Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Review article

Talent development in natural science in elementary school: A

juxtaposition of research and practice
Elena Mack a, *, Moritz Breit a, Mireille Krischler b, Jessica Gnas a, Franzis Preckel a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Universitaetsring 15, 54286 Trier, Germany
b
Department of Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, 11 Porte des Sciences, 4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

h i g h l i g h t s

The teacher's perspective is rarely considered when developing working theories of talent development.

We identified important predictors of natural science talent development through an extensive literature search.

We compared teacher contributions with the scientific findings to reach a common working theory.

Teachers and researchers share a multidimensional and dynamic understanding of natural science talent.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We present a working theory of person-related predictors of talent development in natural science
Received 29 September 2020 during elementary school. The working theory resulted from the juxtaposition of scientific findings and
Received in revised form teachers' expertise. The results showed that both teachers and researchers conceive of talent develop-
11 March 2021
ment in natural science as a complex process including abilities, personality traits, and skills as pre-
Accepted 15 April 2021
Available online 13 May 2021
dictors. However, teachers focused mainly on skills whereas the scientific literature emphasized
cognitive abilities. The working theory can be used for the identification and promotion of natural sci-
ence talent and the development of teachers' diagnostic skills to assess students’ potential in natural
Keywords:
Talent development
science.
Science © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
STEM
Elementary school
Teachers' diagnostic skills

Contents

1. Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Science-specific talent development models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The present study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Teacher workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.3. Juxtaposition of scientific literature and teacher expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.4. Discussion of the working theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. General intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Spatial abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mack@uni-trier.de (E. Mack).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103366
0742-051X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

5.1.3. Numerical abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5.1.4. Verbal abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.5. Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.6. Working memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.7. Observational abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Personality traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Interest or intrinsic motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. Investment traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.4. Academic self-concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.5. Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1. Subject-specific knowledge and skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.2. Self-regulatory skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.3. Behavioral engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Strengths and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Practical applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Project LUPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Development of the working theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Characteristics of the studies included in the working theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Overview of the identified constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Talent development can generally be defined as the trans- practitioners and researchers is drawn together (Bryk, 2015;
formation of a person's potential for achievement into actual Hargreaves, 1996; Leitch & Day, 2000). To involve practitioners in
achievement in a domain (Subotnik et al., 2011). Developing in- research, different approaches have been proposed and applied, for
tellectual talent is crucial in light of the increasingly complex and example cooperative inquiry (Heron & Reason, 2006), action
dynamic physical and social systems we live in. Constructs related research (Leitch & Day, 2000), community action research (Ozanne
to talent development in natural science are gaining importance for & Anderson, 2010), research-practice partnerships (Yurkofsky et al.,
many kinds of careers, highlighting the significance of identifying 2020), design-based research (The Design-Based Research Collec-
and facilitating the development of science talent (Lubinski & tive, 2013), or networked improvement communities (Bryk, 2015).
Benbow, 2006). Systematic talent identification can start as early These approaches present a continuum of different possibilities of
as elementary school. Engagement with scientific thinking can start how to involve practitioners in research to successfully implement
before formal schooling (Kuhn, 2002; Zimmerman, 2007); how- scientific findings and ensure their usefulness in practice. Some
ever, elementary school provides the first systematic instruction in approaches allow for more involvement of practitioners through
natural science for many children. Elementary school teachers thus the selection of research questions, the collection and evaluation of
play an important role in identifying and fostering potential for data, and the implementation of the results in their practice. In
achievement in natural science. Teachers' identification of potential other approaches, practitioners are the source of the data with a
requires diagnostic skills (Brunner et al., 2013). Trittel et al. (2014) systematic recording of their professional experience being the
argued that professional development in diagnostics is severely product of the research. Regardless of the approach, teachers have a
underrepresented in teacher education. Meta-analyses reveal that valuable perspective and considerable knowledge that should be
as a group, teachers are quite good at assessing student charac- included in educational research.
teristics; however, the diagnostic skills of individual teachers vary Incorporating the teachers' perspective is important for reach-
considerably (Machts et al., 2016; Südkamp et al., 2012). Further- ing a common working theory that includes a shared comprehen-
more, underachieving students with high potential are almost sion of natural science talent development between practitioners
never identified by their teachers (Hanses & Rost, 1998), nor are and researchers and is accepted by both. A shared theory increases
students whose potential lies in “unusual” domains, such as girls its practicality (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2013). It can
with a high potential for achievement in mathematics (Cimpian improve teachers' diagnostic process through sensitizing them to
et al., 2016; Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2014). certain predictors of natural science talent. The diagnostic process
To promote the diagnostic skills of teachers for assessing and in education is a complex process with iterative cycles and different
fostering potential in natural science, scientific evidence is needed assessment steps. Based on a goal or question, it includes the for-
concerning which student variables comprise potential in this mation of a hypothesis (e.g., related to the verbal abilities of a
domain. To enable teachers to use this knowledge in evidence- student), the selection of methods to test the hypothesis (e.g., tests,
based practice, it is important to translate this evidence for prac- interviews, or observations), and the collection and analysis of data
tical applications. In other words, it is essential to build on a to finally reach a diagnostic judgment (Herppich et al., 2018).
working theory of natural science talent development that is both Teachers' sensitization to important predictors of talent develop-
based on scientific evidence and understood and shared by teach- ment can influence the generation of hypotheses, the selection of
ers (Bryk, 2015). methods, and diagnostic judgement formation. Moreover, the
The introduction of scientifically-informed practice to education working theory indicates starting points for teachers to identify and
is often assumed to be more successful if the expertise of both support talent in students, which might support teachers’

