Eureka: the cross-cultural model for identification of hidden talent through enrichment.

The Eureka model, aimed at identifying hidden potential in the visual arts and sciences through the process of enrichment among children from different socio-economic or cultural backgrounds in Israel, was developed in the Szold Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences in Israel. The model is implemented nationwide in 56 schools catering to the Jewish, Arab, Bedouin and Druze sectors. It includes an assessment process which uses teacher ratings of student behavior, professional evaluation of portfolios and task performance. Based on a seven year follow-up of 60 talented students who participated in the visual arts and sciences program that evolved from the model's implementation in two Tel-Aviv schools, the dynamic assessment of science and artistic potential may predict future performance in the sciences and in the visual arts in elementary school. It also may predict future performance in reading comprehension. Moreover, feedback from parents and talented students indicates that the program opens new interest areas for the students. Efforts to replicate the above findings on a much larger sample of students and to validate the model further are under way.

The story about Archimedes, the great Greek mathematician, relates how he jumped out of a bathtub filled with water when he finally comprehended the concept of mass and shouted, as he raced through the streets: "Eureka! Eureka!" (I found it! I found it!). Just as Archimedes found what he was looking for in a very unlikely place, this model evolves out of an effort to find talent where it is rarely found - among children who come from different cultural or socio-economic backgrounds.

A basic problem in the effort to find talent is that all too often, talent is manifested differently in childhood and adulthood. Among adults, talent is expressed in an extraordinary quality of task performance and/or in making significant breakthroughs in those talent areas that our society values (Gardner, 1983; Tannenbaum, 1983). For example, a virtuoso pianist, such as Arthur Rubinstein, performed works that were composed by others in a unique quality. An eminent scientist, such as Albert Einstein, revolutionized physics by introducing his theory of relativity. Throughout history, there are very few cases of children who were virtuoso performers or producers of knowledge, such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who played music beautifully and composed symphonies at an early age (Cox, 1926; Goertzel, Goertzel & Goertzel, 1978). More often, children may show a potential to reach such extraordinary performance. This potential may be expressed in signs of talent and interest (Bloom, 1985; Tannenbaum, 1983). For instance, some children want to know how machines work, ranging from toy cars to computers, so they ask questions incessantly and conduct their own explorations by taking these machines apart. Others exhibit a great sense for rhythm and an excellent psycho-motor coordination, which may be expressed in playing a musical instrument or in dancing. All of these signs of talent and interest may be necessary but not sufficient conditions for accomplished performance. The actualization of potential depends on recognizing signs of potential among individuals and nurturing them.

In the search for effective ways to recognize signs of potential among children, studies in the U.S. (Alvino, McDonnel & Richert, 1981; Bernal, 1980; McKenzie, 1986) in Canada (Wilgosh, Mulcahy & Walters, 1986) and in Israel (Minkovich, Davis & Bashi, 1977) consistently indicate that talents in certain populations of children are under-identified by conventional measures, such as intelligence or achievement tests. These populations are distinguished by such characteristics as racial or ethnic group membership(such as Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans in the U.S.A. and Israeli children from Afro-Asian cultures), by language differences (where the language spoken at home is different than the language spoken in school), by low socio-economic status (as indicated by low family income and low parental education), or by geographic isolation from the main cultural centers. Hunsaker (1994) notes that efforts to use other ways of identification of talent, such as culture fair tests, community nominations, or checklists of culturally specific behaviors were not highly successful in identifying talent among these children.

As Passow and Frasier (1996) claim in a recent review of literature, efforts to explain the phenomenon of under-identification of talent among children from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, did not yield a single explanation. Rather, there is an unresolved controversy raging between environmental explanations (such as ineffective teachers and curricula or general social prejudices) and individual deficiency explanations (such as lack of linguistic skills and motivation, or highly concrete thinking). Passow and Frasier (1996) conclude that:

Since all sides can muster support for their positions, the

search for talent potential will be fostered, not by seeking

single explanations, but rather by understanding the

interactions of culture and environment with individual

performance and striving to make those more positive

and nurturing. (p. 199)

They go on to suggest how to make the search for talent among children from these backgrounds more effective by:

improving the quality of learning and the learning environment

in ways that will open up opportunities for the

display of gifted behaviors - what might be called identification

through exposure to challenging

teaching .... (p.201)

They also recommend using non-traditional measures of talent, such as authentic assessment that is based on actual interactions of students with learning opportunities (p.201) and looking for multiple indicators of talent.

The Eureka cross-cultural model represents an attempt to deal with the challenges of uncovering hidden talent among children from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds by exposing them to enrichment experiences related to their culture and environment. Throughout the process of enrichment, children's behaviors are carefully observed and recorded. Their products are collected and evaluated, as well. The process of identification will be described. A seven year longitudinal study of the implementation and validation of this process in two fields of talent in the first schools that agreed to serve as a testing ground for the process are presented. Conclusions and implications are drawn.

