Western Kentucky UniversityTopSCHOLAR®

Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School

5-1984

Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Theory: AnEvaluation of the Three Dimensional Model andthe Implications for Its Use in the Education of theGifted ChildJudith Parr

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses

Part of the Child Psychology Commons, and the Education Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects byan authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact topscholar@wku.edu.

Recommended CitationParr, Judith, "Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Theory: An Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Model and the Implications for Its Usein the Education of the Gifted Child" (1984). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1807.http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1807

GUILFORO'S STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT THEORY:

AN EVALUATION OF THE THREE DIMENSIONAL MOOEL ANO THE

I MPlI CATIONS FOR ITS USE I N THE EOUCA TI ON OF THE GI FTED CHILD

A Thes i s

Presented To

the Faculty of the Department of Psychology

Western Kentucky University

Bowling Green, Kentucky

In Partial Fulfillmeot

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

by

Judith B. Parr

May. 1964

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF THESIS

Permt •• loD I. hereby

~ranted to tho WelteI'D Kentucky Unlveralty Library to Il'Ulke. or aUow to 'be made photocopl •• , mic:rofUrn or other copl •• of thla theaia lor appropriate reaeal'ch or acholarl,. purpoa •••

O reaerved ~,the author lor the mum, oi aD., cople. 01 thla theaia exot::s!t lor brief aeetton. lor r •••• rcb or acholar1y purposes.

MlllecJ _"'::~7fl.l!l.vi~:L!<!d.:J!...'_&~- ~.,-,-I2..f-a~ .• :!,,--~ 'I- --J 'j - f '-f Date

Ple ••• place aD tlX" lD the appropriate box.

Thi.. form will be filed with the oriaiDal of the thed. aDd will control luture ua. 01 the the",h.

GUILFORD'S STRUCTURE OF INTEL LECT THEORY:

AN EVALUATION OF THE THREE DIMENSIONAL loiODEL AND THE

IMPLICATIONS FOR ITS USE IN THE EDUCATION OF THE GIFTED CHILD

APPROVED~ ~ ~ 19f'f'

De!~a4

ReeD_nded 0/' 't / ~ I? 9'1

dkW/~~

CJf.~ P~/~

ACKNOWlEOGEMENTS

For the contributions of two members of my thesis committee,

Or. Richard Mill er and Dr. Car l Martray, I am indeed grateful. In

addition to many professional contributi ons their willingness to

help and constant encou ragement meant more to me than I can express.

As chairperson of my thesis committee. Or. Doris Redfield is

well deser~ lng of extra spec ial mention. Her unyielding persi stence

and constructive cr itici sm throughout the study indeed made thi s

thesi s possible.

For the confidence they expressed by allow ing me access to the

confidential data. I extend my a~nrecia tion to Dori s Mills and Ne ll

Taylor. Also, for overlooking al l the interruptl0ns and maintaining

pl easant work I ng cand! tions . I am vHy thankful to a 11 the princi­

pals, teachers and central office personnel in both school dIstricts.

To my husband and ch ildren, lowe a speclal debt of grat itude.

Without their constant support and encouragement 1 could not have

pursued this endeavor to the fini sh.

last, although not least, to Carolyn Chelette, the typist,

am grateful. It was through her generous and persistent efforts

that the final draft of this paper achieved the standards acceptable

to the University Library.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • •••••• .. •.•••••• ••••••• • •••.••• • •••• ••••••• . •.•••••••• I I I

LIST OF TABLES.. . ......... ... ... ... •••••••• • • • •••••.•••••••• • • .. ••••••• v

LIST OF APPENDiXES ••••••• • ••••••••••••• . •• •• ••••••••••• •••••• ••••••• ••• vi

Chapter

I. I NTROOUCTI ON ••••••••••••••••.• •••• • ••••• •• ••••• • • •••••• .• • • ••••

II. LITERATURE REViEW ••••..• •••••••••••• •.•••••••••• •• • • •• •• • ••• ••• 4

Models of Intelligence.......... ... ........... . . .. ....... . .. . 4

Identification of the Academical ly Gifted ... . ... . ... . . . ...... 9

Instruction of the Academically Gifted ....... ................ 10

Evaluation of Program ...... .. ......... ... ........ . ........... 13

Rationa Ie ............. . . ........... ... .... .• ••............... 15

Hypothesis •••.••.•••• ••• ••••.. ••• •• .••. •••••• ••••••••••••.••• 15

III. METHODS •••• •• •••• • •••••••• • •• ••• • • •••• , ... .... ...... ..... . .. ... 16

SubJects ••••••••••••••• •••• •••.•••••••••••••• • • •• • •• ••• •••• •• 16

Instrumentation ............. . ..... . ..... .......... . .... . . .... 18

Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . •• . . . . .. 24

IV. RESULTS ••••••• •••••••••.••••••• ••••• ••••••••••• • •••••• • •••••••• 28

Cogn i tion . ...... .. • .. . .. ... . •.. .. ...... • ........ . ... . .. . ..... 29

Memory •••••••••••••• •• ••••••• • . •• ••••••• •• • • • •••••• •• ••• • •• •• 30

Evaluat ion .................... . .... . ................. . . .. .... 31

Convergent Production ... . ...... . .. . .•... . .......... . .. . .. .... 32

01 vergent Production .... .. . ....... ....... . .... . . ... .......... 33

V. OISCUSSION ••••••••• . ••••••• • •••••••••••••••• • •• • •• •••••••••••• • 34

APPENDIXES • •• • ••••••••••• •• •••••• •• •••• •••• •• • •••••••••••••• •• ••••• •• •• 39

REFERENCES ............. . ... .. ........ ... ....... . ...... . . .. .. . ... . ...... 43

Iv

LIST OF TABLE,

I. Genera l Abillteis (operations) Grade Level 4 •• .•.••.•. .• .. •••...... 21

2. Source Tab le for ANOVA on Pretest Findings ....•....•.••.••• •• •..•.. 28

3. Cognition : Surrmary of Analysis of Covar iance . ..••. _ ..• , _ • ..•. ••••. 29

4. ~1emory: Sunmary of Analysis of Covariance • .••. ••.•• • .• ••• ••.•• .•.. 30

5. Evaluation: Sunrnary of Analysi s of Covariance . ................. ... 31

6. Convergent Production: Summary of Analysis of Covariance .. ........ 32

7. Divergent Production: Summary of Analysis of Covariance ........... 33

8. Socia-Economic Status .........•... . ......... . ........ . ........ •. ... 34

v

LI ST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix

A. Teacher ReCOfTI11endatlon Form ... • .. •.•• . • . .••• • . •.. • • .•. •..• .. 39

B. ObtaIned and Adjusted Means:

Cognition , Memory. Evaluation, Convergent

Production and Divergent Production ... . ..... . ... . ..... .... 42

GUILFORO"S STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT THEORY : AN EVALUATION OF THE THREE OIMENSIONAL MOOEL ANO TflE HIPLICATIONS FC~ iTS USE

IN THE EDUCATION OF THE ACADEMICALLY GIFTED CIIILD

Judith 11. Pa rr May 1984

Directed by: D. Redfield, C. Mar tray, R. MIl ler

Department of Psychology Western Ke ntucky University

There is much current interest In the field of educat ion con­

cerning the academically gifted student's needs. Gui lford's Structu re

of Inte ll ect mode l (Gu! I ford, 1956) holds particular promise fo r

positive ly infJuer.cing the deve lopment of cogniti ve skills among

academica lly gifted student s. The pu rpose of this study was to

eva luate the effect of using a program of instruction based upon

Guilford ' s Structure of Intellect (SI) ",del (Meeke r, 1969) with

ch il dren identified as academica ll y gifted, Subjects cr.~·.I, sted of

68 fourth-grade students who resided in two count ies of northwes tern

Ke ntucky and who were identified as bei ng academ ically gifted. The

treatment group conS isted of 34 academically gifted fourth-grade

students at tending vari ous schools in one of the counties. Edch

student in the t reabment group received thre~ hours of instruction

per week based on the 51 mode l. This 51 instruction was on a resource

basis. outside their regular classrooiTI Instruction. and lasted for a

total of 34 weeks . The control group consi sted of 34 academically

gifted four th-grade students who attended school within a second

county in northwestern Kentucky. The control group received no

instruction based upon t he SI mode l ; rather, they received only

traditional instruct ion in a regular class room. The depende,lt varl-

abi es were t he abiliti es of evaluation. memory. cognition, divergen t

production. and convergent product ion as defined by Guilford and as

vii

me~sured by the five subscaJes of the Structure of Intellect/learn_

Ing Abilities (SOl/LA) test (Heeker. 1969) which possess Independent

items across the Subtests. A pretest-posttest control group design

was used. Five analyses of covariance were computed, one for each

of the five dependent variable measures. Results of the analyses

indicated significant differences between the SOl/LA scores of the

treatment group over the control group at the time of posttesting

for all of the dependent variable measures except memory. ReSults

of this study demonstrated that a program of instruction, based

upon Guilford's SI model, POsitively influenced the development of

cognitive skills, as measured by the SOl/LA test, among students in the treatment group,

vIII

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Intellectual giftedness and the education of intellectually

gifted children lias been of interest to philosOPMrs and educators

for many years (Hildreth, 1966 ; Terman, 1947). Continuing interest

in the intellectually gifted prevails today. In fact , there seems

to be n current aura of urgency surrOunding the necessi ty for develop­

ment of eductlonal programs for academically gifted students (Gourley

and RIChert, 1978; Ja ckson, 1977). Some of this interest is re flected

by increased allocation of tax dolla rs for gifted education as well

as the development of speCial interest group~1 ~ .~ ~ . the Nati onal

ASsociation for Gifted Education and it IS state leve l affiliates.

