Response Failure: An Intermediary Mechanism Explanation for the “High Support-Low Conversion” Phenomenon in Top-Talent Cultivation

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.09.001

Abstract

Abstract:

There exists a “high support-low conversion” phenomenon in top-talents cultivation, with its core crux lying in “response failure”. This study aims to explain this practical dilemma theoretically. Rooted in local practical experience, this paper proposes a “Support–Response–Development” (S-R-D) analytical framework. further subdivides support indicators into three dimensions—cognitive, autonomous, and contextual—while employing response indicators as mediating variables, attempting to establish a bridge between cultivation support and student development. This framework aims to provide a novel tool and theoretical underpinning for the improvement of top-talent cultivation programs in China. Applying this analytical framework, this paper conducts a thick description of talent cultivation reform programs such as the Special Class for the Gifted Young and the Basic Science Top-Notch Student Training Program 1.0, preliminarily revealing the dynamic and complex relationship between cultivation support and student development, and offering improvement insights for addressing the “response failure” problem in cultivating top-notch students.

Key words: top-talent cultivation, response failure, “Support–Response–Development” framework

Manli Li, Weifeng Qiao. Response Failure: An Intermediary Mechanism Explanation for the “High Support-Low Conversion” Phenomenon in Top-Talent Cultivation[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(9): 1-13.

