Identifying and Cultivating Innovators and Increasing Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): A Needed Paradigm Shift

References

• 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2021, from http.//p21.org/
   Google Scholar
• Alfaiz, F., Pease, R., & Maker, C. J. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of physical science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20920572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alhusaini, A. A. (2016). The effects of duration of exposure to the REAPS model in developing students’ general creativity and creative problem solving in science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Arizona.
   Google Scholar
• Alhusaini, A. A., & Maker, C. J. (2020). Adapting the REAPS model to develop students’ creativity in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory study. Manuscript submitted for publication to the European Journal of Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In E. H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Ambrose, D. (1998). A model for clarification and expansion of conceptual foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrose, D. (2013). Socioeconomic inequality and giftedness: Suppression and distortion of high ability. Roeper Review, 35(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.766960
   Google Scholar
• Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary exploration supports Sternberg’s expansion of giftedness. Roeper Review, 39(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. (2014). Visual–spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review, 36(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884198
   Google Scholar
• Arizona Department of Education statistics. (2006). Data about gifted students. http://www.azed.gov
   Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. (2000). Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: From the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001910050003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahar, A. K., & Maker, C. J. (2015). Cognitive backgrounds of problem solving: A comparison of open-ended vs. closed mathematical problems. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 11(6), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1410a
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, K., & Maker, C. J. (2020). Culturally responsive assessments of mathematical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20906130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahar, A. K., Maker, C. J., & Scherbakova, A. (2021). The role of teachers’ implementation of the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) model in developing creative problem solving in mathematics. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2021.0013
   Google Scholar
• Barbot, B., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbot, B., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2015). Where is the “g” in “creativity”? A specialization differentiation hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 1041. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaty, R. E. (2015). The neuroscience of musical improvisation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begay, H., & Maker, C. J. (2007). When geniuses fail … Na-Dine (Navajo) conception of giftedness. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 127–168). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, S., & Korsten, P. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. International Business Machines.
   Google Scholar
• Brandwein, F. (1992). Science talent: The play of exemplar and paradigm in the science education of science prone young. Science Education, 76(6), 121–139. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ473455. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=EJ473455&id=EJ473455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence, 24(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90012-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castejon, J. L., Gilar, R., Minano, P., & Gonzalez, M. (2016). Latent class cluster analysis in exploring different profiles of gifted and talented students. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra Handa, M. (2020). Examining students’ and teachers’ perceptions of differentiated practices, student engagement, and teacher qualities. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 530–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20931457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, S., Ahn, D., Han, S., & Park, H. (2008). Academic developmental patterns of the Korean gifted during the 18 years after identification. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 784–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVries, M., & Shires-Golon, A. (2011). Making education relevant for gifted Native Americans: Teaching to their learning style. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 47–72). Prufrock Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/978100328157
   Google Scholar
• Dogusoy-Taylan, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Cognitive analysis of experts’ and novices’ concept mapping processes: An eye tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elhoweris, H., Hemdan, A., Bacsal, M., Opoku, M., Al Mohammedi, N., Maker, C. J., & Pease, R. (2021, August). The impact of the I-Mentoring enrichment program on enhancing gifted/talented students’ creative problem-solving abilities. Paper presented to the World Conference on Gifted and Talented Students, Virtual.
   Google Scholar
• Erdimez, Ö., Tan, S., & Zimmerman, R. (2017). The use of concept maps as a tool to measure higher level thinking skills in elementary school science classes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2017.60
   Google Scholar
• Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Programs for the gifted few or talent development for the many? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 735–739. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrando, M., Ferrandiz, C., Lhor, L., & Sainz, M. (2016). Successful intelligence and giftedness: An empirical study. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553709
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1967). Scientific creativity. Science Journal, 3(9), 80–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E. E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Arizaga, M., Bahar, A. K., Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, R. H., & Pease, R. (2016). How does science learning occur in the classroom? Students’ perceptions of science instruction during implementation of the REAPS model. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 12(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1209a
   Google Scholar
• Hedlund, J., Wilt, J. M., Nebel, K. R., Ashford, S. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Assessing practical intelligence in business school admissions: A supplement to the graduate management admissions test. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, K. A. (2012). Different research paradigms concerning giftedness and gifted education: Shall ever they meet? High Ability Studies, 23(1), 73–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2012.679097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability: Domain generality and specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, A. H. (2005). Creativity and resilience in the African American experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 33(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473333thp3301_3
   Google Scholar
• Jo, S., & Ku, J. O. (2011). Problem based learning using real-time data in science education for the gifted. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700304
   Google Scholar
• Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211422098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Differences in gender and ethnicity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01231.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharkhurin, A. V. (2012). Multilingualism and creativity. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697967
   Google Scholar
• Kornilov, S. A., Tan, M., Elliott, J. G., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Gifted identification with Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lo, C. O., & Porath, M. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722840
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Lubart, T. I., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41–51.
