Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Differences in perceptual abilities in gifted and non-gifted children as measured by the Macgregor perceptual… Collier, Robyn Maree 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 C64.pdf [ 28.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097261.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097261-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097261-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097261-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097261-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097261-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097261-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097261-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097261.ris

Full Text

DIFFERENCES AND  I N PERCEPTUAL  ABILITIES  IN GIFTED  N O N - G I F T E D C H I L D R E N A S MEASURED THE MACGREGOR P E R C E P T U A L  BY  INDEX  by ROBYN MAREE C O L L I E R i  B.Ed.  University  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED THE  of British  Columbia,  1982  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT  R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR MASTER OF  THE  DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE  FACULTY  Department  of Visual in  We  accept  OF GRADUATE  this  and P e r f o r m i n g  Arts  Education  thesis  as conforming  the required  THE  STUDIES  standard  U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  September-^ 985 © R o b y n Maree C o l l i e r ,  198 5  to  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s o r her  be granted by  the head o f  representatives.  my  It i s  (  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T  1Y3  Date  written  ABSTRACT Until pertaining relation to  about  1970, l i t t l e  t o the influence of perceptual  to gifted  provide  children.  e m p i r i c a l data  understanding performed  of such  and t o assess f o r elementary  giftedness  at a perceptual study  perceptual  test,  who d i s p l a y a b o v e  twenty-four between  might  embedded  figures,  similarities vertical,  The  research  and  of a  non-verbal  of a r t i n diagnosing  by means o f a  intellectual  children  skills,  skills.  The  also MacGregor  t o a group of  non-gifted children years.  Categories  of distance, perception of  perception  modified  of shape, p e r c e p t i o n of of the  by c o n s t a n c y ,  and  contour.  investigation  differences  to a better  t o review  and d i f f e r e n c e s , p e r c e p t i o n  of  undertaken  or not g i f t e d  and t w e n t y - s i x  perception  perception  lead  to determine,  perceptual  perception  research  level.  t h e ages o f t e n and twelve  included:-  was  (MPI) was a d m i n i s t e r e d  gifted  on  acuity i n  perception  teachers  whether  average  above average Index  study  the usefulness  was d e s i g n e d  index  Perceptual  that  of both  instrument  The  This  a relationship,  i n the fields  giftedness,  exhibit  was p u b l i s h e d  among  revealed  similarities  c h i l d r e n of s p e c i f i c  and  intellectual  capacity visual  and  stimuli.  average on  drawn  from  an a v e r a g e findings  further  perceptual  there  judged  results  perceptual a child's considered  test  problem-solving intelligence  study The  with  at a  than  l e d to MPI,  t o be  above  higher  d i d subjects  a  imply  non-verbal  a reliable  i t was  significant and  recommendations  instrument  In the synopsis  study,  ability  of the study  as p a r t  interpret  children  performed  children.  in this  perceptual  and  group.  gifted  revealed  that  Index  in this  t e s t , was  perceive  found  i s a statistically  between The  they  investigation.  diagnosing  factors  I t was  the Perceptual  The  for  i n how  intellectual ability  level  for  ages  of  concluded  that  relationship  intellectual ability. that  skills  l e v e l , and  of the s c h o o l  training  may thus  in  generally should  curriculum.  be  enhance  iv  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  CHAPTER I  PAGE I N T R O D U C T I O N AND THE  OF  PROBLEM  Introduction  1  Background  t o t h e Study  4  of the Problem  8  Statement Purpose  o f t h e Study  Importance  Definition Research  8  o f t h e Study  9  Framework  10  Theoretical  o f Terms  11  Procedures  13  Population  Defined  13  Sample  13  Instrument Used  14  Administrative  II  STATEMENT  Procedure  Delimitations  o f the Study  R E V I E W OF T H E  LITERATURE  14 14  Introduction  16  Giftedness  16  Education  and Perception f o r the Gifted  Perception  and P e r c e p t u a l  Perceptual Defining  24 Processing.  32  Theories  33  Perception  46  V TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER  PAGE The N a t u r e o f P e r c e p t i o n S i z e and D i s t a n c e  39  Perception  Space P e r c e p t i o n  46  Perceptual  49  Stability  Multistability Visual  and A m b i g u i t y  Illusion  Standardized  49 51  Group T e s t s  55  Culture F a i r Tests  56  Individualized  56  Tests  IQ T e s t s  f o r Special  Aptitudes  The M a c G r e g o r P e r c e p t u a l Behavioural  Index  Characteristics  Summary III  45  STUDY  59 63 64 67  PROCEDURES  The Methods  o f t h e Study  Procedures Selecting  69 69  the Population  69  Population Defined  70  Selection  70  Obtaining  o f t h e Sample Permission  to Conduct  t h e Study  71  The I n s t r u m e n t  71  Pilot  72  Study  vi T A B L E OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER  PAGE Administrative for  Testing  72  Modifications the  Instructions  to Administration  of  Instrument  Statistical Hypothesis  74  Procedures Tested  Reliability Validity IV  A N A L Y S I S OF R E S U L T S  82  Analysis  83  o f t h e Data  Assumptions  f o r the Statistical  Tests  83  Breakdown  o f Groups  Significance Sampling  Level  83  Distribution  83  Mann-Whitney Calculation Item A n a l y s i s Category  83  U. F o r m u l a  83  of C r i t i c a l Values by Category  ONE:  Perception  of 94  TWO:  Perception  of  Embedded F i g u r e s Category Shape  85 94  Distance Category  ....  THREE:  95 Perception  of 96  vii T A B L E OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER  PAGE C a t e g o r y FOUR: Similarities  Perception  of  and D i f f e r e n c e s  Category FIVE:  Perception  97  of the  Vertical  98  Category by  SIX:  Perception  Modified  Constancy  Category  SEVEN:  99 Perception  of  Contour Analysis V  100  of Results  SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N  100 AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary Findings  102 and C o n c l u s i o n s  103  Recommendations  105  REFERENCES  10 7  APPENDICES Appendix A  121  Calculations M P I Raw  f o r Tables  1-8  121  Score Totals  122  Perception  of Distance  123  Perception  o f Embedded F i g u r e s  124  Perception  o f Shape  125  Perception  of Similarities  Differences  and 126  viii TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER  PAGE Perception of the V e r t i c a l Perception Modified  127  by C o n s t a n c y  ....  128  P e r c e p t i o n of Contour  129  Appendix  130  B  The M a c G r e g o r P e r c e p t u a l Administrative  Index  Test  Instructions  (modified)  131  Answer S h e e t s  (original)  137  Answer S h e e t s  (modified)  146  Test Booklet  157  Appendix C  184  R e s p o n s e s t o t h e MPI  185  Appendix D  187  Authorization  Letters  L e t t e r o f A u t h o r i t y t o Conduct the Study t o t h e P r i n c i p a l s  188  Letters of Permission to the Parents  189  Appendix E  190  Test  191  Schedule  Appendix F  19 2  Mann-Whitney U. T a b l e o f C r i t i c a l Values  193  ix T A B L E OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER  PAGE Appendix  G  194  LGA S o c i o - e c o n o m i c (used  to select  Indicator  population)  Scores 195  X  L I S T OF TABLES TABLE  PAGE MPI Raw  S c o r e s Ranked  1  MPI Raw  Score T o t a l s  2  Perception of Distance  87  3  P e r c e p t i o n o f Embedded F i g u r e s  88  4  Perception  o f Shape  89  5  Perception  of S i m i l a r i t i e s  86  and  Differences  90  6  Perception  7  Perception Modified  8  P e r c e p t i o n o f Contour MPI  9 10  of the V e r t i c a l  91  by C o n s t a n c y  93  Item A n a l y s i s  C a t e g o r y ONE:  Perception of Distance  C a t e g o r y TWO:  Perception  C a t e g o r y THREE:  12  C a t e g o r y FOUR: Similarities  Perception  o f Shape  97  Perception of the  Vertical  98 SIX:  P e r c e p t i o n M o d i f i e d by  Constancy 15  Category  96  Perception of  and D i f f e r e n c e s  Category FIVE:  Category  94  95  11  14  .  o f Embedded  Figures  13  92  99 SEVEN:  Perception  of Contour  100  xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would Dr.  Diana  Dr.  Lawrie  procedures of  like  t o t h a n k my A u s t r a l i a n  K e n d a l l f o r h e r e n c o u r a g e m e n t and g u i d a n c e , K e n d a l l f o r h i s a d v i c e on f o r this  her g i f t e d  study,  statistical  and R u t h R o s s f o r t h e u s e  students.  Deep a p p r e c i a t i o n t o D r s . R o n a l d  MacGregor,  James G r a y , a n d Graeme C h a l m e r s f o r t h e i r support  and c o n c e r n  I am g r a t e f u l Ellen and  even o v e r  Margaret  great distances.  the handwriting  S c h l e u s s who gave g e n e r o u s l y  Finally,  these  constant  f o rthe typing efforts of  E w i n g who d e c i p h e r e d  incomplete  adviser  i n my  draft,  o f her time.  a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s would be  i f I n e g l e c t e d t o m e n t i o n Penny  Gouldstone,  Bob S t e e l e , D o r i s L i v i n g s t o n e , J u d y B r o o k s ,  a n d my  parents. I am i n d e b t e d  t o you a l l , f o r your  e n h a n c e d my p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e w o r l d my  life.  c a r i n g has  and e n r i c h e d  CHAPTER I  1.  INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction D a n i e l K e a t i n g , an American a r t e d u c a t o r , observed that children,  i n respect  to the subject" of  the vast m a j o r i t y of  'gifted'  h i g h l y academically  c h i l d r e n and youth are p o o r l y served by the educational  system."  w r i t t e n i n 1980 are the g i f t e d exist  (1980, p . 56)  the problem i s and t a l e n t e d  has  present  Although t h i s  a c u r r e n t one.  poorly served,  able  was  Not only  they  often  unidentified. Until  the 1970s, g i f t e d n e s s was t y p i c a l l y  measured by v e r b a l t e s t s of  intellectual  work of McFee (1970), G u i l f o r d and others  The  (1972), Torrance (1974)  has c o n t r i b u t e d to the development  broader d e f i n i t i o n of g i f t e d n e s s , t a l e n t s and  ability.  of a  acknowledging  diverse  abilities.  In 1972,  Sidney Marland, the former U . S .  Commissioner of E d u c a t i o n , proposed that g i f t e d and talented general  c h i l d r e n had high a b i l i t y i n the areas intellect,  specific  academic a p t i t u d e ,  of creative  or p r o d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g , l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y , and v i s u a l and  performing a r t s .  He claimed that  g i f t e d and  talented  children  are  those  identified  qualified  p e r s o n s who, by v i r t u e o f  outstanding high  abilities,  performance.  differentiated services to  children, clusters level His  are capable  These  realize  their  (Marland,  program  of g i f t e d  suggests  average  there  general  them t o any p o t e n t i a l l y  these  variety services through  area  who an  of  manifest interaction  clusters require  a wide  o p p o r t u n i t i e s and  are not o r d i n a r i l y  regular  this  applying  valuable  Children  of educational that  and  of developing  three  creativity.  those  of developing  set of t r a i t s  are capable  of  high  that  or capable  human p e r f o r m a n c e .  are three  ability,  levels  and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n a r e  composite  and  and t a l e n t e d  that  commitment, and h i g h  possessing  among  i n order  1972, p. 10)  o f t r a i t s : ' above  gifted  or  programs and  R e n z u l l i (1983) s u g g e s t s  definition  require  contribution to seif  his identification  of task  of  children  educational  by t h e r e g u l a r  society. In  by p r o f e s s i o n a l l y  instructional  provided  programs,  ( p . 261)  3.  This  definition,  performance-based, the to  potentially only  those  although  i s sufficiently diverse  gifted  and  children  intelligence,  as  highly  does  not  possessing  traditionally  than  tend  perceptual  non-verbal it the  to  would  account  high  ability,  acknowledges  a  link  child  when  he  those  "who  deviate  abilities."  the  world  by  process  Hagan perception size,  on and  as,  shape,  the  according of  means o f  concentrates  knowing the  of  human this  learning,  Kirk and  in  a  capacity  in  (1972)  the  children  average  visual  gifted  as  being  sensory  slant,  Held  and  Richards  objects  and  events  (p.  166)  This  (1972)  in  the  study  perception.  Bresnahan "the  to  senses."  (1984) r e f e r  acquisition  of  composition,  sequencing  of  events  the  of  information  pickup  perception,  between p e r c e p t i o n  from  ability  children.  exceptional  gifted  4)  Perception "is  involving  to measure  gifted  defines  (p.  since  i s a component  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  of  defined.  And  seem a p p r o p r i a t e  giftedness  levels  more f o r v e r b a l  ability.  include  restrict  However, d i a g n o s t i c p r o c e d u r e s children  to  and  their on  visual  knowlege  distance,  object  the  to  about  the  location,  components  and  through  structured l i g h t to  the  4. eye."  (p.  32)  determine,  by  or  not  The  means o f  gifted  intellectual perceptual  purpose  this  study  is  a perceptual  test,  whether  c h i l d r e n who ability  programs place  f o r the  intellectual  giftedness programs 6,  and  ability being  range  II) to  previous In  focus  average  has  increased  have been used Data  standardized  Intelligence  of  In order  to  Scale  the  such  special  as  (described  the  Tola  in nominations  reports.  above  criteria  intellectual  observations and  certain  identify  i n these  tests  to  of  to diagnose  used  in  and  informal teacher/peer/parent  upon v e r b a l  skills  interest  programs, measures  gifted.  from  general  a component  child  Territory  have been developed.  scholastic  parent/teacher verbal  average  Study  i n c h i l d r e n f o r placement  Weschler  Chapter and  gifted  i n schools  as  to the  Australian Capital  c h i l d r e n i n these  children  above  to  ability.  the  education  d i s p l a y above  also exhibit  Background In  of  ability.  tend  achievement.  for  giftedness Even  to  reflect  Yet,  since  human l e a r n i n g , i t w o u l d  concern  for  perception  seem  important  is  5. for  tests  to  teachers  to d i r e c t  perceptual In  children  used  to  termed  development and  of  given  t o p e r c e p t u a l l e a r n i n g by  given  to  find  cognitive learning.  i t necessary  throughout necessity  the  school years  for parallel  Programs of  achieve  educational balance.  "art educators  developing gifted  screening  youngsters  need  i n the  f o r the  gifted  programs  f o r the  handicapped  Eisner  may  account  both  a t t e n t i o n has  been  we  have  must  that  ignored (p.  the  185)  learning i n order  and  one are  arts,  now the  (1981)  the  to  argues  a t t e n t i o n to  tasks  day  "We  also address  Alexander  (1972) e m p h a s i z e s  than  education  education."  visual  programs  In  (1961) s t a t e s ,  to devote  devices  of  of  verbal  perceptual  Index  assessed.  educators  children  problem  that,  including  less  - but  visual  for gifted  be  McFee  to continue  challenging  Perceptual  that takes  learning,  of  v a l u a b l e group  might  education  for  gifted.  suitably  MacGregor  gifted"  non-verbal  of  this  and  inclusion  f o r the  design  s h o w how  "the  f o r study the  l e a r n i n g i n programs  f o r schools, the  ( 1 9 7 1 ) was  verbal  aspect  a t t e n t i o n to  c o n s i d e r i n g the  programs  the  include this  to  help  find  especially  be  mandated  required" importance  since much  (p. of  as  42).  6. assisting  children  perceptual  develop  artistic  to perceive  what  learning  t o overcome  visual  learning  t o construct mental  visual  possibilities  construct  images  not simple  tasks.  province  experience, Despite  was n o t u n t i l that  such  through  (1971),  understanding In (MPI).  learning.  (1965),  Eisner  and McFee  and i n t e r e s t  index  of everyone's  literature i t  t h e w r i t i n g s o f McFee  Since  then,  (1966),  (1977) have i n this  a r t educators  Arnheim  (1969),  increased our  area. h i s Perceptual  c o n s i s t s of seven major  include factors  children.  to the area of  1971 MacGregor d e v e l o p e d This  these  ( p . 106)  i n the a r t education  i n human  to  of l e a r n i n g f o r g i f t e d  the sixties  as Salome  MacGregor  which  for fostering  s e r i o u s a t t e n t i o n was p a i d  perception  material  I t i sthe  learning i s part  i t i s part  that fact,  images o f  i n another  o f human a b i l i t y ,  perceptual  constancies,  of a r t education  assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y aspects  i s subtle,  and l e a r n i n g t o  such  particular  As  and  learning:  Learning  are  readiness  of perception  Index  categories  of distance;  7. perception  of shape; p e r c e p t i o n  perception  of s i m i l a r i t i e s  of  the v e r t i c a l ;  perception The  of  example, a person's  perceive art  with  this  was  their  with  (the  position  designing their  ability  regular  on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  There  that  i n the arts.  capacities."  