International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education - 2025 Special Issue on Giftedness and STEM Education: Towards Integrative Approaches for Developing Creativity and Talent

Guest Editors:

Dr. Viktor Freiman, Université de Moncton, Canada, viktor.freiman@umoncton.ca (this opens in a new tab)

Dr. Marina Milner-Bolotin, University of British Columbia, Canada, marina.milner-bolotin@ubc.ca (this opens in a new tab)

Dr. Dragana Martinovic, University of Windsor, Canada, dragana@uwindsor.ca (this opens in a new tab)

Dr. Maryna Rafalska, Université Côte d’Azur, France, maryna.rafalska@univ-cotedazu.fr (this opens in a new tab)

For this special issue of the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, we propose to explore how giftedness, creativity, and talent development manifest in the context of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. This investigation is timely and important, and at the same time complex for at least three reasons. First, despite the decades of studies, there is still a lack of clarity of what STEM and STEM education mean (e.g., Li, Froyd, et al., 2019; Martín-Páez et al., 2019). Indeed, these concepts have not been fully conceptualized, especially from the standpoint of STEM integration (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2022; McComas & Burgin, 2020). Second, there is a paucity of understanding of the role of giftedness and creativity in STEM education (Bicer, 2021). Third, addressing the previous two topics will provide valuable insights about talent development in STEM education. These insights, in their turn, will have implications for classroom practice, teacher education, and teacher professional development.

Hence, for this Special Issue we invite theoretical and empirical papers addressing (but not necessarily limited to) questions such as the following:

What are the epistemological commonalities and differences among STEM disciplines? What are the possible implications for gifted education? 

STEM disciplines share some key epistemological commonalities. They aim at understanding the outside world while employing complementary ways in which they acquire, validate, and grow knowledge. In essence, scientific knowledge is evidence-based, coherent, and refutable. At the same time, while the process of scientific discovery can be easily recognized, it cannot be rigidly prescribed. It is driven by creativity, unconventional thinking, perseverance in the face of failure, and the unquenching desire to figure it out (Feynman, 1999; Milner-Bolotin, 2018). Consequently, this process sometimes leads to the disruption of commonly accepted knowledge and eventually contributes to the emergence of novel ideas and insights (Kuhn, 1996). To successfully engage in STEM, students need help in developing “successful intelligence” that Sternberg (2019) describes as:

the mix of creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based abilities … We need creative abilities to generate ideas, analytical abilities to determine whether they are good ideas, practical abilities to put the ideas into practice and to persuade others of the value of those ideas, and wisdom-based abilities to help to ensure that our ideas achieve some kind of common good through the use of positive ethical values. (p. 107)

Nevertheless, different STEM disciplines have distinct and creative ways in which the new knowledge is validated (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2022). There are many paths to being successful in STEM and students travel these paths at different pace, which has important repercussions for gifted education.

We welcome studies investigating what holds STEM disciplines together epistemologically while uncovering the pedagogical opportunities of STEM education for gifted students and for the development of their creativity and talent. We also invite contributions that examine epistemological obstacles for these integrated approaches and discuss implications for nurturing giftedness and creativity.

What are the influences of historical, cultural, and national practices, and institutional choices for STEM education on nurturing giftedness and creativity?

The STEM movement in education originates from the West’s response to the “Sputnik challenge” in the 1950-1960s through strengthening students’ preparation for careers in science and engineering (Garrett, 2008). Still, the history of the STEM acronym remains rather anecdotal, demonstrating perhaps the search for its meaning through the permutation of letters. In the 1990s, the acronym was introduced as SMET, then MEST, before finally arriving at STEM (Bybee, 2013; McComas & Burgin, 2020; Robichaud & Freiman, 2020). The NSF Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE, 1998) further articulated the STEM education movement highlighting the issues of equity and democratic access to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Since then, this movement has gained ground internationally encompassing a variety of meanings and frameworks which still require critical analysis (McComas & Burgin, 2020). While rising in strength in the past two decades, the STEM movement has generated questions about the plurality of meanings of the acronym (e.g., STEAM), as well as the consequences of espousing it as a viable educational paradigm. The goal is to provide a more equitable access to STEM disciplines for all students, especially the ones from the underrepresented groups (Wolfmeyer & Chesky, 2015), and to satisfy the demands of modern societies.

