Volume 4, Number 5 / October issue 2018
Brian Pablo Tello
Ideas for advancing mathematically precocious youth: a review of the literature

Mathematically Precocious Youth (MPY) are taught in a variety of ways in American educational system. This literature review paper explored which educational options may be best for MPY and the nation and reviewed many of the educational options available for MPY. The goal was to find which educational options provided MPY the best chance to be successful in school and beyond. The paper found many MPY were not being taught at the correct level and were not provided enough challenging material. MPY found great educational success as well as career success from acceleration programs, computer-based and distant learning courses, and mathematical competitions. The paper concluded acceleration set at the right level and pace was the best option to help MPY find educational success.
Keywords: mathematically precocious youth, acceleration, distance-learning, mathematical competitions, grouping

Cite this article:
Brian Pablo Tello. Ideas for advancing mathematically precocious youth: a review of the literature. Acta Scientiae et Intellectus, 4(5)2018, 15-29.


  1. Ayebo, A., (2016). Teachers’ Perceptions on Identifying and Catering to the Needs of Mathematically Gifted and Talented Students. Journal Pendidikan Malaysia, 41(1), 19-24.
  2. Basister, M. P. & Kawai, N., (2018). Japan’s educational practices for mathematically gifted students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 1-29.
  3. Beisser, S. R., (2008). Unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind mandates on gifted students. Forum on Public Policy, n2, 1-13.
  4. Bicknell, B., (2008). Gifted students and the role of mathematics competitions. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(4) 16-20.
  5. Bicknell, B. & Riley, T., (2012). The role of competitions in a mathematical programme. New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 17(1), 25-34.
  6. Brody, L. E., (2005). The study of exceptional talent. High Abilities Study, 16 (1), 87-96.
  7. Bulgar, S., (2008). Enabling more students to achieve mathematical success: A case study of Sarah. Creativity, Giftedness, and Talent Development in Mathematics, which volume, 133-154.
  8. Campbell, J. R. & Walberg, H. J., (2011). Olympiad studies: Competitions provide alternatives to developing talents that serve national interests. Roeper Report, 33, 8-17.
  9. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.), 2004. A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, (Vol. 2), Iowa City; University of Iowa.
  10. Dai, D. Y. & Steenbergen-Hu, S., (2015). Special class for the gifted young: A 34-year experiment with early college entrance programs in China. Roeper Review, (37), 9-18.
  11. Deal, L. J. & Wismer, M. G., (2010). NCTM principles and standards for mathematically talented students. Gifted Child Today, (33), 55-65.
  12. Diezmann, C. M. & Watters, J. J., (2002). Summing up the education of mathematically gifted students. In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, and M.J. Thomas (eds). Mathematics Education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th Annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Auckland, (pp.219-226). Sydney: MERGA.
  13. Dimitriadis, C., (2012). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A review of practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 59-76.
  14. Hallam, S. & Ireson, J., (2007). Secondary school pupils’ satisfaction with their ability grouping placements. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 27-45.
  15. Johnson, D. T., (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. (Report No. EDO-EC-00-3). Reston, VA: Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441302)
  16. Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P., (2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24(5), 648-659.
  17. Kolitch, E. R. & Brody, L. E., (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 78-86.
  18. Leikin, R., (2011). The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1-2), 167-188.
  19. Leikin, R., (2010). Teaching the mathematically gifted. Gifted Education International, 27, 161-175.
  20. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P., (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718-729.
  21. McAllister, B. A. & Plourde, L. A., (2008). Enrichment curriculum: Essential for mathematically gifted students. Education, 1, 40-49.
  22. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Lee, S. Y., (2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the education of the Gifted, 28(1), 7-35.
  23. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70.
  24. Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A., (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 451-472.
  25. Ravaglia, R., Suppes, P., Stillinger, C., & Alper, T., (1995). Computer-based mathematics and physics for gifted student. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 7-13.
  26. Riley, T. L. & Karnes, F. A., (1998). Mathematics + competitions = a winning formula. Gifted Child Today, 21(4), 42-46.
  27. Rotigel, J. V. & Fello, S., (2004). Mathematically gifted students: How can we meet their needs? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 46-51, 65.
  28. Shayshon, B., Gal, H., Tesler, B., & Ko, E., (2014). Teaching mathematically talented students: A cross-cultural study about their teachers’ views. Educational Study of Mathematics, 87, 409-438.
  29. Sowell, E. J., (1993). Programs for mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 124-131.
  30. Stanley, J. C., (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 36-46.
  31. Stockton, J. C., (2012). Mathematical competitions in Hungary: Promoting a tradition of excellence & creativity. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 9(1-2), 37-58.
  32. Suppes, P., Holland, P. W., Hu, Y., & Vu, M., (2013). Effectiveness of an individualized computer-driven online math K-5 course in eight California Title 1 elementary schools. Educational Assessment, 18, 162-181.
  33. Swiatek, M. A., (2002) A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. Roeper Review, 24(3), 141-147.
  34. Threlfal, J. & Hargreaves, M., (2008). The problem-solving methods of mathematically gifted and older average-attaining students. High Ability Students, 19(1), 83-98.
  35. Udvari, S. J. & Schneider, B. H., (2000). Competition and the adjustment of gifted children: A matter of motivation. Roeper Review, 22(4), 212-216.
  36. Wallace, P., (2009). Distance learning for gifted students: Outcomes for elementary, middle, and high school aged students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 295-320.