Tham khảo Năng khiếu trí tuệ

  1. ↑ Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence . Oxford: Oxford University Press. tr. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. Truy cập ngày 15 tháng 6 năm 2014. The Binet scales, as they were known, formed the basis of modern IQ tests, just as mental age formed the basis for IQ scores.... Although Galton was the first to try to measure individual differences in intelligence, it was Binet who appeared to have succeeded.
  2. ↑ Urbina, Susana (2011). “Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence”. Trong Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (biên tập). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tr. 20–38, 24–25. ISBN 9780521739115. Tóm lược dễ hiểu (ngày 9 tháng 2 năm 2012). The closest Binet came to defining intelligence was in an article he co-authored with Simon (1904) in which they equate intelligence with judgment or common sense, adding that 'to judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well' (p. 197) are the essential activities' of intelligence. Unlike Galton, Binet believed that intelligence consists of a complex set of abilities—such as attention, memory, and reasoning—that are fluid and shaped by environmental and cultural influences.
  3. ↑ Pintner, Rudolph (1923). Intelligence Testing: Methods and Results. New York: Henry Holt. tr. 196. Truy cập ngày 14 tháng 7 năm 2013. We do not mean to leave the impression that before the general use of mental tests no attention had ever been paid to children of remarkable ability. We find many references in literature to especially bright children, and the biographies of many great men bear record of their superior performances in childhood. Nevertheless, such references are scattered and leave the impression of something peculiar and very uncommon. Superior intelligence has certainly not been recognized as a vital educational problem. It is becoming to be so regarded today, because of the scientific study of such children by means of intelligence tests.
  4. ↑ Davis, Gary A.; Rimm, Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (tháng 4 năm 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. tr. 56. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. Tóm lược dễ hiểu (ngày 8 tháng 10 năm 2013). In her article "The Case Against Formal Identification," Davidson (1986) expressed strong frustration with formal testing, rating, and nomination procedures, including the use of point systems and cutoffs. Davidson noted that a student with a tested IQ of 110 may show greater giftedness in the sense of originality and thought-provoking ideas and answers than a student with a tested IQ of 140—who will be selected for the program. Even creativity tests do not measure every aspect of a child's creativeness, noted Davidson; and peer, parent, and teacher nominations can be biased in favor of popular, English-speaking, middle-class students.
  5. ↑ Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (ngày 21 tháng 8 năm 2012). “Chapter 32: Heterogeneity among the Gifted”. Trong Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (biên tập). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. tr. 330. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. While there are differences among subgroups of students identified as gifted, there are also differences among students in the general population whose talents are never addressed because we fail even to recognize that talent. Considerable attention has been directed at the under-representation of these students in programs for the gifted. Among the groups most often recognized as deserving of special attention for identification, talent development, and subsequent adjustments in curriculum are African American, Latino/Latina, and twice-exceptional learners.
  6. ↑ McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). “Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness”. Trong Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (biên tập). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues . New York (NY): Guilford Press. tr. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Tóm lược dễ hiểu (ngày 29 tháng 3 năm 2014). The use of a single cognitive test composite score as the primary criterion for determining giftedness is highly common within schools. In the past, the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) and the fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet (SB-IV; Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986) were the most commonly used cognitive measures in the schools (Coleman & Cross, 2005).
  7. ↑ Kalbfleisch, M. Layne (ngày 21 tháng 8 năm 2012). “Chapter 35: Twice-Exceptional Students”. Trong Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (biên tập). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. tr. 360. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Because defining twice exceptionality has defied psychometric and empirical characterization up to this point, and because it can include co-morbidity with a number of disorders (specific learning disability, dyslexia, attention deficit disorders, and autism, to name the few highlighted in this chapter), the gifted education field at large has only been able to respond to the consequences of it, when the goal should be proactive identification and support to enable the success that should come from educational experience and learning, not in spite of it. This is critical because the social and emotional aspects of twice exceptionality are fundamentally important to the twice-exceptional individual's ability to achieve a well-adjusted life (Assouline, Nicpon, & Huber, 2006; Foley Nicpon, Doobay, & Assouline, 2010; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005; King, 2005; New, 2003).
  8. ↑ McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). “Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness”. Trong Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (biên tập). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues . New York (NY): Guilford Press. tr. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Tóm lược dễ hiểu (ngày 29 tháng 3 năm 2014). Although many would consider screening to be the crucial point in the identification process, predictive validity must be established between the screening procedure and the intellectual measure(s) used to ensure the accuracy and utility of the identification process.
  9. ↑ Warne, Russell T. (2016). “Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice”. Gifted Child Quarterly. 60: 3–15. doi:10.1177/0016986215605360.
  10. ↑ Sternberg, Robert J.; Davidson, Janet E. biên tập (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54730-7. Tóm lược dễ hiểu (ngày 18 tháng 7 năm 2010). This review of contemporary research includes chapters by James Borland, Linda E. Brody, Julian Stanley, Carolyn M. Callahan, Erin M. Miller, Tracy L. Cross, Laurence J. Coleman, John F. Feldhusen, Joan Freeman, Francoys Gagne, Edmund Gordon, Beatrice L. Bridglall, Kurt A. Heller, Christoph Perleth, Tock Keng Lim, Ida Jeltova, Elena L. Grigorenko, Franz J. Monks, Michael W. Katzko, Jonathan A. Plucker, Sasha A. Barab, Sally M. Reis, Joseph S. Renzulli, Nancy M. Robinson, Mark A. Runco, Dean Keith Simonton, Robert J. Sternberg, Rena F. Subotnik, Linda Jarvin, Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, Catya von Karolyi, Ellen Winner, Herbert J. Walberg, Susan J. Paik, Albert Ziegler, and Richard E. Mayer.

Tài liệu tham khảo

WikiPedia: Năng khiếu trí tuệ http://www.allynbaconmerrill.com/store/product.asp... http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199585595.d... http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530599 http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.a... http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item617... //doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986215605360 https://books.google.com/books?id=yCWUQQAACAAJ https://archive.org/details/cambridgehandboo00ster https://archive.org/details/cambridgehandboo00ster... https://archive.org/details/intelligencetest00rudo