2
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
diagnostic self-efficacy.
Previous working theories and overviews of science talent
development were limited to summaries of the scientific literature
(e.g., Mullet et al., 2017) or did not include the developmental
perspective needed for education (e.g., Feist, 1993). This perspective
is crucial to investigate the validity of predictors of talent devel-
opment between adjacent levels and to gain insight in how these
levels might be linked to critical time windows or age (Preckel et al.,
2020).
Therefore, we used a general talent development framework
and applied it to the domain of natural science by identifying
predictors of natural science achievement, with a focus on
elementary school, in a comprehensive literature search. We then
compared the scientific with the practical perspective by including
elementary school teachers' expertise. We communicated the sci-
entific evidence to the teachers and discussed the correspondence
of the scientific and the practical view to reach a common working
theory. Teachers’ perspective revealed the specific denominations
of the teachers for different constructs and the suitability of our
working theory for practical application.
1. Theoretical framework
We used the Talent Development in Achievement Domains
(TAD) framework (Preckel et al., 2020, Fig. 1) as a springboard for
formulating our working theory of talent development in natural
science because this framework was explicitly created to “act as a
starting point for the development of domain-specific models”
(Preckel et al., 2020, p. 2). As predictors and indicators of talent
development are understood to be largely domain-specific, not one
single model can sufficiently describe the developmental processes
for all achievement domains simultaneously. The TAD framework
describes the talent development process through four successive
levels; the first two are the most relevant for talent development in
Fig. 1. The Talent Development in Achievement Domains (TAD) Framework (taken from Preckel et al., 2020, p. 697, open access).
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
natural science in elementary school:
1. Aptitude describes the constellation of factors that are predictive
of an individual's positive development of achievement or
future performance. These factors would predispose a person
towards becoming interested in or engaging in activities rele-
vant to a particular kind of domain like natural science. Aptitude
is indicated in a natural fit between the person and the content
or challenges of that domain, in the ease and speed of learning
new content, and frequently by high levels of activity in the form
of playful engagement and discovery.
2. Competence refers to a cluster of related and systemically
developed abilities, knowledge, and skills that enable a person
to act effectively in a situation with multiple options. Usually,
competence is acquired by successful and systematic learning
under formal tutelage (Gagne
& McPherson, 2016).
3. Expertise refers to a high level of consistently superior achieve-
ment; experts have a strong grasp of their field and are capable
of generating good solutions to important domain problems
(Subotnik et al., 2019). Expertise is acquired through particu-
larized education, constant investment, and the intelligent
application of gained knowledge and skills.
4. Transformational achievement refers to levels of accomplishment
that go beyond expertise by generating creative responses or
interpretations that require breaking domain boundaries or
creating new questions. Transformational achievement can be
comprised of a single high-impact innovation or multiple
achievements that span an entire career. Making a trans-
formational achievement requires creative problem formula-
tion, persistent motivation, and psychological strength.
The TAD framework conceptualizes talent development as
dependent on multiple factors, with a focus on person-related
variables including cognitive abilities (e.g., intelligence),
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness), and psychosocial as well
as subject-specific skills (e.g., self-regulatory skills and scientific
thinking). Subject-specific skills develop through the investment of
general abilities in the acquisition of specific knowledge or skills by
taking advantage of learning opportunities (Preckel et al., 2020).
The importance of person-related variables can vary depending on
the level of talent development and the specific domain. In
response to this dynamic, potential is defined as the constellation of
person-related factors that impact an individual's likelihood of
successfully progressing to the next level within the domain. That
is, what comprises potential can change with developmental level.
For example, the importance of agreeableness for academic
achievement decreases with educational level (Poropat, 2009).
Therefore, the TAD framework suggests investigating the predictive
validity of constructs to the next developmental level rather than
long-term contributions toward the last level. According to the TAD
framework, there is a trajectory in talent development that moves
from general abilities to specific skills and competencies, and the
framework includes empirical evidence on the predictive validity of
these variables for achievement at different levels within the talent
development process (Lubinski, 2016; Nisbett et al., 2012; Strenze,
2007; Zaboski et al., 2018). It further integrates empirical evidence
and theoretical assumptions on the internal processes that lead to
interest and success in a domain, like one's ability-personality
profile formation (Lohman et al., 2008; Makel et al., 2016; Park
et al., 2007). Examples for the application of the TAD framework
to different domains are available for mathematics, music, and vi-
sual arts. The application requires a summary of the current state of
talent-development research in a domain. Afterwards, the devel-
opmental trajectories in this domain can be described in line with
the framework. However, in order to obtain a working theory with
high practical applicability, the teachers' perspective needs to be
included in this approach.
For the development of our working theory, we adopted the
following assumptions derived from the TAD framework: We
differentiated between abilities, personality traits, and skills as
predictors for talent development in natural science; we assumed
that their relative importance might change over time; and we
considered talent development to be largely domain-specific. We
employed these assumptions to build a working theory of natural
science talent development that further includes the expertise of
both practitioners and researchers in the following way: First, we
reviewed the empirical evidence for domain-specific predictors
within different levels of the talent development process. The
resulting list of predictors were compared with the professional
knowledge and perspective of teachers. The scientific and practical
views were juxtaposed and the results were discussed in order to
reach a common understanding and therefore a working theory of
natural science talent development that can be accepted and used
by scientists and practitioners.
2. Science-specific talent development models
Very few science-specific models or working theories of talent
development exist and none of them focuses on the early stages of
school education. Simonton (2008) defines science talent as a
process involving domain-specific expertise or, more precisely, “as
any feature of natural endowment that has one or both of the
following two effects” (p. 31): First, it enhances training, and sec-
ond, it enhances performance. Enhanced training can result from
“personal characteristics required to engage in the arduous
learning and practice necessary to reach mastery of a given scien-
tific domain” (p. 31). It involves the acquisition of expertise and
mainly takes place from childhood through early adulthood. Per-
formance enhancement, on the other hand, mainly takes place
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
during the course of adulthood and is characterized by the mani-
festation of talent. This conceptualization of science talent assumes
that intellectual and personality traits are important predictors of
high science achievement and that their importance may vary
within the talent development process (e.g., between training and
performance). In his quantitative model of science talent, Simonton
(2008) estimated the genetic influence of personality and intel-
lectual traits (e.g., dominance, self-acceptance, intelligence) on
science training and performance of adults. The focus of this
approach lies on the genetic contribution of predictors of science
talent in adulthood; general influences of these and other pre-
dictors (e.g., subject-specific skills), beyond their genetic contri-
bution, or earlier stages of the talent development process are
largely neglected in this conceptualization.
Feist (2006) identified several personality traits that increase
interest in science (e.g., conscientiousness, confidence, dominance)
and make scientific creativity more likely (e.g., openness to expe-
rience, self-confidence, intrinsic motivation). In his “structural
model of scientific eminence” (Feist, 1993) he focused on specific
traits (i.e., hostile personality, arrogant working style, extrinsic
motivation) as predictors of scientific talent within the last stage of
the talent development process (i.e., eminence).
Based on a literature review, Mullet et al. (2017) developed the
“conceptual model of women's talent development in STEM”, a
model with nested structures, where each level of talent develop-
ment is located inside the next. The first level focuses on personal
characteristics, which influence the cognition, behavior, and
emotion of a woman. The second level focuses on meaningful
interpersonal relationships, which influence women's engagement
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The
third level focuses on influences in the institutional context, such as
opportunities or expectations. Finally, the fourth level focuses on
cultural ideologies in STEM, such as gender norms. STEM talent
development is conceived as a dynamic process that does not
necessarily follow a fixed sequence. For example, a positive social
relationship can influence individual characteristics such as values
or perceptions. However, individual characteristics (e.g., cognitive
abilities) are only one part of the model, which also places a strong
emphasis on relational, institutional, and cultural influences.
Furthermore, in science didactics and international comparison
studies, the focus lies on specific tasks, such as simple knowledge
reproduction. Accordingly, these approaches focus on indicators of
science achievement as opposed to predictors of science talent
development (e.g., Bos et al., 2007).
In sum, the few existing science-specific models or working
theories of talent development do not consider the perspective of
practitioners in addition to scientific findings. They rarely focus on
individual predictors or the developmental perspective needed for
education. It is important to distinguish between different devel-
opmental levels because the achievement-related prerequisites in
natural science can vary over time and children starting school have
to meet different requirements than advanced learners (Preckel
et al., 2020). Nevertheless, these models provide insight into
which predictors will become important in later phases of talent
development and these fundamentals and precursors may need to
be developed from early on.
3. The present study
The present study was conducted in Germany. In the German
school system, natural science is taught throughout elementary
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
school,1 together with social science, earth and space science,
technology, and local history in a combined school subject (i.e.,
“Sachunterricht”; Gesellschaft fuer Didaktik des Sachunterrichts,
2013). The precise curriculum varies across the 16 federal states
in Germany, but basic concepts of natural science (biology, physics,
and chemistry) are usually included (Mullis et al., 2021). In our
study, we focused on natural science talent, which plays an
important part in international comparison studies regarding sci-
ence education in elementary school (Mullis et al., 2021).
Our study was conducted as part of the German federal project
LUPE ("Leistung unterstützen, Potenziale erkennen," i.e., support
performance, recognize potential). A main goal of project LUPE is to
support the diagnostic skills elementary school teachers need to
identify talented students in natural science in the regular class-
room. To reach this goal, elementary schools are scientifically
supported in the implementation of new diagnostic strategies (see
Appendix A). The rationale of the project LUPE is to (a) develop a
working theory that researchers and teachers share and agree upon
and (b) to use this working theory for the development of diag-
nostic strategies and materials.
The present study addresses part (a) above: We aimed to
develop a working theory of talent development in natural science
that is grounded in science and shared by both practitioners and
researchers. Based on the TAD framework assumptions, we there-
fore conducted a systematic literature search of meta-analyses and
reviews covering the predictors of achievement and its develop-
ment in natural science in elementary school-aged students. Then,
together with elementary school teachers, we compiled teachers’
conceptions of talent development in natural science in elementary
school in workshops. We matched the teacher contributions with
the scientific findings, compared both perspectives, and discussed
the results with the teachers involved in the project LUPE in order
to reach a common working theory.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
The sample comprised 98 teachers (88% female) from 11
German elementary schools that were part of the project LUPE. The
gender distribution in our sample corresponds to the general
gender distribution for teachers at German elementary schools
(89% female; Federal Statistical Office, 2020). All teachers were
qualified to teach natural science and had experience in teaching
natural science, mathematics, or both. The teachers each partici-
pated in a 2-h teacher workshop (overall eight workshops) with six
to 28 participants. Two to three members of the research team were
present at each workshop. The participating schools are located in
five different federal states of Germany. Three schools reported
more than 5 years of experience in the systematic identification and
promotion of academically talented students, three schools re-
ported between 3 and 5 years of experience, and five schools re-
ported less than 3 years of experience.
4.2. Procedure
For the development of our working theory, we designed and
applied an approach for juxtaposing the scientific literature and
practical experience in four steps (see Appendix B). In Step 1, we
conducted a literature search to identify relevant person-related
1
Elementary school in Germany comprises the first four years of school in all
federal states except in Berlin and Brandenburg, where it comprises the first six
years.
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
predictors of natural science talent development. In Step 2, we
conducted workshops in which teachers identified traits and
behavioral characteristics of students with high potential in natural
science at different stages of elementary school. In Step 3, we
matched the teacher suggestions and scientific constructs and
compared both perspectives based on the general structure of the
TAD framework (Preckel et al., 2020). We differentiated between
abilities, personality traits, and skills as predictors for natural sci-
ence talent development and assumed that their relative impor-
tance may change over time. In Step 4, we presented the teachers
our predictor list and discussed the findings together.
4.2.1. Literature review
In the TAD framework, Preckel et al. (2020) outlined general
predictors and processes of talent development at different levels
of the talent development process, as well as predictors of talent
development in three different domains (i.e., mathematics, music,
and visual arts). Regardless of the domain, the predictors can be
assigned to a person's abilities, personality, and skills. There are a
large number of potentially relevant constructs for natural science
talent development. We therefore decided against a systematic
review of individual empirical studies and instead conducted a
systematic literature search of meta-analyses and reviews.
The selection of constructs included in the literature search was
based on multiple criteria: the TAD framework assumptions
(Preckel et al., 2020), discussions with experts in the field of science
talent and education (i.e., Ilonca Hardy, Kerstin Ho €ner, Hilde
Ko€ster), comprehensive reviews of the literature (e.g., Brühwiler
et al., 2017; Hattie, 2009; Helmke & Weinert, 1997; Lipnevich
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 1993), and the research team's expert
knowledge of variables related to academic achievement and its
development. Our literature search was conducted in the literature
databases PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES using the following search
string: “(«name of constructs [and respective synonyms]») (ab-
stract) AND science/or scientific/or stem/or biology/or chemistry/or
physics (all fields) AND school*/or students/or grade*/or children
(abstract) AND achievement/or performance/or abilit*/or skills
(abstract) AND review/or meta-analysis (abstract).” If this search
did not return any relevant results, it was repeated with “school*/or
students/or grade*/or children” searched in all fields. For each
predictor included in our study, meta-analyses or reviews were
available (see Appendix C). We included only papers written in the
English language, published after 1990 in peer-reviewed journals,
and referring to school-aged children. We checked the references of
the reviews found by this search procedure to find further reviews,
and we only searched for individual empirical studies if meta-
analyses or reviews specific to elementary school or the science
domain were not available for the identified construct (see
Appendix C). The final selection of individual studies was based on
expert nominations.
4.2.2. Teacher workshops
The workshops are embedded in a long-term qualification
process with the aim of teacher professionalization regarding the
recognition of students’ potential in natural science. Prior to the
workshops, we used several online learning modules to impart
basic theoretical knowledge about attitudes and stereotypes
regarding talented students, factors influencing judgment forma-
tion, observation methods, and diagnostic competencies. The
following workshops marked the starting point of our cooperation
with the schools. Ever since, we have continued our work with the
teachers in the context of working groups and conferences to
deepen their knowledge and jointly develop materials for the
identification of potential in natural science, based on our common
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
working theory (see Appendix A).
Within the workshops, the scientific results of our literature
review were presented after conducting group discussions about
talent development in natural science in elementary school, to
prevent the teachers from being influenced by the scientific
perspective. For the group discussions, the teachers were provided
with four different questions. First, all questions were presented
and explained. Then, teachers answered the questions individually,
discussed their suggestions in the group, and reported all sugges-
tions they agreed upon as a group. Afterwards, they documented
their results on posters for each question individually. The four
question were:
1. Which abilities, skills, and characteristics of children promise a
positive development in natural science at the beginning of
elementary school (Grades 1 and 2)? How are these visible in
concrete teaching situations?
2. Which abilities, skills, and characteristics should have been
developed by the end of Grade 2 to enable a continued positive
performance and development in natural science in Grades 3
and 4? How are these visible in concrete teaching situations?
3. Which abilities, skills, and characteristics important for a posi-
tive development in natural science become visible or relevant
for the first time in Grades 3 and 4? How do these become
visible in concrete teaching situations?
4. Which abilities, skills, and characteristics should be developed
in Grades 3 and 4 in order to enable a continued positive per-
formance and development in natural science in secondary
school?
The aim of the group discussions was to verify the practicality of
our predictor list of talent development in two steps. First, we
wanted to examine the consensus between the literature findings
and the teachers' views; this included an alignment of the scientific
names and the teachers’ wording of constructs. Second, we wanted
to detect what factors teachers may be less familiar with and what
they focus on, visible through the frequency of their suggestions.
4.2.3. Juxtaposition of scientific literature and teacher expertise
The research team used the workshop results for the juxtapo-
sition of the scientific perspective and the practical perspective of
the teachers. Two independent raters matched the traits and be-
haviors listed by the teachers to the best fitting person-related
constructs identified by the scientific literature. Any disagreement
was resolved by discussion with a third rater. Construct definitions
and empirical evidence for the relations between the construct and
natural science achievement were acquired through the scientific
literature. The teachers’ perspective added information about
which constructs were especially visible in the classroom and
relevant at different stages of elementary school. The juxtaposition
revealed which constructs were not visible in the classroom or
were not considered as science-specific by the teachers despite
their relevance in the scientific literature, and vice versa. The
juxtaposition further revealed the specific terms and de-
nominations that the teachers used for the various constructs. This
information helped to improve the communication between
research and practice through the translation of the scientific
constructs into the language of the teachers.
4.2.4. Discussion of the working theory
We presented the juxtaposition to the teachers in subsequent
teacher training workshops and discussed the multidimensional
and dynamic conception of natural science talent development, as
well as the predictors of talent development at different class levels
in elementary school. By doing so, we ensured that the teachers
6
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
understood the results and that we adequately reflected their
perspective in the working theory. We ensured that we spoke a
common language by aligning the meaning of the different con-
cepts and predictors in group discussions.
5. Results and discussion
Table 1 presents all constructs, including all teacher suggestions
matched to the constructs, and a summary of relevant scientific
findings for each construct. All constructs are grouped into abilities,
personality traits, and skills.
5.1. Abilities
5.1.1. General intelligence
One frequently used definition of general intelligence is offered
by Linda Gottfredson (1997, p. 13; see also Nisbett et al., 2012):
“[Intelligence] … involves the ability to reason, plan, solve prob-
lems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly
and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow
academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader
and deeper capability for comprehending our surroun-
dingsd“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out”
what to do.” In the scientific literature, general intelligence is the
best predictor of academic performance in many different domains
(Kuncel et al., 2004). Roth et al. (2015) found in their meta-analysis
that school grades in math and science show the strongest relations
with intelligence of all school subjects (r ¼ 0.49). In elementary
school, there is already a significant relation between scientific
reasoning and intelligence, with a correlation of r ¼ 0.38, and be-
tween scientific reasoning and problem solving, with a correlation
of r ¼ 0.46 (Mayer et al., 2014). Altogether, problem solving proved
to be the best predictor of scientific reasoning, along with verbal
abilities (standardized path coefficient of b ¼ 0.26; Mayer et al.,
2014). The teachers in our study mostly named abilities associ-
ated with general intelligence, for example, “problem solving
ability,” “abstraction capability,” and “complexity,” with increasing
frequency towards the end of elementary school (5, 3, 11; n for the
beginning, middle, and end of elementary school). In comparison,
they named relatively few other abilities (see below). Accordingly,
teachers and scientific results agree that general intelligence is the
most important ability for the prediction of science achievement in
school.
5.1.2. Spatial abilities
Spatial abilities contain abilities related to spatial perception,
mental rotation, and spatial visualization (Linn & Petersen, 1985).
Research with children often focuses on mental rotation (Geer et al.,
2019). In the literature, spatial abilities contribute to learning,
development of expertise, and securing advanced educational and
occupational credentials in STEM fields (Lubinski, 2010). Moreover,
higher spatial abilities are predictive of later attainment in the
math-science domain (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). No meta-
analytic evidence for the role of spatial abilities in elementary
school was available, but an empirical study found a significant
correlation of r ¼ 0.37 between spatial abilities and scientific
reasoning in fourth graders (Mayer et al., 2014). The teachers did
not name any abilities associated with spatial abilities. It is possible
that spatial abilities are rarely demanded in early science educa-
tion. Therefore, teachers do not seem acquainted with spatial
abilities as a predictor of natural science talent in elementary
school and their focus lies on other abilities.
5.1.3. Numerical abilities
Early numerical abilities comprise the understanding and
 Table 1

