalyi noted that he had a difficult time recalling his own thoughts about his motivations, so he used a new technology available at the time to help students capture their thoughts “in the moment” throughout the day. Researchers would signal the students at random times during a day on a beeper to prompt them to record in a booklet what they were doing and how they were feeling. Researchers would later follow up with interviews pertaining to their recordings (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Two years later, the researchers followed up again to see how the talents of the students eventually developed. Numerous findings were reported. First, Csikszentmihalyi indicated that a feeling of “flow” is necessary for students to continue in their domain. “Flow” is defined as an optimal experience characterized by complexity, loss of awareness of time and feeling completely engrossed in the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 14). Second, students must be recognized for their talents, meaning that the talent domain must be valuable to society (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 243). Third, personal characteristics, such as the ability to concentrate, good work habits, and openness to experience, are necessary for talent to grow and develop (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 243–244). Fourth, families and teachers can be positive or negative influences on the lives of these children (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 247–249). And fifth, structured rewards help the process of talent development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 250). The study contributed much to our present understanding of what research questions to ask and the characterization of the different domains of study. The present study, again, examines students who have explicitly developed their talent in a significant way, so differs from Csikszentmihalyi’s work. SMPY The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a longitudinal study started in 1971 by Stanley and now headed by Lubinski and Benbow, focuses mainly on the factors that lead to successful talent development in math and science. Students between the ages of 12 and 13, found through a talent search that selected students who

12

score in the top 3% on standardized tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, are given the opportunity to take the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT®) at this early age. SMPY uses a theoretical model to guide its data collection: the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawes, 1998). SMPY has produced many studies using objective measures and questionnaires (see, e.g., Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992, 2000, & 2006). The individual findings of specific studies are included in the literature review. The present study will add depth to SMPY’s work by telling the stories of highability students rather than reporting limited responses to objective measures. Each of the aforementioned studies differs in its participants, ends, domains, methods, and theoretical orientations. Some have no theoretical orientation guiding them; some focus on very young children or prodigies; some provide retrospective investigations; some require scores on standardized tests; and some limit the domain studied to math and science. Some of these studies are outdated; the factors that influenced achievement and talent development in 1983 may not be the same factors that operate today. The present study differs from these in two main ways. First, this study uses a theoretical orientation based on Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). It is the only study to use a DMGT-based analysis with a multiple-case study procedure in the United States. Second, this study provides an updated description of the factors that influence talent development for students who have actually achieved some level of nationally recognized competence in a field of study in the current educational and political climate. Conceptual Orientation: Investment Theory, the Star Model, and the DMGT The model used for analysis in this study will be the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) set forth by Gagné (2008), which, in part, rests upon Cattell’s Investment Theory and is similar to Tannenbaum’s Star Model. The DMGT makes a useful and unique distinction between natural abilities and developed

13

competencies. The subjects in this study have already attainted a high level of competence, and this study seeks to define what influenced this process. Because the DMGT provides a distinct categorization of factors that may impact the process of talent development, it gives us guidance on what information to collect and how data may be organized. The multiple-case study method requires a theory for analytic generalization; the DMGT provides a sound model for that purpose. I will first describe the precursors to Gagné’s DMGT: Cattell’s Investment Theory and Tannenbaum’s Star Model. Investment Theory Cattell’s Investment theory is central to the DMGT. In studying Cattell’s theory, one should first put it in context. The basic idea of a taxonomy of abilities began with Spearman’s invention of factor analysis, and the idea that a careful parsing of the relationships among scores on broad batteries of tests or other measures to discover what underlying psychological factors were most important for generating the correlations among them (Spearman, 1904). Spearman found that one factor, g for general ability, appeared important to performance on all types of tests. Using a different method of factor analysis, Thurstone (1938) found seven separate factors, or primary mental abilities, which included: verbal comprehension, word fluency, number facility, space, perceptual speed, induction, and memory. Cattell (1971) argued that the general intelligence factor identified by Spearman incorrectly combines two psychologically distinct general abilities that he named fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc). In his own words, “…in the development of the individual there appears initially (perhaps after two or three years of maturational shaping from birth) a single, general, relation-perceiving ability connected with the total, associational neuron development of the cortex. This general power applies to any sensory or motor areas and any process of selective retrieval from storage. Because it is not tied to any specific habits or sensory, motor, or memory area, we have

14

called it fluid ability” (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). A person’s biology influences Gf, and this ability declines as we age. Gc, on the other hand, reflects the influences of education and training, and it may continue to increase as we age and accumulate more general knowledge. “These complex acquired abilities, in the form of high-level judgment skills in particular perceptual and motor areas, we are calling ‘crystallized intelligence,’ because their expression is tied to a series of particular areas” (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). Gf-Gc theory explains how abilities are organized, but not how they develop. Cattell proposed the investment theory to explain how these two abilities work together to produce intellectual competence, to rationalize how they differ, and to show how they change throughout the lifespan. The investment theory states that we begin our lives with an amount of fluid ability; Cattell says this ability manifests somewhere in the first three years of life. This sounds a lot like the natural abilities of the DMGT. As the person gains experience, more skills develop. A “child’s rate of learning” will depend on two things: his amount of fluid intelligence and other characteristics that determine the amount of investment, such as motivation, memory abilities, and rewards (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). These characteristics resemble the other factors listed in the DMGT’s catalysts. Fluid ability is invested, to differing degrees, into particular domains that depend on schooling or culture, yielding particular constellations of crystallized ability. Because fluid reasoning ability has been invested in these learning activities to a great degree, the correlation between Gf and Gc will be high (Cattell, 1971, p. 118). But the correlation will not be perfect, because Gc also depends on other things, such as years of schooling, interest in particular school subjects, and many other factors specific to the person. Present Gc is “a cumulative function of several years’ operation levels of Gf” (Cattell, 1971, p. 118). Because fluid ability continues to be invested in Gc, and continues to develop itself, it will never quite match the current Gc measure. Thus, Cattell

15

introduced the idea of historical Gf to show that Gf evolves and grows depending on experiences. This explains the essence of the DMGT’s Developmental Process. The Star Model Tannenbaum’s Star Model combines five factors that he calls “antecedents and concomitants” of giftedness: superior general ability, chance, special aptitude, environmental supports, and nonintellective requisites (Tannenbaum in Colangelo, 2003). These five factors interact in different ways in different talent areas; for example, theoretical physics may require a higher general ability, but a lower threshold level of interpersonal skill than a position in the social services (Tannenbaum in Colangelo, 2003, p. 48). Tannenbaum asserts that IQ is the most important prerequisite for talent development, but individuals also possess special aptitudes for their particular talent area that make them uniquely successful. No level of IQ and special aptitude can create success in the absence of nonintellective factors, such as interpersonal skills, personality factors, and volition. The environment creates the conditions for these qualities to mature, and chance factors make a clear difference in their manifestation. Tannenbaum asserts that all five of these factors are the bare essentials of talent development (Tannenbaum in Colangelo, 2003). The DMGT “Folk theories of ability are undercomplicated” (Lohman, 1995). Therefore, a complex model of talent development was sought in an effort to discern the many possible factors playing a role in talent development. Due the complexity of the DMGT, findings were evaluated according to it. A visual model of the DMGT appears below (Gagné, 2008). Gagné carefully indicates that the DMGT is not a theory, but a model; however, he does encourage the use of it for an analytical purpose: a DMGT-based analysis (Gagné, 2001).

16

Figure 1. Visual model of the DMGT ________________________________________________________________________ Source: Gagné, F. (2008, May). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Invited presentation at the Ninth Biennial Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Originally, the model was created for two reasons. First, it developed out of a need to define terms within gifted education; researchers in gifted education were throwing around the terms gifted, talented, high ability, intelligence and others with many conflicting definitions (Gagné, 2004). Gagné sought clarity in terminology. Second, Gagné also wanted to know what makes some people highly talented and others not so very talented, or “What makes a difference?” in the talent development process (Gagné, 2004, p. 141). This reiterates the essential question of the multiple-case study. The DMGT itself will be examined with this multiple-case study procedure. At first, Gagné wanted to reduce the cacophony of different, often conflicting, definitions of giftedness and talent in the gifted education literature. He noticed that underlying most discussions of abilities, there was a difference between “early emerging

17

forms of giftedness with strong biological roots,” and “fully developed adult forms of giftedness.” (Gagné, 2004; Gagné, 2008) For example, “The potential for great accomplishment may indeed be in significant measure a gift from one’s ancestors. However, the attainment of domain expertise comes only after much learning and practice.” (Lohman, 1995, p. 13) It was through defining the terms giftedness and talent that the core of his model emerged. According to Gagné, giftedness “designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain.” (Gagné, 2004, p. 120) Gagné limits gifts to the top 10% of age peers, but natural abilities appear in all people to some degree. Talent “designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity” (Gagné, 2004, p. 120). Again, he limited use of the word talent to the top 10% of those who had been active in that field; generally, the term refers to competencies. So, the DMGT defines talent development as the process of transforming gifts, or natural abilities, into talents, or competencies. The theory of talent development seeks to define the influences, and their relative importance, in this process. The DMGT currently consists of six major components. The main part of the model speaks to three essential components: natural abilities or gifts, the developmental process, and systematically developed skills or talents. The other three components involve what Gagné (2004) calls the intrapersonal and environmental catalysts and the basements. Originally, Gagné had another component, called chance factors, but he realized that chance played a part in every component. He referred to chance as a “qualifier of any causal influence,” and thus has removed it from the model as a separate component (Gagné, 2008). The model was originally conceived around the natural abilities component, which includes both mental and physical abilities. According to Gagné (2009), the mental abilities feature includes intellectual factors (g factor, fluid reasoning, verbal, numerical, spatial), creative factors (inventiveness, originality), social factors (persuasion, tact), and

18

perceptual factors (vision, hearing). Physical abilities include both muscular (power) and motor control factors (agility). Natural abilities, often easier to see in children because they have not been exposed to organized learning activities to a great extent (Gagné, 2009), appear as spontaneous expressions of natural ability, rather than as the result of coaching or deliberate practice. In Gagné’s view, children travel from natural abilities to manifest competency through a developmental process that includes three main parts: activities, investment, and progress (Gagné, 2009). Gagné defines activities as “a systematic, talent-oriented and long-term program of activities.” (Gagné, 2009) These activities can be structured (school or community classes) or unstructured (hobbies and self-taught interests). Personal investment describes the time, energy, and money one invests in the developmental process. The amount of investment changes over time, so one can show differences in the amount of time, energy, and money spent overall to foster an individual’s development. One source of individual differences in talent development might be the amount of personal investment (Gagné, 2009). Finally, the progress subcomponent of the developmental process includes stages, pace, and turning points. People progress through stages on their way to becoming expert, and the process can be characterized differently at novice, proficient, and advanced or expert stages. The pace of learning compared to age peers provides another way to measure the process. Finally, many turning points mark the process (Gagné, 2009). One can find the perfect mentor at a particular stage, get accepted or rejected into a program, or become ill unexpectedly. Three other components act on the developmental process of the model: intrapersonal and environmental catalysts, as well as genetic and biological factors described as the basements. Each catalyst can be considered in two ways: direction and strength. Direction indicates whether a catalyst is a positive or a negative force, and the strength indicates the causal impact of the catalyst (Gagné, 2004, p. 126).

19

Intrapersonal catalysts include the physical and mental traits of an individual, as well as goal management processes (Gagné, 2009). Relatively stable traits include physical traits, such as one’s overall health or the existence of a disability, as well as mental traits, such as temperament and personality, another aspect this study hopes to investigate. Goal management behaviors include three subcomponents: awareness, motivation, and volition. Awareness includes awareness of one’s own strengths and weaknesses. Motivation, directly defined as the identification of a talent development goal or a passion (Gagné, 2009), can be described as the part that comes before any action toward the goal. (Corno, 1993) Volition includes the actions one takes after naming that goal, including the effort and persistence necessary to continue on the path in the face of setbacks. (Corno, 1993; Gagné, 2009) Intrapersonal catalysts, visually in front of the environmental catalysts in the model, exert the strongest influence. Though environmental catalysts can have an independent influence, usually earlier in life, they filter through the intrapersonal catalysts. These include factors related to one’s social milieu, and the influence of individuals and resource provisions in one’s life. The milieu, specifically the physical, social, cultural, economic and familial environment in which the person lives and grows (Gagné, 2009), includes national and local educational policies and practices influenced by the temper of the sociopolitical climate, such as the No Child Left Behind Act. The individuals component directs our attention to the people in one’s life who can have an impact, such as parents, peers, teachers, and mentors. Provisions refer to the instructional provisions of schooling, formal and informal, that contribute to the development of talent or competency, such as the availability of enrichment opportunities, the rigor of the curriculum, the responsiveness of teachers, and other school-based interventions, like acceleration, grouping practices, special courses, etc. (Gagné, 2009).

20

The latest addition to the model provides a foundation for the natural abilities. Known as the basements, these additions accommodate the new research emerging from neuroscience, behavioral genetics, and other advancements in medical research that have affected the study of intellectual development. The basements combine to determine the natural abilities, and also indicate the genetic and physiological links to personality and interests. The lowest basement, the genotypic foundation, includes our DNA. The next basement up, closer to the surface, the physiological phenotype, includes such things as metabolism, nerve conduction speed, hormones, and other physiological and neurological processes that affect physical development and functioning. The highest basement, the anatomical phenotype, marks the physical manifestation of our biological processes and genetics, such as brain size and volume, body mass index, and nerve cell density (Gagné, 2009). A model of the basements appears below, but questions concerning the basements lie outside the scope of this study.

Figure 2. DMGT basements model: Foundation for natural abilities

21

Three main caveats should be noted concerning the DMGT’s causal inferences. First, a direct relationship between natural abilities and competencies does not necessarily exist; any natural ability can express itself in many ways. For example, the intellectual natural ability does not lead directly to success in an academic field. Intellectual ability could lead anywhere or nowhere, depending on how the developmental process proceeds. Second, Gagné indicates that interactions in the model are complex and, in fact, interactions—a feedback loop better explains the causal linkage (Gagné, 2004, p. 134). Hence, talent, generally considered the outcome of this process, can contribute to itself, as exceptional natural ability may lead to early success in, for example, sports. If a child finds herself in the top category of the sport, she is considered talented by definition. This early success in sports may spark a greater interest in and motivation for that sport, which encourages further development of that talent. Third, causal linkages go between all components of the model. The strength of the causal inference matters more than the direction. “Even though all five causal components are active,” observed Gagné, “it does not mean that they are equally powerful as agents of talent emergence” (Gagné, 2004, p. 135). The important question becomes: Are some factors more powerful than others? Gagné thinks so and proposes a hierarchy of his components. He maintains that the most important factor is the gifts or natural abilities, followed by the intrapersonal catalysts, the developmental process, and then the environmental catalysts. This study seeks to investigate the role of certain intrapersonal catalysts. Research Questions and Hypotheses The DMGT provides a comprehensive explanation of many factors that influence the attainment of competence. The main purpose of this study is to investigate those components of the DMGT most relevant to the development of talent. Questions were asked about the natural abilities, intrapersonal catalysts, environmental catalysts, and

22

developmental process involved in the acquisition of competency among the science winners of the Davidson Fellowship. One main research question frames this study: How have the different facets of the talent development process interacted to produce such a high level of competence at such a young age in the Davidson Fellows? Sub questions would then include the specific sections of the DMGT. What role do natural abilities play in the development of talent? How did intrapersonal catalysts help or hinder the development of talent? What were the environmental catalysts that had an impact on the process? How did the developmental process progress in these students? Three main propositions or hypotheses are asserted in this dissertation. First, although each case will be unique in its particular combination of factors, a pattern of common elements will emerge among the developmental paths of each student as explained by the DMGT. Second, intrapersonal catalysts in the DMGT play a significant role in the development of talent. Third, current educational policies play a negative role in these children’s lives. General Outline of Dissertation Chapter 2, the literature review, outlines the DMGT categories and the literature that supports each category. The DMGT provides a distinct categorization of what may potentially impact the process, thereby guiding the information to collect and how summaries of that information should be organized. The categories of the DMGT are: natural abilities, intrapersonal catalysts, environmental catalysts, developmental process, and systematically developed competencies. The literature review explains each section of the DMGT, its definition, and other sources of information from the literature that contributes to that section. Chapter 3 describes the methods used in this study. Phone interviews were conducted with the student, parents, and mentors. The general methodology used for gathering information is the multiple-case study procedure dictated by Yin (2009). This

23

procedure uses multiple case studies as replications, not as a sampling procedure (Yin, 2009). “Multiple cases resemble multiple experiments” (Yin, 2009, p. 39). Results of each case study will be compared to a framework set out by an existing theory. The theory allows “analytic generalization” rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2009, p. 38). The model used for analytic generalization is the DMGT. Chapter 4 presents the individual case studies. Chapter 5 details the cross-case analysis, results and conclusions. Chapter 6 includes the implications, discussion, and limitations of the study. Conclusion At this time, when educational policy appears daily on the front page of our nation’s newspapers, the importance of showing empirically how gifted individuals develop their talent cannot be underestimated. The recently released report from the National Science Foundation, Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital (National Science Board, 2010), says, “Scientific and technological innovation continues to play an essential role in catalyzing the creation of new industries, spawning job growth, and improving the quality of life in the United States and throughout the world. Innovation relies, in part, on individuals possessing the knowledge, skills, creativity, and foresight to forge new paths.” The Davidson Fellows are among those individuals who are forging new paths in STEM fields. Using the multiple-case study method with the DMGT is a novel idea in gifted education. Using young subjects, currently developing their talent while having realized some measure of success and recognition, provides an additional unique feature of this study. Feldman states, The sequence and timing of event, the match of child to domain, the reciprocity of mind and culture, the responsiveness and organization of family and teachers, and the precise moment in history in which it all happens seem beyond the ability of any one person to plan and direct. And yet, even when so much seems to have been programmed to perfection, it

24 still takes the sustained, dedicated, and unflagging efforts of committed supporters to keep the process on target, maintaining the course and steering the child through the hazards and pitfalls that inevitably arise. Perhaps because the match of child and field is so delicate, the effort needed to maintain, balance, and nurture the process is monumental (Feldman, 1991, p. 221). Telling the stories of these gifted children, seeing their accomplishments and how they developed, will only help us to understand and support the delicate and monumental process of talent development.

25

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter outlines the DMGT categories and the literature that supports each category. The DMGT provides a distinct categorization of what may potentially impact the process of talent development, including natural abilities, developmental process, systematically developed competencies, intrapersonal catalysts, and environmental catalysts. Each section of this chapter defines a category of the DMGT and details sources of information from the literature that support that category. Each one of the components of the DMGT has a large body of research surrounding it. For the sake of this dissertation, I have filed topics in places in which they seemed most logical. Natural Abilities Natural Abilities Defined Charlie Allnut: “A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature.” Rose Sayer: “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on this earth to rise above.” James Agee, Screenwriter The African Queen The ongoing nature-nurture debate is encapsulated perfectly in this exchange between two actors in a 1951 Hollywood film. Mr. Allnut and Miss Sayer predated Anastasi’s plea to the APA in 1958 to “move beyond the question of studying ‘how much’ variance was accounted for by genetics and environment and instead to address the question of ‘how’ genotypes were translated into phenotypes” (Anastasi quoted in Ceci, et al., in Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1998, p. 303). The natural abilities category of the DMGT provokes this nature-nurture controversy by stating explicitly that natural abilities are the starting point for talent development. Bloom’s (1982) assertion is an excellent example of this controversy, saying in the same paper that the most important factors that influence talent development are environmental (p. 511) and that one of the factors that was most important to talent development according to the teachers, parents,

26

and participants in his famous study was the “ability to rapidly learn new techniques, ideas or processes in the talent field” (p. 512). Splicing the whole of human intellectual development into these two general causes oversimplifies the enterprise. Theorists dealing with the genetic basis of intelligence have provided other causes that explain the nature of intelligence, such as interests, aptitudes, and knowledge (Ackerman, 1997), but these theories do not take into account the vast array of environmental influences on the development of intellect. Conversely, those advocating environmental causes of intelligence do not give genes their proper due. Taken more broadly than he originally intended it, Gagné’s model seems to account for everything we know about the nature of intelligence (or any ability) and how it develops over the lifespan. Gagné says his model is only for talent development in the gifted; but with minor adjustments, it can explain ability development of any kind: how people take the raw material they are born with and make something of it – or not – is what this model tries to explain. It is a complex and comprehensive developmental model of talent development. It subsumes Ackerman’s PPIK (defined later in this chapter) and accounts for findings from behavioral genetics research through studies of experts and eminent individuals. It provides an elegant and complex picture of what makes a difference to the growth of the individual. According to Gagné, giftedness “designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain…”(Gagné, 2004, p. 120). Gagné limits gifts to the top 10% of age peers, but natural abilities appear in all people to some degree. The natural abilities are where the model originally began, and they include both mental and physical abilities. The mental abilities include intellectual (g factor, fluid and/or crystallized reasoning, verbal, numerical, spatial, etc.), creative (inventiveness, originality, etc.), social (persuasion, tact, etc.), and perceptual (vision, hearing, etc.) abilities (Gagné, 2009). The physical abilities include both

27

muscular (power) and motor control abilities, such as agility (Gagné, 2009). Natural abilities are often easier to see in children, because they have not been exposed to organized learning activities to a great extent (Gagné, 2009). As Winner (2000, p. 159) wrote, “They may begin to read fluently at the age of three or four, without any extended instruction; they may play a musical instrument as skillfully as a highly trained adult; they may turn everyday experiences into mathematical problems to play with, moving from arithmetic to algebra before their peers have learned to carry numbers in addition.” Gagné uses the terms natural abilities and competencies. He does not use ability (by itself) or achievement, aptitude, or intelligence for good reason; as Anastasi said, “If a benevolent wizard were to give me the power to eliminate four words from the tester’s vocabulary,” she would choose those four because of the “excess meanings they have acquired” (Anastasi, 1980, p. 1). Gagné says, “The DMGT’s delineation between gifts and talents is a particular case of the general distinction between aptitude (or potential) and achievement” (Gagné, 2004, p. 122). Anastasi would like to call both “developed abilities,” whereas Snow would retain the aptitude-achievement distinction, but would define aptitude more broadly than the dictionary would have it. Snow says, “The common thread running through these and other related terms is potential – a latent, present, inferred quality or power that makes possible the development, given specific conditions, of some further quality or power, positive or negative” (Snow, 1992, p. 6). Though Gagné wrote that he disagreed with Snow (Gagné, 2004), Snow’s definition of aptitude seems to mesh perfectly with what Gagné is trying to achieve in this theory. Snow wants us to go back to the original root of the term aptitude, which means “apt, appropriate, suitable” (Snow, 1992). Gagné and Snow both want to show how initial states interact with the environment to produce development, or how abilities are situated. Snow (1992, p. 26) writes, “Abilities are affordances— properties of the union of person and environment that exhibit the opportunity structure

28

of a situation and the effectivity structure of the person . . . in taking advantage of the opportunities afforded for learning.” Snow discusses Binet’s several definitions of readiness, “They clearly identify a complex of properties, qualities, states, or conditions of persons (not just a trait like cognitive unity) that enable profitable learning or development under specified situational conditions” (Snow, 1992, p. 8). Snow includes cognitive, conative, and affective properties in his complex, which Gagné places after the natural abilities in the intrapersonal catalysts. The measurement of potential is one indication of ability, but one can see how easily it is to get bogged down in the definitional swamp, perhaps never to return (Lohman, 2006). I would like to not even get into the problems associated with separating the terms ability and achievement in testing situations, except to say this. When discussing the tests used to assess these constructs, there is much overlap between ability and achievement. This is not in dispute. I think we need to make a distinction between that which we can find through testing (very useful stuff for prediction and evaluation, for defining what is) and the development of complete theories (very useful for explaining what is actually going on, for delineating the how). Tests only measure a part of what is there, so limit our view of talent development as a whole. When Hunt (2000) discusses the concept of Gc, he distinguishes between “Gc as a concept and Gc as a statistical structure” (p. 127). Staying within a psychometric approach has its limitations. Snow even says we need to move toward measuring complexes instead of single constructs, “But today’s research tends to work on single constructs in isolation. This is sometimes a practical necessity, but it is always a severe limit for theoretical purposes” (Snow, 1992, p. 14). Jensen (1998) talks about definitions as well. “Formal definitions, however, are essential in science . . . Formal definitions are theoretically neutral conventions that scientists agree upon in order to get on with their job. It makes no sense to disagree over

29

such conventional definitions. It is important only that a definition be sufficiently clear and explicit to serve its pragmatic purpose” (Jensen, 1998, p. 49). Gagné’s dichotomy is useful and practical. These natural abilities both exist and are logically situated in this particular place in the model. Anecdotally, teachers talk about how their students come to school with differences. One report showed how the differences in children exist “right from the starting gate. Disadvantaged children start kindergarten with significantly lower cognitive skills than their more advantaged counterparts” (Lee & Burkham, 2002, p. 1). ITBS and CogAT results each year reveal that by 1st grade, a typical same-aged mixedability classroom already has children working at different grade levels, some are well advanced of their peers and some are one to two years behind, and a student’s relative position can change markedly from year to year (Lohman & Korb, 2006). One could say that the children have at least four to five years of experience behind them by the time they begin school. Going back further, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the APA identifies some disorders, such as Asperger’s Syndrome and Autism, as appearing before age three (Colangelo, 2003). The Apgar test, given to infants at one minute and five minutes after birth, shows differences between newborns in reflexes and activity (Apgar, et al., 1959). Further, parents who have multiple children are full of anecdotes about how their children differed when they were infants; for example, one was a very agreeable baby and never fussed, and so they weren’t ready for the second baby who fussed all of the time. Anyone in a family of multiple siblings knows that children who are raised in the same house often turn out very differently! Studies of twins reared apart compare the twins to other sets of siblings. Often, siblings from the same family (when measured on tests) are as different as two random strangers on the street (Bouchard, 1981). I believe people begin to have issues with the genetic notion when two things happen. One, they think genetic means fixed. Two, they focus on the amount of cognitive ability bestowed – some get more and some get less. It’s acceptable to say we have

30

different strengths—it’s not acceptable to say one has more strengths and another has no strengths. These two issues go together. To reiterate, Gagné carefully explains that these natural abilities are not fixed; he says not “innate,” (Gagné, 2008) which I interpret as fixed or unchangeable, a characteristic like eye color. The point of this model is to say that gifts or natural abilities are not only capable of being changed; they require a great deal of support to be developed. Gifts that are not developed do not do anyone any good. Gifts are developed—they need to be developed to turn into a valuable or usable talent. Placing the natural abilities at the beginning of the developmental process seems appropriate and in line with what other theorists are finding. “Aptitudes are initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions. Furthermore, they are initial states that are not merely correlates of learning, but rather propaedeutic to learning in the particular situation at hand” (Snow, 1992, p. 6). Our natural abilities make us uniquely suited to a particular developmental learning path and are necessary for learning along that path. People will likely continue to debate the ability-achievement issue. Lohman (1995) adds to the discussion of abilities that they are, “. . . traits that have the same names at different points in time even though we recognize that substantively they might be quite different things early than late in development.” Separating natural abilities from competencies might seem an oversimplification, but it does address this issue of how adult intelligence differs from childhood intelligence. The natural abilities seem to focus on how intelligence first appears. Literature Related to Natural Abilities Researchers find the existence of abilities in a number of ways. There is ample evidence that the g factor is correlated with a number of different life outcomes (Jensen, 1998; Gottfredson, 1997; Schmidt and Hunter, 2004) and other biological realities (Jensen, 1998; Bouchard, 1998; Simonton, 2005). As indicated previously, the basements

31

are beyond the scope of this dissertation, but they do lead to the Natural Abilities. There are three basements underlying this model: genotypic foundations, physiological phenotypes, and anatomical phenotypes. These additions are meant to accommodate the new research emerging from neuroscience, behavioral genetics, and other advancements in medical research that impact the study of intellectual development. The basements form the Developmental Model of Natural Abilities, which is an explanation for how we get to the starting point of the model—the natural abilities. They also underlie the catalysts, as there is evidence for genetic and physiological links to personality and interests (Jensen, 1998; Bouchard, 1998; Simonton, 2005). In this section, twin studies and heritability, sex differences, and a few neuroscientific studies demonstrate that our biology impact our development. The naturenurture debate gets most heated here, pitting behavioral geneticists against developmental psychologists. “Some argue that it’s only natural we look to the environment for solving problems because environments can be altered, genes cannot. While both points are untrue, the logic is skewed as well; to use behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin’s analogy, this is like the man who lost his wallet in an alley but looked for it in the street because the light was better” (Wright, 1998, p. 8). “Behavioral genetics is a method for studying variability among individuals. It asks, most simply, to what extent observed (phenotypic) differences among individuals can be traced to differences in genetic versus nongenetic sources” (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 58). The main tool of behavioral genetics is heritability. Heritability (h2) is the proportion of variance for a given phenotype among individuals in a population; the square root of the heritability (h) is the correlation between the genotype and the phenotype for an attribute. I hesitated bringing up heritability for two reasons. First, it does not answer Anastasi’s question about how genotypes become phenotypes; it says nothing about an individual’s genetic code. The DMGT is really concerned with how all of this works in

32

an individual. Heritability does provide evidence that genes have an influence, however, and this is an important argument to make to some theorists who prefer to leave it out entirely. The second reason I nearly left it out is that heritability is controversial and widely misinterpreted—sometimes by its own proponents who use the phrase “the trait is heritable” interchangeably with the phrase “it’s genetic.” I decided that leaving out heritability in a discussion of behavioral genetics is like discussing Italian cinema and leaving out Fellini: just because it’s widely misunderstood and misinterpreted doesn’t mean one should leave it out. Heritability is a statistic that applies to groups, to variability within a population on a trait, and cannot say anything about the genotype of an individual. “Heritability alone obviously says nothing about the mechanisms by which genes influence behavior” (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 61). Turkheimer lists his three laws of behavioral genetics: “all human behavioral traits are heritable, the effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes, and a substantial portion of the variance in behavioral traits are not accounted for by the effects of genes or families” (Turkheimer, 2000, p. 160). Measurement error and the nonshared environment account for the rest of the variance. “Heritabilities must be interpreted in context. They are always relative to the environment in which they were ascertained” (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 61). “[T]raditional heritability measures do not inform us about the manner in which genes exert their influence, nor even about the organism’s genetic potential. Rather, they tell us what proportion of individual differences in already actualized genetic potential has brought to fruition by the prevailing environment” (Ceci, et al., 1997, p. 303). This is important because Gagné is quick to point out that his natural abilities are not fixed. One way the developmental point of view mischaracterizes the behavioral geneticist approach is by saying that behavioral genetics tells us that our DNA fixes or

33

limits our abilities. “The appealing notion that environments are always adjustable is turning out to be just as false as the notion that genes issue orders we can’t refuse” (Wright, 1998, p. 8). Just because something is heritable does not mean it is fixed or innate. It simply means that genes have an influence on the phenotypes. Simonton (1994) adds, “The gift demands a distinctive configuration of genetic traits,” and “the genetic traits do not appear all at once but exhibit variable growth trajectories. . . .” Twin studies and other heritability data provide evidence that our genes influence development. Twin studies are the main vehicle for looking at heritability. There are issues with twin studies, such as those participating in twin studies are usually volunteers and that most adoptive homes are similar in SES. Twin studies tell us that vocational interests, personality characteristics, job satisfaction, mental ability, psychiatric illnesses, attitudes and values are all heritable (Bouchard, 1997; Bouchard, 1994). Amazing anecdotal tales of the similarities between identical twins reared apart and then reunited certainly give us evidence of the influence of genes (Holden, 1980; Jackson, 1980). When one compares the correlations of identical twins reared apart and identical twins reared together on standardized measures, there is hardly any difference between them (Bouchard, et al., 1990). When one compares similar correlations for identical twins reared apart and fraternal twins reared together, the identical twins reared apart are more similar than the fraternal twins reared together (Brody, 1992, p. 136). General intelligence is highly heritable, with correlations between the IQ scores of identical twins reared apart ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 in adulthood (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 59). Heritability scores vary by age, though, so the average heritability for general ability is 0.5. This seems in line with the g factor; “…the g factor accounts for only about half the variance in scores in any broad battery of mental tests” (Gottfredson in Colangelo, 2003, p. 26). Heritabilities in childhood begin around 0.4, lift to 0.6 in adolescence, and up to 0.8 in adulthood (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 62; Jensen, 1998, p. 169). The genetic influence on general ability increases with age.

34

Sex differences in abilities also seem to support a genetic influence. Males and females show no difference on mean performance of cognitive ability (Brody, 1992; Jensen, 1998; Lohman & Lakin, 2008; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992). Yet, men and women have different profiles of abilities and interests (Brody, 1992; Halpern, et al., 2007; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992; Jensen, 1998). Men’s scores on most tests of ability are more spread out or have a higher variance; women’s scores have a slightly lower variance, even when the female mean is higher (Halpern, et al., 2007; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992). Across countries (United Kingdom and United States), grades (3–11), and three different years or cohorts of data from the Cognitive Abilities Test, “results showed an astonishing consistency in sex differences” (Lohman & Lakin, 2008). Further, at one point, there were roughly thirteen times more males than females with SAT-M scores over 700 in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (Lubinski & Benbow, 1992; Stanley, 1988). Lohman and Lakin (2008) found variance ratios for scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test Quantitative Battery on particular levels that indicated males had variances up to 56% larger than female variances, resulting in “substantial differences in the proportion of males and females with extreme scores” (p. 12). There are more boys than girls in special education in America’s schools, and girls are significantly better readers than boys nationally and internationally (Freeman, 2004; NAEP; PISA). Mann (2007) also found that girls had higher creativity scores in math at a young age. Men perform better than women on spatial tests that require mental transformations of well-structured visual images. Johnson and Meade (1987), in their study of 1800 students in kindergarten through eighth grade, found that spatial ability could be reliably assessed in children as young as six years old, and the male advantage in spatial ability appeared by age ten. Differences on particular tests can be diminished through training, especially when examinees learn to solve problems in ways that do not require the sort of analog transformations that distinguish spatial ability from reasoning ability. However, there is little transfer of training to other spatial tests. Further, the

35

magnitude of the sex difference is many times larger for the relative profile of analog spatial versus specific linguistic abilities (such as spelling abilities, verbal fluency) than for either ability alone (Lohman, 1994). This suggests that the most important practical implication of the relative discrepancy between analog spatial and specific verbal abilities is not so much in whether an individual can solve problems (since with practice, they usually can), but rather in how they typically go about it (Lohman, 1993 & 1994). There is clearly a genetic impact on talent development, though the exact nature of that impact remains to be explained fully. “Thanks to the fact that identical twins are on average exactly twice as similar genetically as nonidentical twins, one can use straightforward statistical procedures to estimate the proportion of variability in complex outcomes that is associated with causally distant genes, all the while maintaining a state of near-perfect ignorance about the actual causal processes that connect genes to behavior” (Turkheimer, 2000, p. 162). Neuroscience is making progress on this front, however. Genes are the codes for building proteins, and proteins create hormones and neurotransmitters that affect personality traits, interests, and aptitudes (Gottfredson, 1999, p. 61). Several studies show the direction that science is taking us and the contributions medicine may make to the study of ability; many of these studies have very small sample sizes due to the difficulty of finding subjects willing to undergo extensive testing and facilities in which to run the tests. Due to the small sample sizes, any inferences about talent more broadly construed should be considered with a large dose of caution. First, O’Boyle et al. (1991) investigated the pattern of activation in the different hemispheres of the brain in eight average and six mathematically precocious seventh and eighth graders on a test that had the subjects identify as happy a face from a split-face image, called human chimeric faces. Significant differences in EEG activity were found between subjects; the mathematically precocious students showed a “strong leftward/right hemisphere bias” and the average students showed the opposite bias. In

36

sum, the brain activity between average and precocious children was different when solving a challenging problem (O’Boyle et al., 1991). Second, Alexander et al. (1996) studied the electroencephalographs (EEG) of 90 subjects in three groups; each group had an even number of males and females. The first group included 30 gifted seventh and eighth graders; their giftedness established by SAT scores placing them in the top half of one percent of performers. The second group included 30 average ability seventh and eighth graders; their “averageness” determined by teacher nomination. The final group included 30 college freshmen and sophomores, volunteers taken from an introductory psychology class. Participation was restricted to right handed students (Alexander et al., 1996). According to Alexander, previous research had shown distinct developmental changes in the electrophysiological activity of the brain at various stages of development, from infancy through adulthood. Adult levels of brain activity are reached between the ages of 18–21 years. The results of this study showed that the gifted students had brain activity that was significantly different from their average peers and basically the same as the college students. Gifted students showed similar overall “power” of brain activity as the college students, but the pattern of activity was a bit different. These results indicate that gifted students may be showing adult levels of brain activity at a much earlier age. “Thus, it is not unreasonable to suggest that gifted adolescents may be more physiologically advanced than average ability adolescents in either brain organization, development, or utilization of brain resources” (Alexander et al., 1996). Third, Jausovec (2000) completed a more complex study than the others. Jausovec and colleagues did two separate experiments on roughly 50 right-handed student teachers, differentiated by scores on an intelligence test (WAIS) and a creativity test (Torrance). The subjects were separated into four groups: gifted (high scores on both tests), creative (high on Torrance), intelligent (high on WAIS), and average (lower on both). Means and standard deviations for the scores of these four groups are below.

37 Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for IQ and Creativity Test Scores (Z Scores for the Four Ability Groups: Gifted, Creative, Intelligent, and Average IQ test

Creativity test

Group

n

M

SD

M

SD

Average Gifted Creative Intelligent

12 11 11 15

99.83 129.82 106.18 127.33

4.63 4.60 8.60 3.75

49.67 64.00 66.54 48.87

5.02 2.93 3.72 4.78

The researchers measured subjects’ EEGs in three different ways. They looked at alpha power, which the others also investigated. They also split the alpha readings into two bands, an upper and lower band, to show differences in the types of mental activity being used. The upper band showed more episodic memory and attention demands, and the lower band dealt with semantic issues. Their third measure was called coherence, which showed how the parts of the brain cooperated with one another (Jausovec, 2000). Another important distinction of this study was that it looked at the different EEG readings while subjects were solving different types of problems at different levels of complexity. There were two main sets of problems: problems that were similar to intelligence test tasks and problems that were more creative. So, the subjects were compared on convergent, logical, well-defined problems, as well as divergent, creative, and ill-defined problems. The task completed by the subjects in these studies proves to be very important. If a task is too simple, then differences will not show up. These authors chose different types of tasks that held different demands in order to show differences in thinking. They indicated that some of the problems might have been too similar to problems on the intelligence and creativity tests. In future, they might choose completely different tasks (Jausovec, 2000). Several results were reported. EEG patterns differed more significantly relative to intelligence and are less influenced by creativity. The authors state, “…creativity and intelligence are different abilities that also differ in the neurological activity displayed by

38

individuals while solving open or closed problems.” The “efficiency theory” states that less mental activity is associated with higher intelligence and creativity. They also found that differences in intelligence were fewer and clearer than those for creativity; indicating that creativity is a diverse entity that can be expressed in numerous ways, while intelligence holds to fewer and more uniform processes (Jausovec, 2000). Haier (2004) used new brain scanning technology, called voxel-based morphometry, to investigate how the volume of gray and white matter in different parts of the brain is related to intelligence, as measured by the WAIS. The major finding of this study is that, “individual differences in gray and white matter volumes, in a relatively small number of areas distributed throughout the brain, account for considerable variance in individual differences in general intelligence” (p. 76). This finding indicates several things. First, different people have different amounts of white and gray matter in different parts of the brain; this may be why people with the same IQ have different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The pattern of gray and white matter may determine which areas can work together and how efficiently they work. Second, there were differences in the patterns of brain activity in younger and older people. So as our frontal lobes lose cells, other parts of the brain take over. This could account for the different trajectories of Gf and Gc across the lifespan mentioned later in this paper. Three, having more gray matter available to use for problem solving actually may mean more efficient processing of information (Haier, 2004). So, here is one example of a study that shows differences in brain structure for individuals of varying intelligence. Other studies typical of the natural abilities associate brain size or volume with higher measures of g (Jensen, 1998; Brody, 1992; Rushton & Ankney, 1996; Rushton, 1997). Another study found positive effects of aerobic fitness on performance of cognitive tasks in older adults (Kramer & Willis, 2002). Expert studies have found interesting data regarding our anatomy as well. Training at elite levels of performance in

39

sports causes anatomical changes, such as the size of the heart, the number of capillaries supplying blood to muscles, and metabolic properties of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles; practice at young ages may be necessary for anatomical adaptations that foster success, such as joint flexibility and hip turnout for ballet dancers and musicians; and vigorous activity can actually stimulate growth necessary for success in specific fields (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Again, biological structures are interacting with environmental influences to create abilities. Some evidence also shows that specific abilities play a role after a certain level of g is achieved. “Yet, to be sure, there is psychological significance beyond the general factor. Quantitative, spatial, and verbal reasoning abilities all possess psychological import beyond g” (Lubinski, 2000, p. 411). Lubinski continues, “Specific abilities beyond g contribute to real world forecasts. This becomes especially true at higher levels of g…. In complex educational (graduate school) and vocational (doctoral level occupational) environments, range truncation on g is intense. . . . Hence the predictive power of other factors increases relative to general intelligence” (p. 412). According to Rohde and Thompson (2006), “While there is empirical evidence for a strong association between general cognitive ability and academic achievement, there is still anywhere from 51% to 75% of the variance in academic achievement that is unaccounted for by measures of general cognitive ability alone” (p. 123). These same researchers further state, “Processing speed and working memory are two cognitive processes that have each been used to explain what drives mental efficiency and thus general cognitive ability” (p. 127). They posit the idea that processing speed might form a “bridge” between working memory and G. “Three cognitive constructs most consistently recognized in the literature as being important components of general cognitive ability are working memory, processing speed and spatial ability” (p. 129). Rohde and Thompson wanted to know how these three factors influence academic performance. They found that spatial ability and processing speed were found to impact

40

academic achievement, as measured by the SAT, above and beyond the impact of general cognitive ability alone. Spatial abilities are specific abilities that may have special impact on performance STEM fields. Lohman (1993) points to a paradox. He says that G has a “logical and statistical priority over measures of spatial ability.” Just like spatial abilities wear blue collars and are relegated to woodshop in high schools, tests of spatial ability are the redheaded stepchildren of the measurement world. Yet, Lohman (1993) says, “After general ability, the verbal-spatial dimension captures more variance than any other dimension in large…batteries of ability tests.” The overlap can be explained by working memory (Lohman, 1993). “The amount of information that can maintained in an active state of working memory” explains individual differences in spatial abilities. High-space students differed from low space students in several ways: number of errors, not type of error; not the ability to remember, but the ability to remember systematically; and rotation of objects in wholes, rather than in pieces. If it were simply a matter of general cognitive ability, then one wouldn’t find these types of differences between students of the same general cognitive ability. It is the spatial skills that make these differences. According to the DMGT, our anatomy, physiology, and genetics all interact to produce natural abilities; we are still discovering exactly how this process works. Determining whether abilities are in fact natural will likely be left to the research in neuroscience, genetics, and biology. Gagné said that natural abilities are often easier to see in children, because they have not been exposed to organized learning activities to a great extent (Gagné, 2009). So, the natural abilities are those abilities that are expressed to some extent in early childhood, as can be seen in studies of prodigies, and the idea of reaction range can be found in various studies of school outcomes.

