Retrospective Perceptions of Graduates of a Self-Contained Program in Taiwan for High School Students Talented in STEM

Abstract

This retrospective qualitative study was designed to investigate perceptions of the learning experiences of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)-talented male students who were in a self-contained, single-gender, gifted program in a selective high school in Taiwan. Twenty-four graduates of the high school’s gifted program completed a confidential survey and participated in one-on-one interviews. The participants identified the most valuable learning experience as the independent study course; they reported that the independent study course influenced their choice of college major and positively affected their studies in their senior year of college. Most participants valued their overall academic experience in the self-contained program, although a few reported that they were unable to learn so many science-related subjects simultaneously at such a fast pace, suggesting that this type of program needs to be differentiated. The social impacts of the program varied. Implications of the findings for educators as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

male gifted students self-contained gifted program secondary education STEM science education mathematics education

When researchers evaluate a gifted program, they must consider not only the context of the program but also the accepted beliefs about giftedness and the values and goals of the program. The environment in a gifted program can create a social context that facilitates the development of talents (Callahan, 2006; Coleman, 1995), and both intrapersonal and environmental factors influence the talent development trajectories of gifted adolescents (Csíkszentmihályi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). While beginning the long-term process of developing their talents, adolescent gifted students face the same developmental challenges as their similarly aged peers (Moon & Dixon, 2006). This study investigated perceptions of graduates of a self-contained program in a selective high school that was designed to meet the academic needs of talented high school students through challenging STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) coursework, independent study, and science fair experiences. The study also investigated the ability of the program’s specially designed affective curriculum to meet the students’ social emotional needs.

Perceptions of Self-Contained Gifted Programs

Research has consistently shown positive effects of ability grouping on the learning of high-ability students (e.g., Adams-Byers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004; Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007; Feldhusen & Sayler, 1990; Kulik, 2003; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993). In general, previous studies of ability grouping have indicated that students felt more challenged in homogeneous groups than in heterogeneous groups and reported that they established closer friendships with their gifted peers in the homogeneous groups (Eddles-Hirsch, Vialle, Rogers, & McCormick, 2010; J. Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997; Hertzog, 2003; Perrone, Wright, Ksiazak, Crane, & Vannatter, 2010). The results of the meta-analysis conducted by Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2011), which included 38 studies of various types of acceleration, showed that acceleration had a significant and positive effect on academic development and was not harmful to the social-emotional development of high-ability learners. Most of these self-contained programs involve some type of acceleration.

However, participants in most of the previous studies included students from different grade levels, ignoring the qualitatively different perceptions students in various age groups may have. The participants’ ages were generally mixed. Additionally, gifted classes in previous studies often included a wide variety of formats such as self-contained and pull-out programs for elementary students, and Advanced Placement (AP), honors courses, and residential summer programs for high school students (e.g., J. Gallagher et al., 1997; Kao, 2012). Few studies have focused on specific grade levels or a specific educational setting. Thus, this study was designed to fill in some of the gaps in the literature.

Studies of self-contained programs at the elementary level have suggested that the majority of teachers, students, and parents felt very positive about the programs, although the students sometimes struggled with the high expectations they believed were placed on them within such programs (e.g., Kao, 2011; Linn-Cohen & Hertzog, 2007; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002). There is limited research on self-contained gifted programs at the secondary level in the field of gifted education because few such programs exist in the United States. One of the main reasons for this is the nature of the education system in the United States, where high school students go to different classes with different groups of students for various subject areas. Hence, almost all research on self-contained programs in the United States has focused on the elementary level (e.g., Linn-Cohen & Hertzog, 2007; Moon et al., 2002; VanTassel-Baska, Willis, & Meyer, 1989). Compared to the United States, Taiwan provides an opportunity for researchers to explore what it is like for gifted high school students to study in a self-contained gifted program because Taiwan’s Ministry of Education encourages secondary schools to place academically gifted students in self-contained programs in a typical high school. Thus, this study was designed to explore the experiences of participants in a self-contained gifted program at the secondary level in Taiwan and to investigate the influence the program had on the participants after graduation.

Gifted Programs in High Schools

In the United States, gifted services at the secondary level consist of a variety of formats. These include honors courses, AP courses, International Baccalaureate (IB) programs (Poelzer & Feldhusen, 1997), enrichment programs, and residential schools (Callahan, 2006; Finn & Hockett, 2012; Schroth, 2008). These different educational formats provide qualitatively different educational and social opportunities for gifted students, which in turn may influence the way students perceive their giftedness, their school experiences, and their peer relationships.

At the secondary level, AP and IB have been viewed as important opportunities for gifted high school students to gain challenging learning experiences (Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children, 2009). Previous studies have suggested that students in the United States who took AP courses in high school had higher college aspirations and college GPAs and appeared more satisfied with the intellectual learning experience in high school than those who did not take AP courses (Bleske-Rechek, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2004; Chajewski, Mattern, & Shaw, 2011; Thompson & Rust, 2007). Researchers who have studied AP and IB have found that high-ability students reported positive academic learning experiences, identified their teachers in AP courses and IB as exemplary, and valued the relationships with their intellectual peers in these special programs (e.g., Matthews & Kitchen, 2007; Perrone et al., 2010; Santoli, 2002; Taylor & Porath, 2006). At the same time, gifted students who have taken AP courses and IB expressed concern that the content in their classes was not differentiated enough to meet their unique needs (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008). They reported that they were not able to take AP courses in subjects they wanted because their high schools only provided certain subjects, which limited their choices (Perrone et al., 2010). Finally, they indicated that they were not satisfied with the quality of their AP courses because the challenge level was insufficient (J. Gallagher et al., 1997; Vanderbrook, 2006).

Meanwhile, similar to other studies about ability grouping, the rate of positive responses to social, emotional, and/or interpersonal experiences in AP or IB was lower than the rate of positive responses to academic experiences. Previous research suggested several reasons for the discrepancy between the academic and the social-emotional effects of these programs. First, some gifted students who participated in gifted programs reported feelings of isolation resulting from their segregation from peers (e.g., Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Matthews & Kitchen, 2007). Second, students seemed to experience overall higher stress in AP or IB programs than did those in general education settings (Shaunessy & Suldo, 2010), and third, those in AP or IB programs also reported that they did not have opportunities in school to discuss their ideas for future careers or their emotional needs with counselors (Vanderbrook, 2006). Furthermore, while these programs may fulfill partial academic needs for gifted students, AP and IB are not intended to be comprehensive programs, and they do not include a specific counseling component.

Besides studies of AP and IB, a few researchers have investigated other types of gifted secondary programs, such as residential high schools (e.g., Coleman, 2001), dual enrollment in high school and college (e.g., Jones, Fleming, Henderson, & Henderson, 2002), and early college entrance (Dai, Steenbergen-Hu, & Zhou, 2015; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003; Noble, Childers, & Vaughan, 2008). For instance, Coleman (2001) studied the residential life at a residential school; Noble and Drummond (1992) investigated what helps high-ability students transition from the typical education system to early college entrance; and Caplan, Henderson, Henderson, and Fleming (2002) studied social-emotional factors that influence adjustment to an early college entrance program. Yet no previous researchers have examined both the academic and social impacts of a self-contained secondary program offered in a typical high school.