The types of educational programs currently in use with the

gIfted are varied (Maak and Swlcord, 1979 ; Porter, 1968; Clifford,

1972 ; Gensley, 1972; Luca and Al len, 1974, Schwartzstein, 1978). In

general, these programs falJ into one of five categories: (a) accele­

ration (Abraham, 1958; Horne and Dupuy, 1981; Keat ing and Stan ley ,

1972; Robeck, 1968) , (b) enrichment (DeHaan and Havlghurst, 1962;

Horne and Dupuy, 1981; Los Angeles CI ty Schools, 1962), (c) speCial

grouping (Cutts and Mose ley, 1957; Lamping, 1981; Los Angeles CIty

Schoo ls , 1962), (d) specIal school s (Lewis, 1974; Vall, 1979) and

(e) resource pro9rams (Vall, 1979).

Despite the variety of education programs being used with acade­

mica l ly gifted students, few were specifica l ly designed for use with

gifted students. Some notable exceptions to this lack of special

programs for the gifted are the Ca lJfornia Project Ta!ent (Robeck,

1968) and the Governor's School of North Carolina (le.is. 1974).

In addition to the lack of special programs for the gifted, very

ltttl~ documentation exists regarding the effectiveness of special

prograllJlling for ~he gifted (Renzulli, 1980). The effects of many

programs currently In use with academically gifted students have not

been empirically validated, relying instead upon subjective evaluation to determine their effectiveness.

One educational program which is being used on a fai rly wide­

spread basis with intellectually gifted Children is a Structure of

Intellect (SOl) progrom for gi fted students (Sennett and Markle.

1978; Meeker, 19BI). The 501 program of instruction has particular

appeal for educators because It seems to be built upon a solidly

defensible theory base, I.e., Guilford's Structure of Intellect (51) model (Guilfo rd. 1959).

Guilford's 51 mode l is conceptualized in a three-dimensional form.

i.e., a matrix in whic~ the operational, content and product components

of intellect are related. Many previous models of intellect were

based upon hierarchies. implying that learning OCCurs in a fixed

sequence {Gui lford, 1956}. In other words, hierarchical models do

not allow for skills to be learned out of sequence or Simultaneously.

Guilford's Sf model sta tes that intel lectual functioning requires

five separate abilities, \'Ihlch he refers to as operations. These

operations, which interact with the content and product dimensions

of intellect. have been classified as cognition, memory, evaluation,

convergent produCtion and divergent production. The 51 model may

2

have particular impliCations for educating gifted students. Academi_

cally gifted students, by definition, master basic academic skills

earlier than their non-gifted peers. Therefore . academically gifted

students may profit from additional instruction in non baSic skill

areas, e.g., those described by the 51 model. The purpose of this

study was to evaluate the effects of using a program of Instruction.

based upon Guilford's 51 model, with children Identified as academi_ cally gifted.

3

CHAPTER II

literature Review

MOdels of '"tell igence

Early theories of intelligence proposed that intelligence

consisted on one genera: ability factor. For example, Spearman

( 1904) stated that uAll branches of Intellectual activity have

in conlllan one fundamental function" or general abilJty factor.

However by 1927, Speanman's research I ~d him to believe that the

"one fundamental function" might actually consist of a group of

related functions, each befng saturated by the general factor.

Thorndike (1927) disagreed with Spearman's theory of general

intelilgence. Thorndike proposed that intelligence conSisted

solely of independent, specific mental abilities (e.g., abstract. Socia l, and mechanical).

Thurstone (1935) elaborated upon ThorndJkes' notion of speci­

fic mental abilities and provided a multip le-factor theory of

Intel J igence (Thurstone, 1938 ; Thurstone and Thurston, 1941). In

this first major study. Thurstone (1935) thought that as many as

nine common factors were SUffi ciently interpretable PSYChologically

to justify call1ng them "primary mental abilities." The primary

mental abilities included space, number, ve rbal comprehension,

word fluency. memory, induction, deductIon, flexibility, and speed of closure.

4

Guilford (1956) rejected Spearman's initial concept of IntelJf_

gence as a general abilj ~y . He expanded upon the conc~Pts of speci­

fic mental abilities as presented by Thorndike (1927) and Thurstone

(1938) by presenting a multi -dimenSional theory of inte ll ect.

Guilford's Structure of Intellect (51) Model of Intelligence

GuJ1ford ' s work progressed through several stages. In the first

stage, Guilford considered Thurstone's primary mental abilities to be

a description of intellectual abilities. During this intitial stage

of his work, Guilford conducted research with aviation psychologists

in the U. S. Army Air Force during the Second World War (Guilford and lacy, 1947).

Guilford believed that Thurstone's primary mental abilities

were one major source of int£:: IH tual abilJties. Guilford's research

with aviation psychologists e~panded upon Thurstone's original con­

cept of primary mental abi liti es. Guilford found that, In Some cases.

one of Thurstone's primary mental abilities cor.stftuted just one fac­

tor, a component, of intelligence and that some of the abilities

identified by Thurstone could be further subdivided into three or

four factors . In addition to the increase in the number of facto rs

thought to be involved In inte ll igence, Guilford explored new ideas

for the testi ng of reaSoning, memory and conCeptualization.

In the second stage of his work, Gui lford (1949) identified a

major Source of intelJectual abtl Itles through a program of analYSis

conducted by the Aptitude Research Project at the UniverSity of

Southern Californi a. The Aptitude qesea rch Project WdS supported

by the Office of Naval Research (Guilford, 1959); attention .as

directed t oward abilities cor.+rlbutlng to reaS!)nlng, creative

5

thinking, planning eva luation apd problem SO lvi ng. At the termlna_

ti0n of t hi s proj ect in 1969, Gu ! I ford and his associates had identi­

fied Over 100 abi l ities which are purported to compr ise intelligence and learni ng.

As these "abilities which comprise intelligence and lea rning"

6

were being Identified in the Aptitude ResearCh Project, Guilford

began an attempt to organize the abilities Into a logical scheme of

learning (Guilford, 1956). Guilford initial ly attempted to organize

these abi l it ies into a hierarchical model . He later discarded this

hierarchica l mode l because it implied a ladder type of learning which

did not allow fo r sklJls to be learned out of sequence or Sim'JJtaneoUSJy.

Gui l ford used the procedure known as mu ltipl e-factor analysis

In order to identify the factorial ab, ~ ;tl e s constituting intel l Igence.

The procedUre of multiple-factor analvs is 'Has deve loped in the United

States (Thurstone. 1944) and is a mathemat ical procedure which

enab les the researcher to classify tests of different kinds. The

classification is based upon the way in which the SCores intercorre_

late wi th one another. The baSic theory includes the belief that

where two or more tests are intercorreJated there is at least one

under lying abil ity or trait Involved, i.e., a COfllllOn factor. If

the analYSis is properly planned and executed, each common factor

appea rs to have a rati onal, Psychologi cal meaning. Factor analYSis

shows that the abil i ties to solve probl ems are essentially the unique

abilities with in the structure of Intellect (Guilford , 1968).

When efforts were f i rst made by Guilford (1955) to organize

the known intellectual ab i l i ties that had been Identified by factor

analys i s , 37 distinct abl!itles ",,'ere recognized. 8y 1958, a total

of 43 abilities had been identified by Guilford and included In his

model (Guilford, 1959). Current ly, there are 120 demonstrated or

hypothes ized ab i lities in the 51 model (Guilford, 1972).

GUilford's SI model class ifies the 120 mental abilities 0n

three dimenSions. One of the three dimensions is the Operational

dimension. Guf I ford defines operation as "major kinds of intellectual

activities or processes: things the organi sm does with raw materials

of information; information being de f ined as 'that which th~ organism

discriminates'" (Guilford and Hoepfner, 1966). The Operational

dimension conSist of (a) eva luation, (b) convergent production,

(c) divergent production, (d) memory, and (e) cognition.

A second dimension of the SI model is the Content dimension.

Guilford defined thi , ' tl:mension as "the Substantive kind of

Information involved jn the ab! l ity." Thus, content is the input

which is processed by one or more of the operations at any given

pOint. The Content dimension conSists of (a) figura l , (b) sym ~ bo li c, (c) semantic, and Cd) behavioral contents.

A third dimension of the SI model is the Product dimension.

Gull ford def ines the Product as "the form that th iS Information takes . "

In other words, Products are the observable resul ts of the Operations

acting on Contents. The Product dimension consist of (a) units,

(b) classes, ec) relations, Cd) systems, (e) transformations, and (f) Implications.

The 51 model, then, is a Cubical model of 120 cells. Each

cell represents a unique ability because of d specific Interaction

of operation, content, and Product. The SI model is depleted by a

5 X 4 X 6 Cubical mo ~rjx as shown in ~Igure 1.

7

" ,

,

Figure 1. The stucture - of - intellect model. representing the intellect ual abi Lities c la ssif ied i n three intersecting ways (Guiiford. 1968) .

Numerous studies ha 'l2 provided Supporting evidence for the

validity of the SI model (Brown, Guilford, Hoepfner, 1966; Cherry,

1976; Elshout, Van Hernert and Van Hemert , 1975; Gershon, Guilford,

Merrifield, 1963; Hoepfner, Guilford, Merrifield, 1964; Landig and

Naumann, 1978; Peterson, Guilford, Merrifield, 1963; Tenopyr. Guil_

ford and Hoepfner, 1966). The studies cited have all been based

on the 51 model and deal specifically with different abilities with­In the 51 model.