E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.

The perspective of teachers and science on natural science talent development in elementary school.

Teacher perspective Scientific perspective

At the start of elementary school Grade 1 and 2 Grade 3 and 4

Abilities

General Intelligence Conceptional capabilities Complexity Detecting relations, relating Of all subjects, general intelligence and school grades show the strongest relation in
Problem solving ability Abstraction capability different topics to each other science and math combined (r ¼ .49).a (M)
Making connections x2 Problem solving strategies for independent Problem solving ability In elementary school, there is already a substantial relation between scientific
Apprehension knowledge acquisition Abstraction capability x2 reasoning and general intelligence (r ¼ .38).b (I)
Ability to generalize
Deduction x2
Complexity
Understanding increasingly
complex structures
Systematizing
Problem solving strategies
Spatial Abilities Spatial abilities contribute to learning, development of expertise, and securing
advanced educational and occupational credentials in STEM.c (R)
Higher spatial abilities are predictive of later attainment in the math-science domaind
(R)
and are related to scientific reasoning in fourth graders (r ¼ .37).b (I)
Numerical Abilities Early numerical abilities are important predictors of school-age mathematical learning
and achievement.e (R) Most students with very high numerical abilities pursue
undergraduate math/inorganic science degrees. To excel in math-science career tracks,
individuals need high levels of quantitative reasoning abilities.d (R)
Verbal Abilities Categorization Verbalizing of processes using technical Language competence For natural science and positive occupational outcomes in this domain, verbal abilities
Verbalization of observations language High reading ability x2 are as important as mathematical and spatial abilities.d (R) Already in elementary
Language Verbalizing findings Precise verbalizing of school, there is a substantial relation between scientific reasoning and reading
Picture descriptions Reading ability x2 processes comprehension (b ¼ .26).b (I)
7

Ability to explain Ability to explain

Verbalizing and use of
technical language
Creativity Creativity x2 Creative proposed solutions Creativity x2 There is a modest but significant relation between creativity and academic
Changing perspective Divergent thinking achievement (r ¼ .22) in different domains, including science. This effect is larger for
Creative proposed solutions middle school students than for elementary students.f (M) Scientific creativity
correlates moderately with science achievement (r ¼ .43) in sixth graders.g (I)
Working Memory Working memory is positively related to mathematics (r ¼ .27e.38)h (M) and science
achievement (r ¼ .32e.50).i (R)
Observational Perception x2 Observational ability Observing closely x2
Abilities Observational ability (perceiving Training observational ability
details and relationships)
Observational ability

Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Personality

Conscientiousness Thorough work Thorough work Structured presentation Conscientiousness is moderately correlated with general academic achievement
Systematic approach Methodical approach (r ¼ .19e.43), with increasing associations towards the end of primary school.j,k (M)
Following steps in the correct Compared with the other Big Five personality dimensions it shows the strongest
order association with general academic performance in grades 1e7 (r ¼ .43).k (M)
Working in a structured
manner
Interest or Intrinsic Interest in the environment x2 Strengthening of interest x2 Maintaining interest Intrinsic motivation is a good predictor for achievement in math and science subjects
Motivation Committed to own topics of interest Giving others access to own combined (b ¼ .17e.41).I (M & I)
Joy interests For interest, the relation to academic achievement increases with grade level; it is
Interest x2 Joy, enthusiasm especially important when students can choose courses.m (R) In addition, individuals'
Interest in provided materials Motivation to further valuing of activities is important for the choice about whether to continue the
Intrinsic motivation improve, proactive behavior activities; this holds for children in first grade already and strengthens with age.m (R)
Investment Traits Curiosity x7 Curiosity Openness x3 Highly creative scientists score a third of a standard deviation higher on openness
(Need for Asking questions/experimentation Engaging oneself in new compared to less creative scientists.n (M) For grades 1e7, openness showed the second
(continued on next page)
 Table 1 (continued )

E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.