41

Studies of prodigies show vast differences in abilities at very early ages in specific domains. There are many examples of children—very young children—showing signs of advanced abilities. Carl Jung, already reading, learned Latin from his father at age six (Bair, 2003). Terry Tao, mathematician, taught himself to read by age two by watching Sesame Street, by age three was solving math problems typically solved by eight year olds, and had entered college part-time at age nine (Muratori, et al., 2006). Reaction range is another way to look at natural abilities. If it were possible to hold the environment constant, one would still see variation in the members of the group. As environments become more favorable, phenotypic expression of genotypes improves for all groups, but equality is not achieved (Bouchard, 1997, p. 139). The common analogy for reaction range is two pots full of seeds. One pot receives plenty of water, nutrients and sunlight; the other pot does not receive the proper amount of water, nutrients or sunlight. Seeds grow in both pots, but those seedlings in the first pot will be generally taller and stronger than those in the second, impoverished pot. The seedlings within each pot, however, will also grow differently. Every seedling in the first pot will not be exactly the same as all of the others; there will be a range of height and strength. Every gardener knows this; for example, I plant marigolds around my vegetable garden each year. They are in roughly the same patch of dirt and given roughly the same amount of water, fertilizer and sunlight; yet, they vary in height and the number of flowers that bloom. A gardener’s fruitless quest may be to achieve the uniform border often seen in gardening magazines; apparently, flowers receive the same retouching as human models in the fashion pages. These reaction range curves show two things: that within group differences will always exist even when between group differences are erased, and that different abilities express themselves differently in specific environments. One can see the reaction range at work in the previously mentioned Lohman and Korb study which found, from ITBS and

42

CogAT results, that by 1st grade, a typical same-aged mixed-ability classroom already has numerous grade equivalencies of achievement in it. Our natural abilities affect our growth, even in the best circumstances. Organisms look for and thrive in the niche most appropriate to them (Bouchard, 1997). It isn’t that genes or environment are more important, it is the unique combination of the two that determines survival. Natural abilities are important to which environment most suits humans as well as marigolds. A strong opponent to the natural abilities camp is Ericsson and his colleagues (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). Ericsson argues that years of focused, deliberate practice are necessary to the fulfillment of any ability (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). Ericsson, though open to more evidence on the subject, does not find convincing evidence for the existence of “innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement for healthy individuals” (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007, p. 3). He and his colleagues found that any initial differences in ability could be eliminated by practice on tests of memorizing a list of digits, as well as a number of other discrete skills (Ericsson & Charness, 1994). Again, Gagné stresses that these natural abilities are not “innate” and do not impose an upper limit on abilities. It seems that Ericsson is often arguing against a straw man in this way. Ericsson says that it is the focused practice that is the most important thing in talent development; whereas Gagné would say that the natural abilities are more important (Ericsson and Gagné in Shavinina, 2009). Ericsson does indicate that, “All theoretical frameworks must be based on genetics, learning, and development and propose increasingly detailed and complete accounts of the associated development of observable behavior” (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007, p. 45). Ericsson’s work emphasizes the need for practice to develop any ability; the DMGT does not disagree. The evidence for and against natural abilities is vast. People differ and will differ in their paths to success. “We become who we are through our experiences, which

43

emerge from the complex interplay between our genes and our environments” (Gottfredson, 1999). This dissertation seeks evidence for two questions in this category. First, is there any evidence for natural abilities? Evidence for natural abilities may be found in two ways in this study. First, anecdotal evidence from parents indicating advanced ability before the age of three. Cattell discussed historical fluid ability would probably best be found before age 3, so that is the “cutoff” age used here. Second, any report of markedly advanced abilities relative to peers or siblings without any apparent focused instructional effort. This will address Gagné’s own definition of spontaneously expressed and untrained ability (Gagné, 2004). Winner (2000) adds, “If exceptional abilities emerge prior to intensive instruction and training, then these abilities are likely to reflect atypical, innate potential” (p. 160). The second question for this category is, simply, what abilities do these young scientists possess, natural or not? Subjects were asked for any early school records and standardized testing information to determine their relative standing among their peers. Other studies, like Bloom, did case studies, but collected no data on the actual abilities of the students. I did not want to leave that question unanswered, so offer some data as an indication of relative ability. Developmental Process Developmental Process Defined The way one travels from natural abilities to competencies is through the developmental process, which originally included learning, training, and practice (Gagné, 2004, p. 121). Currently, the developmental process includes three main parts: activities, investment and progress (Gagné, 2009). Gagné defines activities as “a systematic, talent-oriented and long-term program of activities” (Gagné, 2009). These activities can be structured (school or community classes) or unstructured (hobbies and self-taught interests).

44

Personal investment describes the time, energy and money one invests in the process. The amount of investment changes over time, and so one can show differences in amount of time, energy, and money spent overall to foster an individual’s development. One source of individual differences in talent development might be the amount personal investment involved (Gagné, 2009). This is closely related to the intrapersonal catalysts of motivation and volition. The progress subcomponent includes stages, pace, and turning points. People progress through stages on their way to becoming expert, and the process can be characterized differently at the novice, advanced, proficient, or expert stage. The pace of learning compared to age peers is another way to measure the process. Finally, many turning points dot the process (Gagné, 2009). One can find the perfect mentor at a particular stage, get accepted or rejected into a program, or become ill unexpectedly. Literature Related to Developmental Process The developmental process is the path one takes between abilities and competencies and is impacted by the catalysts. It is during this process that genes and environment interact. “Thus, the core assumption here is that abilities change over time, and that change is at least stimulated by—if not a direct reflection of – training and experience” (Lohman, 1995). This path includes activities, progress, and investment. This is the perfect spot to discuss Cattell’s investment theory, how different abilities have different developmental trajectories, and how schooling impacts intelligence, as well as specific outcomes in science. Gagné’s model seems to subsume Cattell’s investment theory. Cattell found that general ability is really the combination of many separate abilities that can be arranged hierarchically with fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc) at the top and broad abilities at stratum II. Cattell did not use g. Gc is measured by tests of verbal comprehension and general knowledge, and refers to a person’s general store of knowledge. Gf is measured by tests of abstract and inductive reasoning, and refers to a

45

person’s ability to acquire and use information, particularly in novel situations (Sternberg, 2000, p. 613; Lohman, 1989). In Cattell’s own words, “…in the development of the individual there is initially (perhaps after two or three years of maturational shaping from birth) a single, general, relation-perceiving ability connected with the total, associational neuron development of the cortex. This general power is applicable to any sensory or motor areas and any process of selective retrieval from storage. Because it is not ties to any specific habits or sensory, motor, or memory area, we have called it fluid ability” (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). Gf is considered more influenced by a person’s biology and declines as we age. Gc is considered more influenced by a person’s education and cultural experiences and may actually increase as we age and accumulate more general knowledge (Sternberg, 2000, p. 21). “These complex acquired abilities, in the form of high-level judgment skills in particular perceptual and motor areas, we are calling ‘crystallized intelligence,’ because their expression is tied to a series of particular areas” (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). Gf-Gc Theory explains what intelligence is, but not how it develops or changes through experience. Cattell proposed the investment theory to explain how these two things work together to produce intelligence, to rationalize how they are different, and to show how they change throughout the lifespan. The investment theory states that we begin our lives with an amount of fluid ability; Cattell says this ability manifests somewhere in the first three years of life. As the person gains experience, more skills are developed. A “child’s rate of learning” will depend on two things: his amount of fluid intelligence and on other characteristics that determine the amount of investment, such as motivation, memory abilities, rewards, etc (Cattell, 1971, p. 117). These higher-level skills focused on particular subjects in schools are called crystallized ability. Fluid ability is invested, to differing degrees, into particular subjects that would depend on schooling or culture, yielding crystallized ability in those areas.

46

Because the general factor has been invested in these subjects to a great degree, the correlation between Gf and Gc will be high; but the correlation will not be perfect, because Gc also depends on other things, such as “years at school, interest in school work, and other things . . .” (Cattell, 1971, p. 118). Present Gc is “a cumulative function of several year’s operation levels of Gf . . .” (Cattell, 1971, p. 118), because fluid ability is continuing to be invested in Gc, and continuing to develop itself, it will never quite match the current Gc measure. Thus, Cattell introduced the idea of historical Gf to show that Gf is evolving and growing depending on experiences. This is the essence of the DMGT’s Developmental Process. This process is not smooth and different abilities have different paths across the lifespan. Different aspects of performance are most responsible for individual differences at different points in the development of ability (Lohman, 1995; Ackerman, 1999; Snow, 1986). Discontinuities appear in nearly every area—different skills are introduced at different levels and students have to adjust each time. Someone labeled gifted in second grade might plateau in sixth grade. “This does not mean that the initial label was wrong; it may simply mean that our theory of ability is undercomplicated” (Lohman, 1995, p. 7). The prevailing notion is that intelligence is fixed, but according to Lohman, it’s changeable; he states, “ . . . the majority of children who score in the top few percentiles on ability and achievement tests in one grade do not retain their status for more than a year or two” (Lohman, 2006, in press). This study showed that only 35–40% of the students originally identified in the top 3% of their third grade class remain in that top 3% by eighth grade. Though the existence of a general intelligence factor (g) is well documented, “the g factor accounts for only about half the variance in scores in any broad battery of mental tests” (Gottfredson in Colangelo, 2003). Gottfredson says, “People rightly have a broader conception of human talent, and the argument for the g factor—a general intelligence

47

factor—should not be misconstrued as an argument that intellectual ability or achievement itself is unidimensional.” The complexity is revealed in several ways. First, IQ scores are widely misinterpreted. Second, people with the same measured IQ can have widely different profiles of abilities. Empirical evidence shows different trajectories across the lifespan for Gf and Gc and other abilities (Ackerman, 1999; Masunaga & Horn, 2001). Performance on Gf and speeded tests diminish over time, while performance on Gc and knowledge tests increase with age (Kramer and Willis, 2002; Ackerman, 1999). Different tests of abilities such as verbal meaning, verbal ability, verbal memory, spatial orientation, inductive reasoning, number, perceptual speed, and word fluency all have different patterns across the life span (Schaie, 1994; Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997; Salthouse, 2004). What we call intelligence grows and changes over time. Third, the score scale chosen also impacts our interpretation of growth. Lohman (1995) says, “It is difficult to appreciate the impact of experience on the development of abilities if one measures abilities using scores and methodologies that mask growth or if one studies only a restricted range of environments.” Lohman gives the example of measuring a child’s IQ over four years; she scores 150, 143, 137, and 133 across those years, and it appears her IQ is decreasing. Then, look at the mental age scores that are equivalent to those IQ scores, and you see that she scores 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively. The child’s scores increase each year, but she is progressing a little more slowly than those of her same rank within that group. When one looks at IQ scores, one is looking at relative rank within a group, not actual growth over time. The score scale matters to showing growth (Lohman, 1995). All of these factors concerning the malleability of intelligence lend support to the talent development model of gifted education. Traditional gifted programs were based on the idea that IQ could be measured and was fixed; more recent studies show that IQ scores change over the lifespan (Horowitz, Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009; McArdle,

48

Hamagami, Meredith, & Bradway, 2000). So, our conception of giftedness must change to reflect these new ideas. Another line of research that impacts the developmental process is the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) studies. These studies showed that the developmental process varied for individuals. Studies showed that higher ability students benefitted from discovery learning and lower ability students performed better with formulas or rules (Snow, 1980, p. 50; Yoon, 2009). High-ability students were actually “hindered” by the support structures that helped lower ability students (Snow, 1980, p. 52). Different students react differently to variable treatment conditions; the developmental path is indeed a process impacted by many things. “The factors or abilities identified through factor analysis are descriptive categories, reflecting the changing interrelationships of performance in a variety of situations. These factors are not static entities but are themselves the products of the individual’s cumulative experiential history. . . . As the individual’s experiences change—through formal education, occupational functions, or other continuing activities—new traits may become differentiated, or previously existing traits may merge into broader composites” (Anastasi, 1980, p. 5). Genes and environments interact to produce behaviors and traits in an individual. “Subsequent environments to which the organism is exposed depend on its earlier states, and each new environment changes the developmental trajectory, which affects future expression of genes, and so forth. Everything is interactive. . . .” (Turkheimer, 2000, p. 161). “Those who focus too much on experience and training sometimes talk as if anything were possible for anyone; those who focus too much on aptitude ignore the crucial role that experience plays in developing talent” (Lohman, 1995). “The single most important factor in the development of what we call intelligence is formal schooling. The more schooling, the greater the gains in intelligence” (Lohman, 1995). Years of education are correlated with IQ scores at about 0.55 (Neisser, 1996).

49

These correlations do not tell us much about causation, though. Do people with higher intelligence continue to move through advanced levels of schooling because of their high ability, or does school actually improve ability? This is the essential question. Some evidence supports the impact of school on ability. When same age children go through school one year apart, those who have been in school longer have higher mean intelligence scores; and children involved in Head Start show gains in IQ during the intervention, but score gains fade with time after the intervention ceases (Neisser, 1996). This is not to say that these children made no cognitive gains; they simply did not maintain their level of achievement relative to their peers when the study ceased. Longterm effects of Head Start are mostly noncognitive; students involved in Head Start graduate high school more often than those who were not involved, are less likely to be placed in special education, and are less likely to be held back a grade (Neisser, 1996). Gordon’s study of the English canal boat children showed that the youngest children in the families had normal IQ scores, but older children scored in the mental retardation range (Martinez, 2000, p. 126). IQ scores are a comparison to peers, so at an early age, the canal boat children were average compared to their peers. As they aged, the lack of schooling made them appear less intelligence when compared to their peers who were in school. Like the children in the Head Start study, the children without schooling in this study did not get dumber, they simply did not develop as much as their peers, so their scores were comparatively lower as the children aged (Lohman, 1995). This evidence can also be used to show how IQ scores are, at least in part, a function of achievement or opportunity to learn. Some evidence is inconclusive or confusing. The Flynn Effect shows general intelligence scores rising over time across the world (Flynn, 1987). Researchers have many ideas why this is occurring, but no consensus has been reached. Snow indicates that the general effects of schooling may be a reason: the amount of education per student has increased over this century, so more family members are educated, and more educational

50

resources exist in the home (Snow, 1996). Experiences in particular content areas have an impact on achievement in those areas. So, the more math you have, the better at math you are, not just at the content, but in the thinking processes that attend the content areas (Snow, 1996). However, some evidence shows that while measures of Gf are increasing, measures of Gc are decreasing (Jensen, 1998). A study out of SMPY found that an increased “educational dose” was a prerequisite for STEM accomplishment, “Those with notable STEM accomplishments manifested past histories involving a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM than less highly achieving member of their respective cohorts” (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow & Steiger, 2010, p. 1). So, even among the highly able, having more opportunities before college seems to facilitate more accomplishment across the lifespan, and this holds true for both men and women. The developmental process describes the particular path the Fellows in this study took to their accomplishment. Of interest in this section are the opportunities they took advantage of during their studies. Many of the Fellows had access to private laboratories and had mentors who were college professors. Their parents often facilitated their support network as well. The components of the developmental process are often repeated in other sections. For example, a turning point may be meeting a mentor; mentors appear in the environmental catalysts section. Investment may be a function of motivation, so any references in the analytical generalization for the case studies for time invested will be a proxy for motivation or volition. For this purpose, any supporting examples for the developmental process are placed in the appropriate section that better reflects the specific nature of the example.

51

Systematically Developed Competencies Systematically Developed Competencies Defined The end result of schooling is, for some of us, competence in a professional or technical field. The culmination of the developmental process is competency or talent in the DMGT. Competencies appear in many fields in the DMGT, outlined by the RIASEC model from Holland’s (1985) work, and including other fields that Holland did not include, such as academics, gaming, and sports. Talents emerge after a concentrated effort of development. This study focuses on science competency as indicated by the Davidson Fellowship award. Studies of expert performance and eminent individuals focus on the end product and look back to see what impacted the development of the individual. Literature Related to Systematically Developed Competencies Two main areas of research in gifted education are studies of expert performance and studies of eminent individuals. Expert studies show us that people who attain the highest levels in their field have started young, have put in at least ten years, or 10,000 hours, of focused, intense, deliberate practice, and have different, age-related periods of peak performance (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Experience alone is not enough to make an expert; one needs deliberate practice, which means solo, focused, daily practice with feedback from an expert teacher. People achieve expert status in a specific domain, like chess or tennis, and rarely achieve optimal levels in more than one area, because of the amount of time necessary to develop skill to an elite level (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). An expert has a number of characteristics that distinguish him or her from a novice. Prawat (1992) draws our attention to expert versus novice thinking as an example of the complexity of thought that develops with advanced understanding of a topic. He reviews a study comparing students to construction foremen on a test of mathematical scale conversions. As one would expect, the foremen made far fewer mistakes due to

52

their practical experience and ability to judge the reasonableness of their answers. Prawat (1992) says, “What students are typically asked to do within various subject-matter domains often bears little relationship to the kinds of activity engaged in by practitioners of the discipline.” Prawat asserts that learning takes place within specific contexts, and cannot be separated into learning and application. Application is learning. The research on experts versus novices shows us that experts: excel in one domain, “perceive large meaningful patterns in their domains, see and represent problems in their domains at a deeper level than do novices, spend a great deal of time analyzing problems qualitatively, and have strong self-monitoring skills” (Gallagher in Colangelo, 2003). Expert studies have also shown us that different measures of IQ vary with age. While Gf, short-term memory and retrieval, and speed diminish with age, within domains of expertise, these declines do not occur (Masunaga & Horn, 2000). These studies often distinguish general short-term or working memory from an expertise-dependent shortterm memory, so what we term intelligence actually has a different character to it (Masunaga & Horn, 2000). One can develop a “chess IQ” that does not diminish over time, as one’s general Gf would. A conflict exists over whether expertise is based, in part, on IQ. Schmidt and Hunter (1996; 2004) would say that g definitely predicts job performance. Hunt (2000) indicates that the measure of g that Schmidt and Hunter are using, the ASVAB test, is really a measure of Gc. Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) cite evidence that IQ is a weak predictor of performance in music and chess, and that correlation between IQ and performance decrease over time. Ericsson and Lehmann (1996), however, also say that elite performance is tied to cognitive processes such as monitoring, planning, and reasoning, as well as focused attention and better organization of knowledge structures. All of these cognitive abilities are highly correlated with g. Schmidt and Hunter (2004) say the very thing that allows people to become experts is that higher levels of general mental ability allow people to acquire more job knowledge and acquire it faster.

53

Perhaps both are right, and they are looking at different forms of evidence. Ericsson and Lehmann say that the amount of deliberate practice better predicts performance than g. It seemed that they were studying people at such a high level that measures of g would not show high correlations due to range restriction. Additionally, correlations between measures of different cognitive abilities and g vary depending on where one sits on the score scale. Correlations are high at the low end of the general intelligence scale and “markedly lower at the high end” (Hunt in Ericsson, et al., 2006, p. 32). IQ certainly would not be the factor that allows us to discriminate among these high performers. One study dissected this range restriction and found that individual differences in cognitive ability did predict professional differences in creative output (Park, et al., 2008). Certainly, IQ alone is not enough, but it is important. Roe (1952) found that outstanding achievement in science was predicted by the participants' capacity for endurance, concentration, and commitment more than their intellectual ability. However, the scientists in the study were all high in intellectual ability to begin with. Her study further shows that high IQ is not sufficient for exceptional achievement; rather, one needs both high ability and perseverance. Studies of eminence are also useful to see the results of the talent development process. These studies repeatedly show that early giftedness or precocity does not necessarily result in eminence; the correlations are somewhere in the 0.14 to 0.26 range—statistically significant, but not very high (Simonton, 2008; Terman and Subotnik in Subotnik, et al., 2009). Bloom (1982) found that eminent individuals in his study achieved recognition at different ages, had at least 10 years of deliberate practice in their field, had supportive families and peer groups, and had certain noncognitive traits (willingness to work hard and competitiveness) as well as cognitive abilities (ability to learn quickly) that helped them be successful. VanTassel-Baska (1989) found personal traits to be most important, such as determination, passion, and confidence. Subotnik, et

54

al., (2009) find that the availability of mentors and a supportive peer group is essential. These studies support a combination of ability, noncognitive traits and environmental support is necessary to achieve success. Studies of eminent individuals are particularly important to seeing specific examples of intrapersonal and environmental catalysts in individual lives. “No test, whatever it is called, reveals how or why the individual reached that level. To answer the latter questions, the examiner needs to delve into other concomitant variables, and especially into the individual’s experiential background” (Anastasi, 1980, p. 4). The next two sections describe the how and why of the catalysts; these forces clearly impact the developmental process of the DMGT. Intrapersonal Catalysts Intrapersonal Catalysts Defined The developmental process is acted upon by three other components of the model: intrapersonal and environmental catalysts, as well as the genetic and biological factors described in the basements. Each catalyst can be considered in two ways: direction and strength. Direction indicates whether a catalyst is a positive or a negative force, and the strength indicates the causal impact of the catalyst (Gagné, 2004). For example, people can be positive or negative catalysts. William James’ father was an alcoholic and actively discouraged James from pursuing his passion, art, so James did not get his first job until he was thirty-one years old, in a profession he didn’t like (Feinstein, 1984). In this example, the negative environmental catalyst, parental influence, trumped the intrapersonal catalyst, interest. “Talents are channeled by interests” (Hunt in Ericsson et al., 2006, p. 34). Intrapersonal catalysts include the physical and mental traits of an individual, as well as goal management processes (Gagné, 2009). Traits, which are relatively stable, include such physical traits as overall health and the existence of handicaps, as well as mental traits, such as temperament and personality. The goal management behaviors of the

55

individual include three subcomponents: awareness, motivation, and volition. Awareness includes awareness of our own strengths and weaknesses. Motivation is directly defined as the identification of a talent development goal or a passion (Gagné, 2009); it can be described as the part that comes before any action toward the goal (Corno, 1993). Volition includes the actions one takes after naming that goal, including the effort and persistence necessary to continue on the path in the face of setbacks (Gagné, 2009; Corno, 1993). Literature Related to Intrapersonal Catalysts The intrapersonal catalysts include physical and mental traits, and goal management behaviors, such as awareness, motivation, and volition. Recall that many of these subcomponents are heritable (Jensen, 1998; Brody, 1992; Digman, 1990; Lykken, et al., 1993). This section will begin with a discussion of Ackerman’s PPIK Theory, then Scarr’s work about people creating their own environments. Dweck’s work on beliefs is one example of a study that supports this section directly, and other studies will be cited that support different intrapersonal subcomponents. When laying the groundwork for his PPIK theory, Ackerman says, “…when considering the development and expression of intellect in adulthood, no theory can be comprehensive if it does not portray how personality, interests, and abilities interact to determine the level of knowledge that individuals develop throughout the adult lifespan” (Ackerman, 1996, p. 237). He then goes on to describe his PPIK theory in four components: intelligence as process (P), personality (P), interests (I), and intelligence as knowledge (K). It seems to me that the PPIK is a further elaboration of Cattell’s Investment Theory, explaining why we invest where we do. When I saw Ackerman’s PPIK and his desire for a model of general intellectual growth over the lifespan, I thought of the DMGT. Ackerman references many previous theories of intelligence. Names such as Vernon, Cattell, Sternberg, Gardner, Ceci and Liker, and Schmidt and Hunter are

56

congratulated, but fall short, because Ackerman says, “. . . none of these theories provides a developmental approach that encompasses the associations among personality, interests, and the development of intellectual knowledge and skills” (Ackerman, 1996, p. 236). So, Ackerman was looking for a model or a theory that provides an explanation of intellectual development that accounts for everything we know, at this point, about how abilities develop. PPIK itself, however, does not account for the many environmental factors involved in the development of intelligence; the DMGT accounts for a great deal more. The DMGT fits with what Ackerman has found for his PPIK model. The PPIK theory has Gp (intelligence as process) and Gk (intelligence as knowledge) directly influencing the Realistic interest, Artistic interest, Openness personality factor from the five factor model of personality, TIE (typical intellectual engagement), and Investigative interest factors which then influence academic knowledge domains (Ackerman, 1999, p. 443). All of the information in PPIK is in the DMGT; the order of influence is a bit different. Another line of research impacting the interpersonal catalysts comes from Scarr’s (1983) work describing genotype to environment effects. Gagné indicates that it is through the intrapersonal characteristics (determined in part by our genotypes) that we choose our environments. “The bulk of the environmental stimuli have to pass through the sieve of an individual’s needs, interests, or personality traits” (Gagné, 2008). Gagné and Scarr seem to agree on this point. Scarr (1996) begins her argument (as does Gagné through the basements) by saying, “Children are individually different in all measurable behaviors . . .” (p. 54). The genotype determines this difference. “Behavioral development depends on both a genetic program and a suitable environment” for expression of those genes (Scarr, 1983, p. 425). Differences come from both genes and environment, but genes are the stronger influence (Scarr, 1983, p. 425). According to Scarr, the genotype drives experience in three ways.

57

First, the influence of the genotype is passive. Children’s genotypes and environments come from their parents; both are correlated (Scarr, 1983, p. 427). There is no way to tell if my love for reading comes from a gene I inherited from my parents who also love to read, or if my love for reading comes from being raised in an environment that loved reading. My parents were in charge of both. Second, the influence of the genotype is evocative. Different behavioral phenotypes, which are based on genotypes, elicit different responses from the environment (Scarr, 1983, p. 427). “Children’s talents, interests, personalities, and other characteristics evoke different reactions from their parents. Some children who are habitually grumpy and difficult to manage challenge their parents’ patience, whereas others who are cheerfully compliant consistently evoke parental gratitude and joy” (Scarr, 1996, p. 204). These two children exist in the same family; rearing practices have little to do with encouraging one baby to be pleasant and the other to be grumpy. Parents respond to the needs of their children. Finally, the influence of the genotype is active. Children attend to their environments differently based on their characteristics: paying close attention to some things while ignoring others. “People seek out environments they find compatible and stimulating” (Scarr, 1983, p. 427). As children get older, they have more freedom to experience different environments, and therefore make different choices. “Our selections are correlated with motivational, personality, and intellectual aspects of our genotypes” (Scarr, 1983, p. 427). This active selection changes with development; as we grow, different things become more and less important to us. This explains why the influence of the environment diminishes as one gets older, why identical twins reared apart are so similar, and why identical twins are more alike than fraternal twins: the genes have it (Scarr, 1983, p. 430–431). Children take advantage of the opportunities their parents provide to them in different ways (Scarr, 1996, p. 204); this is the most salient feature of Scarr’s theory to

58

the DMGT. People actively seek out different environments through selective attention on their part and evocative attention from the environment. Feldman, describing Piaget’s work, supports this notion as well. “For Piaget the nature of interaction in the construction of intelligence is crucial but nonspecific. Children need to live in an environment that includes objects and people, behaving in ways that objects and people do. Any more or less normal environment, however, is sufficiently rich to provide the needed aliment for the child’s evolving mental structures. The individual constructor is at the heart of the process; the child uses environment as he or she sees fit” (Feldman, 1982, p. 18). Work from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) also supports this idea. Different patterns of ability (high math versus high verbal) measured at age 13 are predictive of different career choices (Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2006; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007). Vocational interests remain stable over 15 years, from age 13 to age 28, as measured by the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (Lubinski, Benbow, & Ryan, 1995). Men and women graduate students showed similar profiles of personality, interests, affective, cognitive and conative attributes, and these attributes were, most importantly, a good fit for their chosen career in science. Characteristics of scientists include: “pronounced quantitative reasoning ability relative to verbal ability, salient scientific interests and values, a remarkable amount of energy, and, well before college, a clear preference for math-science coursework” (Lubinski, Benbow, Shea, EftekhariSanjani, & Halvorson, 2001, p. 314). Student profiles of ability and preferences match the demands of their chosen environment, and the students began to self-select these opportunities early in their schooling. Information on intrapersonal catalysts comes from many sources. The SMPY camp details the intrapersonal catalysts that form an aptitude complex for scientific careers. The characteristics include: “mathematical gifts, high levels of spatial ability,

59

investigative interests, and theoretical values” (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006, p. 316). They indicate that special educational opportunities improve the development of scientific expertise, and that “extraordinary scientific accomplishments require extraordinary commitment both in and outside of school” (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006, p. 316). Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke (in VanTassel-Baska, 1989) also found a theoretical interest in their Midwest Talent Search participants. Feldman (1991) found that motivation was an important factor in the success of his participants. Subotnik (1983) learned that curiosity was important to starting a life of scientific research. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) found that personal characteristics, like the ability to concentrate, good work habits, and openness to experience, are necessary for talent to grow and develop. Additional evidence shows that personality impacts job performance. “Intellectually able individuals falter on the job when their personality traits are not congruent with task requirements” (Goldberg, 1993, p. 32). Lohman says there must be a match between the learner and the environment. “One way to think of it is the outer environment offers various affordances for action that must mesh with the inner environment of the learner” (Lohman, 1995, p. 9). Again, genotypes produce phenotypes that interact with the environment. “A complex reciprocity between person and situation is expected wherein a person may be ready to profit from one kind of treatment and not from another aimed at the same achievement goal” (Snow, 1992, p. 8). The fit between the personal characteristics of the individual and the requirements of the domain is important. Bloom (1982) found that several factors were important to talent development according to the teachers, parents, and participants in his study. One factor was an “unusual willingness to do great amounts of work (practice, time and effort) to achieve at a high level or standard;” another factor was “great competitiveness with other peers in the talent field and a determination to do their best at all costs” (Bloom, 1982, p. 512).

60

Bloom attributes these characteristics to early socialization in the home. Yet, he also states that when two talented siblings were present in the home, parents often noted that there was one sibling who was willing to put in the work and one who wasn’t willing (Bloom, 1982, p. 513). Parents noted the individual differences and supported the one who was willing to work (Bloom, 1982, p. 513). Yet another line of research that impacts the intrapersonal catalysts is the study of mindsets. Good and Dweck (2005) and Dweck (2006) discuss motivational issues and “self-theories.” There are two belief systems about intelligence. One says that intelligence is an “entity” or an innate and fixed quantity we are given at birth and there is nothing we can do to change it. The other is an “incremental,” or fluid, view of intelligence, which means we can grow our ability through hard work and practice (Dweck, 2006). Students’ belief about the fixed or fluid nature of intelligence has implications for achievement. Students who have a belief that intelligence is “malleable” show greater abilities to apply knowledge in new situations and to reason in difficult problem solving situations than students who have a belief in fixed ability (Dweck, 2006). Greater gains in achievement and more productive goal setting practices are the result of a fluid way of thinking. Growth mindsetters see setbacks as growth opportunities, a chance to learn and develop potential (Dweck, 2006). They felt smartest when things were difficult and gained self-esteem when they applied themselves to a challenge; whereas, fixed mindsetters see setbacks as threatening a loss of face and selfesteem (Dweck, 2006). “No matter how objective we try to be, our feedback [to students] conveys messages about what we think is important, what we think of them, and how they should think of themselves” (p. 32). Beliefs can help or hinder achievement, as can aspirations and self-concept. VanTassel-Baska (1989) found that Midwest Talent Search participants all saw themselves as college graduates, with 90% of them seeing themselves going on to advanced degrees, and 60% aspiring to the highest level in their chosen field. VanTassel-

61

Baska also found that these students demonstrated a strong sense of their own abilities and accomplishments in their strength area, as well as in other extracurricular areas. Gifted students, when compared to their non-gifted peers, often show lower levels of anxiety, higher self-esteem, greater internal locus of control, and higher self-concept (Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke in VanTassel-Baska, 1989). Messick (1984) adds the effects of affect; neuroticism is certainly negatively associated with success, as agreeableness is positively associated with success. One of the prime sources of personality influence on cognition is the pervasive impact of positive and negative affect. The positive affects of interest and surprise, along with . . . intrinsic motivation and curiosity, are critical in the initiation and maintenance of cognitive functioning, in the selectivity and duration of attention, and in the differentiation and integration of cognitive structure. In contrast, negative affects such as fear and anxiety lead to interference and disorganization of function, to disruption and pre-emption of attention, and to dedifferentiation and primitivization of structure. Furthermore, mechanisms of defense against anxiety and negative affects, being not only self protective but often self-deceptive, introduce distortions of their own into cognitive processing (Messick, 1984, p. 36–37). Lohman (1995) writes, “Understanding how some are able to protect their goals and maintain their efforts to achieve these goals is a crucial topic for the field of gifted education. Many start the journey, but few finish it” (p. 12). The area of intrapersonal catalysts is not fully tapped yet. Damasio (1994) discusses how emotion aids reason. Shavinina (2004) notes the extracognitive abilities of Nobel laureates, including intuition. One rarely sees studies related to religious or spiritual beliefs, which could also be powerful intrapersonal catalysts. There is ample evidence that intrapersonal catalysts impact the achievement of competence. Environmental Catalysts Environmental Catalysts Defined Intrapersonal catalysts are placed in front of the environmental catalysts in the DMGT model. Though environmental catalysts can have an independent influence, usually earlier in life, they are primarily filtered through the intrapersonal catalysts.

62

Environmental catalysts include milieu, individuals, and provisions. The milieu is the physical, social, cultural, economic and familial environment in which the person lives and grows (Gagné, 2009). Csikszentmihalyi found that students must be recognized for their talents, meaning that the talent domain must be valuable to society in order to be recognized (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 243). Feldman echoed this sentiment, “Finally, historical and cultural forces are critical to the recognition and development of talent. At some points in time, one field is stagnant while another is booming” (Feldman, 1991, p. 36). Individuals are the people in one’s life who can have an impact, such as parents, peers, teachers, and mentors. Provisions are the instructional provisions of schooling, formal and informal, that contribute to developing talent or competency, such as the availability of enrichment opportunities, curriculum, pacing and method of teaching, as well as how students are grouped in schools, if acceleration is allowed, etc (Gagné, 2009). Literature Related to Environmental Catalysts Scarr (1983) notes, “Extreme deprivation or unusual enrichment can diminish the influence of genotype” (p. 433). She continues, “Observed environmental differences are largely the result of genetic differences, except at the very worst end of the environmental scale” (Scarr, 1996, p. 205). I take this to mean that genes are more important than the environment, unless the environment is more important. In the DMGT, the environmental catalysts include the milieu into which a person is born, the people who impact the person, and the specific provisions provided for education. A return to twin and adoption studies is appropriate here, as is the impact of nutrition and other environmental influences on biology, and studies from Turkheimer on the nonlinear influence of the environment. The role mentors and parents, and the impact of acceleration and other educational opportunities are also important environmental catalysts.

63

Milieu Part of the milieu is the physical and economic world into which we are born. Studies of twins who have been adopted into different classes hold the strongest evidence for the influence of the environment on ability and achievement. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found, when they looked at Black children adopted into white homes before age 12 months, the IQs of the Black adoptees were 20 points higher than comparable children raised in the Black community (Martinez, 2000; Scarr & Weinberg, 1983). These children’s IQs were still more closely correlated with the IQs of their biological mothers than their adoptive mothers, but measured ability did increase. Children who are adopted into higher SES homes tend to have higher IQs. The French Adoption Study showed that children of low SES mothers adopted into “privileged” families before age seven months had higher IQs and academic achievement than similar children who stayed with the birth mothers (Martinez, 2000). The French Cross-Fostering Study (Martinez, 2000; see Table 2) created four groups: high and low SES adoptive parents with children of high and low SES birth parents. Though this study supports the strength of genetics on IQ, it also shows the effect of the environment.

Table 2. The French Cross-Fostering Study Group

IQ

SD

High SES Biological

High SES Adoptive 119.6 12.25 Low SES Adoptive 107.5 11.94 Low SES Biological High SES Adoptive 103.6 12.71 Low SES Adoptive 92.4 5.41 Source: Martinez, M. E. (2000). Education as the cultivation of intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nutrition also has an effect on cognitive ability. Vitamin supplements given to pregnant mothers have resulted in higher IQ scores (Martinez, 2000, p. 115). McKay, Sinisterra, McKay, Gomez, and Lloreda (1978; see Figure 3) combined educational

64

improvement with nutritional supplements and improved health care for children in poverty. They implemented treatments for different lengths of time, used a stratifiedgroup random sampling procedure, and used a high-SES group as a control. The treatment groups gained, but never reached the control group; the greater gains reflected the longer amount of the time the treatment was implemented.

Figure 3. Growth of general cognitive ability of children from 43 to 87 months _________________________________________________________________ Source: McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprived children. Science, 200(4339), 270–278.

65

Smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, exposure to radiation and pesticides are all environmental influences that affect a developing fetus and are linked to lower IQ scores in adults; for example, fetal alcohol syndrome is associated with mental retardation (Martinez, 2000, p. 113). Twins have lower IQ scores generally, due to lower birth weight, increased prematurity, and sharing of resources within the womb, and heavier twins have higher IQ scores (Martinez, 2000, p. 115). So, the intrauterine environment can have an effect on phenotype, even in twins. Complex Interactions The environment can have a differential influence on the individual. Initially, Turkheimer draws us out of the nature-nurture debate by stating plainly the mechanisms by which it has been kept alive: the difference between correlations and means (Turkheimer, 1991). “But probably the single greatest confusion for those who would attempt to understand how improvable human intelligence might be hides quietly in the mundane distinction between means and correlations” (Lohman, 1995). Turkheimer succinctly tells us that individual differences researchers have been reporting correlations, sometimes to the exclusion of means, which support the genetic model of intelligence. He also tells us that the developmental camp has been reporting differences in means, sometimes to the exclusion of correlations, which support the environmental influence. It is more than both. “Additive models of linear and independent contributions of genes and environment to variation in intelligence cannot do justice to the complexity of the development of intelligence in children” (Turkheimer, et al., 2003, p. 628). Turkheimer, et al., (2003) found the impact of family environment to be nonlinear; “the models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly reverse” (p. 623). This study supports Scarr’s threshold view of “good enough” parenting, which states that above a particular

66

level of environmental support, genes take over (Scarr, 1996). “Although there is much that remains to be understood, our study and the ones that have preceded it have begun to converge on the hypothesis that the developmental forces at work in poor environments are qualitatively different from those at work in adequate ones” (Turkheimer, et al., 2003, p. 628). So, talent development is interactive at every level, between nearly every variable. Ceci’s bioecological model seems to express this idea the best when he refers to the “environmentally loaded nature of heritability and the genetically loaded nature of the environment” (Ceci, et al., in Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1997). The bioecological model has four parts. First, “the existence of multiple, statistically independent resource pools.” Second, “the interactive and synergistic effect of gene-environment developments.” Third, the role of “proximal processes” and “distal processes” that influence whether a genotype actually manifests. These are remarkably similar to the intrapersonal and environmental catalysts. These processes are things like the education and support of caregivers, SES, and the amount of literacy material in the home. Fourth, the role of motivation in helping a genotype manifest (Ceci, et al., in Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1997). The bioecological model never loses sight of the interaction between genes and environment, and Ceci, et al., say, “the influences of genetics and environment are never wholly separable” (Ceci, et al., in Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1997, p. 313). The best example of this comes from McKay, Sinisterra, McKay, Gomez, and Lloreda (1978); there was another set of graphs in that study that showed the distributions of StanfordBinet scores for the different treatment groups. One can see in these graphs that the treatments did have an effect (see Figure 4). The distributions slide to the right as the IQ means grow. However, one can see that there is always a distribution as well. The groups seem to begin to divide out somewhat as different children respond to the treatment better than others. A skew forms clearly in

67

treatment two, and the distributions become bimodal in treatments two, three, four, and high school. So, even though the treatments helped, they didn’t help everyone equally. This is another human example of reaction range, the two pots of seeds analogy mentioned earlier.

Figure 4. Mean scores of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test at 8 years of age __________________________________________________________________ Source: McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprived children. Science, 200(4339), 270–278.

68

The environment can also impact our biology in a different ways. Studies of expertise development show us how the brain actually changes in response to practice (Hill & Schneider in Ericsson, et al, 2006). Also, recall that training at elite levels of performance in sports can cause anatomical changes, such as the size of the heart, the number of capillaries supplying blood to muscles, and metabolic properties of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles; practice at young ages may be necessary for anatomical adaptations that foster success, such as joint flexibility and hip turnout for ballet dancers and musicians; and vigorous activity actually stimulates growth necessary for success in specific fields (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Parents The role of specific individuals, like parents and mentors, are also a part of the environment. Parents are often, but not always, the first to notice the special abilities of their children and seek to support those abilities (VanTassel-Baska, 1989; Gross, 1993). Feldman (1991) and Gross (1993) found that the family was often a child’s first teacher and provided significant material resources to the child’s education. “Often older when they have their children, parents of prodigies are generally willing to devote major portions of their own time and energy to the development of their children’s talents. One or both parents may reduce or give up entirely their own careers, may move long distances to be where their children can receive the best instruction, may sacrifice their own comfort and security so that the very best equipment, technology, competition, and promotion can be provided” (Feldman, 1991, p. 152). A nurturing family environment is essential to talent development (Bloom, 1995; VanTassel-Baska, 1989; Feldman, 1991). VanTassel-Baska (1989) found that over 90% of the Midwest Talent Search participants had both parents intact, parents were highly educated with over 70% having bachelor’s degrees, and the number of siblings was low. With fewer children to attend to, parents had more time to devote to each child.

69

Bloom (1985) found that the parents of his subjects encouraged the children to do their best, be successful, win, strive for excellence, and helped them persist when activities got difficult. Bloom’s (1985) parents were consistent about checking homework and carefully monitoring practice. Often, the parents were also involved in the activity themselves, so introduced their child into the talent area (Bloom, 1985). The values and climate of the family are also important. Kulieke & OlszewskiKubilius (in VanTassel-Baska, 1989) found that high expectations for level of education were positively correlated with achievement, but an overemphasis on winning or competition was negatively associated with achievement. These researchers also report that a family climate that encourages independence and is child centered is positively related to achievement. Parents consciously cultivated these values and modeled positive behaviors for their children (Kulieke & Olszewski-Kubilius in VanTassel-Baska, 1989). In child prodigies, Feldman noted some different results in terms of independence. “The focus of resources, both those of the child and of those around her or him, can be so intense that there is little emphasis on making sure that the child learns to do things independently. The weight of the responsibility for making sure the child’s talent is fully developed can lead to a tendency to relieve the child of other responsibilities” (Feldman, 1991, p. 155). Teachers Parents and teachers are important environmental catalysts in some unexpected ways. Csikszentmihalyi concluded that a number of environmental factors influenced achievement. He indicated that a feeling of “flow,” or an optimal experience characterized by complexity, loss of time and feeling completely engrossed in the activity is necessary for students to continue in their domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 14). Flow is created by a set of conditions, including a set of clear goals and feedback on those goals, a balance between the challenge given and the ability of the person, and a feeling of control in the situation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The environment sets the

70

goals and gives the feedback to the person. A teacher or a parent could be in charge of the task, so has the ability to set the task at just the right challenge level to balance the skills of the student. If the student reaches this precise balance, then they feel a sense of control over the outcome. Families and teachers can be positive or negative influences on the lives of children (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 247–249), and structured rewards help the process of talent development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 250). Bloom (1985) found that some domains, like music or chess, lend themselves to talent development, because they are more structured, providing easy reference points to recognize advanced talents, find appropriate teachers, and reward students in a structured way. Parents and teachers are the gatekeepers of this whole process. Teachers impact outcomes in science in multiple ways. Many studies find that science activities at school have long-lasting impact on scientists. Feist’s 2006 study of National Academy of Sciences members indicated that 25% of them knew they wanted to be a scientist by age 14, and 50% knew by age 18. “The younger NAS members were when they and others recognized their scientific talent, when they wanted to be a scientist and when they first conducted scientific research, the younger they were when they published their first paper” (Feist, 2006, p. 30). And then in turn, the younger the member was when they first published, the more productive the person was across their career (Feist, 2006). A Dweck study found that most small children believe that effort is the same as intelligence: smart people try hard and trying hard makes you smart. Yet, by age 11 or 12, children can tell the difference between effort, ability and performance: someone who succeeds without much effort must be smart (Dweck, 2006). Dweck’s theory states that something in the feedback coming from parents and teachers changes this belief system in children.

