Effects of STEM education on the academic success and social-emotional development of gifted students

Abstract

STEM education, accepted as one of the most significant educational movements of recent years, is an approach that aims to educate students, including gifted students, in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as a whole. This research aims to provide a general framework of the effect of STEM education on academic success and social-emotional development using the meta-synthesis method related to the work done for gifted students. The descriptive distribution of 28 studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in thematic meta-synthesis is given according to the data source of the publications. A critical examination of literature published from 2010 to 2020 identified combining and analyzing the results of research on STEM education in the field of gifted education. The view that STEM education positively affects gifted students' academic and social-emotional development has once again been proven through qualitative data. The findings of this study on STEM programs showed that attending a unique program can meet the needs of highly able students. When STEM education is viewed through the lens of the multifactor model, it can be said that it works to meet their academic, social, and emotional needs. While the literature focuses on how these needs are not met, it was refreshing to experience students with high learning potential who are mostly satisfied with their educational opportunities and social environment. Implications for STEM education on academic success and social-emotional development and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

• systematic review
• gifted
• STEM education
• social-emotional development
• academic achievement

Supporting Institution

Baylor University

References

1. Albert, A. (2020). How Is Evidence Based Writing in ELA Impacted by Claim-Evidence-Reasoning in STEM among Fifth Grade Gifted Students? (Order No. 27994550). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2415793658). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/how-is-evidence-based-writing-ela-impacted-claim/docview/2415793658/se-2?accountid=7014
2. Alcantara, M. V. (2015). Latina high school students figured world of STEM: Identity formation in formal and informal communities of practice (Order No. 3704448). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (1690497564). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/latina-high-school-students-figured-world-stem/docview/1690497564/se-2?accountid=7014
3. Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for Head Start children. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1694-1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102
4. Allensworth, E., Farrington, C., Gordon, M. F., Johnson, D. W., Klein, K., McDaniel, B., & Nagaoka, J. (2018). Supporting social, emotional, & academic development: Implications for educators. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/supporting-social-emotional-academic-development-research-implications-educators
5. Almarode, J. T., Subotnik, R. F., Crowe, E., Tai, R. H., Lee, G. M., & Nowlin, F. (2014). Specialized high schools and talent search programs: Incubators for adolescents with high ability in STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14536566
6. Alrajhi, N. S. (2020). Addressing the Needs of Gifted and Talented STEM Students Through Holistic Thinking in an Honors Program (Order No. 28022588). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2451146632). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/addressing-needs-gifted-talented-stem-students/docview/2451146632/se-2?accountid=7014
7. Aspen Institute. (2019). Integrating social, emotional, and academic development: An action guide for school leadership teams. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/integrating-social-emotional-and-academic-development-sead-an-action-guide-for-school-leadership-teams/
8. Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282905285246