A meta-analysis of 800 STEM education papers published in leading international peer-reviewed journals between 2000-2018 by Li et al. (2019) have identified three key topics. The first topic focussed on goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment. The second one dealt with K-12 teaching and teacher education. The third topic centered on K-12 learner, learning, and learning environments. Despite the growing interest in STEM education in the communities of researchers, policymakers, and educational practitioners, the examination of connections between creativity, giftedness, and STEM education is still largely underexplored.

Martinovic and  Milner-Bolotin (2022) analysed five models for integrated K-12 STEM education. They claimed that educational settings and curriculum choices concerning STEM integration in different cultures and countries can provide diverse opportunities for development of students’ giftedness and creativity.

We invite contributions that shed light on these questions or, more broadly, on the influences of historical, cultural, and national practices, and institutional choices in STEM education on nurturing giftedness and creativity.

Leikin (2021) analyzed the practices of developing mathematical giftedness in the context of the Soviet school system while citing other important initiatives related to STEM, such as Mathematically Precocious Youth, a longitudinal study of 5,000 individuals (Lubinski et al., 2006). That study showed that mathematical talent could transfer into talents in other STEM subjects. Leikin also mentioned special New York schools for gifted students that aimed at enrichment and acceleration in STEM education (Weinberg, 2016, cited by Leikin, 2021). However, research points to creativity being (mostly) independent area of giftedness. Hong and Aqui (2004) distinguished between students who were either academically gifted or creatively gifted in mathematics. Academically gifted students show a high achievement in school mathematics while creatively gifted students are highly interested, active, and/or accomplished in mathematics, without necessarily being high achievers in school mathematics (Meier & Grabner, 2022). 

Sternberg’s (2011) augmented theory of successful intelligence highlights aspects of teaching and assessment that may result in students academically performing below their intellectual potential. Apparently, such instruction is “narrow in conceptualization, rigid in implementation, and inappropriate for the subject matter being taught” (Sternberg, 2019, p. 105). In essence, “Schools need to teach students how to ask the right questions (questions that are good, thought-provoking, and interesting) and lessen the emphasis on rote learning” (Sternberg, 2003, p. 118).

We are open to national and international comparative studies exploring students’ giftedness and creativity development traditions and approaches, as well as their evolution in STEM education context. In particular, we invite studies that address how STEM education context is exploited for nurturing giftedness and creativity in different countries, as well as the tensions that arise with existing practices.

What pedagogical methods, resources and tools, are conducive to nurturing giftedness, creativity, and talent in STEM education? What are the conditions and supports for successful diffusion and implementation of these practices in classroom realities? What are the difficulties and obstacles for enacting of these practices in classrooms? What are the implications of these practices on teacher education and teacher professional development?

There is ample research (Bicer, 2021; Bicer et al., 2020; Leikin, 2021; Li, Schoenfeld, et al., 2019) that sheds light on giftedness and the development of talent and creativity in the contexts of separate STEM disciplines, such as mathematics, science, technology, and design thinking. Indeed, Bicer (2021) distinguishes between the discipline-related instructional practices that support mathematics creativity and those that are general:

The discipline-specific instructional practices were problem-solving, problem-posing, open-ended questions, multiple solution tasks, tasks with more than one correct answer, modeling/ model-eliciting activities, technology integration, extendable tasks, and emphasizing abstractness of mathematics. The general instructional practices were providing students with ample time to think creatively about real-world related mathematical problems in a judgment free and collaborative classroom environment so that they take risks to share their mathematical ideas and use informal words. (p. 252)

Bicer suggests that, “further research could be conducted to reveal the instructional practices that influence the creativity of students in other STEM fields and … if the suggested practices can be applicable to other STEM-related disciplines” (p. 274).

In response to Bicer, we ask: What instructional practices might support creativity and talent development in integrated STEM education?

A country-comparison project initiated by Australian scholars collected 23 reports from different parts of the world about STEM provision in school and tertiary education to illustrate “the importance of inquiry, reasoning, and creativity and design in school science and mathematics curriculum” (Freeman et al., 2019, p. 357). Robichaud and Freiman (2020) pointed at the fertility of more informal contexts, such as makerspaces, that arise within and beyond K-12 schooling. Apparently, making their first steps as STEM innovators (learning to code, to use 3D printer, and to design), promotes interest of young learners in advanced studies in STEM domains. Indeed, the context of technological invention and innovation, which is at heart of maker movement, has attracted many famous gifted and talented people who have marked history with ingenious creations aimed at solving practical issues of everyday life (Freiman & Tassell, 2018).