71

Parents and teachers may actually be contributing to the underachievement of gifted students by providing praise for completion of activities that are too easy leading to the incorrect conclusion that schoolwork should be easy if you are gifted (Rimm in Colangelo, 2003). A corollary to this, some students begin to feel superior to others because schoolwork is always easy for them. Without an appropriate level of challenge, they can develop big egos. Teachers created this situation by keeping gifted students in placements that are too easy (Rimm in Colangelo, 2003). When gifted students run into a challenge, they think they are not gifted any longer, and “lose their sense of control over school outcomes” (Rimm in Colangelo, 2003). They often quit, as they have no strategies for how to deal with challenges. Gifted girls, when they begin to be tracked into appropriate courses for the first time in middle and high school, often begin having eating disorders (Rimm in Colangelo, 2003). So, the adults in our lives exert an impact in terms of support and providing resources, but also in the development of our values and beliefs, motivation and volition. Mentors Mentors and teachers are an important component of talent development. Mentors are important in studies that look at eminent individuals (Bloom, 1982; Subotnik, et al., 2009). Who can say who Carl Jung would be without the presence of Freud (Bair, 2003)? After examining the backgrounds of more than 50 Nobel laureates, Shavinina (2004) found that what they all had in common was at least one teacher who played "an exceptional role" and went beyond the ordinary classroom practice. "They all had at least one exceptional teacher who acted as a role model" (Shavinina, 2004). NAGC states, “The person(s) with the primary teaching responsibility for gifted learners must possess the requisite knowledge and competencies. Because gifted education programming should be an extension of good general education curriculum and instruction, qualified teachers in gifted education are first, good classroom teachers

72

within their discipline and grade level(s). However, being a good classroom teacher alone is not sufficient for teaching gifted learners” (www.NAGC.org). In classrooms, teachers are crucial to figuring out who requires differentiation in their classrooms. “Moreover, diagnostic assessment of students’ science abilities and knowledge is critical to ensure that the curriculum is sufficiently challenging for each individual learner” (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Teacher beliefs also impact talent development. Prawat (1992) discusses what he calls a faulty notion that teachers think content and learner’s abilities are fixed. He says, “Most of the problems associated with implementing a constructivist approach to teaching could be overcome if teachers were willing to rethink not only what it means to know subject matter, but also what it takes to foster this sort of understanding in students.” Teachers believe that students have high ability or low ability, have a particular learning style, or have certain emotional characteristics that are unchanging (Prawat, 1992). The belief of the teacher is fixed and prevents the teacher from truly attending to the efforts of the students to understand the content (Prawat, 1992). Teachers also believe that content is fixed, established by authorities that know better than they do, and is sequenced in the most perfect possible way to foster learning. Changing these ideas in teachers is essential to promoting a constructivist agenda (Prawat, 1992). When teaching the gifted, one not only needs to keep in mind different abilities like spatial ability, but also the faster pacing and greater complexity of ideas that these children can handle. The mentor is key to figuring out this pace and complexity. I consider a mentor a subset of the teacher category; a mentor implies to me an individual relationship that is at a more advanced or more specific level than that of a teacher. “Yet, it is clear that early prodigious achievement does not occur without extensive, and usually formal, instruction. It is true that in certain fields a child may reach a relatively high level of performance with relatively little instruction, but past this point, if the child is not provided with expert instruction, continued development of the talent is likely to be

73

attenuated” (Feldman, 1991, p. 131). Many of Feldman’s prodigies had more than one tutor at a time, and most importantly, the right tutor or mentor at the right time. “Selecting the most appropriate teacher at a critical period in the prodigy’s development may spell the difference between sustaining a budding talent and curtailing that child’s trajectory of achievement” (Feldman, 1991, p. 130). Mentors have different qualities and different roles at different stages of development. For example, in the beginning stages, mentors introduce the basics of the field and “should be kind, enthusiastic, encouraging, positive, and patient” (Feldman, 1991, p. 145). The beginning stage has been described by Bloom (1985) as the “romance” stage, which gets the child excited about the field in a playful way. Knowing when to switch to a new teacher is a very difficult decision for parents (Feldman, 1991), and is often facilitated by the current teacher (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1991) who indicates that the child has exceeded the teacher’s level of expertise. The next stage often involves more technical competence or precision (Feldman, 1991; Bloom, 1985), and requires a great deal of work (Feldman, 1991; Bloom, 1985; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996). The mentor’s role here changes to teaching the rules and exceptions of the domain, and becomes “systematic and disciplining” (Bloom, 1985, p. 431). The final stage of “generalization and integration” allows for the free expression of the student and requires a mentor to be “inspirational” and flexible in the lessons taught, focusing on the strengths and desires of the student, insight, and individuality (Bloom, 1985, p. 432–434). Provisions Educational opportunities are also important to developing expertise and teachers and mentors create those opportunities. VanTassel-Baska (1989) reported three “mutually reinforcing” patterns of Midwest Talent Search participants: one, students have had advanced opportunities to learn, have succeeded at them, and have tested well; two, students believe they have a talent in an area; and three, students come from families who

74

place a high value on education, recognize the importance of opportunity to learn, and are well educated themselves. The starting point is having these opportunities available; parents can value education, but if there isn’t opportunity out there, how can talent be developed? The type of science instruction impacts talent development in science education specifically. Throughout the literature, many words have been used to describe the skills effective science teaching should encourage: inquiry and making judgments, problembased learning, higher order process skills, critical and creative thinking, metacognition, and finding real world issues to explore that have personal relevance to the researcher (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Models for reasoning include: taking different points of view, examining evidence or data, making inferences, discovering implications or consequences of a problem and its solution, and recognizing assumptions (VanTasselBaska, 2003). One study found that working on experiments in class, problem solving, and promoting scientific understanding were the best predictors of high school science achievement (VanTassel-Baska, 2004). Instruction characterized as “more student centered and less step-by-step teacher learning” is associated with higher achievement (Smith, 2007). Instruction in science inquiry skills impacts not only the level of inquiry skill and positive attitudes toward science, but also the level of mastery goal orientation and self-efficacy, skills which are necessary to continued success in science (VanTasselBaska, et al., 1998; Yoon, 2009; Neber & Schommer-Aikins, 2002). VanTassel-Baska (1994) defined six key components of any science curriculum for gifted learners. She included: understanding of concepts, developing inquiry skills, developing a content knowledge base, developing interdisciplinary connections, investigating real problems, and developing scientific habits of mind. These sound like skills every child needs in the science classroom, so how does the gifted student differ? “Gifted and talented youth are able to deal with conceptually complex and abstract

75

material at much higher levels than less able children. Teachers of the gifted should use teaching strategies that stress ideation, thinking, analyzing ideas, and developing broad schemata of understanding” (VanTassel-Baska, 1994). Studies usually investigate a particular approach or curriculum program, and often pre- and post-test on the particular skills of that program. VanTassel-Baska (1994) investigated three different types of curriculum models: content, process, and conceptual. She concluded that a combination of the three would be best for gifted children. She describes a secondary program at a special science academy in which highly able students receive instruction from strong teachers in detailed content in the sciences for four years. There is “heavy emphasis on inquiry training in the scientific process. In essence, they learn how to think about science and how to question” (VanTassel-Baska, 1994). Two studies provide the most encouraging evidence that inquiry methods provide “superior” achievement gains for gifted children. Tyler-Wood, et al., (in Robinson, 2007) found participation in a math and science program with real laboratories yielded achievement gains in science and math over those students who did not participate. Etkina, et al. (in Robinson, 2007), found that participation in an astrophysics course gave those students an edge on the AP® test, without having taken the AP® course. In sum, Robinson (2007) says, “Inquiry-driven learning is not the unique domain of gifted pupils, but it is likely that there will be qualitative differences in the outcomes, and that inquiry can be given special expression in differentiated programming for highly able pupils. The precise nature of this differentiation remains to be determined.” A shortage of studies prevents us from ascertaining for certain how constructivist methods affect the gifted child. Provisions for Spatial Ability Teachers and schools also impact the talent development of those children in STEM fields by establishing who gets identified for special programming. Schools

76

currently do not identify students with high spatial abilities. Lubinski (in Colangelo, 2003) is a huge proponent of recognizing spatial ability in schools. His Theory of Work Adjustment accounts for three primary abilities: Spatial-Mechanical, Verbal-Linguistic, and Numerical-Quantitative. His correlations of Spatial-Mechanical abilities with the other two abilities are about 0.6 to 0.7, so there is something left over to measure that is different. Lubinski asserts that there are students who are high in verbal, students who are high in numerical, and those that are high in spatial, but can be low in the others. Using the correlations, he concludes that the top 1% of high-space students is not identified through the use of standard verbal and math measures. Lubinski indicates three main consequences of failing to identify these students. One, underachievement afflicts these students disproportionately, compared with students who are high-verbal and/or high-quantitative. Two, we may be ignoring a potential solution to problems facing boys in schools, who have higher dropout rates and lower reading ability as compared to girls. We may also find a solution to attracting girls into STEM fields. Three, we are sacrificing the potential for innovation and creativity that help to advance our society. Humphreys (1990) and Gohm (1990) and their colleagues have documented the underachievement of high-space students. Traditional schools rely primarily on sequentially oriented methods of teaching and learning; high-space students favor a simultaneous orientation. Schools also rely heavily on verbal and quantitative types of reasoning. High-space students can have high achievement in these areas, but some do not; this is the 1% that Lubinski referred to in a previously mentioned study. According to Humphreys and Gohm, high-space students come from lower SES families, work in and outside of the home more, and were less motivated by the classroom experience. Lower motivation leads to lack of attention and lack of attention leads to lower grades. These students have lower occupational aspirations, perhaps caused in part by these lower grades, and the less college guidance by their college

77

counselors. High-space students are disproportionately represented in occupations that do not require a Bachelor’s Degree, drop out of school at a higher rate, and, therefore, earn less money. High levels of creativity have been tied to spatial ability, as exemplified in the lives of the major creative scientists in recent history: Einstein, Faraday, Curie, Tesla, and Watson (Lohman, 1993). Current societal innovations take place in high-space fields: technology, medicine, climatology, and space science. By not identifying students with high spatial abilities, we are losing achievers in key areas. The National Science Foundation report (2010) recommends expanding our current assessment practices to include spatial abilities, so that children with these abilities are no longer neglected. SMPY research indicates that existing math and verbal talent search assessments would miss 70% of students scoring in the top 1% of spatial ability, and further indicates that 90% of STEM doctorate holders scored in the top quartile of spatial ability during adolescence (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). The attention to spatial ability calls for a somewhat radical change in how schools view the world. Schools are sequential, verbal and quantitative places. People who enter the teaching profession are likely those who were successful at school and seek to continue what they enjoyed (Lortie, 1975). Teachers train their students in sequential, verbal and quantitative ways that perpetuate this view of the world. Encouraging spatial abilities necessitates someone stepping out of their comfort level. Political Milieu Another environmental catalyst, the political milieu, can have a profound effect on programming for the gifted. As Borland said in an interview, “What it means to be gifted or talented or to possess high abilities depends, in part, on context. Context also influences the way educators construct their efforts on behalf of students with special abilities” (Howley, 2009). In America, we have a conflict between our democratic, egalitarian concerns and the notion of the independent, self-made man (Gottfredson,

78

1998). Many of the early efforts in the child-centered movement were entangled with the Social Darwinist doctrine that took a biological inheritance view of intelligence (Hlebowitsh, 2006). In answer to this claim, the progressive movement crowned the school with the mantle of the great equalizer of our society (Colangelo, 2003). Somewhere along that history, the idea of equality of opportunity got confused with equality of outcome. Some people believe that in democratic institutions such as schools, children should have not just equal opportunities to excel, but the same experiences and, as much as possible, equal outcomes. They should be taught the exact same material at the same time. If this bores the brightest, so be it. The social goals of schooling are more important than any child’s educational aspirations. . . . Grouping children by ability contradicts some fundamental notion of “fairness” (Davidson, 2004). In an effort to provide a rationale for special education, Lessen explained the multiple ways of being fair. “Fairness” can be defined in at least three ways. One, fair means equal; everyone “gets” the same thing. This can mean that all students have identical schooling experiences, or it can mean that all students have the same opportunity to learn and grow depending on their individual needs and abilities. Two, fairness can be based on need. Certainly, we would not claim that it is educationally sound to place a student with Down Syndrome in a high school AP® Biology class. Based on a battery of psychological tests and a comprehensive case study, the student’s ability level and needs yield a different educational plan. The difference between this child’s measured IQ or ability level and his “average” peers could be more than 30 points. Yet, the difference between a moderately to highly gifted child’s ability can be 30 points or more. According to this argument, fairness according to equality and need would certainly favor equal treatment of the students with disabilities and the students with advanced abilities based on their educational needs. Three, fairness can be based on achievement. The New York Yankees have earned far more World Series Championships than, alas, the Chicago Cubs. They have earned it. Would we agree to just let the Cubs play in a World Series, even if they didn’t

79

achieve it? In doing so, would we punish the Yankees for being too good and not let them play? It wouldn’t be fair, yet this is what happens to many gifted students daily, according to the statistics from NAGC concerning the available programming in different states, delineated below. Gifted students have measured and demonstrated abilities that, in many cases, have allowed them to achieve beyond the norm. Students who test in the highly gifted range of 160 points or more on tests of ability can learn at two to three times the rate of students of normal ability (Colangelo, 2003). The current political climate asks that no child be left behind, and mandates a measurement system that increases the likelihood that districts will not demand growth from its highest achievers (Bracey, 2008; Jolly, 2009; Loveless, 2008). NCLB’s preoccupation with proficiency implies a bias against the gifted, bringing to mind a strongly worded Ayn Rand, in the character of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead, I don't like geniuses. They're dangerous. A man abler than his brothers insults them by implication. He must not aspire to any virtue which cannot be shared. I play the stock market of the spirit. And I sell short. Currently, NCLB has us focused on equity issues: helping raise the achievement of at-risk students. It seems our nation can only focus on one end of the bell curve at a time. But this needn’t be the case. “Unfortunately, treating issues of equity and excellence as antagonistic and mutually exclusive is destructive to the development of sound educational practices that meet the educational needs of every individual student” (Colangelo in Colangelo, 2003). Gross (1993) found that highly gifted children had specific academic, social and emotional needs that were not being met in the current system of education, and found the culture of egalitarianism in Australia a negative influence on the creation of appropriate programming for gifted children; this echoed results in VanTassel-Baska (1989) and Stanley (1985) and is still apparent today. NAGC reports that 27 states mandate identification of gifted students; only 24 mandate services for them. Five states provide mandated funds to all Local Education Agencies; an additional 10 states provide

80

discretionary funding by application (www.nagc.org). In total, only 8 states currently mandate and fully fund gifted education services in the public schools (www.davidsongifted.org). Feldman agrees. “Prodigies in the United States are faced with substantial difficulties in public (and some private) schools. Schools are often rather inflexible in accommodating the special needs of prodigies, such as allowing time for travel to tournaments or competitions or providing special instructional resources. Parents also find themselves at odds with school authorities over the extra resources needed to respond to the exceptional talents of their children. A number of parents of prodigies have found that their children are better served by home instruction” (Feldman, 1991, p. 213). The most effective programmatic intervention for gifted children is acceleration (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gross, 1993; Rogers, 2010). Research has consistently supported positive outcomes for students who are accelerated; for example, accommodations made for high ability, such as acceleration, allow students to progress at their own pace in interest areas, which leads to higher achievement in science and other subject areas (Neu, Baum, Cooper, 2004; Muratori, et al., 2006). Yet school administrators are reluctant to use it, due to two main concerns: first, skipping grades may produce gaps in knowledge that will negatively affect student achievement in the long run; and second, student social development will be adversely affected (Wallace Proceedings, 2010). The State of the States report from NAGC in 2007 indicated that 8 states have an acceleration policy, 7 states have a policy that yields to the local education agency for acceleration decisions, and 27 states have no acceleration policy. (www.NAGC.org) An advantage of acceleration and special programming for gifted children is that special programs allow gifted children to spend time with like-minded peers (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). “Educators usually assume, incorrectly, that gifted children’s

81

emotional maturity relates primarily to chronological age rather than to mental age;” young gifted children want different things from friends, like loyalty and intimacy, which age mates just can’t provide (Robinson in Colangelo, 2004; Gross, 1993). “As a group, gifted children tend to be socially and emotionally more mature than their age mates. Reviews of research on social cognition, friendships, moral judgment, fears, play interests, and personality variables have shown that psychosocial maturity relates more closely to mental age than chronological age . . .” (Robinson in Colangelo, 2004). Highly gifted children do show more difficulties with socialization, because they do not fit in with their age peers (Davidson, 2004; Assouline, 2005). These students (IQ of 150 or higher) can be so different from their age peers intellectually or emotionally, it is difficult for them to find friends or teachers who understand their unique situation (Gross, 1993; Davidson, 2004; Assouline, 2005). Everyone needs to find friends who “get their jokes,” according to Ruf (2009). “Grouping children by age for instruction makes about as much sense as grouping them by height” (http://www.educationaloptions.com/policy/policy.php). Special programming options, an environmental catalyst, help gifted students with many intrapersonal catalysts, like self-acceptance and motivation, by placing them in the presence of peers, an environmental catalyst, who share their passion for learning. “Boys begin to underachieve when they learn that it isn’t cool among their male peers to be the best student in class” (Colangelo, 2003). Gifted students need at least some time to interact with each other for maximum academic growth, as well as to find others who share their passion for learning (Colangelo, 2003; Assouline, 2005). “Adolescents reported that being gifted was positive in terms of their own personal growth and in terms of academics. In terms of peer relations, however, they reported it to be negative” (Colangelo, 2003). Separating the environmental catalysts from the intrapersonal catalysts seems artificial in these examples; the catalysts are deeply interrelated.

82

Conclusion Environmental catalysts interact with intrapersonal catalysts in the presence of natural abilities, available options in the community, and the conditions of the larger society to produce talent development. The complexity of the process of talent development cannot be revealed by psychometric tests alone. This chapter reviewed the DMGT categories and the literature that supported each category. The DMGT provides a distinct categorization of what may potentially impact the process of talent development, including natural abilities, developmental process, systematically developed competencies, intrapersonal catalysts, and environmental catalysts. Reviewing the literature supporting the DMGT led to choosing specific methods for this study.

83 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY It starts with Einstein. He shows that measurement, measurement on which the whole possibility of science depends, measurement is not an impersonal event that occurs with impartial universality. It's a human act carried out from a specific point of view in time and space from the one particular viewpoint of a possible observer. And then, here in Copenhagen in the mid-twenties, we discover that there is no precisely determinable objective universe. The universe exists only as a series of approximations, only within the limits determined by our relationship with them, only through the understanding lodged inside the human head. Michael Frayn, from his play, Copenhagen Introduction The purpose of this study is to investigate how the different facets of the talent development process interact to produce a high level of competence among the Davidson Fellows winners in science. The research will give voice to the stories behind the talent development of these students. While prior research detailed the lives of either highly gifted children as they grew up (Gross, 1993; Feldman, 1991) or examined eminent individuals retrospectively (Bloom, 1985), this study seeks to uncover information regarding the talent development of students continuing to develop their talent after receiving national recognition for their achievement. Studying how talent develops and what variables impact the lives of eminent individuals is a prominent area of gifted education research and this is a new group of students to investigate. Many of these students have achieved a level of competence in their specific field usually reserved for adults, and they have done it in an educational and political climate that has not always favored gifted education. In order to discover the unique paths to competence that these gifted students took to competence, semi-structured interviews were completed in the context of a case study in order to allow the students to express their opinions and experiences in their own terms. Stake’s view is that case study is “not a methodological choice but a choice of

84

what is to be studied.” (Stake in Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 443) Yin (2009) indicates that one important aspect of a case study is that the case is bounded. For this study, a bounded case includes the interviews with the Fellow, his parent or parents, and any documents collected about the Fellow. Five case studies are included in this study. The research methodology includes several features, including decisions about the participants, the rationale for using a qualitative approach generally, and details about the multiple-case study approach. Review of interview questions, the procedures used to ensure reliability and validity, and the position of the researcher are also included. Participants The participants in this study included individuals who were awarded a Davidson Fellowship in the science category. The specific years used for recruitment will remain confidential in order to protect the privacy of certain participants. Davidson Fellowships have been awarded annually since 2001 to students under the age of 18 who have completed a significant piece of work, defined as: “An accomplishment that experts in the field recognize as significant and has the potential to make a positive contribution to society” (http://www.davidsongifted.org/). The science winners have completed projects in alternative energy, AIDS research, nanotechnology, breast cancer research, alternative power sources, and technology to prevent wildfires. Scholarships of $50,000, $25,000, and $10,000 are awarded each year. Students apply to seven award categories: Science, Mathematics, Technology, Music, Literature, Philosophy, and Outside the Box. To be eligible for the award, students must be United States citizens or a Permanent Resident residing in the United States. This study included 5 male participants, ages 15 through 18, and 5 parents. For 1 Fellow, both parents participated; for 3 Fellows, 1 parent participated; and for 1 Fellow, neither parent participated. The mentors of each Fellow were recruited, but none elected to participate in this study. The 5 participants were from diverse family backgrounds, including multiracial, White, Asian, Indian, and Russian. There were two $50,000

85

winners, two $25,000 winners, and one $10,000 winner. Three of the participants were only children, and 2 had significantly older siblings. Other details about the participants and their parents can be found in the individual case studies in Chapter 4. Qualitative Research Methods One of the purposes of this study is to give voice to the Davidson Fellows. “While quantitative research makes its own contributions to our understanding of gifted students and their education, it cannot access the lived experience of being gifted.” (Mendaglio, 2003) This study seeks the specific details of the experiences of these students: the kind of schooling they had experienced prior to winning the award, the kind of work in which they engaged to complete the project, how they contacted their mentors, and the kind of support systems and personality characteristics that were in place for them. Qualitative research focuses on meaning in context or how the participants have made sense of their world through a thick description of events; it “affords the reader the vicarious experience of having been there” (Merriam, 1998, 238). Objective truth is neither the goal nor ever a possibility in qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; McMillan, 2004). The goal is to understand a situation or phenomenon from the viewpoint of the subject who lived it (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2009). Qualitative data in the form of interviews or case studies are appropriate when questions of “how” or “why” are involved. Case studies are an “intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single unit.” (Merriam, 1998, p. 12) Case studies are particularly useful when “the boundary between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994). The researcher seeks to reveal the interaction of significant factors related to the phenomenon. The case study method in quantitative methodology is seen as exploratory, hypothesis generating, and an adjunct or preface to experimental research (Mendaglio, 2003). Three features are highlighted in case study research (Merriam, 1998; McMillan, 2004). Case study research is particularistic, or focused on a particular case. The

86

information gained from an individual Fellow and their parent(s) is considered a case. Case study research also involves thick description that illuminates the complexity of the phenomenon and can show the multiple influences on it, such as personality, social context, or support. Case study research is also heuristic, in that it brings about understanding and reveals the context of what happened and why. “Case study is a particularly suitable design if you are interested in process” (Merriam, 1998, p. 33). The main question to be answered in this study is how the different facets of the talent development process interacted in the lives of the Davidson Fellows that, in the end, allowed them to produce such a high level of competence in their projects. Multiple Case Study Procedure The general methodology used for gathering and analyzing information is the multiple case study procedure defined by Yin (2009). This procedure uses multiple case studies as replications, not as sampling procedure (Yin, 2009). “Multiple cases resemble multiple experiments” (Yin, 2009, p. 39). Results of each case study will be compared to a framework set out by an existing theory. The theory allows “analytic generalization” rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2009, p. 38). Statistical generalization is neither possible nor desirable in this type of study. The model used for analytic generalization is the DMGT, explained in detail in the introduction. Yin (2009) indicates that when choosing a theoretical framework for this procedure, three concerns must be addressed. First, the purpose of the study needs to be addressed by the components of the theory. Second, the theory provides a “full but realistic range of topics that might be considered a “complete” description of what is to be studied. (Yin, 2009, p. 36) Third, the theory includes the topics that will provide the important aspects of the phenomenon. So, the DMGT needs to include not only a wide range of topics that allow the exploration of talent development, but also the salient topics that influence the success of the Fellows.

87

The theory provides the template for empirical comparison of the cases. The results are considered strong if more than one case supports the theory chosen, rather than any rival theories. A rival theory to the DMGT might be Ackerman’s PPIK. PPIK does not allow a wide enough range of topics to yield a complete description of the success of the Fellows; specifically, it does not include the influence of mentors or parents, or the social milieu on talent development. Questions were devised according to the categories of the DMGT, and interviews adhered to these questions. Some participants requested the interview questions ahead of time and I provided them by email attachment. I found that interviewees often answered multiple questions in their answer to one question, so each question did not need to be asked. Also, one aspect of the semi-structured interview and qualitative research generally is the emergent nature of the research (McMillan, 2004). The Fellows often brought up issues in their answers that provoked follow-up questions from me that were not on the interview protocol. Each interview lasted between 60–90 minutes, except one. One subject did not want a tape recording made of the interview. Unsolicited, he sent me written answers to the interview questions ahead of time, so the interview would not take as long due to my taking notes. During the interview, I asked follow-up and clarification questions, so the interview lasted only 30 minutes. Each case was assembled based on the interviews of the Fellow and parent(s), and then each case was held in constant comparison with the categories of the DMGT for the individual analytic generalization. Finally, a cross-case analysis took place in which all of the cases were compared to derive common themes. Interview Questions Finding questions and then deciding which questions to ask was the most important part of this study. I am grateful to three principle sources for their questions. Initially, many questions came from the published research studies of Bloom (1985) and

88

Gross (1993); these researchers included the actual questions asked in their research interviews, so provided a starting point for this study. Additional questions were graciously sent from the people at SMPY, who sent us email attachments of their 20-year follow-up study questions. After compiling a list of all of these questions, I arranged the questions in groups according to the categories of the DMGT. Some questions were easily categorized; for example, the question “When you were very young, did you have any unusual talents or interests compared to other children in your family or other children you knew?” (Bloom, 1985; Gross, 1993) fit easily in the natural abilities section. This question would elicit stories to possibly provide anecdotal evidence for natural abilities. Other questions could have been placed in multiple categories; for example, the question “Describe any moments of adversity you encountered in the development of your project. How did you handle it?” (Dweck, 2006; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004) was placed in the intrapersonal catalysts category, yet quite possibly could yield information about positive or negative environmental supports, such as help or hindrance from a parent or mentor, as well as the personality characteristics that aided the young researcher through the difficulty. These questions were categorized in only one of the DMGT sections, based on the initial intent of the question. For this example question, I was hoping for examples of the personality characteristics that helped the students persevere, so placed that question in the mental traits section of the intrapersonal catalysts category. After all of the initial questions were categorized, I found “holes to fill” in the DMGT categories. Some categories had many questions, and some had no questions. To fill in these gaps, questions were pulled from various other studies. The interview questions for students are included Table 3 below that lists their source, as well as to which category of the DMGT they belong. The questions for parents are listed in Table 4.

89 Table 3. Interview Questions for Students DMGT Area

Questions for Students

Natural Abilities

•

•

•

• •

Intrapersonal Catalysts Mental Traits • • •

Research Connection • Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985

When you were very young, compared to other children in your family or other children you knew, did you have any unusual talents or interests? How are you different from your brothers/sisters, parents, or peers? How are you like them? • Other than your feelings of being different, was there anything that others told you that • led you to understand that you were more capable than other children your age? • What challenges you? Is there any subject area or skill that you find difficult? Anything you ever had trouble learning how to do? What are your other interests? How much time do you put into those interests? Have you kept any old report cards or testing results that you are willing to share? How would you describe your school performance (straight As? Behavior issues?) How would you describe your performance on standardized tests? On IQ tests? Do you have any results you are willing to share? Describe any moments of adversity you encountered in the development of your project. How did you handle it? Which do you think is most important for success, intelligence, connections, good luck or hard work? Why? What personal qualities helped you be successful? What personal qualities have hindered your success?

• •

• Awareness • • •

What are your most important strengths— • academically, physically, and interpersonally? What about weaknesses? How are you different from your siblings or • other kids your age? Your parents? Some very bright kids are reluctant about • letting people see that they are bright and try to play it down; others enjoy being recognized. How do you feel about being recognized for your talents or allowing people to see that you are bright?

Gross, 1993 Gross, 1993 Gross, 1993

Dweck, 2006; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire; Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig, & Forstadt, 2006 Peterson, Duncan & Canady, 2009 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993 Gross, 1993

90 Table 3 (continued) Motivation • • • •

Volition •

•

• •

• Environmental Catalysts Milieu • • • • •

What kinds of values have you learned from your parents or teachers about learning? What rewards have you received for your achievements, in school and out of school? Passion/interests questions from other sections Some students feel a need to improve the human condition or have a larger purpose or mission behind their work. Describe the sense of purpose or motivation that you feel is behind your work, if there is any. Describe a typical week for you—what is your schedule like? How much time do you spend on schoolwork/other coursework/activities/extracurricular? While working on your project, how many hours per week on average did you devote to working on it (e.g., class, reading/studying, lab time/research, and travel to/from the lab)? How long did it take to complete your project? What kinds of things do you do to work on your interest? (If I played baseball, it would be easy to describe how I practiced that sport. How do you “practice” science? What kinds of things do you do and how long do you spend doing them in any given week?) Do you see yourself as someone who persists when others give up? Describe a situation that reveals this quality.

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985; Davidson Interviews

•

Bloom, 1985

• •

Bloom, 1985 SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire

•

SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire

•

SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire

•

Dweck, 2006; Bloom, 1985

•

SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire

What do your parents do for a living? Describe the interests of your parents. What was the highest level of education achieved by your mom? Your dad? Describe your siblings. Describe your home and neighborhood.

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993

• • • •

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985

91 Table 3 (continued) Individuals • • • • • •

• •

• Provisions • •

• • •

What role have your parents played in your talent development? Tell me about the culture or value of education or learning in your home. How did your general school teachers treat you? Who was your favorite teacher and why? What about the least effective teacher? What qualities do you feel a teacher should have to be an effective teacher for talented kids? Tell me about your mentor. How did you find your mentor? What is your relationship like? How has your mentor helped you? What does the mentor provide that isn’t provided in the regular school setting? If you were starting from the beginning to work with ___, is there anything you would do differently? Talk about your peers. How were your friendships? Sometimes, gifted people feel like they don’t fit in with kids their age – have you ever had to deal with the negative peer attention? Have you ever been teased or bullied? Describe your peer group – who are your friends? Where did you meet them? How old are they? Did/do you have good friends now with whom you can talk? Describe how you were supported in your learning during your early school years by your school and/or teachers, and parents. Were your abilities apparent in your school setting? Describe any special provisions your school made for your abilities. What were the benefits/disadvantages of this program? Was there access to acceleration, mentoring, or special classes? Did you go to regular public schools or special schools? Is there anything you would change about your schooling? If yes, what? What would a perfect program have looked like for you? Based on your experience, what do you think is the best way to develop intellectual talent in children?

•

Bloom, 1985; Davidson Interviews Bloom, 1985

•

Bloom, 1985

•

Gross, 1993

•

Gross, 1993

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985; SMPY 20-year follow-up questionnaire; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004

• •

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993

•

Gross, 1993

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985: Peterson, Duncan & Canady, 2009 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985

•

•

•

Gross, 1993

•

SMPY 20-year follow up questionnaire; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004

92 Table 3 (continued) Developmental Process Activities •

In general, how did your experiences differ in elementary, middle, and high school? Did you enjoy school? • What have been your most positive, satisfying experiences or accomplishments during your school years? What was the impact of these experiences? (Name one or two positive experiences.) • What have been your most challenging personal hurdles, situations, or experiences during your school years? What was the impact of these experiences? (Again, name one or two.) • How did your teachers guide you differently at the different stages? • What resources did you take advantage of in your community or school that has helped you develop your talents? • What educational accommodations were made for you? • If special accommodations were made, did these have any effect on your peer relationships? • How did teachers respond to the expression of interest or talent in school? • How do you feel about school at this time? • Describe your activities with your mentor. Do you feel like you are doing “real science” with “real” scientists? What is the experience of science like for you and how does this experience with your mentor differ from classroom experiences with science instruction? Investment Look at question about typical week Progress • When reflecting on their careers, some eminent individuals report specific events in their lives that they considered turning points. What evens have been the most stressful or the most fortuitous in your life? Have you had such turning points in your early career so far? Describe it.

•

Shepard Dissertation

•

Peterson, Duncan & Canady, 2009; Bloom, 1985

•

Peterson, Duncan & Canady, 2009; Bloom, 1985

•

Bloom, 1985

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985

•

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Gross, 1993

• • •

•

Peterson, Duncan & Canady, 2009

93 Table 3 (continued) Competencies

•

• • • • • • • •

Other Questions

•

•

You have done your project in science. • Have you been interested in science for a long time? Was there a moment when you knew this was what you wanted to do? Why did you choose to explore this specific field? • Do you love it? Is it a passion for you? • • Was there someone or some event that inspired you to learn more about this field? Do you plan on going into this field as a profession? • Talk about your specific project. How did you get the idea? • Larger why and what for – why are you pursuing this field? To what end? • What are your larger life goals and how does this fit in? When you dream of your • perfect life, what does it look like? Has having this big project changed your school experience in any way? (If student is already in college, I’ll ask if the project has changed the college experience in any way • (feel more prepared, special classes or accommodations available due to demonstrated competence?) Is there anything else you would like to • mention that has had an impact on your talent development that I have not asked you about? What impact has winning the Davidson Fellowship had on you?

Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Bloom, 1985 Bloom, 1985 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Davidson Interviews Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 SMPY 20-year follow up questionnaire; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Bloom, 1985; Subotnik & Steiner, 2004 Gross, 1993; Bloom, 1985

94 Table 4. Interview Questions for Parents Natural Abilities 1. When _______ was very young, compared to other children in your family or other children you knew, did s/he have any unusual talents or interests? How is _______ different from his/her brothers/sisters or peers (Bloom, 1985)? Describe any special physical, intellectual, or other characteristics evident in _____ at a very young age (three or under). 2. What challenges _______? Is there anything s/he is just awful at? Anything s/he ever had trouble learning how to do? 3. What are _______’s other interests? How much time does s/he put into those interests? 4. Have you kept any old report cards or testing results that you are willing to share? Intrapersonal Catalysts 1. Describe any moments of adversity _______ encountered in the development of his or her project. How did s/he handle it? 2. (Gross, 1993) Your educational and career paths show that you have attained success. What personal qualities contributed to your success? Which of these qualities have you encouraged in your children? Which of these qualities do you see in _______? 3. What are _______’s most important strengths – academically, physically, interpersonally? What about weaknesses? 4. What kinds of values have you learned from your parents or teachers about learning? Which of those have you tried to pass on to your children? Tell me about the culture or value of education or learning in your home. Environmental Catalysts 1. What rewards has ____ received for his or her achievements, in school and out of school? 2. Describe a typical week for _______—what is his or her schedule like? 3. While working on the project, how many hours per week on average did _______ devote to working on it (e.g., class, reading/studying, lab time/research)? 4. Describe _______’s practice activities—what kinds of things do _______ do to work on his or her project? 5. What do you do for a living? 6. Describe your interests. 7. What was the highest level of education you achieved? 8. How do you think your success has impacted your children? 9. Describe your other children. 10. Describe your home and neighborhood. 11. What role have you played in _______’s talent development? 12. How did general school teachers treat ________? Describe how _______ was supported or hindered by school and/or teachers. 13. What qualities do you feel a teacher should have to be an effective teacher for talented kids? 14. Tell me about _____’s mentor. How did you find him or her? What is their relationship like? How has the mentor helped? 15. Describe _____’s peer relationships throughout his school career. Some studies of gifted children have found that gifted children have difficulty with peer relationships; other studies suggest that they can be quite popular. What about _______'s peer relationships?

95 Table 4 (continued) a. If parent suggests problems(Gross, 1993)—Why do you think the problems existed? How is s/he now? 16. What kinds of educational options or resources were available generally from the regular school for ______? Were talented students welcomed and valued in school generally? 17. (Gross, 1993) How involved were you in the educational planning for your child at school? Developmental Process 1. Describe any specific provisions or educational accommodations school made for _____’s abilities. What were the benefits/disadvantages of this program? Was there access to acceleration, mentoring, or special classes? 2. If special accommodations were made, did these have any effect on ________’s peer relationships? 3. Did s/he go to regular public schools or special schools? 4. Is there anything you would change about ____’s schooling experience? If yes, what? What would a perfect program have looked like for him or her? 5. Based on your experience, what do you think is the best way to develop intellectual talent in children? 6. Talk generally about your school experiences. What was his or her life like in elementary, middle, and high school? 7. How do you feel about school at this time? 8. When reflecting on their careers, some eminent individuals report specific events in their lives that they considered turning points. What evens have been the most stressful or the most fortuitous in _____’s life? Has s/he had such turning points in his or her early career so far? Describe it. Competencies 1. ______ has done his or her project in science. Has _______ been interested in science for a long time? 2. Why did you think _____ chose to explore this specific field? 3. When you dream of a perfect life for your children, what does it look like? 4. Has having this big project changed ______’s school experience in any way? 5. Is there anything else you would like to mention that has had an impact on ____’s talent development that I have not asked you about?

Reliability, Validity, and Limitations The main strength of the multiple-case study procedure is that it captures the context and details of the Fellows’ success. The case studies reveal the factors that influenced the success of the Fellows as interactive and forming redundant or multiple support systems, rather than using a static measure that singles out an isolated influence as most important.

96

There are several weaknesses of the case study approach, including that the subjects were chosen purposefully and nonrandomly, so results are not generalizable. Humans are remembering and interpreting details through their own lenses, so bias permeates the study: this is “one person’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of what’s going on” (Merriam, 1998, p. 202). The researcher’s choice of questions could present bias, and the researcher’s very presence potentially alters the subject’s behavior. (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) The questions asked were based on previous research; however, if left completely open-ended, the subjects may have chosen to illuminate different factors related to their success. Several steps were taken to ensure reliability and validity. (Yin, 2009; McMillan, 2004) Construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability must be addressed. Construct validity is addressed through the use of triangulation, or using multiple sources of evidence, for each case (Merriam, 1998; McMillan, 2004; Yin, 2009). The Fellow was interviewed first, and then the parents were interviewed. Parents often confirmed and expanded on what the Fellow answered, but occasionally had different evidence for an issue. One limitation, in this regard, is that the mentors did not elect to participate. The mentors were intended to be a key source of triangulation, and the only source of information outside the family. Another source of information collected were the test scores of the individual Fellows. Construct validity is also verified through member checking, or having interviewees review the transcripts and notes from the interviews as well as the final case study drafts, to report any errors or to provide elaboration (Merriam, 1998). Yin (2009) and McMillan (2004) list member checking as a technique used to ensure reliability rather than validity. Internal validity can be addressed by analytic generalization to rival theories, as well as through pattern matching (Yin, 2009). Internal validity in this study is concerned with the inferences made about talent development. This study asserts that the Fellows were successful due to a combination of their unique natural abilities, intrapersonal

97

characteristics, and environmental catalysts. It is up to the reader to conclude whether this assertion fully explains the success of the Fellow (McMillan, 2004). One way to strengthen this assertion is through comparisons to rival theories of giftedness or talent development mentioned previously (Yin, 2009). Another way to support internal validity is through pattern matching (Yin, 2009). This logic compares the predicted pattern of talent development to the empirical outcome. If the pattern of answers from the Fellow matches the prediction of the DMGT, then internal validity is strengthened. If the pattern of talent development matches across cases, then cautious causal inferences can be made (Yin, 2009). External validity is addressed through the replication logic of the multiple-case study design. External validity deals with the generalizability of the results, and is usually a failing of case study research due to the small number of subjects (McMillan, 2004; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The purpose of qualitative research is to increase the understanding of the Fellows’ experiences, not to generalize to larger populations. The analytic generalization component of the multiple case study procedure relieves this burden. If the cases support the theory, then the theory generalizes to other cases. In essence, this study is a test of the DMGT. The analytic generalization is only as strong as the theory used to analyze the data. The cross-case analysis may reveal common themes across the cases that are outside of the factors proposed by the DMGT, or the themes will support the theory. Reliability is ensured through the use of an interview protocol, the recording of interviews, careful note-taking and accurate transcriptions of the taped interviews. The questions were present in front of me when I did each interview, so I made sure I covered the same information for each Fellow. Interviews were recorded, or in the one case, careful notes were taken to supplement the Fellow’s own written answers. The questions were coded according to the categories of the DMGT.

98

Positioning The limits of case study and qualitative research include the limits of being human. Personal bias can interfere, both from the subjects and from the researcher. Part of qualitative research is positioning, or revealing the bias of the researcher, so the reader can evaluate the results with a clearer vision of the filter through which the information comes (McMillan, 2004). The goal of the research is to understand a person's perspectives, not to attain objective truth. Researchers acknowledge their views, motivations, and perspectives. These are not biases needing control measures; rather, researcher characteristics are an integral part of the research equation. Researcher as instrument pervades all aspects of the research process, including data collection and analyses. Interviewing, observation, and interpretation of data are all directly influenced by the person of the researcher (Mendaglio, 2003, p. 83). The first part of my own positioning in this study is that this study was funded by a grant from the Davidson Institute for Talent Development. I had little contact with the Davidson Institute. I met the director of the Davidson Academy of Nevada at the 2010 Wallace Research Symposium on Talent Development, and I emailed another person for the Fellows’ contact information. The second part of my positioning in this study is that I work at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at The University of Iowa, and have a vested interest in advocating for gifted children. This sense of mission comes from two sources: my own past as a child in gifted programs, and my experiences teaching in public schools. As a public school student, I was in programs for gifted students from middle school through high school. I participated in enrichment programs that were fun, but did not really challenge me. I believe that I have continued in school, through one undergraduate and now three graduate programs, seeking that challenge. I never achieved the level of success in any subject that the Davidson Fellows achieved, so I am curious in a deeply personal way about how they did it. What happened in their lives that did not happen in mine, or what personal qualities do they possess that I do not?

99

My experiences as a special educator and fifth-grade teacher have also made me an advocate for gifted children. The enormous resources that support students with disabilities are not always equitably distributed to talented students. As a special educator in an inclusive setting, I often worked with teachers in classrooms. One intervention was grouping students within the class to address specific needs. The teachers and I were always grateful to be able to differentiate the instruction to meet the needs of the students; I often took the less able children, which freed the classroom teacher to address the more able children. The teacher was happier having to address a narrower range of ability, and the students were happier to be doing work at their level. As a regular classroom teacher, I was focused on the students in need first—a triage model of education. Collaboration with the school’s gifted teacher was essential to meet the needs of the high-ability students in my class. If that teacher wasn’t available to help me make modifications in my lessons and to take groups of students for advanced study, I found it very difficult to address the range of needs in my classroom in every subject. From these experiences in public education, I recognize intimately the difficulties in addressing the varying levels of ability in a classroom. The teacher in me wonders how the Davidson Fellows fared in their classrooms over the years. Summary This study was conducted using interviews in a multiple case study format. Several techniques were employed to ensure reliability and validity, including the use of tape recorders and transcriptions of interviews, member checking, thick description of events, and positioning. Interview questions and their supporting sources were presented within the DMGT format. The next chapter presents the case studies.

100

CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES Introduction This chapter presents the individual case studies. Information from the interviews was organized into each report according to a hierarchy of considerations. The first consideration was to maintain a narrative, a readable report. The order of the questions asked in each interview was generally maintained in order to facilitate this readability and reliability in reporting, but in some cases, information did not fit well or seemed to create a clumsy segue in the text. In that case, information was moved within the report. If information needed to be rearranged within the report, the second consideration was to keep the answer to the question in the DMGT category from which it was asked. For example, subjects were asked to report any family anecdotes about unusual talents or abilities in the Fellows when they were very young. These stories did not often fit well with the rest of the narrative, so they were kept in their own section, either at the beginning or end of the case study report. Finally, numerous answers to protocol questions could fit in a number of categories and were placed according to my judgment. For example, one Fellow spoke about not fitting in with his peer group. Does that story fit better with the environmental catalyst, peers, or with the intrapersonal catalysts, his internal feelings? I placed those types of answers where they seemed best to serve the narrative. Five case studies were completed: Prithwis, Collin, Sikandar, Nolan, and Roman. Multiple sources of evidence were used for each case to facilitate data triangulation, or corroboration of information. Sources of evidence included interviews with the Fellow, interviews with a parent (occurred in four cases), and documents, such as biographical sketches from the Davidson Fellowship Web site, news stories, and reports of grades and test scores. The detailed case reports follow.