Teacher perspective Scientific perspective

At the start of elementary school Grade 1 and 2 Grade 3 and 4

Cognition, Asking questions to adults theories strongest relation to general academic achievement out of all personality traits
Openness) Openness x2 Questions, inquisitiveness (r ¼ .37).k (M) No positive relations were observed between need for cognition and
Clever conversations and questions general academic achievement or potential in grade 3, but in grades 6 and 9, indicating
Describing images, visiting the increasing importance of this construct over time.o (I)
library, learning excursions
Interest in presented material
Joy of experimentation x2
Thirst for knowledge
Why-questions
Lego
Asking advanced questions
Specific questions
Academic Self- Positive self-concept Self-concept (confidence, Academic self-concept is both, cause (r ¼ .20e27) and effect (r ¼ .19e25) of
Concept self-assessment) achievement.p (M) It is a predictor of future-oriented motivation to aspire to a career in
science (b ¼ .46e53).q (I)
Self-Efficacy Self-confidence Mathematical performance is a predictor of subsequent self-efficacy in children
(b ¼ .13) but not vice versa.r (M) In high school students self-efficacy is predictive of
science achievement (b ¼ .53e.55).q (I)

Skills

Subject-Specific Conducting small experiments Variety of methods x2 Specialized knowledge Scientific reasoning is an important skill for the development of science talent.s (R) The
Knowledge and Knowledge about the environment, Working techniques and methods (astronomy) ability of scientific thinking can be distinguished as a construct different from text
Skills technical language, domain-specific Media competence Broad general knowledge comprehension or from general intelligencet (I) and it is predictive of science content
factual knowledge General knowledge acquired and Formulating and testing knowledge in early age (b ¼ .31).u (I)
Experiences in nature and everyday consolidated hypotheses
life Presentation of topics Using prior knowledge
8

Working techniques: posters, Protocols, data

presentations, protocols, observations, interpretation, comparing,
measurements, literature research deduction
First own experimentations Source analysis
Approaches Media competence
Technical language (PowerPoint, research,
Documentation typing)
Ability to ask questions Autonomously conducting
small experiments and
protocolling observations
Protocols
Presentations x2
Posters

Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Projects x2
Different work techniques
for different problems
Individual organizational
structures
Technical language x2
Applying work techniques
sensibly
Self-Regulatory Perseverance, patience, time, Perseverance Perseverance Already in preschool and early school years there is a significant relation between self-
Skills management Self-organization Self-organization regulation and general academic performance (r ¼ .27e.28).v,w (M) This relation seems
Concentration and perseverance Action planning Independent, self-confident, to be higher for achievement in science disciplines than for linguistic disciplines
Persistence Approaches of action planning persistent (d ¼ .45).x (M)
Concentration x2 Reflection Concentration and
Perseverance x3 perseverance
Action planning Autonomy
Working independently x2

Behavioral Ability to cooperate x2
Engagement Joy in exchanging views/information
Joy in presentations
Partner work
Social and emotional competencies
Looking for attention
Bringing objects from home
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
Knowledge acquisition
Self-organization and self-
responsibility
Social and emotional skills (empathy, Team work Behavioral engagement is positively related to general academic achievement in
communication, cooperation) Presentation ability school (r ¼ .35).y (M)
Team work Capacity for teamwork To accomplish exceptional scientific accomplishments commitment in and outside of
Social skills: exchange, control, helping Result presentations school is essential.d (R)
Consolidated social
competence
Presentations, projects
Working techniques
Seeking and selecting
information x2
Commitment

Note. Columns 2e4 show the transcribed teacher suggestions to the questions asked in the workshops, column 4 presents a short summary of the scientific perspective on the psychological constructs in natural science talent
development. The references for the scientific perspective are listed below. x number ¼ frequency with which a construct was named (no indication means that a construct was named once). M ¼ meta-analysis, R ¼ review,
I ¼ individual study.
References:
a
Roth et al., 2015 (M)
b
Mayer et al., 2014 (I)
c
Lubinski, 2010 (R)
d
Lubinski & Benbow, 2006 (R)
e
Raghubar & Barnes, 2017 (R)
f
Gajda et al., 2017 (M)
g
Huang et al., 2017 (I)
h
Friso-van den Bos et al., 2013 (M)
i
Yuan et al., 2006 (R)
j
Poropat, 2009 (M)
k
Poropat, 2014 (M)
l
Taylor et al., 2014 (M & I)
9

m
Wigfield & Cambria, 2010 (R)
n
Feist, 1998 (M)
o
Luong et al., 2017 (I)
p
Huang, 2011 (M)
q
Jansen et al., 2015 (I)
r
Talsma et al., 2018 (M)
s
Sternberg, 2018 (R)
t
Koerber et al., 2015 (I)
u
Koerber & Osterhaus, 2019 (I)
v
Robson et al., 2020 (M)
w
Allan et al., 2014 (M)
x
Li et al., 2018 (M)
y
Lei et al., 2018 (M)

Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
manipulation of symbolic and non-symbolic numbers, including
the skills to count and to understand the meaning of number words
(Raghubar & Barnes, 2017). These abilities are important predictors
of mathematical learning and achievement in school (Raghubar &
Barnes, 2017). Research on numerical abilities and talent in sci-
ence domains suggests that specific disciplines chosen by in-
dividuals are related to their ability profile. Most students with very
high numerical abilities pursue undergraduate math/inorganic
science degrees (Lubinski, 2016). To excel in math-science career
tracks, individuals need high quantitative reasoning abilities
(Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Teachers did not name any numerical
abilities despite the important role of numbers in many natural
sciences, such as graph reading performance (Ludewig et al., 2020).
It appears that in elementary school, the role of numerical abilities
is not perceived to be as important for natural science achievement
as other abilities. The focus of the scientific literature also lies on
other abilities; no meta-analysis or review about the relation be-
tween numerical abilities and talent in natural science in elemen-
tary school was available.
5.1.4. Verbal abilities
Verbal abilities, such as reading, word fluency, or language
comprehension are crucial for success in science, given the
communication skills required and the need to comprehend
densely written technical articles in the science field (Halpern et al.,
2007). Additionally, the ability to categorize natural objects and to
label identified categories is essential in the biological domain
(Feist, 2004). However, categorization research disregards indi-
vidual differences in categorization skills and no specific studies on
the relationship between categorization and natural science talent
can be found (Feist, 2004). Nevertheless, several studies regarding
predictors of science talent investigate general cognitive abilities,
which include verbal abilities. For example, Kaufman et al. (2016)
found a significant relation between creative achievement in sci-
ence and general intelligence, including verbal abilities (r ¼ 0.27).
These verbal abilities are often measured, for example, through the
Similarities subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale (e.g.,
Kaufman et al., 2016), which is an indicator for categorization skills.
For natural science, like physics, verbal abilities seem to be as
important as mathematical and spatial abilities for positive occu-
pational outcomes in this area, whereas relatively higher
numerical-spatial ability profiles are more typical for individuals
pursuing careers in engineering, math, or computer science
(Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). However, students with exceptional
verbal abilities and relatively lower quantitative reasoning and
spatial abilities often pursue careers in areas outside of STEM fields
(Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). There is a lack of meta-analytic evi-
dence or reviews connecting verbal abilities to elementary school
achievement in natural science. An empirical study showed a
substantial relationship between scientific reasoning and reading
comprehension (standardized path coefficient of b ¼ 0.26) in
elementary schoolchildren (Mayer et al., 2014). Teachers in our
study supported the relevance of verbal abilities for natural science
by naming various skills like “reading ability,” “verbalizing of pro-
cesses,” and “categorization” for all class levels (4, 5, 6; n for the
beginning, middle, and end of elementary school). Teachers viewed
verbal abilities as the second most important abilities after general
intelligence for natural science in all grades of elementary school.
This finding is at odds with the finding that numerical and spatial
abilities are as important as verbal abilities for individuals pursuing
science careers. However, the relevance of these predictors might
change over time and teachers‘ suggestions indicate that verbal
abilities are more important in elementary school than numerical
or spatial abilities.
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
5.1.5. Creativity
Creativity means the ability to produce novel and simulta-
neously useful work (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Divergent thinking
represents one component of creativity and reflects the ability to
generate many distinct ideas that are original (Runco & Bahleda,
1987). There is modest but statistically significant evidence for a
positive relation between creativity and academic achievement in
different domains, including science, with an average correlation of
r ¼ 0.22 (Gajda et al., 2017). The relation was larger in middle school
than in elementary school. Further, scientific creativity in sixth
graders, measured through their divergent thinking ability in sci-
ence, correlated moderately with science achievement (r ¼ 0.43;
Huang et al., 2017). The teachers in our study listed skills associated
with creativity more often for the end of elementary school (2, 2, 4;
n for the beginning, middle, and end of elementary school). That is,
both the scientific perspective and the practical perspective seem
to suggest that the importance of creativity for natural science
achievement increases with age.
5.1.6. Working memory
Working memory can be defined as a “system that temporarily
stores information as part of the performance of complex cognitive
tasks” (Baddeley, 1992, p. 559). It predicts performance on different
tasks, including language comprehension and reasoning (Baddeley,
1992). Whereas working memory has shown a close relation with
mathematics achievement in primary school (r ¼ 0.27e0.38; Friso-
van den Bos et al., 2013), evidence for its relation with natural
science achievement in elementary school is lacking. For secondary
school students, a review of correlational studies confirmed a close
relationship between working memory and science achievement
with correlations ranging from r ¼ 0.32 to 0.50 (Yuan et al., 2006).
No teacher suggestions were associated with working memory,
indicating that teachers are not as acquainted with the technical
term of working memory or possibly perceive this ability as a part
of general intelligence rather than as a separate construct. Hence, it
might be difficult to recognize as an individual indicator of natural
science potential in children.
5.1.7. Observational abilities
Observations are essential to scientific activity and discovery
and often include complex mental processes (Norris, 1985). Despite
the fact that observational abilities are often referred to as an
important predictor of scientific learning (e.g., Eberbach & Crowley,
2009), there is no meta-analysis or review regarding this construct
and natural science achievement. Conversely, teachers named
numerous skills associated with observational skills, mainly for the
beginning of elementary school (4, 2, 2; n for the beginning, middle,
and end of elementary school). Suggestions included “perception,”
“observational ability,” and “observing closely.” This shows a
neglect of observational abilities in scientific research, although
these abilities seem to be of high practical relevance in the
classroom.
5.2. Personality traits
5.2.1. Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is a personality trait characterized by
competence, deliberation, dutifulness, order, self-discipline, and
achievement striving (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Within the framing of
the Big Five model of personality, meta-analyses identified
conscientiousness as the most important predictor of general aca-
demic achievement out of all personality traits, with correlations
between r ¼ 0.19 across all academic levels combined (primary,
secondary, and tertiary; Poropat, 2009) and r ¼ 0.43 in grades 1e7
(Poropat, 2014). The importance of conscientiousness for general
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
academic achievement in primary school increased with age
(Poropat, 2009). However, no science-specific literature for
conscientiousness in elementary school was available. A longitu-
dinal study in secondary school indicated a significant relation
between conscientiousness and performance in science (r ¼ 0.51;
Eilam et al., 2009). Teachers in our study listed only a few traits
related to conscientiousness with increasing frequency towards the
end of elementary school (1, 2, 4; n for the beginning, middle, and
end of elementary school). These suggestions included “thorough
work,” “systematic approach,” and “working in a structured
manner.” The scientific literature and teachers agree that consci-
entiousness gains in importance over the course of elementary
school.
5.2.2. Interest or intrinsic motivation
Interests can be defined as “dispositions that are based on
mental schemata associating the objects of interest with positive
experiences and the personal value system” (Koeller et al., 2001, p.
449). Academic interest is characterized by the engagement with
specific classes or content that can be promoted in the educational
context (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). As a result, intrinsic motivation
“refers to behaviors performed out of interest and enjoyment”
(Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002, p. 37). Meta-analytic findings showed a
moderately strong relation between intrinsic motivation and aca-
demic achievement (d ¼ 0.27, CI ¼ 0.23, 0.32; Taylor et al., 2014).
Intrinsic motivation had a stronger relation with achievement in
high school than in elementary school. Longitudinal studies with
high school students supported this relation for achievement in
math and science subjects combined, with path coefficients be-
tween b ¼ 0.17 and b ¼ 0.41 between prior intrinsic motivation and
subsequent achievement (Taylor et al., 2014). Whereas interest in
natural science declines across school years, its relation to academic
achievement increases with higher grade levels when students
have a choice between courses (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). In
addition, individuals’ valuing of activities is important for the
choice about whether to continue these activities; this already
holds for students in first grade and strengthens with age (Wigfield
& Cambria, 2010). Teachers listed traits related to interest or
intrinsic motivation especially for the beginning of elementary
school (8, 2, 4; n for the beginning, middle, and end of elementary
school), such as “interest in the environment,” “joy,” and “intrinsic
motivation.” Thus, teachers seem to perceive the decrease in in-
terest across grade levels more strongly than its increasing influ-
ence on achievement.
5.2.3. Investment traits
Intellectual investment traits such as openness, curiosity, and
need for cognition can be defined as “stable individual differences
in the tendency to seek out, engage in, enjoy, and continuously
pursue opportunities for effortful cognitive activity” (von Stumm
et al., 2011, p. 225). The results of a meta-analysis, including par-
ticipants from junior high school to adults, pointed to a complex
relation between openness and science achievement (Feist, 1998).
Whereas openness to experience was only a weak discriminator
when comparing scientists and non-scientists, highly creative sci-
entists scored a third of a standard deviation higher on openness
compared to less creative scientists. Another meta-analysis iden-
tified openness as the second most important personality trait,
after conscientiousness, for general achievement in grades 1e7
(r ¼ 0.37; Poropat, 2014). An empirical study examined the re-
lations between need for cognition and general academic
achievement or potential (in mathematics, first language, and
foreign language) and found no significant relations in grade 3, but
positive relations in grades 6 and 9, indicating increasing impor-
tance of this construct over time (Luong et al., 2017). Of all
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
constructs, teachers listed by far the most traits associated with
investment traits for the beginning of elementary school (21, 1, 5; n
for the beginning, middle, and end of elementary school). The
teacher suggestions included “curiosity,” “asking questions,”
“openness,” and “thirst for knowledge.” Therefore, teachers regard
investment traits as the most important traits for talent in natural
science at the start of elementary school, whereas the scientific
literature points to an increasing importance of investment traits,
especially with regard to need for cognition, over grade levels.
Different investment traits should be considered separately when
investigating their shift in importance within the talent develop-
ment process.
5.2.4. Academic self-concept
Academic self-concept refers to a person's perception of them-
self with regard to their ability to achieve in academic domains
(Shavelson et al., 1976). Academic self-concept is both a cause and
an effect of achievement. A meta-analysis reported significant re-
lations between prior self-concept and subsequent general
achievement, with correlations between r ¼ 0.20 and 0.27, and
between prior achievement and subsequent self-concept, with
correlations between r ¼ 0.19 and 0.25 (for students between 5.11
and 20 years; Huang, 2011). The relation between prior achieve-
ment and subsequent self-concept decreased as the age of the
sample increased. For prior self-concept and subsequent achieve-
ment, results were mixed. Empirical studies with high school stu-
dents found subject-specific relations between self-concept and
grades in science classes and revealed self-concept as a predictor of
future-oriented motivation to aspire to a career in science, with
path coefficients between b ¼ 0.46 and 0.53 (Jansen et al., 2014;
Jansen et al., 2015). Teachers listed only “positive self-concept” and
“self-concept (confidence, self-assessment)” for the middle and end
of elementary school (0, 1, 1; n for the beginning, middle, and end of
elementary school). It may be difficult for teachers to distinguish
domain-specific self-concepts or they might think of academic self-
concept as a domain-general construct. In addition, the influence of
achievement on self-concept may be more visible in the classroom
than the reverse effect.
5.2.5. Self-efficacy
Perceived self-efficacy can be defined as “people's beliefs about
their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that
exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (Bandura,
1994, p. 1). Meta-analytic evidence showed a positive moderate
effect of mathematical performance on subsequent self-efficacy in
children (b ¼ 0.13), but no effect of self-efficacy on subsequent
performance (b ¼ 0.02; Talsma et al., 2018). One explanation for
this unidirectional relation might be a possible lack of calibration
between self-efficacy and performance in children compared to
adults (Talsma et al., 2018). An empirical study reported science-
specific self-efficacy as a good predictor of science achievement
(b ¼ 0.53e0.55) and future-oriented motivation in high school
students (b ¼ 0.12e0.39; Jansen et al., 2015). “Self-confidence” was
the only teacher suggestion associated with self-efficacy, and it was
identified as relevant only to the end of elementary school (0, 0, 1; n
for the beginning, middle, and end of elementary school). The lack
of suggestions may be due to the fact that self-efficacy plays an
important role in the development of talent not only in natural
science but in all achievement domains and is therefore not
perceived as a science-specific trait that needs to be developed.
5.3. Skills
5.3.1. Subject-specific knowledge and skills
Science-specific knowledge and skills, such as generating
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
hypotheses and experiments or drawing conclusions, are highly
relevant for the development of scientific achievement (Sternberg,
2018). These skills and knowledge can also be subsumed under the
concept of scientific thinking or scientific reasoning, a form of
knowledge seeking that depends on theory-evidence coordination
and begins developing in children as young as preschool (Kuhn,
2002; Zimmerman, 2007). In the scientific literature, scientific
thinking is considered both a predictor (e.g., Koerber & Osterhaus,
2019) and an indicator (e.g., Osterhaus et al., 2017) of science talent
development and achievement. A meta-analysis on scientific
thinking as a predictor of achievement in natural science has not
been conducted. However, empirical studies in kindergarten and
elementary school found scientific thinking to be independent of
intelligence, text comprehension, and therefore of reasoning in
general (Koerber et al., 2015). Additionally, scientific thinking is a
predictor of science content knowledge, with a path coefficient of
b ¼ 0.31 (Koerber & Osterhaus, 2019). Teachers in our study viewed
science-specific knowledge and skills as by far the most important
construct in the natural science domain for the middle and end of
elementary school (3, 12, 19; n for the beginning, middle, and end of
elementary school). This is understandable, considering the fact
that teachers are trained to detect and assess their students’ skills
on a daily basis. Suggestions associated with science-specific
knowledge and skills included “documentation,” “formulating
and testing hypotheses,” and “data interpretation.”
5.3.2. Self-regulatory skills
Self-regulation, or students’ ability to volitionally maintain
emotional, motivational, and cognitive arousal that is beneficial for
the attainment of their learning goals (Blair & Diamond, 2008), has
been found to be positively related to academic achievement in
elementary school (Robson et al., 2020). A correlation of r ¼ 0.28
was found for the relation between self-regulation in early school
years and academic performance (math and literacy) in later school