Yet, in a larger context of integrative STEM education, what is the nature of giftedness and creativity, and how are they related to each other? What are the roles of technology and technology-enhanced pedagogies in nurturing student STEM creativity (Milner-Bolotin, 2020; Pozdniakov & Freiman, 2021)? When talking about the giftedness in STEM, whom do we refer to (students and/or teachers?) and what are specific aspects to consider when defining STEM as a field of study in gifted education? Exploring these initial questions will lead to the first direction of the Special Issue which overall aims at deepening discussion about integrative approaches in STEM education while focusing on its connection to creativity and talent development. The second set of questions is concerned with teaching approaches to nurture creativity, giftedness, and talent in a variety of educational (formal and informal) settings. Further, the role of the supportive environment seems to be a key element of promising practices in educating creative and gifted people, hence looking into extending opportunities using, among others, technology, will also be examined. 

Finally, the findings featured in the Special Issue will have significant implications for teacher education and teacher professional development. Indeed, preparing teachers for STEM education faces a lot of challenges. In the context of Singapore, Teo and Ke (2014) highlight a need to conduct in-service programs for teachers in certain areas of need, such as “acquiring and adapting pedagogies for teaching learners who are highly able and motivated to learn science, and constructing instruments that measure multiple dimensions of these students’ learning that traditional written national examinations cannot measure” (p. 24). The authors argue that 'this would inevitably pose challenges to teacher educators who would have to have up-to-date knowledge of STEM teachers’ challenges and needs and be responsive to their demands for professional upgrading” (p.266). In a context of creativity, Milner-Bolotin (2018) discussed an issue of enhancing students’ creative thinking by using computer-supported modelling. Yet, this approach requires teachers of mathematics to develop intuition about potential of virtual simulations along with confidence of their own ability to think creatively. The author provides examples of her work with teacher-candidates which strengthens this ability while looking into potential of modelling and simulation for solving complex problems in many STEM fields.

We welcome empirical studies that present the examples of effective pedagogical approaches, task design practices and resources for nurturing students’ giftedness and creativity as well as for teacher professional development in the context of STEM education. We also invite the studies that shed light on the challenges of integration of these approaches in the classroom realities of student and teacher practices as well as those that uncover the underlying factors.    

Authors intending to submit articles to this 2025 Special Issue should submit an abstract to Dr. Martinovic (dragana@uwindsor.ca (this opens in a new tab)) by September 30, 2023. The abstract should be between 500 – 1000 words (Times Roman font, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12pt font) and must include all co-authors’ names and affiliations. The abstract should address the following aspects: clearly states if it is an empirical study or a position/theoretical paper; purpose of the study in relation to the theme of the Special Issue; theoretical framework; methodology (if applicable); as well as anticipated findings and/or implications. Invited authors will submit a full paper by April 30, 2024. All special issue manuscripts will undergo standard journal reviews. The International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (IJSME) manuscript guidelines can be found at https://www.springer.com/journal/10763/submission-guidelines

Important Dates

September 30, 2023 – Submission of abstracts. 

October 31, 2023 – Invitation for full-submission. 

April 30, 2024 – Full submission to Springer online “Editorial Manager” system.

May 31, 2024 – Manuscripts sent out for peer-review.

July 31, 2024 – Peer-review complete.

December 31, 2024 – Final manuscript due.

Mid 2025 – Special issue published.

About the editors:

Viktor Freiman is a Professor of mathematics education at Université de Moncton, Canada. His research focuses on technology, creativity, giftedness, problem-solving, soft skills, and innovations in mathematics education and beyond from a holistic interdisciplinary perspective targeting full potential of each learner. He is director of the CompeTI.CA partnership network (ICT competencies in the Atlantic Canada) and president of the International Group for Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness.