The Eureka Model Design

The Eureka model evolved out of a collaborative effort of a team of researchers and curriculum specialists at the Szold Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences in Israel to develop an identification through enrichment process among elementary school children from different socio-cultural backgrounds. The model was first implemented in 1988 on an experimental basis in two schools in Tel-Aviv. In light of the promising results in Tel-Aviv, the model is currently implemented nationwide in 56 schools in the Arab, Bedouin and Druze sectors, and in the Jewish sector, where the focus is on schools catering to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and to new immigrants from Ethiopia and the Russian Republics.

The Eureka model is designed in two sequential phases, exposure and immersion. These phases are described below.

The First Phase -- Exposure

In the exposure phase, all children, without any screening, get an opportunity to be exposed to a supportive learning environment that provides them with hands on experiences in various talent areas. The children are observed and their work is evaluated in a dynamic assessment process over a period of two years, in first and second grade, while they respond to the challenges posed by the learning environment.

The learning environment The children's teachers create the learning environment in individual and group in-service sessions that are conducted by the staff of the Szold Institute. In these sessions, they discuss and try out ideas for expanding the skills and concepts of the basic curriculum into the talent areas that they choose to explore, using guidelines suggested by educators and researchers, such as Gardner (1991), Jacobs and Borland (1986) and Linn (1986). Since the students come from different cultures and backgrounds, it was decided to organize the learning environment around themes and concepts that are present in the basic national curriculum and to adapt the contents and specific details to each school, in line with the students' and teachers' culture, environment and needs.

An illustration of how different learning environments may be designed around one motif is provided in the theme of the changing cycle of the seasons. The characteristics of the seasons are taught in the basic school curriculum in the first grade. Most children encounter work on the seasons in kindergarten and all have experienced the changes that occur in different seasons, so it is relevant to their lives.

In an Arab school in Tel Aviv that is close to the sea, teachers choose to focus on the observation of the sea in different seasons. Many of the students are fishermen's children, so they are familiar with the sea. The children go to the beach periodically with their teachers. They observe and record the behavior of different animals that they encounter on the beach. They watch the colors of the sea change in different seasons and times of day and talk about the reasons for these changes. They paint pictures of the sea and discuss different painters' portrayal of the sea in different seasons. They also listen to tales about the sea and tell stories of their own.

In a Jewish school located in the mountains of Jerusalem, teachers choose to focus on seasonal changes in different landscapes. From the school yard, it is possible to see the urban landscape of Jerusalem, the agricultural landscapes of Jewish and Arab villages and the natural landscape of the mountains. The students observe and compare these landscapes and discuss how different weather factors affect them during the seasons. They create a diorama (a three-dimensional representation) of the different landscapes, using the concept of perspective to indicate the distance of the landscapes that they observe. They also relate to features of the landscapes, such as houses and crops, and how they reflect different people's view of their environment.

In a Bedouin school in the desert region near Be'er-Sheba, teachers choose to focus on the cycle of growth of seeds. In the school yard, there are several kinds of trees. Students collect the seeds from these trees and also bring in from home seeds that they eat. They draw and paint these seeds and dissect them, examining their components and learning about their specific functions. They conduct controlled experiments with seeds in school and at home, learning about the conditions that are needed for growth and realizing the importance of experimental replication. They discuss the concept of cycles, relating the cycle of growth of plants to the cycle of the seasons. They also form analogies to the cycle of human development. They imagine what is it like to be a seed and how the embryo within feels and express that in drawing and painting.

Dynamic assessment This type of assessment is based on the assumption that behavior and performance may change during intervention (Feuerstein, 1979). Therefore, the methods that are used to measure performance reflect changes in behavior over time. Moreover, in order to improve the long-term prediction of various measures, McClelland (1973), Wallach (1976), Clark & Zimmerman (1992) and Haroutounian (1995), recommend to select those behaviors directly related to predicted behavioral criteria and to examine multiple intellective and non-intellective components of talent. In line with these recommendations, three kinds of instruments were developed in the Szold Institute for this model:

* Teacher ratings of students' behavior.

* Professional evaluation of portfolios.

* Task performance.

Teacher ratings of students' behavior Teacher rating instruments were developed in two content areas; visual arts and sciences. The items developed to rate student behavior in these instruments reflect specific aptitudes, interests and persistence in these talent areas. They were gathered from biographies detailing the childhood of people who reached extraordinary achievement (Cox, 1926; Gardner, 1983, 1993; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Goldsmith, 1988; Roe, 1953; Wallace, 1986) and from inventories of behavior denoting talent and interests in the arts and sciences (Luca & Allen, 1974; Robinson, Roedell & Jackson, 1979).

