Su búsqueda
Resultados 5 recursos
-
Reports an error in "Direct measurement of scientific giftedness" by Robert J. Sternberg ( Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 2018[Apr-Jun], Vol 40[2], 78-85). In the original article, there was an error on page 80, left column, in a sentence beginning on the fourth line of the first paragraph under the heading “OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING.” The correct text should read as follows: Instead of measuring general cognitive skills, we focused on the particular cognitive and scientific skills needed by scientists. (The descriptions below also provided the basis for analyses in Sternberg & Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017.) In addition, on page 79, left column, the heading “THEORY UNDERLYING OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING” should have included the following footnote: The theory described in this section also has been used in prior analyses (Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-16871-004). Giftedness in science today is largely measured by various kinds of standardized tests—IQ tests, SATs, ACTs, GREs, and so forth. For example, many STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) gifted programs rely at least in part on IQ tests or the SAT for identifying students as gifted. It might be useful to supplement such standard measures with measures that directly measure the skills involved in actual scientific work, such as (a) generating hypotheses, (b) generating experiments, (c) drawing conclusions, (d) reviewing (i.e., analyzing scientific work), (e) editing (i.e., evaluating reviews of scientific work), and (f) evaluating teaching. This article discusses the status of the measurement of scientific giftedness and also describes assessments designed to measure scientific giftedness as well as giftedness in evaluating teaching (an important component of scientific success). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
-
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 40(3) of Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education (see record 2018-38625-011). In the original article, there was an error on page 80, left column, in a sentence beginning on the fourth line of the first paragraph under the heading “OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING.” The correct text should read as follows: Instead of measuring general cognitive skills, we focused on the particular cognitive and scientific skills needed by scientists. (The descriptions below also provided the basis for analyses in Sternberg & Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017.) In addition, on page 79, left column, the heading “THEORY UNDERLYING OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING” should have included the following footnote: The theory described in this section also has been used in prior analyses (Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017).] Giftedness in science today is largely measured by various kinds of standardized tests—IQ tests, SATs, ACTs, GREs, and so forth. For example, many STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) gifted programs rely at least in part on IQ tests or the SAT for identifying students as gifted. It might be useful to supplement such standard measures with measures that directly measure the skills involved in actual scientific work, such as (a) generating hypotheses, (b) generating experiments, (c) drawing conclusions, (d) reviewing (i.e., analyzing scientific work), (e) editing (i.e., evaluating reviews of scientific work), and (f) evaluating teaching. This article discusses the status of the measurement of scientific giftedness and also describes assessments designed to measure scientific giftedness as well as giftedness in evaluating teaching (an important component of scientific success). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
-
In this article, I describe the 21 ideas underlying a 42-year search to understand giftedness. I present the ideas roughly chronologically, in the order in which they arose, and discuss how in a career as in science, progress means supplementing or even superseding one idea with the next. In terms of the 21 ideas, I start with a discussion of how I thought IQ tests could account for giftedness and end with a discussion of the ACCEL (Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership) model. But I frame the article in terms of a paradox—that despite the fact that IQs rose 30 points during the 20th century, people often seem to be operating at an intellectual level that is not notably higher and may even be lower in some respects than in previous times. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
-
Thinking and writing about creativity immediately causes us to reflect upon our own experiences and wonder whether or not we think of ourselves as being creative people. This chapter describes an approach to developing creative activities and creativity in children, particularly, ways of influencing teacher behaviors to identify, promote, and develop creative teaching and the strategies for infusing creativity in educational experiences. The chapter provides a brief description on new directions in creativity program (NDC); the three-ring conception of giftedness; the schoolwide enrichment model; and the challenge of change in the real world of schools. The NDC includes five volumes: Mark A, Mark B, Mark I, Mark 2, and Mark 3. The NDC program is designed to help teachers develop the creative thinking abilities of primary and middle grade youngsters, and the premise of NDC is that almost all children have the potential to think creatively and that creative production can be improved by providing systematic learning experiences that foster the use of imagination. The general purpose of NDC can best be explained by contrasting the creative or divergent production abilities with the convergent production abilities emphasized in most elementary school classrooms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
-
To understand giftedness, and particularly intellectual giftedness, one must understand intelligence. But what is intelligence? In 1921, when the editors of the Journal of Educational Psychology asked 14 famous psychologists that question, the responses varied, but generally embraced two themes. First, intelligence involves the capacity to learn from experience. Second, it involves the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment. Sixty-five years later, 24 cognitive psychologists with expertise in intelligence research were asked the same question (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). They, too, underscored the importance of learning from experience and adapting to the environment. They also broadened the definition to emphasize the importance of metacognition—people’s understanding and control of their own thinking processes. Contemporary experts also more heavily emphasized the role of culture. They pointed out that what is considered intelligent in one culture may be considered less intelligent in another culture (Ang, Van Dyne, & Tan, 2011). To summarize, intelligence is the capacity to learn from experience, using metacognitive processes to enhance learning, and the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment; it may require different adaptations within different social and cultural contexts (Niu & Brass, 2011; Saklofske, van de Vijver, Oakland, Mpofu, & Suzuki, 2015; Sternberg, 2004). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word intelligence entered our language in about the 12th century. Today, we can look up intelligence in numerous dictionaries, but most of us still have our own implicit ideas about what it means to be smart. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
Explorar
Tipo de recurso
- Book Section (2)
- Journal Article (3)