Talent Development at the Secondary Level

The developmental trajectory of talent is continuous over many years. Long-term studies of the talent development process are common in the field of gifted education. These studies have suggested that learning characteristics and experiences in adolescence are important influences on STEM talent development pathways. For instance, the longitudinal research from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth has shown that the amount of precollege educational opportunities experienced (e.g., AP, academics club, science fair) is positively associated with subsequent STEM accomplishments achieved more than 20 years later (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010). Csíkszentmihályi et al. (1993) found that if talented students lost interest in mathematics before the end of high school, it was very difficult for them to recapture their interest later. A retrospective study of eminent neurologists also indicated that adolescent experiences in advanced science courses, combined with personal interest in pursuing science activities outside of the classroom at the secondary level, helped these neurologists develop a long-term commitment to a career in science (Sosniak, 1985). The current study investigated perceptions of the influence that talented students experience in a STEM focused self-contained program in high school had on their science pathways in college.

Three curricular models have helped shape the field of secondary gifted education and have served as the foundation for gifted programs used in secondary schools in the United States and other countries: the Secondary Triad Model (Reis & Renzulli, 1986), the Purdue Secondary Model for Gifted and Talented Youth (Feldhusen & Robinson, 1986), and the Autonomous Learner Model for the Gifted and Talented (Betts, 1986). The developers of all these models have argued that secondary schools need to serve gifted students by providing advanced content to challenge students’ minds. In addition, they all emphasized the importance of increasing specialization opportunities. Some of them pointed out that gifted students need to have the opportunity to engage in real-life problem solving (e.g., Reis & Renzulli, 1986), while others felt that gifted students need to be allowed to develop research projects based on their own personal interests (e.g., Betts, 1986). Two of the model developers incorporated affective components in their models by recognizing the importance of providing counseling (e.g., Feldhusen & Robinson, 1986) and helping students increase their personal understanding (Betts, 1986). All together, these models proposed that high-ability secondary students need well-designed comprehensive programs to explore their interests, hone their talents, and receive opportunities to investigate research problems at the secondary level.

Among these three models, the self-contained program in this study has the most similarities with Betts’s Autonomous Learner Model. For instance, Betts (1986) included an in-depth study in his model as an advanced-level activity to help gifted students find a passion area, develop a long-term project, implement the project, and evaluate the process and project after it was completed. Betts’s model is designed to fit a 3-year time frame, and the in-depth study usually started in the middle of the first year and continued until the end of the third year. The independent study (IS) course of the self-contained program in this study was scheduled similarly to the schedule in Betts’s model and had similar purposes, that is, to help students develop their interests, project management skills, and scientific research skills.

It should be noted that the instructional strategies recommended in most of these gifted education models are not exclusive to gifted education. Many of the instructional methods supported by these gifted education models (e.g., designing hands-on activities based on real-world application, emphasizing problem-solving skills, and independent-study processes) have been incorporated successfully with similar emphasis and success in general education for many years. For instance, motivation researchers suggested that connecting what students learned to their daily life was directly related to students’ interests, and interest played a key role in maintaining learning motivation (e.g., Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009; Schiefele, 2009).

Unfortunately, most of the research associated with these secondary talent development models focuses on the precollege and early university years (Subotnik, Olszewsi-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011), and few of these investigators have examined the impact that participating in IS in high school has on the later university years or how gifted students evaluate their IS experiences after they finish university. Since development is a continuing process, students might interpret experiences differently at different life stages. Thus, the use of retrospective methods to investigate gifted students’ experiences in self-contained programs when they are in high school can illuminate their lasting experiences without being influenced by their emotions at that moment (Hertzog, 2003; Perrone et al., 2010). The results can reveal students’ perceptions of how these experiences affect their choices and learning at the university level.

Purpose of the Study

This study was designed to fill in some of the gaps in the literature by investigating a comprehensive, self-contained program for students with STEM talent at a selective high school for boys in Taiwan. The gifted program studied was specifically designed to meet talented male high school students’ academic needs through challenging STEM coursework, mentorships, independent research, and science fair experiences, as well as to meet their social-emotional needs through a specially designed affective curriculum. Participants who were talented in science and/or math provided a clear understanding of their perceptions of the gifted program and how their experiences in the program affected their learning, peer relationships, and college lives.

Method and Procedures

A postpositivist paradigm was used to guide this retrospective two-phase study (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). During the first phase, participants completed an online questionnaire; in the second phase, all participants who agreed to be interviewed completed one-on-one interviews.

Context of the Study

As the main purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of former participants in a self-contained STEM gifted program for high school students in Taiwan, having an understanding of the nature of general education in Taiwan may help in interpreting the results. Furthermore, understanding the identification process and the philosophy of the program (Callahan, 2006) helps develop an understanding of the characteristics of the participants and the self-contained gifted program.

General Education System

Three characteristics of the education system in Taiwan are important to mention. First, there are 9 years of free public education. When students finish middle school, based on their performance on the Basic Competence Test, students decide what type of school (i.e., high school of commerce, junior college, or typical high school) they would like to attend based on their career interests. The students in typical high schools are grouped into cohorts of 40 to 45 students and stay together 8 hours a day for all their courses (The Committee of the Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students, 2011).

Second, there are gender-specific high schools in Taiwan. Compared with other mixed gender high schools in Taiwan, these gender-specific high schools usually have a better reputation for student performance. Thus, these selective, gender-specific high schools are one of the best places to study gifted education at the secondary level in Taiwan. Third, in Taiwan, each class has a class advisor. Like a homeroom teacher in the United States, a class advisor teaches one subject to the class and takes attendance every day. Moreover, the class advisors in Taiwan also consult with students and supervise daily activities. Usually, when parents need to contact the school, they call the class advisor to see how their child is doing in school or to ask for information and advice. The class advisor is intended to serve as a protective factor for the behavioral and learning development of senior high school students (Chen, 2009).

This study focused on the experiences of one of these groups of students in a typical, selective high school for boys where all of the students in the group had been identified as gifted in STEM. The focus of instruction was on advanced curricula in STEM, but attention was given to affective issues as well.

Gifted Education in High Schools in Taiwan

The school administrators and teachers in selective high schools decide what kinds of gifted education services they want to provide. Those schools that want to offer self-contained gifted programs are required to develop a plan and to get approval from the government. Students who perform above the 93rd percentile on the Basic Competence Test and those who have won at least one National Science Fair prize in middle school qualify to take the aptitude test for gifted programs administered by the city government. All students who want to participate in gifted programs have to take the aptitude test, even though some might have been identified as gifted in elementary or middle school. All students who take the aptitude test are ranked by test scores and the top 30 students have the opportunity to participate. The students who are not selected because of seat limitations, or those who might have qualified but decided not to take the aptitude test, are placed in typical programs in selective high schools.

Participants

Selective high schools in Taiwan are usually gender-specific for historical reasons. Our selection criteria for this study were gifted male students who had (a) attended a particular selective boys’ high school in Taiwan and (b) had completed all 3 years of the self-contained math/science gifted program and graduated in 2008. Using these criteria, there were 24 gifted males eligible to participate in the first phase of the study (the survey). All of the eligible graduates agreed to participate in this study, so the participation rate was 100%. The ages of the participants at the time of the study ranged from 22 to 24 years. The participants all completed the survey online, and all 24 provided their contact information on the survey and agreed to be interviewed. Also, they all allowed us to examine their archival documents. Hence, the participation rate in the second phase of the study was 100% as well.

Demographic Information

When they were interviewed in the summer of 2012, 14 of the participants had graduated from university, while the other 10 were still in university. Since the self-contained gifted program in this study focused on STEM, some of the participants were only talented in one area (e.g., math, biology, computer science), while others were talented in multiple STEM areas. Their abilities in language arts and humanities courses varied. Twelve were admitted to selective universities. For the purpose of this research, selective universities were those (a) listed in the top 400 universities in the world (Times Higher Education, 2013) or (b) medical schools in Taiwan with a good reputation and similar entrance requirements to the schools listed in Criterion (a). Twenty-three chose a major in a STEM area, and one participant switched to law school after having tried to enter medical school.