The science potential instrument is comprised of 15 items. The artistic potential instrument is comprised of 16 items. Both instruments tap personality components and specific abilities in these talent domains, as they are reflected during the process of work and in students' products. On each item, a likert-type scale is presented, ranging from 1 (low) to 4 (high). This scale enables one to quantify different degrees of behaviors. Moreover, a detailed description of observable behavior is also provided at each level of the scale. This insures that teachers understand what kind of behavior characterizes each level of the scale. Teachers are instructed to separately rate all of the students on each item, in order to attenuate the 'halo effect', when rating on one item influences rating on all the other items. In this method of rating, teachers consider each student in relation to his or her peers in 15 different contexts in the sciences and in 16 different contexts in the arts. Teacher ratings are obtained twice during the phase of exposure. The first rating is completed after the beginning three months of the first grade and records baseline behaviors. The second rating is competed at the end of the second grade. This method of rating enables analysis of behavior according to group comparisons, as well as according to individual change from baseline behaviors.

Professional evaluation of portfolios As Hadaway & Marek-Schoer (1992) point out, the popularity of collecting student work and evaluating it as a means of assessing students' abilities has been growing steadily among educators in the USA. This is especially true in efforts to identify talents among minority students (Chinn & Kamp, 1982; Coleman, 1994; Cummins, 1984; Wright & Borland, 1993). Portfolios provide a means of assessing student performance over time, instead of a one-time assessment. Moreover, they enable educators to look at students' development over time, as it is reflected in their products.

In the Eureka model, this type of assessment is utilized at the end of the two years of the exposure phase. The teachers collect a portfolio of the artworks of each student and present it for outside professional evaluation. Eleven criteria were developed for assessing the portfolios. These criteria include items that refer to qualities such as: composition, color, details, expressiveness, decorative quality of figures and the degree of independent thematic development shown. On each item, a likert-type scale is presented, ranging from 1 (low) to 4 (high). This scale enables to quantify different degrees of work qualities. Moreover, a detailed description of the qualities observed is also provided at each level of the scale. An example of one such criterion is the following item:

The attention to details in painting and sculpting 

The student's artworks are very schematic.

The student's artworks seldom reflect attention to details.

The student's artworks often reflect attention to details.

The student's artworks reflect a holistic and rich system of details.

Task performance To assess products of learning in the sciences, a series of 18 tasks were designed. The tasks pertain to the internalization of concepts and skills that students acquired during the phase of exposure. These tasks involve understanding causality, making comparisons and summarizing data in tables, as well as matching various phenomena. The tasks relate to such topics as the phases of growth in plants, the relationship between temperature and humidity to the changing seasons, the relationship between seasons and plant growth, the properties of materials, and the conditions necessary for growth of micro-organisms. The tasks are administered at the end of the two years of the phase of exposure to all second graders.

Integrating data from all instruments in the process of dynamic assessment At the end of the phase of exposure, each student profile is examined, noting points of strength and weakness. Students who are high in at least two of the three indicators of talent in each content area are encouraged to continue to develop their talent in greater depth in the phase of immersion. The recommendations are made on the basis of the following criteria in each indicator of talent:

Average ratings on the science or artistic potential instruments in the 87.5 percentile;

Increases at or above 25% in average individual change between teacher ratings at the beginning and end of the exposure phase;

Scores in the 75 percentile on performance in science tasks or on evaluation of portfolios of student artwork.

The Second Phase -- Immersion

From the third grade on, students who are identified as talented explore in depth their talent areas in special programs. Since there is no single answer to address the needs of talented students, every school district that adapts the model decides which type of special program caters best to its students' needs. Some of the special programs that address the needs of these talented students include:

* An enrichment day once a week for talented students, as part of the curriculum of their neighborhood school.

* Enrichment courses for talented students conducted at the end of the school day in their neighborhood school.

* Enrichment courses for talented students provided by a regional center, a college, or a museum in the afternoon.

Meanwhile, students not identified as talented, continue to be exposed to various content areas as part of their school curriculum, in a manner similar to the phase of exposure. At the end of each school year, students whose performance and motivation improves (i.e. 'late bloomers') according to dynamic assessment join the special programs. Thus, the dynamic assessment is a continuous process that goes on throughout elementary school.

The learning environment Teachers design the learning environment for students not identified as gifted in individual and group in-service workshops according to the same principles as in the phase of exposure. Thus, different experiences are designed around themes in the basic curriculum, in accordance with different cultures and student needs. The learning environment that talented students encounter is designed by teachers who specialize in their field, together with the staff of the Szold Institute. It is geared toward the acquisition of skills of independent learning and investigation. An example of one unit developed for sixth graders is a unit of architecture, which culminates in an individual project, in which students construct a model of their dream house. To perform this project, students search for resource books on various schools of architecture at different time periods. They learn about some of the physical principles in house design, and study how the principles are expressed in works of art in exhibits, slides and books. They experiment with these principles by actually building models of architectural structures. Finally, they design their own dream house and build a model of it. Some of the models that emerged out of this unit were a boat house, a theater modeled after Shakespeare's globe, a cafe, and models of suburban and town houses.