Guilford's 51 modeJ presents a model of Intelligence which CQuld

be applied to the education of all children. The SI model offers

specia l advantages in the use of educating academically gifted

8

children. Or. Mae Seagoe, of the University of California, has

stated that the chara cteristi cs of gifted children indicate that

they possess strong abilities in the five operations Gui l ford has

defined in the model . Characteristics occuring to some degree

in all children, but to a stronger degree In children identified as

academical ly gifted, include (a) interest in inductive learning

and problem solving (convergent production); (b) retentiveness,

power of concentration (memory); (c) creativeness and inventive_

ness; interest in creati ng, brainstorming, free -wheeling (divergent

Production); (d) power of critical thinking, evaluative testing

(evaluation) ; and (e) keen power of observation; power of abstrac_

tion , conceptua l ization, synthesis (cognition) (Seagoe, 1967).

If gifted chi ldren show evi ~~",e of the abilities described

by Seagoe (1967), then a mode l of intelligence which emphasizes

these abilities would be a sound baSis upon which to develop an

instructi onal program. Deve lopment of an eductlon~l program for

the academically gifted student requires particular attention to

three specific areas: Ca) Identification, (b) program develop_

ment , and {c} program eval uat ion.

Identification of the Academica lly Gifted

Identification of the academically gifted is a necessary step

in deve lop ing any program designed t o meet the academic needs of the

gifted. Brodbelt (1979) states that educutors must identify and

ana lyze problems in dealing with gifted students and design pro­

grams which meet their individual needs .

9

Renzulli and Smith (J977) point to a necessity for using several

criteria in the identification of the gifted Ch ild . Renzulli (1980)

makes the paint that what we call giftedness and talent is made up

of a combI nation of three trait clusters: (a) above average general

abilities. (b) task commitment, and (c) creat ivity .

Research validates the use of several criteria for the identi­

fication of gifted ch ildren. (8rodbelt, 1979; Freedman, 1978;

Ga llagher, 1980; Gourley and Richert, 1978 ; Hallll1ll1, 1979; Miller,

1980; Renzulli, 1980; York 1961). Some of the criteria most CO/lll1()nly

used for the identification of the academically gifted child are

teacher recommendation, IQ scores, achievement test Scores, grade

point average, parent evaluation, and self evaluation. Us ing only

one criterion t~ ~~~sure giftedness increases the probability of

overlooking gifted cMldf'~n who are underachievers, do not test well, or are cultural ly disadvantaged.

Instruction of the ,\cademicaIly Gifted

Once the academically gifted have been Identif ied. the next

concern centers on defining the needs of gifted Children and how

to best satisfy these needs. Emphasis In meeting those needs must

be placed upon curriculum construction as well as teaching proce­

dures . Many types of programs and curriculums have been used with

academlcaJiy gifted chUdren. rile five major types of programs

most often used tn educating academically gifted Children are

(a) acce leration (Abraham, 1958), (b) enrichment (DeHaan and

Havighurst, 196 1), (c l speCial grouping (Cutts and Moseley, 1957),

(d) speCial schools (Vall, 1979), and (e) resource (Vall, 1979 ) .

10

Acceleration Programs

In an acceleration program, the academica lly gifted child

is allowed to advance academically at an accelerated rate. Accele_

ration was used with academically gifted children as early as J868

in the St. l ouis Public Schoo l System (Abraham, 1958) and in the

Ca""ridge Tracking Plan begun in 1898 (Hildreth, 1966). Drawbacks

to acceleration programs may include the relative emotional, physi_

cal and/or SOCial inrnaturlty of the chUd who "skips grades." Enrichment Programs

In an enrichment program, children identified as academically

gifted remain In the normal classroom setting but receive specia l

attention within that setting. The Portland and Evanston Programs

(DeHaan and Havighurst, 1961) are examples of forma lly argon' zed

enrichment programs. However, enrichment programs are ofte" usell

informally by many school districts having "0 mandated program

for the academically gifted. Some teachers have always rec09nlzed

intel lectually Superior chlidren in their classrooms and made a

special effort to encourage and stimulate those children. However ,

most teachers have children of vastly differing abilities in a Class­

room and find it difficult to give specia l instruction to gifted chi Idren.

~ecjal Grouping Program

Another type of program for academi ca J Iy g j fted ch i I dren is

spec ial grouping or tracking, e.g., Cleveland's Major Work Classes

(Cutts and Moseley, 1957). Advantages of Special grouping for

gifted students include (a) Increased Challenges, (b) the Opportun_

ity to progress academicaiiy at a more rapid pace than the , .. ainstream,

il

and (c) the cpportunity for Interaction '-11th peers of similar

abilJty. One disadvantage of speci J! grouping programs is that

their use Is limited primarily to large, urban school systems

where there is a large enough student population to fJ I I the classes. Special Schools

A fourth type of program i nvol ves the estab l i shment of specl a I

schools for the gifted. One example is the Hunter College Campus

School (Vail, 1979). One problem with speCial schools which cater

solely to the academically gifted student is that the student, totally

segregated from the "average" student, has little association with the majority of his /her peers.

Resource Programs

The most COlmlon type of program for ""Ie academi cally gifted

student in Use today Is the resource or "pull-out" type of program.

In a resource program, the academically gi fted child remains In the

normal classroom setting for much of the day. At predesignated

times of the SChool day, the child leaves the classroom to meet

with a small group of other academically gifted chJJdren. Usually,

a speCially trained teacher conducts these classes for the "gifted."

In a resource class, special emphasis I S usually placed on Innova_

tiveness and creativity (Vail, 1979). Students are encOuraged to

generate new ideas and ways of dealing with situations. Most re­

SOurce classes make Use of "braJnstonnlng" teChniques. Teachers

often use role plaYing, hypothetical problems, word games to increase

vocabulary, etc. There is a strong emphaSis on helping ~n acade~l_ cally gifted child to recognize many aspects of a given Situation,

evaluate that situation in many ways, and make diverse conclUSions (Brodbelt, 1979).

12

13

Structure of Intellect (SOl) Program

Improving a student's abi l ity to recognize, evaluate, reason and

think creatively are appropriate goals of any educational program.

These abi lit ies are more often emphas ized in programs for gifted

students than in mainstream programs. A program of educational

instruClion which emphasizes these abilities exists and is based Upon

GUilford's 51 model. This program was developed by Drs . Robert and

Mary Meeker in the 1960s and is referred to as the Structure of

Intellect (SOl) Program (Meeker, 1981). While the SOl program

was not specifically developed for use with academically gifted

Chi ldren, a strong rationale can be presented for using the SOl

program wIth gifted students (Bennett and Markle, 1978). T, ~ SOl

program emphasi zes instruction in the operations of the SJ model

and focuses upon many of the Ski ll s which teachers of gifted children

seem to perceive as important. The Sal program of instruction in­

cludes workbooks and resource materials which deal with e~ch of the

five operations of the SI model. The 501 program ca n be implemented

within the setting of a separate school, a separate Class, or a re­source program.

Evaluation of Programs

Programs for the academically gIfted may be more diverse among

themselves than educational programs designed for the traditional

c lassroom. Some schOOl districts which have gifted programs have

tailored those programs to meet specific needs. The flexibility

typica l of many gifted programs does not readily lend Itself to

objective evaluation. Hence, many gifted programs are eva luated

Subjectively. However, objective evaluation of any program of In­

struction is deSI rabl e In order to JustIfy the exIstence of the program.

The Structure of Intellect learning Abilities (SOl/LA) te~t may

provide an objective mea sure of program effectiveness . The SOl / LA

test was developed by Drs . Robert and Mary Meeker to Ca) be used as

a diagnostic tool and (b) to evaluate the progress of gifted students

participating in the 501 program. In the Initial stages of deve lop_

IDent of the Sal / LA test. the Meekers examined existing Intelligence

tests , particularly the Dinet (Meeker , 1969). The Binet offers high

reliability and validity but yields an unitary score,thereby Im­

plying that intelligence I! a single, general ability. However ,

the Meekers attempted to place the Items of the Binet into appro_

priate ce lls of the 51 model. It was the Meekers'bellef that assign_

ment of Binet items to 51 ce ll s would allow educators to define

deficiencies and,therefore. teaCh to these deficiencies.

The SOl /LA tes t Is designed to al low fo r group administration

and conSists of 24 subtes ts . Each Subtest measures severa l cells

contained within ~ach of the five operations of GUilford's 51 mOde l.

While there are 120 cells in Guilford's 51 model, t he SOl /LA test

purports to measure only 24 of these ce ll s. Some cel ls of the 51

model have only been hypothesized at this paint; their existence

has yet to be demonstrated or validated. Resear.ch Jnto the SOl/LA

test and the 51 mode l has continued Since the initial development

of both (Bennett and Ma rkle, 1978; fast Whittier City School Di s­

tr ict, Ca lifornia, 1974; flsout , Van Hermert, and Va n Hemet, 1975;

fowler, 1966; Guilford , 1972; Horn and Knapp, 1973; Horn' and Undhelm,

1977; landi9 and lIaumann, 1978; Meeker , 1981) ,

14

Ratfonale

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a

specific type of Instruction upon Chi ldren Identified as academi_

cally gIfted. The speclFJc instruction was based on GUilford's SI

model of Intelligence and Drs. RObert and Mary Meeker's SOl program of learning.