Site and Intervention

As noted above, participants were from a selective high school for boys with approximately 3,000 students in the capital city of Taiwan. Two thirds of the high school graduates from this school choose science-related majors in university every year, with more than half entering selective universities. The self-contained gifted program was started 1 year before these participants entered this school. The curricula used in the program were based on “The Guidelines of Self-contained Gifted Programs in Taipei City.” The adjustments made to the typical curriculum for the gifted program are provided in Table 1. These adjustments included increased STEM credits, reduced humanities credits, the addition of a 3-year IS course and the incorporation of proactive approaches to address social and emotional needs. Less time was spent on the humanities than the sciences, because program developers thought students needed more time to develop their talents in the science disciplines. In the IS course, students explored their interest area in the first year by doing hands-on experiments and listening to lectures from experts in different subjects. In the second year, students chose their research areas and spent at least 3 hours per week working on their own independent study. In the third year, school administrators provided flexible regulations regarding class attendance to encourage students to keep doing their own research projects. Students usually negotiated with their teachers for individual study schedules to work on their own projects and also tried to participate in science fairs.

Table 1.

Comparison Between the Government Guidelines and the Adjustments of the Self-Contained Gifted Program in this Study.

Focus areas	Regulations	Adjustments
Program size	Gifted program size was between 20 and 30	Program size was 30
Talent areas	The school administrators can adjust the curriculum based on students’ needs, and from 3 to 8 credits per semester may be added.	During the first four semesters, there were 2 more credits in advanced STEM areas (e.g., physics, biology, and chemistry) each semester. They were designed by teachers for enrichment purposes.
		There were 3 credits for the independent study course for three semesters, from the second semester of the first year to the second semester of the second year. This course was in small-group format and focused on talent development. The gifted students chose different subjects based on their talents. Teachers designed the instruction based on their own expertise.
		The school administrators also arranged field trips to universities or labs and science speeches for all students in the gifted program, depending on the topics students were studying.
Independent study	The independent study course should be incorporated into the curriculum in self-contained gifted programs.	Gifted students took the independent study course and were expected to finish one independent project in the independent study course.
		A one-credit research methodology course was offered for the first two semesters. In the first semester, it focused on helping students find their strength areas, and in the second semester, it focused on developing their understanding about methodology in science research.
Affective component	When school administrators and teachers design the curriculum, the affective component should be incorporated into the curriculum in self-contained gifted programs.	The affective curriculum was offered as a one-credit course for the first two semesters. The curriculum was designed to be proactive by the instructor of this course based on his or her expertise. The instructors conducting guidance curricula have a focus related to a universal developmental task (e.g., identity, peer relationships, emotional differentiation, and autonomy). Additionally, combining different resources, the instructors arranged various presentations and activities to help students explore their career direction.
		The teachers for the independent study course were expected to serve as mentors. Teachers in the independent study groups usually supervised the gifted students for academic competitions and science fairs.
Other learning areas	The number of credits for other subjects can be decreased but not eliminated.	The students in the self-contained program took all the other subjects, as did those in typical programs.

In the affective curriculum, instructors were expected to design a curriculum based on the needs of the cohort but with a proactive approach. The instructors were teachers with counseling training. The needs of the cohort were evaluated by the class advisor, guidance counselors, class teachers, and the instructor. Usually, the instructors conducting guidance curricula had a focus related to universal developmental tasks (e.g., identity, peer relationships, emotional differentiation, and autonomy). Various presentations and activities to help students explore their career direction were also arranged. These speakers included, but were not limited to, counselors, gifted adults, college professors, and researchers.

Research Questions

Guiding research questions were used to develop the more specific questions in the online survey and the interview protocol. The guiding research questions for the study were the following:

Research Question 1: What were the participants’ perceptions of the self-contained, high school gifted program for male students talented in the STEM areas, when they reflected back on their experiences after graduation?

Research Question 2: How did the participants perceive their peer relationships in high school?

Research Question 3: What influences did participants believe the self-contained gifted program had on their university life, university academic performance, and career aspirations?

Data Collection

Survey

Twenty-four participants who had graduated from the high school self-contained program in 2008 were contacted via email and asked to respond to an online survey that had open-ended questions (see Appendix A). On a voluntary basis, the participants returned the completed survey and indicated if they were willing to participate in an interview in the second phase. The researchers designed the survey as an anonymous survey, but all 24 participants agreed to an interview and provided their contact information. Therefore, the researchers assigned each participant a confidential code so that we could combine the data from the surveys and interviews.

Interviews

The first author contacted those who agreed to be interviewed and arranged one-on-one, face-to-face interviews. Each open-ended interview question included several follow-up questions. (See Appendix B for a complete list of the interview questions.) The length of the interviews ranged from 31 to 84 minutes.

Archival Documents

All interview participants gave permission for us to analyze their school records, which included grades, ability/achievement test scores, school rankings, and summaries of authentic performances in academic areas (i.e., performance in competitions and science fairs) in high school.

Data Analysis

Interviews

After the interviews were complete, the first author listened to all the interviews to gain a holistic impression of the data. Then the first author wrote theoretical memos to describe her initial thoughts and reflections about the interview data (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). She next transcribed all the interviews verbatim and analyzed them first by using an inductive and cross-case analytical approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002). Patterns, themes, categories, and findings emerged from the data. These themes reflected common experiences across different cases. Two graduate students who were familiar with qualitative research and gifted education, but who had little understanding about the Taiwanese educational system, used the axial codes to recode two of the interviews. The first author and the graduate students discussed any differences that emerged between the two codings of the same interviews. All discrepancies were discussed until we arrived at an agreement. Throughout the data analysis process emerging results were discussed and debriefed with the second author.

Archival Documents and Survey Data

For the archival documents, we made a matrix to display information about the participants’ grades and performances in academic areas. The participants were categorized into four academic groups, Tiers 1 to 4 (1 being highest), based on their overall academic performance compared to other students in the selective high school. This strategy was used to explore whether there were any patterns in their responses that might be related to their performance (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For instance, we examined whether participants who reported negative learning experiences were from the lower performing groups (e.g., Moon et al., 2002).

The different responses to the survey questions were analyzed and added to the data display using codes to indicate whether responses were positive, negative, mixed, confused, or indicated no impact. The data display provided a comprehensive overview of how these 24 participants felt about the self-contained gifted program.

Data Analysis Strategy

Following the steps described by Corbin and Strauss (2007), with the assistance of computer software Atlas.ti, we used “open coding,” “axial coding,” and “selective coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to understand the participants’ experiences through their own words. We first used open coding to help us determine the general categories for the data. Then we grouped these open code s conceptually into different axial codes (statements supported by the open coding). For instance, we grouped four open codes (“disadvantage—I knew few people outside of program”, “had few friends outside of program”, “outsiders (students) didn’t discriminate against GT students”, and “positive peer relationship outside of program”) into an axial code and we named this axial code “mixed peer relationships outside of GT program.” This axial code represented perceptions of 20 participants with 31 quotations.

After the axial codes emerged from the process of analyzing the interviews, we used the same coding schema to code the responses to the survey to see if the survey provided other perspectives. The results indicated that the reports from the interviews supported the survey findings. Thus, we reported them together, using the survey findings to provide summary statements about each theme and the quotations to elaborate on the findings in the voices of the participants. Table 2 provides all the axial codes and shows how each axial code related to the selective codes, which were the thematic findings in this study. The final column in Table 2 shows how many participants had at least one open code that supported the respective axial code.

Table 2.

Main Themes and Properties Emerging From the Data.