Dragana Martinovic is a Professor Emerita at University of Windsor, Canada, and a Fields Institute Fellow. In her research, Dragana explores knowledge for teaching mathematics, ways in which technology can assist in teaching and learning of mathematics, and epistemologies of STEM disciplines in relation to teacher and K–12 education. For questions about this call and to submit abstracts, connect via dragana@uwindsor.ca (this opens in a new tab)

Marina Milner-Bolotin is a Professor of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. She studies how modern technologies can facilitate the development of future and practising teachers’ capacity for implementing active learning environments, as well as engage students in STEM learning. She is also actively involved in STEM outreach, such as University of British Columbia Physics Olympics and British Columbia Scientists and Innovators in the Schools organization.

Maryna Rafalska is an Associate Professor of mathematical education at the laboratory LINE at the Université Côte d’Azur, France. Her research interests encompass the development of computational thinking, creativity and problem-solving competence of primary and secondary school students in a mathematics class as well as when they are engaged in STEM activities. She also studies teachers’ professional development in the context of STEM integration through the analysis of their interactions with different kind of resources.  

References:

Bicer, A. (2021). A systematic literature review: Discipline-specific and general instructional practices fostering the mathematical creativity of students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 252-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1254

Bicer, A., Lee, Y., Perihan, C., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2020). Considering mathematical creative self-efficacy with problem posing as a measure of mathematical creativity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 457-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09995-8

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (1998). 1998 Biennial Report to The United States Congress. T. U. S. Congress. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/ceose991/ceose991.html

Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Helix Books - Perseus Books.

Freeman, B., Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Sahin, A., & Mohr-Schroeder, M. J. (2019). STEM Education 2.0: Myths and Truths – What Has K-12 STEM Education Research Taught Us? In An International View of STEM Education (pp. 350-363). Brill. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019; https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400

Freiman, V., & Tassell, J. L. (2018). Leveraging mathematics creativity by using technology: Questions, issues, solutions, and innovative paths. In V. Freiman & J. Tassel (Eds.), Creativity and Technology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3-29). Springer.

Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and Motivational Characteristics of Adolescents Gifted in Mathematics: Comparisons Among Students With Different Types of Giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800304

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Third ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Leikin, R. (2021). When practice needs more research: the nature and nurture of mathematical giftedness. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(7), 1579-1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01276-9

Li, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Wang, K. (2019). Learning about research and readership development in STEM education: A systematic analysis of the journal’s publications from 2014 to 2018. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-8.

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93-104.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychol Sci, 17(3), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x

Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2022). Problematizing STEM: What it is, what it is not, and why it matters. In C. Michelsen, A. Beckmann, V. Freiman, U. Thomas Jankvist, & A. Savard (Eds.), 15 Years of MACAS (Mathematics and its Connections to the Arts and Sciences) (pp. 135-162). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-10518-0_8

McComas, W. F., & Burgin, S. R. (2020). A Critique of “STEM” Education. Science & Education, 29(4), 805-829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2

Meier, M. A., & Grabner, R. H. (2022). The roles of intelligence and creativity for learning mathematics. In M. Danesi (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics. Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_6-1

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and Technology in Math Education (pp. 251-278). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319723792

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020). Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology in STEM Teacher Education. In Y. Ben-David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM Teachers and Teaching in the Era of Change: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st Century Schools (pp. 201-219). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3

Pozdniakov, S., & Freiman, V. (2021). Technology-supported innovations in mathematics education during the last 30 years: Russian perspective. ZDM – Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01279-6

Robichaud, X., & Freiman, V. (2020). Creativity as a Learning Factor in an Interdisciplinary Environment Including Mathematics, Music, and Technology. In A. Savard & R. Pearce (Eds.), MACAS in the Digital Era: Proceedings of the 2019 MACAS Symposium (pp. 79-95). McGill University.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813032000163807

Sternberg, R. J. (2011). The theory of successful intelligence. In The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. (pp. 504-527). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977244.026

Sternberg, R. J. (2019). Teaching and assessing gifted students in STEM disciplines through the augmented theory of successful intelligence. High Ability Studies, 30(1-2), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1528847

Teo, T. W., & Ke, K. J. (2014). Challenges in STEM Teaching: Implication for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education Program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862116

Wolfmeyer, M., & Chesky, N. (2015). Philosophy of STEM Education: A Critical Investigation. Palgrave Macmillan.