Dynamic assessment. The assessment of students not identified as talented continues along the same lines as in the phase of exposure. Three types of instruments are used: teacher ratings of students' behavior, professional evaluation of portfolios and task performance. At present, these instruments were developed for the sciences and the visual arts. Although the items may vary, the structure of these instruments is very similar to those utilized in the phase of exposure. Data gathering and analysis is also conducted in a similar manner. At the end of each year, the data is analyzed on the basis of group comparisons, as well as in reference to individual change on behaviors on the teacher rating instruments. Those students whose indicators of talent are high are invited to join the special programs for talented students. This method of assessment creates a sense of mobility and hope and may lessen the stigma that accompanies the labeling of talented students very early in life.

Implementing the Eureka Model in the Visual Arts and Sciences in Two Schools

The Eureka model was first implemented in two elementary schools in southern neighborhoods of Tel-Aviv from the school year of 1988-1989. One neighborhood is populated by new immigrants (mostly from Russia) and families from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The other neighborhood is in Yafo, populated by families from lower socio-economic backgrounds and by Arabs who live together with Jews. Therefore, 18% of the school population is Arab. Each school faces the challenge of catering to students from different cultures, who speak different languages or substandard Hebrew, and come, in most cases, from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Mode of Implementation of Eureka in the Two Schools

The two Tel-Aviv schools implemented the first phase of exposure in the visual arts and sciences with all 181 students, starting in the first grade and continuing in the second grade. When 60 talented students were identified as talented at the end of the second grade, the educational staff together with the schools' supervisors and the Szold Institute staff, decided to continue to nurture all students in the immersion phase from the third grade on in an enrichment day once a week in two parallel tracks. Talented students explored their fields of interest in the visual arts and sciences, and the other students explored other fields, such as drama, language arts and agriculture. In addition, students not identified as talented continued to be exposed to the visual arts and sciences, so that any late bloomers may be identified later.

The case of Liora The story of Liora may serve as an example for the type of students that the program identifies and nurtures. When Liora was in the first grade, she was a shy girl, who hardly participated in class. She sat in class very quietly, absorbed in her own world most of the time and not having many friends. The school staff, as well as her family, were not enthused by her abilities and performance. Liora is the sixth child born to a young mother, who began childbearing as a teenager. When other girls studied in high school, her mother was already caring for a few children. Liora's father was absent most of the time from the household and did not assist the mother in caring for the children. Liora's older siblings did not perform very well in school. They were mostly enrolled in classes for students with learning disabilities. Therefore, everyone expected that Liora would be much the same as her brothers and sisters.

During the phase of exposure, Liora became interested in the science experiments and in the art activities. She began to come out of her shell, to participate more in class and performed very well on science and art tasks. At the end of the exposure phase, her individual change scores were very high both in the arts and in the sciences, as well as her performance scores in both fields (as indicated by task performance in the sciences and by the evaluation of her art portfolio). When she was referred to the enrichment day for talented students, the school staff was quite surprised and began to regard Liora in a more positive manner.

From the third grade on, Liora continued to study the arts in the phase of immersion and performed very well. She also performed great in general studies and scored the highest in her class on standardized tests of reading comprehension. Liora's relationship with her family took an unexpected turn when her mother accompanied one of the field trips to Ceasaria, an ancient Roman city with a beautiful amphitheater, sculptures and buildings dated to the Roman period. During the field trip, Liora was explaining to the class the connection between Roman culture and its artistic products, a subject that she explored on her own. Her mother looked on, quite surprised and delighted to see her daughter as a knowledgeable expert. From then, the mother began to come more often to parent-student nights in school. She became more interested in Liora's progress and work and in supporting her interests. At the end of the sixth grade, on the last day of school, Liora came to say goodbye to her visual arts teacher who worked with her from the first grade. They hugged and Liora asked her teacher: "What do you thing I could study in the university?" The teacher said:" You know that you can succeed in whatever field you choose." Liora responded: "Yes, there are things that I will never forget."

At present, Liora is studying in the ninth grade in an academically rigorous junior high school in Tel-Aviv. She performs very well in all her subjects and continues to pursue her interests in the arts and sciences, in special art and science clubs. She is also involved in social activities in school and has friends who share her interests.