Thematic findings	Corresponding research question (RQ)	Properties	Axial codes	Number of participants supporting the axial code
Theme 1: Overall the learning experiences in the self-contained program were perceived positively by the participants, although most did not like the amount of pressure they felt in the program	RQ1	Overall learning experiences in the self-contained program	In general, the learning experiences in the GT program were positive	22
			The title of the GT program brought high pressure and expectations	21
			Negative learning experiences in the GT program for different reasons	2
Theme 2: The most valuable experience in the program was the 3-year Independent Study course	RQ1 and RQ3	Participants enjoyed the independent study in the self-contained program	Independent study is a very unique learning experience	16
		Independent study influenced participants’ later learning in college positively	The independent study course is challenging	7
			The GT program positively influenced my college life	8
			IS influenced students’ choices of college majors and helped them have a good start in college	9
			Some positive impacts of IS showed up later in college	15
Theme 3: Reactions to the remaining academic and affective components of the program were more mixed	RQ1	Participants’ perceptions of other components of the self-contained program	The science curricula in the GT program had more in-depth content, especially for those who were supported to join a science competition	12
			The science curricula in the GT program was no different from the typical one	7
			The course/instruction in the science curricula in the program was too hard for some students	8
			Students in the program can spend more time on science subjects and less time on humanities	4
			There was less time spent on humanities courses and the content was not challenging enough	12
			The affective curriculum helped students understand career and emotional development	9
Theme 4: The participants reported positive experiences with talented peers who were studying in the self-contained program but more mixed experiences with peers outside of the program	RQ2	Participants enjoyed positive and close peer relationships in the program	Positive relationships in the program	22
		Participants had fewer friends outside of the program, especially if they were not in extracurricular clubs	Peer interaction in the program was similar to what it was among typical adolescents	22
			Mixed peer relationships outside of GT program	20
			Students outside of the program were unfriendly	5

The findings from the selective coding stage of the cross-case analyses are reported in the Findings section by theme. In the Findings section, quotations from the survey were tagged using “S” codes, for example, “S01” is a quotation from the survey of Participant 1. Those from the interviews were tagged as “I01_August 10, 2012” (a quotation from the interview with Participant 1 on August 10, 2012).

Ensuring Trustworthiness

Role of the Interviewers and Researchers

In this study, two interviewers (the first author and a guidance counselor) were in charge of collecting data. Both of them had considerable knowledge of the self-contained gifted program and the school. The first author and lead researcher had taught the participants’ affective curriculum for 1 year when the participants were freshmen in high school and was at the same time a coordinator of the gifted program in the school. The guidance counselor had been working in the school for more than 10 years. The prior experience of the first author in the school helped establish trust between the school and the participants and helped with the interpretation of the data in the social context. However, these prior roles also created a potential for bias toward seeing positive impacts of the gifted program.

To mitigate potential positive biases, we designed the study from a discovery-oriented perspective and included a second researcher who did not have any prior experience with the program. The online survey was designed as anonymous and all questions were open-ended. Positively valenced questions were balanced by an equal number of negatively valenced questions. In this way, students were encouraged to express negative feelings about the program. The structure of the interview questions was designed with an open-ended main question followed by several, more specific probes. Moreover, the second author, who had expertise in gifted education at the secondary level but no prior experience with the gifted program, debriefed with the first author regularly during the data analysis process, with a focus on counteracting any biases that surfaced.

Addressing Coding Bias

After the research team built the axial coding schema, two graduate students used the schema to code two cases and discussed the results with the first author until all discrepancies were resolved by consensus (Patton, 2002). From this exercise, the team learned that the axial coding schema could be applied to these two cases even though one was a typical case with a lot of positive feedback and the other one was an exception to the generally positive perceptions. This approach helped ensure that the perspectives of the participants were accurately portrayed and increased the credibility of the findings.

Translation Issues

This research was conducted in Chinese, using a translated survey questionnaire and interview guide, both originally developed in English by the research team. One research team member is unilingual and the other is bilingual. During the data analysis, we sensed that translation issues existed in this study due to questions that arose as team members debriefed the analysis and discussions between the two graduate students who conducted the double-coding of representative interviews mentioned above. Temple and Young (2004) discussed the translation dilemma in qualitative research and distinguished two main categories of translation issues. The first occurs when the data are in many different languages, which is not relevant to our study. The second is relevant to our study: all of the data is in a single language (Chinese) but must be reported in a different language (English). In this case, they recommended that researchers report the steps they have taken to ensure an accurate translation and then treat the data as authentic, because the differences between the cases are not likely to be the result of translation issues; instead, they should be real differences between the cases. In this study, since all surveys and interviews were collected by following the same procedure in the same language, it was unlikely that differences among the different cases were caused by language. Instead, the primary translation issue in this study was how to express the participants’ meaning in English accurately so the voices of the participants could be heard accurately. To address these issues, two purposely selected cases (i.e., one typical case and one that was an exception to the generally positive perceptions) were translated from Chinese to English by people who had expertise in translation. In addition, for all quotations, which are listed in the Findings section, the first author translated them and then provided both the English translation and the original Chinese quotation to a colleague who had studied English as a college major and used Chinese as a first language. This individual checked the accuracy of the translations. One thing we learned was that sometimes there is lack of one-to-one relationships between the two languages. When this kind of situation occurred, the translator and the research team worked to find words in English syntax that captured the original meaning and adjusted the translation as needed. We adopted these steps to help reduce translation errors.

Findings

Theme 1: Overall Positive Perceptions With Acknowledgement of Feeling Pressured

Overall Positive Experience

In general, 22 of the 24 participants provided positive overall opinions about the self-contained gifted program (see Table 2). For example, one said, “[Studying in the program] was an amazing time” (I06_August 11, 2012). Another stated, “Studying in the program was such a unique experience, which combined so many wonderful things together” (I04_August 8, 2012). Participants described vivid memories of how they had overcome the challenges of the IS course, how they had enjoyed the unique teaching styles of their teachers, and the peer interactions in the program. Many shared enjoyable stories they remembered. One participant provided anecdotes about a teacher who guided him to repeat an experiment on a published paper:

The research process was so much fun. . . . We [the teacher and the participant] tried our best but we still could not replicate the results of the experiment. Even the teacher began to doubt the findings from the paper. We had spent almost the entire summer trying to figure out how to reproduce the experiment along with its results. Once, I even caused a small explosion in the lab, and my face was darkened by the smoke. There was another time, when the teacher forgot to turn off the alarm to the lab, and when I entered the lab on the weekend, the alarm was sounded. It was so loud, and I saw the campus security running toward the lab as fast as he can, to find out what was happening. (I08_August 11, 2012)

These statements with positive tones supported the survey findings showing that most of the participants enjoyed the program. Regarding their academic performances, seven participants articulated that it was the most special learning experience in their lives, and they would never forget it. For example, one of the Tier 1 participants who is currently in graduate school commented:

It [the gifted program] is pretty important . . . the gifted program I suppose brought me a great deal of confidence and motivation for learning, so I can’t say . . . that my later success is all due to it, but it definitely accounts for a large portion. (I22_August 9, 2012)

Participants indicated that having more resources and learning opportunities was one of the biggest advantages of studying in a self-contained gifted program. Specific resources mentioned included experienced teachers, small class sizes, field trips to labs and selective universities, speeches, research materials, and equipment. For example, several participants believed that their teachers in the program were exemplary: “The math teacher was really good” (I23_August 15, 2012); “The teacher treated her job seriously, because she prepared many extra learning materials for us” (I08_August 11, 2012). Other resources mentioned were more research materials and experimental equipment: “I believe we had more resources. . . . They [the lab managers] said others used one pack of filter papers per one hundred years, and we used one hundred packs per year” (I08_August 11, 2012); “Because we had more time in the science curriculum, we had the opportunity to really conduct the experiments listed in text book. I think that is the most valuable part [of the science curriculum]” (I10_August 12, 2012).

