Symposium Proceedings »
S4.9.2 Gifted Teens and College-Level Research: Factors in their Success
Most advanced coursework for US gifted teens still involves right answers (S. Gallagher, 2006; Rogers,2001). Some teens, however, can conduct collegiate-level inquiries to discern among multiple complex answers, given dynamic opportunities, instruction, and guidance (Davidson Institute, 2018; Feldman, 1988). Such students, through advanced, independent, and socially-relevant scholarly skills, may eventually bring about both individual and societal outcomes (Renzulli, 2004; Regernon Talent Search, 2018). In this session, an adult researcher and three teen presenters describe the teens’ specific research opportunities, instruction, and guidance, and how those aspects inspired them as scholars.
The first presenter, an adult researcher on gifted youth inquiry, briefly introduces how successful gifted teens conduct inquiries within social and “hard” sciences. Utilizing research from 40 years of gifted education journals, he reveals three aspects common to many advanced teen researchers: a) opening of exciting “content doors” (Powers & Tiffany, 2006), b) intellectual stimulation from research-method instruction (Rodriguez, 2009), and c) valuable pre-professional guidance (Nespor, 1998). The researcher then previews the younger investigators’ creative experiences with these aspects.
The lead student (and symposium coordinator) describes her specific research on the Norwegian government’s policy response to poor teen nutrition and on resulting improvements to the country’s teen diet. She also describes her actions to stem her high school’s food waste, learning from Norway’s example. She experienced an enthusing research opportunity for many gifted teens: the opportunity to solve a problem right in a student’s own neighborhood. She also benefited from creatively finding and using international databases (such as those on international health), and from involving expert community-based mentors (including Twin Citians who knew about Norway’s health policies and teens). She comments on similarities in her research and her two teen colleagues’ efforts.
The second youth was engaged in a historical study of US-Soviet relations preceding, during, and after the two nations’ 1987 INF Arms Control Treaty. He benefited from addressing an enthusing, consequential, and very-adult problem. He learned creatively to access classified primary sources and to thoughtfully engage long-range mentors in history and political science.
The third student inquired into the architectural history of Paris, learning not just about the city’s architectural background but also about political, social, and economic factors that supported that history. The student’s opportunity engaged a problem that seemed intriguing but distant. Helpful instruction dealt with primary sources on ancient works. Productive guidance came from mentors specializing in giving resourceful leads to ancient works.