101

Case Study 1: Prithwis Introduction Prithwis was 16 years old when he won the Davidson Fellowship, and was 17 years old at the time of the interview on June 22, 2010, the summer before his senior year in high school. Prithwis was born in Calcutta, India, and his family moved to the United States when he was six months old. He lives with both of his parents in Minnesota. Prithwis participates in a number of activities in and outside of his high school. He has participated in the University of Minnesota’s Talented Youth Mathematics Program since sixth grade. He serves on the school council, and participates in Quiz Bowl, Science Olympiad, and the Math League team. He volunteers to be an online math tutor, and he is very involved with the local Indian community, helping with various cultural and religious events. (http://presskit.ditd.org/2009_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2009_DF__Prithwis_Mukho padhyay.pdf) Prithwis requested the interview questions ahead of time in order to be better prepared for the interview, and sent me written answers to the questions before the interview to save me time in taking notes, as no tape recording was made of these interviews at his request. Our interview lasted less than 30 minutes, as there were only a few follow-up questions to ask him after reading his answers. Prithwis is an only child. The interview with Prithwis’s father, Partha, took place two days later on June 24, 2010, and lasted approximately one hour. All of the information contained in this case study comes from the interviews with Prithwis and his father, and from two other internet news sources, which are cited at the appropriate time. Systematically Developed Competencies “In his project, “A Common Food Additive Induces Cell Migration and Neoplastic Phenotype by Decreasing ASB Activity,” Prithwis researched the molecular mechanism by which carrageenan may induce premalignant cell transformation. Carrageenan is a FDA-approved food additive found in dairy products, processed meats, dog food, infant

102 formula and cosmetics. Using mammary epithelial cells, he found carrageenan reduced Arylsulfatase B (ASB) activity and increased sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAG), especially chondroitin sulfate, which induced cell migration and premalignant transformation. Prithwis’ work shows how carrageenan influences breast cancer cell proliferation and migration.” (http://www.davidsongifted.org/fellows/Article/Davidson_Fellows___Sc holarship_Recipients_354.aspx) Prithwis explains his research in his own words, “My research is on carrageenan, which is a common food additive people consume almost on a daily basis. I showed that carrageenan has the same characteristics as the carcinogenic substances. I derived the molecular mechanism (step-by-step path that leads to something) by which carrageenan induces cell migration and invasion of mammary cells. A specific enzyme, known as Arylsulfatase B, was found to play a major role in this process. This study, for the first time, explains the involvement of this particular enzyme in regulating cell migration and invasion of mammary cells. The importance of bringing the role of Arylsulfatase B in this context is: not only carrageenan, but anything else that increases or decreases the activity of this enzyme will have the same phenotypes as carcinogenic substances. The molecular mechanism derived from this study is likely to help researchers understand food additives better and develop therapies against certain forms of cancer.” Natural Abilities Prithwis has been doing work well beyond his age for many years. His father reports that the best birthday present Prithwis ever received was a remote-control model car kit when he was five or six years old. This 150-piece model car, with a batterypowered motor, was recommended for children ages twelve and over, but Prithwis spent about a month building it without assistance. Also starting at around this age, Prithwis placed himself in charge of assembling or setting up any new purchases that came into the house, such as furniture, appliances, and electronic equipment, without the use of the manual. “The manual is for when you get stuck,” he told his dad. Most of the time, Prithwis gets it right the first time. “I don’t know how he does that,” Dad says, with a note of incredulity.

103

Prithwis remembers being able to put together a 500+ piece LEGO® set by around age 3. Dad remembers that, when shopping, “He always went for the maximum number of pieces” (http://www.startribune.com/local/east/11548876.html). Prithwis reports, “Later on I built roller coasters and other interesting things using thousands of pieces and some of them were much taller than me. I had to use a step stool to build them. The one that took me the longest was a Ferris Wheel that used 8,000+ pieces (and of course it was taller than me).” He says he also liked to break apart his favorite electronic toys to find out what was inside them. Before he had learned to talk, Prithwis’s parents played math games with him. His father would say, for example, “What is 2 times 1?” Dad would then hold up two fingers for the answer “2,” and Prithwis would copy him. Prithwis learned the products of any two numbers up to 10 before age three in this manner. For example, when Dad asked him verbally, “What is 2 times 8?” Prithwis would hold up first one finger, and then six fingers, before he even knew what eight really meant or was able to speak “sixteen.” Developmental Process Prithwis has a passion for many areas, including math, technology, and science, particularly biology. He won the Davidson Fellowship at age 16 for the carrageenan project, but that was not his first noteworthy accomplishment. As a sixth grader, he was accepted into the University of Minnesota Talented Youth Mathematics Program (UMTYMP). UMTYMP provides students in grades 6–12 “highly accelerated courses [that] are specially designed to provide these students with an intense academic experience that will stimulate their mathematical interest and abilities” (http://mathcep.umn.edu/umtymp/). Students are identified in grades 5–7 by taking an algebra test. Students cover four years of high school math in two years and are then eligible for a three-year calculus sequence. “The 3-year calculus component allows students to complete up to 16 semester credits of honors level college calculus, covering single- and multi-variable calculus, differential equations and linear algebra”

104

(http://mathcep.umn.edu/umtymp/). Students meet for two hours once or twice per week after school for 38 weeks during the school year (http://mathcep.umn.edu/umtymp/). This special program takes the place of the regular school math curriculum. Prithwis finished his high school mathematics courses by the end of eighth grade, and did college-level calculus courses (Calculus 1 and 2) in his freshman and sophomore years of high school. He plans on finishing his final UMTYMP year next year in his senior year of high school, but for his junior year he took a break. Prithwis reports, “Due to the rigor of these courses, I took a year break from this program in my junior year and signed up for as many AP courses as possible; I planned this in advance. When I apply for college admission, I wanted to make sure my transcript looks excellent (diverse, balanced, and good grades); taking plenty of AP level courses in senior year is not wise, in my opinion, because the grades are not available when applying for college admission.” Intrapersonal Catalysts Dad reported that during his seventh-grade year, Prithwis came home from UMTYMP one day discussing the world’s unsolved math problems that he heard about from his teacher. Prithwis became fascinated with these problems; he Googled the top 10 unsolved math problems and started trying to solve one of them in his spare time. About a month later when Dad asked Prithwis what he was doing, Prithwis answered that he was solving an unsolved math problem that didn’t seem was too hard to solve. Dad remembers Prithwis saying, “But it has to be tough, because otherwise it would have been solved by other people already. I’m just trying to think of some way I could prove it.” It didn’t occur to Prithwis that solving this centuries-old problem was perhaps an unrealistic goal, according to Dad. Dad said to him, chuckling, that it was good to learn, “but I think you are wasting your time.” Dad was happy that Prithwis was developing a good habit of thought and hard work, but felt he was spending too much time on these problems.

105

But Prithwis really wanted to do something that would help other students in math. There was one particular type of problem that he felt was tedious, and he wanted to invent a quick way of solving it. He spent the summer working on this problem, and then took it to his UMTYMP instructor. The UMTYMP instructor verified that what Prithwis had done was to develop a new mathematical conjecture worthy of publication. Prithwis did not pursue publication, even though this instructor offered to help him. According to Dad, Prithwis wasn’t “keen for fame,” so he moved on to his next big project: renewable energy. During the summer before eighth grade, global warming and renewable energy were frequent topics in the news. Prithwis’s Dad said that he did not realize that Prithwis had been thinking deeply about these issues, but the family found out when they went to India, Prithwis’s birthplace, for their annual vacation to visit family. When visiting a farming community in India, Prithwis became interested in how the residents were producing biogas from manure. He asked that his family stay another day in this community so he could investigate it more with the residents. Biogas power is common in rural India; people use anaerobic digesters to produce methane gas from cow manure (http://www.startribune.com/local/east/11548876.html). Prithwis found out everything those people were doing to manufacture biogas, and then thought on his own that there were better ways of producing it. This was the beginning of his eighth-grade biogas project, for which he was named one of the Discovery Channel’s Top 40 Young Scientists in the nation. Prithwis reports on his project, “I showed that banana peels are better resources than cow dung in terms of efficiency (faster) and productivity (quantity). It was difficult to obtain fresh cow dung. My parents took me to many farms in Minnesota, but the people were afraid of giving it to me for potential risks (I still don’t know what it could have been). Finally, we travelled to Wisconsin and got turned down by many before someone showed generosity in giving it to me.”

106

Dad reported that a few companies called Prithwis to buy his ideas and to recommend that he get patents for his work. Again, he did not take advantage of these opportunities. He was done with this work, happy to share his ideas, and ready to move on to something new. Dad said that Prithwis did not do the project for the purpose of selling it and he had no further interest once it was done to his satisfaction. Dad shared that Prithwis doesn’t give up on things once he has started them. In the middle of working on the biogas project, Prithwis told his father that initially he thought this work would be very interesting, but it didn’t turn out to be that interesting to him because there was too much waiting time. Prithwis would run an experiment and then had to wait a day until the next reading was ready. There was too much idle time and Prithwis wanted to be busy all of the time. He began working on this biogas project the summer before eighth grade and continued to present it during his eighth-grade year. Also during that summer before eighth grade, he first volunteered at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Chicago, where he found a greater challenge. This is where his Davidson Project developed. Environmental Catalysts The opportunity to work on his Davidson Project originally manifested at a Christmas party Prithwis attended with his parents. Scientists and professors from a number of different universities, including the University of Illinois at Chicago, attended the party and took an interest in Prithwis, because he was one of the few children there. Professors at the party asked Prithwis about his interests, and Prithwis answered “math.” The professors then asked Prithwis a lot of math questions to probe his level of knowledge and were amazed by how well he did the problems they presented. They asked if he wanted to pursue math as a profession, and he said he preferred medical science. One person at the party was sufficiently impressed with Prithwis to offer to help him. This professor from Chicago offered to do all he could to help if Prithwis decided he wanted to go into medicine. Dad reported that he thought this professor did not realize

107

that Prithwis would get back to him that same year, but assumed it would be later on, when he was college age. Prithwis pursued the idea of working in a lab on medical research immediately. He emailed researchers at the University of Minnesota, and then the University of Wisconsin, because he wanted to be closer to home. These initial efforts were what salesmen call “cold contacts.” Prithwis went to the university Web sites, found out the names of the appropriate people to contact and sent them an email with an introduction of who he was, what he was interested in, what he wanted to do, what kind of help he wanted from them. He received no replies from the University of Minnesota, so he then tried the University of Wisconsin. He did receive a reply, essentially saying that they would love to have him if they had funds. Instead of giving up, Prithwis continued pursuing other places by using his contacts, and he received an opportunity to undertake research at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). The first summer, Prithwis spent only a couple of weeks at the lab in Chicago. The goal was to get an idea of what the work atmosphere was like and if he enjoyed it. He stayed with relatives while in Chicago, and initially, Dad thought that Prithwis would not stay very long. Dad thought that Prithwis would get to Chicago, miss his parents, and be home a week later. It turned out that Prithwis loved his experiences in Chicago; however, he wished that an opportunity at the University of Minnesota would have worked out, so he wouldn’t have to be so far from home or to squeeze all of his research into such a short period of time during the summer. He wished he could have done it in a more “balanced manner” according to Dad. When Prithwis met with Minnesota state senators as a result of his science fair performance, he told them his story about not being able to work in a lab close to home. “Why do Minnesotan kids have to go to another state?” he asked the senators, not to benefit himself, but for students in the future. He also had a larger purpose of doing cancer research in mind. Prithwis reports, “After losing my uncle at an age he did not deserve to die, I made up my mind to put my

108

best effort toward cancer research and bring happiness, health, and joy to people’s lives. In other words, his death brought a positive impact in my life by giving me the necessary strength and determination to pursue my research in cancer.” Prithwis returned to Chicago for a second and a third summer; his work continues today. His Davidson Project developed out of the research he did that second summer on an enzyme that played a role in cystic fibrosis. He reports, “I have been researching on carrageenan and Arylsulfatase B for the past three years. The idea evolved over time and the scope of my study expanded accordingly. In my first year, I developed a low-cost, but sensitive, assay for Arylsulfatase B. To test this newly developed assay, a number of scientists used to give me sample cells to measure the Arylsulfatase B activity in those cells. During that time I noticed a common pattern that the activity of Arylsulfatase B was always higher when mammary cells were treated with carrageenan. This is how I got the idea for the first time.” He knew he only had two to three months in the lab, so he had to organize his time and plan ahead. He did most reading of publications, emailing and calling mentors with questions, and preparation for his experiments ahead of time. His mentors were an integral part of his project and development as a researcher. He describes his work with his mentors, “In the beginning, I faced a lot of difficulty understanding the science behind my research topic, and following various publications I was assigned to study. I got substantial help from my mentor(s) and other scientists, in terms of teaching me the necessary science (molecular biology) and explaining to me those publications in the context of my research topic. It required significant time commitment from my end throughout the year for the past three years. Balancing my time between my school coursework and science research was difficult at times and there was no other solution than working hard. I encountered other difficulties that are typical in any research and are not noteworthy to mention.”

109

Prithwis had taken middle school-level biology before he began this project, so understanding the biology and the published research was a difficult part of the project. He said that the reading was one of the more difficult things, so mentors would help figure out what the papers were saying at first. The papers “were like a foreign language to me,” he said. Slowly, he caught on to how to understand the papers, “Slowly I built that skill to understand these papers.” Prithwis describes in detail how his mentors helped him and how working in the lab differed from regular school. “I worked under the supervision of more than one scientist. Because of my age, a qualified scientist had to supervise my work at the laboratory all the time. My relationship with everybody I worked under (and with) is excellent. It is a completely different environment than usual school setting. For example, I gained necessary theoretical and hands-on knowledge from others on a one-on-on basis. There were times when I could not understand them in my first attempt, and I never noticed any frustration on their faces under such circumstances. They patiently explained repeatedly until I completely understood the topics, or for hands-on, until I was able to run new experiments independently, without any help from others. I also learned from them the importance of being organized and methodical, which I lacked in my first year. I was given the opportunity to talk about my progress in the weekly status meetings, which increased my presentation skills and confidence level talking to other scientists at their level. Unlike in schools, I don’t get any direct answer from someone to my questions. Instead, they ask me a follow up question, which gives me the clue to answer to my own question. I think this is typical to college environment because I experienced the same at the University of Minnesota in my mathematics class.” Individual teachers at his public schools have also supported Prithwis, although he and his dad report that being in a gifted program did not provide sufficient challenge. Dad did not blame the school, however. He thought they might have funding problems or other issues that prevented the school from meeting the needs of the gifted students. He

110

said, “We don’t know everything the school has to go through. Teachers did help Prithwis. Anytime Prithwis asked for additional help or enrichment, the teachers were there. Prithwis goes to school every morning very early; school starts at 8:30 am and Prithwis goes at 7:15 am to talk with teachers.” Prithwis says of his teachers, “They are always available to me (and other students too), and they go above and beyond (comes early and stays late) to help me when I need them.” Prithwis actually did not qualify initially for his school’s Gifted and Talented program, but teachers noticed his unusual problem-solving ability. He says, “I would like to share with you that I have always been a GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) student without ever passing the qualifying test. When I was in third grade, my teacher advised me to take the GATE qualifying test. I didn’t pass. On an exception basis, the school enrolled me in the GATE program. Next year I was asked to take the test again and the outcome was the same. The GATE teacher was surprised and continued making me an exception till my last year at the elementary school. I transferred from Elementary school to Middle School (Junior High) as a GATE student. A year later, the GATE teacher at the Middle School told me about the missing result of my GATE qualifying test. After I told the GATE teacher about the whole story, I was asked to take the test again. I took the test, but nothing changed. My then GATE teacher couldn’t believe it. She called the Test administrators and challenged them on the validity of the test. Apparently, the test administrators told my GATE teacher that the test works for most gifted and talented students, but very rarely, almost on an exception basis, it fails for some.” His father confirms this and adds interesting details. Dad remembers that Prithwis came home and told him about the gifted program qualifying test, saying to his father, “You know what? I failed.” Dad replied, “You failed? What do you mean, you failed?” Prithwis said, “It was boring!” He told his father about the problems on the test. He described logic problems, such as, “This is in first position, this is in second position,

111

then what is in third position?” Prithwis said, “What do I care? How is this going to help me?” Another question was something like, “If I is after W, then what is after A?” Prithwis answered, “I is never after W. To begin with, the question is wrong. So why should I care?” Dad concluded that if Prithwis doesn’t have any interest in something, he takes it very lightly. If he doesn’t like something, then he just won’t do it. Prithwis states clearly, “I hate to do things that do not align with my interest (sometimes it is necessary to do for the interest of others).” Dad says they don’t put pressure on him to do things he doesn’t like, and if he likes something, no matter how hard the path, he will get to the conclusion. Prithwis confirms, “They [parents] have always supported me on anything I wanted to do and never created any pressure on me to do things on which I did not have any interest.” Similarly, Prithwis and his parents agree that he doesn’t have a very strong memory. Dad says Prithwis’s memory is very average. The things that he wants to remember, he remembers very well. Dad said, “It’s like he’s reserving his memory for the things he wants to memorize.” Dad reports that Prithwis remembers little things that strike him. If he is not interested in something, then his memory comes and goes. But for the things that touch or interest him, his memory is excellent. Also, if Prithwis knows there is a simple way to figure out something in math, he won’t memorize the math formula behind it. Prithwis figures them out as necessary. The school’s GATE program did not provide any special classes, acceleration, or mentoring that neither Prithwis nor his dad remember, but there were other forms of support from teachers. There were competitions, such as Continental Math, Elementary School Knowledge Bowl, and Word Masters. He also participated in Quiz Bowl and Academic Triathlon. One of his teachers gave him the letter that told him he was eligible for UMTYMP and teachers were responsible for nominating him to science competitions. They occasionally let him skip assignments when he had to be away from class for science fairs. When asked if teachers ever gave him something different to do from the

112

rest of the class, he replied, “Sometimes teachers would give me something different, but nothing where I was learning something new. Most of the new stuff I learned was at home from self-study.” Teachers at school did help him with his science. His high school science teacher allowed him to present his research to students with the intention to inspire the other students in science research and for him to get students’ feedback on his presentation. This teacher also reviewed his thesis and gave feedback to Prithwis on his project. Prithwis and his father related two stories regarding interactions with science teachers. On the negative side, Prithwis did not get along with one teacher at middle school; Dad described it as a “personal clash.” Prithwis and his father began noticing that he wasn’t doing well in this particular class, which for Prithwis means doing less than 100%. Dad encouraged him to talk with the teacher; Prithwis said he tried to speak with the teacher, but he didn’t get anywhere. Dad arranged to speak with the principal and the teacher, but the teacher did not participate in the meeting. After discussing the details of the conversation with Prithwis, Dad found out that in class, Prithwis would correct the teacher if she said something incorrect. Dad told him not to do that anymore. Prithwis’ response was, “But how can I keep quiet?” Prithwis described the least effective teacher he had, “At the end of the year I realized: I did not learn anything new, learned wrong things, and started to forget things that I learned previously.” On the positive side, a different teacher dealt with this differently. If Prithwis disagreed with the textbook answer key to problems, the teacher eventually learned that Prithwis’ answers were most often right. This teacher appreciated it when Prithwis offered corrections, even though he was the youngest student in this AP® class. Prithwis talked about the most effective teacher he had, “He doesn’t follow any text book line-byline or page-by-page, and his test and quiz questions make the students think really hard to answer correctly. There were times when I lost points because my answers did not match with the teacher’s answers, and in many occasions it turned out that I was correct.

113

The teacher used to feel proud for that, which is very rare to see.” When he described the qualities of an effective teacher, he said, “Teach challenging stuff, challenge students and continue increasing the challenge level until they surrender.” As mentioned earlier, this past year Prithwis took as many AP® courses as his schedule would allow. He took AP® Physics, Biology, Statistics, U.S. History, and Chemistry. He said, “Classes were fun, and I liked it. It was school level, it wasn’t university level, but it was cool. Not as challenging, but interesting.” So, even though the school has not seemed to provide an organized, challenging environment for Prithwis, he has sought out challenge and most of his individual teachers have supported him to the best of their ability. One way Prithwis has sought a greater challenge is through participation in science competitions. Prithwis says, “I am indebted to the organizers, volunteers, and judges of Twin Cities Regional Science Fair and Minnesota State Science Fair because without them and these platforms, I wouldn’t have got enough opportunities to present my science research to others and eventually move up to the international level.” Prithwis benefitted in many ways from these fairs, including developing peer relationships. He says he has made lifelong friendships through the science fair. They keep in touch through email and by phone. He calls participating in Intel “an amazing experience.” He heard about the course curriculum of different AP® courses through the people he met. He spoke with people to find out what classes they were taking and how their school works. He says that during science fairs, “I hear about other programs, like IB and online AP® courses, so I am not restricted to what is available around me.” Prithwis has excellent peer relationships. He sees talent at his level everywhere around him, not just at the science fairs. He says that his interests may be different than other kids, but he doesn’t see himself as having extra talent that others don’t have. He said, “There are a lot of really smart kids at my school. Passion I can see at science fair. Passion for history or mathematics or other subjects—there are a lot of students that have

114

the same passion for other topics that I have for math or science.” Prithwis’s parents keep a close eye on his friends, and they agree that his friends are truly his peers. Prithwis says, “Most of my peers are very good, both in study and culture. Peers who were my classmates in elementary schools and/ or junior high school are generally much closer to me than others, and it is because I spent more time with them.” He reports that he has never felt different from other kids his age. “I have plenty of good friends and I love talking to them. Many of them come to our house during vacation time. We play and ride bikes together. Almost all of them enjoy watching Hindi (national language of India) movies with me. They grew this interest from me. Their iPods are loaded with Hindi songs. Sometimes we go together to movie theaters too, if there are any new releases that are appropriate and interesting for us.” When asked if there is anything he would change about his schooling experience, he replied, “Probably not, because I haven’t seen what some of the best schools are like. However, in my opinion, the factors that are critical for students to be successful begin at home at a very young age. However, school can help by providing continued support to the students on their endeavors and by creating opportunities for them.” Indeed, the most important influence on Prithwis has been his parents. He says, “I am whoever I am for my parents and only for my parents. They encourage me on everything I want to do. They don’t let me help them on any household work so that I can pay full attention on my study and extracurricular activities. No matter how sleepy or how tired they are, they don’t go to bed unless and until I am done with my study. They don’t attend any social gatherings without me.” Growing up, Prithwis’s parents were providing the acceleration for mathematics. Prithwis says, “They taught me how to stay three steps ahead of others when playing games. For example, until I went to the UMTYMP program, I used to do mathematics at home which were four to five grade levels higher. Whenever I had any trouble solving them, my parents were available to help me. Another thing which I find very valuable

115

now is the importance of understanding the concept behind something. From my childhood, I spend plenty more time to get good grasp on understanding the concept behind a topic than to learn the mechanics of how to solve. This helped me quite a bit in my career and taught me how to figure out things on my own without memorizing.” Prithwis developed his interest in science due to his family. “I developed interest in science in my childhood because all of my parents, my uncles (father’s brothers), grandparents, and great grandparents have (or had) science background and all of them are (or were) strong in mathematics. However, none of them is (or was) in the medical field.” His extended family is just as important to him as his mother and father. He stayed with relatives in Chicago and lists the “blessings,” the good wishes and support, of his grandparents, as important to his success. According to his dad, the educational values in Prithwis’ home were passed down from his grandparents, who taught that you have to have your own identity, your own purpose in this world, and be hard working. His dad taught him, “If you want to meet a goal, it may not be easy to achieve that goal. There might be problems. You have to keep working. Shortcuts only work in the short term; quick satisfaction doesn’t serve you.” Prithwis certainly received that message. Prithwis listed many factors that were important to his success. He said, “Being organized, methodical, and following a disciplined schedule contributed significantly to my success.” Over the summers, he put in 40-hour weeks at the lab, and he indicates that a typical day during the school year lasts about 18 hours, from around 6:30 am to 1:00 am, with several hours each day, 40– 50 hours each week, devoted to study. He still makes time for some television (Numb3rs and Law & Order) each day, tutoring other students in math through a Web site, attending Indian festivals and social gatherings, shopping, and bike riding.

116

Conclusion When asked what contributed to his success, the first two factors Prithwis listed were passion and determination. He says about passion, “Loving what I do helps me stay focused on my goal, give my hundred percent effort, and reach my final destination no matter how long it takes or how difficult it is.” About determination, he says, “My parents and grandparents taught me the importance of this when I was very little. I learned in my childhood that tough goals are not easy to meet. They don’t come to us as gifts. Instead, one needs to earn them and often people have to make a lot of sacrifice for that. They also taught me that often I would find two different routes to reach my final destination. One of them is the right route, which might be a longer route, and I might have to face lot of challenges and hardships on my journey. There could be another shortcut route to reach that destination, but that might not be the right route. I would reach my target by taking either route. Taking the shortcut route might give me a quick victory, but it wouldn’t make me successful because that victory does not last forever. Without the determination, I would either be tempted to take the shortcut (wrong route) for a quick victory, which will not last long or end up quitting before I reach my final destination.” He also lists hard work, intelligence, support from family, making connections with the right resources, and favorable luck as contributing to his accomplishments. Prithwis summarizes the values he has learned from his parents. “Learning is a never-ending process. Asking questions to get my knowledge clear is wiser than keeping quiet in the classroom (as per them, it is fine to be dull once than staying dull for ever). I will never be successful unless I am passionate about what I do. Share my knowledge with others and celebrate the success of others the same way I celebrate my own success. I should never wish bad luck to others, wish bad things happen to others, or cause harm to others because if I ever do it, those things will eventually fall back on me and not let me live my life in peace.”

117

What does Prithwis want to do in the future? Dad asks him this frequently, and it keeps changing. Three years ago, it was technology; two years ago, robotics; recently, biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering encompasses science, medicine, robotics and technology; it blends them all. Having this research experience has helped him prepare for college and more importantly, “It has given me the confidence to talk to others (university professors and scientists) at the same level they do. I am more independent and more mature than ever before. It is solely due to doing my research mostly independently and the opportunity I got to interact with many people.” Winning the Davidson Fellowship will help him pay for college, but has also helped him in other ways. He says, “It helped me augment my own identity and brand in the research field, and motivated me to continue with my research in science.” When asked about his future goals, he responded, “My major goal at this point is to learn as much as possible from a college that offers unique environment for learning science and technology, provides ample research opportunities to ambitious and deserving students, and has outstanding academic reputation. It fits right into my interest of researching science.” His vision of a dream life? “I am successful in whatever I do and everybody loves me as a person.” Case Study 2: Collin Introduction Collin Wright and both of his parents were interviewed on June 27, 2010. I interviewed Collin first, and then both of his parents together that same day. He was age 16 at time of interview. Collin’s project dealt with computer science as well as biology. Collin is an only child and lives with both of his parents. He was accelerated through school, finishing elementary school at age 9 and middle school at age 11. During eighth grade he split the day, spending the morning at the middle school and the afternoon at the high school, so he spent four-and-one-half years at high school, graduating at age 15. At the time of this interview, he had one year of college under his belt. The Wright family

118

wanted their information to remain confidential, so their names and several details have been changed or omitted to protect their privacy. Systematically Developed Competencies Collin had been thinking about an idea for the science fair that needed a piece of equipment that the high school did not have. He wrote to a local laboratory to see if he could use their equipment for the project. The lab director was so impressed with the level of detail in the letter Collin wrote that he called to invite Collin to the lab, and then gave him a tour of the lab lasting over ninety minutes to show Collin what they were working on. Collin started to volunteer at this lab, doing medical research, a month after he turned 14. In fact, Collin never did that original idea for the science fair project. Collin reported that the key to his start at this lab was that the lab director, his eventual mentor for the Davidson project, was impressed with his letter of introduction. The writing in the letter described in detail what Collin wanted to do and was written at a level of detail and specificity that made the mentor think he was serious. The lab director showed Collin another email he had received from another student who didn’t have much science fair background and the two letters were vastly different in terms of their level of detail. That student was not given a place at the lab. His history of doing well at science fairs and doing higher-level research was reflected in the letter. Collin had done previous projects about DNA repair and his work at the lab was intended to extend his work at the high school level on his original ideas. Collin began working with a high school science teacher, Mrs. X, who taught a scientific research course that was geared to help students through the science fair while he was in middle school. Collin said, “If it weren’t for Mrs. X, I would definitely not be doing the research I’m doing today.” Collin said that he hesitated writing the letter, but was encouraged by his parents. His parents reported that he was reluctant to write to the lab mainly due to a fear of failure. “Why would they want to talk to me, I’m a little kid,” he said. Mom said, “I don’t

119

think he wanted to bother them. He knew they were professionals and working in the medical field. Why should he bother them to make concessions for a 14-year-old in their lab? I felt there was something to be gained by everyone, so why not try? They can say no, but why not try? It took a couple of weeks of cajoling to get him to write the letter.” During Collin’s junior year he would get out early from school to go work in the lab a couple of days each week. During his senior year, he got out every day early. He did his four or five high school classes in the morning and then Mom took him to the lab, which was a forty-five minute drive. Collin would eat lunch in the car on the way. During the summers, he sometimes stayed with the lab’s office manager overnight, so Mom and Dad wouldn’t have to go back and forth every day. In addition to the science part of Collin’s project, there was also a computer component to the project. Collin took an introduction to computer programming course at the high school during his eighth-grade year. He spent five weeks during the summer before his senior year of high school doing a special program for talented science students. This program was at that time provided by the state, but the funding has now been cut. He learned a great deal more about computer programming at this camp, then learned the rest of the programming necessary for his project on his own by playing around, reading online forums, looking at previously written code, and contacting others online with questions. Collin describes many moments of adversity during project, both with the science part and the computer part. There was just no explanation for some of the problems with the science part. He said, “Things just go wrong and the experiment fails for no apparent reason. The only thing you can do is redo them again and again and again.” His mentor at the lab was instrumental in helping him work through these specific issues with his projects, both with specific informational advice (for example: try this chemical or that, in these specific amounts), as well as with emotional support (for example: that has happened to me too, that’s a common thing to happen). Collin and his mentor worked

120

through the issues together. “He taught me most of what I know about my subject and gave me the skills that helped me help myself.” His mentor at high school, Mrs. X, was also helpful with emotional support. “She helped with the basic overall flow of the project, the logistical parts of it, rather than the specific, high-level science parts of it. The lab director would help me and interact with me on a specific level dozens of times everyday. Mrs. X was helpful with the general and overall experience of general science. The lab director is smart with the subject, Mrs. X was wise with science.” This experience has cemented Collin’s desire to be a research scientist, an MD/PhD: something that combines a medical background with research. He says that at the lab, which is situated within a clinic, Collin can ask the same questions to the lab director (a PhD) and to the doctors (MD’s) and get completely different answers. So, he wants to have both perspectives in his future work. He wants to be able to figure out the most efficient way to solve problems using both backgrounds. Natural Abilities Collin was so bored in school as a kindergartener, he came home one day asking his mother when he could drop out. Mom reports, “Collin was an only child, so we did notice a bit that he was at a higher level, but it wasn’t quite as obvious. He is the youngest of many cousins, and he was used to being around older children at family gatherings and he fed into what they were doing. He kept up with them. We didn’t really recognize [that he was gifted]. It didn’t become obvious to me until kindergarten and then I didn’t really want to see it, or rather, wasn’t consciously able to grasp the magnitude of it until Collin pointed out that this was ridiculous and he wanted to quit school. I laughed at first, which wasn’t the proper response, but after awhile I had to take it seriously. Poor kid was dying on the vine.” Dad and Collin remember doing “take aparts” when he was four or five years old. When asked what prompted Dad to bring home these things to take apart, he said, “My

121

dad did it with me as a kid. We always took stuff apart, some of us tried to put it back together, some of us just took stuff apart to see what was there and why it worked, and what does this do. My dad and his dad did it.” Dad brought home broken machines (computers, monitors, copiers, radios) from the office and they would take them apart to see how they worked. Dad would show Collin the parts and how they worked together. Dad reports that during the first year at the lab where Collin was volunteering, “One of their million dollar machines stopped running. Collin took it apart and fixed it.” Developmental Process Collin remembers raising butterflies as a child with his mom at age 7 or 8, which may have helped kindle an interest in science. They would go into the fields looking for milkweed plants, and underneath the plants were butterfly eggs. They would watch the entire life cycle of the butterfly. Dad described how Collin’s schooling began, “We were warned in preschool that Collin might get a little bored in kindergarten. We took that with a grain of salt. In kindergarten he had a veteran teacher with 20–25 years experience who I knew as a kid. She said Collin is just fast, and he would often be her assistant in class. Collin began coming home with a ruse in which he said he was being tested by the kindergarten teacher to see if he could go to first grade. We didn’t pick up on this. This went on for a couple of weeks.” Mom continues, “But it was a made up story; it wasn’t factual. I thought, ‘Wow. This is really something they are looking into.’ And it was kind of fun for him to tell me about this; he was so excited. He completely made it up. We didn’t contact the school about acceleration until later.” When asked how they finally found out that Collin was making up the story, Dad said, “We finally figured it out by talking to the kindergarten teacher in passing one day. The question came up—how is this test going? Teacher responded, ‘What test?’ We realized it was something that wasn’t real. What we found is that a lot of times, he knows

122

what he needs best before we do. One of his ways of showing us that this was a better step to take than what he was currently in.” Acceleration has been a big part of Collin’s schooling. Going into a later grade, Collin had another veteran teacher who realized by the end of the first quarter that something needed to be done to meet his needs. She called in the gifted coordinator, and these educators approached the parents about moving Collin to the next grade. The parents initially said no, because they were worried about social issues. Mom and Dad delayed another two or three weeks until they found that Collin wasn’t learning anything new at all. Then, parents and the school worked together to do a controlled trial: they put him in the next grade in math only. The school counselor got involved and was instrumental in making it work on a social level. The trial went sufficiently well that within six to eight weeks, a plan was in the works to move him to the next grade for the second half of the year. By then, all the testing was done and all of the other steps were taken to admit him to the gifted program. The school didn’t have a lot of policy in place to deal with this situation. The parents indicated that they essentially helped write the policy as they went through this. Speaking about acceleration, Mom said, “It was a challenge, putting it diplomatically. We just took one step at a time and really didn’t have a clue as to what we were heading into nor how to handle it. As challenges go, you just take your time, take one step at a time and meet allies along the way. The Davidson Institute has been marvelous. I don’t know what I would have done without their support. We got connected with the Davidson Institute when Collin was nine years old. I became aware of the Davidsons when he was seven or eight, but had to research and evaluate it before getting involved. It seemed too good to be true: it was free and something I found on the internet before the internet was prevalent. I asked around, checked with gifted facilitator (Who was wonderful.), and she verified that Davidson was a good thing. The Davidson

123

Young Scholar application was a monumental task, wading through that took 2-3 months.” Dad continued, “We were fortunate to have state laws that protected the rights of gifted learners. If we didn’t have that, we would have had one heck of a time. Just having that law basically says that everyone deserves a free, appropriate public education. So they have to test him to find out where he is, what his strengths and weaknesses are, and what areas need to be addressed for appropriate learning. That’s where we ended up doing a lot of advocating and teaching the district what their actual obligations were. The gifted facilitator knew it well and the guidance counselor could see it, but getting the administrators on board to allow their staff to do what they wanted and what we needed to have done was a major chore. We made these binders of information that I hope are still floating around the district somewhere: different parts of the state law, and different book quotes about gifted. I think it helped because we encountered less resistance. They realized we were part of team trying to solve a problem more than bratty parents with a smart kid.” When asked about what was in the binders, Mom replied, “I have file cabinets full of papers. The big binders were needed to prepare the receiving group of teachers for the acceleration. Because it was a completely new set of people and attitudes, they did not know Collin, and they didn’t know the kind of person he was. They knew the brain of him, but they didn’t know his character, and they are both very unique. So a lot of my binders also included some anecdotal information from Hoagies Gifted sites, a lot from Davidson’s Cybersource articles, and then personal information about Collin. It wasn’t just a personal information booklet, it was a general information booklet on this is what this country has to offer with respect to the gifted, and this is how they’re dealing with gifted now and how you could possibly use this information to help Collin as your student.”

124

Mom continues, “We would have Gifted IEP meetings. We would hand out our information at these meetings and I would highlight all of it, because the teachers are busy and I can’t expect them to read the entire article, so I would just highlight the parts of the articles that were most relevant to our situation at that given time. I know at one point a Davidson consultant had written letters to the teachers and the principal.” The consultant was given a list of the teachers by Mom, and the consultant wrote letters to the teachers providing recommendations for Collin and offering assistance. Mom said, “Davidson did this as a back up, coming from someone more knowledgeable than the parents. That’s a big hurdle sometimes. School personnel think, ‘Well, they’re his parents, of course they think he’s bright.’” She goes on, “I never received any negativity around the binders when I handed them out. We made a cover letter, and we presented it as, ‘This is information that we’ve researched and learned, and worked hard to discover. Maybe it will be helpful for you folks. If you have any questions or comments, please come to us.’ It worked; it was helpful. Collin began coming to the gifted IEP meetings in middle school, and that put the key in the lock. The information in the binders combined with his statements at the meetings were infinitely helpful.” Mom continued, “Collin was accelerated in elementary school, which looking back, was the way to do it. It gave him a chance to get a little bit of grounding with his peers, the older peers; even though [the amount of the acceleration] probably wasn’t enough, because once high school came around, he was doing the lab work half days and doing dual enrollment. He carried a full college course load in addition to his high school course load during his senior year. If anything, I would have done it even earlier in the elementary years; nevertheless, it was done in time for him to get a grounding, to learn who the kids were and how they thought and how they were going to perceive him and vice-versa.”

125

Collin remembers that Mom spent hundreds of hours researching, writing emails, and looking for support to meet his educational needs. From Collin’s perspective, the acceleration experience was “not a very big deal at all” as he is very tall for his age. The most annoying thing to him was that he couldn’t drive when everyone else could, so others had to pick him up or his parents had to drop him off. When asked if there was ever a downside to being the youngest in his class, he reported that through elementary school and middle school, there were no problems. In high school, there was an issue with dating. He asked a girl to prom and she wouldn’t go because he was too young. Currently, Collin reports that he is in college with peers who are more mature and his age is a nonissue. He has a girlfriend now who doesn’t care how old he is. He also feels as though he fits in intellectually better at college. Apart from acceleration, individual teachers tried to meet Collin’s needs in school. In seventh-grade science, when Collin was bored in class, the teacher made nonverbal signals to Collin that told him that the teacher had something different for him to do after the whole-class instruction was over. Collin reported that teachers generally were very supportive of his ability, and teachers seemed mostly for the acceleration. Collin was so far ahead that they couldn’t meet his needs within their classrooms. The teachers gave him different kinds of work than the regular class or a more advanced book. He reported that he was allowed to work on different things. He felt that the teachers liked him, but they were frustrated, too, so they did things like letting him spend part of the day in the next grade level. Collin never felt any negative reactions to the acceleration. He said, “I think we did what we needed to do to make it work, whether it be going to the clinic or taking college courses or doing more extracurricular activities.” His parents always advocated the attitude of “Get the education, even if you go a different way.” He indicated that they could have gone to a school with AP® Biology or gotten his current school to get AP®

126

Biology, but they went to the clinic and that worked. That got him what he needed. Collin said, “I think the only thing I might have changed was starting the acceleration earlier.” During his senior year, Collin took one college class, which was 80% online, through a local college in the first semester. He took four college classes during second semester, not all science: computer programming, advanced biology, public speaking, business management. He said, “Taking these courses helped more than my work at the clinic in terms of preparing me for college. These college courses showed me that I was going to have to work a lot at college and I learned time management skills.” He also developed his ability to organize things, so he gets assignments done on time. The clinic also helps develop his organizational skills by planning the timing of experiments and coordinating with other people. Collin said of his second semester, senior year, “This was the first time I’ve ever had to study.” Mom said about the experience of acceleration from her perspective, “There were struggles at the elementary school, because they were not accustomed to doing acceleration, they had no rules to follow, and in public school bureaucracy, rules are everything. You must follow the chain of command and we quickly learned how to do that. We used the Iowa Acceleration Scale. The decision was about do we wait or do we do it now—I’m glad we did not wait [until he entered middle school].” Dad continues, ‘Thank heavens we had been volunteering in the school all this time, so we got to see the interactions between the students and teachers.’” Mom said, “We didn’t meet resistance necessarily, but uncertainty. We had to prove it—I couldn’t blame them.” About the teachers that Collin encountered, Mom said, “There were some very, very good teachers and there were some not so good. I think we had some principals who were instrumental in placing Collin in classes with teachers who were more receptive to his needs and personality, with some few exceptions.”

