Identifying and Nurturing Future Innovators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Review of Findings From the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 16-25

  Benbow, Camilla Persson ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857011304     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.642236     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. and Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. 1999. Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91: 777-786.
2. Benbow, C. P. 1992. Academic achievement in math and science between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences in the top one percent of ability?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84: 51-61.
3. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L. and Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. 2000. Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11: 474-480.
4. Brooks, D. 2011. Social animal, New York, NY: Random House.
5. Browne, K. R. 2002. Biology at work: Rethinking sexual equality, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6. Carroll, J. B. 1993. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Dawis, R. V. and Lofquist, L. H. 1984. A psychological theory of work adjustment, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8. Eccles, J. S. 1994. Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18: 585-609.
9. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2009. Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and sex differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97: 517-532.
10. Ferriman-Robertson, K., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2010. Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19: 346-351.
11. Gladwell, M. 2008. Outliers, New York, NY: Little, Brown.
12. Gohm, C. L., Humphreys, L. G. and Yao, G. 1998. Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35: 515-531.
13. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R., Hyde, J. S. and Gernsbacher, M. A. 2007. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8: 1-51.
14. Hess, F. M., Kelly, A. P. and Meeks, O. 2011, April. The case for being bold: A new agenda for business in improving STEM education, Washington, DC: Institute for a Competitive Workforce. Retrieved from http://icw.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/The%20Case%20for%20Being%20Bold_2011_v2_0.pdf
15. Huber, J. C. 1999. Inventive productivity and the statistics of exceedances. Scientometrics, 45: 33-53.
16. Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D. and 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: 250-261.
17. Koebler, J. 2011, April 21. "CEOs call for new STEM standards". In U.S. News and World Report Retrieved fromhttp://www.usnews.com/
18. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B. and Doms, M. 2011, July. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/news/documents/stemfinalyjuly14.pdf
19. 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.
20. Lubinski, D. 2004. Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman's (1904) "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 96-111.
21. Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2000. States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55: 137-150.
22. Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2006. Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1: 316-345.
23. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Shea, D. L., Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. and Halvorson, M. B. J. 2001. Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 12: 309-317.
24. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M. and Bleske-Rechek, A. 2006. Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17: 194-199
25. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J. and Benbow, C. P. 2001. Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 718-729.
26. Muller, C. B., Rode, S. M., Fouke, J., Whitney, T., Denton, D. D., Cantor, N. and Robinson, S. 2005, February 18. Gender differences and performance in science. Science, 307: 1043
27. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. 2008. Foundations of success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28. National Science Board. 2010. Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation's human capital, (NSB-10-33) Washington, DC: National Science Board.
29. Park, G., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2007. Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18: 948-952.
30. Park, G., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2008. Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19: 957-961.
31. Park, G., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2011. When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM accomplishments among mathematically precocious youth, Manuscript under review.
32. Renzulli, J. S. 1986. "The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity". In Conceptions of giftedness, Edited by: Sternberg, R. J. and Davidson, J. E. 53-92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Rogers, K. 2007. Lessons learned about educating gifted and talented: A synthesis of research on education practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51: 382-396.
34. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2001. Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93: 604-614.
35. Smith, I. M. 1964. Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance, London, UK: University of London Press.
36. Snow, R. E. and Lohman, D. F. 1989. "Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement". In Educational measurement, Edited by: Linn, R. 263-331. New York, NY: Collier.
37. Snow, R. E. and Yalow, E. 1982. "Education and intelligence". In Handbook of human intelligence, Edited by: Sternberg, R. J. 493-585. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Swiatek, M. A. and Benbow, C. P. 1991a. A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83: 528-538.
39. Swiatek, M. A. and Benbow, C. P. 1991b. A 10-year longitudinal follow-up of participation in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22: 138-150.
40. Wai, J., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2005. Vocational achievement and creativity among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97: 484-492.
41. Wai, J., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2009. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101: 817-835.
42. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. and Steiger, J. H. 2010. Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102: 860-871.
43. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2002. Mathematically facile adolescents with math/science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94: 785-794.
44. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. 2007. Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99: 397-420.
45. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. 2011, January 25. Remarks by the president in State of Union address Washington, DC Available fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address