The Gifted and Talented

Fliegler, Louis A.; Bish, Charles E.

doi:10.2307/1169224

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the one extreme, the use of IQ tests and the "Very Superior" (130+) category as widely accepted criteria of giftedness is in line with Terman's (1925) original assertion that subjects are "gifted" if they score 135 and above on the Stanford Binet IQ test (cited in Colangelo, 1984). Another definition is that exemplified by Fliegler and Bish (1959), who define gifted students as those who possess potential and functional skills necessary for academic achievement in the top 15%-20% of the school population. The United States Office of Education definition (Marland, 1972) goes beyond this unitary conception by identifying gifted and talented children as those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in one or more of a number of areas, including general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability and visual and performing arts.…”

Section: Gifted Education Internationalmentioning

confidence: 65%

Dynamic Assessnnent of Intellectually Superior Israeli Children in a Low Socio-Econonnic Status Connnnunity

Skuy

Kaniel

Tzuriel

1988

Gifted Education International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the use of dynamic assessment techniques with academically superior children in an Israeli community of low socio economic status (SES). Conventional ability measures and Feuerstein's Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) procedures were administered to 165 children achieving in the top 15% of their fourth to sixth grade classes (Group 1) and to their 876 classmates (Group 2). Results indicated that (a) on both conventional and dynamic measures, Group 1 was functioning at a level significantly superior to Group 2; (b) Group 1 did not achieve a superior mean score in relation to the norms of conventional ability measures; (c) the LPAD approach, however, yielded a superior mean score for this group in relation to the norms; (d) the LPAD Organiser task produced greater change for Group 1 than for Group 2. Findings suggest the value of the LPAD in identifying giftedness among, and providing a basis for the cognitive enrichment of low SES children, thus facilitating their inclusion in mainstream programmes for the gifted.

show abstract

Section: Gifted Education Internationalmentioning

confidence: 65%

Dynamic Assessnnent of Intellectually Superior Israeli Children in a Low Socio-Econonnic Status Connnnunity

Skuy

Kaniel

Tzuriel

1988

Gifted Education International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To provide for these children the very best in educational opportunity and inspiration; this is the next great need in American Education” (p. 14). Many others echoed this sentiment (Blumenfeld, 1969; Fliegler & Bish, 1959, 1960; J. J. Gallagher, 1966, 1968; Plaut, 1957a, 1957b; Torrance, 1969).…”

Section: Advocacy For Cled Gifted Students In the 1950s And 1960smentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming History: How the Marland Report Addressed Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Students

Gallagher¹

2023

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 50th anniversary of the Marland Report provides an opportunity to reflect on its impact on the field of gifted education. A critical question is how the Marland Report addressed the need for equity, especially since the Marland federal definition made no explicit mention of culturally, linguistically, or economically different gifted students. This article presents a review of (a) the history leading to the Marland Report, (b) the report’s content concerning equity in gifted education, and (c) the activity that resulted directly from the Marland legislation through the National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented, including national conferences and two teacher institutes about “culturally different” gifted students between 1973 and 1981. Implications include the consequences of neglecting the unique contributions the National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented made to the field and a suggested agenda for moving forward that includes long-desired changes and new directions.

show abstract

“…In addition, definitions differ in terms of capacity versus performance, generality versus specificity, and psychometric versus nonpsychometric properties. For example, some define the gifted as those whose test scores indicate they have the potential to perform well, but others (Fliegler and Bish, 1959) maintain the gifted are those who use their potential to achieve high levels of performance. Renzulli (1978) defines giftedness inclusively, that is the gifted possess above average performance in intelligence, task commitment and creativity.…”

Section: The Concept Of Giftednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

An application of cognitive‐developmental theory to the identification of gifted children

Carter

Kontos

1982

Roeper Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gifted and Talented

Cited by 21 publications

References 74 publications

Dynamic Assessnnent of Intellectually Superior Israeli Children in a Low Socio-Econonnic Status Connnnunity

Dynamic Assessnnent of Intellectually Superior Israeli Children in a Low Socio-Econonnic Status Connnnunity

Reclaiming History: How the Marland Report Addressed Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Students

An application of cognitive‐developmental theory to the identification of gifted children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About