127

A change in principals occurred midway through middle school which was “horrible” according the parents. Dad reported that the principal was not well informed about gifted laws in the state, and “didn’t appear to want to learn either, and didn’t react well to two parents trying to educate him on those laws.” The grade skip was done in the middle of the school year. Dad said, “Midyear skips worked nicely; it’s like he got to be in that grade anyway, even though not for long. It was easier than a whole year skip.” Mom said, “I can see the benefit of doing it the other way, too; in this case it didn’t work out.” Intrapersonal Catalysts According to both Collin and his parents, thinking about things logically is a great strength for him. Dad said, “He is very good at picking apart new things and seeing what makes them work.” He has an interest in computers, which may be an outgrowth of this logical thinking. This summer, Collin is continuing working on his research and is also designing three Web sites. He learned HTML in sixth grade, but one of the Web sites he is writing this summer is in a new language that allows more complex interactions on the Web. Collin said that he always liked pure logic and figuring things out, but he also enjoys the creative side of things. He was a musician for many years, but said, “Once I started working at the clinic, I had to give up music, but it wasn’t something I could see myself doing in the future.” He also spent a great deal of time working on another extra curricular activity was more creative, and he said that he liked that kind of thinking. He spent 10–15 hours per week on this other activity most weeks during high school, but that amount of time went up to 20–40 hours per week during certain times of the year. Collin showed self-awareness in kindergarten when he created the ruse about being tested. He also showed it during one GIEP meeting in middle school that had fifteen people in attendance. Mom remembers, “Collin spoke so eloquently. He had made a list of the things that he needed to present at this meeting completely on his own. They

128

were all quiet when he read this. He was frustrated by the end of the year that everything on his list was not addressed. What he didn’t realize was that they were working on it: everything appeared within two school years. I think he blew them away.” When Mom looked at the list initially, she said, ‘I don’t think they’re going to go for THAT.’ But they did. Some of it was pretty far out. He knew what he wanted. He showed remarkable selfawareness.” Mom said that one of Collin’s strengths is that he is “a fine diplomat.” Mom shared that she has a hard time sometimes controlling her tongue, and says that Collin is far more able to control that and speak in a diplomatic fashion. She said that Collin is “far beyond many adults in his ability to do that.” Dad continues, “He is one to not burn a bridge when he doesn’t have to. He is very good at coming up with a way of saying something that will not cause war. We worked hard early on to make sure he was polite. These skills really took off at age ten or twelve. Manners. I expect the residual of that has served him well.” Mom said of Collin socially, “When you think of the typical middle schooler, the common, average student is into who’s dating who, gossip, playing football, there’s a stereotype that is as far away from Collin as it gets. He relates to adults on a totally different level than your average adolescent. I think the teachers needed to understand that Collin wasn’t the average student in any way shape or form. He’s a good kid. He wasn’t going to go about breaking rules or smoke: this just wasn’t going to happen. They had to learn who he was. Part of a hurdle that had to be overcome at the middle school level. ” Dad said that the teachers worried about him socially: “He was perfectly fine socially from his perspective, but he wasn’t what they would have normally expected. We had to educate them on what doing well meant to Collin.” To help explain this, Collin said that he had friends at school, but not quite as many as he wanted to have. He

129

indicated that he is the kind of person who would “rather discover something new in the lab than go to a dance.” Collin believes that one thing that may influence this belief is that in middle and high school, he felt he was better at science than at social things. “I enjoyed being recognized [in science] because it drew attention to me and opened up some social opportunities I would not have had otherwise.” People would come up to him and say, “Hey! I saw you won the science fair. So, what was your project about?” They would start talking about the project and then the conversation would move to other things. So, Collin feels that being recognized for his science abilities opened up his social circle a bit. He said, “I am quite miserable at actively going out and making friends.” Other things that challenge Collin are the humanities. Mom said, “He is not a humanities guy. He took a philosophy course. He got an A-, but it wasn’t his favorite.” Collin said that writing was really difficult for him, and generally, he had to work harder on the subjects other than science. He has improved his writing ability a great deal during college as a result of taking a number of writing classes. A few specific moments of adversity have also challenged Collin. He did not win his third consecutive science fair at high school, which was very upsetting to Collin, because there was “some suspect judging: the winner was the judge’s son. That was a very difficult moment for Collin.” Mom said, “We just told him ‘Hey, sometimes life isn’t always fair.’” Dad said that Collin’s mentor went to the fair the next day, looked at the winning project and told Collin it wasn’t nearly as good as his. “The mentor told Collin that he had nothing to hang his head about, that his project was great, and that this winning project wasn’t of the quality of Collin’s so there is nothing to be ashamed of. He just didn’t win. It still took several months to get over this. Collin had a goal of being a fourtime Intel winner. He eventually said he’d rather have the respect of the professional society; he presented at a conference and was published. Collin decided to not participate

130

in science fair the next year. He decided not to play that game anymore; he’s doing ‘real’ research.” An earlier example of a challenge was related by Mom: “It was the senior high school science fair, Collin’s first year at high school with Mrs. X in her independent research course. He was in the class with juniors and seniors who were roughly five years older than him. He felt he didn’t need to work very hard at it, because he’s the best. Mrs. X told him that he had done a minimal level of work on his project and the judges will detect that. Collin was sure he was going to win.” Mom and Mrs. X told Collin that this was a different arena, a different level than junior high and he would have to work at it. It was a different level of competition, and the judges were at a different level. Dad reported that it was “the background work. That’s where he was slacking off. Not the basic research, but the lit review, where did he read about the details, could he argue his logic.” About three weeks before the actual fair is when he stepped it up. “I’m not sure what the magic was there that made him go, but for three weeks, he absorbed things like a sponge. It was very rare for a 12-year-old to win the science fair and he then went to Intel and won second place.” Environmental Catalysts When asked about acceleration and peer relationships, Mom reported, “Collin’s peer relationships were normal for a teenager. Driving was an issue, he always had to have a ride, or ride his bike, or we took him wherever. I think Collin’s nature has always been introspective or introverted, so when he wanted companionship, it was there. But yet he didn’t always want it. Even now, he is like that. He is going to a college that is known for their socially quirky students, which is good. And he does have a girlfriend on campus – she is a great influence on him.” Dad adds, “Collin’s girlfriend seems to suit him well, and their relationship is developing nicely. Sometimes I think he might spend more extra time than needed yakking back and forth. I’m sure that right now they’re on iChat. But they do study

131

chemistry together each day. She’s a really neat lady. You just have to step back and remember that Collin is 16, but all along he’s always been 20 or 22 somewhere in his head, so you just have to go with it.” Mom continued, “When he was 12, a freshman in high school, the impact of his level of knowledge, in science in particular, was to me kind of taking over who he was as a person in terms of how he felt others should think of him. As a parent, you have to balance the perspective of the child as they grow, and you want them to realize that they are human, that they are not only this fountain of knowledge. And they have to perceive themselves as a human being, and just because they won this grand championship in junior high or another grand championship, it doesn’t mean that without effort they will be able to do that all the time. They will need to back off and realize that making mistakes is part of being a human being. If you want to obtain success and maintain whatever level it is that you are seeking, then you will have to work to do that. Right around that age, Collin had to learn to do some work. That was a difficult lesson that he had to work at and level of maturity that he had to attain, which he did.” The school supported Collin, mostly through mentoring and piecing together individual attention in different subjects. Dad says, “By the time we had gotten through two GIEPs (Gifted Individual Education Plan meetings), we found people willing to work with him. When he was in third grade, a high school math educator put together fourthand fifth-grade math for him. People in the district started to hear about this kid and volunteered to help. Volunteers rose to the challenge, either sought out by district staff or they came to district staff. At the meetings, we’d say ‘here’s a need’ and someone would say, ‘I bet Mr. M might be interested in doing that.’ Or somebody knew someone. That’s how the rest of the high school went: we got volunteers along the way that wanted to take this kid and see what they could do. And I believe to a person, they all had a blast doing it. We were careful about them. We researched every one of them so we knew the

132

backgrounds and how they were, and there were a few we backed away from, who didn’t have the best reputation of working with kids.” Mom continues, “In 95% of the cases it worked out well, though. Whoever came forward enjoyed what they were doing and he enjoyed the interaction with them. There was one science teacher in middle school. He would stay after school to work with Collin on things the class wasn’t yet doing. So there were little things along the way. “I’m sure he must have mentioned Mrs. X; she’s a star. She was instrumental in carrying him through and working through some of the difficult times, one being the one I mentioned during his freshman year when he thought just because he was in her class things were going to be just great. He didn’t have to work at it. She’s a no-nonsense lady, and has been around long enough and seen enough students and set him straight. He’s at a college known for its extreme rigor, so is easing into it. He is learning that he may have found his match.” Mom indicated why the acceleration was needed, “The acceleration was so important because I wanted to be there when he encountered that wall a little bit. I didn’t want him to be away at college and just have it all be thrown at him, so he got increments of it in high school, here and there, being at the lab. There are difficulties, you take a risk, it doesn’t work, but you need to try again. Some students don’t encounter this at all until they’re away at college and then they fall flat on their face, because they can’t do it. That’s part of the concept of acceleration is to find those few places where you do hit the wall, and you can come back home to mom and dad at the end of the day and say, gee whiz, now what?” “It truly does take a village. Everybody provided a different segment of what was needed. And then of course, Collin is very fortunate to have four grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. I know a lot of the Davidson families have moved to find appropriate educational scenarios. It went through my mind, but it just wasn’t feasible. I

133

would have loved to have the Davidson Academy in my back yard. Not having that, we did what we could with what we had and I think it worked out fairly well.” Dad recalls, “I’m sure there was a lot more that could have been done. Other than changing circumstances completely, like moving to Reno, or going to private school, leaving the public school was almost a non-issue because private schools were not subject to the state laws for gifted. Essentially, when you go to a private school, you are paying them for what they do, and why would they ever want do something that you wanted them to do, because you are paying them to do what they do. We just felt like we had to stay in the public system. Collin’s needs were served far better in the public schools.” Mom added, “The diversity [of the public school] prepared him. We do not live in an ethnically diverse area by any means, but simply the diversity of human nature that he encountered in an overall public setting, I think prepares him far better for the world in general, for being out in the world, rather than a sequestered, intellective private school.” Dad said, “One thing that strikes me about advocating for Collin along the way: we always tried to keep in mind that he wasn’t the only gifted kid in the school, but we couldn’t really argue for larger policy to benefit others. We could only focus on him. Because it was an individualized meeting, it wasn’t appropriate to bring up that other students could also benefit from particular interventions. I felt it might have been detrimental to Collin’s plan if I tried to corral other parents to advocate for their own children at the same time.” Collin’s parents felt that they were very careful about how they handled the situation with the school. Dad said, “Many of the other parents were much less democratic.” Mom said, “I feared it wouldn’t be handled properly [by other parents].” There were also community classes that Collin took for fun growing up. During summers, a local college had special classes for gifted students. He took many different

134

courses through this resource. And his parents kept him busy in the yard and garden during the summers. The culture of education in the Wright family was mixed. Mom said of her family, “My mom graduated from high school, and my dad didn’t. A high school diploma was admired. Education was important, but not as important as making a living. Over the years, it is being recognize that in order to make a good living, you’d better go to college. The grade was the almighty: the grade and the dollar.” Dad indicated that Mom’s family had this “real fear of failing.” Mom confirmed, “Yes, always the fear of too much too soon. I don’t think my family understood what we were allowing Collin to do, but now they see the benefit. We encountered some resistance, but they didn’t question our decision about the acceleration.” Mom described her educational experiences: “I went one year to college, started out trying to be an elementary school teacher or counselor. After one year, it wasn’t what I wanted and ironically I think it was good that I didn’t follow through and obtain a degree in teaching because I think it would have changed my entire perspective on how to parent Collin and what to do with his education. I’m afraid it would have focused my direction in following what I had been taught as a teacher. And what teachers are taught, at least back in the 1970s and 80s, and probably now even, they’re taught lock-step, everybody learns the same, you follow through and follow the rules. I have a more open mind.” Adding to that, Dad said, “On that topic, we have friends who are teachers who do exactly that: they lose the ability to see their own children without a teacher’s eye.” Dad’s family has a mix of professionals and military people. Dad’s grandfather had Master’s degrees in education and agriculture, was an ordained minister, and was the first to go to college. He remembers that his grandmother skipped a grade. He says, “Education was always assumed: you just knew that was what you were going to do. There was never any pressure for grades, but all four of us siblings brought home A’s.

135

[My parents] always asked, ‘What did you learn today?’ We never went to bed without answering that question.” His father had an advanced degree, and Dad himself has an advanced degree. Mom spoke about the attitude they have encouraged in Collin from a young age regarding his advanced abilities. She said, “Everyone has their own gifts. Everyone is talented at something or other and not everyone has the same thing or at the same level. Just because you have this gift doesn’t make you ‘better’, a better person. Everyone is there to cultivate their own gifts. You do it for the betterment of everyone.” Collin indicated all of the ways that he feels his parents have helped him, both with the project and with his attitude toward learning in general. They helped by providing logistical support (driving), discussing the project with him, and encouraging him to go to the clinic in the first place. They have provided “basic, underlying support in terms of how to get everything done, deadlines, etc.” When asked about the educational values in the home, he said, “Education was valued highly. Grades were not a focus.” His parents encouraged him to do his best: “If you tried your hardest, and didn’t do well, that’s OK. Put in the best effort you can.” Collin sees his parents as encouraging individuality or flexibility in learning: “As long as it gets done, and you learned what you wanted to learn, it doesn’t matter if you are the only person in the world who did it that way.” Science fairs, local and national fairs, such as the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, seemed to play an important role in his development. Collin said of Intel, “It was very interesting to be around so many people who also have a passion for science and people just really care about it.” He indicated that he felt he had no true intellectual peers in his home school, or at least not those who appreciate science as much as he did. Of the science fairs, Mom said, “It shows him that there is something out there other than the level of kids that he has to deal with at the high school; shows him that

136

there are kids around the world that think the way he does. He had no real intellectual peers at his school. There were students who aspired to his level, were inspired by him, but no real peers. Mrs. X had him tell the other students in her class what Intel was like, what the judges were like, let them know what level they need to work at. There was camaraderie, but not intellectual peers.” Dad added, “He found people ‘just as smart as I am.’ That lesson learned in those three weeks has stayed with him ever since. The science projects he has completed since have maintained that level of intensity. He realized that he can’t pull off a junior high project anymore.” Conclusion The Davidson Fellowship impacted Collin in a number of ways. It paid for a year of college. Dad said, “He was destined to do something big. He got major national recognition that gave him the validation he had been working for. It was a confidence builder.” Collin said, “I do like being recognized by professionals in the field who indicate that my work is valid, that I know what I’m doing, and that my work has the ability to positively impact humanity.” I asked Collin to describe a typical day for him while he was working on his project. He replied, “During school year required a lot of moving around as the lab was about 45 minutes away. I worked very closely with my high school teachers to rearrange schedule to accommodate longer hours in the lab. One teacher allowed me to skip class. I still had to do the work, but could skip class. Other teachers allowed me to go to other sections of classes early in the day and be done before noon. So, I would eat in the car on the way to the lab, work in the lab until six or seven at night, and then come home. This schedule occurred two to four days per week.” Some nights during the summers, he would spend the night with the lab manager, which allowed him to spend sixty hours per

137

week in the lab. Collin said he was “very lucky to have so many people willing to accommodate me.” He started this work in the lab when he was 14 years old and it continues today. He is already the lead author on one article and co-author on a second paper, both published in refereed journals. This work is a passion for him; he calls it the “thrill of the hunt: solving a big puzzle.” He enjoys it very much. “I can do what I enjoy and simultaneously help doctors figure out ways to help people.” Case Study 3: Sikandar Introduction I interviewed Sikandar on May 28, 2010, and his mother on June 8, 2010. Both interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. Sikandar is also an only child. He won the Davidson Fellowship at age 17, but his research on microbial fuel cells began in eighth grade. Sikandar participated in a number of activities at his high school, including volunteering for the youth program at Montgomery College, serving as leader of Gaithersburg Going Green, a school group devoted to environmental awareness and action, and serving as president for the Academy of Science and Technology. (http://presskit.ditd.org/2008_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2008_DFL_%20Sikandar_Po rter-Gill.pdf) In his project, “The Production of Methane in a Two-Chamber BioCatalyzed Microbial Fuel Cell Utilizing Methanosarcina barkeri,” Sikandar developed a novel process to clean wastewater and produce methane for use as an alternative form of energy. He engineered biocatalyzed microbial fuel cells in a two-chamber design, connected with a proton conducting membrane, to degrade organic material in wastewater and produce methane, the principal component of natural gas. Sikandar’s research is a promising step toward pursuing a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly energy source. (http://www.davidsongifted.org/fellows/Article/Davidson_Fellows___200 8_405.aspx) All of the information in this case study comes from the interviews with Sikandar and his mother, and from selected newspaper stories published online.

138

Systematically Developed Competencies Sikandar first learned about microbial fuel cells from listening to an online podcast in eighth grade. He said, “I just really got interested in this and I really wanted to know how it worked. When I researched a little bit about it, I wanted to build my own. I went on the internet and I looked up how to build a microbial fuel cell. Back then, it was years ago, they didn’t really have much online for building a microbial fuel cell, but now there’s entire sites dedicated to it. I kind of had to figure it out on my own.” Sikandar also visited a local wastewater treatment plant to find out more. He said, “I met with the superintendent there and I explained what I wanted to do. Everybody there was super excited, just because they don’t get a lot of media attention on what they do, and they do a really important job. I don’t think everybody realizes what an important job a wastewater treatment plant does. They were all very nice. They took me on the tour and showed me everything that goes on, so it was really exciting. And then when I got a little bit of publicity from the science fair I went to, I think it was my first international science fair, they put on a publicity event and invited a whole bunch of reporters. I presented my project at their main campus building.” Quoted in a news story, the manager of the water treatment facility said, “It's a great experiment that has a lot of potential. It was a real treat and pleasure to work with Sikandar." (http://www.biosolids.org/news_weekly.asp?id=1996) During the course of his internet research, Sikandar discovered the work of a university professor doing research with microbial fuel cells. He reached out to this professor through email, and the professor responded positively, eventually becoming Sikandar’s mentor. Sikandar said, “He dealt with my annoying little questions that I kept e-mailing him, and then he put me in contact with one of his colleagues. I also sent him little annoying e-mails, like, ‘What should I use for this?’ or ‘This happened—what should I do?’ So they all really helped me, and I was able to build a mud microbial fuel cell.”

139

This was Sikandar’s first microbial fuel cell, and he went out and collected mud from the river with the help of his parents. He needed a particular kind of bacteria from the mud. He said, “Both my parents helped me. It was February. We went to the Monocacy River, which is in Maryland and flows into the Potomac River. One of the main bacteria back then, and is still currently famous for microbial fuel cells is Geobacteria. Geobacteria is known to be in the Monocacy and the Potomac River. The closest I could get to the Potomac River was the Monocacy River, so I had to go to the Monocacy River. I was able to get some power out of that cell, I mean, not that it could do anything, but you could tell that it was generating some current, which is good.” He learned about that particular organism, where it could be found and its usefulness for fuel cells from the podcast and from the professor’s research. The professor ran an experiment in a river near Amherst. Sikandar described the experiment: “He set up a little sensor that runs on a mud microbial fuel cell or a river microbial fuel cell. He sticks one electrode into the mud at the bottom of the river and one is in the water. It’s able to power a little sensor that measures how high the river is, what’s the temperature, what’s the flow, just things that a sensor needs to do, and probably they need that kind of information. So instead of running on batteries that they have to go out and replace, or putting in an electrical line to the river, they just run it off a microbial fuel cell. Solar panels or microbial fuel cells, something that’s easy that can be put into a remote location on the outskirts of a city, where you don’t want to keep checking it every day. It is a sensor that uses hardly any power.” Sikandar’s first laboratory was in his home, which he says, “my parents put up with.” Mom said, “He set it up at home because we didn’t ever think it was anything dangerous. It started out as the water from the river, you know, and even though I know there’s bacteria in there, I didn’t think it was anything dangerous. Of course he had gloves and we took precautions that you would normally take in a lab, but we didn’t

140

know that there were such intense rules for science fairs, so that was a learning experience for me.” For the science fair he had at his school, having an in-home lab was acceptable, but for the next level it was not. Sikandar had a problem. He needed a new lab, and he lost a great deal of time. He had to redo the experiment. He explains, “I had to redo the mud project, and fortunately my mother’s boss at the time allowed me to do it in his lab. He had extra bench space, so I was able to do it in his lab. And he became my mentor also, and you know he didn’t have any experience with microbial fuel cells, but he still helped me. He was eager to help me build them and he gave me all the tools and the space and the equipment and he really he was very nice.” Mom adds, “When he started really getting into the science fairs at middle school, high school level, he would design such sophisticated experiments that he had to have a place to do them. And luckily, my supervisor, I mean, he was just such a relaxed person, and he said ‘Oh yeah, he can come in, as long as it’s not during working hours.’ So we would go up in the evening or we would go on the weekends, and he could actually do his experiments there. We had to make sure he was totally supervised, but you know, that was a really big deal. I mean he could actually set up his experiments in a real a real lab. “And so then when they told him [the science fair people], ‘Oh your project will be disqualified—you have to start over,’ I mean he was devastated, but he did it, and that’s when he met my supervisor and I think we did his experiments for at least three or four years there after that. Discussing it with my supervisor, I went in and said, ‘We’ve got to start all over, this is going to be upsetting to Sikandar because we have to start all over, you know, bring it in to your lab, or bringing in this nasty water from the river.’ [laughs] And he just said, ‘You know, Sikandar needs to understand that this is what it’s like in science—you have to write grants, you have to write proposals, you have to get permission to do certain things,’ so he told me that I should explain it to him that way and

141

I did, that this is what it’s really like. I think it was a good lesson—he was devastated at the time, but it was a very good lesson.” During his project, Sikandar experienced other challenges as well. Doing the research itself was a challenge for Sikandar. He said, “There weren’t very many books back then about microbial fuel cells. I remember my mom giving me a few books, but they were kind of over my head at that time.” Sikandar agreed that reading that type of literature is very difficult. He said that he still has trouble with reading research articles and continues to work on it at college with the help of a graduate student mentor. He said, “She really helped me in just forcing me to read them over and over and making sure I understand them, which is a very big challenge. It’s taken her, you know it takes everybody a long time, years, to get up to that level where you look at it and you understand what’s happening.” Sikandar did have successful experiences reading research on his own. He said, “For a few of my projects, I read to get a grasp of what is occurring in a fuel cell and what other scientists were doing, like the products they were using and things. In my twochamber design and my single-chamber design, I had tested the materials that were the norm at the time, that all microbial fuel cell scientists were using, and I compared it to different materials that may be cheaper or more efficient. And that’s what I was trying to compare in trying to reduce the cost of the microbial fuel cell.” In order to find the different materials to compare, he read a lot more online. He went to specific Web sites for Gore-Tex and DuPont to find information, again emailing someone at DuPont for information. He said, “I was just very persistent, and DuPont sent me samples. I said, ‘This is what . . . you know, I want this, this, this, and this—what do you think I should use?’ and they sent me back one thing that they thought I should use. They said that they could send me a free sample, and their free sample was like you know, two feet by two feet, so it was quite enough!”

142

Sikandar described the other kinds of work he did during his research. “Once I had a working model of the single-chamber or the two-chamber fuel cell, a lot of it was just kind of trial and error. Through email, [the university professor] told me what steps he does when he sets up a microbial fuel cell, so I took that and revised, because it would be slightly different for me. I just followed step by step and honed what I had to do on the way. Sometimes I would set up one just to see how it went without wastewater or without the culture: a dry run. A dry run is with nothing in them, setting them up to check. A lot of putting screws into place, making sure nothing’s leaking, things like that. “Working at the JCVI, it became a lot more advanced, because instead of using plastics we used glass. And we had a glass shop do everything [laughs], which was very nice because then you can sterilize more effectively the microbial fuel cell. When I was doing it by myself, just by closing the lid, eventually all the oxygen would go away and I was left with anaerobic bacteria which I wanted the anaerobic bacteria. And when I came to JCVI, instead of doing that, we just gassed them with CO2 and nitrogen to purge all their oxygen away. So it just became a step up in what you know, just making everything better. “Then I was able to use an anaerobic chamber. One of the scientists there was very helpful and patient with me in helping me understand the anaerobic chamber. I can grow everything in there. I can set up a microbial fuel cell in an anaerobic environment because there’s no chance of any oxygen moving them. Then I was also able to use what’s called a gas chromatographer which measures, in this case I was measuring the amount of methane being produced, the methane production, so I was introduced to that. I wouldn’t know, you know, just by myself, I wouldn’t have that. I can’t go buy a [piece of] $200,000 equipment, but they had it.” Natural Abilities Sikandar is very comfortable in the lab. He has spent time in his mother’s lab since he was a small child. His mother said, “Sikandar did spend a lot of time in the lab.

143

First as probably a child, putting pipette tips in a box for me so I could autoclave them, which now they all come sterile but you know that was back then, and just doing these little things with me. You have to realize also children get sick, and when you’re in science, you can’t just stay home. So if I remember correctly, if Sikandar was sick, I’d work a morning, my husband would work the afternoon: we had some way that we’d split it. But also I can remember taking him to the lab. “This is really hilarious: one supervisor was really strict and he told me, ‘You’ve been missing too much work because your son is sick.’ So I said, ‘Okay, he’s going to the doctor. I can’t take him back to the daycare, can he sit in your office?’ [laughs] And I can remember Sikandar just being in his little thingy sitting in my boss’s office so I could finish up an experiment [laughing]. So he’s just sort of always been around labs and equipment. He’s very comfortable.” Sikandar remembers Mom and Dad bringing home supplies that the lab was throwing out like pipettes and stuff, and those were his “toys.” He remembers doing different science projects “just for the fun of it, like finding what types of colors are in different foods, what types of colors are in Kool-Aid.” When asked if she noticed any special talents he had as a small child, she said, “Nope, nope. [laughs] I don’t think so, I mean, I think to me, he’s a normal child, but then he’s our only child, so what do I compare to, also? You know, as a parent.” Developmental Process Sikandar remembers an experience he had early in elementary school. “I think it was in like the third grade or the second grade, no it was the third grade I think—I always went to another classroom, because I was slower in math and reading. When I found out why I was going there and I understood why I was going there, I was so embarrassed, and kind of mad at myself that I just wasn’t smart enough to be with the other kids. I put a lot of pressure on myself to get up there and within like two months I was out of the class. I

144

always set myself goals and made sure my homework was done on time or ahead of time, and that when I got a project I would start on it right away.” Sikandar’s mom remembers this period of time differently. She told a different story: “So we went from Cincinnati—so Cincinnati was like kindergarten and first grade, I think—then we moved to Salt Lake City, and I think his first teacher, the first year we were there was okay, but the people the people in Salt Lake City, if you’re not a Mormon, then I mean it’s like, you’re an outcast, you know, a minority, and his teacher hated him because he wasn’t Mormon. I can remember her even insulting me and my husband when we came to the first teacher conference; she insulted us, and we didn’t even know what to do. So then, because she didn’t want to deal with him, she said that he was stupid and did not belong in her class. “So I think this lasted maybe . . . the school year would have started probably like normal August, and it would have been, it was Halloween, I remember Halloween, and I said, ‘Well, you’re not going to this school anymore.’ It was a public school, and so I took him to a few Catholic schools, and my husband is a Sikh, I was raised a Catholic, but you didn’t have much of an alternative there, so it was either Catholic schools or public schools, and the public schools were Mormon schools, so it didn’t matter. So I just drove him around, and I said, ‘Well, you know, Papa and I are thinking of buying a house in this neighborhood,’ because we’d been living in an apartment. I said, ‘What do you think of this public school?’ “Well he walked in and the principal was a woman, which was a good thing for him, I think. I told them what program that the other school had put him in, and they took him in to see this woman who was head of the program at this particular school for students who couldn’t learn very fast. She started asking Sikandar a bunch of questions, like, ‘How many people are in your class, how do they have their desks, their chairs,’ and what she was doing was trying to see how intelligent he was and what he remembered. Well, by the time we finished she said, ‘There’s nothing wrong with Sikandar.’ But she

145

says, ‘I can’t take him out of the program until he proves that.’ So he went into a special class, I think mainly for reading. They would take him out of his regular class, and I think that lasted just a year.” When told that Sikandar remembers this differently, Mom reflected, “Wow, and all this time—now this really makes sense to me though, his attitude about math. Because it was never really math, and maybe he did math in the class and I didn’t even know it, but they used to say it was his reading skills. Finally the teacher even told me, ‘He can read, he just doesn’t want to read our books. He wanted to read Harry Potter and it was a fifth-grade level book [when he was only in second grade].” Sikandar indicated that math was not a strength area for him. Mom said that it is his hardest subject, and that he dislikes it. She continues, “We moved from Salt Lake to Maryland, and he loved his math teachers in Salt Lake. For what reason I think it’s because in easy classes, you know, it didn’t really matter. When we moved here to the east coast, I mean it’s such a different attitude about success, about grades, about going to the prestigious university, you know, all of these things seemed to be important here. And so they immediately wanted him on track in these special math classes, and he has the talent to do it. So I finally just sat him down one day and said, ‘You know, math is just like your boring language class.’ He was taking French. I just said, ‘You know, it’s like French: you just learn it. [laughs] You just learn it, you don’t ask questions, you just learn it, and then it’ll just become second nature for you to speak. You don’t worry about where your verb is or where your noun is—it’ll just happen,’ and I tried to tell him that I thought math was the same way, that you just have to learn the rules. But his problem is he questions everything, so he was constantly asking ‘WHY do I have to do this? WHY is it done this way?’ And on some days I can just remember being upset and just going, ‘It doesn’t matter, just learn it.’ I said, ‘Somewhere in your future, this will become important. And that’s when you will like math.’”

146

So Mom believes that Sikandar’s attitude toward math is, in part, is the result of his early elementary school experience of being place in a special class. Sikandar took this experience to heart as well, putting pressure on himself to succeed. He continued, “I‘ve always carried that through the middle school, and the middle school in Utah really put a lot of stress on that. They were very professional. They didn’t call you by your first name, you were called Mr. Porter-Gill or Mr. Smith or something, which I think that also kind of enticed me or encouraged me to do better, I guess. “So, I already had high expectations for myself, and then the teacher extended that in all of my classes, and they expected a lot more from you, and I tried to do my best. And then when I moved to the middle school in Maryland that really wasn’t the case at all, so I once again I didn’t really like it there, and I didn’t like that the teachers weren’t putting that kind of pressure on you, I guess. But then when I moved into high school, my high school teachers really put that on me, and they expected more out of you, and I always tried to take [advanced classes].” Mom agreed that Sikandar has always put a lot of pressure on himself. She said, “He does, he’s quite a perfectionist. He gets straight A’s every semester [laughs]. You know, he puts a lot of stress on himself, and I continuously—even now that he’s started the university—I just keep telling him, ‘You know, if you don’t make straights As, your mother’s not going to be devastated. Now if you go and get drunk or something like that I might be a little upset, but getting a B in a class is not going to be upsetting to me.’” He said he was never in a gifted program, but in high school, Sikandar was in the Signature Academy. He said, “So I guess I was in kind of like a gifted program then, because you took Signature Pre-Engineering, Signature Physics, Signature English, and it was a little bit more difficult, but they were with students who wanted to learn. So the high school looked at you for your grades I guess, and they decided are you just kind of a regular student that may want to slack off, then you were put into regular English, and if you weren’t, and you kind of had higher expectations and middle school

147

recommendations then they put you into Signature Academy. The classes were not smaller or anything, just that there were students that wanted to learn along with you and you kind of stayed with those students throughout the four years, and then you were all expected to go to AP classes. It was expected of you. I pretty much had the same classes with the same students, and we expected more out of ourselves than the other students did. So I think by the school kind of like dividing us that way we kind of excelled more and we were proud of ourselves. We all were proud of ourselves for doing that.” Intrapersonal Catalysts Sikandar had a great deal of help along the way on his project, but he also encountered some setbacks that didn’t stop him. He said, “I don’t really think anybody ever really ignored me, and if they did, they just didn’t respond to my e-mail, and I went to someone else. If you’re not willing to help someone – if you’re in the sciences and you’re not willing to help someone else, then you’re not being fair.” Sikandar seems to have developed this ethic about the behavior of scientists, and people in general, due to having two parents as scientists and from living in seven different states. He spoke about moving around to different areas of the country: “Going from the deep south to Ohio, then Utah, then Maryland, then to Pennsylvania, I think that you get to know people. I lived in the majority of my life in the south, and in Utah and Ohio, and I think everybody’s really nice, I don’t know how to explain that. It’s that people are more welcoming, I guess, and then when you come to the east, everybody’s not . . . nice? If that makes any sense. You know when you go to the South, someone holds open the door for you. I think that that’s really also affected me because I came here already with my mindset when I came to Maryland. I expect people to be nice. If I treat you nice I think you should be nice back to me, and that’s how everybody has been most of my life.” To further his research, Sikandar began an internship at the J. Craig Venter Institute, where he worked two to four days per week after school and full-time during

148

the summers. He said, “I started working on microbial fuel cells in eighth grade. During the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth grade, I did work mostly on my own, even though my parents and my mentors were available, and my teachers at school were there for me, but I was by myself. And then, in the summer after tenth grade, I started at the Institute. I worked at the Institute for almost two years. My first mentor there was the first time I experienced a kind of adversity, but pretty much anything before that everybody very accepting or they were like, ‘No, I can’t help you, I’m sorry.’ So then I moved on.” Sikandar was placed with a different mentor at the Institute who was more welcoming than his first mentor, but who was very busy. Sikandar said, “He did kind of let me loose in the lab, and I got to do whatever I wanted to do [laughs].” This second mentor did help Sikandar with problems “as time would allow.” Sikandar was eventually given a third mentor who “took a very nice interest” in him, “even though he didn’t know a lot about microbial fuel cells.” Sikandar was in the Department of Synthetic Biology and Bioenergy. This third mentor was in the synthetic life part and Sikandar was in the bioenergy part. Sikandar said of his third mentor, “He helped me a lot, and he pushed me to broaden my horizons. I contacted [the university professor originally contacted] again and we set up a kind of cooperation where we would share. . . I don’t know what that’s called in science – it’s escaped my mind. We set up where we would share ideas and stuff and that went more smoothly, because he already knew me, and I had been to his lab before.” At this time, Sikandar was also put in touch with another researcher at the Institute in the bioenergy department. These two men really helped him on his project. Quoted in a news story, his third mentor said of Sikandar, he “is a really, really bright wild-eyed kid who is beyond his years as a scientist. We treat Sikandar like he’s a graduate student. He says what he’s thinking, and we criticize it.” (http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/ stories/2008/10/20/story16.html?t=printable )

149

Sikandar described his experience working with a Computer Aided Design machine in high school. He said, “In the ninth grade I was taking a pre-engineering course, and our school had what was called The Mill, which is just a robot encased in plastic, and you know you put your piece of wood or metal or it might be a type of plastic – like a block of plastic instead, and you can design on the computer and The Mill renders a 3D model of whatever you’ve designed. When I learned that we had that, I went to my teacher and he was super excited to help me design it. I had my plans on a piece of paper what I wanted to do, but he helped me put it into the computer since I didn’t really know how to use the program. Then pretty much every lunch period and sometimes after school I would be in there getting one section of a microbial fuel cell done. “And in the ninth grade I was working on two-chamber microbial fuel cells and The Mill was making the middle piece that holds the membrane . . . so he really helped me with that, which was very nice. Then in the tenth grade I was working with a singlechamber microbial fuel cell, but once again I wanted to make it myself. He retired and the next engineering teacher that came in, he didn’t want to help me at all. But then I found out that even though he retired he still was working at a local university here, and he was working in the engineering department and he had his own shop and everything, so I went I took the bus to [this college] pretty much every day for about like three months.” So, as a tenth grader, Sikandar took a 20–30 minute bus ride to get a local university, and his Mom picked him up at the end of the day. Sikandar went on, “He helped me. We had to do everything by hand, because we didn’t have The Mill, so we had to cut the plastic and bore all the holes, so that took a lot, a much longer time, but we got it done.” Mom said that this teacher “adopted” Sikandar, and helped him enormously. He was no stranger to taking the bus to get to do his work. His mom said that because Sikandar could not work at the Institute on weekends due to no supervision, he went to the Institute nearly every day after school. She described his schedule and

150

activities: “He would hop a bus from his high school – he had to take two buses in fact— to get to JCVI. The school got out at like 2:10, I think, and then he’d probably work until 5:00. So just a few hours a day, but still, having to come home and do homework after that. “He was able to do a lot of his designing and putting things together at home, preparing the medium that he would use as a food, the liquid food for the bacteria. He was able to make a deal with JCVI that he could bring little portions of the chemicals home, and then he had permission to go to my lab and make the medium. Because you have to make it and then you have to autoclave it, it’s just very time-consuming. Then he could do homework at the same time, so we would just go in to my lab on the weekends. “During the school year he was probably putting in maybe twelve to twenty hours a week, and then in the summer of course he was working full time. And he worked pretty much at JCVI all the time. You know it was not the supervisor that Sikandar mentioned that he didn’t get along with, but somebody sort of adopted him afterwards. He really loved Sikandar and you know they said, ‘You just come here all the time!’ [laughs] They didn’t care, until it got to the point where then they told him, ‘You know, we have to make room for other students. We can’t keep paying you,’ and so I guess you were only supposed to be an intern once according to their rules and I think Sikandar was there for at least two full years.” Sikandar has been working with microbial fuel cells for a long time and, now at college, he continues to work the lab of that original university professor he found online and emailed. When I asked him if this was going to be his life’s work, he responded, “Yes and no. I am currently planning to major in architectural engineering, which is a big jump from alternative energy. But when I thought about it, I’m really interested in designing buildings and houses, and I thought I could make a better contribution by making or designing new buildings or renovating old buildings to make them ‘more green.’

151

“And not necessarily just because of the environmental impact that it will have by reducing building energy consumption but also by the economical benefits, which I think still many people don’t think there are any economic benefits of being green, but you know, there are. When you save a thousand dollars in electricity costs by changing all your light bulbs, then there is. And just doing different types of building design that are more energy efficient to use and more natural light that takes into account maybe building a building halfway underground because then you don’t have to heat that part of the building because the ground stays a constant temperature. “So just all those types of things I really want to learn about and I think I would be able to make a bigger contribution. Plus I was thinking maybe with the experience that I’ve gained in the alternative energy with microbial fuel cells and other things that possibly I could bring that into building design where your fuel cells integrate with your house or something along those lines. Where all the toilets in your house go to the anode part of the microbial fuel cell under your house or under a huge complex. Maybe an ultramodern city where all the sewage goes underground to make electricity which powers the entire operation and maybe some of the homes or hydrogen production or methane production just being integrated into a building or a city layout, or something along those lines that will make it more efficient and more user-friendly in the future.” When asked where his sense or mission or purpose comes from, Sikandar said, “My parents and where I’ve lived and also—this is gonna sound funny, but I’m a Trekkie [laughs]—so I think I get that from watching every single episode of Star Trek. And I’m also a Stargate fan, and you know just that futuristic, better world kind of plot, I think that has always been kind of my draw, if that’s the right word? So I think that’s where I get that from.” Mom adds, “Those type of movies, futuristic-type thinking, and you know, and of course, in Star Trek everybody’s equal. I think that also comes because his father is Asian-Indian. So I can remember one day he says, ‘You know, my mommy has white

152

skin, my dad has brown skin, what color is my skin?’ [laughs] I grew up in a family who was semi-prejudiced, and why I didn’t turn out the way they did, I’m not sure, but I think Sikandar is very open to all people, you know all races, I mean, and I think that makes him special, too. Because it’s not just different races of people, but I think he really finds a variety of different friends, even. I don’t think his friends are always science people.” Sikandar’s extracurricular activities also reflect his mission. “I was the president of the Science and Technology Academy at my high school. So focusing on science and technology and you would take more science or technology classes, more computeroriented classes and bridging the gap between science and technology. So realizing that science is really integrated with technology and technology is really integrated into the different sciences and even biology. “I along with other people that were a part of it, we raised money and we put on dances and parties for the students you know rewarding them for what they had done. We went on I think twenty field trips, I’m still trying to kind of get off the ground right now, and the recession didn’t really help that because our budget was cut, so we had to make our own money, so that didn’t really help either, so I tried to put a lot of energy into that. “Then also I was the leader of Gaithersburg Going Green [a high school group]. We made sure to get more recycling bins throughout the school. Our school was terrible at recycling. And then also in a lot of the computer labs, instead of turning on all of the overhead big tube lights, we installed maybe four to eight lamps in each computer lab. Instead of using twelve thousand, six thousand watts, you’re only using something less than a hundred, and it gave you enough light—you only want ambient light in a computer lab, and it’s much more comfortable. All the teachers noticed an increase in grades, so it really had a big effect, and I think we have done just about every single computer lab in the school except for a few, so it went very well.”

153

Environmental Catalysts Going to the science fairs gave Sikandar a sense of meaning, and he said, “It was just very exciting to be a part of something that big, and to just know that—when I was working in eighth, ninth, tenth grade, you know it kind of felt like I was like the only one, you know, doing something—to know that there were so many students from around the entire world that were working on similar projects or even more advanced projects that I couldn’t even understand. It made me feel like I was a part of something really good and very special so that was really nice. “The president and the treasurer of the local science fair back then, they were very nice to me because I was the first ninth grader in like ten years to have gone or something to the science fair when I won. Someone told me that they weren’t going to choose me at first because I was a ninth grader, and she stepped in there and talked back to them and said, ‘Just because he’s a ninth grader doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve this!’ When someone told me that she had done that for me, it really made me—it made me feel great, just that someone would stick up for a total stranger back then. When asked if he had any intellectual peers at his school to discuss his work with, he said, “Unfortunately not. The high school that I went to wasn’t the best high school in our county, but I had a lot of friends there and I knew all the teachers there and they were very good teachers. The school didn’t have the best reputation, but it was only because everything that happened there went on TV. And you know, when you look at the other schools and there’s you know a shooting that doesn’t get any publicity, when there’s you know you know drug trafficking and things like that that doesn’t get publicized, it’s because they hush it, and our school was willing to let everybody know in the community what’s going on with our school. “So I think they didn’t get a very good reputation because of that. I know that my principal thanked me a lot because of what I had done to gain recognition, because I was the first person to go to the International Science Fair from my high school. The other

154

tech schools and stuff you know they were expected to have someone go, and when he was able to say that a student of his went there, and then a new principal came in and she was able to say that a student of hers went to the International Science Fair, I think it kind of hushed the other principals up. They gained a respect for our school, because everybody always looked down on us. I’m very glad that I did not go to one of the other schools. I was going to go, but we couldn’t move, and it would take me two hours to get to one of the main schools that I wanted to go to. But I’m glad that didn’t work out now I’m very happy that that didn’t work out. “All of my friends that I have were very supportive, and all of my teachers, even my computer teacher was proud of me, and they made sure that I was keeping them in the loop on what I was doing, and they all wanted to be involved. It just made me feel like I had an extended family. And I knew that wasn’t happening at the other schools, because you were expected to do a project and they made sure you were doing it. And you know how I was doing it on my own, and they said, ‘Oh you don’t have to do this if you don’t want to’ and I said, ‘No, no, I want to do it.’ And they’re like, ‘Okay, what can we do to help you?’” Overall, Mom was happy with the programming and attention Sikandar received in the public schools, with the exception of the one experience in Utah. She said that, in public schools, athletes and cheerleaders are still “more special” than gifted children, but individual teachers have done things to recognize Sikandar. She says, “I know that Sikandar was very much respected by the teachers. I know that for sure. I’ve had many teachers send me e-mails telling me what a wonderful student he was, and then when they had the senior awards dinners and parties and things like that, one of the teachers came up and said, ‘Sikandar is not just smart, he’s nice.’ And that was probably the most wonderful thing any teacher could have ever said to me, because I just feel like some of the students who are super-smart sometimes become a little arrogant, and Sikandar has never, ever been that way. He never thinks that he’s better than somebody else just

155

because he’s in this program or because he takes this class or because he won this award. I think the principal may have teased him, because he got so many awards. I think [Sikandar] even told me once that they have to blackball him from the school newspaper because the principal said his name was in the paper too many times [laughs].” Sikandar developed many friends that he met at school, same-age peers, but he had a rough transition when he moved from Utah to the Eastern United States in middle school between seventh and eighth grades. He said, “I can tell you I absolutely hated it [laughs]. Just because I moved and I didn’t know anybody and it was just a totally different attitude, like I was telling you before—you know everybody’s nice, nice, nice and then all of a sudden everybody’s you know . . . mean. And I didn’t like that at all. I absolutely dreaded that year, but that’s when I found out about the thing on the podcast. I jumped into that. I paid attention to school, but I didn’t really pay attention to anybody else. Then in the ninth grade, I started a project again, but I had a few more friends, and they were very supportive. They made sure that I was still wanting to do this and they told me good job and things like that.” To his parents, education was “very important.” Sikandar said, “That was a very important part of my elementary and middle school and high school…is making sure that I got good grades. However if I didn’t get a good grade, like on a test or something, they understood. They said as long as you tried your best, and you gave it all that you could, then that’s the best you could do, and just kind of do the best that you can. And I know that I’ve always put a lot of stress on myself, personally, to meet higher goals.” Mom discussed her own educational experiences: “My husband is a PhD, I just have a Bachelor’s Degree in science. I’m a biologist at the National Institutes for Health. I work for a principal investigator, so I’m her lab manager. I started out in a pharmaceutical company and went from there to just doing molecular biology and then pretty much human genetics. And a lot of cancer—most of my background is in cancer research. I came from a pretty poor family, so I had no help for my education, I mean not

156

even a cent [laughs]. So I had to start out at a community college. I went there two years, and then transferred to the University of Kansas. It’s so far, so long ago now, but my thought was I just can’t keep paying for school, I have to have a job, and then of course once you start working then you know, that’s over.” She continues about her family, “Both my parents came from farms. My father’s family farm was in Missouri, my mother’s German ancestry, German farms in Kansas. I still have uncles who farm, so neither one of my parents graduated from high school. So, my parents then both moved. I think my mother moved to Kansas City. I think her parents forced her off the farm to go to Kansas City to make money to send back to the farm. So I think probably from my mother, I must have felt this and just her wanting me to complete at least my high school education. My father the same way, you know, just wanting us to complete high school. “I have two brothers and a sister, and I’m the only one that graduated from college. Now my older brother did go back after Vietnam—he was a Marine—so after I think he went and at least got a two-year degree, but I’m not even quite sure, because he went straight to working for Delta Airlines. He was more like an airline mechanic, and that’s what he did while he was in the Marines, too. My sister went on to become one of the first women police officers in Kansas City. And then my little, my littlest sibling, a brother, he was pretty much the Mom-and-Dad’s baby, so he still does hard labor for a living, and he barely graduated from high school. So pretty tough life. I mean I think it was just a tough life as a child, and always wanting to learn, I just think I wanted out of that. I wanted to be successful, and to me successful was learning. I mean, I can remember hiding under my bed to read because my parents thought I should be doing my chores instead of reading. So I guess for my son I just want him to have an even better education than I was able to receive. So that’s important to me, and I’m sure that I have said that since he was one [year old].”