the a r t educator programs  various  children the  " I f he o f how in a  appropriate  obtain  but  for gifted  he i s t h e n  (MacGregor, may  children better to  their  1 9 7 5 , p. 54)  insights for  s u i t e d t o t h e needs of c h i l d r e n a t  stages  of a r t i s t i c  to  1973)  gifted  states  has knowledge  a r t experiences  t h e MPI  facilitate  programs  MacGregor  information,  to devise  (McCord,  may  ability  been  used  o f t h e way  abilities  [sic])  has  study  children.  from  i s no e v i d e n c e i n  t h e MPI  One  o f more e f f e c t i v e  visual  that For  to discriminate figure  examination  perceptual  interpretive essence,  designed  children.  a r t educator  interpret  and  influence picture perception.  literature  gifted  development children  was  a complex p a i n t i n g .  Systematic use  by c o n s t a n c y ;  be a n i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r i n t h e i r  education  used  modified  perception  contour.  processes  g r o u n d may  figures,  and d i f f e r e n c e s ;  perception  instrument  perceptual  o f embedded  development.  In  8. Statement The  problem  differences  are  of  i s to  between  children,  and  cognitive  differences already  two  groups.  gifted  than  therefore research MPI  and  these  may  be  do  to  hypothesis  results of  between  a  the  non-gifted  purpose  educational their  as  gifted.  purposes  specific  and  diagnosed  between  of The  of  the Do  perceptual study  validity  significant scores  to  a question:  levels  the  non-gifted  related  the  the  Study  study  i s to  constitutes perceptual  identified  to  of  be  perceptual  of  is the  difference  exists  gifted  children  extend  knowledge  children.  Purpose of The  gifted  children?  explore  that  whether  s t a t e d as  non-gifted  designed  those  what  can  c h i l d r e n display higher  ability  in  This  Problem  discover  present  whether  the  ability  The  ultimate  i s the  design  needs.  of  in children intention for of  curriculum  suited  9. Importance of There perception alike  i s a need tests  i n the  (1975) has  diagnosis  understanding we  as  (p.  out  how  may  can  level  gifted  that  be  able  reliable and  an  visual  administrators  children.  through  MacGregor  increased  perceive visual  to  understanding  to enable of  might  Since  between  predict that  awareness  sensory i n the  lead children  of  their  stimuli,  "toward  visual  form  the  this  a  world."  of  acknowledge  as  and  children  higher  Gibson  perceptual  and our  (1966)  do  their a  what  highest  close  understanding, with  how  on  the  senses  systems.  that MPI.  knowledge  processed  says,  we  generally  demonstrate  scores  to determine  environment  As  t h a t we  f u n c t i o n at  i n v e s t i g a t e how  knowledge.  considered  we  ensure  awareness might  gained  first  to  gifted  i n order  must  i s to  perception  Furthermore, about  aim  children  ability.  heightened  be  of  and  teachers  children  t e a c h e r s , our  relationship  we  by  Study  61) As  we  of  teachers  more a d e q u a t e  for valid  f o r use  pointed  the  by  the  provide the  is brain, us  senses  with may  10. Theoretical  Framework  Assumptions: All  children  have  perceptual  ability  to  varying  degrees. The  development  of  a child's  a desirable educational  perceptual  ability  hypothesis  can  is  goal.  Hypotheses: The  validity  confirmed in  this  or denied  case  statistical first be  be  by  r e c a s t i n g i t i n the n u l l  significance.  The  s t a t e d i n the form  the  .05  the  scores  level of  non-gifted For  H0  the research  be  form  and  s u b j e c t i n g i t t o the Mann-Whitney U t e s t  a positive  research  of  statistically of  of  children  question  a hypothesis.  significant  confidence,  gifted  research  i n t h e MPI and  the  may  There  difference, results,  scores  will at  between  of  children. the purposes  question  There  will  of  statistical  i s r e s t a t e d i n the be  no  positive  significant  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  scores  of  non-gifted  gifted  children.  null  form.  statistically  at the  .05  results,  children  comparison,  and  level  between  the  scores  of the of  of  the  11. Definition For  the purposes  definitions Cognition: the  state  Memory:  means  retention  thinking:  decisions adequacy  mental  mental  processes  as t o goodness, we  know,  i n productive  Figural  content:  •colour,  material:  searching,  best  used  what  we  leading  or  t o one  conventional  in  reaching suitability  remember,  and what  such  I t does  such Things  we 351)  as i s not  represent  ( G u i l f o r d , 1972, p.  has p r o p e r t i e s  or  ( G u i l f o r d , 1972, p.  material  l o c a t i o n and t e x t u r e .  sometimes  351)  correctness,  the senses.  itself.  thoughts  351)  thinking.  concrete  through except  leading  operations  or to a recognized  produce  anything  cognized.  ( G u i l f o r d , 1972, p.  o f what  perceived  is  operations  ( G u i l f o r d , 1972, p.  Evaluation:  Visual  o f what  mental  thinking:  answer  answer.  recognition:  discovery.  d i r e c t i o n s , sometimes  variety.  Convergent right  through  or  1972, p . 351)  different  seeking  the following  1972, p . 351)  (Guilford,  in  study  or rediscovery  of knowing  Divergent  of t h i s  are used. discovery  (Guilford,  o f Terms  as s i z e , we  hear  351) form, or  feel  provide 1972,  other  p.  Symbolic other  1972,  content:  e.g.  p.  Semantic  content:  or  of  number  i s i n the  1972,  an  no  p.  letters,  digits  system.  in  and general  (Guilford,  idea  previous  experiences  of  verbal  are  expressions  necessary.  351)  (McFee,  an  form  examples  impression  Concept:  of  an  1961,  about  an  object  p.  obtained  by  of  48)  object, generalized  with  use  the  object.  from  (McFee,  1961,  48)  Perceptual between  Constancy:  what  Conception: relate  Both  a process  or  (McFee, 1961,  the  1972,  p.  p.  the  world 166)  of  tendency  by  and  seen. using  which  responses  conception  Perception:  the  i s known and  experiences,  experiences  in  (Guilford,  signs, usually organized  alphabet  senses.  p.  material.  351)  (Guilford,  the  figural  i s composed  i d e a s , f o r which  Percept:  of  351)  conventional  systems  or  examples  may to  words  the  compromise  (McFee, 1961,  be  perception  to  to  direct language  are  p.  48)  categorize  and  sensory of  others.  cognitive  processes.  48) process means o f  of  knowing  the  objects  senses.  and  (Held &  events Richards,  13 . Sensations; individual p.  physiological  reactions  when  receptor i s stimulated.  (Hochberg,  1964,  55)  Memory i m a g e s : a r e t h e r e c o l l e c t i o n s sensations. Primary  (Hochberg,  within  1964, p . 12)  are s i m i l a r  Canada.  t o those  They e x i s t  y e a r s o f age and c o n s i s t though  of previous  school: Within the A u s t r a l i a n  these grades  for children  n o t 7 as i s t h e c a s e  Population The children  school  system,  of e l e m e n t a r y  of grades  Research  in  each  typically  1 through  sent  group  5-12  t o 6,  i n some p a r t s o f Canada.  Procedures  Defined total  from  p o p u l a t i o n sampled  the g i f t e d  i s composed o f a l l  program at B Primary  t h e ACT and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g number w i t h i n  age  schools  of c h i l d r e n  who r e s p o n d e d  home by t h e p r i n c i p a l  from  School t h e same  to approval  the A Primary  forms  School.  Sample The children gifted from  sample  consisted  ( i . e . the t o t a l  children  within  the B Primary  o f 24 p r e d i a g n o s e d  gifted  p o p u l a t i o n of i d e n t i f i e d  the ACT):  School.  14 g i r l s  These c h i l d r e n ,  and 10 boys a l l age 10  or  11,  corresponded  Primary  The  48  b l a c k and  t o be  key.  several  possible  The  Administrative  the  groups  pencil,  answer  each  The responses  the  by  by  A  response  was  each  with  identical  groups.  the  The  child;  consists  a check  of  child; and  to select  sheet  session  was  f o r both  test  was  researcher within  a week p e r i o d .  a one  of  q u e s t i o n , and mark.  Each  and  test  not  i n excess  of  the  child  booklet.  the  of  gifted  respective  was  given  The  time  forty  a taken  minutes.  Study  designed  to  of  compared  to non-gifted  gifted  the  administered to  s t u d y was  response  measuring  each  p r o v i d e d f o r each  Delimitations  their  from  Procedure  s i x by  over  for  answers  procedure  schools  viewed  subject i s required  non-gifted of  was  a booklet which  completed  a preferred  The  of  white photographs  sheets  indicate  P e r c e p t u a l Index  index consists  scoring  and  sample  Used MacGregor  The  answer  random  School.  Instrument  tool.  to a similar  investigate  t o the p e r c e p t i o n of  the children  in  distance; perception  of  embedded  figures; perception  similarities vertical;  and  perception of  restricted  number o f  and  Neither researcher. non-gifted  modified  contour.  the  shape;  differences; perception  perception  measured  of  was of  of  that  not  the  contain  of  the and  on  a  qualities  non-verbal  c h i l d r e n was  I t i s assumed children did  focused  perceptual a  of  constancy;  study  specific  test  sample  The  by  perception  being  nature.  diagnosed random  by  the  sample  undiagnosed  of  gifted  subjects. The  A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y has  homogenous p o p u l a t i o n . Authority of  both  possible  was  obtained  schools  as  to  rank  the  a f u r t h e r check  compounding  dif f erences.  Information  e f f e c t s of  from  an  the  unusually ACT  Schools  socio-economic to  minimize  socio-economic  the  levels  CHAPTER  II  16.  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This  chapter  giftedness education aspects used  deals  with  and p e r c e p t i o n ,  an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o  followed  by a d i s c u s s i o n o f  programs f o r t h e g i f t e d .  of perception  in this  study  as t h e s e  Next,  selected  r e l a t e to the instrument  are d e a l t with,  and a f i n a l  e x a m i n e s t e s t s and measures i n a more g e n e r a l  Giftedness Definitions according in  of g i f t e d n e s s  to educational  meaning  person  in this  of the f i r s t  that  emphasis.  Giftedness  defined  century,  William  that are  or v e r b a l .  Stern  a definition  general  can vary  as an a t t r i b u t e o f a  c r e a t i v e , musical  to offer  differentiated  time  i n a v a r i e t y of a b i l i t i e s  intellectual,  Early one  capable  context.  Perception  have changed o v e r  but i s g e n e r a l l y  highly  artistic,  and  section  (1914) was  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  intelligence  from s p e c i a l  intellectual  t a l e n t s and a b i l i t i e s .  He  intelligence  a s , "a g e n e r a l  o f an i n d i v i d u a l  consciously It  to adjust  i s general  conditions  capacity  his thinking  defined  t o new  requirements.  m e n t a l a d a p t a b i l i t y t o new p r o b l e m s and  of l i f e " ,  ( p . 3)  17 . Stern's  work g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d  psychologist,  L e w i s T e r m a n , who  Stanford-Binet  Test  as  for identifying  a measure  school was  determined  populations.  widely  child.  used  The  formula age  M e n t a l age Chronological  age t o Terman,  the nature  Stanford-Binet tests or  four  of  language  about  kinds  instrument  of mental  Intellectual Binet's  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  was  diverse.  o f memory, o f  upon  three  apperception, knowledge  number m a s t e r y , o f c o n s t r u c t i v e  combine  fragments  novel  to  compare  t o see c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , t o into  comprehend a b s t r a c t  meet  age t o  common o b j e c t s , o f f r e e a s s o c i a t i o n ,  concepts,  situations,  gifted  of t e s t s to  i s based  o r i e n t a t i o n , of  and o f a b i l i t y  which  quotient  choice  comprehension, of  imagination,  to  quotient  score.  Intelligence scale  of time  an  a ratio  =  Stanford-Binet  the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y  i n terms of a 100  the  special children within  provided  offered  X  According  of  This  The  of the  the i n t e l l i g e n c e  f o r diagnosing  chronological  determine  developed  Intelligence Scale.  Intelligence  that  a unitary terms,  whole,  and t o  ( p . 345)  The  18. However, a l t h o u g h t h i s its  measure  frequently to  intellectual/verbal  o v e r l o o k n o n - v e r b a l and  creative  1916,  used  first based  then  (19 37)  and  Terman and original  the  high  (1960)  Merrill,  term  and  have  bear  been  little  and  Jackson  (1962)  'gifted'  was  child'  was  Simon  in  Forms L &  further  Terman 1911.  M  refined  resemblance  to  a s h o r t h a n d way  of  saying  by the  (p. 2 3 )  intelligence,  such  IQ  failed as  to  'high  'child  was  verbal  include  a r t , music,  IQ'  and with  a  IQ  not c o n s i d e r e d  s c o r e s were an  they measured  and  " I n most  without a high  'gifted'",  Although  -  for a l l intents  of o t h e r achievements,  areas  and  by  synonymous w i t h  Consequently, a c h i l d  intelligence,  revised  wrote  regardless  other  abilities. was  Binet  (and i s  scale.  'gifted  only  IQ'.  t h e work of  F o r m LM  t h e word  purposes  scale  in  purpose), i t tends  the Revised Stanford-Binet  Getzels  and  intelligence on  1916  studies,  as  ability,  for this  Since  of  i s comprehensive  a basis  The in  of  scale  and  indication  cognitive  special  abilities  performing arts  in  and  mechanics. Busse efficiency,  and  Mansfield  (1980)  quantitativeness,  and  suggest  that,  apparent  "the  absoluteness  19 . of  the  sole  IQ  have  criterion  (p.132)  fostered i t s widespread  acceptance  controlling  gifted  Hermelin  Work on which  the  might  children  concept  has  only  research  processes  be  highly  J.P.  of  of  on  response  an  handles  responses. divergent and  form.  on  This  data  which  from (p.  IQ  and  while  i n the  tend  to  or  120  work  further  identified  divergent  the  a  of  multidimensional  thinking.  conventional  divergent  fosters a  to G u i l f o r d ,  high  to  introduces be  thinker  variety  of  performance  requires originality,  Guilford  tests  a divergent  later  i n a manner w h i c h  thinking tests  by  convergent  thinker provides  According  that:  180)  convergent  presented,  out  by  attempts  identified and  programs",  predominance  affected  or  the  gifted  dominated  is reflected  ( 1 9 5 9 ) who  flexibility.  scorers  be  analytic  convergent  data  to  IQ.  intelligence  between  to  to  creativity  intelligence,  differences The  the  statement  Guilford  factors  specific  tended  associational This  (1980) p o i n t  been m a r g i n a l l y  distinguish of  O'Connor  to  psychological  has  the  form  and  entrance  as  evidence  convergent  in  fluency that  thinkers.  high  20 . Guilford termed an  the  developed  s t r u c t u r e of  i n t e r a c t i o n between  that  i s , the  which  a the  think  In  his  and  the  we  or  cognition,  memory, d i v e r g e n t  production  and  processes  of  means d i s c o v e r y ,  awareness  i n the  retention  of  remembered  thinking is  as  placed  judgement  by  MacKinnon  v a r i e t y and  or  to  goodness,  we  remember, and  which  Children  memory  from  what  adept  we  that  productive known  and  creative emphasis  responses. leads  Evaluation  reaching  suitability, produce  means  information  answer.  is  to a  decisions  adequacy  in productive  in evaluative  or  in different  of  that  involves  correctness,  convergent  (1963) where  quantity  conventional  process  basic  functioning:  divergent  i.e. thinking  t h i n k i n g suggests  "right"  sense;  i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to  defined  on  Convergent one  This  in  recognition, understanding  information  information  directions.  ways  G u i l f o r d suggests  i s cognized; new  product;  thoughts.  production,  intellectual  generates  and  the  intellectual  evaluation.  cognition  thinking  our  he  suggests  Guilford offers five  operations  what  about,  of  model  which  operations  think  outcome  construct  dimensional  intellect  content,  information  we  three  processes  may  of  as what  thinking. not  21. necessarily  produce  underachieving difficulty his/her actual  evaluative  child  may  be a b l e  i n demonstrating  performance  does  An  to evaluate  this  verbally.  not correspond  y e t have Consequently,  to  his/her  ability. MacKinnon the  states  creative  that,  person  i s typical  who make u p f o r w h a t intellectual of  energy,  attacking angles,  which  of  success,  enables  they  talented is  should  of  their until  solution.  remind  us  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y verbal  related  observation  that  equated  i n t e l l i g e n c e , ( p . 3)  interpretation  of the g i f t e d  giftedness,  not only and  This  that  (1981) i n h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n says  level  t o keep  persevere  of person  Passow  them  confident  kind  high  a high  a v a r i e t y of  arrive at a creative  with  i n verbal  cognitive  they  giftedness  o f many  lack  with  a problem with  and being  ultimate  they  giftedness  a kind  flexibility  and  statements.  to  systematic  intelligent  of test  and  observation  22. data,  but  kinds  of  to  the  educational  facilitate  all  by  results  in  Passow  acknowledges  of  the  talented  are  individuals."  assisted  in  giftedness of  talent  revising to  and  giftedness  to  be  and  children.  