One school system In northwestern Kentucky Mas adopted GUilford's

model of intelligence and based its curriculum for gifted students

on the SOl program. The study reported in this thesis examined the

effects of using the SOl program of instruction with academically

gifted fourth graders during the 1981-82 school year In this schoo l

system. An adjacent county which had no progr~m for the academically gifted functioned as a control group.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this study was that the specified and described

training in the SI program WOuld be Positively related to improvement

on the cognition, evaluation. convergent production and divergent

production subsca les of the SOl/LA test. Significant improvements

In SCores for the memory subscaJe were not expected because the treat_

ment program does not emphasize the operation of memory.

15

CHAPTER III

Methods

Subjects

Students, identified as being academically gifted, were selected

from two adjacent county school dIstricts in Kentucky . Identified

students In one school district comprised the treatment group; identi­

fied students in the other school district compri sed the control

group. There were 34 subjects In each group. All subjects were en­

rolled In the fourth grade during the 1981-82 school year. All 68

subjects qualified for admittance Into the gi r t~~/ta lented program

according to the guide lines then in use In th~ tr~~tment group school

district. The four criteria used to Identify gifted students in both

counties were (a) teacher recommendation. (b) a grade pOint average

(GPA) of 3.0 or hIgher. (c) CalIfornIa Test of BaSic Skills. form S

(CT6S/S) scores above the 9Ist percentIle. and (d) Short form Test

of Academic AptItude (SFTAA) scores above the gist percentile.

None of the subjects in either the treatment group or contro l

group had previously participated 1n any type of speCial program for

the gifted/ta lented. The treatment group conSisted of 17 boys and

17 girls, aged eight to ten. The control group conSisted of 13 boys

and 2i girls. aged ei9ht to ten.

Subjects were selected as follows. Computer ~rJntouts which

contained both CTaS/S scores and SFTAA scores for all fourth grade

students were examined. Based upon these two criteria, a potential

16

pool of subjects \'Ias selected. Each potential subject was then

examined individual ly using the other two criteria, i.e., 3.0 GPA

and teacher nomination. Any student who was outside the given age

limits, i.e., eight to t ~n years of age, or had been previously

exposed to gifted training or specialized instruction was excluded

from the potential samp le pool. Consideration was given to the

fact that t he male/female ratio in the two samples was not balanced;

but, the only contro l for this potential between-group inequity

would have been to use fewer subjects in each group. Such reduction

In samp le size was rejected because a sma ll er samp le size would re­

duce the power of t he statistical analyses.

Subjects In the control group were drawn from a northwestern

Kentucky county In which the main source of revenue Is the coal

industry. The population of the control county In the 1900 census

was 21, 765 (Urban Studies Center , 1982). There were nine e lementary

schoo ls in the contro l county which contained either Kinderga r ten

through sixth grade or Kindergarten t hrough eighth grade. The con­

trol county had one middle school. grades seven and eight. and one

high school. grades nine through twe lve. At the tlme of this study.

the control county had no educational program for academica ll y gifted students.

The treatment county is adjacent to the control county. The

population of the treatment county in the 1980 census was 83,949

(U rban Studies Center, 1982) . The treatment county contained both

a city and a county schoo l district. The population of the treatment

county, excluding the City, was approximately 31 ,555 (Urban Studies

center, 1982). The treatment county schoo l district had 13 e lemem.Jry

schools which were either Kindergarten through fifth grade or Kinder­

garten through sixth grad~; two middle school s which included grades

six, seven and eight; and two high schools containing grades nine

through twelve. The treatment county had been receiving state funds

to operate a gifted program since 1978. Income among county residents

comes from industries located outside the city I iml t s , e.g.,

mining, farming.

Both the contro l and treatment counties are predominantly rural

in structure. The students enrolJed in both school systems at the

time of this study were predominantly white, middle class children.

I nstrumentat ion

Four criteria have been recommended for us~ in the state of

Kentucky to identl fy academically g1 fted chi Idren. These cd l'<:i'l a

include (a) teacher recoomendation, (b) a grade point average (fiPA)

of 3. 0 or higher, (c) California Test of Basic Skills, Form S (CTBS/S)

scores above the 915t percentile, and (d) Short Form Test of Academic

Aptitude (SFTAA) Scores above the 91st percentile.

Teacher Recommendation or Nomination

Classroom teachers were given an evaluation sheet by their

principal for use with each student. Although evaluation forms

may vary slightly from district to district, basic guidelines for

the forms are establ ished by the Kentucky Association of Gi ft.ed

Education and include Questions concerning attItudes, motivation,

etc. All subjects in this study were evaluated using the same form.

IB

To Qualify for recommendation, a subject has to receive positive

rat ings on 10 or more of the 21 items included on the form. A

copy of the form appears in Appendix A.

Grade Point Average

Students must have at least a 3.0 average on a 4.0 scale to

be identified dS dCddemiCdlly gifted. This guideline hdS been

recommended by the Kentucky Association for Gifted Education.

All students participating in this study did satisfy this criterion.

Comprehensive Test of Bdsic Skiils, Form S (CTBS/S) Score

The CTSS/S is an aChievement test, administration of which is

mandatory in the state of Kentucky at grades 3, 5, 7, and 10. The

CTBS/S inc ludes math, reading, and language subtests . The reliabi­

lity coefficients for CTBSIS (KR 20) .' ~r.de 4. 7 are .97 for

total reading; .95 for total language; .97 for total mathematics;

and .99 to total battery. (Del Monte Research Park, 1974).

Guidelines for gifted education in Kentucky suggest that

students score at the eighth or ninth Stanine to be admitted to

a gifted program. The gifted/talented program requirements In

the treatment county states that students must SCore above the

9lst percentile on the CT8S/S in order to satisfy this admission

Criterion. The 91st percentile is a Stanine score between eight

and nine. This 91st percentile fjgure was used to detennine eligi ­

bility for a gifted program for both treatment and contro l group subjects.

,. .

19

20

Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) Scores

Administration of the SFTAA was not mandated by the State 0f

Kentucky; but. it was usually given by the classroom teacher In con­

junction with the CTBS/S. The SFTAA is purportp.d to measure academic

aptitude. The KR 20 corre lJt ion coefficient for the interna l con-

s I stoney of the SFTAA at tho fourth grade leve I Is. 95. The SFTAA

reliability coefficients of stability for test-retest over a 14

month Interval are .82 for language; .74 for nor.-Ianguage; and

.85 for total. (Del Monte Research Park. 1974). The minimum re­

Quirement for acceptance into the gifted program in the treatment

county was a score above the 91st percentile on the SFTAA. This

figure was arrived at because it Is half-way between the eighth and

ninth Stanine. The same criterion was used to select control sub­Jects.

The 501 ItA Test

Since it's original pub li cation in 1975, the SOl /LA test has

been use~ in studies and education programs throughout the United

States, Canada. Australia, and Is rael. Origi nal normlng was done

in 1975; the SOl / LA test was renormed in the fourth Quarter of 1980.

In the 1980 norming there were six sites; New Albany, Indiana;

Guthrie, Oklah~; Imperial Beach, California; Sol ana Beach, Califor­

nia; Ramona, California; and laredo , Texas.

Reliability studi es concerning the SOl/LA involved both test/

re test and al ternate form components. At each of the nOrm group

testing Sites. half of the students were Initially tested on Form A

and half on Form B. Within a two to four week interval all students

were retested. Half of those initially tested on Form B were

••

retested on Form A dnd the other half with Form B; similarly .

those injtially tested on Form A. were retested with Form Band

the other half with Form A. At each site, four groups were created.

Additi onally, each of these groups included equa l numbers of males

and females as was PoSsible. The narming was done at grade levels

two through si~ . The baSic conditions of testing represent a 4 X 2

sp li t plot deSign with the fou r groups representing the sequence of

test administration. Re l iabi l ity coefficients yielded by the 1980

narming study of the SOl /LA test for Guilford ' s five operations are presented in T~ble 1.

Tab le 1

General Abilities (Opera tions)

Grade leve I 4

21

Rellabill ty Coefficient Cogoi ti on Memory Convergent Divergent

Eva luation Production Production

Test/ Retest

Alternate Form

.75

.72

.42

.57

.64

.66

. 69

.73

••

.47

.50

The SOl / LA test con s i~t of 24 sections categorized into five

subtes t s. Each subtes t provides d measure fol' one of the five

operations of the SI model. Hence , the subtests are label ed

(a) Cognition; (b) Memory; (c) Evaluation; (d) Convergent Pro­

duct ion and (e ) Divergent Production.

22

COgni t ion. There are nine subtests which together measure the

operation of cognition; these nina subtests each represent a unique

learning ability as conceptualized in the SI model. Each subtest

actually represents the three unique abilities present in one particu­

lar cell of the 51 model. The nine 5ubtests measure: Ca} Cognition

of Figural Units (CFU) whi ch Is the ab i lity to recognize fam i liar

figures that have been partially obscured and a prerequisite for

learning to read; (b) Cognition of Figur ,q Classes (CFC) which is

the abili ty to identify the cla ss or c lasses to whi ch a presented

figure belongs ; (c) Cognition of Figural Systems (CFS) which is the

ability to perceive a system from any viewpoint; ed) Cog~ition of

Fi gural Transformations (eFT) which 10:: the ability to transform

figures and to recognize a figure when it has been rotated into a

new orientation; ee) Cognition of Symbolic Relation (CSr.) which is

the abi l ity to find the relationship between letters embedded In

pairs of words and select the correct word to complete the third pair;

( f ) Cognition of Symbolic Systems (CSS) which is the ability to find

the rule that is generating a number series; (9) Cognition of Semantic

Units (CMU) which Is the ability to comprehend the meaning of ideas

or words; (h) Cognit i on of Semantic Relatlof's (C'IR) which Is the

ability to see relationships between meanings of words or Ideas; and

(i) Cognit ion of Semantic Systems (CII.:) Which Is the a', lllty to under­

stand relatively complex and difficult ideas.