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 13(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
10. Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558068.pdf
11. Bruce-Davis, M. N., Gubbins, E. J., Gilson, C. M., Villanueva, M., Foreman, J. L., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2014). STEM high school administrators', teachers', and students' perceptions of curricular and instructional strategies and practices. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 272-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14527952
12. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Burt, S. M. (2014). Mathematically precocious and female: Self-efficacy and STEM course choices among high achieving middle grade students (Order No. 3630398). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1564019935). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/mathematically-precocious-female-self-efficacy/docview/1564019935/se-2?accountid=7014
14. Chowdhury, M. A. (2016). Gifted education in science and chemistry: Perspectives and insights into teaching, pedagogies, assessments, and psychosocial skills development. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 53-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018116581
15. Coleman, A. (2016). The Authentic voice of gifted and talented black males regarding their motivation to engage in STEM. Illinois Association for Gifted Children Journal, 7(3), 26-39. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2C9QB3J.
16. Collins, K. H., & Jones Roberson, J. (2020). Developing STEM Identity and Talent in Underrepresented Students: Lessons Learned from Four Gifted Black Males in a Magnet School Program. Gifted Child Today, 43(4), 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520940767
17. Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, G. (2013). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary students' science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics, 113(5), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12023
18. Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI‐A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321810
19. Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214568719
20. Dailey, D., & Cotabish, A. (2016). E is for engineering education: Cultivating applied science understandings and problem-solving abilities. In STEM Education for High-Ability Learners (pp. 71-83). Routledge.
21. Dailey, D., Cotabish, A., & Jackson, N. (2018). Increasing early opportunities in engineering for advanced learners in elementary classrooms: A review of recent literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745157
22. Dieker, L., Grillo, K., & Ramlakhan, N. (2012). The use of virtual and simulated teaching and learning environments: Inviting gifted students into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers (STEM) through summer partnerships. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429411427647
23. English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 863-884. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9912-0 Fan, S. C., Yu, K.C., & Lin, K. Y. (2021). A framework for implementing an engineering-focused STEM curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 1523-1541. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10129-y
24. Flowers III, A. M., & Banda, R. M. (2019). An investigation of Black males in advanced placement math and science courses and their perceptions of identity related to STEM possibilities. Gifted Child Today, 42(3), 129-139.
25. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2018). A Guide to Qualitative Meta synthesis. Routledge.
26. Gale, J., Alemdar, M., Lingle, J., & Newton, S. (2020). Exploring critical components of an integrated STEM curriculum: An application of the innovation implementation framework. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0204-1
27. Gilson, C. M., & Matthews, M. S. (2019). Case study of a new engineering early college high school: Advancing educational opportunities for underrepresented students in an urban area. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(3), 235-267.
28. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
29. Haggerty, R. (2014). Then I started thinking: A qualitative study of innovative projects by secondary students in STEM disciplines (Order No. 3644626). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1625052598). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/then-i-started-thinking-qualitative-study/docview/1625052598/se-2?accountid=7014
30. Hannes, K., & Macaitis, K. (2012). A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: Update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 402–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111432992 Harden, A. (2010). Mixed-methods systematic reviews: integrating quantitative and qualitative findings. Focus, 25, 1-8. Retrieved from https://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus25/Focus25.pdf
31. Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Social‐emotional characteristics of gifted accelerated and non‐ accelerated students in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8279.2011.02047.x
32. Hoyle, J. C. (2018). Black Girls Matter: An Ethnographic Investigation of Rural African American Girls Experiencing a Specialized Stem High School for Gifted and Talented Students (Order No. 10786688). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Publicly Available Content Database. (2033157099). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/black-girls-matter-ethnographic-investigation/docview/2033157099/se-2?accountid=7014
33. Ihrig, L. M., Lane, E., Mahatmya, D., & Assouline, S. G. (2018). STEM excellence and leadership program: Increasing the level of STEM challenge and engagement for high-achieving students in economically disadvantaged rural communities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745158
34. Islam, M. R. (2019). Perspectives on Practices and Challenges of Science Teaching and Learning: The Voices of Primary Teachers and Gifted Students (Doctoral dissertation). https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_62212&context=L
35. Jeanpierre, B., & Hallett-Njuguna, R. (2014). Exploring the science attitudes of urban diverse gifted middle school students. Creative Education, 5(16), 1492. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.516166
36. Johnson, C. C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Moore, T. J., & English, L. D. (2020). Handbook of research on STEM education. Routledge.
37. Karahan, E., & Unal, A. (2019). Gifted students designing eco-friendly STEM projects. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1553-1570. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c.4s.11m
38. Kettler, T. (Ed.). (2016). Curriculum design in an era of ubiquitous information and technology: New possibilities for gifted education. In T. Kettler (Ed.) Modern Curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 3-22). Prufrock Press.
39. Kettler, T. (2018). Curriculum for gifted students: Developing talent and intellectual character. In J. L. Roberts, T. F. Inman, and J. H. Robins (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 145-164). Prufrock Press.
40. Kim, M. K., Roh, I. S., & Cho, M. K. (2016). Creativity of gifted students in an integrated math-science instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.07.004
41. Kohan-Mass, J., Dakwar, B., & Dadush, V. (2018). Israel’s Arab sector high schools: An island of gender dominance in STEM subjects. Gifted Education International, 34(3), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754205
42. Lange, M. F. (2018). STEM Programs for Students with High Learning Potential in Norway and California, USA: A multiple-case study exploring how two educational programs work towards meeting students’ educational and social needs (Master Thesis). http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-66810