Pressure

The participants also expressed concern about feeling pressured, although most of them had positive perceptions of the program as a whole. A typical response from a student who performed in Tier 1 was simply, “I felt pressure” (I16_August 8, 2012). Two participants who performed exceptionally well in the program viewed the pressure positively. One explained, “It helped you set high standards and motivated you” (I22_August 9, 2012).

However, most students (17) felt that the pressure to maintain good academic performance in the program was too intense and stated that they were negatively influenced by the pressure. “When I can’t maintain the academic performance as others expect, I even felt shame for myself. I didn’t know how to face these adults” (I09_August 7, 2012).

Two main reasons for the pressures they experienced were given. First, the prestige of a gifted program brought high expectations. One said, “You had the label—gifted program participant—so you felt you should perform at an outstanding level in the school. Students in the program experienced high expectations and high standards” (I05_August 14, 2012). Another said, “Once you were able to study in the gifted program, it usually meant you should keep your academic performance high” (I02_August 11, 2012). Second, teachers in STEM areas had high expectations for students. Thirteen participants said that they picked up the message from their STEM teachers that as gifted students, they were expected to perform better than typical students in the science areas. For example, one student said, “The teachers discussed our academic performances with us and then said ‘Come on, you are in the self-contained program.’ . . . [I felt] they expected we should perform much better than typical students in these subjects” (I14_September 14, 2012). Another participant felt the very essence of the self-contained program was actually the high expectation from teachers: “Well, the self-contained program was a program where your teachers carried these high expectations for you” (I18_August 8, 2012). However, in spite of the pressure they felt to perform, all but two of the participants expressed largely positive, often life-changing, opinions about the program as a whole.

Two Exceptions to the Generally Positive Perceptions

Two participants specifically expressed negative opinions about the program, but for different reasons. One said that his talent did not fit the purpose of the program, while the other talked about peer rejection. The first one regretted that he had not transferred his learning focus to the humanities earlier. This participant had performed below 50% on school norms (Tier 3) and matriculated into a non–selective college. Interestingly, based on his archival documents, he had not only participated in science fair but also represented the school in a citywide language arts competition. He admitted that he chose to stay in the program primarily: “Because of the prestige [of the gifted program]. I was timid and did not chase my real dream. I should have left the program or changed my major” (I19_August 8, 2012).

The other participant who provided many negative opinions about the program seemed to be influenced by negative peer relationships and the feeling of getting less support in the program. He performed in Tier 3 as well, but matriculated into a selective college with a science major. He admitted honestly, “I didn’t get along well with others . . . when we were grouped, no one wanted to be in the same group with me. . . . I didn’t have a chance to join others’ conversations, or eat with them, or play with them” (I23_August 15, 2012). Another participant’s observations supported what Participant 23 said about the hard time he experienced during the program, “We seemed to exclude him . . . I thought, if you were in a really bad situation, why didn’t you choose to leave the program. . . . He stayed for three years, and it kind of surprised me” (I17_September 5, 2012).

Theme 2: Highly Valued Independent Study Course

The IS course readily received recognition as the most important and valuable learning experience in the self-contained gifted program (see Table 2). Participants provided rich details about the topics they chose, how they interacted with their partners in the course, how they studied the topic through hands-on activities, and how they coordinated the final presentation as a group. Participants reported they not only learned advanced research skills but also communication, coordination, and problem-solving skills in the IS course. Interestingly, participants who did not perform well in regular academic domains specifically recognized the importance of the IS course. These participants described the course as an opportunity to demonstrate their own talents. One participant whose academic performance was below 50% on school norms felt he benefited from the program because of the IS course, “It [the IS course] helped me find what I wanted to learn so I chose computer science as my major in university. . . . I believe the IS course was the most useful course and also my favorite course” (S07). Another participant, who said a teacher described him as “smart but lazy” because of his low academic performance, supported the statement that the IS course was the most valuable, “In the IS course, the success or failure is not important. . . . The most important part is doing your best to accomplish your independent study. Independent study is an important opportunity to show your own talent” (S24).

Besides gaining a positive learning experience, participants reported that the IS course influenced their choice of university major. Through the IS course, they were able to explore and refine their interests. For example, another participant with talent in computer science stated that the IS course led him to choose computer science as his major. “[The IS course] definitely influenced my decision to choose computer science as my major. Additionally, because of it, I was one step ahead [of my university peers]” (S17). A participant who chose the gifted program because he was passionate about biology found out through the program that he did not like laboratory research and realized instead that his passion was interacting with people in field research:

Therefore, when I was admitted into university, I was not looking forward to joining labs or choosing a research project. . . . I knew it was not something [in the biology field] that attracted me. . . . Instead of it, I want to work in environmental protection . . . maybe work in nongovernmental organizations. (I09_August 7, 2012)

The IS course also influenced participants’ learning and brought more advanced laboratory opportunities to their university studies. Participants who chose their major based on learning experiences in the IS course reported having advanced skills when they started university. Additionally, some participants sought opportunities to join a research lab when they started university, because they wanted to continue exploring research methods and terminology. They reported that because of the learning experience in the IS course in high school, their skills and abilities in doing hands-on activities and thinking independently were clearly better than those of their university peers who had not been in a gifted program. Furthermore, it is important to note that some influences of the IS course were not apparent until the senior year of university. For instance, many participants took IS courses in their third or fourth year of university because of program requirements or personal choice. They connected their experience in the high school IS course with the IS course in university and found that they learned faster and performed better than their university peers. One participant, whose performance in high school was in Tier 4 (the lowest tier), and who earned his bachelor’s degree at a mid-level university but pursued graduate studies at a selective university, analyzed why he performed well at the university level:

It was much easier for me to do independent study in university, and I learned faster than my university peers . . . it was because I had learned [the IS process] before. . . . I also decided to join a lab earlier than most of my college peers. (I20_August 12, 2012)

Another participant’s experience in college also supported this statement: “They felt I knew more about what research is. . . . The professor I worked with hoped I would decide to stay in his lab” (I15_August 11, 2012).

The only part of the IS course that participants perceived negatively was that they needed to put extra effort and time into accomplishing the IS project, since the IS course was a specially designed course that was different from the typical courses and their past learning experiences. Seven participants thought the learning experience in the IS course was challenging. The challenges they faced included finding an appropriate research topic, managing their time, and realizing that what they studied in the IS course was unrelated to their college entrance exams. In summary, for the majority of participants, the most influential learning experience in the program was the IS course, both because of and in spite of the challenges they faced in the IS course.

Theme 3: Mixed Reactions to Some Program Components

As shown in Table 2, the responses to different components of the self-contained program were mixed. In this section, we summarize participant reactions to the science, humanities, and affective components of the program. As might be expected, for most students the most positively perceived component was the enriched science curriculum.

Enriched Science Curriculum

As might be expected because they had been identified as talented in one or more of the STEM disciplines, most of the participants appreciated the enriched science curriculum. They especially valued the time the teacher spent with hands-on experiments, and most found the ability to conduct experiments helped them learn well in university, especially in STEM majors. “The biggest advantage of studying the program for me was the time we spent with hands-on experiments. When I entered the college, I was superior to my classmates in this area” (I13_August 8, 2012). Additionally, if participants received support to join science competitions, they tended to view the science course as enriched. For example, a participant who qualified in the top 300 for the National Physics Olympiad selection in 2008 in Taiwan commented, “[Our physics] teacher taught in-depth physics and guided us to practice the problems of the Physic Olympiad. For me, the course was attractive” (S22).