23

Memory. There al"e four subtests in the SOl /LA which purport to

measure the operation defi ned as memory. These four subtests measu re

Ca) Memory of Figural Units (MFU) whi ch Is the ab ility to remember

given figu ral objects; (b) Memo ry of Symbo li c Un its (~'SUl which is

the ability to remember iso lated items of symbolic infonnat ion. such

as sy llables and words; ecl Memory of Symbolic Systems (MSS) whi ch

is the ability to remember the order of symbo li c Information; and

Cd) Memory of Symbo li c Imp l ications (NS!) whi ch is the ability to

remember arbitra ry connect ions between symbo ls.

Evaluation. The SOl /LA contai ns four tests whi ch seek to measure

the operation of eva luati on. These four tests measu re Ca) Evaluation

of Figural Units (EFUl which is t he abi lity to j udge uni ts of figural

information as being simi lar or different; (b) Evaluati..f-. ~Jf Figural

Classes (EFC) which is the ability to classify units spetifi 0d In

some way; ec) Evaluation of Symbo li c Classes (ESC) whi ch is the

ab ility to j udge app l icabi li ty of class properties of symbolic in~

formation; and (d) Eval uat ion of Symbolic Systems CESS) which Is t he

abi lity to estimate appropriateness of aspect s of a symbo l ic system.

Convergent Production. For the operati on of Convergent Production,

there are four subtests contained within the SOl / LA. The four sub­

tests measure (a) Convergent Production of Figural Units (tWU) which

is the abi I i ty to cool'di na te eye t o hand; e b} Convergent PrOduct I on

of Symbolic Systems (NSS) whi ch is the ability to produce a fully

determined or sequence of symbols; ec} Convergent Production of

Symbol ic Transformati ons (NST) which is the abi l ity to produce new

symbo l ic items of information by rev ising given items; and

••

(d) Convergent Production of Symbol ic Impl ications (NSI) which Is

the abi l ity to produce a comp letely determined symbolic deduction

from given symbolic infonmation, where the implication has not been practiced as such.

Divergent Production. There are three subtes ts which measure

the operation of Divergent Production in the SOl/LA. These three

measure (a) Divergent Production of Figural Units eOFU) which is

the ability to produce many figures conforming to Simp le specJfica~ tions; (b) Divergent Production of Semantic Units (DMU) which is the

ab1JJty to produce many elementary ideas appropriate to given require_

ments; and ec) Divergent Production of Symbolic Relations (OSR) which

is t~e ability to relate letters or numbers in many different ways.

These twenty-four subtests were selected (from the comp lete model

of ninety identified abilities) for their established relationship

to school learning--particu larly reading, arithmeti c , writing and creatlvJty.

Procedures

Tlds study assumed a pretest posttest control group desi gn.

Subjects in both the treatment and control groups were selected using

the same four criteria , i.e. , teacher reCOtmlendation, GPA, CTDS/S

test scores and SFTAA test SCores.

Using the four criteria, two groups of Subjects were selected

by the experimenter during the first two weeks of September 1981.

Each group conSisted of 34 students. FOllowing group placement,

both treatment and control subjects were administered Meeker's

24

SOl/LA test between SepteRmer 14 and October 7, 1991 . The test

was administered in groups of not more than fifteen students and in

from two to four sittings. Each subject had at least one morning

~nd one afternoor. testing period. Tests were administered by the

experimenter and teachers in the gifted program, all of whOOl had

been instructed In the administration of the SOl/LA test by repre­

sentatives of the 501 Institute. All subjects were given the

opportunity to complete all portions of the SOl/LA test.

Following administration of the SOl/LA test, the tests of

both treabnent group subjects and control group Subjects were

Scored by the experimenter. To control for experimenter bias

all test protocols ~ere placed in random sequencing; the experi _

menter/scorer remained blind regarding the group identity of each

protocol. Al l SCOring on al l sections of the pretest administration

of the SOl /LA test was done by the experimenter to Control for

interrater consistency. Intrarater stability was established by

ha~ing the experimenter rescore Six randomly selected tests from

each group_ Rescoring was done after an interval of three weeks.

There were no changes In Scores upon resCoring; hence Intra rater

stabi l ity for Six cases across three weeks was 1.00.

The independent variable in this study was the type of educa ­

tional program {instruction in SOl ski ll s vs no specia l ized instruc_

tion in SOl skilJs}. Children who Qualified for the gJfted program

in the treatment County were given the SOl/LA test as a diagnostic

and evaluative test upon their entrance to the program. Once the

SOl/LA test had been scored and evaluated. a "profile" was generated

25

for each student based on the SOIILA test, and Indlvidu a~ strengths

and weaknesses were pinpointed. The specialized areas of instruction

In Gui lford's five operations were used to set up the course of study

to be followed wJthin the gl fled program.

~ducators and teachers working wi t hin the gifted program re­

ce ived training from representatives of the 501 Institute In the

summer of 1980. Each teacher In the gifted program received five

manuals, each manual contained instructions for teachi ng one specific

Sf operation. Each manual was subdivided by products and contents

wi thin each operation. The four teachers met once a week routinely

as a group to establish curriculum and select activi ties . In those

meetings, the program director evaluated the direction and p'-Jress

of the program, made suggestions, and so licited feedback fro~ the teachers.

The gifted program used a pull-out technique to segregate

academically gifted children into special classes for a period of

time each week. Subjects in the treatment group met with the gifted

teacher in specia l sessions whi ch lasted from one to three hours

a week. These meetings OCCurp.d during normal school hours. Each

student in the gifted program was required to complete regular

school work mi ssed while that student participated in the gifted program.

In this resource program, the teacher se lected activities from

the Sal workbook to correspond with skills that needed improvement

(as Indicated by results on tne SOIILA test). If all the students In a

particular group needed work In a certain operation , then I~structlon was given in a group sitting. If individualized Instruction

••

26

was ca lled for, then the Instruction was tailored for a specific

Child. Groups nOrmally ranged In size from four to seven; USually

all children in a group were In the same grade. At any given time

during the Instruction, the ratio of gifted s tudents to teacher Was about five to one.

This SOl program Is Used as a reSOurce Prog,.am In the treat_

ment county for educating children Identif ied as gifted. The 1981-82

school year was the second year in which a program based specifically

on the SI model and the SOl/LA test and corresPOnding Workbooks was

Used. SUbjects In the COntrol group received no speCi al Instruc_

tion, Since no gifted program was avai labl e to them. A placebo

pull-out Program was not feasible for the contrOl group Subjects

because the treatment group schaal system had neither the money,

personnel, nOr inC l ination to prOvide Such a Program.

About four weeks prior to the end of the school year, the

SOl /LA test was a~ain administered to all Subjects in both the treat_

ment and contro l groups. The procedures Used dUring the pretesting

were repeated. All Subjects in both groups were tested USing the

same form of the SOl/LA test which had been Used in the pretest.

Personnel administering the tests remained the same. P.II tests

Were again SCored by the experimenter, USing procedUres Identical

to those Used at the time of pretesting to establish Interrater and

Intrarater reliability. POsttestlng was completed for all 68 Sub_ jects by May 7, 1982.

••

27

CflAPTfR IV

Resu J ts

USi ng an analysIs of variance (AI/OVA). significant di fferences

between the two groups Were found to eX ist at the onse t of the study.

There was a sIgnifIcant effect for the groups x subsca l es interactIon

(~.320 ~ 3.571. £ ~. 05). Because the interact I on was s Ign I f/can t

the main effects could not be direct ly interpreted. Th e Signifi _

cant interaction indicated Significant (£ ~ .05) between group differ_

ences on the Convergent PrOduction and Oi vergent Product ion subsca l es.

To increase preCision and maintain conSistency . analyses of Covariance

(AI/COVAs). Using the general I inear mode l procr ';': re of the Stat Istica l

Ana lYSis Systems (Helwig. 197B). were computed tor each of the five

subsca les USing pretest Scores as the cOvariates. The resu l ts of t he

initial 2 X 5 (group x subscale SCore) repeated measures ANOVA I, pre_ sented in Table 2.

Table 2

SOurce Tab le for ANOVA On

Pretest FindIngs

Source df SS /IS F P Groups

.136a . 136 19.429 .05 SUbscil les

4 I. BI4 .454 64 . B57 . 05 Groups x SubscaJes

4 . 098 .025 3.571 .05 Error

320 2.130 .007 Total 329

a Note:

Ana JyS j S was based upon percent correct rather than

raw SCores . • • 28

Cognition

ANCOVA of the scores obtained on the cognition subscaJe of

the SO I ILA test shows that the treatment effect for groups. after

adjusting for Initial between group differences. was sign ifi cant.

£(1. 64) = 12. 86 . E. =.0006. The covariate effect Is .Iso slgnlfl_

eant. £(1. 64) - 4S. 79. E. =.0001. sUbstantiating the need to re­

move Its effect usi ng ANCOVA. The nonslgnlflc.nt interact ion.

£(1. 64) = 1.86. E. =.1769 •• ll ows fo r direct Inte rp retation of

the adjusted t reatment effect for groups. The results of the

ANCOVA for the cognition variab le are Shown On Table 3. Obta ined

mea ns and means adjusted for Initial be t ween group differences are shown in Appendix B.