years. Self-regulatory skills assessed in preschool, such as inhibitory
control, seem to be important for general academic performance in
the early school years, with correlations between r ¼ 0.27 (Allan
et al., 2014) and r ¼ 0.28 (Robson et al., 2020). For science disci-
plines, meta-analytic results indicated that self-regulated learning
strategies, such as goal setting and self-evaluation, have a larger
effect on science achievement (d ¼ 0.45) compared to language
achievement (Li et al., 2018). Teachers seem to agree with the sci-
entific literature regarding the importance of self-regulatory skills.
They submitted numerous suggestions for all stages of elementary
school (9, 5, 9; n for the beginning, middle, and end of elementary
school), including “perseverance,” “self-organization,” and “work-
ing independently.”
5.3.3. Behavioral engagement
Behavioral engagement describes the participation of students
in their learning and includes involvement in academic activities
(Fredricks et al., 2004). It is important for achieving positive aca-
demic outcomes and is moderately and positively related to general
academic achievement in school-aged children, with a significant
correlation of r ¼ 0.35 (Lei et al., 2018). Additionally, (Lubinski &
Benbow, 2006, p. 1) state, “extraordinary scientific accomplish-
ments require extraordinary commitment both in and outside of
school.” Teachers also perceived behavioral engagement as an
important skill in all stages of elementary school, especially in the
beginning and the end, including “ability to cooperate,” “team
work,” and “joy in presentation” (8, 3, 10; n for the beginning,
middle, and end of elementary school). The suggestions highlight
that teachers tend to focus on social aspects of behavioral
engagement.
12
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
5.4. Summary
Through the juxtaposition of the scientific and practical
perspective, it became apparent which predictors the teachers or
the literature focused on most, which predictors were less visible in
elementary classrooms, and how the importance of predictors for
talent development may change over time. In Appendix D, all
identified constructs are summarized and the frequency of teacher
suggestions for each construct is presented, regardless of the
importance of constructs in the scientific literature. Our working
theory consists of several predictors of natural science talent
development, identified through a scientific review. It follows the
notion of the TAD framework and therefore all predictors (a) are
grouped into abilities, personality traits, and skills, (b) are consid-
ered to be domain-specific, and (c) their importance can vary
depending on the level of talent development. We focused on talent
development in elementary school and therefore on the talent
development levels of aptitude and competence from the TAD
framework (see Fig. 1). Expertise occurs rarely in elementary school
and transformational achievement not at all. Still, in natural sci-
ence, several predictors manifest themselves very early and can
reveal potential in this domain.
6. General discussion
We developed a working theory of talent development in nat-
ural science in elementary school through the juxtaposition of
scientific findings and teacher expertise regarding relevant person-
related predictors. We discussed our results with the teachers in
subsequent training workshops. The teachers gave the feedback
that they understood and shared the assumptions of the working
theory. They agreed to use it as a basis for future cooperative work
concerning natural science talent development.
Altogether, the review of the scientific literature revealed
important abilities, personality traits, and skills as predictors for
natural science talent (Table 1). The teacher suggestions revealed
which constructs were less focused on by the teachers. Although
abilities were considered to be highly relevant for natural science
talent development in the scientific literature, teachers did not
nominate several relevant abilities (i.e., spatial abilities, numerical
ability, and working memory). Further, they rarely mentioned the
personality traits of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. This
may have different reasons. First, teachers might be less familiar
with these constructs or the technical terms used in the scientific
literature. Second, the constructs could be less visible in the
classroom and therefore difficult to recognize as a predictor or in-
dicator of talented children in natural science. A related reason
could be that the scientific literature does not always match the
actual courses of action in classrooms, where several person-
related constructs co-develop simultaneously. Additionally, teach-
ers may perceive some constructs as important for the educational
context in general rather than as a science-specific predictor. On the
other hand, one construct (i.e., observational abilities) was often
referenced by the teachers and seems to be of high practical rele-
vance but was neglected in the scientific literature. Whereas the
scientific literature concentrated on cognitive abilities and per-
sonality traits as predictors of natural science talent development
(e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Yuan et al., 2006), teachers viewed skills as
comparatively more important and mostly nominated specific
skills (e.g., subject-specific knowledge and skills, self-regulatory
skills, and behavioral engagement). This finding is not surprising,
considering the fact that teachers are trained to detect, assess, and
foster their students' skills. They focus on skills that promote sci-
ence learning in all stages of elementary school. Teachers submitted
suggestions related to science-specific knowledge and skills with
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
increasing frequency over the course of elementary school, and out
of all constructs, the most suggestions for the middle and end of
elementary school were associated with skills. This emphasizes the
accumulation of skills with every school year, which is accompa-
nied by its increasing visibility in the classroom. Nevertheless, the
accumulation of skills requires a learning history, which in turn is
tied to conditions such as a good learning environment or the
promotion of students. Here, potential may be overlooked. This
focus on students' performance instead of potential was recently
investigated in a survey among seventh graders and their teachers
(Lavrijsen & Verschueren, 2020). High ability judgments by teach-
ers were found to depend more on students' achievement (grade
point average) than on their cognitive potential (intelligence),
although teachers were instructed to distinguish between
achievement and potential. This highlights the necessity to pro-
mote teachers’ diagnostic skills with regard to recognizing
potential.
There was also scientific and practical consensus about the
importance of a range of abilities (i.e., general intelligence, verbal
ability, creativity) and personality traits (i.e., conscientiousness,
interest or intrinsic motivation, investment traits). Both views
agreed that general intelligence is the most important ability for
the prediction of achievement in natural science. Another impor-
tant result was that the teachers and researchers share a multidi-
mensional and dynamic understanding of talent development.
The teachers also added some perspective about the importance
of the constructs for different stages of elementary school (see
Appendix D), where the scientific literature often lacks longitudinal
evidence. Here, the number of suggestions indicated that some
constructs gained importance toward the end of elementary school
(i.e., general intelligence, verbal ability, creativity, conscientious-
ness, subject-specific knowledge and skills), whereas others were
considered most relevant for the beginning of elementary school
(i.e., observational abilities, interest or intrinsic motivation, in-
vestment traits) or relatively stable over time (i.e., self-regulatory
skills and behavioral engagement). Still, for some constructs the
literature and the teachers indicated a different shift in importance.
For example, the literature indicates the increasing importance of
investment traits over school grades, especially with regard to need
for cognition, whereas teacher suggestions point to a decrease in
importance over time. Nevertheless, the frequencies of teacher
answers cannot be viewed as validation evidence because they are
no experts in identifying science talent and our sample was too
small to reliably determine the temporal distribution of the con-
structs. Additionally, the observed trends in the frequencies of
teacher suggestions could also result from the visibility of the
construct in the classroom or the wording of the questions. Hence,
longitudinal evidence is needed to examine the relative importance
of these constructs (see, e.g., Lyons et al., 2014) and compare these
results with the perception of teachers.
6.1. Strengths and limitations
The present article has both strengths and weaknesses. One
strength is that we conducted a broad literature review informed
by the TAD framework (Preckel et al., 2020). We therefore
13
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
considered a wide range of person-related constructs, grouped into
abilities, personality traits, and skills, resulting in a comprehensive
description of predictors of natural science talent development in
elementary school. Another strength is that we presented the first
juxtaposition of scientific findings and the perspective of practi-
tioners on the development of talent in natural science in
elementary school. A similar approach may be used successfully in
different teacher professionalization workshops to compare
teachers’ experience with scientific evidence to develop a common
understanding and identify similarities and differences between
research and practice.
One limitation of our research is that our workshops were only
conducted in Germany. It is unclear if the results can be transferred
to other countries and educational systems. A second limitation is
that our sample was part of project LUPE. Participants may there-
fore be especially motivated to fostering talent in natural science.
This may have led to more self-study and knowledge among the
participants as compared to other unselected teachers. Addition-
ally, we were not allowed to collect any personal data of the
participating teachers within the project, such as their age or in-
dividual work experience. This information might be relevant in
that teachers with more work experience could have accumulated
more knowledge that is professional. Such knowledge plays an
important role in developing teachers' diagnostic competencies
(Jansen et al., 2021). However, empirical findings on the influence
of experience on diagnostic competencies of teachers for identi-
fying talent are inconsistent (Dicke et al., 2012; Jansen et al., 2021).
A third limitation is that we did not conduct systematic literature
searches of single empirical studies because of the numerous
relevant constructs we took into account. Nonetheless, we could
provide a broad overview of the scientific literature by conducting
systematic searches of meta-analyses and reviews, and com-
plementing our findings with frequently cited empirical studies
specific to science and/or elementary school. A fourth limitation is
that several of the meta-analyses and reviews did not provide
science-specific outcomes for elementary school. Therefore, we
included evidence from higher school grades and it is uncertain
whether these results can directly be applied to elementary school.
Nevertheless, the evidence on secondary education can be located
at the competence level of the TAD framework, a level that can
already be reached at elementary school-age. Further, evidence
from higher school grades informs us about abilities, personality
traits, or skills that will become important later on and their fun-
damentals are laid in elementary school, which marks the begin-
ning of formal education and the earliest time for systematic
science talent identification and fostering. A fifth limitation is
related to the collection of teacher suggestions. The number of
responses and the way they were obtained (e.g., group discussions)
excluded further qualitative or quantitative analysis. Lastly, due to
our small sample we were not able to develop a teacher-based
model of natural science talent development. For this important
step toward reconciling teachers' perspective with scientific evi-
dence, a larger database would be needed including teachers from
different schools outside of project LUPE. Nevertheless, our study
provides a first insight into teachers’ conceptions of natural science
talent and its development in different grade levels.
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
6.2. Practical applications
Our working theory can be used for the identification and pro-
motion of potential in natural science and the training of diagnostic
skills of teachers in multiple ways. For the identification of poten-
tial, teachers can particularly focus on behavioral indicators related
to the abilities, personality traits, and skills of our working theory.
Additionally, existing school material can be examined for diag-
nostic potential related to the constructs, and then used for iden-
tification purposes. Preferably, this identification of potential and
suitable diagnostic material should be implemented through a
cooperation between scientists and practitioners. Practitioners are
best qualified to detect behavioral indicators and to judge the dif-
ficulty of tasks when selecting appropriate school material with
diagnostic information. Scientists, however, contribute conceptual
knowledge about the constructs and the diagnostic information in
school material.
For the promotion of natural science talent, our working theory
can be used as an orientation for teachers regarding which abilities,
personality traits, and skills are important to successfully develop
in elementary school. Within each of these groups (e.g., abilities)
resources of students can be promoted. For example, the promotion
of abilities like creativity can be accomplished through tasks, which
challenge the respective ability. Open tasks, such as the assignment
to generate as many different research questions as possible,
related to given materials, allow students to activate their resources
and surprise with new and original ideas. Personality traits like
science self-concept and science interest can be developed within
the educational context (Hulleman et al., 2016). For example, to
promote self-concept, it is important to give positive performance
feedback and to focus on a students' individual development rather
than on social comparisons between students when providing this
feedback. In addition, the acquisition of science-specific skills and
knowledge is important for natural science talent development and
sensitive to intervention within the classroom (Osterhaus et al.,
2017). For example, tasks where students have to design their
own experiment promote science-specific skills, such as the control
of variables. Psychosocial skills enable students to continue on
demanding talent development paths despite setbacks or anxiety.
They can be enhanced through challenging educational opportu-
nities and social support (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2016) and
through the formation of routines and predictable structures
within the classroom (Ursache et al., 2012).
14
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
Finally, for the training of teachers' diagnostic skills, the working
theory presents individual constructs that teachers can focus on
while observing their students systematically in the classroom. Our
study showed that teachers focus on skills and may not be as
acquainted with the abilities and personality traits that are as
relevant for talent development or how to detect them (e.g., aca-
demic self-concept in natural science). Additionally, it may be
difficult to focus one's observation of students on specific con-
structs, and consequently potential can be easily overlooked.
Therefore, it is relevant to alert teachers to observable aspects of
relevant person-related predictors and indicators. Only then can
teachers gather objective information about these constructs in the
classroom and accurately detect scientific talent (Helmke et al.,
2004). For example, the divergent thinking component of crea-
tivity can be assessed through focusing on the quantity, diversity,
and innovativeness of the ideas students come up with when
generating research questions. In the end, it is desirable that
teachers are able to focus on different constructs simultaneously
and develop an understanding of natural science talent develop-
ment in elementary school and the connecting predictors and
indicators.
Author note
This work is part of the project LUPE, which is funded by the
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) of Germany
(grant number: 01JW1801P). Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to Elena Mack, Department of Psy-
chology, Giftedness Research and Education, University of Trier,
Universitaetsring 15, 54286 Trier, Germany. E-mail: mack@uni-
trier.de.
Appendix A. Project LUPE
In project LUPE, based on a common working theory of natural
science talent, we develop specialized teaching materials in coop-
eration with teachers and didactics experts. These materials aim to
promote the diagnostic skills of teachers by creating observation
opportunities for individual predictors of natural science talent in
class. Teachers test the materials in the classroom and their feed-
back and experiences are used to further improve the materials.
Final versions are made available to all project teachers.
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Appendix B. Development of the working theory