However, eight participants mentioned that the instruction and content in the science curricula in the self-contained program were too hard for them. The reasons were categorized as follows. First, the science curricula provided in-depth content in math, physics, chemistry, and biology. Those participants who were only talented in some areas found it hard to learn all four subjects at a fast pace. For example, a participant whose academic performance was in Tier 3 described how he struggled to learn all of the different subjects in depth at the same time. “It was too much in the beginning. I didn’t know what I could do to take care of these subjects. It seemed that my foundation was poor, so I couldn’t catch up with the learning in the second year” (I07_August 11, 2012). Second, it was hard to provide a set of appropriate instructions for this group of gifted students although they had been grouped by ability. “Teachers had hard time to meet the learning needs of all students in the program, especially those who had less ability and were behind” (S05).

Humanities Curricula

The responses to the humanities curricula were mixed. Twelve participants thought it was fine, or as good as other courses, and 12 mentioned the humanities as a program weakness. Those who thought the humanities curriculum was fine liked the compacted curriculum and did not care that less time was spent on the humanities than the sciences. Four students specifically appreciated the benefit of being able to spend more time learning science. For example, one said, “We spent less time in these humanities courses in which we were not interested. I thought it was good because we would not lose patience with school learning” (S05).

The 12 participants who thought the humanities was a program weakness felt that compacting the humanities courses caused teachers to provide less challenging humanities content. Three of these 12 participants felt short-changed, because they believed they needed to learn and know about the humanities so that they could have the ability to make better decisions in life and care about society. One of these three expressed why he thought the humanities course was important and needed to be emphasized more in the program as follows:

. . . if you were interested in [the humanities], the only thing you could do was to read humanities books yourself, which was not a good way, especially if we considered that in the field of science and engineering people are emphasizing multiculturalism and the importance of the humanities more and more. (S22)

Affective Curriculum

Another special component of the self-contained gifted program was the affective curriculum. In the interviews, nine participants articulated that they benefited from the affective curriculum in ways that included helping them reduce stress, explore university majors, improve time management skills, and explore self and identity. For example, one of these participants listed what he saw as benefits of the affective curriculum as follows: “We learned self-exploration, how to handle expectations from self and others, and psychometric information, which were all good. These helped us learn about ourselves and the label of giftedness, and we learned how to treat the label normally” (S01). Although no specific negatives were reported about the affective curriculum, seven participants said in the survey that they only had very vague memories about the affective curriculum, suggesting it did not have a lasting impact on them. One participant’s response supported this inference: “I did not remember much about it. Did we really have this course?” (S17).

Theme 4: Experiences With Peers Varied

Relationships With Peers in the Program

In the survey, 22 participants (92%) had positive perceptions of their peer relationships in the program (see Table 2). A typical comment was, “I spent the majority of my time with my classmates studying and playing the Rubik’s Cube. We really had a good time together” (S02). Another participant said, “The advantage [of the program] was I was able to learn with these outstanding classmates” (I16_August 8, 2012). The majority of participants agreed that the foundation of their friendships in the program was based on similar interests and personalities and that the interactions among them were similar to those among typical adolescents. One said, “We shared similar interests. He liked to play basketball and video games, and he was an easy going person” (I05_August 14, 2012). Another said, “We loved the same video game” (I22_August 9, 2012).

In addition, participants mentioned that staying with the same group of classmates for 3 years helped them build strong and lifelong friendships. One participant commented, “We were closer than students in typical programs . . . because we stayed together for three years . . . we met each other often [after graduation] and had a high school reunion almost every year until now” (I21_August 8, 2012). The experience of positive peer relationships in the gifted program seems to have been unrelated to academic performance. Participants whose performances were in the lowest tier also experienced positive peer relationships in the gifted program. One participant said, “Students in our gifted program didn’t separate into small social groups [based on academic performance]” (I15_August 11, 2012). Another said, “I had several good friends who could share everything with each other [in high school], and some of them I still contacted even when I was in college” (I11_August 11, 2012).

Relationships With Peers Outside the Program

Only seven participants (29%) had positive perceptions of their relationships with peers outside the program. One of the seven with positive perceptions was an active member in the school magazine club. This participant stated, “Joining a club was the only way you can make friends outside of the program. I did not have problems making friends there. In fact, I enjoyed the variety of friendships I had in the club” (S09). Most participants (54%) reported they had few friends outside of the program. A typical response was, “Frankly, I did not have many opportunities to make friends outside of the program” (S11). Four participants (17%) went further, stating they had negative experiences with peers outside of the program. One of these said, when he met students outside the program, they teased him, saying things like “Oh! I knew you. You were one of those students in the [gifted] program” (S19), and as a result, he felt “I was pretty isolated in high school” (S19).

Similarly, in the interviews, five participants said they felt students outside of the gifted program were unfriendly to them. For example, one of these described a memory of playing basketball when some students began saying mean words and throwing something at him just because they knew he was in the gifted program, and eventually, he fought with them. Another participant stated, “When I studied in high school, I found some students were hostile to us, and I didn’t know why” (I04_August 8, 2012). Another speculated, “Others seemed to feel we had more resources, and they thought school treated us especially well” (I05_August 14, 2012).

Besides these five participants, 13 participants, especially those who did not participate in extracurricular clubs, reported that they had fewer friends outside of the gifted program. Some participants felt it was normal to have fewer friends outside of the gifted program since they spent most of their time with their peers in the gifted program. One said in a very calm voice, “No friends outside of the program. I usually spent time [with friends] in the program” (I30_August 11, 2012). Others, however, felt this was a disadvantage of studying in the program. One participant identified this as one of the biggest disadvantages of the program and decided to join more extracurricular activities in university, because he wanted to get to know more people. He commented, “The biggest disadvantage . . . I didn’t know many people [in high school]. . . . For students in the gifted program, we only knew 24 students, and no more” (I21_August 8, 2012).

Summary

Overall, participants’ responses to the different components of the self-contained program supported the assertion that the majority of participants were satisfied with their learning experiences in the self-contained gifted program, although many were concerned about the pressure they felt to perform and some had concerns about specific components of the program. The component of the program that was viewed most positively was independent study. Most of these science-talented youth viewed the science components of the program favorably. The participants were split in their perceptions of the compacted humanities curriculum. The affective curriculum was very important to some participants and somewhat irrelevant for others. There were only two participants who had largely negative memories of the program. Meanwhile, participants experienced positive peer relationships in the program, but their peer relationships outside of the program were mixed. Some of them recognized that the particular format of a gifted program might be one of the reasons why they had strong friendships within the program, but few friends outside of the program.

Discussion

In this study, we presented a portrait of gifted high school male students’ perceptions of their learning experiences and peer relationships in a self-contained STEM program. Overall, the findings from this study confirm the benefits found in previous research on self-contained programs (e.g., Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Delcourt et al., 2007; Hertzog, 2003; Kulik, 2003; Matthews & Kitchen, 2007; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011), but this study extends those findings to secondary gifted education and adds to the literature on gifted male high school students.