157

Sikandar’s mom and her experience with science was a great help to him during his project, not only helping him to organize lab space when he needed it to participate in the science fair, but also with daily questions. Mom said, “I think even when he went on to the internships I mean, he had such little supervision—they just pretty much, yeah, let him just work on his own, and so I can remember just getting these phone calls you know like, ‘What am I supposed to do—there’s nobody here to ask!’” She also encouraged him. She said that she would say to Sikandar, “You know, you don’t have to be the winner of a science fair to be successful. If you want to do this, you do this, but don’t ever put yourself under so much stress that you feel that it is like you have to do it. I mean it’s like—alright, how do I want to say this—that you have to win to make me happy. [laughs] I guess, because I figure, what you’re doing is exceptional work, it doesn’t matter, you know, if you win, I said, ‘Winning is always nice, but, you know, it’s not what this is all about.’” His parents’ science background has influenced Sikandar in a number of ways. Mom said, “My husband has worked in science his entire life, and I think he probably even has higher expectations for Sikandar than I do. I just want him to find something that he really likes doing for a career, and to be happy, because my husband and I have had to struggle. You know in science it’s struggling, because in so many places you work from grant to grant. You find if you work for a company, like a biotech company that seems to have lots of money, they decide one day, ‘Oh we’re going to change and do this type of research now, and we don’t need you anymore.’ [laughs] And so we’ve, each of us, gone through periods where we’ve been unemployed simply because of a lack of funds. So this is the life of science. “I don’t find it surprising that he has gone into science for his project, even though he seems to indicate that he wants to get more into architecture at school and might leave hard science properly. I think he has scientific thinking, but just also how to

158

rationalize things, how to think about when there’s a problem how to solve it from various points. Sitting there and really analyzing why something is wrong.” Conclusion On the impact of winning the Davidson Fellowship, Mom said, “I think it was a real booster during his senior year, knowing that he didn’t have to go to the University of Maryland because it was in-state tuition. I think that made him relax and it made him really select the university that he really wanted to go to. I think also just a boost to make himself feel good about himself and his accomplishment, that this is this is what I’ve done, and somebody else can see that I’ve worked hard.” Sikandar loves LEGOS®, and that has influenced his love of engineering and design. Mom said, “I think that when he says he’s more interested in architecture, I think he means the engineering part of architecture, and so his project is, and I’m sure you’ve looked at some of his projects, they’re all more how to design something, to make, and so knowing the science behind it is what enables him to be able to design and construct things.” Sikandar is designing a retirement home for his parents. Mom said, “Yes, he’s been working on that like he’s supposed to be sometimes doing homework because he’s taking summer school, and I’m like, ‘Stop! Stop! I’m not retiring tomorrow!’ [laughs] I said, ‘By the time I’m ready to retire, everything will change anyway!’” Perhaps as a result of Sikandar’s work? Mom said of Sikandar, “He’s a very caring person, so he’s very close to his friends. He doesn’t have lots of friends but the friends he has he’s very close to, that he would do anything for. I think even to me his own mother, I mean gosh, he would just do anything for me, and I know that, so I consider him a very generous and caring child. I think he will, I really think that someday, he’s gonna be famous [laughs], because I think he’s just very dedicated to what he does and I think he really enjoys what he does most of the time, except for maybe his math classes [laughs].”

159

Case Study 4: Nolan Introduction Nolan and his father were interviewed separately on June 30, 2010. Nolan’s interview lasted approximately one hour, and his father’s nearly two hours. Nolan began scientific research when he was in seventh grade, and won the Fellowship at age 16. He lives with his parents in Hawaii, and has one older brother who is an attorney in California. Nolan participates in a number of activities at his school: a previous captain of his school’s Hawaii State Math Bowl team, current captain of his school’s math league team, three-year member of the science bowl team (captain for two years), student representative for his school’s Student Community Council, member of the Student Government Association, four-year member of his school’s Leo Service Club, and a member of the Student Sierra Coalition. Since the sixth grade, he has hosted a monthly segment, “Living in Paradise,” on a local cable access television show. Nolan played the piano for twelve years and the clarinet in the school band for six years. He also participated in Japan’s International Micro Robot Maze Contest and a national Botball competition, which combines robotics with science, technology and math. (http://presskit.ditd.org/2009_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2009_DF_%20Nolan_Kamit aki.pdf) A 17-year-old young man from Hilo, Hawaii, Nolan designed a computer simulation to determine how viral characteristics and medical supply distribution patterns affect an epidemic’s spread across a social network. Starting with a particle-based simulation to analyze basic interaction rates, he moved to a small world network, modeling an epidemic’s spread across a population. Nolan’s findings showed that children, due to their greater degree of social connection, are most useful for prevention and are the most effective recipients of medical processes. Systematically Developed Competencies Nolan’s first major science project, completed in seventh grade, was about arsenic. In the course of building a hotel on the Big Island of Hawai’i, a development

160

company found a great deal of arsenic in the soil. Nolan wanted to find out if the high arsenic levels were affecting children in the local schools. As a result of his work on this project, Nolan was invited to participate in the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge (DCYSC) in Washington, D.C. (http://forces.si.edu/soils/03_00_08.html) Nolan talks about this project: “They wanted to make sure the soil was safe for people there, because in that area there’s really high arsenic levels, and it might be really bad for them. So that that’s where the concern was and that’s where a lot of testing is already being done. So the first thing that I did was I tried to contact people who were directly involved in the testing. My dad’s involved in a local business in the area, so he knew a few people who were more on the developing side of trying to get the buildings started. So that’s where I started and then from there I was able to contact people who were actually directly involved in the testing.” When Nolan first started his arsenic project, and needed to contact people, his Dad helped him set up the meetings. Dad said, “When he started the project, he was looking for an idea, and I just happened to be reading a newspaper article in the local paper on this arsenic problem out in [the local area]. We looked at it being a possible opportunity for his project. I happened to know—you know in that article, the company that was doing that research on arsenic—I happened to know the company, and knew one of the management people, and so I did the initial call, and Nolan was fortunate—the company shared all of the information and just gave it to Nolan to use as his research. Not only were they willing, but whatever research they did and, and contracts, you know, the evaluation reports and everything, they would just pull it out in a file and gave it to him. So from there he looked at it and realized, ‘Wow, this is a big problem,’ and that’s really what got it started.” Nolan adds, “My dad helped me make those contacts. At the time I was like eleven or twelve, so he helped me make the contacts. It was mostly through phone calls, and then from there I would try to schedule in-person meetings where I’d see what they

161

were doing in terms of testing. Then from there I had to find a lab to do my testing. There isn’t much localized testing that could be done, so I ended up having to send a lot of my soil samples to the lab in Colorado at first.” He found the lab in Colorado based on “extensive searching on Google,” he said. Nolan’s parents also supported his project financially by paying for the samples he sent away to the lab. Dad said, “Well, for me, once he got started, and we went into the research, and he found the lab, I guess I look at education this way: as long as both of the children were interested, we would support them in any way we could. I wasn’t worried so much about the cost—well, as he got into the second year we had to limit the amount of samples we could do, because they were costly—but you know, mainly what I wanted to make sure that this, the logic of the science experiment from the beginning idea to the hypothesis to the research to the method, to the experiment and conclusion, that it was, that he followed a scientific process. And so, along the way, yeah, whenever we had to, he had to do something that involved costs, I wasn’t that much concerned about the cost as much as would that, was it consistent that scientific process.” Nolan spoke about the help he sought and received during this project, including the help he received from his parents. He said, “They’ve been really supportive because neither of my parents is in the science fields. There’s something else that I noticed was different from a lot of the other people I’ve talked to is that a lot of times they have a parent who is involved as a professor or a research scientist, but for me I guess both of my parents are involved in local business more. So they’ve been helpful, really helpful in terms of the organization, being willing to take me to different events, different meetings with other people.” He continued talking about other help he received on the project: “Primarily for seventh and eighth grade, I was not really working so much with any other scientists specifically. I talked to them about what they were doing in terms of the research. I also talked to the Department of Health, and they were very helpful in terms of telling me

162

what is going on: what is the current situation, what the tests were finding. But primarily I think the person that I worked with the most was actually my teacher in intermediate school. He was my seventh-grade biology teacher and he also worked with me in eighth grade again on the same project, so obviously he was probably was the one who helped me the most with moving along with the research. Nolan continues, “I did do most of it on my own and he was more on the side, because it was the prototypical middle school science fair kind of thing. He was more on that side of helping organize how I was going to present it at a district science fair. I did everything myself, like collecting the soil, arranging them, preparing them to send away, and that kind of stuff.” Nolan did encounter one setback during the second arsenic project in eighth grade. He said, “For the most part I have to say surprisingly that I’ve had a really wide range of support for my research, but I can think of one situation. What had been happening was in my seventh grade year, I did a few different types of tests on arsenic, and in my eighth grade year I wanted to move on to looking for some way to test the students—going to these schools and looking at hair samples. I contacted the State Department of Health previously in my seventh grade year and they were really helpful in directing me where to look next. But in my eighth grade year, the first time that I called them, they did more or less blow me off. They said that they already had people working on it. So they didn’t want another person to be concerned with it I guess, because at the time it was a controversial topic. So that probably was the only time actually I can think of in all my years kind of working that I’ve ever been in a sense blown off or you know kind of pushed to the side.” I asked him what his reaction to this was, and he said, “Well, my initial reaction was I was really surprised, because so far up to that point everyone else had been really helpful, really encouraging, so I was surprised. From there I kind of took it with a grain of salt. I mean because after all, they are the State Department of Health, they’re looking

163

after how they’re presented to the public. So I just took it from there, talked more to the researchers in the local area, and again with my teacher at school. That probably was the only time I can think of that someone actually wasn’t, you know, didn’t offer to help me.” He continued, “Now that I look back on it, it is kind of funny that [laughs] they told me ‘oh maybe you shouldn’t do it, we already have people working on it,’ but I kind of just went ahead and did it anyway. I think at the time part of it stems a little bit stems from the science fair project. It was required, so I had to do something. I remember that at the end of my eighth grade year, after I presented it at the state fair and was completing my application to the Discovery Channel competition, I actually got a couple letters in the mail from people working in academia at the state level at the University of Hawai’iMauna Loa saying that they’re really happy that I continued working on it even though they heard somehow that the State Department actually told me not to.” Nolan got to the DCYSC through winning progressive science fairs in his state. He said, “I went to the state fair, and I think they gave an entry form at the state fair to about twenty or so of the top projects. So I actually happened to win the state fair, so that probably helped in my application to the Discovery Channel one.” The DCYSC is a unique event in which participants are given problems to solve, and challenges that test their thinking. Nolan said, “I guess I’d have to say of all the presentations and competitions I’ve been through that was probably the most extensive, and it was more on the side of being able to communicate your ideas. “I think that actually might have been the first time I’d ever been to the east coast, so that was kind of an experience in itself, and in terms of the competition is just kind of eye-opening. At that time, every other science thing I’ve seen was within the state of Hawai’i, so it was amazing to me that so many other kids from around the US were also really interested in science. In terms of events I’d have to pick probably that event and

164

maybe the state science fairs that I went to in intermediate school probably as the most significantly motivating events.” It was through the DCYSC that Nolan found the idea for his Davidson project. He said, “At the Discovery Channel, they had a series of different events and at each event you’d have to look at a problem, analyze it, and then be able to explain your results back to the judges. One of the events was they actually tried to put us in the situation of planning for an epidemic outbreak. They presented us with a mathematical model for the spread of avian flu, and that’s where I really got fascinated with the idea of trying to simulate biology through mathematics. Because to me, before then I’ve always liked biology, which is so real, so practical, very applicable, and I always liked mathematics, because I always liked puzzles, and the logical side of it. But I never really saw a connection between the two until that day, so I think that’s what really turned me on to that idea of looking at mathematical biology and in this case a simulation.” Contributing to his project was his interest in computer programming, which started with his interest in robotics. He said, “I wasn’t so much into the building. I have a few friends who are really good at design and construction of the robots, but I was more on the side of the software. Then eventually a little bit later I helped design the Web site, so I was kind of more on the computer side of it. I guess that was another link in the chain for me, and I guess that put together with mathematics and biology kind of all tied together into looking at simulation research.” Nolan talked about the people who helped him with the project: “For the simulation research at the first couple of years, so I guess ninth and tenth grade, I worked with a professor at the university which is actually just across the street from my high school. He helped me more on the computer science, he was a computer science professor, so he helped me more with programming. Because before then I’d say that I was more or less new to programming—I’d done a little bit before in robotics, but I mean

165

nothing really heavy-duty—so he really helped me learn more about simulation programming and the different types of tools that I might need to get started.” Nolan talked about how he made the contact with the professor. He said, “I talked to my high school teacher, who’s still in charge of running the science fair program at my school. Once she heard that I wanted to look at computer science and I didn’t have too much experience in computer science, so she recommended that I look for some computer science professor at UHH. I tried to schedule an appointment and I just met him at his office. He was really happy to work with me, because he said that he thought the idea of looking at the spread of disease and epidemics—especially because you know H5N1 at the time was the headliner of the day—he said that it was a really hot topic and he really was interested in helping me work on it. He was very enthusiastic about it. He was looking more at the computer science side of it, but he was very happy to help me work through it. I was thrilled with that: someone who’s a full PhD working as a professor at a university would be willing to help me, and at that time I was maybe you know thirteen, fourteen.” Nolan continues: “And then on the biology side of it, I talked to a few people, and I e-mailed and called them up, some who were working at NIH Los Alamos laboratory, and I had met them at the Discovery Channel competition. They were extremely helpful. The people involved with the Society for Science & the Public were really helpful; they sent me software, so they were really fantastic with helping me.” So, going to the national science fairs helped Nolan in different ways. He said they provided “resources in addition to the basic social network that you get from meeting and talking with people. Especially the people who are higher up in the science world, they’re really helpful in terms of trying to study all the different connections. So that’s definitely been a huge help for me.” Nolan discussed his schedule while he was working on the project: “I’d say the most hours per week I’ve worked actually was in my freshman year, because the

166

Discovery Channel competition was in late October and by the time I got back home I think it was almost November. And then the first district science fair was already coming up in January. So you know, if I wanted to get something done I had to work on it within three months or so to be able to get a working prototype up. This was before I had done any serious programming. So that probably was the most I ever worked, especially during the winter break, I would probably get up around seven or eight in the morning and I’d be working until maybe eight or nine at night, so that’d be about maybe twelve hours a day at some points.” The professor at the University of Hawai’i continued to help Nolan. He said, “We had pretty regularly scheduled meetings, maybe once every week or couple of weeks. As time went on though, he went more into a guidance role more so than a direct kind of involvement with what I was working on. He was more overseeing the general direction where my simulation work was headed.” Nolan figured out the bulk of the programming on his own in three months. He said, “I guess in terms of learning how to program, I just bought a bunch of books. I started really, really basic with the C++ For Dummies kind of thing [laughs]. Yeah, I had to start somewhere, so I started with that kind of thing, and then from there I moved up to more advanced programming books. I talked to the IT guy who works in my dad’s office and he lent me some of his books that he learned how to program with. So wherever I could get resources from I just ate it up, and went from there.” Dad discussed some setbacks Nolan encountered while doing his project: “Well, in the arsenic project, it was pretty cut-and-dried as he did each step. As he got into his programming side, there were setbacks. When he came back from the Discovery Channel and set his next project, he picked up from the Discovery Channel that one of the challenges was an avian flu, and he starting saying, ‘Well, I want to research into avian flu, and I want to build this computer model.’ Well for us, we know nothing about

167

programming, and so, there’s our kid now saying ‘I’m going to get this and I’m going to program it.’ “So what we tried to do was find someone in town who could program or could help him, and I made couple of contacts initially. But on his own, Nolan found a base model, I forget what it was called, and he used that as his initial model and he added and tweaked on it. That first program was one that he pulled, was done at some university. It was a simulation program, and from that initial program, he built all his model and logic into it. But as a parent we’re trying to sound knowing, we don’t know how to program, what are you doing? [laughs]” Dad continued, “Because he was younger then, and I wanted to make sure that if he went on the UH campus, I was with him, so I sat in some of the sessions. It wasn’t on programming itself as much as discussion on what are you trying to achieve, what’s your logic, and that kind of discussion. Nolan would go home and try and incorporate it into his programming. “But the actual programming itself, he did have obstacles, and when he got stuck, when he had a bug and the thing wasn’t running, then he needed to talk to me. I put him in touch with someone in my company or, I think at one point he called that UH professor, as well as he had a person in the robotics program that he knew programmed, and he would tell them the inquiry and they’d help him along the way. When he got stuck, he managed to track down someone who could help him. Sometimes he’d program his simulation and the thing would kind of just bomb out, and then he’d have to go back and look at the code that he was writing, and try to figure out where he made the mistake. Nolan won first place at that local science fair three months later, and the following April, won first place at the state fair, giving him the opportunity to attend the international science and engineering fair: Intel. Nolan described his experience: “Oh it was really an amazing experience. When you walk in on the first day, I think it’s probably comparable to when they go into First Robotics combat or the world cup or the

168

international event at the Georgia Dome. I think it’s a similar feeling when I went into my first international science and engineering fair and you enter that room. I mean you’re expecting a lot of other kids and a lot of other projects, but you kind of don’t expect the magnitude of how many people are there. I mean there’s a thousand five hundred kids, so there’s maybe you know adding in all the teachers and judges, there might be five thousand people on the floor at a time. And then you look at all the projects, when I compared them to the projects back at home at the state fair, I was really impressed and blown away by a lot of the work being done by students working with professors at the state level, but I mean you look at some of the international projects it really, really blows you away with the level of depth that students are thinking.” Nolan was about fourteen at the time, a freshman, and he didn’t win anything, but he said, “But it really inspired me to come back, refine what I was working on. It made me think about it in a different point of view, and actually what I found is that probably the most helpful thing was actually talking to the different judges who were there. I put my project in computer science, but in hindsight, maybe I should have put it in medicine and health, because it was more on the biology side than the computer science—I just kind of used computer science as a way to get the answer, but it wasn’t so much the defining aspect of my project. So when I went back in my sophomore year, I put it in Medicine and Health instead, and that was at the advice of the different judges who I talked to the previous year who said that they thought it was a great project but not so much a computer science but more of a medical project.” Nolan described the work he did during his sophomore year, between the two Intel experiences. “During my sophomore year the level of work that I did was much less intense as it’d been during my freshman year, because I had the whole year to work on it. So I worked throughout the summer, all break, winter break, in preparation for the district and state fair. In overall time I put a lot more time into it, but it wasn’t as intense, and it wasn’t like I had spent every day for a month just working at it. I spent a few hours every

169

day actively programming and then the rest of the day I’d be thinking up where I wanted to head with the project, so the time schedule was a little bit easier. On school days I’d work maybe two or three hours, and then on weekends and holidays I’d work about five or six, so it was a little bit less intense than before.” Working on the biology part of the project was also a challenge. Nolan said, “On the biology side, I just read a lot of medical journals and I bought a lot of books. Every couple weeks or so, I’d be going through another infectious disease paperback book, and then I’d be blasting through some textbooks I happened to find. So, there’s a lot of research on the biology side besides learning how to program. So, it’s like you said, on two fronts: I was looking at it from both the biology side and then also the simulation programming side of it.” Nolan discussed his difficulties when reading and researching. He said, “When I first starting looking at it, a lot of even the basic terms that they use, like reproduction number, comparing mortality to morbidity, I’d never seen most of these words before, so I was definitely lost in the beginning. I think the one thing that helped me along was the fact that a lot of the research being done was so new, the simulation design was much more recent—within the last decade or so—and then the interest in the topic really was spurred on by H5N1. But it wasn’t a lot of background you had to get through before you could get to the interesting results. So I think that although at first I was really hampered by my lack of experience in the field, that after maybe working on it for three months, I did more or less understand kind of where the research journals were going.” Nolan also stayed in contact with the people he had spoken with at NIH and Los Alamos Laboratory. He said, “They were really helpful with explaining to me something that I might not understand, and then from there, also I went to probably the internet [laughs] was one of the biggest places of help that I found.” Dad said, “He was very successful that first year, the second year he said, ‘No, I’m not going to use the model, I’m going to start from scratch and program from

170

scratch.’ And again, he knew no programming, but amazingly everything he learned, I mean, he bought books, he found books, and he read through them, and he built his second-year project from scratch, programming, and my wife and I, we, I mean for me, I’m astounded that he was able to do that.” “I think the biggest obstacle along the way as he was doing that kind of work was, he reached a point once where he just couldn’t find a mistake, and he was spinning his wheels, working, working, working, working, until finally the deadline was coming into getting the project done and finishing the simulation and then he finally called on the UH professor and they both quickly found he made some kind of error in his programming, and they both found it and from once he got that fix, it went on flawlessly after that.” Natural Abilities Nolan remembers his parents telling him about abilities he had when he was very young. He said, “When I was at a very young age, my parents said sometime before I could even talk, I guess I was kind of technologically inclined. I would, through watching other people, I would figure out how to use a VCR player or what different buttons on the remote did, and this was when I was maybe one or one and a half.” He remembers his parents telling him that he said his first word early and he began reading at about four years old. Nolan has an older sibling, Daniel, 10 years his senior, and when asked if there were any special talents or unusual abilities in Nolan at a very young age, Dad talked about both of his boys: “My older son when he was young, we noticed he was exceptional. He was a very good reader, and could analyze well. My older son Daniel is very shy, more introverted, and Nolan is almost opposite—he’s more extroverted—he’s not real extroverted but he’s much, just when you watch how he handles himself, it’s with a lot more confidence than his older brother. But we actually noticed that Daniel from a, I mean he could read at a very early age, three or four years old.

171

“When Daniel started school, he could read very well, which is why we decided to skip a grade for him through his school, and in the end I guess when I look back in hindsight, we didn’t do the same for Nolan. Skipping a grade is fine academically; socially especially in boys, they mature more slowly, and I think to some extent with Daniel it was more of a detriment socially than academically. “When Nolan came along, it was funny, Nolan also learned to read at a very early age, similar to Daniel, but he wasn’t as avid a reader, and so my wife and I said, ‘I don’t know if Nolan’s going to really match up and get up to speed,’ and at one point I thought Nolan was going to be behind Daniel. For whatever reason, sometime, and I don’t know when it was, Nolan started excelling in math at a very early age, he wasn’t as strong a reader, but his logic, what I recognized in Nolan early going about first grade was his logic, because I’m a math person and not a good reader. “So I’d look at him doing math work and he was in a GT program, gifted and talented program, and teacher would give him problems. A good example, she would give him an algebra problem, and he wouldn’t know algebra, so he didn’t know the algebraic formula, and I’d watch him do the work and he’d go in this way roundabout way, and he’d come out with the answer, and I couldn’t figure out how he got the answers until I tracked it, and then I realized logically, he figured out the solution. And that was when I first noticed he has something a little different than, that he was I guess gifted in something, and so we noticed he was speeding along, particularly in math.” Nolan related a story about a math workbook in first grade: “When I was in first grade, they placed me into GT classes. They gave us a math workbook for first grade, and they said that it was supposed to last us the year. I don’t remember this, but my teacher told me that she remembered that I finished in a week or something like that. I guess part of it was that a lot of these problems are presented more as puzzles, so I just really had fun—[laughs] I had a fun time doing it, so I just kind of kept working on that book and I finished it within a week.”

172

Developmental Process As a result of finishing this workbook so quickly, his teacher recommended that Nolan be placed in GT class. He said, “So actually at the latter half of my first grade year, I was in working with the GT math teacher at my school. I wasn’t really in a GT program, but when I was in second grade they placed me in the third grade GT science and math class, so when I was in elementary school I kind of skipped a year. But when I got to fifth grade, I didn’t continue on with it in intermediate school, so I fell back in a sense: kind of skipped a year, and then I didn’t skip a year when I got to fifth grade.” When asked how he felt about that, Nolan replied, “At that time I really wanted to go ahead and I was kind of disappointed that I had to stay back and repeat the same thing that I’d already done a year before. I mean I remember I was really, not really disappointed, but I was definitely disappointed that I couldn’t continue on. Although I guess on the other hand though, all of my friends who were my age were still in fifth grade so I had a good time being a kid, so that was the other thing to think about.” Dad confirmed this story: “It was in first grade where his teacher was surprised because he finished the book. It was something like a week or so, and she’s the one that actually called the gifted and talented teacher and asked if she could take on Nolan. At first, the GT teacher didn’t want to because he was too young, but she did accept Nolan into the class and started working with Nolan on side. In fact that math teacher, I’ve seen her since and I thanked her profusely, because she’s the one that really challenged him, and her style was she challenged the kids to think outside the box in math problems. “Nolan did finish that workbook real fast, and if you ask my wife, she has this side story: he finished the book and he had one problem that was wrong one day, and he was upset. He thought he had it right, and they tried to explain and he got very upset. Mathematically he was correct, but the way he read the problem grammatically, he read it differently. It was something about ‘something something happened, how many birds left?’ and I think he answered it the opposite, “how many birds were left?” as I guess how

173

many left [as in ‘flew away’]. And so, he had it the opposite, and then Lynn said she laughed because she tried to explain to him and he cried [laughs]. He absolutely refused to believe that he was wrong, because he saw the answer—the thing very logically—this is my answer, my answer is correct.” Dad described the GT program, “It was at that time third, fourth, and fifth grade, but it was what they call a GT class and he’d go outside his regular classroom and attend a class with older kids. That teacher actually was the one that focused on the kids’ individuality and their capability at the level they were at versus what age they were. He moved on to 6th grade, and in middle school they didn’t have that specialized GT class in the same way, and he stayed in more a generic class.” Nolan began middle school in sixth grade, without a GT program, and began his first science project in seventh grade. I asked Dad if he felt that Nolan was challenged enough in school academically. He said, “I guess if I were to be real honest, the school itself wasn’t challenging enough, and especially my wife, actually, she’s the one, she’s the best “follow up” student in the family. I always joked that I’m happy she wasn’t my mother. But she’d keep an eye and make sure he was doing all of his homework, and made sure that he was challenged.” Nolan indicated that he did not feel challenged at school, even though he was in a program for gifted and talented children. He said, “I’d have to say in elementary and middle school, even though I was in those programs, I guess not, not really, and only when I got to high school and started taking a lot of AP classes in my sophomore and junior year that I really felt that I was getting the most out of school. In elementary and middle school, I didn’t really think about it too much: being a little kid, life was more about playing video games and having fun. I was really interested in mathematics at the time—more so than science by far—it was like playing chess or some other kind of little puzzle game.”

174

He participated in the Center for Talented Youth summer programs at Johns Hopkins. He said, “It was one of the first experiences I had meeting kids from outside of Hawai’i who were also very interested in learning and in math and science. I took a class in cryptography—making and breaking codes—and for me that wasn’t something that was really in my line of interest but it was loosely interesting to me because I really like working with puzzles, so I had a great time that summer.” Dad indicated that he and his wife would support Nolan by checking over his homework when he was younger and keeping on track with organization. Dad said, “Yeah, he was decent at [organization], he was murky, because as he got into high school—middle school was, I think, so-so for him, it was really three years of just moving along. When he got into high school and he started taking online classes, online classes was really the thing that catapulted him and gave him the ability to go as far as he wanted to go. Dad continues, “But as parents, we thought he always was slightly overloaded. What we provided was just to make sure that he stayed on track, because at that age, it’s easy to get lost in doing too many things and not follow up. So what, if anything I think we did, when he had deadlines, he had schedules to meet, we just followed and make sure he got it done by the deadline. But, if we didn’t do anything, he probably would have missed a whole bunch of deadlines. Whether he would have picked it up on his own or not, I don’t know, but I felt as parents, just make sure you get the discipline built in so that when he goes on and leaves home, which he’s about to do, he’ll at least have that self-discipline.” Nolan said that if he could have changed anything about his school experience, he would have taken more college courses. He noticed other students at the science competitions talking about taking college courses, and he realized that he hadn’t taken any, other than AP® courses. He said he would not have wanted to skip a grade, though, mostly due to his friendships.

175

In high school, Nolan did take a number of AP® courses. He knew his parents and school mentor thought that he was doing too much. He said, “I think it’s kind of funny that my parents and the teacher I worked with—the registrar—they actually recommended that I maybe not take so many AP courses, because they thought it would be too hard a workload for me. But for me, I really wanted to take the classes, learn different subjects, especially math and science, where it’s AP Physics or AP Biology, so I just went ahead with it. Ironically, it wasn’t so much that people were helping me but in some sense they told me to slow down a little bit.” Nolan spoke about the courses that challenged him. He said, “From an academic perspective, of the sciences, the most challenging science for me definitely has to be physics. Taking AP Physics, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetic induction, I did get a 5 on each exam, but I guess I never really felt the same click that I did with the other science classes. In Chemistry or Biology, when I learn a concept or mathematics when I learn a formula, I get a really thorough understanding of how it works, but a lot of times with physics, it doesn’t make the same click. I just memorize the formula, know how it’s used, but it really took me a long time to grasp the implications of it. I usually have to read the chapter maybe five or six times before I really get a thorough working of how it works.” Intrapersonal Catalysts Nolan described one of his greatest strengths: communication skills. He said, “I think one of them is my communication ability. This is stemming from the Discovery Channel where they said I think quickly on my feet. Sometimes I found that makes me talk a little bit too quickly, because I’m thinking of the next idea when saying the previous one. That has been continued from when I was in about fifth or sixth grade, I worked at a local TV station did a few ad spots for a local hardware business. From there it turned into I was doing a local access TV channel show, about wealth education, public health, and other issues.”

176

Nolan continued talking about his work on the show, called Living in Paradise, which he did when he was 10 or 11 years old. “I think being able to speak in front of the camera -- other people there write out a script beforehand and the kids would memorize the script, but for me it was different. My dad would drop me off, they would tell me what I needed to say, and then I would be able to go with the flow of the program in the first take. They were always really surprised. They said most kids would take about five or six takes before they got something that they liked, but I could just go straight into it and it would usually just work. They used to call me the One-Take Kid.” Dad talked about Nolan’s drive and the other qualities that have made him successful in his research: “First and foremost, there’s something about his logic. When he looks and thinks, and he thinks it through, his logic is, for me, just, I don’t know how to describe it, it’s just, for me it is extraordinary. The second is he has a, for whatever reason, a very strong drive to want to excel and accomplish things. And sometimes I do worry a bit because, and I try and talk to him about that, you know, it’s nice to have drive, and I want you to have the drive, but at some point in your career, just having drive and just wanting to excel all the time, you know there’s more in life than that, that you have to get that satisfaction of why are you doing it, for what purpose. But he’s really young yet, so it’s a hard conversation, I mean I’m an old guy so [laughs] it’s hard.” Dad also spoke about his goal setting. Dad said, “I work in a management area, and one of the challenges I always have is, most people do not reach their level of capability. One of the things in trying to have people achieve beyond what they think they can do, the fact that it always stops people in my mind is always just fear of failure. And whenever you need someone and they see a challenge, they always sell themselves short or set the target lower because they don’t want to fail. When you want people to set higher targets, the fear of failure’s too great and it puts too much pressure and they don’t want to look at it like that.

177

He continues, “And I find Nolan is interesting, because he sets targets that for me as a parent, even if I were his friend, it’s really outside what I think is a range a normal person should shoot for. But he honestly looks at that target and feels that he can accomplish it. For me, it’s kind of fun to watch because he lives that level of hitting these real high projects and going for it, and I try and look in my work, well, how do we, how do you get people to actually set those kind of targets and actually go for it? Nolan is interesting in that sense for me because he does do that, that very thing that I’m trying to encourage people to do within my work. That’s something he started doing, we didn’t teach him. Dad put Nolan’s attitude in perspective: “Nolan, I guess if you asked me what the difference in Nolan was, and I only had two children to compare. You know it’s funny. Nolan has something in him. When I look at myself in my family, I’m the middle child of five children, and people always tell the story, the middle child is the lost child. When I look back at my life, you know, how I was lucky I was the middle child because there wasn’t that much attention paid to me. When I look at my two older siblings, my older sister, Ann, excelled in school, she was a straight-A student, she always, always did the right thing. My older brother, following her, and when I it’s just when I look back I try and analyze, he got stuck, he had this choice: either he had to match up to her and excel, or he had to be something else, and he chose to be the rascal guy. He also was very good in school and did well, but he never made an effort to try and match or beat her. “Me being the third child, there’s one that excelled and one that was more a rascal person, I had no pressure on me and so I went at my own pace. In our family, when I looked at Nolan and Daniel, Daniel excelled being firstborn, and having all the parents’ focus in a sense and he did well, he did very well academically. Nolan coming along, when I look back at him, at an early age, he made a decision. He measured whatever Daniel did, and said I want to at least match or do better than Daniel. I don’t know at what age he did that, but I, in watching him, I think he set Daniel as his target. At some

178

time as they got older and older, especially in high school, he started to check off every accomplishment of Daniel at an early age. “Daniel got a little bit peeved at him. They’re ten years apart so they’re, like two generations, and I said, ‘Daniel, you know what, the one thing I appreciate, you set the bar high enough that if Nolan made the decision to try and beat it, he would have to work real hard at it, so I’m real happy you set the bar that high.’ But that was Nolan. I think when I looked at Nolan, it was this challenge to excel, and he’s the one that decided that he wasn’t going to take that back seat and go the opposite way. He went after him, after Daniel, then he started looking up other kids, especially in high school, we noticed, if you looked at how, what the best kids that went through the high school accomplished in their career, and he tried to set them as his goals. So, that seems with Nolan he’s, he’s very driven; yeah, we’re surprised, he’s very driven.” I asked Dad if that driven quality was something that he and his wife encouraged in Nolan, and Dad said, “No. No, in fact, in high school especially we were trying to slow him down. Academically he took on too many things. I think, you know, back to his story, when he was in elementary we saw anyway that he did have this knack, he was exceptional. I always looked, in my mind was fourth grade, it may have been third grade, I looked at him and I thought, ‘Well, there’s something about him that’s different in his logic and his analysis.’ “I think what really turned him around for us and I don’t know if he mentioned was when he entered science fair, seventh-grade year he entered it because he was required to do it, and you know as a parent we just wanted to get over it with this. So we did the project, and we thought, ‘We’re done, and that’s all he’s going to do.’ Eighthgrade year, the teacher made it mandatory again, and so we looked at it and said, you know, ‘Nolan, what shall we do?’ and we got in a discussion about the project in seventh grade. It’s pretty good, why don’t you just enhance it? The teacher happened to have

179

picked an earth science, it had to be earth science, and his year before project was earth science, and so it was more to just get it done. “But what little did we realize by him doing the arsenic project the second year, he did a lot more research, he got a lot more knowledge about it, and he went a little more in-depth, and ended up you know winning the fair. I guess part of it was because doing it two years, he knew his subject, and so it took him all the way to Discovery Channel. It’s just funny, you know the head judge, he handed Nolan the trophy, and said something to the effect of, ‘Take care of this, this is your golden ticket to college. This ticket, this will take you anywhere you want go.’ Something in that competition lit the light bulb, and it was never the same. “When Nolan came home after that competition, that drive really, really came out in him, and after that he looked at what was next, what could he do, how well could he do at, at that point his motivation and self-drive went into high gear. We were worried he would burn out, but after a while I just decided, you know what, it’s not for us to tell him what he can and cannot do, and so the best we could do is just try to support him and you know make sure he stayed on top of whatever he took on that he would finish [laughs].” When asked if anything challenges Nolan, Dad replied, “Yes. When he goes into a competition—it’s funny for me, if I went in a competition, I’d think, well, I just hope I do well—Nolan expects to win. And he goes in every single one with expectation that he’s going to win, and so his disappointment has been in competitions when he doesn’t win or doesn’t place as high as he expects. He gets very disappointed, and I think he goes back and self-analyzes, well, what is it that he did that’s close enough to win, what should he have done, and at any time I’ve seen him probably crestfallen is when he doesn’t do as well as he thought he should. “As parents we’ll say, ‘Nolan, there’s always going to be somebody else there that’s better than you, so you know, you can do well, and I’m happy when you win something, but then understand also there’s many other kids, and there’s always going to

180

be somebody else there who can be better than you. One of the things you have to learn is when you meet that person better than you, you have to accept it.’ And he’s said to us, ‘You know, Dad, in a competition, if I look at that project and that project’s better than mine, and I lose to that person, I don’t mind. But if someone wins and I look at the project and I don’t think it’s better than mine, then I’m disappointed.’ And so, I think that’s how he measures it. “But my concern is that he actually goes out and tries to excel, especially as he goes to college now, he’s going to be in a pool of a lot smarter kids or equally smart, and I just want him to accept—well, I still want him to have that drive to want to be the best, but I want him also to accept that when he comes across a better person, he’ll acknowledge it and live with it. So, we’ll see. I just want to make sure he’s okay with that.” Going to Intel was a great learning experience for Nolan. His Dad said, “Discovery Channel was a catalyst. When he went to his first Intel, he realized, he looked at his project and he looked at the other projects, and then he realized you come from a small town, maybe big fish in a small pond. You go to Intel and all of sudden he’s a small fish in a big pond. I think he realized that at Intel. “Nolan’s the kind of guy if he goes to a competition, he’ll look and look for who’s the best and what’s the best project. He’ll probably look at the project or after the fact he will try look it up online, and he’ll read as much information about it and try and figure out what it is that that person did that made them head and shoulders above everybody else, and then he’d go back and look at his project and figure out what the thing to do to get his project up to that kind of caliber. That side of Nolan, when I watch him, he’s very driven like that. “You know, it’s a funny thing as parent: you don’t want your child to be disappointed or to get hurt; on the other hand, as a parent, and as we all grow up, we have to realize sometimes getting disappointed and getting hurt is part of life and that’s

181

actually what makes you excel. So you have to be able to endure enough trials and tribulations if you’re going to become a better person. And as a parent, I still worry about that: what happens if he comes to an obstacle that they think they can do and they aren’t able to and they can’t come to terms with it. What do they do?” One of Nolan’s strengths seems to be that he enjoys what he is doing, that it doesn’t feel like work to him. He said, “I’m not going to say that I never was stressed in high school, but I think I always tried to make sure that I was happy and I was enjoying what I was doing, especially with the sciences. If I didn’t enjoy learning about programming, if I didn’t enjoy programming itself, I don’t think I would have continued.” Environmental Catalysts Nolan describes his relationship with his brother, “We had a lot of pictures where he was holding me when I was little, and my friends told me that whenever he tried to pick me up I’d always climb on him. We were really good friends when I was little, and we still are—we talk over the internet, we play video games. He lives in California; he’s a lawyer. In that sense we have our own set of specialties—I’m more of a math and science person, he’s definitely more of a literary person, a literary logical thinker in that sense. He’s read—sometimes I think I read a lot of books, then I look at the library he’s read—he has read maybe 10 times as much as I have when he was in high school. In that sense then we never have had sibling rivalry. I think that happens a lot of the time because we’re each involved in our separate fields of interest.” Dad spoke about Nolan’s peer group. He said, “The difference of Nolan and Daniel in ten years is the technology: Internet, Facebook, texting, online. Every competition he’s gone to on the mainland, he makes at least one or two new friends, and when he comes back home he stays in touch in with them and they chat. He has a network of friends that he’s made over the years that he stays in touch with, and they bounce off each other. They’ll talk about what they’re doing, what competitions they’re

182

entering, or if they see something, they’ll bring it up. Nolan has learned and found a lot of opportunities via those friends. For us, it’s an amazing network. Dad continued, “The second is I think the network of friends has allowed him when he comes back into the school setting, and his school is dragging along, he’ll bear with it, because he knows if he comes home in the evening, he’ll get stimulated by this network of friends. If I look, his education had come more from outside, in a lot of ways has come in his online classes and outside of the normal setting through his friends than it has in school. But school does give him a certain grounding and foundation.” Nolan has been friends with the same group since sixth or seventh grade. He said, “I have a group of friends, about three to five of us, and we’re overall doing the same stuff—we’re all in Math League, you know Science Bowl, so I mean we have kind of a smaller group. We’re all interested in math and science, and in terms of what are we looking at in college—I’m looking more at biology, one of my friends is looking at computer science, and another is looking at mechanical engineering, so all in that science and math group.” Dad talked about Nolan’s school mentor, “He also has been real lucky, the registrar in his school, Mrs. N, she’d been tracking him for the four years of high school. She’s been his mentor. She’s been his school mother and has been on top of him. In the same way we track him at home, she tracks him at school, and she’s been invaluable. Actually we give a lot of credit to her for his accomplishments. I think to the point when he has some issue or problem within the school, he’s disappointed or has a class that’s not going the way he wants, I think he confides in her a lot. She’s given him a lot of guidance and support in explaining to him, or at some point just tell him just grin and bear it for this. But she’s been invaluable, actually, and that’s the part of school I think has been very helpful for him—having someone like Mrs. N guide him through whatever challenges he has had in school.”