Evidence Validating the Eureka Model in A Seven Year Follow-up

Whenever one begins to develop a new identification process, policy makers who finance the implementation of the process often ask: "Is this identification process worthwhile? does it really accomplish what it intends to do?" In order to answer these questions, quantitative evidence, pertaining to the reliability and validity of the science and artistic potential instruments, was gathered in the course of a seven year follow-up of the model's implementation in the two Tel-Aviv schools described above. More qualitative evidence, pertaining to the changes that were observed in the schools' physical setting and how the program radiated into the whole school, was also noted. In addition, feedback from parents and students who attended the program was obtained. The major results of this follow-up are presented below.

Internal reliability of the science and artistic potential instruments The internal reliability of the science and artistic potential instruments is assessed by calculating the alpha coefficients, using the Cronbach formula. The coefficients obtained for the science potential instrument in the beginning and end of the phase of exposure are .91 and .98, respectively. The coefficients obtained for the artistic potential instrument in the beginning and end of exposure are .91 and .96, respectively. The inter-judge reliability coefficients calculated for these instruments range from .63 to .91 for the artistic potential instrument and from .72 to .93 for the science potential instrument. These high coefficients indicate that these instruments are promising as reliable tools in assessing signs of childhood potential in these talent domains.

Content validity of the science and artistic potential instruments Scientists from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and from Tel-Aviv University, who investigate children's problem solving and develop curricula for the sciences, reviewed drafts of the science potential instrument. Artists and art teachers at The Tel-Aviv Museum of Art reviewed drafts of the artistic potential instrument. On the basis of their comments, the instruments were revised until they evolved into their present form, reflecting as much as possible the intellective and non-intellective components of childhood talent in the sciences and the visual arts.

Concurrent validity of the science and artistic potential instruments The data obtained from the science and artistic potential instruments was correlated with the scores on standardized measures of general intellectual ability, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) and tests of general intellectual ability conducted by the Szold Institute at the second grade for the Ministry of Education and Culture. The results of these Pearson correlations are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Pearson correlations between scores on tests of general intellectual ability and ratings on the science and artistic potential instruments in the exposure phase in grades 1 and 2 (N = 181)

                         Test of       Science Potential
                         General       in the beginning
                         Ability       of exposure

WISC-R test              .78(**)             .27(**)
in grade 1

Test of general
ability in grade 2                             .07

                      Science Potential        Artistic
                      in the end of            Potential
                       exposure             in the beginning
                                              of exposure

WISC-R test                .29(**)                .07
in grade 1

Test of general
ability in grade 2         .43(**)                .18(*)

                        Artistic
                        Potential
                       in the end
                       of exposure

WISC-R test                .06
in grade 1

Test of general
ability in grade 2         .32(**)

(*) p < .05

(**) p <.01

The relatively low correlations between scores on tests of general intellectual ability and ratings on the science and artistic potential instruments, ranging from .1 to .4, lend support to our basic hypothesis that there is a weak relationship between the indicators of potential that were developed in the Eureka model and the indicators of general intellectual ability. If the correlations between the above measures were high, it could be claimed that there is much overlap between the worlds of content that these measures tap. Therefore, there would be no justification to invest in such a long process of identification that demands teacher training and added class hours. These findings also strengthen the claim that students from different socio-economic or cultural backgrounds need a different process of talent identification.

Predictive validity of the science and artistic potential instruments At this point, one may ask how well do the measures of science and artistic potential predict future performance. During the seven year follow-up of the program, the dependent variables used in this examination included teachers' ratings in the arts and sciences, various achievement test scores in science and visual art, and scores on different kinds of achievement tests in reading comprehension in third, fourth and fifth grades.

To counter the claim that scores on tests of general intellectual ability may account for a significant amount of variance in the dependent variables, a series of stepwise regression analyses was performed on these measures. The stepwise regression analyses were performed in two steps. In the first step, the contribution of general intellectual ability to the explanation of the variance in the dependent variables was assessed. In the second step, the added contribution of the science and artistic potential instruments at the end of the second grade to the explanation of the variance in the dependent variables was assessed. The same procedure was performed for the difference between ratings on the science and artistic potential from the beginning to the end of the phase of exposure. The above analysis was performed on data obtained on the performance of 34 students who were identified as talented in the sciences and 26 students who were identified as talented in the visual arts in the two Tel-Aviv schools where the Eureka model was first implemented. The results of the stepwise regression analyses on the measures in the sciences are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The contribution of ratings on the science potential instrument in the end of the second grade and the difference in science potential from first to second grade to the explained variance of science students' achievements in third, fourth and fifth grades (N = 34)

                   Variance explained     Variance explained
                      by average in        by addition of
                         general          science potential
                        ability in            rating in
                        grades 1+2             grade 2

Achievement Test
in science -
grade 3                    .01                   .25

Science potential-
grade 3                    .06                   .37

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                    .02                   .24

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                    .07                   .16

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 4                    .01                   .15

Science potential-
grade 4                    .02                   .43

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                    .10                   .18