Tab le 3

Cogniti on: SUlMla ry of Analysi s of Covariance

Source df SS F P

Explained Variance 3 4357.594 1 20.17 .0001 Covariate

3297.0J32 45.79 . 0001 Adjusted Treatment 926.3079 12.86 .0006 Interaction 134.2530 I. 86 . 1769 Residual within

64 4608.5235 Total Residuals

67 8966.1176

••

29

30

Memorl

ANCOVA of the SCores obtained On the memory Subsca le of the

SOl / LA shows that the effect for groups. after adjusting for Initia l

between group differences. was nonSignificant. £(1.64), 2.S0. J!.,

. II gO. The cOvariate effect was significant. £(1 . 64) , 19.07. J!.,

.oonl. sUbstantiating the need to remove Its effect USing ANCOVA.

The nonsignificant Interactlon. £(1 . 64) , 0.36. J!. '.5520. allows for

direct Interpretation of the adjusted treatment effect for groups.

The results of the ANCOVA for the memory variab le are Shown in Table 4.

Obta ined means and means adjus ted for Initial between group differ_ ences are shown in Appendix B.

rabl e 4

Memory: Surrmary of Analysis of Covariance

Source df SS F P

EXPlained Variance 3 931. 5622 7.31 .0003 Covariate 810. 2889 19.07 .0001 Adjusted Treatment 106. 0826 2.50 . 11 90 Interaction 15.1907 0.36 .5520 Residual within

64 2719.2025 Total ReSiduals

67 3650. 7647

31

Evaluation

ANCaVA of the Scores obtafned on the evaluation subseale of the

SOI / LA test shows that the treatment effect for groups, after adjust_

ing for initial between group differences, was significant , f,(l. 64)

8.32, £ =.0053. The covariate effect is also significant [(I, 64 =

20.74, £ =.0001, substantiating the need to remove Its effect using

ANCOVA. The nonsignificant Interaction, [(J, 64) = 0.14 , £ =. 7091,

allows for direct Interpretation of the adjusted treatment effect

for groups. The results of the ANCOYA for the eva lua tion variable

are shown on Table 5. Obtained means and means adjusted for initial

between group differences are shown in Appendix B.

Table 5

Evaluation: Summary of AnalYSis of Covariance

Source df 55 F P

Explained Varj ~nce 3 934.06 19 9.73 .0001 Covariate

663.3030 20.74 .0001 Adjusted Treatment

266. 2660 8.32 .0053 Interaction

4.4930 0.14 .7091 Rt!siduaJ within 64 2047. 1586 Tota l Residua ls 67 2981. 2206

32

Convergent Production

ANCOVA of the Scores obtained on the convergent production sub.

sca le of the SOl/LA test Shows that the treatment effect for groups.

aftel' adjusting for initial between group difference. was signJ .

flcant !O, 64) • 17.36, E. ·.0001. The covariate effect accOunted

for slgnlfican, amount of exp lained !O, 64) • 43.61, E. •• 0001,

Substantiating the need to remove its effect using ANCOVA. The

nonsignificant interaction, !O, 64) • 0.03, E. •• 8592, allows for

direct Interpreta tion of the adjusted treatment effect for groups.

The results of the ANCOVA for the convergent production variable

are shown on Table 6. Obtained means and means adjusted for initial

between group differences are shown in Appendix 8.

Table 6

Convergent PrOduction: Summary of AnalysiS of Covariance

Spurce df SS F P

14877.9574 20.34 .0001

Explained Variance 3

Covariate

Adjusted treatment 10635.7952 43.61 .0001

Interaction 4234.4272 17.36 .0001

7.7350 0.03 .8592 15607.5721

30485.5294

Residual within 64

Total Residuals 67

.-

33

Divergent Production

ANCOVA of the scor~s obtained on the divergent production sub­

scale of the SO l/LA test shows that the treatment effect fo r groups,

after adjusting for initial between group differences. was signifi­

ca nt £.(1, 64) = 16.89 , £ =.0001. The covariate e ffect is also s igni­

ficant [(I, 64) = 11.23 , £ =.0014, substantiating the need to remove

Its effect using ANCOVA. The nons igni f icant Interac tion, [(I, 64)

1.66, £ =.2017, allows for direct interpretation of the adj us ted

treatment effect for groups. The resul ts of the ANCOVA for the

divergent production variable are shown on Table 7. Obtained means

and means adjusted for Initial between group differences are shown

in Appendix 8.

Table 7

Divergent Production: Summary of Analysis of Covariance

Source df SS F P

Explained Variance 3 29663. 507~ 9.93 .0001 Covariate 11188.3140 II. 23 .0014 Adjusted treatment 16817. 7100 16.89 .0001 Interaction 1657.4833 1. 66 . 2017

Residual within 64 63742.7721

Total Residual s 67 93406.2794

CHAPTER V

Discussion

Analysis of initial pretest scores of the SOIILA indi ca ted 5lgol-

ficant differences on some variables between the treatment group and

the contro l group at the onset of the study. This difference can

perhaps be explained. Although all subjects In both groups sat is­

fied the same four criteria. an Investigation of the Socio-Economlc

Status (SES) of the two counties from which the two groups were drawn

may provide some useful insights (Urban Studies Center, Louisville,

Kentucky, 1982) . SES data is presented In Table 8.

Table a Socia-Economic Status

%. Fam! lies Median Years of School Group Median House- Below ?overty (25 and over) hold Income leve l Males Females

Treatment County $7867 9. 2 11.8 12.2 Control County $5003 24 . 5 8. 7 8.9

34

••

35

Average SES differs between the two counties. MedJan educati on

level of adu lts over age 25 is more than three years lower in the

treatment county than in the cont rol county. Also. 24.5'; of the

families in the contro l county live below the pove r ty level com­

pared to only 9.2% In the treatment county.

The home environment in which a child Is raised is not a factor

which can be totally disregarded. Parents serve as role mode ls for

their offspring. The social and cultural facto rs of the home often

influence children's goals and motivations. It may be that the signi­

ficant difference found between the two groups on the basis of the

pretest scores is a difference due main ly to the differences in SES

level s of the two groups.

In order to obtain both ;:"djchion and consistency, posttest

data were submitted to ANCOVA. The signif icant treatment effect

for the cogn iti on variable support the hypothesis that the speci ­

fied and described training in the 51 program was positively re­

lated to improvement on the SOI/LA test in the area of cognition.

There are nine subtests within the SOI/LA which are speci fi cal ly

designed to measure the components of the operation of cognition.

The treatment program does place emphasis on improving cognitive

skills as defined by the 51 program and, hence, the SOI/LA test.

The control group also improved their scores on the SOl/LA test

area of cognition. but the improvement was not s ignificant when

compared to the Improvement made by the treatment group.

No s ignificant treatment eff~ct was demonstrated for the

memory subscale of the SOIlLA test. Thi s finding might be ex­

plained in two ways. In the pretest finding!, it was noted that

••

most subjects in both testing groups rece ived high scores on the

Questions in the memory sections. In the pretest. nume rous sub.

jects In both groups rece ived perfect scores on one or more of

the four memory subtests. In effect. most students ' scores on

the memory subtests had little room for improvement.

36

A second explanation for a lack of improvement in "memory"

scores by the treatment group may be that the treatment program

did not emphasize memory skil ls per se. Rather, the treatment

program attempted to broaden cognit ive , eval uative and creative

skil ls. The findi ngs of this study appeared to justify the

direct ion that the treatment program had taken with regard to not

specifically teaching memory ski ll s. Apparently students identi­

fied as academ ically gifted, re-j,(\JI.'!ss of group , already had well

developed memory ski ll s.

The s ignificant treatment effect for the evaluation variable

indicated that use of the SI program was positiv~ly related to im­

provement on the SOl/LA test In the orea of evaluation. There ar~

four subtes ts In the SOl/LA which are used to measure evaluation.

The treatment program emphasized improving evaluative ski lls as de­

fined by the 51 program and. hence. the SO l /LA test . The control

group also improved their scores on the SOl/LA test in the area of

evaluation. but the improvement was not significant when compared

to the improvement i n the scores of the treatment group.

The significant effect for the convergent production variable

suggests that use of the St program was Positively re lated to im­

provement on the SO l / LA test in the area of convergent production •

••

37

There are fcur subtests In the SOl /LA which deal specifically with

the operation of con't'ergent production; the treatment program did

place emphasis on improving conve rgent production skills. While the

contro l group made some improvement in scores in the area of con­

vergent product i on. the i r improvement in scores was not s Ignl fj cant

when compared to improvements made in scores by the treatment group

in the area of convergent production.

The significant effect for the divergent production variable

suggests that use of the 51 program wa s positively related to improve­

ment on the SOl/LA tes t in the area of divergent production. There

are three subtests in the SOl/LA which dea l specifica lly with the

operation of divergent production; the treatment program did place

emphasi s on improving d l .,.~ .-gent production skills. While the con~

trol group made some improvement In scores in the area of divergent

production, their improvement in scores was not significant when

compared to improvements made In scores by the treatment group in

the area of divergent production.

In summary. the treatment, whi ch was composed of specified in­

struction in th ~ SI program, was positively related to a signifi­

cant increase in scores on the SOl/LA test In four of the five aredS,

Le., cognition, evaluation, convergent production and divergent

production. Improvements made by the control group in these four

areas were not signifIcant when compared to improvements made by the

treatment group. At the time of the posttest, all students were

taking the SOl/LA for the second time. Also, all students had com­

pleted an additional year of schooling (the fourth grade). This

.-

familiarity with the test and additiona l education was expected to

increase all subjects scores to some degree. However, the obtained

means for the treatment and control groups support the hypothesis

that Improvements by the control group were not significant when

compared to improvements in scores made by the treatment group on

the SOl/LA.

