This study explores the utility of an alternative approach that incorporates dynamic assessment in the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners in first to fifth grades (approximate age ranges from six to eleven) in a school with a majority of culturally diverse students. From a total population of 473 students in a Pennsylvania (USA) school, 60 percent of whom come from either immigrant or ethnic minority backgrounds, this study identified 25 (5 percent) who qualified for inclusion in the school district’s special program for academically gifted students. The distribution of cultural backgrounds of the students who qualified for the classes for gifted students paralled the proportion of representation of students from these backgrounds in the school. Previously, the number of children identified from this school ranged between two to four students (< 1 percent). The total percentage of gifted children identified within the entire district within which this school is located is typically 5 percent and the number of children identified within this school by this study matches this proportion. The study demonstrates the contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted minority children. The study also offers evidence of construct and concurrent validity of the dynamic assessment procedure based on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this perspective piece, we briefly review embodied cognition and embodied learning. We then present a translational research model based on this research to inform teachers, educational psychologists, and practitioners on the benefits of embodied cognition and embodied learning for classroom applications. While many teachers already employ the body in teaching, especially in early schooling, many teachers’ understandings of the science and benefits of sensorimotor engagement or embodied cognition across grades levels and the content areas is little understood. Here, we outline seven goals in our model and four major “action” steps. To address steps 1 and 2, we recap previously published reviews of the experimental evidence of embodied cognition (and embodied learning) research across multiple learning fields, with a focus on how both simple embodied learning activities—as well as those based on more sophisticated technologies of AR, VR, and mixed reality—are being vetted in the classroom. Step 3 of our model outlines how researchers, teachers, policy makers, and designers can work together to help translate this knowledge in support of these goals. In the final step (step 4), we extract generalized, practical embodied learning principles, which can be easily adopted by teachers in the classroom without extensive training. We end with a call for educators and policy makers to use these principles to identify learning objectives and outcomes, as well as track outcomes to assess whether program objectives and competency requirements are met.