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                    .38                   .47

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 5                    .04                   .51

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                    .13                   .32

                            F          Variance explained
                          value        by addition of
                          of the       difference in
                         equation      science potential
                                       from grade 1 to 2
Achievement Test
in science -
grade 3                  3.69(*)               .26

Science potential-
grade 3                  9.25(**)              .31

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                  4.67(**)              .49

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                  2.35                 .65

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 4                  1.34                 .07

Science potential-
grade 4                  8.56(**)             .19

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                  2.43                 .41

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                  5.65(*)              .56

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 5                 10.22(**)             .33

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                  5.43(**)             .53

                             F
                           value
                          of the
                         equation

Achievement Test
in science -
grade 3                   3.98(*)

Science potential-
grade 3                   5.20(**)

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                  10.91(**)

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                  21.44(**)

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 4                    .49

Science potential-
grade 4                   2.62

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                   7.19(**)

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                   7.52(**)

Achievement Test
in Science-
grade 5                   4.74(*)

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                  12.57(**)

(*) p < .05

(**) p < .01

Table 2 indicates that when controlling for general intellectual ability, average ratings on the science potential instrument at the end of the second grade contribute significantly to the explanation of the variance in the majority of the dependent variables (in 7 out of 10 variables). Similarly, when con trolling for general intellectual ability, the differences between the ratings on the science potential instrument from the beginning to the end of the phase of exposure contribute significantly to the explanation of the variance on almost all of the measures of the dependent variables (on 8 out of 10 measures).

The results of the stepwise regression analyses on the measures in the visual arts are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 The contribution of ratings on the artistic potential instrument in the end of the second grade and the difference in artistic potential from first to second grade to the explained variance of art students' achievements in third, fourth and fifth grades (N = 26)

                     Variance explained    Variance explained
                        by average in        by addition of
                         general           science potential
                        ability in              rating in
                         grades 1+2              grade 2

Artistic potential-
grade 3                    .07                     .56

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                    .01                     .01

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                    .06                     .19

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 4                    .24                     .56

Artistic potential-
grade 4                    .07                     .25

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                    .01                     .28

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                    .06                     .61

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 5                    .38                     .48

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                    .04                     .55

                            F          Variance explained
                          value          by addition of
                          of the          difference in
                         equation       science potential
                                        from grade 1 to 2

Artistic potential-
grade 3                   7.64(**)             .54

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                    .09                 .02

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                   2.01                 .07

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 4                   5.29(*)              .60

Artistic potential-
grade 4                   2.38                 .10

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                   4.14(*)              .03

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                   7.76(**)             .22

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 5                   3.86(*)              .44

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                   7.69(**)             .05

                                 F
                               value
                              of the
                             equation

Artistic potential-
grade 3                        7.46(**)

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                         .19

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 3                         .61

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 4                        5.44(**)

Artistic potential-
grade 4                         .78

Test 1 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                         .19

Test 2 of Reading
Comprehension -
grade 4                        1.44

Achievement Test
in Art-
grade 5                        3.80(*)

Test of Reading
Comprehension-
grade 5                         .39

(*) p < .05

(**) p < .01

Table 3 indicates that when controlling for general intellectual ability, average ratings on the artistic potential instrument at the end of the second grade contribute significantly to the explanation of the variance in the majority of the dependent variables (in 6 out of 9 cases). When controlling for general intellectual ability, the differences between the ratings on the artistic potential instrument from the beginning to the end of the phase of exposure contribute significantly to the explanation of the variance on 3 out of 9 measures of the dependent variables.

In both talent areas, the results of the stepwise regression analyses that were performed indicate that when controlling for general intellectual ability, the measures of science and artistic potential obtained from the dynamic identification process during the phase of exposure seem to have a significant predictive validity with regard to achievements in science and visual arts in third, fourth, and fifth grades. This is shown by the majority of the achievement measures that were utilized in these grade levels. Moreover, the results of these analyses also tend to indicate that when controlling for general intellectual ability, the measures of science and artistic potential obtained during the phase of exposure have a significant predictive validity with regard to achievement in reading comprehension in third, fourth, and fifth grades.

Changes in the schools' physical setting The learning environment of the schools implementing the Eureka model is designed in order to arouse the interest and motivation of students in the sciences and the visual arts. As a result, some major changes are observed in the schools' physical setting. These changes include:

* Exhibiting reproductions of great artworks in the art room and in several central locations in the schools. These exhibits relate to the theme that the students study.

* Establishing science and art learning centers. These centers invite students to explore various concepts and phenomena, and display student experiments and works of art on various topics. Many collective works of students, such as huge wall paintings, mosaics, and environmental sculptures remain as permanent displays in the schools.