observation what areas  they as  of  the  the  flexibility  in  expressiveness  a  numerous  He  ability  articulateness,  9)  or  His  children's  produce.  to  "not  'gifted' or  possess  intuitive and  Barron  (1973)  also  of  the  type  nature either  of  of a  component  talent  nurtured.  techniques  behaviour  express  that  and  are an  and  Torrance of  emotions,  gifted  based  on  analysis  strengths  humour, f l u e n c y  some o f  a l l  characteristics  f i g u r a l media, be  9)  gifted  suggests  enjoyment,  to  (p.  to  i d e n t i f i e d and  to  of  physical  c r e a t i v i t y as  (1977) added talented  (p.  giftedness  product  being  ascribed  concepts  include  and  however, that  are  talented  —  behaviours,  affective,  which  which  manifestation  i d e n t i f i e d as  cognitive,  characteristics  right  opportunities  the  and  who  the  performance  gifted  individuals  of  self-identification  identification which  creation  in  of such  feelings, and  responsiveness, the  characteristics  which  23.  identify  exceptional  Renzulli, giftedness are:  in hisdefinition  focuses  above  on t h r e e  average  equal  that  ability,  levels  identification  definition,  high  procedures  clusters.  he c o n t e n d s  o f an i n t e r a c t i o n  and  "measures of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y  a  limited  proportion  grades." two  types:  refers This  ( p . 12)  type  easily  measured  ability  tests;  a n d 2)  involvement  need  encourage  describes  three  of o r i g i n a l  account f o r with  school  types  also  giftedness.  b y IQ t e s t s o r  o f human  i s placed  t o have ( p . 12)  f o r s p e c i a l programs  he  into  other  Creative/productive  material  designed  audiences."  both  give  clusters  only  variance  "aspects  where a premium  purposefully  more t a r g e t the  which  task  giftedness  g i f t e d n e s s , which  i s most  development are  should  He g o e s o n t o d i v i d e g i f t e d n e s s  1) S c h o o l h o u s e  giftedness,  of  He  t o as t e s t - t a k i n g o r l e s s o n - l e a r n i n g  cognitive  and  among t h e s e  o f t h e common  These  In this  that  consists that  1983) o f  level  of c r e a t i v i t y .  a t t e n t i o n to a l l three  operational  (Renzulli,  c l u s t e r s of t r a i t s .  general  commitment, and high recommends  creativity.  and/or  activity  on t h e  products  an i m p a c t Renzulli  upon one o r emphasises  t o be d e v e l o p e d t o  individually  and  that  together.  24 . Clark cite  (1979), Kaplan  superior  problem-solving  characteristic revealed support  that  of g i f t e d there  the g e n e r a l  problem-solving In  hypothesis  of  Their  evidence to  gifted.  by Ludlow and Woodrum  children  (age 11) were  responses to problem t a s k s .  that  " t h e most  that  both  surprising result  gifted  and a v e r a g e  problem-solving  findings  superior  i n the  conducted  (1974)  as a  no c o n c l u s i v e  and 20 a v e r a g e  on p a t t e r n  similar  was  ability  children.  abilities  a study  20 g i f t e d  ( 1 9 7 5 ) , and M a r t i n s o n  They  tended  s t r a t e g i e s across  tested  declared  of t h e s t u d y  subjects  (1982),  revealed t o use  tasks"  (p. 102). According apparent  that  t o Mussen,  c h i l d r e n use i m p r o v e d  strategies  with  perceptual  ability.  that  this  advancing  process  Naeli  begins  talented  and H a r r i s  of  increased  (1976) i n d i c a t e  i n infancy.  f o r the G i f t e d  of i n t e r e s t i n e d u c a t i o n  have v a r i e d  (1974) i t i s  problem-solving  age as a r e s u l t  Education Levels  Conger and Kagan  historically.  Thomas J e f f e r s o n a d v o c a t e d  of t h e g i f t e d  As f a r back as  special learning  and 1779  provisions  25.  for  capable  Virginia. classes the  students In  through  achieving the  established  progress.  The  the  of  known  years  that  The  with  White  possibility  that  the  arts,  and  as  followed  early  the  that  other  in were  Report  be  (19 3 1 )  meant and  on  merely neglected  exhibited  in  areas. enthusiasm Policies  G i f t e d emphasized  i n the  sciences,  arts  and  But  i t was  not  1958  that  accepted  increase  foreign  intelligence,  Educational  until  was  the  subjects  giftedness  1950s post-war  the  an  and  might  gifted  academic  However,  giftedness  Association's of  saw  the  i n 1901,  a c c e l e r a t i o n of  exceptional  music the  Massachusetts  personnel  Education  divided  achievement,  for  House C o n f e r e n c e  stressed  the  Education  for  Jersey  r e f e r r e d to  to maths, science  child  on  Plan  more r a p i d l y  school  special schools.  the  National  i n New  academic  was  separate  the  Children  In  This  being  limited  languages. Gifted  on  School  group progressing  i n Worcester,  objective  generally  his  Plan.  first  number  of  schools  based  curriculum.  Three-Track The  part  public  into groupings  high  main  1890  as  a definition  of  the  for  the  Commission  need  for  professions. the  US  Office  giftedness  that  of  26 . acknowledged published for  the  i t s general character.  i n the  Study  57th Yearbook Education  (1958), reads:  A talented  or g i f t e d  child  in  any  T h u s , we  shall  include  intellectually show p r o m i s e creative skills,  and  Congress  authorising  grants  i n an  national 1958  society. state  performance  only also  the those  the graphic  leadership.  who  arts,  funds  (p.  19)  Defence  Education Act  to provide loans  to strengthen educational  And  and  foreign  Illinois  for special  of  and  each New  and  offerings i n the  B r o t h e r s Fund  of e x c e l l e n c e  the optimum achievement California,  languages  the Rockefeller  the pursuit  reimbursement  who  endeavour.  the National  mathematics  interest.  not  Society  dramatics, mechanical  federal  attempt  promoting  stressed  social  of  but  i n music,  passed  (1958)  science,  gifted  writing,  i s one  remarkable  worth-while line  definition,  the N a t i o n a l  of  shows c o n s i s t e n t l y  in  of  This  in  programs  America,  citizen  York for  within  pioneered gifted  children. In  1959  creativity.  Irving  Taylor  These were  identified  expressive,  five  of  levels  technical,  of  27 . inventive, that  i n n o v a t i v e and emergent.  creative ability  mental  operation  comes u n d e r  of divergent  by s u g g e s t i n g  divergent-productive  that  ones most d i r e c t l y  (p.  87)  twenty-one  three-dimensional the  In upon  involved i n creative  theoretic  convergent  aspects  States John  secondary talents  researchers  distinctions  of general  focused  intelligence.  in a  called  on two  more a n d more  involved  non-verbal by t h e U n i t e d the direction  involving  440,000  t o measure life  (1962) i n t h e i r  creativity  embodied  production.  them t o a d u l t  and Jackson  as  potential."  focus  i n 1960, under  The s t u d y ,  relate  between  favour  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  was i n a u g u r a t e d  of Education  and then  ability  His ideas  s t u d e n t s , was i n t e n d e d  Getzels  concept  model  of giftedness that  C. F l a n a g a n .  this  one hundred and  and d i v e r g e n t  Project Talent  Office  thinking.  indications  of i n t e l l e c t u a l  the sixties,  factors.  of  "present  Structure of Intellect.  opposites,  level of  (1967) s u p p o r t  (1959) i d e n t i f i e d  factors  the higher  and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s ,  the  Guilford  suggests  and e v a l u a t i v e  G o w a n , Demos a n d T o r r a n c e notion  Taylor  individual performance.  research  made  and t h e t r a d i t i o n a l They  defined  two  types  28.  of  creative individuals.  IQ,  and  on  students  with  than  Sidney  Marland  the  1970  study  evaluating gifted  together  with He  on  and  of  the  status  of  tasks  higher  creativity  than  measures have  of  Education)  Congress  conducted  for His  generated  the findings,  national  individual  among  the  themselves. supported  creativity-intelligence  that  problem-solving.  education  the  as  measured  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between and  do  requiring  that,  intelligence  other,  information  talented children.  claimed  studies  U.S.  may  Jackson  Commissioner  recommendations,  individual few  to G r e t z e l s  (the  the and  are  general tests  students  the  that  abilities  s t r a t e g i e s of  mandate of  nation's  There  IQ  high  designated  revealed  c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g and  under  interest.  studies  with  while  c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between  intelligence,  a  high  I t appeared  i s no  behaviour,  intellectual  a p p l i c a t i o n s or  handling. there  Their  average  better  creative  identified  c r e a t i v e m e a s u r e s , was  divergent-oriented.  or  was  e x h i b i t e d convergent  significant  well  One  Although  the  distinction,  a  29 . most  have e s t a b l i s h e d  relationships intellectual In that  1958  between c r e a t i v i t y aptitude,  Lowenfeld  and  distinguish gifted  field  of  subject  art.  These  matter,  Kenneth  imagination  Beittel  and  research  program drawing  alternate  solving.  The  of  creativity The  and  was  that  between  with  a  an  IQ  media,  drawing  They d e f i n e d  a strategy for  is  two  for problem  original  solving  C.  lengthy  factors in  processes.  problem  thinking,  one  aspect  another.  between i n t e l l i g e n c e and in research  indicated  that  conducted  there  is  creativity  of  120.  greater  established  and  than  by  little  i n t e l l i g e n c e and  ERIC C l e a r i n g h o u s e was  of  indicated that  reinforced  ( 1 9 7 2 ) . He  correlation  children  account  a u n i q u e phenomenon, i s o n l y  distinction  creativity  The  and  of  involvement.  Spontaneous, a s t r a t e g y  research  discovering  children  context  use  the  c o l l a b o r a t o r Robert  into psychological  and  or  Torrance  his  factors  children in  personal  strategies - Divergent,  discovering;  described  expression,  and  an  and  7)  Brittain  included  (1972) p u b l i s h e d  the  (p.  from a v e r a g e  Burkhart  and  substantial  among  f o r handicapped  and  operated  Council  by  the  gifted for  30. Exceptional  Children  disseminate  information  gifted  education.  focused  national  and  i n order  In  on  gather,  a l l aspects  1972  the  U.S.  a t t e n t i o n on  the  of  Exceptional  Children  from  a  differentiated  survey  assistance  conducted  was  organizations gifted  and  to  school  the  system.  (1979) a l l o w s advanced  on  Robin  These  for  teaching  were  child  to  the  Council  for  findings  Financial  institutions  and  meet t h e  needs  revolving  door  gifted  children within  supported  move t o to  and  an  education  student,  development  the  for of  of  gifted  and  class  of  classroom  three and  areas  of  talented.  artistically  curriculum  gifted,  Renzulli  a  average  the  ability.  the the  by  from  (1981) emphasized  identification  group.  of  back  talented/gifted  this  programs to  individual  Alexander  for  agencies,  gifted and  (1978) r e p o r t e d  approach,  his/her  art  leadership  (1979) recommends a  This a  Education  the  The  and  children.  l e a r n i n g , and  depending  concern  improve  talented  to  to  and  talented  needs of  programs.  U.S.  of  in a l l States.  provided  Gallagher approach  i n the  evaluate  O f f i c e of  talented, e s p e c i a l l y regarding  promotion  for  to  design  evaluation  and of  program programs  In  response  to Alexander's  (1981)  conducted  cities  and l a r g e towns of N o r t h  Alexander's children  a National Art-Tag  first  should  category,  IQ  and academic  what k i n d s  acceptable  (informal or formal  single  or m u l t i p l e c r i t e r i a ) ,  abilities The Visual  and/or  data  Using which  gifted/talented rank  should  influence  means, o b s e r v a t i o n s , personalized  student  resulted  Programs.  the concerns  i n a book  The book d e s c r i b e s  31  of g i f t e d  and  education  of a r t education. The  foregoing  apparent  t h a t many  talented  child  have  identification. talented general have  224  acceptable.  i n Gifted  addressing  through  or devices are  outcome of t h e survey  Arts  programs that  of tests  Survey  identified  to a  selection,  r e p o r t , Moody  America.  Moody  be n o m i n a t e d  program, whether  research  details  i n this  definitions  relating  has o f f e r e d g r e a t e r behaviour,  been  developed  Terman presently  i n 1925  serves  make i t  of the g i f t e d  been p r o p o s e d  Research  chapter  a s a means o f to the gifted  understanding  characteristics  and  of  and needs.  to e x p l a i n these  their Theories  observations.  made a u s e f u l s u g g e s t i o n  to reinforce  and  the rationale  that  f o r this  32. study: been  When t h e s o u r c e s o f o u r i n t e l l e c t u a l  determined,  found  which  physical, are  their  would  mental  better  i ti s conceivable that increase  the supply.  and c h a r a c t e r  traits  understood, i t w i l l  education with  better  gifted  child,  limits  of educability,  When t h e of gifted  be p o s s i b l e  n a t u r e h a s moved f a r back  thus  terra  to  move f o r w a r d , e x p l o r e ,  and c o n s o l i d a t e .  The  link  thrown  incognita.  that  interpret  environment,  open  I t i s time (Terman,  t h e n we m u s t  Research  and our environment we u n d e r s t a n d a n d  t h e more e f f e c t i v e l y  to i t .  how k n o w l e d g e  this  Processing  the better  environment,  us w i t h  with  perception  that  and respond  determine  provide  and P e r c e p t u a l  between  us t o b e l i e v e  perceive  begins  Inthe  pp. 16-17)  Perception  to  t o s e t about  t h e normal  the educator are s t i l l  leads  children  hope o f s u c c e s s . . . .  but the realms  have  m e a n s may b e  to  1925,  talent  Consequently,  we c a n  i f we  wish  i s gained about t h e first  determine  how o u r s e n s e s  knowledge.  on c h i l d r e n ' s  theoretical  learning  assumptions  nearly  about  how  always learning  33. takes  place.  painter,  For example,  "A s m a l l  reacts to h i s experience  readiness  t o respond.  personality  His past  and development  personal  a r t and h i s respone  are  dependent  both  information." these  differences Many  a child's  Perceptual  the  through  founders  Locke,  from  which  Zachkowsky, "that  The e x i s t e n c e o f and  of  children.  i n an a t t e m p t visual  to  information.  past  experiences,  and knowledge  I n the mid 17th Century, school of thought,  Hume, H a r t l e y a n d M i l l through  Hobbes,  believed that  t h e senses  and d e r i v e d  experience.  Berkeley vision",  visual  that perception i s learned  of the empirical  Berkeley,  prior  t o handle  t o such  the senses.  k n o w l e d g e was a c q u i r e d from  developed  t h e o r i e s suggest  association  acquired  His  Theories  Early through  culture,  implies variation  responses  great  t o the a r t of h i s s o c i e t y  i n the p e r c e p t u a l development been  a  his particular  a l l contribute.  (McFee, 1 9 6 1 , p.183)  t h e o r i e s have  explain  through  like  experience,  on h i s a b i l i t y  states of readiness  child,  (1709) c l a i m e d i s echoed  Zachkowsky  movement  that  "touch  educates  i n the current theory of  and M a r t i n e k  i s essential  (1980),  who  maintain  f o r t h e development of  34. perceptual essential  skills  and t h a t  perception  suggests  perceptual  wholes rather  directly  uses  termed  that  observed  symbolic  suggest  of these  (1912) on t h e G e s t a l t the brain than  parts.  percepts,  These  sees  seeing  are  total  objects  Theory of images o r  a s t h e sum  A t an e a r l y a g e , t h e  representations  an i m a g e .  skills  (p.78)  for cognitive learning."  Wertheimer' s paper  of  both  with  symbolic  and become more  little  detail  child  to  representations complex  as t h e  are child  matures. Hochberg  (1964) s u g g e s t s  general  a i m was  world."  ( p . 83)  establishing Gestaltists influence  with  which  needs,  other  behavioural  theory which  was  (1920)  with  of f a c t o r s  that  (1955) D i r e c t i v e - s t a t e t h e o r y  f a c t o r s determine past  the extent  experiences  factors influence perception.  further developed that  into  perception  a c t as u n c o n s c i o u s  "answers" from  of the  shape.  attitudes, values,  suggests  processes  our perception  lists  of  and Postman's structural  Gestaltists  laws o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , and t h e  compiling  the perception  that  "The  He c r e d i t s W e r t h e i m e r  the Gestalt  Bruner suggests  to re-analyse  that,  experience.  the Hypothesis  and o t h e r  hypotheses,  and This Theory  cognitive drawing  to  The  Cell-Assembly  the  name o f D o n a l d  for  p e r c e p t u a l growth.  identification through  which  activates  cell  one  fixation  resulting cell (or thus  each  complex  assemblies)  offering  i n the cortex. from  assemblies  o r a compound o f  that sensory  fixations  through  movement,  greater opportunity f o rthe formation of concepts  which  a r et h e  development. emphasised t h e  components o f p e r c e p t u a l and motor  of the individual  Like  other  Hein  (1963) and F r o s t i g  perceptual-motor  movement  i s essential  of  are essential  which  cell  electrochemical action  c o n s t a n c i e s and v i s u a l  interdependent  or  as t h e e y e moves  The  1 9 5 9 Doman a n d D e l a c a t o  processes  cells  a r e made p o s s i b l e  outcome o f p e r c e p t u a l In  percept  on p a r t s o f an o b j e c t ,  percepts  He c o n c l u d e s  an e x p l a n a t i o n  i s gradually learned  develops  through  with  that the  A simple  by f i x a t i o n  other  i n more  perceptual  percepts  system  offers  suggests  point t o another.  