183

Nolan also spoke about Mrs. N, “The person who’s in charge and who I’m going to refer to as my mentor after this, who was the science fair coordinator at my high school, and she’s actually also the registrar, she was really phenomenally helpful. When I went in my freshman year, I just took regular biology, Geometry or Algebra II or something, and English and History—the standard schedule for a freshman in high school. But what I found is that I really wanted to accelerate my learning especially in mathematics and science. So I talked to her, and in my sophomore year I took four different AP classes, and a few of them were math and science. I took AP Chemistry, AP Biology, and AP Statistics, and I guess before then, I think the general policy at my school was to not let sophomores into AP courses. I guess taking four AP classes compared to the previous year where I took none was kind a big jump. But that was on the other half of it—besides doing a lot of independent science research, trying to accelerate my high school class curriculum was on the other side of what really helped push me along in terms of getting a lot of math and science background.” Dad reported that most of Nolan’s teachers “have been very helpful and have worked with him. Normally, you know, I talk to the teachers usually at the beginning of the year during that parent-teacher meeting and through the year, I might touch base with them whenever we go on a trip or something like that. By and large he hasn’t too many problems during the school year. The only one that comes to mind was in his senior year: he ended up dropping a class in the second semester of his senior year. That teacher’s method of grading was strictly by attendance and participation, so very little homework, and there was no makeup. We went on a lot of college visits and to competitions. Everything was attendance or participation. I went to talk to the teacher, let her know that he wasn’t going to be around a large part of his second semester. She started marking him, and if he didn’t come to class or he didn’t participate, he got an F. I found out she was just marking him with F’s and so, he ended up going to Mrs. N, talking, and then ended up dropping that class. She was a new teacher, and whether she would forgive him

184

at the end or not, we didn’t know. So, it was frustrating Nolan to a point where I told him it might be better you just drop the class and move on than try and figure out how you’re going to meet her expectations that we knew he couldn’t.” Nolan participated in a program at MIT and was involved in robotics competitions. Dad said that Nolan started his interest in robotics on his own. Dad thinks that Nolan went into the robotics, because of older classmates: “I think he had a yearolder classmates who were doing it, and he enjoyed their company and robotics, for him, was more a social than education. I think at some point, and he eventually stopped going to robotics and it became a time issue of doing science or robotics.” From Dad’s perspective, the MIT program was a different story: “I think he learned about that MIT program through one of his science friends that he met at science fair, and it probably if wasn’t for that meeting he might not have looked at it in the same way nor applied for it. That was another one when he started applying we told him, ‘Nolan, this one is, you know, it’s outside your range, because of the number of kids that go there.’ As parents we always want to give him this soft landing in case he gets rejected or too disappointed, but he did get accepted and you know he was elated. “The interesting thing for us when we picked him up at the end of the program and were driving him back to the room before we returned home, he goes, ‘You know, Dad, I cannot remember all my summers growing up, so I don’t know, I cannot remember every single one, but as far as I can remember, this was the best summer’ he ever had. And so when I heard that I went, wow, that’s making a statement, he truly enjoyed that program. He went into a level of peer members who are all at the same level as him, and in fact there are a bunch of kids that were heads and shoulders above him. He really looked at them, and he still, some of them he knows and he talks to them and he really looks up [to them]. “The thing I liked about it is when he sees somebody that’s way above him, he accepts that person and he respects that person. For example when he went to [a science

185

fair], he didn’t win the top award, one of his friends did. I said, ‘Wow, would have been nice if it was you,’ and he said, ‘No, no. That person deserved to win—he’s so head-andshoulders above all of us.’ So at least I’m happy he can see that and accept it.” Nolan also described his experience at the six-week summer MIT program he attended the year before. He said, “It’s the Research Science Institute. Everyone sends in applications and they pick 40 students from the U.S., 30 students internationally, to attend the program. In the beginning there’s a lot of researchers that have orientation stuff, they kind of talk—guest lecturers come in to talk about different topics. By the end of the first, running into the second week, they pair each of us with a mentor at the MIT program. The mentor’s just someone in the Boston area—they can be from MIT, they could be from Harvard, they could be from Boston College—and then every day from then to the end of the program, we meet up with our mentor and work in their lab for the day. We eat lunch with them; we live the life of what would be an undergraduate or graduate lab assistant. I would have to say after the Discovery Channel and state science fair, that was probably the next biggest kind of influence on my development. I had a chance to work at Harvard Medical School. I worked in their department of genetics on a human genetics project, so that was just really fascinating for me.” Nolan’s parents were helpful to him along the way. He spoke about his parents and what their attitude was about grades. He said, “A lot of the other kids that I’ve talked to, they said that their parents are more focused on getting good grades, getting a good report card or GPA. Looking back, my parents are never so much. I mean of course they were always—if I got a B or a C—they were always encouraging me to try harder, but they were never so much specifically worried only about grades, and it’s more that my parents wanted to make sure that I was learning something more than anything else.” Dad commented on the educational lessons he tried to explicitly teach his children: “People ask me, well what is it that you as a parent you think you did different, and I always tell people, you know, for us as a parent we read to our children every single

186

night, and it was every single night before they went to bed. Some when they were very young, I even think when they were two in the crib, we would read a story, and they would go to sleep, and we did that all the way until they were around, I don’t remember, eleven or twelve years old. We read every single night, and that’s part of the reason we feel they learned to read at a much earlier age or have an appreciation for reading. “The second thing, as parents, was the school itself, especially at Nolan’s, well even in elementary school, every night when he finished his homework, we’d go over his homework. We’d, my wife and I, would break up the subjects, and I guess she did more the reading side, I did more the math and some science, but we’d look over his work and check his work and make sure he understood the subject. Most of the time he wouldn’t come to us—he did the work first. It was fine but I didn’t enjoy it, because I always felt I went through this earlier. One of the things I liked about leaving school was I didn’t have to do it over again. I didn’t like it, but you know, it was good discipline, and I think for both Nolan’s brother, Daniel, and Nolan, that they realized we’re going to check his work every single night made them make sure that they didn’t want to have too many corrections to do afterward [laugh]. “So they probably paid a little more attention and after a while they just got in that groove. What we found was as they got into high school and worked harder, when we didn’t want to go that much into depth, and it really went beyond us, we just let them—in high school we let them go. The thing I recognized from Daniel, once you set their discipline by about 12–13 years old, and they have that discipline, they’re pretty set by then and you can let them go, and that’s what they did with both of them.” Dad gave his thoughts about if gifted and talented children were welcomed and valued in school generally: “In elementary school, in the years he was there, the gifted and talented program was well-supported by his school. I understand the district expanded it because of budget reasons or whatever. I think the teachers were well supported, and the teachers were very generous in their time and effort with the gifted

187

and talented program. But what we found within the philosophy of education itself, I guess, we went to couple of year-end programs and we sat through them, and all of the awards they gave at the year-end program was kids that didn’t miss a day in school, kid that had the best personality, and it was all generally personality or not academic. “At the end of the program, they didn’t award any academic recognition, and so we went up there and we asked the teacher or principal. You know it’s surprising because when I grew up, we always recognized the academics. The answer was just ‘We don’t.’ They said that they purposely do not do that. We said, ‘Why?’ And they said because part of the philosophy of education you want everybody coming through schools to feel happy and to want to come to school. The minute you start recognizing people for excelling academically it makes the kids that cannot excel academically uncomfortable, and there’s a negative in their feeling of school, so on purpose we don’t do it. And I thought, how are you going to get other kids that could possibly excel further to reach if there’s no recognition for the ones that do reach? Their feeling was, ‘The ones that reach are going to do it on their own anyway, so they’re okay. We’re more worried about the ones that cannot. Dad continued, “For us as parents it’s very disappointing to watch this happen, but No Child Left Behind—I’m not a believer of No Child Left Behind. What’s happened in middle school with Nolan, the No Child Left Behind initiative that’s ongoing, what ended up in his middle school years, especially in math, they take the best math teacher and put that teacher in the remedial class so that they could get those kids to pass. The accelerated kids were given the remedial teacher, and so Nolan had a year or two where, I mean, virtually the kids were at a standstill. Again for me, being a math person, math is a building block process, if you miss a year, like Algebra I or whatever, and you miss it, you don’t get to catch up. When you go to the next level and you’re in the next level, you’re not going to have that benefit of that building block.

188

“When I look back at some of the kids who did very well in elementary school in math, they fell off in middle school and they never caught up after that. It’s that missing thing that the school, there’s no mention, because the No Child Left Behind only looks at whether you meet or don’t. These kids still, they are going to meet the standards, but in terms of whether they excel or not, there’s no measurement. And so, that’s, that’s continued on through high school, which is why for Nolan, he was lucky that he got to do the online classes and that Mrs. N and the school supported those online classes. “My understanding of gifted and talented, by and large, is slowly falling apart now because of budget reasons. But also I think No Child Left Behind, they, the gifted and talented kids, they’re not as important as the struggling kids. While Nolan was here in elementary school, he had strong support, and for us we feel very lucky because it was in those early years the kids, Nolan and his friends, got a good foundation. It kind of fell apart in middle school, and then in high school Nolan was able to pick it up using online classes.” Nolan’s Dad discussed his own family’s educational background and the culture of learning that he and his wife grew up with: “Yes, both of my parents went to college, and all five of us went to college. We all went to college, because we were all expected to go to college. We were raised more by my mom than my dad. My dad was always busy in the business, and I was just looking back on it, funny, between my two parents, my dad went to college, he probably was a C student, probably barely passed, became very successful in business. My mom was an A student and very, very studious—throughout high school she was known as a studious person -- and so as we grew up, she was the one that watched over us. “When I look back as a kid, she also was the same. On every night I left my homework; if I couldn’t do a problem, I left it for her, and she would look at it, and in the morning she would explain it to me. Maybe that’s the habit we picked up with our kids,

189

but I always remember as a young child if I couldn’t do something, I’d leave it with her, and when I’d get up in the morning, she’d explain it to me. “From an early age she expected us to go to college, and the one thing she’d always tell us is, you know what, I, it doesn’t matter to me whether you become a doctor, lawyer, or whatever career you’d be, or whatever you become, I want to make sure that you become the very best at what you become, and as long as you do that, it doesn’t matter what career you do. So, I think that was the, if I have a feeling in me, it’s that feeling that you know whatever you do, make sure you do the best. And I think if anything what I try and pass to both our children is that feeling that we want them to excel in career, in academics, but we also want to make sure that whatever they do, they do their very best at it. “My wife came from a smaller family of two, and her father was in social services, so he was a strong education value. He’s the only one of my children’s grandparents that ended up going through college and actually got a master’s degree. So my wife’s family, they expected her also to go to college.” Conclusion Nolan is currently planning on attending Harvard, majoring in cellular and molecular biology, but is keeping his options open. He said, “I’m not too set on anything. Originally I was really looking at a tech school like MIT or Caltech, but I think the reason why I ended up choosing Harvard is for a more liberal arts college over just science. I want to see what else is out there first—I mean, obviously kind of looking back at the last six or seven years of my life I’ve done a lot of science, but I guess I don’t [laughs] really necessarily know if that’s the only thing I’m interested in yet. Maybe a little bit of economics, a little bit of art history or something, just to see what else is out there.” He still plays the clarinet and the piano, still tries to play the piano every day, and plans on continuing with music as well. He said, “I still play both instruments, the clarinet was with the school band and my piano was actually with an independent teacher

190

in the area. With my piano, especially my senior year I had to step down: I usually do some piano competitions and I compete at the state level on another island every now and then. But in my senior year I had to tone that down because of all of the college applications and the different science competitions. In that sense, the rest of my life really took a backseat to science for the last couple years, so that’s part of the reason why I wanted to—not in the sense of not be focused in science, I think going into college science still is my number one priority—but I think I do want to see what else is out there, whether it’s in music theory or just in whatever else that I might find interesting, so I’m going into college with an open mind right now.” Nolan enjoys the interdisciplinary nature of science, as expressed, for example, in the book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. He said, “I like a lot of different topics piled together. It’s a mix of science, of social science culture, history, all those different topics mixed— that’s something that’s really fascinated me besides just doing the actual science. Seeing how science has affected our development as a civilization is a really fascinating topic.” Dad spoke about Nolan’s larger life goals and sense of purpose: “He wants to get involved in research, because he likes the challenge of an unknown, even if it’s an impossible unknown, he wants to try and search. I look at his ambition, he wants to discover something that hasn’t been discovered yet in the area of medicine that’s going to help everybody -- the cure for cancer or something like that. “The second was, and I don’t know if he mentioned in his discussion, when he was up in Discovery Channel, we went into, was it, NIH, National Institute of Health, where they ran their, their challenges. I guess in one of the rooms, it had all of the pictures of people that came to NIH that eventually became Nobel Prize Laureates, and I think that captured his attention. He looked at that and said, wow, he wants to be one of those guys. So in a big picture way, I think that’s what guides him. He wants to accomplish something bigger than life, a dream outside the box, to try to win a Nobel Prize. He dreams at that kind of level and so I guess as a parent, it’s nice. We joke about

191

that with him actually [laughs]. Oh, we tell him, you know, just make sure that when you go to Sweden, make sure we’re invited [laughs].” Case Study 5: Roman Introduction A 17-year-old young man from Addison, Texas, Roman Stolyarov designed and produced an omnidirectional dielectric mirror for visible light using a unique one-step fabrication process. The mirror is composed of 12 ultrathin alternating layers of two chalcogenide glasses, which were deposited by thermal evaporation onto a transparent silicon dioxide glass substrate. Simulations show that doubling the number of alternating layers would produce near perfect reflectivity, a phenomenon impossible for silvered mirrors, given their inherent losses in the visible spectrum. Roman’s process will allow for rapid manufacturing of wavelength specific mirrors with applications in radar filtration and fiber technologies. (http://www.davidsongifted.org/fellows/Article/Davidson_Fellows___2009 _419.aspx) Roman won the Davidson Fellowship at age 17. Roman has participated in a number of activities, including coaching a local middle school math team for MathCounts, tutoring younger students in math, and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training. For his EMT training, he was able to spend a month at a local hospital doing clinical rotations in different departments, including the Emergency Room, Operating Room, Labor and Delivery, and the Nursery. He had just turned 18 at the time of the interview, so hadn’t yet taken the national certification test. He participates in the Academy of Biomedical Professions at his school, which is a program that allows him to take coursework as an introduction to the medical field. He lives with both of his parents, who are scientists, and he has two older brothers who live outside the home. I interviewed Roman on July 6, 2010. His parents were not available to be interviewed for the study. Systematically Developed Competencies Roman described how he began his project, “My brother is studying for his PhD at Harvard, but he works at MIT with a group that studies special light-guiding fibers which implement highly reflective mirrors. Fabricating the fibers is this really intricate

192

process where they stack non-metallic materials one on top of the other, roll this stack up, and then thermally draw it into a really, really thin fiber which can guide light superefficiently. So you can imagine the implications in fiber optics and communications. “The fibers are one thing which require immense use of technology and a serious and intricate understanding of both the math behind all of this, which I hadn’t taken yet, and lots and lots of laboratory equipment. So I decided to kind of stray away from [the fibers] and instead I just got really interested in the mirrors. First of all it just seemed like something that would have greater appeal where a science project was concerned, and secondly it seemed like a purer way for me to study optics and to really understand the physics behind the technology. I just wanted to study the highly reflective mirror and how it worked. “My brother explained to me, because it’s a very new technology, why the mirrors are necessarily non-metallic and composed of multiple layers. After all, most mirrors that we use every day are metallic mirrors. So after understanding that, I took it upon myself—with the help of various group members—to find materials that would produce a higher level of reflectivity and at the same time be easy enough to fabricate into a fiber. I did not actually end up fabricating a fiber, but I knew that this had to be an important qualification if I wanted to create a simpler and cheaper process that could actually be used. In the end it turned out to be more of an engineering challenge rather than a venture into a completely new endeavor. It was more improving an already existing process, which, by the way, I think I succeeded in, because I basically introduced a fabrication process which took about a tenth of the accepted time." Roman often spends time visiting his brothers during the summer months, so it was not unusual for him to be visiting with his brother at his lab, learning in detail about what his brother was working on. Roman said, “I was extremely interested in what my brother was doing. The summer of seventh grade is the first summer when my brother was involved with the fiber group and that summer I visited him. I did so once again

193

during the summer of eighth grade, that’s where the whole interest in physics came from. I remember he had this big setup; one day—it was all in one day—he went to an electronics lab to build a circuit, which he built right before my eyes, then he went to the optics lab to test out his mirrors, and finally to the chemistry lab to synthesize his solution. It was really impressive. I thought, wow, this is what I want to be doing! By ninth-grade summer, I had a clear understanding of my goals and what I would have to do to complete a science fair project.” Roman described what happened next, “The first two summers were just about accumulating my interest, and during either the spring break of ninth grade or summer after ninth grade, I actually finished planning out my experiment. I would try out several materials that were available at the lab to fabricate a mirror using only one, as opposed to two separate, fabrication processes. During the course of that week or week and a half, went through five well-documented trials. After each trial I analyzed why hadn’t worked. On multiple occasions, it would be a successful fabrication, but the mirror just didn't produce the right reflections. Only on the fifth fabrication did I succeed in making a prototype of a mirror with very high reflectivity and a short fabrication process. This was essentially the extent of the research; the experimental part did not take terribly long, but the theoretical part was significant.” Roman spoke about that “theoretical part,” developed by both studying papers and paying close attention in the lab. He said, "There are a lot of papers published by the group regarding the mirrors. Basically, I read papers in chronological order from the start of the very first dialectic reflector to the very first omnidirectional dialectic reflector, which is one that can reflect light at any angle, to the first visible light omnidirectional dialectic reflector. I read papers about one advancement after another; it got to the point where I was very in tune with what was going on in the field. At the same time, my brother would constantly provide guidance and support; my brother’s co-workers would do the same.

194

Roman spoke about the reading, which he found difficult. He said, “In terms of understanding conceptually what I was reading, I found that a lot of the graduate-level vocabulary was actually pretty straightforward when I spent time being immersed in the research. The difficulty was in the mathematics behind it. I admit I had to skip a lot of it, because there’s some calculus and other higher-level math that I just didn’t know yet. ” His brother and the group of people his brother worked with at MIT served as Roman’s mentors. He said, “They were a very welcoming group. Basically, I tried not to be the annoying high school kid. I tried to actually show interest and engage in conversation with other members of the group without distracting them. I listened intently to everything they had to say. Eventually, I worked less with my brother and more with another member of the group who turned out to be my mentor for the project. He guided me through most of the work.” Roman explained how the relationship with this other member of the group began. He said, “It was very gradual. It didn’t get started with a formal introduction or anything. He had just worked very closely with my brother for a while, often mentoring even him. Sometimes, my brother would consult him with questions that I had asked that he couldn’t fully answer. Over time, we engaged in more direct communication. I would stand over his shoulder in the lab; he would persistently be explaining things to me; we had a few lunches together, as well. As I mentioned, it was all quite gradual." Roman did his reading over the school year and his lab work in the summer. He said, “I did the reading over the school year. With limited access to my brother’s group, I couldn’t do anything experimentally but for short periods of time. After all, pretty advanced equipment was necessary for that part. While I was at home, I did all the reading, which definitely took up a great deal of time.” He discussed the moments of adversity he had during the project: “The greatest adversity I think was when I had trouble understanding a few things. I had to learn a lot about the wave properties of light, for example. There are a lot of interesting properties

195

that light has when you consider its wave form and I had to combine that with an understanding of light’s particle form. The whole wave-particle duality thing is notoriously difficult to understand on a conceptual level; and as if that weren't enough, there is also a lot of math behind it. Given that, I didn’t really understand the mathematics that well—I didn’t get Maxwell’s equations, for example, because they were calculus based. The only path for me to take was conceptual understanding, which was difficult because waves and particles of light don’t behave according to any everyday principles we are used to seeing on a large scale. I would say that this was the main adversity; in terms of serious hardship, besides the everyday challenges of research and the documentation of the work, there wasn’t anything I would call adversity.” Natural Abilities I asked Roman if there were any family stories from when he was very little that showed that he had advanced talent. He said, “I was always given these logic puzzles when I was a little kid which I loved to solve. In REACH, when I was in second grade, I became the logic expert. I became the person to go to for the logic puzzles. Also, I played chess for about five years, from fifth to tenth grade. And I might be joining the chess team at college for fun. I’ve always enjoyed chess because it’s really analytical and it’s just you versus this other guy, you can’t really blame anyone else, and you get to take all the credit if you do something great. Developmental Process Roman spoke about his elementary school experiences and his early interest in math. He said, “Not so much in science early on as in math. Both of my parents are engineers, my brother is a computer programmer, my other brother has always been into physics, and I’ve always had this strong interest in math. One of the things that really attracted me to the [science academy] was that they would have a math team. Have you heard of MathCounts competitions? I was just really, really excited to participate in them because, honestly, I never really felt challenged at all by the math I was learning in

196

school. I kind of wanted a chance to compete with other kids who were on the same analytical level." He continued, “In terms of elementary school, I think that all or most of elementary school is just a joke. It got better; it’s been better the past few years; in high school, after all, take different classes every year. But I just remember math in elementary school, 90% of what you learn in the second year is review of what you learned in the previous year, and it was like that practically every year. Just a really slow pace.” I asked if Roman, his family, or his teachers ever gave him a chance for acceleration or any sort of extra work that was more his level, and he described a special school his parents found: “I went to this extra school while I was in elementary school; it was this separate weekend math academy where kids would go who had a special affinity for math. They would essentially have classes, and then give you these big packets that you would do every week for homework. I attended that for a while; it was basically like learning algebra and other higher-level stuff in elementary school. I really enjoyed it.” Roman spoke about the other subjects in school. He said, “Literature and social studies were challenging topics for me. I’m not really sure why because I read a lot and I would say that I’m somewhat knowledgeable about American History and World History. I’ve always really enjoyed those topics, because they were an intellectual break from the boredom of elementary and middle school math. By intellectual break, I mean they actually gave a challenge. Especially now. In the past year or so one of the things I’ve been considering is double majoring with one of my majors being in history or literature, because I constantly feel less and less comfortable with being just analytical and good with numbers without having a firm knowledge base and a cultural worldly foundation, if you will.” In elementary school, he was in a gifted program: “I was in a gifted program for maybe three years called REACH. I don’t like to refer to myself as a gifted and talented

197

student, but it was, nevertheless, a program for gifted and talented students. A few kids from my school every Monday would miss regular classes and go to this special school with other select kids from the district. We would study there all day; it was really interesting. Every year there was a different topic, a different thing we would study for the whole year. One year it was the Future, and one year it was Systems. These are really vague terms of course, but they would really try to get us to analyze things on a very mature level. I remember, for example, one really key element of the whole REACH program was Bloom’s Taxonomy. We would actively throughout the course in each class period progress through the different levels of thinking and every time we would try to reach the highest, which was evaluation or synthesis; I forget which.. We would know it and we would be introduced to this idea of analytical thinking versus groupthink. It was a really good experience to have as a young kid. Of course I don’t remember it too well because it was so long ago. We also did interesting arts and crafts; we did ceramics, sewing, all made to be fun. The program was for kids from grades 1–6.” When asked how his teachers responded to his advanced abilities, he said, “As a kid, you are never really focused on self-improvement that much, I guess. At least, for me that’s how it was. I only became focused on self-improvement five to six years ago when I was starting junior high. As an elementary school second or third grader who’s bored in math, my teachers would offer extra work for me to do for a challenge, but I have to honestly say that I really didn’t like that, because I enjoyed being on top of things and not having to put much effort in. I could put math to the side and not have to worry about it as a class. Plus, more than actually the teacher caring about challenging me, I think the extra assignments partially had to do with the fact that when I was bored, I would misbehave a lot. When I was bored as a kid, I would start messing with people next to me, making paper airplanes and stuff, just really going wild. Teachers obviously tried to quell it with extra work.”

198

From seventh to tenth grades, Roman attended a private science academy, but then switched to his local public high school for eleventh and twelfth grades. He explained, “[The science academy] was quite interesting. It had a very strong focus on the physical sciences. To give you an idea, I had six out of four science credits by the end of tenth grade, and science projects were a yearly must, not that I wouldn't have created them anyway for competition. The teachers were always really motivated and enthusiastic, many of them PhD’s. “The academy was a new school, meaning that there were not a lot of kids, and I was able to gain reputation for being one of the best students. But because it was such a new school, it was also often very disorganized or haphazardly structured. We would have teachers absent from classes and no substitute to replace them. The teachers, even though they were required to have at least bachelor's degrees, were not required to have teaching certificates, meaning we would get teachers that just didn’t know how to teach at all, even though they were masters in their fields. “I mean, I had one teacher who had finished at the top of his university in physics; he was just a genius. However, his English wasn’t that good, because he was from another country, and he just was not cut out for teaching. This guy would start up the class by writing a bunch of formulas on the board and by basically speaking to the white board itself. He would never look at the class. People would get so frustrated. I’m usually one to be on the teacher’s side, but unfortunately I had nothing to say in this case. This guy had absolutely no concept of teaching at all. And such cases existed on multiple occasions. Teachers could be authorities when it came to their field, but they were not skilled in conveying their knowledge. Multiple experiences like this led me to just want out after tenth grade. “In addition to that, because I had gained such a good reputation in this school, I would have weekly meetings with the principal, who would tell me I could have any class that I wanted. He told me he would arrange any AP class I desired, and he would find a

199

teacher for it. All that sounded really good on the surface, but the problem was that I was pressured into making these decisions as a guinea pig and with no guidance. I may have been the kid in the candy store, but I had no idea what to choose first. First of all, I didn’t want to take a class where I was the only person. What about socialization? What about being able to identify with my peers? Second of all, how was I supposed to know exactly which course it would be best for me to take? I could have told him I wanted seven AP classes and this and that, and he would have given them to me. But, I just didn’t feel comfortable with that; I might as well have been home schooled if all of my classes had just one person in them.” He continued to explain how the transition to the new high school went, “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence of course. Everything has its up sides and down sides, including the public high school I entered in eleventh grade. Public school was really awesome because I had a guidance counselor who told me very clearly what classes I needed to take and how this would help for college, as well as about all of the scholarships that were available. Everything seemed just much more organized. “However, the content of the classes was noticeably diminished. This was certainly not the case for all classes—there were some classes that I was very happy with which very tough, like my U.S. History class. But there were other classes in which students just played around, something that never happened at [the science academy]. At the academy, even if there were bad teachers, they were serious about what they were teaching. Overall, however, I was happy that I switched, because I got the public school experience. I enjoyed it because there were just a whole bunch of extracurricular activities and stuff. I ran track, and was a member of model UN. That was something pretty big for me; I really enjoyed that. And then I played on the basketball team in eleventh grade for a little bit. I found that basketball was not my calling but I still enjoyed that. I took advantage as much as I could.”

200

Intrapersonal Catalysts Roman talked about his personal strengths, “I don’t really focus on the end when I’m working on a particular assignment. When I try to get a good grade in a class, I don’t really focus on making an A for the semester, I focus on doing well on this particular assignment. When I’m working on the paper, on a smaller scale, I don’t really focus from the beginning on writing a bunch of BS down, but instead I really try to make it a good paper. I focus on every sentence; I really try to write the paper such that it achieves its purpose. So that I’m not just writing it because I have to, but for the purpose intended by the teacher who would like to actually teach me something by giving me that paper. That’s the source of my diligence, that’s the source of my work ethic. I’ve always enjoyed learning new things. Learning has always been a huge part of who I am. “One thing which I’m not terribly good at – I’ll skip over my physical traits, because I’m not the most coordinated person in the world and I’m not the best at sports either. In terms of academics, probably English and history have always been challenging topics, but it’s not like I’ve failed at them. If I work hard, I do well. Because success didn’t come without hard work. I really love language; I love when writers make amazing sentences; I don’t always immediately understand or analyze something I’m reading. Not as good at it as someone who focuses on the humanities. “When I think about what work I want to do, I think about building my knowledge and my character. I don’t see it affecting my career because I want to go into medicine. But medicine, definitely, it’s the crossroads between science and humanity, and I’ve always viewed myself as the kind of person who likes to lend a helping hand and I’m also scientific, so I thought it’d be the perfect field. Given Roman’s earlier comments on his peer relationships, I asked him if he was looking forward to going to college to find some intellectual peers. He said, “Yeah, I’m very excited. One major thing that people say about going to college is that they want to meet a lot of new people; they just want to meet lots and lots of people and just socialize

201

their brains out with everyone. I always wonder why that was, because that same thing doesn’t excite me at all, meeting a lot of new people. “I want to meet a few, very interesting people, and know one or two very interesting people who I can talk to a lot, and with whom I can build long lasting friendships with. But not necessarily lots and lots of people, and I kind of wondered why that is for a while. I think that it’s because when you don’t really like to analyze, when you’re not really an introspective person, it’s really hard to have a serious relationship with another person. I think the reason that people are so excited about meeting a whole bunch of other people is so they can cycle through them. They get to know one person on a shallow level, like one person is your movie person and another person is your basketball buddy. If you don’t keep meeting new people, you run out of people with which to share this shallow information without really seeing that with the very people who you meet, you can have endless conversation about an endless variety of topics if you just look deeper. “People fundamentally want to cycle through other people to get social satisfaction. That’s not the type of person that I am. I really want to find a few people and cycle through the intellectual topics with just them. And make them a truly long lasting friend who I have a very intimate relationship with. Whether it's a boy or girl is not really important. One reason I don’t really go to parties that much is because there is so much nonsense around. Interesting at the moment, but they have no broader implication. Environmental Catalysts Roman was candid about his peer relationships. He said, “I’d have to say that most of the so-called friends I made in elementary school were REACH kids. The thing about me, however, is that I’ve always viewed my brothers as my best friends. So, while I did make friends in REACH and on the math team in junior high and in my AP classes in high school, they were transient. I haven’t really built more than two or three really longlasting relationships with people from school.

202

“For the purpose of being as accurate as I can for you and your work, I’m going to be honest and say that I’ve always had trouble fitting in with the general population, which is part of the reason that my brothers have always been my closest friends. I’m very blessed with my family. The problem with the general population is I never really find anything to talk about because it seems like people always want to talk about very similar things. You know, the common clichés: pop culture, sports—I mean, sports are not bad, but when it’s all people want to talk about, it's kind of unfulfilling intellectually. Few of my peers wanted to discuss any deep, really truly intellectual topics. So that’s always something I’ve struggled with.” For that and many other reasons, his family is much more important to him, “I have to admit that I grew used to having my brothers and parents around. To this day on Friday nights even, while I might go out with my friends, I can just as much enjoy going to a restaurant with my parents, because I realize just how much they have to teach me and how much I can learn from them versus how much I can learn from my peers. Perhaps that will change with college, for now, that's how it is.” Roman talked more about his parents and what they had to teach him. He explained, “Very subtle things. I have to say honestly that most of my character development can be attributed to my parents and to my brothers. Every day at home since I was a little kid I would have very long family dinners with my parents. We would sit for a good hour every day together. That would be together time. We would go get coffee (I was never a coffee drinker so I wouldn't get anything.), and it was during those times that through subtle conversations, through telling stories about my day, through being either rebuked for my actions or praised by my parents, I developed my character. The process continues even today. One of the reasons that I am choosing to go to a university nearby is because it is close to home and I’ll get to see my parents a lot. It sounds like I am super dependent on them and I need to grow up, but it isn't that I can't sustain on my own at 18 years old. I just need them emotionally to be there. I realize the value of their guidance.

203

“One of the things my parents taught me was whenever there’s a problem, you want to turn that problem into an opportunity. That was a central theme of my childhood. I would come home and complain about one thing or another, and that’s how they taught me to deal with things. This is probably a really simple example, but I would complain about something like my class being too difficult at school, and that would naturally be turned into opportunity mode with ‘well, you could use this to excel in next year's higher level course.’” I asked Roman if his parents were focused on grades. He said, “Actually—this is a half-joke in family—my parents, before they had any kids, made an agreement that they would never check up on whether or not their kids were doing their homework. That would be their kids’ responsibility and they wouldn’t push them to do it. And you know, they never did. You can be an extremely authoritarian parent, and just have your kids do what you want them to do because you tell them. Or, you can be an extremely—I don’t want to say laissez-faire, because they were definitely not laissez-faire—but you can be a very allowing parent, a very open parent. Basically allow your kid to talk about and do what they want, but to essentially raise him or her to actually want to do the right things. “So even though they never checked on my homework or anything, somehow they hard-wired my head from a very young age that you have to do well in school. Essentially, as a kid it is your one and only job to do. That just always resonates within me. Even to this day, if someone tells me that they failed a test, in my head I am thinking, ‘How could you possibly let that happen? What in the world made you to do that?’ I have always thought that was unacceptable. So even though my parents were never authoritarian they built this framework through our dinner and coffee discussions.” His brothers are also very present in his life, “Right now, I’m in Boston visiting them. My brothers are in Boston. I never really considered any other schools besides Boston or Dallas because my family is close and that it a really big priority for me. Both of my older brothers are much older than me. One is 27 and the other just turned 30. We

204

talk once or twice a week, and we visit frequently. In general, through my search for colleges I have found that I tend to relish personal relationships even more than good academics. That is probably due to how awesome my brothers and parents are.” Roman discussed his participation in science fairs and the impact that winning the Davidson Fellowship had on him. He had participated in science fairs every year, but he didn’t ever advance past the state level. He explains, “You know what, it’s always been a personal struggle to understand why I never made it. I mean, I had my fair share of accomplishments, such as winning a grand prize in the Dallas science fair in eighth grade. But I made it to the state tournament twice, in ninth and tenth grade, and no matter how hard I tried, I never was able to get past that level. It's kind of interesting to me why that's the case. “A lot of the projects that went were projects that have been done before. Like the year I went there was a project on the photoelectric effect. It was at a time when I was realizing that science fair has way more to do with presentation and popular appeal than it does with pure science. But of course that's not an excuse. It’s about applications, essentially, how directly and easily you can convince the judge that what you are doing here, that your project can be used all over the world. So who wins? The energy projects. The cancer research projects. And other areas that have high impact. For a highly reflective mirror, which has already been made, that I am working on the fabrication process for, how are you going to market that? “I had to step out of the bounds of my immediate research to try to convince the Davidson judges that this has some appeal. Apparently, they saw it. The appeal does exist. There are two types of appeal, I’ve learned. It’s either scientific appeal, something people in the scientific community will be astounded by and will use to build from. And—this is something which is much stronger—the social appeal, which is the benefits that people in general can see. The iPhone 4 has tremendous social appeal, but maybe not such strong scientific appeal because each one of its individual features are things for

205

which the technology exists. My work was very specific and hard to understand by regular people or by the everyday lay man.” Roman sounded a bit disappointed that he hadn’t advanced to higher levels and gotten to compete past the state level. He said, “Yes it has caused a little bit of disappointment, but again, I understand why. I didn’t feel that by not winning or progressing in the national competitions that my personal abilities as a scientist or as an analytical thinker were ever really looked down upon. I always felt that I did this project and it just wasn’t what was needed to win the fairs. I thought I worked as hard and did as much calculation as someone else who did an energy project, but it was just the topic. “When I won the Davidson Fellowship I was really excited, of course. But upon further research, I started to get kind of skeptical. It didn’t seem like very many people applied to it in the first place—I’m not really sure. I felt that I knew from experience that there were a lot of really, really good projects, that there were a lot of really interesting science projects in the nation that could be successful in the Davidson competition. That’s why I was sort of confused. I had entered a simpler version of my project at the ninth-grade science fair, and didn’t get very far. And then suddenly I won on a national level, one of 19 people nationwide, and even less among the science winners. So, it was inconsistent is all. I went in with the hope of winning, but with an expectation that my project's deficit of social appeal wouldn't get me far. When I did win, I very pleasantly surprised.” He explained why he stopped participating in science fairs, “Eleventh grade was just a busy year, I had a lot going on with AP classes. Twelfth grade I had five AP tests and was really busy as well with applying for colleges, so I just didn’t have the time.” He said of the Davidson research experience, “I think it makes me prepared for college and it will help me choose which research I become involved in when I’m at college. I must make sure that it has social significance.”

206

Conclusion The EMT training experience reinforced Roman’s desire to be a doctor, which is unrelated to his Davidson project. He explained, “You know I’ve always had trouble nailing down exactly what I’d like to be doing. In high school and middle school time, I was usually into physics; I studied a lot of physics. I was really inspired by my brother, who at that time had started a PhD program in physics at Harvard. He would always ask me questions about the world and stuff, you know; I don’t want to make it sound like a fairy tale but that’s how it was. That’s where the Davidson project started, that’s when I had the chance to work at MIT with the group. More recently, my brother has still been doing research, but I switched gears a little bit into medicine, because I just felt like I wanted a career where I could use my analytical and scientific kind of thinking and apply it to helping people. Roman talked more in depth about his EMT training experiences: “You know I really enjoy it. I didn’t get the chance to perform as many skills as I would like, it was mostly observational, which was really interesting in itself. I got to see a bullet removed, a C-section, a surgery, so there were definitely a couple of really interesting things. But most of the time it was things like changing sheets, bringing patients water, and stuff like that, so of course, it was a very subservient role, but at the same time, I understand that, you know? And as for the location in general, the hospital environment is a very fast paced one, filled with lots and lots of very interesting people to discuss things with and lots of opportunities to help others.”

207

CHAPTER 5 CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Yin (2009) indicates that the analysis of case study data is “one of the least developed and most difficult aspects of doing case studies. . . . Indeed much depends on an investigator’s own style of rigorous empirical thinking, along with the sufficient presentation of evidence and careful consideration of alternative interpretations” (p. 127). When analyzing case study data, Yin (2009) suggests beginning with “confirmatory evidence,” or evidence from two or more sources that support a main topic. The main topic in this study is how the Fellows progressed in their talent development, organized according to the categories of the DMGT. The cross-case analysis draws tentative conclusions about talent development using evidence from the case study reports. Evidence was sorted according to questions answered from each section of the DMGT: natural abilities, intrapersonal catalysts, environmental catalysts, and the developmental process. Evidence from the systematically developed competencies section of the case study reports overlaps with other categories, so that section will not receive its own analysis, but examples from those stories will be used in the appropriate section. Natural Abilities According to Gagné, giftedness “designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain. . . ”(Gagné, 2004, p. 120). Gagné limits gifts to the top 10% of age peers, but natural abilities appear in all people to some degree. The natural abilities include both mental and physical abilities. The mental abilities include intellectual, creative, social, and perceptual abilities (Gagné, 2009). Gagné surmised that natural abilities are often easier to see in children, because they have not been exposed to organized learning activities to a great extent (Gagné, 2009).

208

This description provided the basis for the main question within the natural abilities section, “Is there any evidence for natural abilities?” Evidence for natural abilities was sought in two ways in this study. First, anecdotal evidence from parents indicating advanced ability before the age of three. Cattell discussed historical fluid ability would probably best be found before age three, so that is the “cutoff” age used here. Second, any report of markedly advanced abilities relative to peers or siblings without any apparent focused instructional effort. This will address Gagné’s own definition of spontaneously expressed and untrained ability (Gagné, 2004). Winner (2000) adds, “If exceptional abilities emerge prior to intensive instruction and training, then these abilities are likely to reflect atypical, innate potential” (p. 160). The second question for this category was what abilities do these young scientists possess, natural or not? Subjects were asked for any early school records and standardized testing information to determine their relative standing among their peers. Other studies, like Bloom, did case studies, but collected no data on the actual abilities of the students. I did not want to leave that question unanswered. Evidence in support of the natural abilities is thin at best. With respect to the first question, there were no anecdotes from any of the case study reports that fit the criteria. Three parents (of Sikandar, Collin, and Prithwis) indicated that they did not notice anything unusual about their children at a young age, because there was only one child in the family. Nolan’s father discussed clearly how he compared the abilities and motivations of his two children, and how decisions for the second child (Nolan) were based on experience with the first child, particularly with respect to acceleration. Without having another child in the home, comparisons were not possible, so it is possible that any unusual abilities, if they existed, appeared “normal” to the parents. Prithwis’s story about learning the entire multiplication table in sign language before he could speak was compelling, but it was not a “spontaneously expressed” ability. His father taught him the math facts, so he had been trained. His building projects

209

with Legos were also impressive, but the reported age was “around age three.” Gagné’s inclusion of natural abilities was not supported by the evidence in this study. With respect to the second question, there was ample evidence of very high ability. Test scores collected indicated that two of the Fellows earned perfect scores on the SAT® during high school, a third Fellow scored a 2310 out of a possible 2400, and a fourth scored 2250. All of those SAT® scores place the Fellows at the 99th or 99th+ percentile (http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/data-tables). Another Fellow hit the ceiling on the Stanford Binet L-M, a 161+. All of the Fellows reported taking multiple AP® classes during high school, at the rate of four or more per semester. Every case reported being a straight-A student. A compelling example of high ability was the extent to which the Fellows were self-taught in many areas of their research. All Fellows reported reading graduate and professional-level research papers on their own before emailing or asking questions of mentors. Indeed, mentors of Sikandar and Collin responded to their initial inquiries due to the high level of information shared in the letter or email. Collin’s mentor showed him a letter from another student who was not accepted at the lab. The level of knowledge was different; Collin’s was far more advanced. Sikandar and Nolan reported reading books independently and then trying out different things on their own before consulting others. Sikandar read to find out about microbial fuel cells and began making them. Nolan taught himself computer programming for an infectious disease simulation. A strong opponent to the natural abilities camp is Ericsson and his colleagues (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). Ericsson argues that years of focused, deliberate practice are necessary to the fulfillment of any ability (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). The evidence from these case reports would seem to defy this claim. Two of the Fellows reported having early science experiences with their parents, but three indicated that they began their scientific careers

210

in seventh grade or later: Collin, Nolan, and Roman. Nolan put his first programming project together in three months. Even if these Fellows had earlier general science experiences in school, the Davidson projects were focused on such narrow topics within science, that they did not have years to develop their expertise. For example, Collin likely had years of practice in science, but he had less than two years of practice in microbiology. He was also working with very advanced equipment for only a matter of months before he submitted his project to the Fellowship. Roman is another example of a Fellow who figured out highly technical equipment at a lab at MIT, well enough to streamline a fabrication process, in a matter of months. In addition to working on narrow topics, with advanced equipment, the Fellows also showed expertise in more than one area. Ericsson indicates that years of deliberate and focused practice are needed to develop one ability. The Fellows often had projects that combined two disciplines. Both Nolan’s and Collin’s projects utilized advanced biology and computer science. Sikandar’s project included microbiology and engineering. The Fellows seemed to advance to a high level in their respective fields, sometimes multiple fields, in a very short amount of time. One last conclusion in the natural abilities section was not considered initially for this section. All of the Fellows showed an unusual level of drive and focus to complete their projects. Nolan described working eight to twelve hours per day during a school break to get his first project ready in three months. Collin often worked sixty hours each week in his lab during summer vacation. All of the Fellows took an overload of AP® courses in high school while working on their projects. Two of the parents, those of Nolan and Prithwis, indicated that they didn’t know where this drive came from, that they were amazed by it, and that they had tried to get their children to relax or back off to no avail. Studies have shown that personality traits are heritable (Ackerman, 1996; Bouchard, 1993; Gottfredson, 1997; Jensen, 1998). Perhaps the natural abilities do exist

211

and can best be found in this study through the intrapersonal catalysts in the goal management characteristics of the Fellows. Intrapersonal Catalysts Intrapersonal catalysts include the physical and mental traits, and goal management processes of an individual (Gagné, 2009). Traits, which are relatively stable, include such physical traits as overall health or the existence of handicaps, as well as mental traits, such as temperament and personality. The goal management behaviors include awareness, motivation, and volition. Awareness is defined as awareness of our own strengths and weaknesses. Motivation is defined as the identification of a talent development goal or a passion (Gagné, 2009). Motivation can be described as the part that comes before any action toward the goal (Corno, 1993); whereas, volition includes the actions one takes after naming that goal, including the effort and persistence necessary to continue on the path in the face of setbacks (Gagné, 2009; Corno, 1993). The main question asked for this section of the DMGT was, “How did intrapersonal catalysts help or hinder the development of talent in science?” Participants were asked, for example, to describe the Fellows’ strengths and challenges, their typical schedules while working on the project, educational values learned in the home, personality qualities that helped or hindered them during the project, and how they handled any moments of adversity they encountered during the project. The Fellows’ intrapersonal catalysts not only helped their talent development, but they were one key to their success. Evidence of positive traits and of positive goal management behaviors in the areas of awareness, motivation, and volition show how these students developed their talent. In the DMGT, the traits section includes both physical and mental traits. All of the Fellows were healthy and free from any physical disabilities. This study did not ask about learning disabilities. The mental traits section of the DMGT includes temperament and personality. In the absence of giving the participants a personality or temperament

212

inventory, this study cannot comment on these types of traits. This study did find ample evidence to show how the goal management behaviors of the Fellows helped their talent development process. Awareness of strengths and weaknesses is one component of the intrapersonal catalysts section. Evidence of this behavior was found in two ways. First, the Fellows described their strengths and weaknesses clearly and without hesitation, and then described how they work on their weaknesses. For example, each Fellow spoke about how difficult reading the research was. They then described how they handled that difficulty. They reached out for help from mentors, teachers, and contacts they had from science fairs. Roman described looking over the shoulder of a mentor and asking appropriate questions. Collin described using his mentors differently. His school mentor helped him with organization and general science, and his lab mentor helped him with specific issues with his research. The Fellows read books and did research to get up to speed on their topic, starting at a basic level and advancing to a higher level as they understood more, like Nolan who began his independent learning of computer programming with a For Dummies book and gradually moved up to technical manuals. Collin procured textbooks. Sikandar did research online. The Fellows spoke about how school subjects other than the sciences and math challenged them. Roman described wanting to take more humanities classes, so he could continue to be challenged. Nolan described reading a book chapter five or six times to try to truly understand it. Nolan is going to take more interdisciplinary courses at Harvard, a liberal arts institution, to broaden his horizons, recognizing that going to a technical school, like Caltech, would limit his coursework and perspective. The Fellows also showed awareness concerning their educational placements. Nolan said he probably would not have wanted to be accelerated, because he liked being with his friends. Collin invented a story about being tested for acceleration as a

213

kindergartener. His parents said, “What we found is that a lot of times, he knows what he needs best before we do.” He also spoke eloquently about programming options he wanted at a GIEP meeting in middle school. Interestingly, both Nolan and Roman mentioned that as elementary school students, they were not terribly concerned about the lack of challenge in their classes, and pegged the beginning of middle school as the time when the desire to excel manifested in their consciousness. Roman was aware of how important having an organized school environment was to his future and changed schools for eleventh grade. Motivation is another component of the intrapersonal catalysts section. Four Fellows had clear motivations for completing their projects. Prithwis wants to cure cancer due to his uncle who died young from the disease. Nolan dreams of becoming a Nobel Prize winner. Collin wants to be an MD/PhD, because through his work at a laboratory inside of a clinic, he found that the doctors and scientists gave him different answers to the same questions. Sikandar has a clear vision of a utopian future based on the Star Trek philosophy. Roman has a clear goal of being a doctor, though that goal did not relate to his project. Volition is the final component of the intrapersonal catalysts section. Lubinski and Benbow (2006) found that “extraordinary scientific accomplishments require extraordinary commitment both in and outside of school” (p. 316). Bloom (1982) found that one factor that was important to talent development was an “unusual willingness to do great amounts of work (practice, time and effort) to achieve at a high level or standard.” Evidence of positive effort exists in the case studies of all of the Fellows. Prithwis moved to Chicago for the summers, away from his family in Minnesota, planning his research in advance of his travel. Collin spent up to 60 hours per week in the lab, a 45-minute drive from his home, staying with the lab manager overnight so he could work more. He organized his class schedule so he could leave early from school several

214

days each week to work in the lab. All of the Fellows were carrying heavy course loads at their regular schools while doing this research. Each of the Fellows possessed the “rage to master” that many gifted children show, characterized by intrinsic motivation and “intense and obsessive interest” (Winner, 1997). Once Nolan decided to do the avian flu simulation, he spent hours each day pursuing his goal. After completing his first project in three months, he decided to start over “from scratch” to build his own computer model for the spread of avian flu when he had little knowledge of how to program and even less knowledge about infectious disease. His father was “astounded” by his accomplishment. When in first grade, Nolan finished a math book in a week that was supposed to take the entire school year to complete, because he liked to do puzzles and the math was like a puzzle. Sikandar heard a podcast online about microbial fuel cells and spent the next few years building them, trying one-chamber and two-chamber fuel cells, experimenting with different materials, learning to run a CAD machine, and then getting an internship at a prestigious laboratory to further pursue his research. Prithwis wanted to solve one of the great problems in the history of mathematics as a seventh grader. An alternative model to the DMGT is Ackerman’s PPIK Theory. The PPIK theory has four components that contribute to talent development: intelligence as process (P), personality (P), interests (I), and intelligence as knowledge (K) (Ackerman, 1996). Again, the present study did not administer any interest or personality inventories to the Fellows, so cannot assess specifically which traits they possess, but the PPIK model does not account for the evidence of interpersonal catalysts found in this study. An interest inventory would not have revealed that Prithwis had an uncle who died from cancer early in life, so wants to pursue cancer research, or that Nolan was inspired by the pictures of Nobel Prize winners at Intel. For Ackerman’s PPIK, personality is measured according to the Big 5 personality factors: neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness

215

(Ackerman, 1996; Brody, 1992; Digman, 1990; Lykken, et al., 1993). The factors associated with success in the workplace are openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Digman, 1990; Lykken, et al., 1993; McCrae, 1992). These factors do not include resilience or volition, which explains an important piece of how the Fellows became successful. How did intrapersonal catalysts help or hinder the development of talent in science? The Fellows used their awareness, motivation, and volition, to create resilience in the face of setbacks. Nolan was turned away by the Department of Health, but it didn’t stop him from doing his research. All of the Fellows struggled through reading material and learned research methods and equipment that was, initially, very difficult for them. What was often striking was the number of setbacks faced by the Fellows, yet they persevered. Sikandar’s case was the most striking. First, he had to start a project over completely in order to continue competing at the science fair and had to find a lab in which to do it. Second, there was little research available on microbial fuel cells when he started. There were hardly any books, and the material was difficult for him to read. Next, the first mentor he had for his internship was not helpful, and the second mentor assigned to him didn't have time for him, so he was largely on his own to advance his experiments for several months. Finally, the school mentor who helped him with the CAD machine retired and moved to a school that took Sikandar thirty minutes to get to by bus. Any of these events could have knocked him from his path, but they didn’t. He persevered. Lohman (1995) writes, “Understanding how some are able to protect their goals and maintain their efforts to achieve these goals is a crucial topic for the field of gifted education. Many start the journey, but few finish it” (p. 12). Intrapersonal catalysts explain a part of that protection and maintenance of goals, but the environmental catalysts also played an important role.