15
 E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Appendix C. Characteristics of the studies included in the

working theory

Construct Study Type Domain Grade level

General Intelligence Roth et al., 2015 M Math & Science ES to high school
Mayer et al., 2014 I Science ES (grade 4)
Spatial Abilities Lubinski, 2010 R STEM SS
Lubinski & Benbow, 2006 R Math & Science SS
Mayer et al., 2014 I Science ES (grade 4)
Numerical Abilities Lubinski & Benbow, 2006 R Math & Science SS
Raghubar & Barnes, 2017 R Math ES
Verbal Abilities Lubinski & Benbow, 2006 R Math & Science SS
Mayer et al., 2014 I Science ES (grade 4)
Creativity Gajda et al., 2017 M GA (Science included) ES to university
Huang et al., 2017 I Science SS
Working Memory Friso-van den Bos et al., 2013 M Math ES
Yuan et al., 2006 R Science SS
Observational Abilities
Conscientiousness Poropat, 2009 M GA ES
Poropat, 2014 M GA ES
Eilam et al., 2009 I Science SS
Interest or Intrinsic Motivation Taylor et al., 2014 M GA ES to university
I Math & Science SS
Wigfield & Cambria, 2010 R Science ES
Investment Traits (Need for Cognition, Openness) Feist, 1998 M Science SS
Poropat, 2014 M GA ES
Luong et al., 2017 I GA ES (grade 3)
Academic Self-Concept Huang, 2011 M GA ES to university
Jansen et al., 2015 I Science SS
Self-Efficacy Talsma et al., 2018 M Math ES
Jansen et al., 2015 I Science SS
Subject-Specific Knowledge and Skills Sternberg, 2018 R Science Students (not specified)
Koerber & Osterhaus, 2019 I Science Kindergarten (6-year-olds)
Koerber et al., 2015 I Science ES (grades 2, 3, 4)
Self-Regulatory Skills Robson et al., 2020 M GA ES
Allan et al., 2014 M GA Preschool to kindergarten
Li et al., 2018 M Science ES
Behavioral Engagement Lubinski & Benbow, 2006 R Science SS
Lei et al., 2018 M GA ES to high school

Note. Column 2 presents an overview of the studies included in the working theory, column 3 specifies the study-type (M ¼ meta-analysis, R ¼ review, I ¼ individual study),
column 4 presents which domain(s) are covered by the study and focused on in the working theory (STEM ¼ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
Math ¼ mathematics, GA ¼ general achievement), column 5 specifies which grade levels are covered by the study and focused on in the working theory (ES ¼ elementary or
primary school, SS ¼ secondary school).

16
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366

Appendix D. Overview of the identified constructs

Constructs identified as relevant for the development of talent

in natural science through the scientific literature, ordered by the
number of teacher suggestions associated with each construct.

References assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64(1), 21e50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2
Dicke, A.-L., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., & Nagy, N. (2012). Judging students’
Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Re-
achievement goal orientations: Are teacher ratings accurate? Learning and In-
lations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in
dividual Differences, 22(6), 844e849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.004
preschool and kindergarten: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50(10),
Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How
2368e2379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037493
children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research,
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556e559. https://
79(1), 39e68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325899
doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
Eilam, B., Zeidner, M., & Aharon, I. (2009). Student conscientiousness, self-regulated
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
learning, and science achievement: An explorative field study. Psychology in the
Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman (Ed.)
Schools, 46(5), 420e432. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20387
(1998), Encyclopedia of Mental Health. Academic Press).
Federal Statistical Office. (2020, October 22). Teaching staff, total, and percentage
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention:
share of female teachers by school type and hours worked. https://www.destatis.
The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure.
de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Education-Research-Culture/Schools/
Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 899e911. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Tables/teaching-staff-total-percentage-share-female-teachers-school-type-
S0954579408000436
hours-worked.html.
Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R., & Walther, G. (2007).
Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science,
Erste Ergebnisse aus IGLU: Schülerleistungen am Ende der vierten Jahrgangs-
4(6), 366e371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00583.x
stufe im internationalen Vergleich [Initial results from IGLU: International
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
comparison of pupils’ achievements at the end of the fourth grade]. Sozial-
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290e309. https://doi.org/10.1207/
wissenschaftlicher Fachinformationsdienst soFid, 2007(1), 9e46.
s15327957pspr0204_5
Brühwiler, C., Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (2017). Determinanten der Schulleis-
Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In
tung [Determinants of school performance]. In M. Schweer (Ed.), Lehrer-Schüler-
€nge (pp. R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to
Interaktion: Inhaltsfelder, Forschungsperspektiven und methodische Zuga
realization (pp. 57e82). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/
291e314). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15083-9_13.
10.1037/10692-005.
Brunner, M., Anders, Y., Hachfeld, A., & Krauss, S. (2013). The diagnostic skills of
Feist, G. J. (2006). How development and personality influence scientific thought,
mathematics teachers. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann,
interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 163e182. https://
S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics class-
doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.163
room and professional competence of teachers (pp. 229e248). Springer. https://
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_11.
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),
Bryk, A. S. (2015). 2014 AERA distinguished lecture: Accelerating how we learn to
59e109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467e477. https://doi.org/10.3102/
Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H.
0013189X15621543
(2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-
Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., Timmer, J. D., Makowski, M. B., & Miller, E. K. (2016).
analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Have gender gaps in math closed? Achievement, teacher perceptions, and
j.edurev.2013.05.003
learning behaviors across two ECLS-K cohorts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1e19. https://
Gagne
, F., & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Analyzing musical prodigiousness using
doi.org/10.1177/2332858416673617
Gagne
’s integrative model of talent development. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.),
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality

17
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
Musical prodigies (pp. 3e114). Oxford University Press.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2),
269e299. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133
Geer, E. A., Quinn, J. M., & Ganley, C. M. (2019). Relations between spatial skills and
math performance in elementary school children: A longitudinal investigation.
Developmental Psychology, 55(3), 637e652. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000649
Gesellschaft fuer Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. (2013). Perspektivrahmen Sachun-
terricht [perspective frame: General science]. Julius Klinkhardt.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52
signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13e23.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A.
(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1e51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-
1006.2007.00032.x
Hanses, P., & Rost, D. H. (1998). Das “Drama” der hochbegabten Underachiever:
“Gewo €hnliche” oder “außergewo €hnliche” Underachiever? [The “drama” of the
gifted underachievers: “Ordinary” or “extraordinary” underachievers?]. German
Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(1), 53e71.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and
prospects. The Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800þ meta-analyses on achieve-
ment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Helmke, A., Hosenfeld, I., & Schrader, F. W. (2004). Vergleichsarbeiten als Instru-
ment zur Verbesserung der Diagnosekompetenz von Lehrkra €ften [Comparative
tests as an instrument to improvement of teachers’ diagnostic competence]. In
R. Arnold & C. Griese (Eds.), Schulleitung und Schulentwicklung (pp. 119e144).
Schneider.
Helmke, A., & Weinert, F. E. (1997). Bedingungsfaktoren schulischer Leistungen
[Conditional factors of school performance]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Psychologie
des Unterrichts und der Schule (pp. 71e176). Hogrefe.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’
rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action
research: Concise paperback edition (pp. 144e153). Sage.
Herppich, S., Praetorius, A. K., Fo€rster, N., Glogger-Frey, I., Karst, K., Leutner, D., et al.
(2018). Teachers’ assessment competence: Integrating knowledge-, process-,
and product-oriented approaches into a competence-oriented conceptual
model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 181e193. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2017.12.001
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111e127. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4102_4
Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of
longitudinal relations. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 505e528. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.001
Huang, P. S., Peng, S. L., Chen, H. C., Tseng, L. C., & Hsu, L. C. (2017). The relative
influences of domain knowledge and domain-general divergent thinking on
scientific creativity and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
25, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.001
Hulleman, C. S., Barron, K. E., Kosovich, J. J., & Lazowski, R. A. (2016). Student
motivation: Current theories, constructs, and interventions within an
expectancy-value framework. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts
(Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research,
and practice (pp. 241e278). Springer International.
Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students’ self-concept and self-
efficacy in the sciences: Differential relations to antecedents and educational
outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 13e24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.002
Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Academic self-concept in science:
Multidimensionality, relations to achievement measures, and gender differ-
ences. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 11e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2013.12.003
Jansen, T., Vo€ gelin, C., Machts, N., Keller, S., Ko
€ller, O., & Mo
€ller, J. (2021). Judgment
accuracy in experienced versus student teachers: Assessing essays in English as
a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103216. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2020.103216
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., &
DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially pre-
dict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2),
248e258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156
Koeller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship
between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448e470. https://doi.org/10.2307/
749801
Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., & Sodian, B. (2015). The
development of scientific thinking in elementary school: A comprehensive in-
ventory. Child Development, 86(1), 327e336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12298
Koerber, S., & Osterhaus, C. (2019). Individual differences in early scientific thinking:
Assessment, cognitive influences, and their relevance for science learning.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 20(4), 510e533. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15248372.2019.1620232
Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking, and how does it develop? In
U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp.
371e393). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch17.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career
18
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148e161. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148
Lavrijsen, J., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Student characteristics affecting the recog-
nition of high cognitive ability by teachers and peers. Learning and Individual
Differences, 78, 101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101820
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 46(3), 517e528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a ho-
listic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179e193. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09650790000200108
Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What are the effects of self-regulation
phases and strategies for Chinese students? A meta-analysis of two decades
research of the association between self-regulation and academic performance.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02434
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differ-
ences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479e1498.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
Lipnevich, A. A., Preckel, F., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (2016). Psychosocial skills and
school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice. Springer
International.
Lohman, D. F., Gambrell, J., & Lakin, J. (2008). The commonality of extreme dis-
crepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology
Science Quarterly, 50(2), 269e282.
Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identifi-
cation and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 344e351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.022
Lubinski, D. (2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual
precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900e944. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0034654316675476
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after
35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science
expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316e345. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
Ludewig, U., Lambert, K., Dackermann, T., Scheiter, K., & Mo €ller, K. (2020). Influences
of basic numerical abilities on graph reading performance. Psychological
Research, 84, 1198e1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01144-y
Luong, C., Strobel, A., Wollschl€ ager, R., Greiff, S., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Preckel, F.
(2017). Need for cognition in children and adolescents: Behavioral correlates
and relations to academic achievement and potential. Learning and Individual
Differences, 53, 103e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.019
Lyons, I. M., Price, G. R., Vaessen, A., Blomert, L., & Ansari, D. (2014). Numerical
predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1e6. Developmental Science, 17(5),
714e726. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12152
Machts, N., Kaiser, J., Schmidt, F. T., & Moeller, J. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’
judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 19, 85e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
Makel, M. C., Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Putallaz, M., & Benbow, C. P. (2016). When
lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psycho-
logical Science, 27(7), 1004e1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735
Mayer, D., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Schwippert, K. (2014). Scientific reasoning in
elementary school children: Assessment and relations with cognitive abilities.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 43e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2013.07.005
Mullet, D. R., Rinn, A. N., & Kettler, T. (2017). Catalysts of women’s talent develop-
ment in STEM: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(4),
253e289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17735305
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (2021, January 20). TIMSS 2015
Encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. TIMSS
& PIRLS International Study Center. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/
encyclopedia/countries/germany/the-science-curriculum-in-primary-and-
lower-secondary-grades/.
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., &
Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.
American Psychologist, 67(2), 130e159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699
Norris, S. P. (1985). The philosophical basis of observation in science and science
education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(9), 817e833. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220905
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Aiming talent devel-
opment toward creative eminence in the 21st century. Roeper Review, 38(3),
140e152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1184497
Osterhaus, C., Koerber, S., & Sodian, B. (2017). Scientific thinking in elementary
school: Children’s social cognition and their epistemological understanding
promote experimentation skills. Developmental Psychology, 53(3), 450e462.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000260
Ozanne, J. L., & Anderson, L. (2010). Community action research. Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 123e137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.29.1.123
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns
predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious
youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948e952. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and
academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322e338. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0014996
E. Mack, M. Breit, M. Krischler et al.
Poropat, A. E. (2014). A meta-analysis of adult-rated child personality and academic
performance in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(2), 239e252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12019
Preckel, F., Golle, J., Grabner, R., Jarvin, L., Kozbelt, A., Müllensiefen, D., Olszewski-
Kubilius, P., Schneider, W., Subotnik, R., Vock, M., & Worrell, F. C. (2020). Talent
development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within-
and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3),
691e722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895030
Raghubar, K. P., & Barnes, M. A. (2017). Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged
children: A review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assess-
ment and intervention. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(2), 329e351. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1259387
Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., & Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2014).
Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate
early gender gaps in achievement. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1262e1281.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035073
Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S., & Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a
predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,
146(4), 324e354. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000227
Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Scha €fer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015).
Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118e137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1987). Birth-order and divergent thinking. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148(1), 119e125. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221325.1987.9914542
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407e441.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, per-
sonality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 28e46.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.28
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). Direct measurement of scientific giftedness. Roeper Review,
40(2), 78e85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434715
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist,
51(7), 677e688.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review
of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401e426. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.intell.2006.09.004
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness
and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological
science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3e54. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1529100611418056
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2019). High performance: The
central psychological mechanism for talent development. In R. F. Subotnik,
P. Olszewski-Kubilius, & F. C. Worrell (Eds.), The psychology of high performance:
Developing human potential into domain specific talent (pp. 7e20). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-002.
Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Mo € ller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of
students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
19
Teaching and Teacher Education 104 (2021) 103366
Psychology, 104(3), 743e762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627
Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve
(and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy
and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136e150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., &
Koestner, R. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school
achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342e358. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2014.08.002
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5e8. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Trittel, M., Gerich, M., & Schmitz, B. (2014). Training prospective teachers in
educational diagnostics. In S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock, & M. Bo €hmer (Eds.),
Teachers’ professional development (pp. 63e78). Sense Publishers. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-536-6_5.
Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self-regulation as a
means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at risk
for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122e128. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x
Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hier-
achical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 37e64). University of Rochester Press.
von Stumm, S., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Ackerman, P. L. (2011). Re-visiting
intelligence-personality associations: Vindicating intellectual investment. In
T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), Handbook of indi-
vidual differences (pp. 217e241). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781444343120.ch8.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249e294. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543063003249
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations,
and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 1e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
Yuan, K., Steedle, J., Shavelson, R., Alonzo, A., & Oppezzo, M. (2006). Working
memory, fluid intelligence, and science learning. Educational Research Review,
1(2), 83e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.08.005
Yurkofsky, M. M., Peterson, A. J., Mehta, J. D., Horwitz-Willis, R., & Frumin, K. M.
(2020). Research on continuous improvement: Exploring the complexities of
managing educational change. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 403e433.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907363
Zaboski, B. A., Kranzler, J. H., & Gage, N. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship
between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-horn-Carroll
theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsp.2018.10.001
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary
and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172e223. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001