assemblies. cell  Hebb  a number o f n e r v e  assembly  facilitate  most o f t e n l i n k e d  (1949),  experience.  i s formed  The  0. H e b b  of visual  repeated  assembly  Theory,  t o move,  grow and l e a r n .  theorists  (1966) t h e y  such  as H e l d and  believed that  f o r p e r c e p t u a l development; f o rcognitive  development.  both  36 . McFee suggests  (1961) i n her  s i x stages  differences  and  Perception-Delineation  accounting  identifies  f a c t o r s which  stages  readiness,  identify  perceives the  the  (the  affect learning.  (the  way  i n which  psycho-cultural  child's intellectual  information  ability  to  feedback seven She  he  and  sub-categories  w h i c h two  or  influences  the  other." The  developing  responses),  transfer.  these  (p.  three  Each of  and  the  with  information to  organize  these  stages  has  (his of  up  to  f o r more d e t a i l e d i n d e n t i f i c a t i o n . s t a g e s or  condition  transactions  and  as  "a  process  i n the  process  subsequent  behaviour  250)  kinds  percepts  child  evaluation  more f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t and the  These  transaction  ability  and  receives), creative delineation  communicate  r e f e r s to  each of  cultural  classroom, v i s u a l - p h y s i c a l environment,  handling  in  his world),  for individual  psychological,  anthropological  Theory  of  visual qualities  used  for thinking  necessary  for  processes  include:a)  the  abstract  b)  the  abstraction  symbol w h i c h c)  the  structure  a f f e c t i v e q u a l i t y of  can or  of be  art  visual information expressed,  organisation  and  into  a  37. McFee goes related  to  on  to  artistic  suggest  implications for  perception  and  basic  to  teaching  cognitive  processes. Theories seem t o  how  children perceive  make i t a p p a r e n t  perception and  on  that  i s learned  perception  some f o r m  or  Defining  that  through  most  early  as  1651  Hobbes w r o t e  i n man's, and  which  totally  or  by  begotten  sense."  (p.  of  was  parts  87)  Hochberg  "until  a l l of  their  origin  (pp.  4,5) Sensory  past  the  senses,  experience  olfactory  and  identifiable  early  and  impressions such  as  gustatory. of  hath  not  upon  is  of  no  at  first,  the  organs  (1964) d e c l a r e s  possible  i n past  problems  "There  that  of  "the  i s p r i m a r i l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l " and  the  the  sense m o d a l i t i e s  central  been  perception  not  explain  by  to  that  another.  conception  it  see,  t h e o r i s t s accept  responses  is influenced  they  Perception  As  study  what  part  present  are  or  received  Rock  1950  century, ideas  sensory  visual,  In  this  thoughts  perception  in vision.  of  we  have  by  through d i f f e r e n t tactile,  (1975) s u g g e s t s more  Held  to  experience."  auditory,  are  that  and  that  clearly Richards  38. defined and  perception  events  i n the world  & Richards,  processes  are  governed  including  convergence pathways, neural  by c e r t a i n  which  depends  inhibitions, of  neural  of inputs precludes  of unaltered  through  (Held  that,  perception  of l a t e r a l  stated, the information  processed  suggest  and d i v e r g e n c e  impulses  objects  principles,  and e n c o d i n g  transmission  is  They  upon w h i c h  those  of knowing  by means o f t h e s e n s e s . "  1 9 5 0 , p. 166)  The  Simply  as " t h e p r o c e s s  into the  patterns, received  the nervous  system  (p.166)  by t h e s e n s e s resulting i n  perception. Lovano apprehension situations senses. occurs and  (1969) e x p l a i n s of objects  and e v e n t s  some  that  supplementing,  that  changes used."  present  of sensing  that  i n t h e way s t i m u l u s Attneave  to to the  there  intergrating  impressions."  i n perceptual  ( p . 204)  relationships  interpreting,  (1977) s u g g e s t s  occur  as " t h e d i r e c t  are physically  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g of sensory  changes  and  and of t h e i r  In a d d i t i o n t o the process  Rosinski  of  perception  ( p . 4)  "the developmental  ability  are the result  information  i s picked  (1971) sees  perception  up as  39 basically This  "an  information  information  processed visual  by  the  suggests  of  results  retinal  immediate  in  of  3)  image of eye  retina  i n the  in vision: into  experience He  of  (p.  of  183)  the  eye,  perception  world  (by  light,  the  brain producing the  of  relevant  perceptual  Attneave  the  the  i n terms  study  things  of  that  objective objects  of  is  the  reality." and  sense  triggering  events organs  s i g n a l s to  b r a i n events which  in  turn  experience.  Nature of  Perception  (1954) i n h i s e x p l a n a t i o n  processing  is  t r a n s f e r r e d to the and  of  proces  148)  object  as  striking  intricate  " i n the  perception  system  world  perception  than the  sound waves, e t c . )  The  information  that  (p.  a p p e a r a n c e of  being  visual  transformation  a stimulus  attention rather  real  produce  the  states that  i t i s the  the  outside  a perception."  Rock e x p l a i n s  the  the  of  a c t i v a t e s a most  (1975) s u g g e s t s  perception  (p.  "An  properties.  focus  brain, resulting  the  image  Rock  its  the  (1963) e x p l a n a t i o n  that,  retina  that  i s r e c e i v e d on  process."  stimulus. Hubel's  the  handling  suggests  that  of  perceptual  "a major  function  40 . of  the  perceptual  redundance  of  machinery  i s to s t r i p  s t i m u l a t i o n , to describe  incoming  information  i n a form  in  i t impinges  on  is,  which  extraneous  recognised  responsible emphasises skills.  information  image  Frostig  the  or  than  and  that  That  the  retained.  need  perceptual  to develop  include  visual  figure-ground  perception,  perception  positions  of  the  encode  ( p . 189)  i s discarded  for learning disabilities  These  some o f  more e c o n o m i c a l  receptors."  (1966) b e l i e v e s  the  away  i n space,  basic  motor  perceptual and  are  in children.  several and  deficits  She  visual  co-ordination,  constancy, perception  of  spatial relationships. Supporting perceptual  processes  kinestetic,  perception by  may  be  (visual,  automatic  who  believed  and  (1968) c l a i m s  auditory,  that  tactual,  o l f a c t o r y ) are  a hundred  seen  i n two  (1867) s u g g e s t s  perceive  and  Barsch  antecedents  to  development.  e f f e c t s of  Helmholtz  w h a t we  view  gustatory  intellectual The  this  d e p e n d s on  inference's. that  what  years  of  study  definitions. that  our  a great  being  Helmholtz  a person  sees  was  The deal  able  in first, of  t o make  rapid  an e m p i r i c i s t  i s a f f e c t e d by  past  41. experience. were  innate  He or  debated  whether  acquired.  His  perceptual  view  cues p r e v i o u s l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h they  signify.  unconscious based  on  exists  These  and  the  i n the  thus  automatic.  will  that  a  t h a t we  object  i n f e r e n c e s , he  assumption past  an  was  abilities  and  infer  suggests,  They  are  to  what  are  also inductive,  relationship  continue  perceive  apply  which  to  the  present. The that  second  i n order  definition  to  encompass  by  Frisby  a l l form  (1980)  of  suggests  perceptual  processing the a  problem  combined  of  seeing  i s best  tackled  by  assault using psychological,  physiological  and  computational  methods  in  The  psychologist  provides  methodologies  for studying  the  the  unison...  input-output performance presently studies  (retinal of  the  and  the  and  visual  systems  the p h y s i o l o g i s t  hardware  systems d i r e c t l y , recordings  best  known...  the  image-to-perception)  of  using  biological  microelectrode  neuroanatomical  computational  visual  scientist  probings... takes  the  42 . job  of a c t u a l l y  system.  and  He t e n d s  task.  studies  an e x t e n s i v e  distinctions He c l a i m s  that  children  by d r a w i n g  the objects  classes  The process which  f o r making  of sensory e x p e r i e n c e s .  progress through  visual  involves  a  perceptual  categorization  t h e method  e x p e r i e n c e from  different  and e v e n t s  by  to a r t through  according t o Bruner  and t o r e s p o n d  membership."  humans  b y common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  render d i s c r i m i n a t e l y  group  capacity  range  and respond  upon  the problem.  suggests that  process i s i n fact  perceive  solve  (Bruner, 1958, Bruner,  process, which  "Categorization", to  a wide  of objects  categorization  might  and s e n s i t i v e  individuals  decision-making a group  strategies  1956) Bruner  within  visual  (pp. 156-7)  of p e r c e p t i o n  & Austin,  visual  the fundamental  processing  Goodnow  cues  to study  a  requirements of a given  In  of  to build  processing  d e t e r m i n e s what  have  trying  and people  t o them  which  visual the past.  i s "man's  things  i n terms  This  ability  equivalent,  around  him  of t h e i r  to  into  class  ( p . 1)  four  include  an o b j e c t  stages  involved  "1) a p r i m i t i v e or event  within  the categorization  scanning operation i n  i s isolated  from  the complexity  43 . of  environmental  s t i m u l a t i o n ; 2) l e v e l s  where e f f o r t s  a r e d i r e c t e d toward  can  to a v a i l a b l e category  be f i t t e d  tentative  placement,  and 4) a f i n a l  individual  o f cue s e a r c h . "  in  order  t o make a p o s t i v e  McFee  Accordingly perception  process  abilities  of c a t e g o r i c a l  Here, t h e as many  to category  i n terms of p e r c e p t u a l "the primary  in differing  visual  degrees of l i g h t ,  screens  experiences  and p e r s o n a l  information  reflected  visual  abilities.  on t h e r e t i n a  perception."  continuities,  and s p a t i a l ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p . " ( p . 251)  screen  ability.  are o r g a n i s a t i o n a l , seeing  a n d f i g u r e and g r o u n d ;  of v i s u a l  specifications  of t h i s  differences, proximities,  the i n d i v i d u a l  features  identification.  she a r g u e s t h a t ,  similarities,  The  3) a  ( p . 15)  (1966) p r e f e r s t o t h i n k  categorization  totally  specification,  scans a p i c t u r e , recognises  he c a n , t h e n matches t h e s e  that  that  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , c a t e g o r i z e d by  as  viewpoint  o u t cues  cues t o c h e c k t h e v a l i d i t y  a termination  objects  seeking  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and an e x a m i n a t i o n o f  confirmatory  closures,  o f cue s e a r c h i n g  seeing  d i s t a n c e , and  However, she s u g g e s t s input  through  past  Thus, "the of t h e eyes i s not  ( p . 183)  McFee m e n t i o n s , d e t e r m i n e s what  information and  will  choose  concepts. object,  the individual  will  to categorize  Concepts  extract  into  are defined  generalized  from  previous  (McFee, 1970, p. 148)  depending  on w h e t h e r  their  visual  rather  than  tendency the  world what  t o compromise  perceptual  definitions distance  and depth  regardless they  the  same  are  viewed."  "Size the as  shape  size  the actual  has been  respond t o they  know  call  about  this  i s known a n d  seen  McFee's size,  shape and  follow.  constancy  i s a tendency  t h e same c o l o u r  a n d same  colour time."  i s a tendency  regardless  t o see  brightness,  of l i g h t  o r shade  ( p . 65)  t o see things  of the angle  as  being  from which  they  ( p . 66)  constancy  same  will  and c o l o u r ,  i n at a given  "Shape c o n s t a n c y  training  ( p . 184)  of the p a r t i c u l a r  a r e seen  what  constancies  and c o l o u r  as having  "that  Psychologists  constancies."  an  She s u g g e s t s ,  they  between  f o r brightness  "Brightness objects  see...  about  with the  more i n t e r m s o f what  they  developed  experiences  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s visual,...  h i s view  previously  as "an i d e a  object".  more c o g n i t i v e t h a n  from  i s a tendency  o r as having comparative  t o see objects  compromised size,  size  depending  as  being  rather  on t h e  than  45 . distance  between  Munsinger The  (1971)  visual  relation and  t h e o b j e c t and t h e v i e w e r . "  system  images  considers the  to correct  The p e r c e i v e d  remains  distances  somehow  d i s t a n c e from  of view  distortions. objects  states,  between  plane  constant  - f o r example,  object, image  system  Size  same s h a p e ,  The  corrective  (p.  angle  o f an  retinal  i s still  seen  as  ( p . 89) mechanism  i s within  corrects the r e t i n a l  and Distance  evolve  does not  the perceptual  projection  and  the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the world.  Piaget to  the object  their  retinal  and i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g  the  stabilizes  state of  away f r o m u s .  as t h e v i e w i n g  varies,  which  visual  a man  s e e m t o s h r i n k a s he w a l k s Furthermore,  the retina  e v e n when  and c o r r e s p o n d i n g  vary  ( p . 65)  Perception  (1969) s u g g e s t s  a n d , on t h e w h o l e ,  that  " c o n s t a n c i e s do seem  ( t o ) improve  with age."  206) Later  that,  "There  in relation  to size  i s no r e a s o n ,  constancy  in principle,  he why  suggests a  visual  46 . perception variable That  is  s h o u l d not  apparent to  variables  say  Piaget constancy. follows: friend, that the  size  the  you were t o  makes  on  (p.  229)  s h o u l d be  an  the  of  size  and  distance  may be d e s c r i b e d  very  diminished in smaller  sole  object.  l o o k down a l a n e  him a p p e a r  (1968),  constancy,  constancy  in  his  suggests  a r e outcomes of  that  determines  Kaufman and Rock an a p p a r e n t difference  Space  only  to  see  small. size,  as  a  You know but  in  fact,  t h a n you know he  is.  Gregory  process  this  f r i e n d would appear  distance  of  concept  terms,  your f r i e n d h a s n ' t  size  and d i s t a n c e  identification  In simple  that  w h i c h depends  and on d i s t a n c e s . "  emphasizes  If  actually  of  sizes  that  i n the  exist  change i n the  in  that  the  the  (1962),  explanation  size  distance  is  of  from the  hand, by an  process  and  process,  ambiguous  other  caused  the  illusion  same c e n t r a l  on t h e  size  both  for  a  stimuli.  suggest  that  apparent  observer.  Perception Ralph  Perception"  Haber  (1978)  deals with  in  three  his  article  areas:  a)  "Visual perception  of  47 . three-dimensional perception, including  visual  Hagan information processed  which  and c) t h e  and B r e s n a h a n i n the form to result  in visual  t o the eye p r o v i d i n g  (1960) f o u n d  edge of a  "cliff"  that  a  information  by r e f e r r i n g  and Walk  special the  case  light  suggest  of d i s t a n c e  reaching  that,  cliff",  Gibson  falling  to visual  "Height  perceptions  t h e eye p r o v i d e s  f o r the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n both  receding  distance  concluded  that  experiments  the l e v e l . "  the response  demonstrated  and the  cues.  experiments,  perception  is a  and i n f o r m a t i o n i n that  of depth  ( p . 341)  to the "Visual  the v i t a l  over  depth  stimuli  utilized  on  "visual  with  avoids  and  light  i n her  As an outcome o f t h e " V i s u a l C l i f f " Gibson  objects  conducted  "visual  a child  as t h e " o p t i c  refers to  In experiments using  Gibson  to determine  (1960) r e p e a t e d l y  and a n i m a l s  t o the eye  perception.  structured light  offers information  experiments.  that  of s t r u c t u r e d l i g h t  stimulus  Walk  displays  perceptual  (1984) suggest  Gibson  infants  space  reading.  events.  cliff"  theories of  o f p i c t u r e s and f l a t  illusions,  (1966) r e f e r s t o t h i s array"  i n c l u d i n g two  b) p e r c e p t i o n  components of  is  scenes  role  can  be  and o f  They Cliff"  of v i s i o n  i n the  48 . survival In and  of  the  their  Richards  front  species. interpretation  (1950) s u g g e s t  of  or  behind  conveyed  by  many d i f f e r e n t  One  of  these  simple rays  another,  whereby differ  of  the  from  two  an  When t w o  different  distances  the  their  when o n e  that  information  stimulus  geometry object  of  to  distance  right  retina  i m a g e s on  the  from  the  eyes, their  differs  from  of  observer depth In  from  with  in his  constancies  are  known a b o u t  objects  the  visual  "the  that  of  Such  with  a  the  difference in distance eyes,  information  summary, McFee  the images  retina.  magnitude  objects  and  l i e at  varies monotonically the  light  object  between  left  (1970)  tendencies rather  than  providing about  field,  be  eyes,  an  shape,  objects  may  is in  a  the  the  disparity  the  object  Held  conditions.  r e t i n a l images of  location.  on  perception,  that  slightly in size,  horizontal  depth  is retinal disparity,  result  coming  of  (p.  233) that  depend  upon  the  their  suggests to  of  the  perceptual  upon what direct  is  sensory  data in  received  terms of  be,  about  the  viewing varies just are  in  angle the  as  of  suggests of  and  the  that  how  i t .  the  the  (p.  and  the  to  from  object, "Past  to  things  know them  result  that  components: world  or  the  experience constancies",  the  world  stays  way  objects  specify the  object  size,  Ambiguity  (1980)  suggests  image, which  initiates  these  we  know  the  information  even  as  "once  i t must  we  move  i t is  granted  information contain  shape,  brightness,  39)  ambiguous.  