The radiation of the model into the whole school An unexpected product of the implementation of the Eureka model in the two Tel-Aviv schools is the radiation of the concepts of the model into the schools' curriculum. This is evident in the development of general tools of evaluation and of interdisciplinary themes together with the educational staff. All interested teachers were invited to participate in the in-service training provided on dynamic assessment. Some of the teachers began to utilize items for the science and artistic potential instruments for observing students' behavior in their classroom in various subjects. For instance, some teachers observe and record students' process of developing hypotheses in the language arts, while other teachers observe student's motivation to cope with tasks and employ them in history and geography. All of the teachers became involved in developing interdisciplinary themes in these two schools.

An example of an interdisciplinary theme that transformed one of these schools into an experiential learning centers was the theme of traditions and revolutions in fifteenth century Spain, selected by the Szold Institute together with the school staff. After receiving background materials and discussing the theme, the teachers decided to focus on traditions and revolutions in fifteenth century Spain in an expanding set of continuous environments, starting from the immediate environment of the home, through the street, the community and the country, reaching the cosmos and comprehending the location of earth among the planets surrounding the sun.

This interdisciplinary approach enabled the teachers to connect the integrative theme with the formal curriculum in different grade levels. For instance, students in first and second grades, who study about the family, focused on the home environment at that time. Students in the third and fourth grades focused on tales of different streets in Tel-Aviv that are named after personalities from that period of time. Students in the fifth and sixth grades focused on the Jewish community at the period in Spain and on the revolutionary discoveries and inventions of that time, such as the printing press, and the physical shape and location of earth in the planetary system, thus challenging the notion that the earth is the center of the universe and prompting Christopher Columbus to sail westward in search of India.

Teachers and students created a series of learning centers in the classrooms and school corridors. In each learning center, students had a choice of activities for self study. Parents were invited to a student-parent night in the school. They participated in activities in the learning centers with students guiding the parents. Interested educators from various communities were invited to the school. They toured the learning centers, guided by the students, who told them about their work and proudly displayed their products. In the words of one of the teachers, the work on this theme refreshed the whole staff with a variety of ideas, teaching strategies and materials. Summing it up, one of the students remarked: School has become a fun place to come to.

Feedback from parents Parents' responses to questionnaires pertaining to the students' activities outside of the classroom provide valuable insight as to how the program affects their lives. Fifty-eight parents of talented students participating in the immersion phase of the program were polled at the end of the sixth grade in the two schools. The majority of parents (56%) report that the students are more motivated to go to school on days when the program operates. Moreover, the interest that the program generates radiates into the students' lives after school. This is shown in what they talk about at home, where 81% of the parents report that their children tell them nearly always what they did in the program in both content areas. It is also reflected in the students' activities after school. Thus, most parents (78%) report that their children paint or sculpt, and the majority (63%) report that their children replicate experiments in the sciences. Further, most parents (63%) note that their children seek television programs that are related to the arts and the sciences.

Feedback from students Students' responses to questionnaires about the program were obtained at the seventh grade, after they completed the program and entered integrative junior high schools. Fifty-eight students were located. An overwhelming majority of students (78%) report that the program was very interesting. Most of them (88%) note its contribution to their general knowledge. Many of them (72%) point out that it helped them become independent learners. An overwhelming majority of the students (97%) would recommend very much to other students to participate in the program. Consequently, it seems that the program has very high appeal to the students. Moreover, most of the students (88% of the art students and 74% of the science students) indicate that they would like to specialize in their field of talent in high school. Thus, it seems that participation in the program encourages students to continue to pursue their fields of talent on a more advanced level.

Conclusions and Implications

The accumulated findings that were presented above indicate that the Eureka model shows promise for identifying and nurturing students from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds in the fields of the visual arts and sciences. The seven year follow-up of students who participated in the program that evolved from the model's implementation in the first two Tel-Aviv schools shows that dynamic assessment of science and artistic potential may predict future performance in the sciences and in the visual arts in elementary school. It may predict future performance in reading comprehension, as well. Moreover, feedback from parents and talented students tends to show that the program opens new interest areas for the students.

The seven-year follow-up was performed on a relatively small sample of talented students (60) from two schools. Therefore, there is a need to replicate the findings on a larger sample of students from a variety of schools. Since the model is implemented now in 56 schools nationwide, data is being collected on a much larger sample of students. In addition, the follow-up on the first sample of talented students continues periodically. At the end of the 1997 school year, it is planned with the municipality of Tel-Aviv that these students will take a study trip to Italy, as part of their focus on traditions and revolutions in the arts and the sciences throughout history.

So far, the Eureka model is implemented in the fields of the visual arts and sciences. It may be applied for other content areas, as well. Since the Israeli Ministry of Education and Culture is interested in the Eureka model and wants to implement it on a larger scale, there are discussions concerning other fields of talent that this model may be applied for, such as the performing arts.