216

Environmental Catalysts Environmental catalysts include the milieu, individuals, and provisions that support talent development. The milieu is the physical, social, cultural, economic and familial environment in which the person lives and grows (Gagné, 2009). Individuals are the people in one’s life who can have an impact, such as parents, peers, teachers, and mentors. Provisions are the instructional provisions of schooling, formal and informal, that contribute to developing talent or competency, such as the availability of enrichment opportunities, curriculum, pacing and method of teaching, as well as how students are grouped in schools, if acceleration is allowed, etc (Gagné, 2009). The main question asked for this question was: “What were the environmental catalysts that had an impact on the process?” Evidence supports a mixed role for the environmental catalysts. The milieu, individuals, and provisions provided both positive and negative catalysts. Evidence to support the role of the milieu was gained by asking about parent occupation and highest level of education, and the number of siblings. All of the Fellows have parents who work in professional positions and have at least one parent who graduated from college. Two mothers have been stay-at-home moms. One mother did not have a college degree, but all of the other parents hold at least a Bachelor’s Degree. Three of the Fellows have at least one parent with a Master’s Degree, and one has a parent with a PhD. The milieu provided the setbacks that threatened the success of the Fellows. Science fair rules changed for Sikandar, forcing him to start his project over. Roman did not win his regional science fairs causing him to no longer participate. Prithwis had to go to Chicago to do his research, because two universities closer to his home in Minneapolis turned him down or did not respond. The Hawai’i Department of Health told Nolan that he should not pursue his research on arsenic, because they were taking care of the issue. The milieu would also include the general state of gifted education, which Nolan’s father addressed directly:

217

I’m not a believer of No Child Left Behind. What’s happened in middle school with Nolan, the No Child Left Behind initiative that’s ongoing, what ended up in his middle school year, especially in math, they take the best math teacher and put that teacher in the remedial class so that they could get those kids to pass. The accelerated kids were given the remedial teacher, and so Nolan had a year or two where, I mean, virtually the kids were at a standstill. Again for me, being a math person, math is a building block process, if you miss a year, like Algebra I or whatever, and you miss it, you don’t get to catch up. When you go to the next level and you’re in the next level, you’re not going to have that benefit of that building block. When I look back at some of the kids who did very well in elementary school in math, they fell off in middle school and they never caught up after that. It’s that missing thing that the school, there’s no mention, because the No Child Left Behind only looks at whether you meet or don’t. These kids still, they are going to meet the standards, but in terms of whether they excel or not, there’s no measurement. And so, that’s, that’s continued on through high school, which is why for Nolan, he was lucky that he got to do the online classes and that Mrs. N and the school supported those online classes. My understanding of gifted and talented, by and large, is slowly falling apart now because of budget reasons. But also I think No Child Left Behind, they, the gifted and talented kids, they’re not as important as the struggling kids. While Nolan was here in elementary school, he had strong support, and for us we feel very lucky because it was in those early years the kids, Nolan and his friends, got a good foundation. It kind of fell apart in middle school, and then in high school Nolan was able to pick it up using online classes. Bloom, Feldman, and Csikszentmihalyi all commented on the importance of the characteristics of the discipline itself to talent development. Bloom (1985) discussed that it was important to have a structured discipline with clear criteria for success and advancement. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) also concluded that structured rewards were essential to developing talent. The science fairs provided the structure and criteria for advancement for the Fellows. Science itself may be a part of the reason they were able to succeed. Feldman (1991) discussed how having a newer field to study might also help talent development, because students new to the field would not have so much background knowledge to build. Both Sikandar and Nolan benefitted from this. Sikandar indicated that the field of microbial fuel cells was just beginning, so he did not have

218

many resources. While he indicated that this was a potential detriment, it is also a benefit. He didn’t have to sift through too much information. Nolan said: I think the one thing that helped me along was the fact that a lot of the research being done was so new, the simulation design was much more recent—within the last decade or so—and then the interest in the topic really was spurred on by H5N1. But it wasn’t a lot of background you had to get through before you could get to the interesting results. So I think that although at first I was really hampered by my lack of experience in the field, that after maybe working on it for three months, I did more or less understand kind of where the research journals were going. Evidence to support the role of individuals was gathered by asking questions about parents, teachers, peers and mentors. Parents influenced the talent development of the Fellows in positive ways, both with their support and with the culture or value of education instilled in the home. Parents supported the students in a number of positive ways. First, a number of parents supported the Davidson projects with logistics. Collin had to be driven to his lab 45 minutes away from his home, and he was not old enough to drive. Sikandar’s parents initially provided their home for his research, but then he needed a lab in which to complete his science fair project. His mother works in a lab, and her boss agreed to give Sikandar bench space. Nolan had to go to the mainland to compete in science fairs and to attend summer programs, which entailed plane tickets. Perhaps more importantly, each Fellow reported that his parents cultivated what Dweck called a growth mindset about learning in the home. All five Fellows interviewed indicated that their parents were not focused on grades, but on learning, improving, and doing their best. Prithwis summarized his parents’ teachings, “Learning is a never-ending process. Asking questions to get my knowledge clear is wiser than keeping quiet in the classroom (as per them, it is fine to be dull once than staying dull for ever). I will never be successful unless I am passionate about what I do. Share my knowledge with others and celebrate the success of others the same way I celebrate my own success.” Collin’s mother explained why acceleration was so important for her son, “There are difficulties, you take a risk, it doesn’t work, but you need to try again.” She wanted

219

him to find that sense of challenge when he was at home, not away at college where she couldn’t be there to support him, and she encouraged him to take risks, knowing that failure was an option. Dweck’s (2006) research indicates that those students with fixed mindsets do not take risks for fear of failure. Nolan said of his parents, “A lot of the other kids that I’ve talked to, they said that their parents are more focused on getting good grades, getting a good report card or GPA. Looking back, my parents are never so much. I mean of course they were always—if I got a B or a C—they were always encouraging me to try harder, but they were never so much specifically worried only about grades, and it’s more that my parents wanted to make sure that I was learning something more than anything else.” Teachers at school played a role in talent development, though the results are mixed. Collin and Nolan both laud the efforts of teachers at their schools who advocated for them by facilitating more challenging classes, supporting their Davidson project efforts, and recommending programs outside of school that supported their interests, like the Johns Hopkins CTY program and science fairs. Collin, Nolan, and Roman also spoke of being bored in classes, feeling held back at times, and encountering teachers who did not meet their needs in the classroom. Prithwis talked about one teacher with whom he had a personality conflict, because Prithwis kept correcting him in class. A different teacher had the opposite reaction: whenever Prithwis found a different answer from the textbook, the teacher would defer to his answer. Teachers were both positive and negative catalysts in the lives of the Fellows. Peers were also a source of both support and angst for the Fellows. Prithwis has good, high-achieving friends who support him. Nolan has felt support and an intellectual bond with the same group of friends with common interests for years. Sikandar felt supported by his friends at his high school, but did not feel like he had intellectual peers. Roman never felt like he fit in and was looking forward to college to find some peers with common interests.

220

Mentors played a largely positive role in the successful talent development of the Fellows. Sikandar’s initial mentors played a negative role in his development, but his third mentor was very helpful. Roman spoke about literally looking over the shoulder of his mentor while working in the lab at MIT, as well as having frequent lunches together during which they discussed the work. Collin described his mentor’s assistance as being very specific. His mentor at the lab was instrumental in helping him work through specific difficulties he had when the experiments just didn’t work. The mentor provided both specific informational advice (for example: try this chemical or that, in these specific amounts), as well as emotional support (for example: that has happened to me too, that’s a common thing to happen). Collin and his mentor worked through the issues together. “He taught me most of what I know about my subject and gave me the skills that helped me help myself.” Overall, mentors played a positive role. Returning to example of Sikandar and his many setbacks, this study traced how he weathered all of those storms by looking at how his problems were solved. First, he had to start a project over completely in order to continue competing at the science fair and had to find a lab in which to do it. Sikandar’s mom was a working scientist in a lab, and she solicited her boss for help. He helped and thought that this setback was a good lesson for Sikandar to learn about science. Second, there was little research available on microbial fuel cells when he started. There were hardly any books, and the material was difficult for him to read. Sikandar quickly found the university professor who responded to his email inquiries for help. That professor has been a constant source of support for Sikandar’s efforts, and Sikandar is now working in the professor’s lab at college. Next, the first mentor he had for his internship was not helpful, and the second mentor assigned to him didn't have time for him, so he was largely on his own to advance his experiments for several months. Sikandar’s mom was again there at the other end of the phone to provide Sikandar with assistance and advice when he needed it. He was also assigned another mentor at the Institute who supported him completely. Finally, the

221

school mentor who helped him with the CAD machine retired and moved to a school that took Sikandar thirty minutes by bus to get to. This teacher invited Sikandar to continue working with him at his new school, and Sikandar and his parents figured out how to provide transportation. Sikandar had the drive and motivation to continue this work, and numerous people stepped in to help. I imagine Sikandar as a young gymnast on a balance beam: someone is spotting him every step of the way to make sure he maintains his balance. Negative catalysts from the environment kept trying to knock him off the beam, and other positive catalysts were there to ensure he stayed on. The positive environmental catalysts, in combination with his intrapersonal drive, were stronger than the negative forces. The final element of the environmental catalysts section is the provisions. Provisions are the instructional provisions of schooling, formal and informal, that contribute to developing talent or competency, such as the availability of enrichment opportunities, curriculum, pacing and method of teaching, as well as how students are grouped in schools, if acceleration is allowed, and so on (Gagné, 2009). Interview questions designed to investigate this section were: describe any special provisions your school made for your abilities; what were the benefits/disadvantages of this program; was there access to acceleration, mentoring, or special classes; what kind of schools did you attend; and is there anything you would change about your schooling? There is much overlap between the provisions portion of the DMGT, the developmental process portion, and the milieu. The difference is that the provisions are the opportunities generally available to everyone; whereas, the developmental process represents the specific opportunities of which an individual takes advantage. The main conclusion from the provisions section is that it certainly plays a role in talent development, but one cannot be sure what role. Each Fellow took a different path. The schools played a different role for each Fellow. They all succeeded at their endeavors, yet each Fellow also reported being bored in school at one point or another during their

222

school career. One cannot say hypothetically how much farther along a particular Fellow might be now if he or she were perfectly challenged in school the whole time they were in attendance. An example of a specific provision available is acceleration. The Wright family had issues with the school system regarding the acceleration of their son, Collin. Speaking about the work they had to do to get Collin accelerated, Mom said, “It was a challenge, putting it diplomatically. We just took one step at a time and really didn’t have a clue as to what we were heading into nor how to handle it. As challenges go, you just take your time, take one step at a time and meet allies along the way.” Dad added: We were fortunate to have state laws that protected the rights of gifted learners. If we didn’t have that, we would have had one heck of a time. Just having that law basically says that everyone deserves a free, appropriate public education. So they have to test him to find out where he is, what his strengths and weaknesses are, and what areas need to be addressed for appropriate learning. That’s where we ended up doing a lot of advocating and teaching the district what their actual obligations were. The gifted facilitator knew it well and the guidance counselor could see it, but getting the administrators on board to allow their staff to do what they wanted and what we needed to have done was a major chore. We made these binders of information that I hope are still floating around the district somewhere: different parts of the state law, and different book quotes about gifted. I think it helped because we encountered less resistance. They realized we were part of team trying to solve a problem more than bratty parents with a smart kid. Several provisions provided by the schools were mentioned by every Fellow as having a positive role: science fairs and AP® classes. Every Fellow took AP® classes, and every Fellow indicated that those courses provided more of a challenge than their regular classes. The sheer number of AP® courses taken by each Fellow indicates that perhaps they are still not enough. If each course were truly challenging, then how could anyone take six AP® courses at a time? The science fairs, particularly participating at Intel, were instrumental in the development of three of the Fellows, each calling it “an amazing experience.” Nolan said, “I was really impressed and blown away by a lot of the work being done by students working with professors at the state level, but I mean you look at some of the

223

international projects it really, really blows you away with the level of depth that students are thinking. . . . But it really inspired me to come back, refine what I was working on. It made me think about it in a different point of view. . . .” Nolan found support for his project from the contacts that he made at the science fairs. Prithwis said that he heard about different AP® courses through the people he met, which classes to take and which ones not to take. He spoke with people to find out what classes they were taking. He says that during science fairs, “I hear about other programs, like IB and online AP courses, so I am not restricted to what is available around me.” Collin said of Intel, “It was very interesting to be around so many people who also have a passion for science and people just really care about it.” He indicated that he felt he had no true intellectual peers in his home school, or at least not those who appreciate science as much as him, and he found those peers at the science fairs. Examples of provisions outside of the schools that had a positive impact were also presented. Nolan spoke about attending at number of summer programs, such as those found at the Center for Talented Youth and the Research Science Institute at MIT, and they were positive experiences for him. He also participated in the Discovery Channel Young Scientists Challenge, which provided the impetus for his Davidson project. Everyone spoke positively about the Davidson Fellowship as well, indicating that the recognition was welcome, the financial reward was enormously helpful toward college tuition, and the camaraderie among the winners provided another positive peer group. Each of the Fellows benefitted from having university personnel and facilities nearby, as well as professional laboratories in which to work. The environmental catalysts were both positive and negative. The DMGT indicates that the environmental catalysts are filtered by the intrapersonal catalysts, and there was evidence to support this claim. When the Fellows received negative feedback from the environment, they often just ignored it. Sikandar spoke about “just moving on”

224

to the next resource when someone did not return his emails. Nolan continued his research after being discouraged by the state Department of Health. He said, “Well, my initial reaction [to the rejection] was I was really surprised, because so far up to that point everyone else had been really helpful, really encouraging, so I was surprised. From there I kind of took it with a grain of salt…Now that I look back on it, it is kind of funny that [laughs] they told me ‘oh maybe you shouldn’t do it, we already have people working on it,’ but I kind of just went ahead and did it anyway.” Developmental Process The path from natural abilities to competencies is through the developmental process, which includes three main parts: activities, investment and progress (Gagné, 2009). Gagné defines activities as “a systematic, talent-oriented and long-term program of activities” (Gagné, 2009). These activities can be structured (school or community classes) or unstructured (hobbies and self-taught interests). The main question asked for this section was: “How did the developmental process progress in these students?” Personal investment describes the time, energy and money one invests in the process. The amount of investment changes over time, and so one can show differences in amount of time, energy, and money spent overall to foster an individual’s development. One source of individual differences in talent development might be the amount personal investment involved (Gagné, 2009). This is closely related to the intrapersonal catalysts of motivation and volition, as well as the environmental catalyst of individuals, so has been covered in a previous section. The progress subcomponent includes stages, pace, and turning points. People progress through stages on their way to becoming expert, and the process can be characterized differently at the novice, advanced, proficient, or expert stage. The pace of learning compared to age peers is another way to measure the process. Finally, many turning points occur along the process (Gagné, 2009). One can find the perfect mentor at a particular stage, get accepted or rejected into a program, or become ill unexpectedly.

225

These components are revealed throughout the different sections of the DMGT, so will not be specifically addressed here. Questions asked to probe the developmental process included questions such as: In general, how did your experiences differ in elementary, middle, and high school? Did you enjoy school? What have been your most challenging personal hurdles, situations, or experiences during your school years? What resources did you take advantage of in your community or school that has helped you develop your talents? What educational accommodations were made for you? If special accommodations were made, did these have any effect on your peer relationships? How did teachers respond to the expression of interest or talent in school? Describe your activities with your mentor. Do you feel like you are doing “real science” with “real” scientists? The only conclusion to draw from the evidence in this section is that each Fellow took a different path to competence. Collin was grade accelerated, but his family had to fight for it, essentially helping the school create the acceleration policy along the way. They had the support of teachers, counselors, and gifted coordinators, but not as much support from administrators. Prithwis was subject-accelerated in math, taking advantage of a local university program. He is also taking more AP® courses in his junior year than any other Fellow. Roman went to a private academy that focused on science from seventh to tenth grades, but then transferred to public school. He spent the last two summers visiting his brother at MIT and learning with him at his lab. Sikandar moved to different states throughout his school career, finding no consistency in programming, and was actually incorrectly placed in a special needs classroom when he was younger. Nolan progressed through school normally, and took advantage of numerous summer programs along the way. Some Fellows were involved in official, school-sanctioned gifted programs, and some were not. Some who were involved in gifted programs still felt unchallenged at school, particularly in math and science. For example, while Nolan was attending the

226

DCYSC and Intel, he was enrolled in a regular biology course at school. Collin’s mom said, “I know a lot of the Davidson families have moved to find appropriate educational scenarios. It went through my mind, but it just wasn’t feasible. I would have loved to have the Davidson Academy in my back yard. Not having that, we did what we could with what we had and I think it worked out fairly well.” There is ample evidence of a lack of consistent programming at an advanced level for these students: among these five Fellows, no single pattern in schooling emerged. This study cannot conclude concretely what would have been for these students had they been given consistent opportunities for advanced study at their level. The study from SMPY that found an increased “educational dose” was a prerequisite for STEM accomplishment gives an idea. “Those with notable STEM accomplishments manifested past histories involving a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM than less highly achieving member of their respective cohorts” (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010, p. 1).

227

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Anastasi’s plea to the APA in 1958 was to “move beyond the question of studying ‘how much’ variance was accounted for by genetics and environment and instead to address the question of ‘how’ genotypes were translated into phenotypes” (Anastasi quoted in Ceci, et al., in Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1998, p. 303). The goal of the current study was to better understand the process of talent development through investigating the developmental processes of the Davidson Fellows. It was hoped that the present study could provide insight into the impact of particular catalysts on the process of talent development in this unique sample of participants, and thus provide guidance on how to effectively nurture talent. This section provides a summary of findings, key implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further research. Neihart (2009) in her study about antisocial behavior in adolescents wrote, “The research is clear that there are multiple pathways to antisocial behavior and that no single set of risk factors contributes. Rather, multiple factors contribute differentially to such outcomes and their contributions are offset by protective factors. However, it is important to note that most children growing up with multiple risk factors do not develop antisocial behaviors and attitudes, pointing to the power of protective factors – circumstances or characteristics that mitigate the impact of risk factors.” The same logic can be applied to talent development in the cases of the Davidson Fellows. There were multiple pathways to success. Each Fellow and his family took advantage of different educational options, formal and informal. There was no consistent programming across participants in different schools, in different areas of the country, except AP® courses and science fairs. Each Fellow encountered a number of different risk factors in the environment, including a lack of challenge in the public schools, inconsistent treatment by teachers and administrators, variable availability of challenging school and extracurricular opportunities, difficulties with peers, numerous setbacks, and

228

challenging logistical arrangements necessary for participation in extracurricular opportunities. The strength of these risk factors, or negative catalysts, was offset by a number of protective factors, or positive catalysts. The positive catalysts were both strong and numerous in each of the Fellows. The Davidson Fellows possessed rather a “perfect storm” of protective factors that allowed them to achieve so much so early in life. The list of positive catalysts includes: • Each Fellow presented evidence of very high ability. • They were healthy. • They were raised in a supportive learning environment that encouraged taking risks, striving for excellence, and constant improvement. • They had multiple supportive adults in their lives; parents, teachers, and mentors who created a layered support system. When one adult was not available, there were others on whom to depend in a crisis. • The parent relationship was particularly strong. Each Fellow reported, and four the parents confirmed, a uniquely supportive relationship with their parents marked by a mutual respect and admiration. • Each Fellow presented a strong motivating factor for his work. • Each possessed a candid awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses, and a willingness to confront and apply himself to remedy their weaknesses. • They all presented compelling evidence of a tenacious and unrelenting motivation. These positive catalysts worked together to protect the individual against failure or resignation. The limitations of this study are numerous. There are several weaknesses of the case study approach, including that the subjects were chosen purposefully and nonrandomly, so results are not generalizable. Humans remember and interpret information through their own lenses, so bias permeates the study: this is “one person’s

229

interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of what’s going on” (Merriam, 1998, p. 202). Parents and Fellows could have responded within the limits of social desirability bias. Social desirability bias is the tendency for participants to respond to questions in a way that emphasizes the positive, socially desirable behaviors, and diminishes negative behaviors (McMillan, 2004). Both participants and the researcher may have an unrecognized need to make themselves look good in the interviews. The researcher’s choice of questions could present bias, and the researcher’s very presence potentially alters the subject’s behavior. (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) The questions asked were based on previous research; however, if left completely openended, the subjects may have chosen to illuminate different factors related to their success. Long quotations from the subjects were maintained in the case study reports in an attempt to diminish this researcher’s bias, and I included a positioning statement to reveal my interests in this study. Second, the mentors did not participate in the study. Mentors for the five Fellows were recruited, but did not elect to participate in the study. I did not receive responses from three mentors. One mentor replied to the recruitment email indicating that he was too busy at that time to participate. One mentor initially responded positively to the recruitment email, indicating that he would be willing to participate, but then never replied to follow up emails and did not return the consent forms. The mentors were going to serve as an important piece of triangulation to confirm the abilities of the Fellows. More importantly, the mentors were the only participants outside of the family, so were going to provide a control on the potential bias of the parents or Fellows. Third, no female Fellows elected to participate. The results could be different for girls than boys. Finally, the multiple case study method rests on its theory. This method required the choice of a theory at the outset of the study. The theory is intended to provide a “full but realistic range of topics that might be considered a ‘complete’ description of what is to be studied” (Yin, 2009, p. 36). The DMGT needed to include not only a wide range of

230

topics that allow the exploration of talent development, but also the salient topics that influence the success of the Fellows. The DMGT, though chosen because of its complexity, may not have been complex enough to account for all of the potential factors that influenced the Fellows, or the questions chosen to elucidate each section of the model may not have been accurately focused or comprehensive enough to do the model justice. One criticism could be that this study was designed to “prove” the theory. Though this is a potential outcome of the study, it was not the intention of the study to do so; however, the DMGT did provide advantages over other models of talent development. The DMGT provided an effective method for analyzing the various factors that affect talent development. It has advantages over Ackerman’s PPIK, because it leaves room to find specific intrapersonal and environmental catalysts that impact the process. If this study used the PPIK to guide the study, a great deal of important information would have been missed. The DMGT’s insistence on natural abilities was not supported by this study, neither was Ericsson’s insistence on years of focused, deliberate practice to develop expertise. There are numerous strengths to this model. First, it shows visually how the basements influence not only our natural abilities, but also many of the intrapersonal catalysts in our lives. Many intrapersonal qualities have been found to be heritable. Second, it shows how our intrapersonal qualities affect our environments by visually slipping the environmental catalysts behind the intrapersonal catalysts. Many of Fellows simply ignored negative feedback from the environment. Like Nolan ignoring the state department of health’s recommendation to stop researching arsenic, he filtered the negative feedback out. Most importantly, this model shows that gifts are cultivated and finding appropriate interventions is an individualized process. The United States’ educational system already does an excellent job of providing individualized education for students with disabilities. Education can now turn its focus to students with advanced abilities.

231

Students work hard to develop talent, and this study helps to show that they need a great deal of help to be successful. NAEP data indicate that students at the 90th percentile have shown little or no growth since the advent of NCLB (Loveless, 2008; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). The Board (2010) report recommends, “We cannot assume that our Nation’s most talented students will succeed on their own. Instead, we must offer coordinated, proactive, sustained formal and informal interventions to develop their abilities. Students should learn at a pace, depth, and breadth commensurate with their talents and interests and in a fashion that elicits engagement, intellectual curiosity, and creative problem solving—essential skills for future innovation.” Finally, this model shows us several potential ways to apply interventions that will be successful in closing the achievement gap. Environmental interventions have to be sustained long-term to maintain gains. The Fellows had multiple support systems. Interventions could be directed to build those support systems in schools and through mentors if their families are not up to the task. Interventions that may have an impact could also focus on the intrapersonal catalysts, like beliefs, finding meaningful motivation, and cultivating volition. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle explains how we can never know both the location and the speed of an electron at the same time (Jones, 2008). The character of Heisenberg describes how he arrived at the uncertainty principle in the play Copenhagen (Frayn, 2000). Walking round Faelled Park on my own one horrible raw February night. It's very late, and as soon as I've turned off in to the park I'm completely alone in the darkness. I start to think about what you'd see if you could train a telescope on me from the mountains of Norway. You'd see me by the street lamps, then nothing as I vanished into the darkness, then another glimpse of me as I passed the [next] lamppost. And that's what we see in the cloud chamber. Not a continuous track but a series of glimpses. In these talented science students, we see only what we can imagine to ask of them. We do not see the continuous track of the hours spent reading and thinking; we do not see the everyday questions asked of teachers and mentors, or the comments from

232

peers in passing in the hallway. We do not see the minute-by-minute dedication and perseverance, the amicable earnestness, or the sleepless nights pondering. We can only ask about them. We can only measure one aspect at a time, the velocity or the location, and predict the rest. We cannot see into the cloud chamber of excellence and what it is truly like to live there, as a wave. This multiple case study attempted to peek under the lampposts and give a glimpse of how these students developed their talent. Further research with the Davidson Fellows should include the mentors’ perspectives, as well as the stories of female winners. Talent development occurs in disciplines other than science, and the Davidson Fellowship provides six categories to investigate. It would be interesting to see if talent development in math and science progress differently than in literature or philosophy. Studies could also add measures of interest, personality, values, and ability to create a strong, mixed-methods study examining the more specific role of protective factors in maintaining high achievement. Two of the Fellows mentioned feeling a sense of greater responsibility for their own education during their middle school experience, so research could probe the role of maturity in fostering excellence, or the role of “sensitive periods” in a child’s life. Further studies could also investigate the role of spatial abilities. Three of the Fellows showed evidence of having spatial abilities. Sikandar was more interested in the design of his fuel cells than he was interested in the science. As a young man, Collin’s father brought home office machines, and they took them apart together. And Prithwis built huge LEGO® structures when he was very small. The cause of equity demands that we try to meet the individual needs of as many children as possible. Gifted education has the power to raise our expectations of everyone. Gifted education should broaden its identification methods and focus on programming to foster talent development and facilitate growth in a wider group of children. Enrichment opportunities in schools should be available for everyone. Instead of reaching for proficiency, as current legislation dictates, we would collectively reach

233

for excellence defined individually. When Gladwell (2008) speaks about providing consistent opportunities for all students, he writes, “The world could be so much richer than the world we have settled for (p. 268).” Talent development provides the educational framework upon which to build this richer world. The Board report (2010) is clear, “Every student in America deserves the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential.”

234 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–237. Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence. The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30– 60. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 218–245. Ackerman, P. L., & Lohman, D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.; pp 139–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alexander, J. E., O'Boyle, M. W., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Developmentally advanced EEG alpha power in gifted male and female adolescents. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 25–31. Anastasi, A. (1980). Abilities and the measurement of achievement. New Directions for Testing & Measurement, 5, 1–10. Angier, N. (2007). Thinking scientifically. The canon (p. 18). New York, NY: HoughtonMifflin Company. Apgar, V., Holaday, D. A., James, L. S., Weisbrot, I. M., & Berrien, C. (1959). Evaluation of the newborn infant—second report. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 14(2), 207. Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2005). Developing math talent: A guide for educating gifted and advanced learners in math. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Baer, J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2004). Considering the DMGT: Something old, something new. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 149–150. Bair, D. (2003). Jung: A biography. New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Company. Benbow, C. P. & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–292. Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., & Houang, R. T. (1988). The effect of instruction on spatial visualization skills of middle school boys and girls. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 51–71. Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional Children, 48(6), 510–522.

235 Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Blueprints for Science Literacy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2008, from American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.project2061.org/publications/bfr/online/blpintro.htm Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic influences on human psychological traits: A survey. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148–151. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1993). Genetic and environmental influences on adult personality: Evaluating the evidence. In J. Hettema & I. J. Deary (Eds.), Foundations of personality (pp. 15–44). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1996). Behaviour genetic studies of intelligence, yesterday and today: The long journey from plausibility to proof. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28, 527–555. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1997a). Genetic influence on mental abilities, personality, vocational interests and work attitudes. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Volume 12 (pp. 373–395). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1997b). The genetics of personality. In K. Blum & E. P. Noble (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric genetics (pp. 273–296). Boca Raton, FL: Crc Press, Inc. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1997c), IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence: Heredity and environment (pp. 126–160). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70(2), 257–279. Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences. The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223–228. Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science, 212, 1055–1059. Bracey, G. W. (2008). Performance at the top. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 71–72. Brand, C. (1996). Doing something about g. Intelligence, 22, 311–326. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499– 518. Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Carpenter, S. (2001). Different dispositions, different brains. Monitor on Psychology, 66– 68.

236 Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities, their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Ceci, S. J. & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the have-nots gain but the haves gain even more. American Psychologist, 60(2), 149– 160. Ceci, S. J., Rosenblum, T., de Bruyn, E., & Lee, D. Y. (1997). A bioecological model of intellectual development: moving beyond h2. In Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers' personal knowledge: What counts as 'personal' in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 487– 500. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Connor, J., Schackman, M., & Serbin, L.A. (1978). Sex-related differences in response to practice on a visual-spatial test and generalization to a related test. Child Development, 49(1), 24–29. Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22. doi: 10.3102/0013189X022002014 Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). The 2004–2005 State of the states Gifted and talented education report. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Grosset/Putnam. Davidson Institute for Talent Development. (2008). Davidson Fellows Scholarships. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://www.davidsongifted.org. Davidson, J., Davidson, B., (with Vanderkam, L.). (2004). Genius denied. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.

237 Day, S. X., & Rounds, J. (1998). Universality of vocational interest structure among racial and ethnic minorities. American Psychologist, 53, 728–736. Deary, I. J. (2001). Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Digman J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the 5-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 24–41). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Recent advances in expertise research: A commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 233–241. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. A. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A. & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273– 305. Feinstein, H. M. (1984). Becoming William James. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Feist, G. J. (2006). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23–35. Feldhusen, J. F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talent: the DMGT theoretical model–a response. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 151–152. Feldman, D. H. (1991). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Feynman, R. P. (2000). What is science? In J. Robbins (Ed.), The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman (p. 171). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Flynn, J. (2007). What is intelligence? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive gain in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.

238 Freeman, C. (2004, November). Trends in Educational Equity: Girls and Women (Statistical Analysis Report No. 2005016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016 Friedman-Nimz, R. & Skyba, O. (2009). Personality qualities that help or hinder gifted and talented individuals. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 421–432). New York, NY: Springer. Gagné, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(2), 109–136. Gagné, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K.A. Heller, et al. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 67–79). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 93–118. Gagné, F. (2008, May). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Invited presentation at the Ninth Biennial Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gardner, J. W. (1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. Gohm, C. L., Humphreys, L. G., & Yao, G. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 515–531. Goldberg L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Optimizing student success in school with the other three rs: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility. A motivational approach to reasoning, resilience, and responsibility. In R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Optimizing student success with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience and responsibility (pp. 39–56). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Goodnough, K., & Cashion, M. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 280–295.

239 Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132. Gottfredson, L. S. (1998). Intelligence and the American ambivalence toward talent. Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 41–58). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa. Gottfredson, L. S. (1999). The nature of and nurture of vocational interests. In M. Savickas & A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests (Chapter 3). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Graffam, B. (2003). Constructivism and understanding: Implementing the teaching for understanding framework. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XV(1), 13–22. Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York, NY: Routledge. Guenther, Z. C. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory—a response. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 165–166. Gustafsson, J. E., & Undheim, J. O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186– 242). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Guttman, R., Epstein, E. E., Amir, M., & Guttman, L. (1990, September). A structural theory of spatial abilities. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 217–235. Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2004). Structural brain variation and general intelligence. NeuroImage, 23, 425–433. Halpern, D. F. (1996). Public policy implications of sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2(3/4), 561–574. Hawking, S. (Ed.). (2002). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Philadelphia, PA: Running Press. Heller, K. A. (2007). Scientific ability and creativity. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 209– 234. Henriques, L. (1997). A study to define and verify a model of interactive-constructive elementary school science teaching. Unpublished manuscript, Department, University, City, ST. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: The Free Press. Hlebowitsh, P. (2007). Foundations of education (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Holden, C. (1980). Reunited twins: More than the faces are familiar. Science, 80, 55–59. Holden, C. (1987). The genetics of personality. Science, 237, 598–601.

240 Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for a better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed.; pp. 55-63). New York, NY: Guilford. Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (2009). The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Humphreys, L. G. (1979). The construct of general intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 105–120. Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 250–261. Hunt, E. (2000). Let’s hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 123–129. Jackson, D. D. (Date, 1980). Reunion of identical twins, raised apart, reveals some astonishing similarities, New York Times Magazine, Vol.(No.) 48–56. Jausovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28(3), 213–237. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. New York, NY: Praeger. Johnson, E. S., & Meade, A. C. (1987). Developmental patterns of spatial ability: An early sex difference. Child Development, 58(3), 725–740. Johnson, W. & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie. Intelligence, 35(1), 23–39. Jolly, J. L. (2009). The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50–53. Karnes, F. A. & Stephens, K. R. (2009). Gifted education and legal issues. In L. Shavinina (Ed.). International handbook of giftedness (pp. 1327–1340). New York, NY: Springer. Kaufmann, F. A., Harrel, G., Milam, C. P., Woolverton, N., & Miller, J. (1986). The nature, role, and influence of mentors in the lives of gifted adults. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 576–578. Keller, L. M., Bouchard, T. J., Arvey, R. D., Segal, N. L., Dawis, R. V. (1992). Work values: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 79–88. Kramer, A. F. & Willis, S. L. (2002). Enhancing the cognitive ability of older adults. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 173–177. Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389–433.

241 Lee, S. Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55–69. Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K. B., & Avery, L. D. (2007). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 272–284. Loehlin, J. (1989). Partitioning environmental and genetic contributions to behavioral development. American Psychologist, 44, 1285–1292. Lohman, D. F. (1989) Human intelligence: An introduction to advances in theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 333–373. Lohman, D. F. (1993, July). Spatial ability and g. Paper presented at the first Spearman Seminar, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/. Lohman, D. F. (1994). Spatially gifted, verbally inconvenienced. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Vol. 2. Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 251–264). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Lohman, D. F. (1995, May). Developing academic talent: The roles of experience, mentoring, motivation, and volition. Paper presented at the Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa City, IA. Lohman, D. F. (2001). Fluid intelligence, inductive reasoning, and working memory: Where the theory of multiple intelligences falls short. In N. Colangelo & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 219– 228). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–34. Lohman, D. F., Gambrell, J., & Lakin, J. (2008). The commonality of extreme discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 269–282. Lohman, D. F., & Korb K. (2006, in press). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ITBS and CogAT scores during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Lohman, D. F. & Lakin, J. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the Cognitive Abilities Test across countries, grades, and cohorts. British Journal of Education, 79(2), 389–407. Lubinski, D. (1996). Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 187–203.

242 Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking Shafts at a Few Critical Points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405– 444. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66. Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 137–150. Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspective on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–337. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 718–729. Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Heritability of interests: A twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 649–661. Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Mann, E. L. (2007, April). Identifying creative potential in mathematics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2007). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, Retrieved Fall 2007, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/12g008173m655h31/fulltext.pdf Martinez, M. E. (2000). Education as the cultivation of intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Masunaga, H. & Horn, J. (2000). Characterizing mature human intelligence: Expertise development. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 5–33. Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 256–271. McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10. McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprived children. Science, 200(4339), 270–278. Muratori, M. C., Stanley, J. C., Ng, L., Ng, J., Gross, M. U. M., Tao, T., & Tao, B. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s greatest former child prodigies: Drs. Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng reflect on their talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 307–324.

243

National Science Education Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/1.html#goals Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 59–74. Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330–341. Neihart, M. (2009). Growing up smart and criminal. In D. Ambrose & T. Cross (Eds.), Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds (pp. 313–325). New York, NY: Springer. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., . . . & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Neu, T. W., Baum, S. M., & Cooper, C. R. (2004). Talent development in science: A unique tale of one student’s journey. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVI(1), 30–36. Ngoi, M., & Vondracek, M. (2004). Working with gifted science students in a public high school environment: One school's approach. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XV(4), 141–147. Nokelainen, P., Tirri, K., Campbell, J. R., & Walberg, H. (2007). Factors that contribute to or hinder academic productivity: Comparing two groups of most and least successful Olympians. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 483–500. O’Boyle, M. W., Alexander, J. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Enhanced right hemisphere activation in the mathematically precocious: A preliminary EEG investigation. Brain and Cognition, 17, 138–153. Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19(10), 957–961. Pines, A. L. & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge framework. Science Education, 70(5), 583–604. Pine, J., & others (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467–484. Plomin, R. (2003). Genetics, genes, genomics, and g. Molecular Psychiatry, 8, 1-5. Prawat, R.S. (May, 1992). Teacher’s beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395.

244 Reiss, S. (2005). The interplay between genotype and family relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 139–143. Rindermann, H. (2008). Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people. Intelligence, 36, 127–142. Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. (2005). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83–92. Ruf, D. L. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7–20. Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 21–36. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). The nature of science. Science for all Americans (p. 1). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Salthouse, T. A. (2004). The what and when of cognitive aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 140–144. Scarr, S. (1996). How people make their own environments: Implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), pp. 204–228. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype X environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435. Scarr, S. & Weinberg, R. A. (1983). The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic differences and malleability. Child Development, 54, 260–267. Schaie, W. K. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist, 49, 304–313. Schiefele, U., Krapp, A. & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development, (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schmidt, F. (2008, Fall). Individual Differences. Lecture presented at The University of Iowa, Pappajohn Business Building. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (1996). Intelligence and job performance. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2(3/4), 447–472.

245 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173. Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Explaining the high abilities of Nobel Laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604–614. Shymanski, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404. Siegle, D., Condon, E., & Romey, E. A. (2007, April). Role of interest, ability, and effort in developing talent in college honors students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Adding developmental trajectories to the DMGT: nonlinear and nonadditive genetic inheritance and expertise acquisition. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 157–158. Simonton, D. K. (2008). Childhood giftedness and adulthood genius: A historiometric analysis of 291 eminent African Americans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 243– 255. Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., Zeidner, T. L., Dunn, A. C., Bhatt, M., & Rumyantseva, N. L. (2007). Inquiry-oriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 169–199. Snow, R. E. (1980) Aptitude and achievement. New Directions for Testing & Measurement, 5, 39–59. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32. Snow, R. E. (1996). Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 536–560. Sousa, D. A. (2003). How the gifted brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 148–155. Stoeger, H. (2004). Interview with Françoys Gagné. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 167– 172. Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

246

Subotnik, R. F., Frank, M., Cook. L., Rickoff, R., & Edmiston, A. (2009). Transforming giftedness to eminence: Patterns of influence on a developmental path from publication to policy center. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 6180). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Subotnik, R. F., Summers, E., Kassan, L., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Swiatek, M. A. (2007). The talent search model: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 320–329. Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528–538. Tretter, T. R. (2003). Relationships between inquiry-based teaching and physical science standardized test scores. School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 345–350. Turkheimer, E. (1991). Individual and Group Differences in Adoption Studies of IQ. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 392–405. Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 160–164. Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623–628. Turkheimer, E., & Waldon, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78–108. Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496–506. VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (1989). Characteristics of the developmental path of eminent and gifted adults. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of Influence on Gifted Learners (pp. 146–162). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.; National Association for Gifted Children. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A threeyear analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 218–231.

247 VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182–205. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. A. (Eds.). (2003). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Verhaeghen, P., & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analysis of age-cognition relations in adulthood: Estimates of linear and nonlinear age effects and structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 231–249. Vinkhuyzen, A. A. E., van der Sluis, S., Posthuma, D., & Boomsma, D. I. (2009). Behavioral genetics, 39, 380–392. Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2003). The gifted student in science: Fulfilling potential. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 49(3), 46–53. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159–169. Wright, W. (1998). Born that way: Genes, behavior, personality. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.