i t , and  how  sufficient  then  and  Frisby  put  space,  Multistability  perceptual  sense  that  contains  of  1)  from  acknowledges  image  about  explanation  (p.  from  they  the  respond  forth."  inherently  from  'see'  77)  visual  visual  retinal  information so  shape  attitudes influence  two  Haber  completely  and  object,"  and  to  images t h a t  distance  (1978) i n h i s  properties  through  the  and  tend  Stability  Haber  2)  size  visual  i n space."  stability  People  individuals  "values  seen  of  light,  ways  Perceptual  to  colour,  irrespective  differences  them.  are  the  that  whole  Various  "Each process  eye's of  measurements  i n t e r p r e t e d to  give  retinal  seeing, are the  is  taken required  50 . identification  of a t t r i b u t e s of the scene."  Multistability  of p e r c e p t i o n  ( p . 156)  has been t h e f o c u s o f  if studies  by A t t n e a v e  (1971) who c l a i m s  that  an ambiguous /\  figure  provides  the viewer  representations are  equally  adopt  with  two " a l t e r n a t i v e  or d e s c r i p t i o n s of v i s u a l  good, t h e p e r c e p t u a l  system w i l l  one and sometimes a n o t h e r . " He goes on t o e x p l a i n  that  (p. 92)  "under  frequently  used  to determine the  figure-ground  i s rare."  (1915) r e v e r s i b l e g o b l e t i s  as an example  Many o f E s c h e r ' s  sometimes  natural  r e l a t i o n s h i p , and a m b i g u i t y  The R u b i n  (which)  ( p . 91)  c o n d i t i o n s many f a c t o r s c o - o p e r a t e figure-ground  input  of f i g u r e - g r o u n d  pictures offer  reversal.  e x c e l l e n t examples o f  r e v e r s a l s , i n t h e p o s i t i v e and  negative  spaces. In offers  reference  an e x p l a n a t i o n The  type  before  well  existence,  perceptual  i n young  (1971)  sets". just  figure  what he s e e s .  (called  developed  one r e c e i v e s  an ambiguous  affects  phenomenom  f i g u r e s Munsinger  he t e r m s ' ' p e r c e p t u a l  of experience  viewing  strongly  The  t o ambiguous  This s e t ) i s not  c h i l d r e n , ( p . 100)  or lack thereof,  of t h i s  "perceptual s e t "  51. may  offer  the teacher  perceptual Visual  never  as i n d i c a t i o n  Illusion Hochberg  (1964) w r i t e s  i n exact  correspondence  Some a s p e c t s  distorted.  An i l l u s i o n  of  that  "What we o b s e r v e i s  with  the physical  are omitted, exists  some a d d e d ,  when o b s e r v a t i o n s  the a i d of a p h y s i c a l instrument  results (p.  from  those  made  without  3) A s a n e x a m p l e , H o c h b e r g perceived  length  verses  Tests Prior  determine  researchers validity  that  than  and educators  of standardized  giftedness,  rather  than  different  instruments." Mueller-Lyer figures length.  most used t o  intellectual  a gifted  130.  v e r b a l , thus  made  the Stanford-Binet  child  ability.  i s one w i t h  However, i n t h e e a r l y alike  began  measures  and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n .  typically  cites  measured  individual  suggest  of greater  such  was t h e i n s t r u m e n t  varying  guidelines  gifted  Test  yield  some  & Measures  t o t h e 1950s,  Intelligence  score  child's  development.  situation.  with  of a  identifying superior  a n IQ 1960s  to question the  and t e s t s  These  The  tests  to  identify  were  intellectual  ability  i n arts,  music,  52. performing  arts,  characterized The Renzulli  mechanics  by  work  and  non-verbal  of  Guilford  (1979) has  other  fields  ability. (1972),  Torrance  c o n t r i b u t e d to making  techniques,  procedures  and  identifying  gifted  talented children.  (1982) s u g g e s t s by  themselves,  giftedness. and  task  person,  and  that  IQ  account  He  the  need  Revision  of  standard  against which  (p.  350)  the  intelligence  (1982)  a l l other  theory  of  intelligence  has  doubt  the  education  field  theory  or  of  model."  Torrance creative grades  four  to  (p.  the  cannot,  of  i n the  gifted  identification Stanford been  instruments  for  the the  compared."  " J . P. G u i l f o r d ' s  had  a greater  the  gifted  human influence  than  any  on  other  87)  used  six.  for  "creativity  s c a l e has  s t r u c t u r e of  ( 1 9 5 9 ) i n an  thinking  of  "The  have been  contends  ( 1 9 5 9 , 1967)  no  of  Renzulli scores  flexible  declares  intelligence  Maker  ability  a characteristic  Guilford Binet  available  importance  f o r a more  ( p . 13)  of  other  s t r e s s e s the  system."  measurement  or  a variety  and  for creative/productive  c o m m i t m e n t as and  instruments  (1974),  On  e x p l o r a t o r y study  a number o f the  of  Guilford's tests  s i x measures  he  used,  he  with  found the  no  statistical  d i f f e r e n c e between the  h i g h l y c r e a t i v e group.  significantly  higher  nominations.  However, b o t h  high  as  l e a r n e r s and  Torrance recognition intelligence thinking  of  the  fact  full  results,  flexibility  Ability  preference,  obsolete.  a few  are  of  the  often  tests,  The  thus  Torrance which  tests  not  measured  failing  to  From  these  Test  for  emphasizes  have been d e s i g n e d  i n c l u d e the  Tests  (1927),  Art Test  However, most of  man's  not  a r t a p t i t u d e , only  (1948) and  equally  elaboration.  Visual Arts  Meier  i n peer  abilities  the  a few  the  Art  knowledge Graves  Horn A r t A p t i t u d e tests  are  Knauber  (1937), the  these  to  i n Fundamental  (1935) w h i c h m e a s u r e s a r t i s t i c  Judgement T e s t (1953).  or  These  i n the  Test  and  scored  measures of  creative child.  a number of  in print.  Abilities  only  (1972, 1974)  measure a r t a b i l i t y still  the  and  been i n c r e a s i n g  traditional  Cognitive  developed  Creative Thinking  Although  that  intelligence  Torrance  fluency,  " T h e r e has  (p. 8)  of  group  IQ  individuals.  c r e a t i v e thought  account  IQ  friends criterion  to assess  abilities."  high  g r o u p s were r a t e d  (1962) w r o t e  conventional  take  best  talkative  attempt  concerned with by  on  The  high  Design  Scale  have become  or  54 . As and in  e a r l y as  measuring gifted  1941  Norman M e i e r  artistic  children.  contributed  to  'craftsman'  ability,  ability,  "He  artistic  3)  isolated  energy  in  i t s discharge,  4)  perceptual  6)  a e s t h e t i c judgement."  general  facility,  5)  However, Alexander several three  of  are  these  major  acquired  imposed  by  Meier's  t e s t s are under  and  selection the  design  of  interest he  skill  and  tests  perseveration  aesthetic  1966,  intelligence, and  orginally  1939)  (1981) o f f e r s c r i t i c i s m  factors, claiming  interacting  factors.  and  that  the  with  Further,  c u l t u r e bound  felt  or  creative imagination,  out  talented provides use  of  that  the  of  the  first  remainder  the she  are  conditions claims  invalid  curricula.  that  with  identification  definition  In  fact,  to  be  i s viewed  for  the  and  for  procedures  and  and  affect  the  kinds  provided  and  vice  as  an  of  the  procedures  opportunities  for identification experiences  "the  direction  identification  educational  used  differentiated versa:  manual  output  (Meier,  (1981) p o i n t s  and  central  f a c t o r s which 1)  and  developing  12.  differentiated techniques  but  heredity  Passow gifted  a  primarily hereditary, while  primarily  children  with  talent:  2)  was  integral  part  of  of  55.  differentiation."  (p.  14)  Some m e a s u r e s o f include  standardized  creativity  tests,  indication  group  special  tests,  parental, teacher  nominations,  p e r s o n a l i t y and  Standardized  giftedness a)  tests in that  are  bright to  eliminating c)  rely  high  on  "objectivity"  among  students  backgrounds.  c h i l d r e n from  Intelligence  (WISC-R 1974) test  as  tests  of  are  -  limiting thus  responses.  cultural  Intelligence  by  " c o r r e c t " answers,  or  Revised  self  checklists.  students  p r i n t e d words t h u s  Wechsler  and  students  problems  The  school  Tests  limitations  creative  scores  tests,  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between  gifted  to  peer  behavioural  f o r average  low  achieve  responses  tests,  may  they  too  and  and  Group  have  designed  ceilings  b)  may  giftedness  culture fair  aptitude  achievement,  These  of  and  the  the  two  jeopardizing  with  reading  different  Scale  for Children  -  Stanford-Binet most w i d e l y  used  tests  for  56 . measuring general  intellectual  WISC-R d e t e r m i n e s s p e c i f i c scores: The  a verbal  division  children  ability  academic a p t i t u d e with  IQ, a p e r f o r m a n c e  p o o r on v e r b a l a b i l i t y  t o show  Often  these  tests rely  items. and  Test  ability."  Tests  Tests  answer and t h e r e f o r e  s u c h as d i v e r g e n t creativity.  questions Maturity  several  figural  " o f t h e 215 t e s t s  i n A r t Education  9% f o c u s  measures o f non-verbal  correct  from  that  i n Studies  (1973-1974, p p . 5 7 - 6 2 ) , o n l y  and C u l t u r e F a i r  o f Mental  response  (1979) n o t e d  measures r e p o r t e d  populations.  h e a v i l y on n o n - v e r b a l  individual  Youngblood  intellectual  b i a s , thus they a r e  large minority  responses e.g. the Columbia which, r e q u i r e s  allows  Tests  These t e s t s a v o i d c u l t u r a l with  IQ.  IQ.  Culture Fair  f o r schools  The  three  IQ and a t o t a l  o f the v e r b a l performance c a t e g o r i e s  s t r e n g t h on performance  useful  in children.  on o b j e c t i v e  (p. 52)  Standardized  g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e one fail  to i n d i c a t e  t h i n k i n g commonly  associated  traits with  and  57. Individual  IQ T e s t s  Trie S t a n f o r d - B i n e t and WISC-R a r e t h e most used  a n d f o c u s on g e n e r a l  tests  do i n f a c t  disadvantage tests  widely  intellectual ability.  These  identify "gifted" individuals.  to the classroom  need t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d  teacher  i s that  A  these  i n d i v i d u a l l y by  trained  personnel. In  197 3 Machen  reliability  conducted  study o f the Slosson  with g i f t e d children The S I T was f o u n d determining  and u s e d  giftedness with  diagnostic  unqualified testing  with  The S I T t h e n ,  Gifted.  t o perform  (1983) c o n d u c t e d  reasons.  Performance  t o be  teacher or  initial  a comparative  instruments  study  Progressive  and Meeker's S O I - S c r e e n i n g  used  appears  children.  These t h r e e  following  comparison.  measure f o r t h e c l a s s r o o m  t h e WICS-R, Raven's S t a n d a r d  Matrices,  widely  t h e WISC f o r a  T e s t (SIT)  the highest c o r r e l a t i o n a t  p e r s o n n e l who w i s h  Norma P e a r c e using  Intelligence  t o be a r e l i a b l e measure f o r  the nine year o l d l e v e l . a useful  a v a l i d i t y and  Form f o r t h e  were u s e d  f o r the  The WISC-R i s one o f t h e two most  placement  instruments  IQ a n d V e r b a l  IQ.  yielding  both  I t i s respected  for i t s  high  reliability  Raven's  Standard  reasoning  Progressive  by a n a l o g y ,  recommended  gifted  M a t r i c i e s which  was t h e n o n - v e r b a l  for identifying  disadvantaged of  and v a l i d i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t s .  I n t e l l e c t Screening  Form  f o r the Gifted  instrument  published  Guilford's  (1967) i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s .  is  a prescriptive  a s much  measuring The  a variety  results  dimensions  of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g  significantly relationship being  related between  on a l l t h r e e t h e WISC-R  abovementioned t e s t s  individual's potential  ability.  giftedness  be n e c e s s a r y from  previous  records,  a general  However,  abilities.  that  were  tests,  with the  and t h e Raven's  others  SPM  to quantify the  i n order test  to allow f o r  limitations i t  t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a r t work,  in specialized  fields,  l e a v i n g t h e IQ m e a s u r e  indication  Hermelin  attempt  and minimize  t o view  opinions  as  tool,  the stronger. The  may  revealed  24 o f  I t s purpose  and n o n - v e r b a l  research  Structure  i s an  measures  as a d i a g n o s t i c  of verbal  of Pearce's  and  The M e e k e r ' s  i n 1980, which  measures  instrument  underachievers  children.  The  of  and O'Connor  and  gain review  to serve  only  ability. (1980) p e r f o r m e d  a  study  59 . using  an  IQ measure t o  convergent  form o f  associational identified  "distinguish  intelligence  form"  (p. 180)  i n Torrance's  better  on most c o g n i t i v e  (p. 180) ability a high study  The on  specific  IQ a l o n e . " reveal  to  factors  for creativity-  "more a b l e p e o p l e tasks than  outcome o f t h e  study  tasks can  (p. 185)  The  implications of  giftedness  i n c e r t a i n areas of achievement,  determine  and  despite art  Zimmerman  currently and  this  IQ i s  certainly  of  i t cannot  Aptitudes  52  formal  available talented  formal  specifically  ability.  (1983) r e p o r t  the C e n t r e  (1981) l i s t s  these  artistic  [the] c r i t i c i s m s  tests,  gifted  for Special  have been t e s t s d e s i g n e d  creative  Clark  and  f o r by  measure.  Tests There  "high  (not) be a c c o u n t e d  that while a h i g h e r than average  as a s o l e  ones."  revealed that  of c o g n i t i v e performance,  used  They  perform  less able  indicative  be  or  from a d i v e r g e n t o r  similar  list  q u e s t i o n e d whether o r not  an a n a l y t i c  that,  of standardized  f o r Global Futures instruments  f o r use  in  students.  instruments  identifying Three  are designed  of as  to  60 .  tests  of  art aptitude.  f o r the  production Inventory  of  a r t ; The  and  (1929, 1942,  the  measure  ability  in various  contended  and  evaluate  tasks  that a  therefore  areas  of  coordination,  attempted  a  whole  age,  and  MacGregor  to  of  this  perceptual  f o r each  Perceptual  valid  of  for (p.182)  Visual of  sufficient of  a  Perception  child's perception.  to  recognize  perception.  identify These  figure-ground  results  perceptual  not  skill.  shape, p o s i t i o n i n space, The  however,  involving visual  i t was  perceptual  art  Tests  levels  s i n g l e component  tests  for  talent,  Test  measures developmental  Aptitude  tests  and  artistic  Developmental  measures  aesthetic  these  (1964),  She  Art  Art  reliable  p r e d i c t i o n of  Frostig's  Meier  None o f  have been p r o v e n the  Horn  Design  or  tests aptitude  1963)  sensitivity.  1978)  appreciation  (1953)  production;  Graves  {1946, 1974,  Judgement Test aptitude  The  five  are:  Her  different  eye-hand  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , constancy  and test  spatial can  quotient  subtest.  be  relations. translated into  and  scaled  However, u n l i k e  Index, with  of  i t s seven  scores the  subtests,  a as  Frostig's  t e s t i s p r i m a r i l y performance  to d i a g n o s e younger  c h i l d r e n with  based  and used  visual-motor  handicaps. Kellogg she  (1970) o f f e r s an a g e - s t a g e  r e l a t e s t o c o g n i t i v e development  while  Harris  (1963) b e l i e v e s  measures a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y  that  t h e Draw-a-Man and  likeness  these  t e s t s o f f e r a s u r e means o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  should  the notion  be employed  that  i n form.  Test  generalize  about  reaffirms  that  in children's a r t ,  to perceive  and d i f f e r e n c e  sequence  Since  none o f this  many means o f measurement  f o r a more a c c u r a t e  i n d i c a t i o n of  giftedness. Renzulli  (1982) s t r e s s e s  creativity  and t a s k  the  child,  gifted  identification  commitment  children these  highly  time,  lists,  journals  sociograms, by t e a c h e r s  as a means o f i d e n t i f y i n g g i f t e d t o be more v a l u a b l e  Munro sums up t h i s  diversified  some a n a l y s i n g  flexible  system.  over  he c l a i m s  testing.  as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f  and t h e need f o r a more  He recommends c h e c k observations  t h e importance of  idea  than  and  children; conventional  suggesting  that,  s e t of t e s t or experimental  work s a m p l e s ,  some o b s e r v i n g  "By  devices  a b i l i t y to  remember  visually,  preferences approach 'art  intelligently,  the composite  ability'" Research  ability  to learn  scores  necessary child  appears cannot  and so on —  t o suggest  that  that  giftedness.  "new  evaluation  known  in a gifted  and t a l e n t e d  necessary."  IQ o r  other  Alexander  (1980)  methodologies are of the  gifted  program....a d i f f e r e n t c u r r i c u l u m  of  artistic  students  and c r e a t i v e  i s not only  this  section, Lark-Horovitz  possible  (1967)  out that, i s n o t mere p r e c o c i t y  that  we m u s t  talent  (though  indication), as  look  alertness, visual lines  f o r as a s i g n  this  may  but rather  perceptual,  well  of  occur  artistic as one  emotional  by p r e f e r e n c e  m a t e r i a l s . . . . we  realism  such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  imaginative,  directed  of t h e i r  in visual  must r e a d  into between t h e  ( t e s t ) r e s u l t s , not  judging  that  needs  ( p . 45)  To c o n c l u d e  it  as  account f o r  the complexity  the i n t e l l e c t u a l ,  points  to defend might  abilities  satisfies  but  we  of diverse  by t h e m s e l v e s  t o cope w i t h  gifted  technique,  ( p . 