Based on this study, It may be concluded that academically

gifted students in the treatment group did significantly increase

their scores on the SOl/LA test after being exposed to specific

treatment in the 51 model . These increases were noted in the

areas of cognition, eva luation. convergent production and divergent

production. The 51 model appears to have particular impl ications

for educating academical ly gifted students. Ba ~~~ Upon the results

of this study . it can be concluded that a program of instruction,

based on the SI model, posit ively influenced the development of

particular cognitive skills among academically gifted students in

the treatment group as measured by the SOl/LA test. Results of

38

this study objectively supported use of the 51 program of instruction

as a resource program with gifted chi ldren in the treatment population.

APPENDIX A

39

PIU)CWt FOil Ctl'TEO "''10 TALOITEO

Studlllt o.uaeterlulu

Thl fo11_l nl Iht of chaueterhtlu, whih by no _ an. a l l Indudve, upu .. nt. Erdu fOUlUS 111 ,HEed/ tallnuJ cllUdnn. Con. l de r utll fu il y thue ehe u c urhUe. t hat -.lilht bl lVilbiud by children, t hen not. t he .. of uch c~ tld In your chll reo. by ch.ckln, t he approp rht ft bou. o n t ht Iccot:lJl.ny l ns: .hn t.

ctSElAl. ,nSOSALlt y

I . hhlb l U phuur. In Inrnlnl fo r lnrnln,' . uk e: 111 enthll. lntl c about dl,co ... rl ll. 2. llud, lell outdde control . I . 110ft ulf-.t I,c l pJined , h ... con,c ~ entlo .. , WtlteL 1. H., a .. Ide r ans. o f In terllt. 4. b Vln t .. rll" ::Ie , ee'ltt t o l!o n ... t hln, . --. rtlk t;lke r . ~. II Itull y boud "'It ll r ouUne ta.h. 6. [\eMnnr"' t .. . p.t ,!! ,·ulnu In I ccoq>ltlhln" I loal <b p.,lhunt. h .. l on, l"entl Cln , pln). i. I. hl llhl)' !!l!.-D;\t IVl t ed . Ii . Hu h l ,h "ner~y lev,) <!,ollllll y t o the point of settllli I nto troU!)h). S. Loto . ",at.:nu. of tlce ..m.n InYoly,d In II t u k of I r .,t " Iuon_t I n t l u l e.

10. Hu _ ,""'ltlan! nc IttHud. ' ''' lI nti the tellan, ! Cl r t hi n , . h ,elllral),

CEMEP.AL INf[LlEcrUAI.

1. 11 . Ie rt, :lIpond, r.lltH,. t n • qLllltton-,n''''1t il t vilion . 2. te lln. ul1l,. and \11th li t tle r.pet l tlon . 1 . ShOVl .'clll In .buuet thl nUn, ( fltc ollnl u . re!atlon.hlp., o r •• n ... UUU It'd efhel.

or h., • kiln unll of hu!>O r ) . 4, k co,nlt .... 111 1111.1', Ilvl n~ u",ctvu t o o t her"l .. :H.o r a. lltzed t nfomnlon , ~ . C~:'I;:ILlnteH" dhellve1 ,. .nd flu.ntl ,. ; h ... n outl:undlnl youbular,.. b. I. 'n .", Id re.d. r who eon,tn.llt ly u~d. on . n .;!vlnc • ..J lay. 1.

SP [ CI riC ACAD[~C

1. Fl u cenlleln, t ntunt Inon. o f the four , c;ld.""l c , ubjtc t .u .. (indicae. b,. .. r kina on, of t he fo llO\l1nl: l.A ro r Lin, ... . . Artl , 11 for Kith,S for 5chn;., SS for SccJ..I1 Stu;! l lI).

l . HOI n eelv, li . p. c:hl n Colli t t lon 1n t hl ' U.I , l . H ... cqo.:! red knO\olhd,. b.~ ond th U .'M eh II IXpltcud It thh Iud. bYeI . - . II e.,u to .h.lu kllO",ltl!.e , Id ••••• nd Inll!ht. "ith oth.fI. ) , Hat tuk ::la..ltnrnt: ""nt. to ( ht.h • proJ .ct one. it 1. b.,,,".

I.

,. .. s. ,. 1.

a .

•• 10.

11.

:2.

13.

". lS .

16.

11 .

". It.

~ Q.

B .

u .

~r\.tb..u lor Moal •• ta, St .... U C;Uud/T.hat.d 'rol'_

40

n.~". ____________________ __ SCllOOL, ____________________ C ... ,, _____ _

'lat.. a check s. the col..- vttlch corr •• pond_ to the charact.rllti.c:. d._an.t.d II,. ,.e" thUd .

CLUS 1.OLl. . ".ft.r~~ ~~ ... &l "o;W<

A.I:..t,nd I , J I, S 6 1 • 910 1 , • S ~ lib . 2 1 ' 15 ''''"''''.

II I J

I I I J

J

I I I

II I

I

I

-

41

Co. e ral GenerAl SptJ!!'C ClASS lOLL Ptu onllltty 'ntclhu •• 1 C~'l'tS

1 2 ) 4 S 6 , -, 91 11 2 ) 1" ) ' 6 1 Slib . 2 ) , , n . I I ~4. I , ". , I I . 16. I II I 1.1

" I I H . , ZI. I I I :9. I II I

)0. I II I 1

I U I )). ..

! 1 I I n . 1

ll. I \I I ]4. I I I I I lI. I I 1111 I "

': ~iS r.JJJ: IS COl>rtD~'I"L. Pi .... ntufn 1t pe ... oQ,1,U, to ttl. ofUc • .

. -

APPEND I X 0

. ,

Obtained and Adjusted Means

Pretest Posttest Posttest Operation Group Obtained Mean Obtained Mean Adjusted Mean

Treatment 96. 5882 117.5588 117.3977 Cogni tion Control 96. 0294 109.8529 110.0140

Treatment 48. 4118 54.1471 53.8541 Memory Control 46.8529 5.n );706 51. 2636

tVllluation Treatment 44.5294 50.5294 50.1575 Control 43.2647 45 . 7941 46. 1660

Convergent Treatment 165.3529 194.6176 186.3202

Production Contro l 146. 0589 170.0882 178.3856

Divergent Treatment 167. 5000 176.2353 173.4344

Production Control 132.7059 136.5588 139. 3597

References

Abraham, W. Common sense about gifted chi ldren. New York: Harper

and Brothers, 1958.

Bennett. J., & Markle. P. A. A guide for teaching structure of the

Intellect in the gl fted classroom. Teaching GUide of San Diego

City Schools, 1978, pp. 576.

Brodbelt, S. Key program considerations for selecting and Guiding

gifted students. High School Journal, March 1979, 62, 272-277.

Brown. S. W .• Guil ford. J. P., & Hoepfner, R. A factor ana lys i s

of semantic memory dbillties. (P.~~l t t No. 37) . The Psychologi­

ca l Lab , University of Southern tdlifornld, 1966.

Cher ry. B. S. A handbook of bright ideas: Facilitating giftedness.

Manatee Junior College Classroom Material. 1976, pp. 133.

Clark. B. Growing up gifted. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1979.

Clifford. T. Teaching gi f ted children literature In grades four

through six. California State Depart~~nt of Educat ion. Sacramento

Division of Special Education, 1972, pp. 22.

Cutts , N. E. & Moseley, N. Teaching the bright and gifted. Engle­

wood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentiss-Hall, Inc., 1957.

Davis. G. A. & Rirnm . S. Characteristics of creatively gifted

children. The Gifted Child Quarterly, Winter, 1977, ~(4).

DeHaan, R. F. & Havlghurst. R. J. Educating gifted chi ldren.

Chicago; University of Chicago Press. 1961.

43

••

Del Monte Resea rch Park, ~ontereYI California. Comprehensive Tests

of Sas ic Ski ll s Form S. CTS/McGraw -H II I, 1974.

Del Monte Research Park , Monterey. California . Short Form Test of

Academic Aptitude Scores. CTS/McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Drews. E. & Teahan, J. E. Parental attitudps and academic

achievement. Journal of Cli nical Psychology. 1957, ll.

East Whittier City Schoo l District. California. Creative Pre­

scripti ons unlimited . grades 3-4. Evaluation program needs.

1974, pp. 265.

E I shout. J . J.. Van Hennert. N. A. & Van Hennert. M. Coornent on

Horn and Knapp; On the subject character of t he empi rical base

of Guilford's st ructure of inte llect model. Tijdschrlf t Voar

Onderwij 5 Resea rch. t~overn{;~ , · 1975 . 1.( 1 ).

Freedman. 1. New York State and its gifted youth. ,lournal of the

New York State School Boards Association, July 1978, pp. 8-12.

44

Freehill, M. F. Gifted chi ldren. New York: MacN lllan Company, 1961.

FOft ler, W. The concept of developmental learning. Paper presented

at 133rd meetl~g of the American ASSOCiation for the Advancement

of SC ience. Washington, D. C., December 1966.

Gallagher, J. J . AnalYsis of research on the education of gifted

ch · ldren. Sp ringfield, Illinois: Office of the Superintendent

of Public Instruction , 1960.

Gallagher, J. J. Can we have equality and educational excellence?

A proposal for maximum gain for minimum investment. Prepared

for subcommittee on elementary . secondary . and vocational educa.

tion needs of elementary and secondary education in the 1980's:

A compendium of policy papers, January i980, pp. 14 •

••

Gear, G. H. Effects of the training program, "Identifica tion

of the potentially gifted", on teachers ' accuracy in the

identification of intellectuCllly giftec! chi l dren . Unpublished

doctora l dissertation, University of Connecticut , 1975.