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem-solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9(2), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949300900202
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2005). The “Discover” project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners. Senior Scholars Series Monograph. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [ ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED05483]. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED505483&id=ED505483
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2016). Recognizing and developing spiritual abilities through real-life problem solving. Gifted Education International, 32(3), 271–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429415602574
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2020a). Culturally responsive assessments of spatial analytical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20910697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2020b). Identifying exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Increasing diversity and assessing creative problem-solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 161–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20918203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2021). Exceptional talent in the 21st-century context: Conceptual framework, definition, assessment, and development. Gifted Educational International, 37(2), 158–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421995188
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. (2022). From leading to guiding, facilitating, and inspiring: A needed shift for the 21st century. Education Sciences, 12(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J., & Pease, R. (2021). Building on and extending the characteristics of gifted learners: Implementing the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) teaching model. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2021.0012
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J., Pease, R., & Bahar, K. A. (2023). Profiles of exceptionally talented students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An exploration using Q factor analysis. Manuscript accepted for publication in Roeper Review.
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J., & Zimmerman, R. H. (2008). Problem solving in a complex world: Integrating DISCOVER, TASC, and PBL in a teacher education project. Gifted Education International, 24(2/3), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940802400305
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J., & Zimmerman, R. H. (2020). Concept maps as assessments of expertise: Understanding of the complexity and interrelationships of concepts in science. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 254–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20921770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, R. H., Bahar, A. K., & In-Albon, C. (2021). The influence of real engagement in active problem solving on deep learning: An important component of exceptional talent in the 21st century context. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2021.0014
   Google Scholar
• Miller, L. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. National Science Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pease, R., Vuke, M. H., Maker, C. J., & Muammar, O. M. (2020). A practical guide for implementing the STEM assessment results in classrooms: Using strength-based reports and real engagement in active problem solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 367–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20911643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Reinoso, J. L. (2011). Real-life problem solving: Examining the effects of alcohol within a community on the Navajo nation. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700306
   Google Scholar
• Riley, T., Webber, M., & Sylva, K. (2017). Real engagement in active problem solving for Māori boys: A case study in a New Zealand secondary school. Gifted and Talented International, 32(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522240
   Google Scholar
• Sak, U. (2021). The fuzzy conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Ambrose (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 371–392). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_21
   Google Scholar
• Sak, U., & Ayas, M. B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 316–329. http://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/fileadmin/download/ptam/3-2013_20130923/07_Sak.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sak, U., & Maker, C. J. (2006). Developmental variation in children’s creative mathematical thinking as a function of schooling, age, and knowledge. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-385
   Google Scholar
• Sarouphim, K. M. (2004). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-446
   Google Scholar
• Sarouphim, K. M., & Maker, C. (2010). Ethnic and gender differences in identifying gifted students: A multi-cultural analysis. International Education, 39(2), 4. https://trace.tennessee.edu/internationaleducation/vol39/iss2/4
   Google Scholar
• Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002200101
   Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 1012–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 59–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. Plume.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 259–375. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189–202. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28439202.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2017). A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 7(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence7040023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, D. H., & Starkweather, J. A. (2010). PM critical competency index: IT execs prefer soft skills. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., & Rayhak, K. M. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development. In P. Csermely, K. Korlevic, & K. Sulyok (Eds.), Science education: Models and networks of student research and training under 21 (pp. 28–38). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, S., Erdimez, Ö., & Zimmerman, R. (2017). Concept mapping as a tool to develop and measure students’ understanding in science. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 10(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.10.2.9
   Google Scholar
• Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol.1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thurik, A. R., Stam, E., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). The rise of the entrepreneurial economy and the future of dynamic capitalism. Technovation, 33(8–9), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2017). STEM high school teachers’ belief regarding STEM student giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Personnel Press.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–1980). Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628102500203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (1992). The torrance tests of creative thinking streamlined scoring guide, figural A and B. Scholastic Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Treffinger, D. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 752–755. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20439334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT-DP) Manual. Swets Test Services. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=EJ854980
   Google Scholar
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallach, M. (1976). Tests tell us little about talent. American Scientist, 64(1), 57–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27847042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, M., Riley, T., Sylva, K., & Scobie-Jennings, E. (2018). The Ruamano project: Raising expectations, realising community aspirations and recognising gifted potential in Māori boys. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 49(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2018.16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2015). Expertise, nonobvious creativity, and ordinary thinking in Edison and others: Integrating blindness and sightedness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 15–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, I.-C., Pease, R., & Maker, C. J. (2015). Students’ perceptions of real engagement in active problem solving. Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2015.1137462
   Google Scholar
• Wu, I.-C., Pease, R., & Maker, C. J. (2019). Students’ perceptions of a special program for developing exceptional talent in STEM. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(4), 474–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19864690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, I.-C., Pease, R., & Maker, C. J. (2021). General education teachers’ perceptions of the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) model. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2021.0015
   Google Scholar
• Zeigler, M., Danay, E., Moritz, H., Asendorpf, J., & Bühner, M. (2012). Openness, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, R. H., Maker, C. J., & Alfaiz, F. S. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of life science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20923981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, R., Maker, C. J., Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., & Pease, R. (2011). The use of concept maps in facilitating problem solving in earth science. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700305
   Google Scholar