176)  creative/productive recommends  a new  63. them  for obvious  training, should  or  look  for  signs  power  excellence  from at  stage  students  artistic  tasks  to  identified  to  giftedness being  giftedness  isolate and  and use  and  every  age  cultural  178)  tests  need  vitality,  at  of  these  of  we  inventiveness,  On  qualities  Rather  that  mediocrity  (p.  be  special  which d i s t i n g u i s h  every  development."  As  maturity,  of  eagerness,  organizing  and  of  sophistication.  sensitivity,  level  signs  need  vary  identify  not  as  perform  specific  potentially  talented.  there  appears  to  specific  aspects  of  tests appropriate  to  the  be  a  quality  defined.  The The identify  Index visual  elementary  from  response  instrument following perception  used  for  this of  level.  from  The  categories: embedded  various to  Index  study  is  perceptual  photographs  i s designed  of  Perceptual  aspects  school  information correct  MacGregor  child  (MPI) intended  efficiency  interprets  i n order  to  perception  responses of  at  a  The  in  the  distance,  figures, perception  of  the  visual  choose  alternatives.  elicit  to  shape,  64 . perception of  of s i m i l a r i t i e s  the v e r t i c a l ,  perception  perception  modified  perception  by c o n s t a n c y and  of contour.  MacGregor p o i n t s designed  and d i f f e r e n c e s ,  to provide  out that  the instrument  "was  t e a c h e r s o f a r t w i t h a v a l i d and  r e l i a b l e measure o f r e s p o n s e t o v i s u a l s t i m u l i . " The  MPI o f f e r s  the g e n e r a l i s t  instrument that training.  c a n be a d m i n i s t e r e d  Scoring  which avoids  elementary  without  c h i l d r e n with verbal  suggests that  difficulties,  children  desired  goal  with  n o t d i a g n o s e d by  t e s t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . MacGregor  through  experiences within  answer,  i t may i d e n t i f y  language b a r r i e r s , or g i f t e d c h i l d r e n verbal  specialized  marking. Because t h i s i s a  n o n - v e r b a l measure o f v i s u a l a c u i t y ,  traditional  t e a c h e r an  i s by means o f one c o r r e c t  subjective  "a d e l i b e r a t e  structuring of  t h e a r t program" t h e u l t i m a t e  i s to help c h i l d r e n  Behavioural and B e c k e r  characteristics that can  and  " t o w a r d s a more  adequate understanding o f t h e i r v i s u a l world."  Tuttle  (p. 17)  (p. 61)  Characteristics (1980) have  assembled  and b e h a v i o u r c h e c k l i s t s and s u g g e s t  children displaying  the greatest  be i d e n t i f i e d a s a r t i s t i c a l l y  number o f t h e s e  g i f t e d . A few t y p i c a l  characteristics  reflecting  giftedness  curiosity,  persistency  questions,  p e r c e p t i v e of the environment,  self  and o t h e r s , s e n s i t i v e  worldwide to  in pursuit  include:  list  levels,  a few.  highly  to i n j u s t i c e s  developed  gifted  children  study.  into  account  used  Scholastic  f o r the purposes  Laughter  misinterpreted Frank strategies children  Luca  of  have a s t r a n g e s e n s e  t i m e may  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  talented  be  behaviour.  (1964) f o r i d e n t i f y i n g  children  (1976) and combined  elementary  o f humour,  (1981) l o o k e d a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  of Lowenfeld  His concern  gifted  a t t r i b u t e d to  by L a r k - H o r o v i t z , L e w i s  this  o b s e r v a t i o n , nomination  artwork.  F o r example,  by t h e t e a c h e r as d i s r u p t i v e  and a l s o  "personal  l e v e l s of  p r o c e s s , b u t can be  incorrectly.  a t an i n a p p r o p r i a t e  Chetelat  artistically and  often  nominations  of the author's  records representing  i f interpreted  19)  just  when d i a g n o s i n g t h e group o f  misleading  (p.  o f humour,  and l i b r a r i a n  a i d i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  children  on p e r s o n a l and  sense  competency  gifted  c r i t i c a l of  (p.13)  Teacher, p a r e n t , peer were a l l t a k e n  o f i n t e r e s t s and  information with forms  and  portfolios  as an a r t s p e c i a l i s t  s c h o o l was t o p r o v i d e a h i g h l y  i n an  interesting  66 .  and c h a l l e n g i n g v i s u a l a r t s program for the  gifted  w i t h i n the  He  r e g u l a r a r t c l a s s r o o m . " (p. 156)  advocated s t a t i o n specific  l e a r n i n g and focused  art a c t i v i t y ,  challenges  v i s u a l concepts  his f i n d i n g on a learned,  f o r advanced l e a r n i n g , and responses of  identified children. Zettle identifying gifted  (1979) recommends a number of means of the g i f t e d  and t a l e n t e d  He suggests that  and t a l e n t e d ,  for s e l e c t i o n  initial  others;  specialists  staff,  parent  i n the v i s u a l and performing the s c h o o l s ;  a behavioural c h e c k l i s t .  s c r e e n i n g a panel of experts submitted p r o j e c t s , interviews.  i n t o s p e c i a l programs.  b) nominations by  a r t s w i t h i n and o u t s i d e c)  potentially  s c r e e n i n g should i n c l u d e :  a) recommendations by s e l f , peer and  and the  and  For a f i n a l will  judge  a u d i t i o n s and/or  Behavioural c h e c k l i s t s  and  s t a n d a r d i z e d a p t i t u d e t e s t s should be used by experts  to look f o r c h i l d r e n with  p o t e n t i a l but undemonstrated t a l e n t . a p p r o p r i a t e placement of students  The  selected  for programs i n the v i s u a l and performing  arts  should  as  well  in  the area  be b a s e d  upon t h e i r  as t h e i r demonstrated of talent.  potential  proficiency  ( p . 69)  Summary This giftedness giftedness. perception,  chapter  has d e s c r i b e d  including  the diverse  I t  has a l s o  dealt  how p e r c e p t u a l  how a s s e s s m e n t o f g i f t e d n e s s Research  the research  q u a l i t i e s defined with  this  g r o w t h m i g h t be m e a s u r e d , and m i g h t be  undertaken.  r e l a t i n g t o t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d  group.  i n  the d e f i n i t i o n of  some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d b e h a v i o u r in  concerning  of  highlights children  68 .  CHAPTER STUDY The This associated of  those,  whether  study with  focused visual  chapter  describes  analyzing  processes  p e r c e p t i o n , and examined  might  children  exist  between in  i n grades f i v e  the d a t a - c o l l e c t i n g  and t h e s t a t i s t i c a l  evidence  on t h e MPI, t o d e t e r m i n e  and i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y  school  study,  upon p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  i n t h e form of s c o r e s  primary  the  PROCEDURES  Methods o f t h e S t u d y  a relationship  perception  THREE  visual  Australian and s i x .  procedures  procedures  This used i n  employed i n  the data.  Procedures The study  administering  i n gathering  the population  perception  the  for this  b) s e l e c t i n g t h e  to gather  t h e d a t a and  instrument.  to Piaget  levels  visual  (1962) and L o w e n f e l d  of development  t h e age o f t e n .  test  data  the Population  According  about  used  c) o b t a i n i n g p e r m i s s i o n  Selecting  to  steps  were a) s e l e c t i n g  sample d)  main  have s t a b i l i z e d a t  i t t h e r e f o r e seemed  perception  (1970)  in relation  appropriate  t o i n t e l l i g e n c e at  69.  this  age  level.  The  grouping  of g i f t e d  children  available  for  at  research level,  within  and  on  for this  available the b a s i s  cognitive children  o c c u r r e d ^ t h e grade  therefore constituted  population was  Canberra  study.  as a g i f t e d that  an  acceptable  Although group,  t h e y might  a grade  this  not  five/six  group  four was  have r e a c h e d  d e v e l o p m e n t where c o m p a r i s o n  class  rejected  a level  of  with n o n - g i f t e d  w o u l d be p r o d u c t i v e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s  of  this  study. Population The  p o p u l a t i o n of r e g u l a r  the study five  and  Defined  consisted  which can  be  population the from  of the t o t a l  s i x s t u d e n t s who  authorization  total  form found  p o p u l a t i o n of  responded  at Primary i n Appendix  of g i f t e d  children  to the  S c h o o l A,  five  and  Selection  of the  Sample  The  sample  consisted  twenty-four  o f two  a similar  sample  The  consisted  School  intact  of  study.  gifted  s u b j e c t s between t h e ages of  S c h o o l B and  Principal's  f o r the study  s i x at the Primary  children B.  groups; 10-12  from  for  grade  a copy  C of t h i s  p o p u l a t i o n of p r e - d i a g n o s e d  grade  Primary  classroom c h i l d r e n  from  Primary  of  70. School equal  A.  The r a t i o  i n both  to  contaminated  minimize  Schools within  the test  those  differences,  t h e A.C.T.  Since  approximately  choice  samples  An e f f o r t  was  ranking of  3 1 , a n d was c h o s e n  made  schools  B, c o n t a i n i n g t h e g i f t e d and ranked  32 o n t h e  ( i n c l u d e d as Appendix  c h o i c e was e i t h e r  might  by c o n s u l t i n g w i t h t h e  School  Authority scale,  obvious  ranked  scores.  A u t h o r i t y on s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  Schools  was  d i f f e r e n c e s between  s a m p l e , was a n e c e s s a r y  next  to girls  groups.  Socioeconomic have  of boys  31 o r 3 3 .  to provide  F) t h e  School  A  the non-gifted  sample. Obtaining As  Permission the study  permission Schools  co-operation  data  This  and support  Each  authorization  c h i l d was g i v e n  home, f o r p a r e n t a l a p p r o v a l .  The  Instrument  instrument  MacGregor for this  along  t h e A.C.T. with the  of the school p r i n c i p a l s .  take  The  one s c h o o l ,  was r e q u i r e d f r o m  was g r a n t e d ,  C for principals'  parents).  t h e Study  i n v o l v e d more t h a n  to collect  Authority.  Appendix  t o Conduct  Perceptual study,  letters  a permission  Index,  i s intended  (See  sent to  slip  to  s e l e c t e d as t h e to  identify  71. aspects  of v i s u a l  elementary  perceptual  school  information  from  level.  efficiency  The  child  a correct  within  the f o l l o w i n g categories:  response  perception  shape, p e r c e p t i o n  from  constancy,  and p e r c e p t i o n  selection  years) order  to the regular  of grade  population  was  perception  of  and d i f f e r e n c e s , modified  by  contour.  5/6  10  Students time  room  small  c h i l d r e n (not i n the  under  seconds  program.  Test  the  test.  Each  and t h e c h i l d r e n were to  10-12=  Index  conditions similar  i n the testing  individually  Administrative  agreed  a  the administrator with  administered  be o b s e r v e d read  schedule  the MacGregor P e r c e p t u a l  to familiarize was  testing  t o b e t e s t e d b u t o f t h e same a g e g r o u p ,  were g i v e n  recommended  the  figures,  of  Study Prior  to  to  alternatives  perception  of  visual  i n order  perception  of s i m i l a r i t i e s  of the v e r t i c a l ,  This  various  o f embedded  perception  Pilot  interprets  a s e r i e s of photographs  choose  distance,  at the  to  in  those  question given  the  respond.  Instructions f o r Testing were sent  i n groups  to the appointed  o f no m o r e  t h e c h i l d r e n were  than  six.  room a t an On  entering  i n s t r u c t e d to s i tat tables  72. and  chairs  with  arranged  a test  within  b o o k l e t , an  the  room.  answer  Each  table  b o o k l e t , an  was  set  e r a s e r and  a  pencil. The  children  grade,  age  boy  girl.  or  and  'B  were or  1  They  instructions  delivered  were  by  MacGregor  this  minimize  (See  test  whether  to  carefully.  listen  The  name, they to  were  the  instructions  recommended Appendix  o r i g i n a l and  b o o k l e t as  disruption  uninterrupted consecutive materials  used  and  C for  used test  modified  by  MacGregor  days.  suggested  minutes.  consecutive hour.  days.  school routines,  group was  were  and  This provided different  Although  the  a procedure  The  A l l testing  conducted  one groups  author time  administration gifted  the  normally scheduled f o r  for five  r e s e a r c h e r found  forty  group  period.  hour  in  non-gifted  t i m e s when e a c h  l i b r a r y study  noon  told  instructions,  given to the  during  to  then  their  researcher.)  tests  this  to denote  i n his study.  s h e e t , and  To  a  to write  i d e n t i c a l to those  administration answer  'G'  were  following  asked  group was  of  of  the  t o be tested  conducted  three  test  thirty  time were  on  minutes, closer on  before  three the  At the  Primary  media  School  room.  children,  and  This  was  A,  r o o m was  Rather  than  time  to  media  for  those  School  keen  B,  (another  enough  testing area  test  through  problems,  an  conducted  period,  new.  the  computer  cause  to modify  the  following  the  created  in regard  to  Due of  the  receipt  advice, to  initial  test  sheets,  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  the  researcher test  ways: of  used.  produced  This  the  differences  i n the  tonal  i n the  value  Some w o r d i n g be  copies  answer  Photocopies  revised.  on  the  room  Instrument  in Australia  in acquiring full  had  Primary  enjoyment).  postal service.  b o o k l e t s , and  enrichment At  w i t h i n the  especially  inadequate  procedures,  2.  learning  i s considered  t r y something  within  a l l the  a pressure  area  study  to  m a t e r i a l s , r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s and  difficulties  1.  this  conducted  pleasant  t o A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  Conducting additional  was  to  being  associated with  Modifications  of  the  was  familiar  associated with  experiences. assigned  testing  test  booklet  were  possible  replication  of  photographs. answer  sheet  had  to  in  3.  Some v i s u a l sheets  4.  material  had t o  be  The w o r d i n g o f pilot  answer  redrawn.  the  g r o u p was  i n the  instructions  amended f o r  to  the  the  two  tested  groups. 5. The w o r d i n g of altered  to  account  differences. b l o c k s " was flats", "train was 6.  "freight  to  confirmation  of  untested  c h i l d r e n , was It  administrative  Informal  apartment block  "grain  elevators"  test  answer  revisions  validity  and  a similar  of  the  the  to sheet. be  test,  considered a  a complete  group of  insignificant  procedures  c o m p a r i s o n of  might  undertaken f o l l o w i n g  revealed  as  silo'.  modified  these  of  rewritten  administered with  materials  both  and  'grain  the  internal  study,  period.  "the  page numbers and  to  original  testing  as  "the  page numbers were a l t e r e d  some the  as  was  cultural  c a r s " was  carriages",  correspond  a threat  rewritten  Answer s h e e t  Since  for  F o r example  rewritten  booklet  some q u e s t i o n s  and t e s t  o r i g i n a l set  set  of  previously the  main  variations  in  results. of  materials  and  75. the m o d i f i e d versions to  materials confirmed  used  i n t h e main t e s t i n g  the o r i g i n a l s One  t h a t the adapted s e s s i o n s were c l o s e  i n s p i r i t and c o n t e n t .  d i f f e r e n c e n o t e d was t h a t t h e t e s t  took a  maximum o f f o r t y m i n u t e s i n s t e a d o f t h e d e s i g n a t e d thirty  minutes with  materials. of  the t e s t e r administering  of student  requests  f o ra reread of  instruction.  The comprised gifted  calculated  Procedures  f o u r groups i n c l u d e d grade f i v e g i f t e d and n o n - g i f t e d .  i n data-collection  and n o n - g i f t e d ,  and grade  T h e i r raw s c o r e s  were  a n d t h e Mann-Whitney U. o n e - t a i l e d t e s t o f  s i g n i f i c a n c e was p e r f o r m e d any  pace  t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , o r i t may  Statistical  six  and m o d i f i e d  T h i s may have b e e n due t o t h e r e a d i n g  have been t h e r e s u l t an  both the o r i g i n a l  statistically  t o determine  i f there  were  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  f o u r g r o u p s on t h e t o t a l  score,  and a g a i n  with  the four  g r o u p s on e a c h o f t h e s e v e n c a t e g o r i e s . In d e t e r m i n i n g no  distinction  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e raw s c o r e s  was made between m a l e s and  females.  76 . The  formula  Mann-Whitney  used  in a l l calculations  was  the  U.  U = n^n  + n (n +l)  2  1  -  2  2 where U  = the c r i t i c a l  value  n^ = t h e number o f s u b j e c t s i n Group n  2  R^ and  U  = n n  1  1  = t h e number o f = the 2  s u b j e c t s i n Group B  t o t a l of ranked  + n (n +l)  2  -  2  R  A  scores  f r o m Group A  2  2 where  = the c r i t i c a l n  1  = t h e number o f  s u b j e c t s i n Group A  n  2  = t h e number o f  s u b j e c t s i n Group  R The  in  this  2  = the  total  Mann-Whitney U.  parametric  value  of ranked was  The  samples have the  null  same  t test  hypothesis  a)  study  no  the  positive  null  two  a t the  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  results,  children  and  hypotheses  statistically  difference,  of g i f t e d  appropriate  i s t h a t the  significant  scores  normal  Tested  sought t o t e s t  t h e r e w i l l be  are not  B.  distribution.  