Figures/Tables 2

References

	鲍威, 张晓玥. (2012). 中国高校学生学业参与的多维结构及其影响机制. 复旦教育论坛, 10 (06), 20- 28.
	北京大学教务部. (2014). 北京大学“基础学科拔尖学生培养试验计划”进展报告. 中国大学教学, (03), 18.
	本书编写组. (2012). 基础学科拔尖学生培养试验计划进展报告(2009.01-2011.12). 北京: 高等教育出版社.
	卜尚聪, 马莉萍, 朱红. (2021). 精英大学本科生家庭教养方式及其影响研究. 教育学术月刊, (08), 57- 64.
	卜尚聪. (2025). 高水平大学拔尖创新人才选育效果及其阶段性变化. 中国高教研究, 41 (8), 14- 21.
	丁小浩, 王嘉颖. (2012). 高校基础教学质量与大学生实习参与程度的实证研究. 高等教育研究, 33 (10), 61- 66.
	龚放, 吕林海. (2012). 中美研究型大学本科生学习参与差异的研究——基于南京大学和加州大学伯克利分校的问卷调查. 高等教育研究, 33 (09), 90- 100.
	胡成, 龚升平. (2006). “神童”后遗症——华中科技大学五百“神童”一半人后悔读少年班. 教育, (24), 27.
	胡卫平, 辛兵. (2023). 科技创新后备人才成长规律研究. 上海: 上海科技教育出版社.
	嵇艳, 汪雅霜. (2016). 学习动机对大学生学习投入的影响: 人际互动的中介效应. 高教探索, (12), 23- 28.
	李曼丽, 苏芃, 吴凡, 张晓蕾. (2019). “基础学科拔尖学生培养计划”的培养与成效研究. 清华大学教育研究, 40 (01), 31- 39+96.
	李政道. (1980). 希望同学们早日成才——李政道教授同中国科大少年班师生的谈话(摘要). 人民教育, (01), 8.
	林崇德. (2005). 培养思维品质是发展智能的突破口. 国家教育行政学院学报, (09), 21- 26+32.
	林小英, 杨芊芊. (2023). 过度的自我监控: 评价制度对拔尖创新人才培养的影响. 全球教育展望, 52 (04), 14- 32.
	陆根书, 彭正霞, 胡文静. (2014). 不同学科大学生学习经历差异分析. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 2 (01), 64- 73.
	陆一, 卜尚聪. (2025). 我国高考体系对拔尖创新人才的识别效果评估. 教育研究, 46 (02), 86- 100.
	施林淼. (2016). “拔尖计划”人才培养模式四年跟踪调查: 南京大学案例. 南京: 南京大学博士学位论文.
	施一公. (2023). 关于自主培养拔尖创新人才的思考. 中国基础教育, (08), 11- 14.
	孙哲, 李永乐, 周耀耀. (1989). 对少年班教育的一些看法. 教育与现代化, (03), 29.
	谈小媊, 沙丽曼, 张庭芳, 林建华. (2010). 从实验班到元培学院——北京大学本科人才培养模式和管理体制改革. 中国科教创新导刊, (02), 211.
	王纾. (2011). 研究型大学学生学习性投入对学习收获的影响机制研究——基于2009年“中国大学生学情调查”的数据分析. 清华大学教育研究, 32 (04), 24- 32.
	文雯, 史静寰, 周子矜. (2014). 大四现象: 一种学习方式的转型——清华大学本科教育学情调查报告2013. 清华大学教育研究, 35 (03), 45- 54+80.
	吴舒钰, 李稻葵, 厉克奥博. (2024). 教育回报率显著高于资本回报率的实证分析——基于1978年以来我国宏观教育回报率的测算. 教育研究, 45 (03), 111- 124.
	武金渭, 宋文芝. (1993). 培养优秀理工科人才的探索——我校少年班、提高班教改试验. 高等工程教育研究, (03), 23- 26+33.
	夏应春, 贾传华. (1987). 高校少年班、试点班、保送生工作总结研讨会在西安召开. 高等工程教育研究, (04), 72.
	谢洋, 原春琳. (2008). 中国科大少年班30年. 教育文汇, (10), 20- 24.
	许和平. (1989). 复旦大学首届少年班的培养工作. 教育与现代化, (03), 45- 49.
	叶俊飞. (2014). 从“少年班”“基地班”到“拔尖计划”的实施——35年来我国基础学科拔尖人才培养的回溯与前瞻. 中国高教研究, (04), 13- 19.
	叶晓梅, 朱红, 马莉萍. (2024). 情理交融型教养方式如何影响拔尖学生的生命意义感. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, 23 (04), 9- 19.
	俞凌云, 蒋凯. (2023). 个体与环境互动视域下的高校学生发展——阿斯汀院校影响与高等教育评价理论评析. 大学教育科学, (01), 104- 113.
	周安. (2017). 南京大学物理学院“拔尖计划”人才培养探析. 高等理科教育, (01), 106.
	朱源, 康庄, 刘玉华. (1985). 中国科大第三期少年班学生追踪研究概况. 心理科学通讯, (06), 58.
	Astin, A. W. (1970). The Methodology of Research on College Impact, Part One. Sociology of Education, 43 (3), 225.
	Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297- 308.
	Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87- 105.
	Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84 (6), 740- 756.
	Davis, G. A. (2018). Gifted Children and Gifted Education: A Handbook for Teachers and Parents (2nd ed.) . Tucson: Great Potential Press.
	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227- 268.
	Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59- 109.
	Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (23), 8410- 8415.
	Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (1st ed. ). London: Routledge.
	Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning Inside The National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33 (3), 10- 17.
	Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Education. Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunities. Science, 347 (6222), 1261757.
	Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration and Giftedness: Overexcitability Research Findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30 (1), 68- 87.
	OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
	Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and recommendations for the future. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
	Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.
	Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66- 75.
	Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Worrell, F. C. (2021). The Talent Development Megamodel: A Domain-Specific Conceptual Framework Based on the Psychology of High Performance. In Sternberg, R. J., Ambrose, D. (eds. ) Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
	Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Corwith, S., Calvert, E., & Worrell, F. C. (2023). Transforming Gifted Education in Schools: Practical Applications of a Comprehensive Framework for Developing Academic Talent. Education Sciences, 13 (7), 707.
	Vantassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners, third edition. Denver: Love Publishing Company, 120-122; 151—154.
	Ziegler, A., Chandler, K. L., Vialle, W., & Stoeger, H. (2017). Exogenous and endogenous learning resources in the actiotope model of giftedness and its significance for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40 (4), 310- 333.