Another issue that is addressed at present is what may be the best strategies to implement the model on a much larger scale. In the academic year of 1996-1997, an experiment began with the Ministry of Education and Culture on setting up model schools in five cities where the staff is committed to the model and has enough resources to implement it. If the experiment succeeds, these schools will serve as actual models for other schools to emulate in these communities.

The model schools in various communities may also enhance the ways that one may deal with the design of the learning environment in both phases of exposure and immersion. Different learning environments are designed in various schools, in line with the needs and interests of students and teachers. In many cases, these learning environments seem to radiate beyond science and art activities into the whole school. At present, a systematic effort is under way to gather data on the learning environments that evolved out of the model' s implementation. The Szold Institute staff interviews principals and teachers in the schools and collects relevant materials, such as curriculum plans, samples and photos of products and samples of evaluation tools adapted by the school staff in order to delineate a more complete picture of the implementation of the model and its effects from the perspectives of the people in the field.

Deborah, one of the ninth graders who attended the program in Tel-Aviv, and her father sum up the essence of this program quite succinctly.

Deborah: "I know that I can do very well in the sciences

and in any field that I choose. Learning in the program

helped me a lot to adjust to the junior high school, where

I am a very good student and have many friends. I feel

that I can also cope with any new topic on my own,

knowing where to look for information, how to analyze it

and organize it."

Father: "This program made me realize that I have an

extremely talented daughter. I felt I would like to understand

her world and what she is thinking about better. I

decided to go back to school to study and learn, so I

could talk to her about what interests her, even if I don't

quite understand everything."

Deborah's father found talent in what he first thought was an unlikely place, in his daughter. He is nurturing her talents, enriching and changing his and her world in the process, thereby creating hope that her talents will continue to blossom.

REFERENCES

Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richert, S. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124-132

Baldwin, A.Y. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Issues concerning minority populations. In F.D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives ((pp. 223-249). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Bernal, E.M. (1980). Methods of identifying gifted minority students (ERIC Report no. 72). Princeton, NJ: ERIC Clearinghouse, Educational Testing Service.

Bloom, B. (Ed.), (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

Chinn, P.C., & Kamp, S.H. (1982). Cultural diversity and exceptionality. In N.G. Haring (Ed.), Exceptional children and youth (3rd ed, pp. 371-390). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1992). Issues and practices related to identification of gifted and talented students in the visual arts. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented: Storrs, CT.

Colangelo, N., & Lafrenz, N. (1981). Counseling the culturally diverse gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(1), 27-30.

Coleman, L.J. (1994). Portfolio assessment: A key to identifying hidden talents and empowering teachers of young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(2), 65-69.

Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. In L.M. Terman (Ed.), Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill Press.

Feurstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Gallagher, J.J. (1991). The gifted. A term with surplus meaning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 14(4), 353-365.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M.G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Goldsmith, L.T. (1988). Girl prodigies: Some evidence and some speculations. Roeper Review, 10(2), 74-82.

Hadaway, N., & Marek-Schroer, M.F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15(2), 73-77.

Haroutounian, J. (1995). Talent identification and development in the Arts: An artistic/educational dialogue. Roeper Review, 18(2), 112-117.

Hunsaker, S. (1994). Adjustment to traditional procedures for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61, 72-76.

Jacobs, H., & Borland, J.H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 159-163.

Linn, M.C. (1986). Establishing a research base for science education: Challenges, trends and recommendations. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Luca, M., & Allen, B. (1974). Teaching gifted children art in grades one through three. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.

McClelland, D.C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

McKenzie, J.A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 93-95.

Minkovitch, A., Davis, D., & Bashi, J. (1977). An evaluation study of Israeli elementary schools. Jerusalem: The School of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Natriello, G., McDill, E.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1990). School disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Passow, A.H., & Frasier, M.M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3), 198202.

Robinson, H.B., Roedell, W., & Jackson, N. (1979). Early identification and intervention. In A.H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented: their education and development. The seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part I, pp. 138-154). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roe, A. (1953). Making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Wallace, A. (1986). The Prodigy. New York: Dutton.

Wallach, M.A. (1976). Tests tell us little about talent. American Scientist, 64, 57-63.

Wilgosh, L., Mulcahy, R., & Watters, B. (1986). Assessing intellectual performance of culturally different Inuit children with the WISC-R. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 270-277.

Wright, L., & Borland, J.H. (1993). Using early childhood developmental portfolios in the identification and education of young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 15 (4), 205-210.

Zorman, R. (1991). Identification and nurturance of young disadvantaged gifted children. In R.M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents (pp. 161-178). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rachel Zorman is a senior researcher at the Szold institute in Jerusalem, where she specializes in devising ways for identifying gifted students for various programs and conducting program evaluation.

Manuscript submitted March, 1996. Revision accepted March, 1997.