Hypotheses This  f r o m Group  chosen because the  assumptions of the  case.  scores  B  .05  level  between  the  scores  of the of  that:  non-gifted  children  perception  of d i s t a n c e  b) t h e r e w i l l  on t h e s c o r e s category;  be no p o s i t i v e  significant  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  children  statistically  a t t h e .05  and t h e s c o r e s o f  on t h e s c o r e s  p e r c e p t i o n o f embedded f i g u r e s c) t h e r e w i l l  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  scores  children  p e r c e p t i o n o f shape d)  there w i l l  statistically  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f r e s u l t s , between t h e  of gifted children  non-gifted  f o r the  category;  be no p o s i t i v e  significant  l e v e l of  r e s u l t s , between t h e  scores of g i f t e d children non-gifted  f o r the  and t h e s c o r e s o f  on t h e s c o r e s  f o r the  category;  be no p o s i t i v e  significant  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  statistically  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f r e s u l t s , between t h e  scores of g i f t e d children non-gifted  children  perception  of s i m i l a r i t i e s  and t h e s c o r e s o f  on t h e s c o r e s and  f o r the  differences  category; e) t h e r e w i l l  be no p o s i t i v e  significant  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  statistically  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f r e s u l t s , between t h e  scores of g i f t e d c h i l d r e n non-gifted children perception  on t h e s c o r e s f o r  of the v e r t i c a l ;  f) t h e r e w i l l  be no p o s i t i v e  significant difference, confidence,  i n t h e MPI  non-gifted  children  perception modified g) t h e r e w i l l  r e s u l t s , between t h e ot  on t h e s c o r e s f o r by  constancy;  significant  difference,  confidence,  i n t h e MPI  statistically  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f r e s u l t s , between t h e  scores of g i f t e d children  perception of  and t h e s c o r e s  be no p o s i t i v e  children  statistically  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f  scores of g i f t e d children  non-gifted  and t h e s c o r e s o f  and t h e s c o r e s o f  on t h e s c o r e s o f t h e  contour.  Reliability According correlation reliability, applied  t o MacGregor, "Pearson  product-moment  c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed  for split-half  and a Spearman  Brown p r o p h e c y  t o t h e t o t a l sample  Pearson r ' s determining amounted indicates  t o .85 o v e r a l l  (N = 240) was retest  formula .84  . . .  reliability  (N = 5 9 ) . " (p. 13)  This  an a c c e p t a b l e d e g r e e o f r e l i a b i l i t y ,  and t h e  79. instrument further  was  adapted  f o r use  in this  study  without  testing.  Validity  Index the each  MacGregor a s s e s s e d  the  validity  of the  "by  the  internal  consistency  observation  instrument  as  i t e m had  with  scores  on  the  with  expressed the  Non-Language s c o r e s on and  by  increase  i n grade l e v e l . "  the  MPI  was  selection  Educational  scored  used of  as  (P  .01)  factor  six cognitive tests  Test  tests  the  with  study  the  Test, of  each  in  1973  published  Houghton  significant  and  the  6 ETS  e s t a b l i s h e d between t h e with  the  by  Both s e t s of  tests  non-verbal  Mifflin  (CAT).  f i n d i n g s showed  was  by  on  Test  t o v e r b a l , q u a n t i t a t i v e , and  b e t w e e n t h e MPI  validity  gained  13)  in a correlation  estimated  Cognitive A b i l i t i e s The  which  progressive  c o r r e c t occurred (p.  of  correlating  the C a l i f o r n i a  T e s t i n g S e r v i c e i n 1963.  t e s t s were compared intelligence  those  n o t i n g whether a  i n items  The  s c o r e ; by  Index w i t h  increase  a  test  relationship  i n the Goodenough-Harris Drawing  Mental Maturity,  with  i n the  total  Perceptual  Draw-a-Man t a s k and  ot  Perceptual  visual  intercorrelations Tests. ETS  Concurrent  cognitive  p e r c e p t i o n measures of  the  MPI. was firm  Again, accepted  the  figure  for validity  as g i v e n , and  o f the  assumed t o be  f o r the purposes o f the p r e s e n t  instrument  sufficiently  study.  81. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF Presentation organized  RESULTS  of the d a t a  i n the f o l l o w i n g  in this  manner:  a) The  data presented c o n s i s t  scores  of the f o u r  test  groups  as a whole and  subtsets Index.  s t u d y has  of the  tested  f o r each  raw  f o r the  of the  seven  of the MacGregor P e r c e p t u a l Included are  statistical  assumptions,  ranked  the  v a l u e s and  critical  scores,  acceptance or r e j e c t i o n  calculation  a decision of the  of  on  null  hypothesis. b) The  Mann-Whitney U was  selected  determine  p o s t - h o c p r o c e d u r e s of  results.  Siegal  of  t h e most  tests  used  independent same  (1956) c o n s i d e r s  p o w e r f u l of the to determine groups  to  the this  non-parametric  w h e t h e r o r not  have been drawn f r o m  population.  c) A commentary statistical  on  one  the r e s u l t s  of  the  procedures i s provided.  two the  been  32. Analysis Assumptions f o r the  of  the  Data  Statistical  Tests  are  as  follows: a)  The s a m p l e s  studied  are  intact  and  independent. b)  Ordinal  data  measurement Breakdown o f  are  appropriate for  scale.  Groups;  Number o f  groups  Group A : G i f t e d  in population: Grade  5  Group C : G i f t e d  small  5  13  Grade 6  13  Group D: N o n - G i f t e d G r a d e 6  15  Total  48  N Level:  p<.05  Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n : with  4 11  Group B : N o n - G i f t e d G r a d e  Significance  the as  occurrence an o b s e r v e d  41 and 62 difference  the  The p r o b a b i l i t i e s  under a n u l l U for  respectively a c c o r d i n g to  nl,  hypothesis  of  values  as  n2 r e q u i r e t h a t  scores  of  be a c h i e v e d the  associated  for  a  significant  Mann-Whitney U .  (see  Appendix F ) . Mann-Whitney U F o r m u l a : The f o r m u l a u s e d  for  the  calculation  of  results:-  83. U = n l n2 + n l  (n2  + 1) 2  - Rl  where U  = the  critical  value  = the  total  nl  first n2  = the  = the  total  and  Ul  in  the  number o f  children  in  the  group  total  first  children  group  second Rl  number o f  of  the  ranked scores  in  the  group  = n l n2 +  (n2  + 1)  -  R2  2 where U l = t h e nl  = the  critical number o f  value children  i n the  first  children  i n the  second  group n2 = t h e  number of  group R2 = t h e  total  second C a l c u l a t i o n of (Refer U.  for  Critical  to Appendix E : the  .05.)  of  the  ranked scores  in  the  group Values Extended t a b l e s of  c r i t i c a l values of  U for  the Mann-Whitney  a one-tailed  test  at  Table MPI Raw S c o r e s : A  1  84.  Groups A , B , C & D Ranked  B  C  D  33  13.5  20  24  26  27  22  28  35  11.5  27  23  33  22  27  26  35  11.5  30  20 .5  34  20  32  24.5  36  9.5  30  20.5  35  18  32  24 .5  36  9.5  30  20.5  36  14.5  33  22  37  7.5  30  20.5  38  8.5  33  22  38  4.5  31  18  38  8.5  35  18  38  4.5  32  16  38  8.5  35  18  38  4.5  32  16  40  4.5  36  14.5  39  2  32  16  40  4.5  36  14.5  40  1  33  13.5  41  3  36  14 . 5  37  7.5  42  2  37  11.5  38  4.5  43  1  37  11.5  38  8.5  39  6  11  * p =  R  x  < .05  79.5  n  2  13  R  2  220.5*  n  1  13  R  ±  142  .  n  2  15  R  2  264  Table Perception  A  n  x  85.  of Distance  G r o u p s A,  Raw S c o r e s :  MPI  2  B, C & D R a n k e d D  C  B  5  6  5  6  6  2.5  6  2.5  5  6  5  6  5  9.5  6  2.5  5  6  5  6  5  9.5  6  2.5  5  6  5  6  5  9.5  5  9.5  5  6  5  6  5  9.5  5  9.5  5  6  4  14.5  5  9.5  5  9.5  4  14.5  4  14.5  4  18  5  9.5  4  14.5  4  14.5  4  18  5  9.5  4  14.5  3  20.5  4  18  4  18  3  20.5  3  20.5  3  23.5  4  18  3  20.5  3  20.5  3  23.5  4  18  3  20.5  3  23.5  4  18  2  24  2  27  3  23.5  2  27  2  27  11  R  1  120.5  n  2  13  R  2  179.5  n  ±  13  Rj^ 2 0 1 . 5  n  2  15  R  2  204.5  Table  3  P e r c e p t i o n o f Embedded MPI  Raw  A  n  x  Scores:  G r o u p s A,  B,  Figures C & D  B  Ranked  C  D  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  6  9  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  5  18.5  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  4  22  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  4  22  6  9  6  12.5  6  12.5  4  22  5  18.5  6  12.5  6  12.5  4  22  6  12.5  5  25.5  4  22  6  12.5  5  25.5  4  27  0  28  11  R  ±  147.5  n  2  13  R  2  152.5  n  x  13  R  ±  162.5  n  2  15  R  2  243.5  Table 4 Perception of MPI Raw S c o r e s :  Shape  Groups A , B , C & D Ranked  B  C  6  2  5  6  8  1.5  8  1.5  6  2  5  6  6  6.5  6  6.5  6  2  4.  12.5  6  6.5  6  6.5  5  6  4  12.5  6  6.5  6  6.5  5  6  4  12.5  6  6.5  6  6.5  5  6  4  12.5  5  14.5  5  14.5  4  12.5  4  12.5  5  14.5  5  14.5  4  12.5  3  18.5  5  14.5  5  14.5  4  12.5  3  18.5  4  22  5  14.5  3  18.5  3  18.5  4  22  5  14.5  2  22.5  2  22.5  4  22  4  22  2  22.5  4  22  4  22  2  22.5  3  26.5  4  22  3  26.5  2  28  11 * P =  R  1  102.5  < .05  n  2  13  R  2  197.5*  n  x  13  R  ±  114.5  n  2  15  R  2  220.5  Table Perception MPI  n  ±  of S i m i l a r i t i e s  Raw S c o r e s :  A  5 and  G r o u p s A,  Differences  B, C  B  & D Ranked C  D  5  5  6  1  6  2  6  2  5  5  5  5  6  2  5  5.5  5  5  5  5  5  5.5  4  11.5  4  15  5  5  5  5.5  4  11.5  4  15  5  5  5  5.5  4  11.5  4  15  4  15  4  11.5  4  11.5  4  15  4  15  4  11.5  3  20.5  4  15  4  15  4  11.5  3  20.5  4  15  4  15  4  11.5  3  20.5  3  22.5  4  15  3  20.5  3  20.5  3  22.5  4  15  3  20.5  3  20.5  4  15  3  20.5  3  20.5  2  24  1  28  3  20.5  2  26.5  2  26.5  11  R  ±  150  n  2  13  R  2  150  n  l  13  R  ±  156  n  2  15  R  2  250  Table  6  Perception of the MPI  Raw S c o r e s :  A  n  1  Vertical  G r o u p s A,  B,  C &  D Ranked  B  C  D  6  1.5  6  1.5  5  3.5  6  1  5  7  5  7  5  3.5  4  11.5  5  7  5  7  5  3.5  4  11.5  5  7  5  7  5  3.5  4  11.5  5  7  4  14  4  11.5  4  11.5  5  7  4  14  4  11.5  4  11.5  5  7  3  18.5  4  11.5  4  11.5  4  14  3  18.5  4  11.5  4  11.5  4  14  3  18 .5  4  11.5  3  22  4  14  2  22  3  22  3  22  3  18.5  2  22  3  22  3  22  2  22  3  22  3  22  1  24  2  27.5  3  22  3  22  2  27.5  11  * P =  R  x  104  <.05  n  2  13  R  2  196*  n  1  13  R  l  165  n  2  15  R  2  241  Table Perception MPI  Raw  7  Modified  Scores:  90  By  G r o u p s A,  Constancy B, C & D  Ranked  B  n  9  2  8  6.5  9  3.5  9  3.5  9  2  8  6.5  9  3.5  9  3.5  9  2  7  12  9  3.5  8  12  8  6.5  7  12  9  3.5  8  12  8  6.5  6  16.5  8  12  8  12  8  6.5  6  16.5  8  12  8  12  8  6.5  6  16.5  8  12  8  12  7  12  5  21  8  12  8  12  7  12  5  21  7  21  8  12  7  12  5  21  7  21  7  21  6  16.5  5  21  7  21  7  21  5  21  7  21  6  26  4  24  7  21  6  26  6  26  4  28  R  11  x  P  =  <  L  -05  84.5  n  2  13  R  2  215.5*  n  x  13  R  !  1 6 7  n  2  15  R  2  239  Table P e r c e p t i o n of MPI Raw S c o r e s : A  x  91. Contour  Groups A , B , C & D Ranked  B  C  D  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  6  8.5  6  .10  6  10  6  8.5  5  17.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  5  17.5  6  10  6  10  6  8.5  4  20  6  10  5  21.5  6  8.5  4  20  6  10  5  21.5  3  22  6  10  5  21.5  2  23.5  5  21.5  4  25.5  2  23.5  4  25.5  4  25.5  4  25.5  3  28  4  n  8  11  * p =  20  R  ±  100.5  <.05  n  2  13  R  2  195*  n  x  13  R  ±  157  n  2  15  R  2  251  Analysis of Results On  t h e b a s i s o f t h e Mann-Whitney U s c a l e , t h e n u l l  hypothesis  was r e j e c t e d f o r t h e c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p s A & B  (Grade 5 ) , and f o r c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p s C & D the  raw s c o r e s o f t h e t o t a l  that  i n s c o r e s by g i f t e d  samples and g i f t e d  categories: vertical,  significant  positive  and n o n - g i f t e d Grade 5  and n o n - g i f t e d Grade 6 samples, on  test results overall. significant  for  The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d  there existed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  difference  of  test.  (Grade 6)  Among t h e G r a d e 5 g r o u p s ,  d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o e v i d e n t  i n the  p e r c e p t i o n o f shape, p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e  perception modified  by c o n s t a n c y  and p e r c e p t i o n  contour. T h e r e were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  differences  among t h e g i f t e d  groups w i t h i n any i n d i v i d u a l attributed  significant  and n o n - g i f t e d Grade 6 category.  to "increase i n accuracy  awareness o f d e t a i l s which reaches off  a t approximately  age t e n . "  The  G r a d e 6 g r o u p may h a v e r e a c h e d  t h e r e may h a v e b e e n l e s s groups, p a r t i c u l a r l y  a maximum a n d l e v e l s  (Burkhart, this  1958, p . 160)  p l a t e a u whereas  e q u a l i t y w i t h i n t h e Grade 5  i n the case  were t y p i c a l l y  T h i s may be  o f p e r c e p t i o n and  of the non-gifted.  A n a l y s i s o f t h e answer s h e e t s questions  positive  answered  showed  which  incorrectly.  Item A n a l y s i s C a t e g o r y ONE:  Perception  by  Category  93.  of Distance  Table  9  Correct  Responses  Gifted Question  Grade  Grade  6  5  Grade  12  12  13  14  2  12  12  12  14  3  11  11  9  12  4  4  8  4  6  5  5  7  4  8  6  8  5  7  11  from  was  a  total  non-- g i f t e d  and  o f 52  responses  24 f r o m g i f t e d  questions  1 and  questions  w e r e d e s i g n e d i n s u c h a way  confidence. than  25  after  crane  Careful crane  correct  4.  from  2,  responses  a window o p p o s i t e ,  various  parts  that  cues  and  to build  5 however,  both These  responsdent  t h e r e were  fewer  When q u e s t i o n e d  i f they were l o o k i n g or  the photograph  crane provide  In  admitted confusion with  They were unsure  operator's cabin  as  from  the ground  at  shows, however, t h a t  removes any  the r e l a t i v e  distance  a m b i g u i t y about  the  below.  t h e cement bucket hanging  about  6  question;  students.  i n both cases.  the c h i l d r e n  study of  t o each  a l l 52 r e s p o n s e s w e r e c o r r e c t .  I n q u e s t i o n s 4 and  the t e s t ,  question  the  Grade  1  There 28  5  Non-Gifted  the  the from of i t s  viewer's  94 . position. question  I t should  be n o t e d  after piloting  C a t e g o r y TWO:  that  MacGregor  of the original  Perception  o f Embedded  Table  included  test. Figures  10  Correct  Responses Non- • G i f t e d  Gifted Question  Grade  Grade  6  Grade  Grade  5  7  8  13  10  13  8  11  13  13  14  9  11  11  12  12  10  10  13  13  14  11  10  13  12  14  12  11  13  13  13  This the  5  this  Grade  levels  c a t e g o r y was h a n d l e d w i t h 6 gifted  group.  This  may  of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n reached  MacGregor  (1975) p o i n t s  of  embedded  in  age.  out that  figures progressively  ( p . 72)  perfect  scoring  6  among  be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e  b y t h e 1 1 - 12 a g e children find easier  group.  the extraction  as they  increase  95. Category  THREE:  P e r c e p t i o n of  Shape  Table  11  C o r r e c t Responses Gifted  Non- • G i f t e d  Question  Grade 5  Grade 6  Grade 5  13  11  12  10  13  14  3  4  8  7  15  4  3  3  2  16  1  3  2  3  17  6  9  1  11  18  3  2  1  4  19  9  11  7  10  20  6  11  6  8  21  9  11  10  12  T h i s c a t e g o r y was only  20%  of c o r r e c t  questions 19  15  discrimination  of  the  railway  (evenly d i s t r i b u t e d ) 16  of  than  i n any  figure  from  test booklet.  g r o u n d may  i t e m 15,  carriages).  Some c l a r i t y  with  in  (wagon w h e e l s ) ,  other category.  because of the d e f i n i t i o n  i n rewording  a l l groups,  T h e s e q u e s t i o n s were a n s w e r e d w i t h  responses  difficult  responses  p o o r l y by  (railway carriages),  (cliffs).  correct  handled  i  Grade 6  loss may  which d e a l t with  fewer  The  have been i n the  also  and  unusually  reproduction  have been  f r e i g h t cars  lost  (or  96. Category  FOUR:  Perception  of Similarities  Table  and D i f f e r e n c e s  12  Correct  Responses  Gifted Question  Grade  5  Non-Gifted  Grade  6  Grade  Grade  22  11  13  13  14  23  8  11  11  14  24  9  10  8  9  25  7  8  9  3  26  9  10  12  9  27  2  2  10  10  Question answered correct  27 i n  q u e s t i o n by responses.  this the  category gifted  group  three  t o t h e a r r i v a l o f a c o r r e c t answer  agreement  could  MacGregor  (1975) n o t e d d i f f i c u l t y  responds  a r t specialists  k e y , no  b e made a s t o w h i c h w a s t h e c o r r e c t  seems t o depend  respondent.  21.5% o f  with only  In consultation with  cognitive factors i n responses  6  was t h e most p o o r l y  and p r i o r  and  5  of separating to this  response.  perceptual  category.  on t h e " c o g n i t i v e set' o f t h e :  Kow o n e  C a t e g o r y _FIVE_:  Perception of  the  Table  Vertical  13  Correct  Responses  Gifted Question  Grade  Grade  6  Grade  5  Grade  28  11  13  11  14  29  11  12  , 11  11  30  6  5  11  11  31  4  2  10  9  32  9  11  8  7  33  10  8  10  11  Questions than  35%  of  Australian rather  than  groups  30  (car park)  correct  attributable  the  5  Non-Gifted  and  responses.  to ambiguity within  sample  (not the  to the being  lack  tested.  31  (frying  T h i s may  be  pan)  i n the  of discriminating  fewer  in part  the diagrams  example used  had  6  drawn  for  original  ability  among  the MPI)  98. Category  SIX:  P e r c e p t i o n M o d i f i e d by C o n s t a n c y  Table  14  Correct  Responses  Gifted Question  Grade 5  Non-Gifted  Grade 6  Grade 5  Grade 6  34  9  13  12  14  35  11  12  12  12  36  11  13  10  13  37  10  13  11  14  38  9  10  8  8  39  9  11  10  11  40  7  11  5  14  41  11  11  11  13  42  9  9  2  10  Grade 5 n o n - g i f t e d g i r l s difficulty  with  interesting the t e s t , building a factor,  to  q u e s t i o n 38 note  that in  seemed t o  experience  (building frames). two s e p a r a t e  unusual  I t was  interviews  after  two g i r l s - r e m a r k e d t h a t t h e y were u n f a m i l i a r w i t h construction. as  expected.  