| Summary: | Fundamental assumptions concerning the cognitive characteristics of gifted students in special education were presented. Prerequisites for operationalising them were extrapolated. The importance of clear parallels between identification and programming in gifted education, and of the role of informal and formal indicators was discussed. Guilford's Structure of Intellect model (1967) was examined in relation to the identification of cognitive ability.
Achievement, measured by the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), and aptitude, as measured by the Structure of Intellect (SOI) Learning Abilities Test, identified differences between students who had been nominated to participate in an enrichment program. There were some who were also identified by the resource teachers as being gifted.
Subjects were 100 students from grades three, five and, eight previously nominated for the program. Sixty were selected to participate in the program, and nineteen were identified as being gifted. The groups were age and gender balanced. The students were given the CTBS as part of the district's annual testing program. The SOI was given at the start of the enrichment program, at the end of the twelve-week program and at the end of the academic year.
Analysis of variance and multiple regression analyses suggested significant relationships existed between various dimensions of achievement and aptitude, and that the treatment group differed significantly from the control group in aptitude. The gifted differed from the non-gifted in achievement (CTBS). Transformational ability on the SOI distinguished giftedness which supported Guilford's hypothesis of gifted ability.
Teacher ratings of the objectives of the enrichment program were not predicted by either aptitude or achievement scores. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that lower-level abilities were enhanced the most in the treatment group. Age contributed significantly to aptitude dimensions indicating non-school, or developmental factors were intertwined in the relationships.
Findings were discussed and implications for subsequent research with the SOI in examining cognitive style in learning, and for both instruments use in special education identification programs were drawn. === Education, Faculty of === Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of === Graduate
|
|---|