The Value of an Independent Study Course

A key finding of this study is that, for high school students talented in STEM, the IS course was the most valued experience, although some of the most positive influences of the IS course were not demonstrated until the students’ senior year of university attendance. The IS course provided the participants with an opportunity to develop and fulfill their talents. This finding provides empirical support for theorists in the field of gifted education who argue that it is important to incorporate learning opportunities investigating real problems into gifted programs (Betts, 1986; Feldhusen & Robinson, 1986; Reis & Renzulli, 1986). Meanwhile, because the 3-year design of the IS course of this study is similar to the IS component in the Betts’s Autonomous Learner Model, the study supports the notion that gifted students at the secondary level need to have opportunities to explore and build research projects in their interest areas, especially when their talents lie in the STEM disciplines. Our findings support Csíkszentmihályi et al.’s (1993) findings that, through hands-on research, young scientists in high school experienced pride in their performance and developed their identity as scientists. In this study, this identity building process included college majors. Moon, Feldhusen, and Dillon (1994) found that students and their parents viewed IS learning at the elementary level as a benefit of an enrichment program, and some students reported it as having benefited their learning at the secondary level. Therefore, it appears that IS can benefit gifted learners regardless of age and that the impacts are long lasting.

However, it is important to mention that time management issues existed in the IS course for these Taiwanese students. This can be interpreted on two levels: contextual and universal. First, all students in Taiwan need to take a college entrance exam, and the results will become an important factor when they apply for college. Gifted students in the self-contained program had a hard time demonstrating what they had learned in the IS course on the entrance exam. Therefore, this became a dilemma for some students who wanted to spend more time on the IS course and simultaneously prepare for the high-stakes exam. Second, regardless of the education system, participation in IS requires students to develop time management skills. It is important for gifted students to learn to manage their time effectively, as time management is a critical personal talent skill (Moon, 2003), especially in the sciences. With appropriate support, the development of time management skills can be one of the advantages of offering independent study to students with STEM talent early in their development.

Academic Pressure

In this study, some gifted students, including the students who performed well in the program, reported they observed high expectations and pressure in the self-contained program. This finding is similar to that of previous studies (e.g., Kao, 2011; Linn-Cohen & Hertzog, 2007; Moon et al., 2002). It is important to notice that positive behaviors and high performance can mask distress, and positive stereotypes of gifted students may prevent adults from giving attention to their concerns (Peterson, 2009). The pressure that gifted students might experience in self-contained programs needs to be addressed adequately by affective curricula and/or counseling services to ensure such programs benefit all students.

Peer Relationships

Additionally, in this study, we found that the perceptions of these participants related to how the male gifted students interacted with each other in the self-contained program were similar to how typical adolescents interacted with each other. The majority of these male participants who were talented in STEM reported they chose friends based on their personalities and shared personal hobbies (e.g., video games, sports; Rose & Rudolph, 2006), instead of on the basis of academic interests. This suggests that, when thinking about peer relationships among gifted male students, educators and researchers should remember that these male students are also adolescents. What might happen among typical male adolescents, such as peer rejection or enjoyment of playing video games, also happened among these gifted male adolescents. Our findings suggest that gifted male adolescents face similar developmental tasks as their similarly aged peers (Peterson, 2007).

Limitations

There are several limitations to the study. First, the participants in this study all graduated from high school in Taiwan. Their perceptions were influenced by the culture and values in Taiwan. Thus, the results may only reflect the experiences of gifted male high school students in Taiwan. Second, all participants were talented in science and/or math, and were identified through a multistage identification process based on achievement tests. The experience of talented adolescents who have other types of talents or different ability levels might be different. Additional replications with a sample of students who are talented in other talent domains or who come from diverse backgrounds are needed. Third, participants were only interviewed once, and the data were retrospective. The problem with retrospective data is that the memory of participants may not be accurate or detailed. However, there are some benefits to using a retrospective approach. Long-term impacts of learning experiences may not be present immediately, and participants need time to process the influences of an intensive program. Thus, the use of retrospective methods can illuminate the long-term effects and participants’ lasting experiences without being influenced by their emotions at the time they were in the program. Longitudinal designs avoid many of the problems of retrospective studies while retaining their benefits, and need to be considered for future studies of STEM talent development programs.

Implications for Practitioners

Based on the findings, immersion in a self-contained program that is designed to address gifted adolescents’ academic and social-emotional needs seemed to provide positive experiences for these gifted adolescents. It is important to recognize that AP courses and IB programs are not the only options for gifted education at the secondary level in the United States (S. A. Gallagher, 2009; Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008). A self-contained gifted program that is designed to address the learning needs and social and emotional development of gifted students may be considered another appropriate option for gifted students. At the same time, the findings offer a caution for program developers. Intensive programs may meet the needs of students who are more capable, but for students who are more narrowly talented or have lower ability, the instruction and content of a comprehensive, intensive, self-contained program may be too challenging. These findings are consistent with previous findings at the elementary level showing that in self-contained gifted programs, students with higher levels of intellectual giftedness tended to view their learning experiences more positively, whereas those with low ability voiced anxiety (Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Moon et al., 2002). Hence, program developers need to be sure to have support systems in place for students who are overwhelmed by the challenges of a self-contained program.

The value of independent study has been emphasized in program models in gifted education, for example, the Purdue Three Stage-Model, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, and the Autonomous Learner Model (see Johnsen & Goree, 2009; Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009). Our findings support this aspect of gifted program design. Inclusion of IS components may be particularly important for gifted high school students in Asian countries because most high school students in these countries follow a similar curriculum in a lecture format and have little opportunity for self-determined learning. Professional development in how to design and teach IS courses is important for high school teachers in countries where teachers have little experience with this type of pedagogy. Finally, program developers and teachers in programs for academically gifted students need to consider how to provide direct instruction in personal and social skills, such as personal decision-making, time management, interpersonal skills, and conflict resolution to promote academic success, project management skills, and social-emotional development (Moon, 2014; Moon & Ray, 2006; Yeager et al., 2014).

Suggestions for Future Research

As mentioned above, it would be interesting to investigate talented STEM high school students who study in different countries and different types of program models to understand if there is a common experience among them. Additionally, gifted girls who are talented in science and math usually face other challenges when they develop their talents (Kao, 2011). It will be important for future researchers to investigate the experiences of girls with STEM talents in both single-gender and mixed-gender self-contained programs. Future researchers could also examine different types of gifted students such as those who are exceptional in academic competitions but who underachieve, those with talents in the humanities, or those from different ethnic backgrounds. Since the current study underlined the value of independent study, it might be interesting to determine if independent study is valuable across contexts and fields. In conclusion, our findings contribute to the field of gifted education by demonstrating that a comprehensive, self-contained program for talented STEM high school students was found to be effective in developing STEM talent. Our results suggest that more self-contained gifted programs with enriched science curricula, an IS course, and affective components are needed.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the insightful comments of the three reviewers of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Enyi Jen is a doctoral candidate of Gifted, Creative, and Talented Studies in the Department of Educational Studies at Purdue University. Prior to attending Purdue, she received her master’s degree in gifted education from National Taiwan Normal University in Taiwan and taught affective curriculum in one STEM gifted self-contained program in a high school in Taiwan for 5 years. She has been coordinating talent development programs for Gifted Education Resource Institute at Purdue for the last 5 years. Her research interests include talent development, social and emotional development of gifted learners, qualitative methods, and design-based research.