43. Litster, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self‐concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non‐gifted students: A meta‐ analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471‐3802.2010.01166.x
44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405
45. Ludvigsen, M. S., Hall, E. O. C., Meyer, G., Fegran, L., Aagaard, H., & Uhrenfeldt, L. (2016). Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s meta-synthesis method in advancing qualitative evidence. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576493
46. MacFarlane, B. (2015). STEM education for high-ability learners: Designing and implementing programming. Prufrock Press.
47. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
48. Margot, K. C., & Rinn, A. N. (2016). Perfectionism in gifted adolescents: A replication and extension. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(3), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16656452
49. Millar, V. (2020). Trends, issues and possibilities for an integrated STEM curriculum. Science & Education, 29, 929-948. https://.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00144-4
50. MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
51. Morris, J., Slater, E., Fitzgerald, M. T., Lummis, G. W., & van Etten, E. (2019). Using local rural knowledge to enhance STEM learning for gifted and talented students in Australia. Research in Science Education, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9823-2 Moss-Everhart, L. (2020). Self-Efficacy of Endorsed and Nonendorsed Elementary Teachers of Gifted Students in STEM Education. VCU Scholars Compass.
52. Mullet, D. R., Kettler, T., & Sabatini, A. (2018). Gifted students’ conceptions of their high school STEM education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 60-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745156
53. Mun, R. U., & Hertzog, N. B. (2018). Teaching and learning in STEM enrichment spaces: From doing math to thinking mathematically. Roeper Review, 40(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434713
54. National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). 2019 pre-k-grade 12 gifted programming standards. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Intro%202019%20Programming%20Standards%281%29.pdf
55. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S. Y., & Thomson, D. (2014). Family environment and social development in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 199-216.
56. Ozkan, F., Oner-Armagan, F., Bektas, O., & Saylan, A. (2015). “Opinions of Teachers on “This is my work” Project Competition. Journal of History School (JOHS), 8(23), 211 - 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/Joh753
57. Peterson, J. S. (2015). School counselors and gifted kids: Respecting both cognitive and affective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00191.x
58. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). The Five Dimensions of Differentiation. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 6(1), 87-94. http://www.ijtdc.net/images/pdf/IJTDC_612_2018_Web.pdf#page=87
59. Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. Prufrock Press.
60. Rice, K. G., & Ray, M. E. (2018). Perfectionism and the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy‐Dedrick & M. Foley‐Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 645–658). American Psychological Association.
61. Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799
62. Rice, D., Bonner, F., Lewis, C., Alfred, M., Nave, F. M., & Frizell, S. (2016). Reversing the tide in science, engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM): Academically gifted African American students in historically Black colleges & universities. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(1), 14. https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol2/iss1/14/
63. Sahin, E., & Yildirim, B. (2020). Determination of The Effects of Stem Education Approach on Career Choices of Gifted and Talented Students. Mojes: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(3), 1-13. https://mojes.um.edu.my/article/view/24639
64. Sarouphim, K. M. (2011). Gifted and nongifted Lebanese adolescents: Gender differences in self‐concept, self‐esteem and depression. International Education, 41(1), 26–41. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/gifted-non-lebanese-adolescents-gender/docview/911991596/se-2?accountid=7014
65. Self, J. (2020). Teaching K – 12 science and engineering during a crisis. National Academy Press.
66. Sloan, P. J. (2020). Increasing gifted women’s pursuit of STEM: Possible role of NYC selective specialized public high schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220912026
67. Sternberg, R. J. (2019). Teaching and assessing gifted students in STEM disciplines through the augmented theory of successful intelligence. High Ability Studies, 30(1-2), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1528847
68. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Calvert, E. (2020). The effectiveness of current interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601
69. Stith, K. M. (2017). A Mixed Methods Study on Evaluations of Virginia's STEM-Focused Governor's Schools (Order No. 10668883). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (1991483319). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/mixed-methods-study-on-evaluations-virginias-stem/docview/1991483319/se-2?accountid=7014
70. Stoeger, H., Schirner, S., Laemmle, L., Obergriesser, S., Heilemann, M., & Ziegler, A. (2016). A contextual perspective on talented female participants and their development in extracurricular STEM programs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13116
71. Tay, J., Salazar, A., & Lee, H. (2018). Parental perceptions of STEM enrichment for young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745159
72. Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). STEM high school communities: Common and differing features. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 237-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14539156
73. Toran, M., Aydin, E., & Etgüer, D. (2020). Investigating the effects of STEM enriched implementations on school readiness and concept acquisition of children. Ilkogretim Online – Elementary Education Online, 19(1), 299-309. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.656873
74. Van Tassel-Baska, J., Cross, T. L., & Olenchak, F. R. (2021). Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students. Routledge.
75. Vlies, J. (2013). Interests, Social Relations and the Preference for Study and Future Profession of Talented Students Participating in a Gifted Program for Science and Mathematics (Master's thesis). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/288177
76. Wiley, K. R. (2020). The social and emotional world of gifted students: Moving beyond the label. Psychology in the Schools, 57(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22340
77. Wilson, H. E. (2018). Integrating the arts and STEM for gifted learners. Roeper review, 40(2), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434712
78. Wu, S. P., & Rau, M. A. (2019). How students learn content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through drawing activities. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 87-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3
79. Yoon, S. Y., & Mann, E. L. (2017). Exploring the spatial ability of undergraduate students: association with gender, STEM majors, and gifted program membership. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722614
80. Zocher, E. (2020). Qualitative Perspectives on the Strange Trails of Persistence in STEM (Order No. 27832419). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2424463222). http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/qualitative-perspectives-on-strange-trails/docview/2424463222/se-2?accountid=7014