Gens ler. J. T. Teaching gifted chi ldren literature in grades one

through three. California State Department of Education,

Sacramento DivisIon of Special Education, 1972 , pp. 20.

Gershon . A .• Guilford. J. P. , & Merrifield, P. R. Figural and

symbolic divergent production abilities In adolescent and adult

populations. (Report No. 29) Psychological Lab, University of

Southern California. 1963.

Getzeis. J. W. & Jackson, P. W. Creativity and intelligence.

New York: John WHey and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Gor ley, T. J. & Richert, S. Beyond the class room : Progr ams for

the 9i fted ano tal e nted. NJEA Review. April 1978. ~. !!. 23-25.

GOt1gh, H. G. Factors related to differentia l achievement among

gifted person .) . (Mimeographed Report). Uni vers I ty of Cal Hornia,

Berkeley. 1955.

Gowan, J. C. Background and history of the gifted child movement .

The Gifted Child Quarterly. Fall. 1976 . 20(3).

Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. PsYchological Bulletin,

1956. 53. 267-293.

Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American PSychologist.

1959. li. 469-479.

Guilford, J . P. The nature of human intelligence. New York:

McGraw-Hi II. 1967.

••

45

46

Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. Stru c tu re-of-In l(' I! ~ct tests and

factors. (Report t~ o. 36). Psychological lab , University of

Southern Ca l i fornia , 1966.

Guil ford, J. P. & lacey. J. l. Private cla ssi f ication tests

(Army Air forces Aviation Psychology Research Program. Report

No. 5). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Gove rnment Printing Office. 1947.

Guilford, J. P. Intelligence . creat ivi ty . and their educational

implications. San Di ego: ~obert R. Knapp, 1968.

Guilford, J, P. Intellect and the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly.

Fall, 1972, ~(3), 175-184,239-243.

HalTlTli 11 . J. Nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of

uneQuals. SCience and Children, March 1979 , ~( 6 1 18-21.

Helwig, J. T. SAS Int roductory Guide. Cary, North Ca ro ll' na : SAS

Ins titute, Inc., 1978.

Hi ldreth, G. H. Introduction to t he gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1966.

Hoepfner , R . • Guilford. J. P. & Merrifield, P. R. A factor analYsi s

of the symbolic-evaluation abilities. (Report No. 33) Psycholo­

gica l lab, Univer~ ity of Southern Cal ifornia, 1964.

Hollingwort h, l . Children above 180 1.Q. New York: Harcourt, Brace

and World, Inc" 1942.

Horn, J. l. & Kanpp , J. R. On the subjective character of the

empirical base of Gui lford's structure of intellect model.

Psycho logical Bulletin, 1973, 80(1), 33-43.

Horn, J. l. & Dupuy . P. J. In favor of acceleration for gifted

students. Personnel and Guidance Journal . October 1981, 60(2},

103-106.

.,

Horn. J. L. & Undheim, J. O. Critical evaluation of Guflford's

structure·of-Intellect theory. Intelligence, 1977.1.65-81.

47

Jackson, N. E. & Others. Problems of intellectually advanced children

in the public schools : Clinical confirmation of parents' percep­

tions. A paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society

for Research In Child Development (Ne. Orleans, March 17-20, 1977),

Revised version, July 1977, pp, 22,

Karnes, M •• McCoy. G. F •• Zehrbach. R. R .• Wallersheim, J •• Clarlzlo,

H. F .• CosUn. l.. & Stanley. l . Factors associated with under­

achievement and overachievement of Intellectually gifted chi ldren.

Chal!l)aign , Illinois: Champaign PUblic Schools. 1961.

Keating. O. P. Four faces of creativity: The continuing plight of

the intellectual ly underserved. Gifted Child Quarterly. Spring.

1978 , 22(1),

Keating . D. P. & Stanley. J . C. From eighth grade to selective co ll ege

In one j ump: Case studies in radical acceleration. Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, Maryland, 1972, pp, 23,

Khatena . J. Some advances in thought on the gifted. The Gift ed

Child Quarterly, Spring , 1978 , 22(1),

Kimball,8. Case studies of education failure during adolescense.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 23. 406-415.

Lanping. E. In defense of the self-contained gifted class. GeT,

March -Apri I 1981. E, 50-51.

Landlg, H, J, & Maumann, T, F. Aspects of Inte ll igence In gifted

preschoolers, Gifted Child Quarterly, Spring, 1978 , 22(1),

.,

lewis. H. M. Opening windows onto t he future: Theory of the

Governor ' s school of North Carolina. Governor' s School of

North Carol ina. Winston- Sa lem, 1974. pp. 57.

l os Ange les City Schools . California , Committee of In te ll ectuall y

Gt fted Pupil s . Education of Intel lec tually 91 fted pupils in

Los Angeles City Schools. r~ay. 1962 . pp. 25.

48

lowery. J . Developing .::reativlty In gifted children. Gifted Child

Quarterly. Summer. 1982 . 26(3).

l uea, M. C. & All en. B. Teaching gifted children art in grades one

through three. Ca lifornia State Department of Educat ion, Sacra­

mento Divi sion of Publi c Education. 1974 , pp. 46.

Maak. l. & Swicord. B. I.C. G. E. one community's answer . Roepe r

Rev iew. flay. 1979.1.14). 33.

Meeker , rt The 501 institute based on Guil ford' s s tructu re of the

inte ll ect mode l. Education. Su_r. 1981. lQ!,(4). 302-309.

Meeker . M. The structure of Intellect: It's interpretation and uses.

Co l umbus: Charles E. Merrill. 1969.

Miller. B. & Miller. Bet. Recognizing t he gifted: Is differentia­

tion undemocratic? College Board Review. Spring, 1980, 115,2-7.

Mitche ll . B. M. What' s happening to gifted education In the U. S.

today? Roeper Review, May-June, 1980 , ~(4).

Peterson, H • • Guilford , J. P •• Hoepfner, R • • & "'e r rifield, P. R.

Determination of structure-or-intellect abilities invol ved in

ninth-grade algebra and general mathematics. (Report No. 31).

The Psychologica l lab, University of Southern California, 1963 •

. -

49

Pierce. J. W. & Bowman, P. Motivational patterns of superior high

school student s. The Gifted Student Cooperative Research Monograph

Number 2. 1960. pp. 33-36.

Porter, R. 11. A decade of seminars for the able and ambitious. Cat­

skill Area School Study. Oneonta. N. Y .• June 1968. pp. 83.

Ramaseshar., P. H. The Social and emotional adjustment of the gifted.

Unpubli shed doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska. 1957.

Rekdal. C. K. In search of t.he wild duck. The Gifted Child Quarterly.

Winter. 1977. fL(4).

Renzulli, J. S. Will the gifted child movement be alive and well In

1990? Gifted Child Quarterly. Winter. 1980. 24(1).

Robeck, M. C. California project talent: Acceleration programs for

intellectually gifted pupils. California Sta te Department of

Education. Sacramento. 1968. pp. 185.

Rossiman and Horn. Cognitive, motivational and tempermental indicants

of creativity and tnt.ell igence. Journal of Educational t~easurement ,

1971. 2,. 256-286.

Schwartzstein . J. Gifted and talented students: Programs across the

nation. Journal of the New York State School Boards Association ,

November 1978 . pp. 23-24.

Sedgoe , M. V. The abilities of young children. CEC Research Mono­

graph Series B. No. B-4. Counci l for Exceptional Children.

Washington. O. C •• 1967.

Sellin, D. F. & Birch, J . W. Educating gifted and talented learners.

Rockville. Maryland: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1980 .

. -

50

Shaw, M. C. The Inter- relationship of selected personality factors

In high ability underachieving school children. (Final Report).

Project 5B-M- J. Sacramento. Ca 11 forn i a: Ca Ii forni a State Depart­

ment of Public Health. 1961.

Spearman, C. Abilities of man. New York; Mac~1illan. 1927.

Spearman. C. "General Intelligence," objectively determined and

measured. American Journal of Psychology. 1904, ~. 201 -293.

Strodtbeck. F. L. Family Interaction values. and achievement, D.

McC lelland. ed . • Talent and Society. Princeton, New Jersey:

D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc .• 1958.

Tenopyr, H. l . • Guilford. J. P. & Hoepfner, R. A factor analysis

of symbolic-memory abilities. (Report No. 38). The Psychological

lab, University of Southern California. 1966.

Terman, l . M. & Oden. M. Genetic studies of genius IV - the gifted

child grows up . Stanford California: Stanford UniverSity Press,

1947.

Thorndike. E. l. The measurement of intelligence. flew York.:

Teachers College, 1927.

Thurstone. l . l. Vectors of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. 1935.

Thurstone. l. t . Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs ,

No. I. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. 1938.

Thurs tone, l. l. A factor analysis of study of perception. ~_

cological Monograph. NO.4 •• 1944.

Thurstone. l. l. & Thurstone. T. G. Factorial studies of Inte! I i­

gence. Psychomet r ic Monographs. No.2. Chicago: University of

Ch i cago Press. 1941.

••

51

Torrance. E. P. Sex·roie Identification and creative thinking.

Research Monograph BER-59-10. Minneapolis: University of Minne­

S\lta Press . 1960.

Urban Studies Center, Louisville, Kentucky. 1982.

Vail. l. The world of the gifted child. New York: Walker and

Company . 1979.

Wal sh, A. Self concepts of bright boys with learning difficulties.

New York: Columbia Univers ity Teachers College. 1956.

Witty, P. A. Some considerations in the education of gifted

children. Educational Administration and Supervision, 1940, 26.

York, G. l. The rapid learner, K-6. Grand Forks Public Schoo ls.

North Dakota. 1961. pp. 236.

••