Sidney M. Moon is Professor Emerita of Gifted, Creative, and Talented Studies in the Department of Educational Studies at Purdue University. She has been involved in the field of gifted, creative, and talented studies for 33 years. In that time, she has contributed more than 75 books, articles, and chapters to the field. She has been active in the National Association for Gifted Children, where she has served as Chair of the Research and Evaluation Division, a member of the Board of Directors, and Association Editor, and in the American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group, Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent, where she has served as treasurer. Her research interests include gifted education programs, the social/emotional development of talented persons, and talent development in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

References

Adams-Byers

Whitsell

S. S.

Moon

S. M.

(2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7-20. doi:10.1177/001698620404800102

Betts

G. T.

(1986). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In Renzulli

J. S.

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Bleske-Rechek

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations: Advanced Placement’s role in developing exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217-224. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00655.x

Callahan

C. M.

(2006). Secondary program models and the evaluation of secondary programs. In Dixon

F. A.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (1st ed., pp. 505-526). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Caplan

S. M.

Henderson

C. E.

Henderson

Fleming

D. L.

(2002). Socioemotional factors contributing to adjustment among early-entrance college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 124-134. doi:10.1177/001698620204600205

Chajewski

Mattern

K. D.

Shaw

E. J.

(2011). Examining the role of Advanced Placement exam participation in 4-year college enrollment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 16-27. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00219.x

Chen

C. M.

(2009). A study on the comparative differences of delinquent behavior among classroom teachers, counselors, and military instructors—Taking Taipei senior high school as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Coleman

L. J.

(1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 171-176. doi:10.1177/001698629503900307

Coleman

L. J.

(2001). A “Rag Quilt”: Social relationships among students in a special high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 164-173. doi:10.1177/001698620104500302

10.

The Committee of the Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students. (2011). The important Q and A for the Basic Competence Test. Retrieved from http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/documents/101QA.pdf

11.

Corbin

Strauss

(2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). State of the states in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

13.

Csíkszentmihályi

Rathunde

Whalen

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

14.

Dai

D. Y.

Steenbergen-Hu

Zhou

(2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 75-90. doi:10.1177/0016986214568719

15.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

Cornell

D. G.

Goldberg

M. D.

(2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359-381. doi:10.1177/0016986207306320

16.

Eddles-Hirsch

Vialle

Rogers

K. B.

McCormick

(2010). “Just challenge those high-ability learners and they’ll be all right!” The impact of social context and challenging instruction on the affective development of high-ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 106-128. doi:10.1177/1932202x1002200105

17.

Feldhusen

J. F.

Robinson

(1986). The Purdue secondary model for gifted and talented youth. In Renzulli

J. S.

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

18.

Feldhusen

J. F.

Sayler

M. F.

(1990). Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 12, 244-249.

19.

Finn

C. E.

Jr. Hockett

J. A.

(2012). Exam schools: Inside America’s most selective public high schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

20.

Gallagher

Harradine

C. C.

Coleman

M. R.

(1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-136. doi:10.1080/02783199709553808

21.

Gallagher

S. A.

(2009). Myth 19: Is Advanced Placement an adequate program for gifted students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 286-288. doi:10.1177/0016986209346948

22.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y.S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199-216. doi:10.1177/0016986208319705

24.

Hertzog

N. B.

(2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131-143. doi:10.1177/001698620304700204

25.

Hulleman

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410-1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067

26.

Johnsen

S. K.

Goree

K. K.

(2009). Teaching gifted students through independent study. In Karnes

Bean

(Eds.), Strategies for teaching gifted students (pp. 415-445). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

27.

Jones

B. M.

Fleming

D. L.

Henderson

C. E.

(2002). Common denominators: Assessing hesitancy to apply to a selective residential math and science academy. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 164-172.

28.

Kao

(2011). The dilemmas of peer relationships confronting mathematically gifted female adolescents: Nine cases in Taiwan. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 83-94. doi:10.1177/0016986210391658

29.

Kao

(2012). The educational predicament confronting Taiwan’s gifted programs: An evaluation of current practices and future challenges. Roeper Review, 34, 234-243. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.715335

30.

Kulik

J. A.

(2003). Grouping and tracking. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 268-281). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

31.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. C.

(1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77. doi:10.1177/001698629203600204

32.

Linn-Cohen

Hertzog

N. B.

(2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 227-259. doi:10.4219/jeg-2007-677

33.

Matthews

Kitchen

(2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 256-271. doi:10.1177/0016986207302720

34.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Moon

S. M.

(2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14, 5-21.

36.

Moon

S. M.

(2014). Personal talent theory and high-ability youth. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. A.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 493-504). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

37.

Moon

S. M.

Dixon

F. A.

(2006). Conceptions of giftedness in adolescence. In Dixon

F. A.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (1st ed., pp. 7-33). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

38.

Moon

S. M.

Feldhusen

J. F.

Dillon

D. R.

(1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48. doi:10.1177/001698629403800106

39.

Moon

S. M.

Ray

(2006). Personal and social talent development. In Dixon

F. A.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (1st ed., pp. 249-280). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

40.

Moon

S. M.

Swift

Shallenberger

(2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64-79. doi:10.1177/001698620204600106

41.

Muratori

Colangelo

Assouline

(2003). Early-entrance students: Impressions of their first semester of college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 219-238. doi:10.1177/001698620304700306

42.

Noble

K. D.

Childers

S. A.

Vaughan

R. C.

(2008). A place to be celebrated and understood: The impact of early university entrance from parents’ points of view. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 256-268. doi:10.1177/0016986208319976

43.

Noble

K. D.

Drummond

J. E.

(1992). But what about the prom? Students’ perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 106-111. doi:10.1177/001698629203600209

44.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Perrone

K. M.

Wright

S. L.

Ksiazak

T. M.

Crane

A. L.

Vannatter

(2010). Looking back on lessons learned: Gifted adults reflect on their experiences in advanced classes. Roeper Review, 32, 127-139. doi:10.1080/02783191003587918

46.

Peterson

J. S.

(2007). A developmental perspective. In Mendaglio

Peterson

J. S.

(Eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 97-126). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

47.

Peterson

J. S.

(2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280-282. doi:10.1177/0016986209346946

48.

Poelzer

G. H.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1997). The International Baccalaureate: A program for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review, 19, 168-171. doi:10.1080/02783199709553820

49.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J.S.

(1986). The secondary triad model. In Renzulli

J. S.

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 267-305). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

50.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.). (2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

51.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98

52.

Santoli

S. P.

(2002). Is there an advanced placement advantage? American Secondary Education, 30, 23-25.

53.

Sayler

M. F.

Brookshire

W. K.

(1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 150-154. doi:10.1177/001698629303700403

54.

Schiefele

(2009). Situational and individual interest. In Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197-222). New York, NY: Routledge.

55.

Schroth

S. S.

(2008). Levels of service. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 321-334). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

56.

Shaunessy

Suldo

S. M.

(2010). Strategies used by intellectually gifted students to cope with stress during their participation in a high school International Baccalaureate program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 127-137. doi:10.1177/0016986209355977

57.

Sosniak

L. A.

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

B.S.

(Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 348-408). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

58.

Steenbergen-Hu

Moon

S. M.

(2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39-53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155

59.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

60.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewsi-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

61.

Taylor

M. L.

Porath

(2006). Reflections on the International Baccalaureate program: Graduates’ perspectives. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 149-158.

62.

Temple

Young

(2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4, 161-178. doi:10.1177/1468794104044430

63.

Thompson

Rust

J. O.

(2007). Follow-up of Advanced Placement students in college. College Student Journal, 41, 416-422.

64.

Times Higher Education. (2013). World university rankings 2013-2014. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/world-ranking#/

65.

Vanderbrook

C. M.

(2006). Intellectually gifted females and their perspectives of lived experience in the AP and IB Programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 133-148.

66.

VanTassel-Baska

Willis

G. B.

Meyer

(1989). Evaluation of a full-time self-contained class for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 7-10. doi:10.1177/001698628903300101

67.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

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. doi:10.1037/a0019454

68.

Yeager

D. S.

Henderson

M. D.

Paunesku

Walton

G. M.

D’Mello

Spitzer

B. J.

Duckworth

A. L.

(2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 559-580. doi:10.1037/a0037637