NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED143197
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1976-Dec
Pages: 436
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Thesis on a Comparison of Achievement and Ability in Children of High Intellectual Potential.
Painter, Elfrieda
Reported are findings of a project examining the scholastic levels of attainment, social relationships, and interests of 73 primary level students with IQs ranging from 141 to 213 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Initial chapters (which differentiate this document from a similar report--ED 133 939) cover the relevance of children of exceptional intelligence to modern industrial society, the childhood of eminent British people and the historical development of educational provisions for the intellectually able in Britain, modern psychological models of the intellect and the implications of such for learning by highly able students, and a literature review on gifted children (with emphasis on studies by Terman, Burt, Hitchfield, Ogilvie, and the proceedings of the First World Conference on Gifted Children.) It is noted that students were given National Foundation of Educational Research tests, and questionnaires were completed by parents, teachers, and students. Among findings reported are that the mean educational quotients and achievement indexes for English and mathematics were significantly lower for the highly able, relative to their ability, for three out of four comparisons made; that questionnaires showed the highly able to have a greater liking for reading, creative writing, and mathematics than the control group; that parents of the majority of the sample assisted their children's school learning; and that teachers rated the highly able to have a lower standard of attainment at games and swimming than the control group and to be less popular than the peer group. Appended are tables with statistical data. (Author/SBH)
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: N/A
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: London Univ. (England). Inst. of Education.
Note: M. Phil. Thesis, London Institute of Education (England) ; Best copy available