The f a m i l i a r i t y  a s p e c t c o u l d be  99. Category  SEVEN:  Perception  of Contour  Table  15  Correct  Responses  Gifted Question  Grade  Grade  6  Grade  5  Grade  43  10  13  44  11  13  45  10  11  10  12  46  11  13  11  15  47  11  13  10  14  48  11  12  10  12  Responses no  5  Non-Gifted  less  than  to t h i s category  8 3%  responded with  f o r any of  only  12  10 ,  1  were g e n e r a l l y  the groups  five incorrect  The  answers.  12  0  correct:  gifted  group  6  100. CHAPTER SUMMARY,  FIVE  CONCLUSION  & RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary The about  purpose  this  perceptual  gifted. based 1)  of  The  on t h e  ability  for  on whether  c r e a t i v e  and  2)  Perception as  also  The  in  recent  a factor  the  to of  identified  research  has  as  been  propositions: been  a controversy exists  ability  educational  in  increased  gifted;  the  tests  and  high  literature  in defining  on  historical  those with  display  involved  brief  both  the  knowledge  among  between  of  the  gifted  and  literature  has  organizational  defining  coverage  measures  that  high  for  and  perceptual  intellectual touched the  aid in  its  the  gifted;  perception of  on  abilities.  on  this  study  education  together  development;  identifying  were drawn f r o m  with  the  a  and on  children  areas. Samples  been  abilities.  tend  review  problems  for  a relationship  L i t e r a t u r e suggests  levels  extend  children  intellectual  problem-solving  for  three  to  children.  identified  3)  in  many y e a r s  researchers  non-gifted  was  justification  following  T h e r e has  study  in  101. population Primary the  of  Schools.  MacGregor  administered within  grade  u s i n g  over  the  ranks  students,  with 1)  i f any  research  the  individuals Perceptual 2)  between  the  individuals Perceptual  and  school  a Grade  5 and  a  6  Grade analysed  significance  to  differences existed within  was  v a l i d a t e d and  regarding correlations  ability.  overall  The  thereby of giftedness  answers are t h a t : significant  scores  of  5 level  gifted  on t h e  difference and  non-gifted  MacGregor  Test.  a statistically overall  Test.  significant difference  scores  a t the Grade Index  was  R e s u l t s were of  was  Conclusion  hypothesis  a t the Grade  T h e r e was  5 and  t o a Grade  test  a statistically  Index  study  groups t e s t e d .  two q u e s t i o n s  T h e r e was  U  significant  o f t h e two  perceptual  between  and  Canberra  instrument  days at each  t o a Grade  Mann-Whitney  Findings  answered  The  a p e r i o d o f two  from  used i n t h i s  of non-gifted students.  determine  The  students  instrument  t h e month of A p r i l ,  sample  the  The  6  Perceptual Index.  sample of g i f t e d 6  5and  6 level  of  gifted  on t h e  and  non-gifted  MacGregor  102. Statistically between t h e non-gifted  Grade 5 g i f t e d sample  make up t h e perception constancy  significant  on f o u r  MPI. of  the  of  vertical,  questions  incorrectly,  sample the  and t h e  while  of  that  shape, by  were c o n s t a n t l y  answered  were c o n s t a n t l y of  answered  face  validity  the MPI. During  Primary children also  an i n t e r v i e w  School,  it  their  researcher  individual  able  rapidly  to  group. to  the  has  superior  at  average  the  Lyons  that  those  on t h e  high  MPI were  academic  grades. noted  that  shorter It  the  on t h e  time  taken  MPI by t h e  than  may be t h a t  r a p i d l y process  perceptual  The s t u d y include  teachers  drawn t o my a t t e n t i o n  questions  consistently  non-gifted more  the  c h i l d r e n who had a c h i e v e d  within  The  was  was  with  who p e r f o r m e d above  those  standing  to  Grade 5  contour.  c o r r e c t l y ^ i n d i c a t i n g a c r u d e measure for  obtained  perception modified  of  others  were  seven c a t e g o r i e s  T h e s e were p e r c e p t i o n  and p e r c e p t i o n  Certain  differences  that gifted  to  respond  gifted  taken  by  group the  c h i l d r e n were  i n f o r m a t i o n o r r e s p o n d more  information.  shown t h a t  ability  to  giftedness  handle  appears  perceptual  to  data.  Yet  103. education even  f o r the g i f t e d  encourage  Educational that to  does  experience  planners  and  not appear  i n the v i s u a l  bring  perceptually-based  about  identified  enhanced as  programs  by  competent  or  field. well  find  f o r the  gifted  learning experiences  performance  unusually  art  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s may  the e l a b o r a t i o n of e x i s t i n g  include  to emphasize  a group  will  already  i n the academic  sense.  Recommendations There for  i s extensive  the  gifted,  perception However,  an  research  equal  e s p e c i a l l y r e l a t e d  there  p e r c e p t i o n  is a  lack of  which  children.  With  this  i n  study  and  current  mind,  to  of  research visual  relating  with  observation, the  education  the  research  correlates  this  body  on  that and  field.  to on  on  visual gifted  the results  f o l l o w i n g recommendations  of are  made: 1)  Studies  terms  should  be  conducted to determine i n  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  giftedness  and  specific perceptual  acuity. 2)  Teacher  behaviours within  training  should  of m i n o r i t y  the average  emphasise  populations  classroom,  and  various  that should  are  needs evident  include  and  104. experiences education 3)  in developing  of  Research  non-verbal areas, 4)  these  A study  should  perception  test,  this  can be  5) be the  It  is  MPI a r e  related  to  tests,  using to  in  to  the  to  cover  develop  a wider  further  range  of  easier.  among g i f t e d  a different  determine  to  and  non-verbal  whether  the  results  of  replicated.  further  developed  talented  undertaken  s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d groups  study  be  make c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n  non-gifted  promote  minorities.  perception  and t o  n o n - v e r b a l ways t o  recommended t h a t  determine  also art.  artistic  whether  a correlation  o r not  high  those c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d (i.e. talent.)  whether  or not  study  scorers  of  gifted  or  perception  is  as  105. REFERENCES Alexander,  R.  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . An  gifted  and  22(2),  38-48.  A r n h e i m , R.  historical  talented i n a r t . Studies  (1967) . Toward a P s y c h o l o g y  California: A r n h e i m , R.  (1969). V i s u a l T h i n k i n g .  A r n h e i m , R.  F.  of Art.  R.  Visual Perception.  Barron,  and  W.  (pp.  Richards  Press.  of  183-193.  in perception.  Francisco,  visual  In  Scientific  California:  Freeman & Company. F.  X.  California:  A  (Original  (Eds.), Readings from  143-151) . San  (1973). C r e a t i v i t y  ( E d . ) , C h i l d A r t : The  Barsch,  Berkeley,  i n 1954.)  (1971). M u l t i s t a b i l i t y  American, W.H.  California:  ( 1 9 5 4 ) . Some i n f o r m a t i o n a l a s p e c t s  F.  Held  Berkeley,  Press.  p e r c e p t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w, 63.(3), Attneave,  Education,  Berkeley,  U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a  work p u b l i s h e d  the  Press.  ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A r t and  California:  in Art  U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a  University of C a l i f o r n i a  Attneave,  p e r s p e c t i v e on  R.  Diablo  Beginnings  of  I n H.P.  Self Affirmation.  P e r c e p t u a l Motor  Approach to L e a r n i n g .  Efficiency:  Seattle,  Washington: S p e c i a l C h i l d P u b l i c a t i o n s . Beittel,  K.  R.  Lewis  Press.  (1968). A c h i e v i n g  Space-Oriented  in children.  & Burkhart,  spontaneous, d i v e r g e n t ,  R. and  C.  (1972) . S t r a t e g i e s o f  academic a r t  students.  106. Studies  i n A r t Education,  published Berkeley, New in  5_(1) , 2 0 - 4 1 .  (Original  work  i n 1963.)  G.  (1910). An Essay  York,  N. Y.:  T o w a r d s a New  E . P. D u t t o n  Theory of V i s i o n .  & Co. I n c . ( F i r s t  published  1709.)  Bruner,  J . S.  (1958).  Beardslee  & M.  Princeton,  New  Bruner,  Wertheimer  (Eds.), Readings  J e r s e y : Van  o f T h i n k i n g . New  P.  (1974).  Children:  C.  i n Perception.  Nostrand.  J . S., G o o d n o w , J . J . & A u s t i n ,  A Study Bryant,  On p e r c e p t u a l r e a d i n e s s . I n D.  York:  Wiley  G. A .  (1956).  & Sons.  P e r c e p t i o n and U n d e r s t a n d i n g  An E x p e r i m e n t a l Approach.  i n Young  London: Methuen & Co.  Ltd. Burkhart,  R. C.  ability.  (1958).  The r e l a t i o n  of intelligence  toa r t  The J o u r n a l o f A e s t h e t i c s and A r t C r i t i c i s m ,  17.(2) , 2 3 0 - 2 4 1 . Busse,  T. V .  Gifted  & M a n s f i e l d , R.  Child  C h a p m a n , L . H. New  York:  Chetelat,  S.  Renzulli  i s right.  Q u a r t e r l y , 2jK3) , 1 3 2 . (1978). Approaches  Harcourt  Brace  level  to A r t i n Education.  Jovanovich Inc.  F. J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . V i s u a l  elementary  (1980).  arts  education f o r the gifted  a r t student. Gifted  Child  Quarterly,  2_5_(4) , 1 5 4 - 1 5 8 . Clark, of  B.  ( 1 9 7 9 ) . G r o w i n g Up G i f t e d :  Developing  C h i l d r e n a t Home a n d a t S c h o o l . C o l u m b u s ,  Charles  E. M e r r i l l  Publishing  Company.  the Potential Ohio:  C l a r k , G. & Zimmerman, E . (1983). A t t h e age o f s i x , I g a v e up  a m a g n i f i c e n t c a r e e r as a p a i n t e r : Seventy  r e s e a r c h about i d e n t i f y i n g  students with  in  Child  the v i s u a l  arts.  Gifted  years of  superior  abilities  Q u a r t e r l y , 27J4) ,  180-184. D e l a c a t o , C.  (1959). T r e a t m e n t and P r e v e n t i o n o f R e a d i n g  Problems. S p r i n g f i e l d ,  Illinois:  C h a r l e s C. Thomas  Publisher. D e r e g o w s k i , J . B. I n R. H e l d American,  (1972). P i c t o r i a l  & W. R i c h a r d s  p e r c e p t i o n and c u l t u r e .  ( E d s . ) , Readings from  (pp. 79-85). C a l i f o r n i a :  Scientific  W. H. F r e e m a n & Company.  Dewey, J . (1934). A r t As E x p e r i e n c e . New Y o r k : G. P. Putnam's Sons. E f l a n d , A. & K o r o s c i k , J . S.  (1983). P r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r  c u r r i c u l u m development from and Eisner,  fallacies. E . W.  studies of perception: Facts  V i s u a l A r t s Research,  & E c k e r , . D . W.  (Eds.),  9_(2) , 40-50.  (19 66).  A r t Education. Lexington, Massachusetts:  Readings i n Xerox C o l l e g e  Publishing. E i s n e r , E . W. Macmillan  (1972). E d u c a t i n g A r t i s t i c  York:  P u b l i s h i n g Co.  F e l d m a n , E . B. Experience  V i s i o n . New  (1970). B e c o m i n g Human T h r o u g h A r t : A e s t h e t i c i n t h e S c h o o l . Englewood C l i f f s ,  New  Jersey:  Prentice-Hall Inc. Frisby,  J . P.  Oxford:  (1980) . S e e i n g : I l l u s i o n , B r a i n a n d M i n d .  Oxford  University  Press.  108. Frostig,  M.  (1966J. Developmental  Administration California: Gallagher,  and S c o r i n g Manual.  of Visual  Palo  Perception:  Alto,  Consulting Psychologists Press.  J . J . (1975).  Boston,  Tests  Teaching  Massachusetts:  Allyn  the Gifted  & Bacon  Child  (2nd e d . ) .  Inc. (Original  work p u b l i s h e d i n 1964.) Getzel,  J . W.  & Jackson,  Intelligence: New  York:  Gibson, and  York:  of Perceptual Learning  Appleton-Century-Croft.  Boston:  Houghton M i f f l i n  J . J . & Gibson,  as P e r c e p t u a l  Company.  E . J . (.1955) . P e r c e p t u a l  o r enrichment?  learning:  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,  32-41.  E . J . & W a l k , R. D.  Held  World.  Company.  J . J . (1966). The Senses C o n s i d e r e d  62 ( 1 ) ,  R.  Principles  Houghton M i f f l i n  Differentiation  Gibson,  Students.  J . J . (1950). The P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e V i s u a l  Systems. Gibson,  and  Wiley.  E. J . ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  Boston: Gibson,  (1962). C r e a t i v i t y  Explorations with Gifted  D e v e l o p m e n t . New  Gibson,  P. W.  & W.  American,  Richards  (1960.  (Eds.), Readings  341-348. C a l i f o r n i a :  G o o d e n o u g h , F. L.  (1956).  The v i s u a l  W.  cliff.  from  In  Scientific  H. F r e e m a n  Exceptional Children.  & Company. New  York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts. G o w a n , J . C. in  (1980).  helping gifted  Quarterly,  24 ( 1 ) ,  The u s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l children 22-28 .  become c r e a t i v e .  stage  theory  Gifted  Child  109. Gowan, J . , K h a t e n a , Educating  J . , & T o r r a n c e , E . P.  the Ablest.  Itasca,  Gowan, J . C., Demos, G.D.  (Eds.),  Illinois:  Peacock  & T o r r a n c e , E . P.  I t s E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s . New Y o r k :  (1979). Publishers.  (1967).  Creativity:  J o h n W i l e y & Sons  Inc. Gregory,  R. L .  W. R i c h a r d s  (1968). V i s u a l  illusions.  (Eds.), Readings  from  I n R. H e l d and  Scientific  American.  (pp. 2 4 1 - 2 5 1 ) . San F r a n c i s c o , CA: W. H. F r e e m a n & Company. Guilford, Eisner  J . P.  (1959). Three  & D. W. E c k e r  faces of i n t e l l e c t .  (Eds.), Readings  I n E . W.  i n A r t Education.  (pp. 3 5 0 - 3 6 1 ) . L e x i n g t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : X e r o x C o l l e g e Publishing. Haber, R. N.  (1978). V i s u a l  Psychology,  Research, H a r r i s , D.  G. J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Computer g r a p h i c s  p e r c e p t i o n : The s t a t e o f t h e a r t . V i s u a l  Arts  10.(1), 32-41.  (1963). C h i l d r e n ' s Drawings as Measures o f  I n t e l l e c t u a l M a t u r i t y . New Y o r k : Hebb, D. O.  Review  29, 31-59.  Hagan, M. A. & B r e s n a h a n , and v i s u a l  p e r c e p t i o n . Annual  Harcourt  Brace.  ( 1 9 4 9 ) . The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f B e h a v i o u r . New  York:  John W i l e y & Sons. H e l d , R. & R i c h a r d s , W.  (Eds.),  Mechanisms and Models.  (1971). P e r c e p t i o n :  San F r a n c i s c o ,  California,  W. H. F r e e m a n & Company. H e l m h o l t z , H. v o n (19 6 2 ) . T r e a t i s e  on P h y s i o l o g i c a l  optics  Vol. J.  III.  (Trans,  from t h e 3 r d German e d . ,  P . . C . Southall).  (Original Optik.  work p u b l i s h e d  Voss,  Hermelin,  T.  N.  Gifted Child  (1959).  (1980).  J . E.  Hochberg, Arts Jacobs,  J.  (1964).  gifted  180-185.  England:  Basil  Blackwell.  1651.)  Perception.  Englewood  Cliffs,  Prentice-Hall Inc. (1983).  Research, J . C.  Problems o f p i c t u r e p e r c e p t i o n .  9_(2) ,  (1971).  Effectiveness  school  Psychology  levels.  Visual  7-24.  of gifted  S.  m o t o r , and  and g e n e r a l l y  Leviathan. Oxford,  identification  Kaplan,  Psysiologischen  Perceptual,  Q u a r t e r l y , 24_(4) ,  ( O r i g i n a l work p u b l i s h e d  New J e r s e y :  Inc.  i n t h e Handbuch d e r  speeds i n s p e c i f i c a l l y  children.  Hochberg,  Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s  by  1867.)  B. & O'Connor,  decision  Hobbes,  London:  edited  of  teacher  and p a r e n t  c h i l d r e n as a f u n c t i o n i n the Schools,  8_,  of  140-142.  (1975) . P r o v i d i n g P r o g r a m s f o r t h e G i f t e d and  Talented:  A Handbook. R e s t o n ,  VA: Council  for Exceptional  Children. Kaufman,  L . & Rock,  (Eds.),  Readings  I.  (1962).  from S c i e n t i f i c  San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Keating,  D. P.  Development. Keating,  D. P.  In R. Held  (1976) .  & VJ. R i c h a r d s  American (pp.  260-268).  W. H . Freeman & Company.  Intellectual  Talent:  R e s e a r c h and  B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y (1980).  Four  faces of c r e a t i v i t y :  The  Press.  111. continuing Gifted Kellogg,  plight  Child R.  S. A .  Boston: Koffka, New  Q u a r t e r l y , 2_4 (2) , 5 6 - 6 2 .  National  Press  Alto,  Books.  (1972). Educating E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n Houghton M i f f l i n  K.  W.  Harcourt Brace  (1929) . G e s t a l t  (2nd e d . ) .  Company.  (1935) . P r i n c i p l e s  York:  Kohler,  underserved.  (1969) . A n a l y z i n g C h i l d r e n ' s A r t . P a l o  California: Kirk,  of the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y  of Gestalt  Psychology.  Jovanovich Inc. Psychology.  New  York:  Liveright  Publishing Corporation. Lanier,  V.  ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Some c r i t i c i s m s  commission report. Lansing,  K. M.  Publishing B., L e w i s ,  E. M e r r i l l  H.,  & Luca,  Growth  dissertation, V.  Ludlow,  & Brittain,  ( 5 t h e d . ) . New  (Original  (1967).  Columbus,  of Conceptual  Understanding Ohio:  W.  L.  York:  Styles  and  Expression. Unpublished  University  o f Oregon.  (1970). C r e a t i v e and MacMillan Publishing  Mental Company.  work p u b l i s h e d 1964.)  B. L . & W o o d r u m , D.  strategies  Iowa:  Books I n c .  Mode o f P e r c e p t i o n t o G r a p h i c  Lowenfeld,  M.  Teaching.  L o v a n o , J . (19 6 9 ) . T h e R e l a t i o n  doctoral  & A r t Education.  Company.  Children's A r t f o r Better Charles  NAEA  S t u d i e s i n A r t E d u c a t i o n , 2JL_(1) , 5 - 1 6 .  (1976). A r t , A r t i s t s  Kendall/Hunt Lark-Horovitz,  o f t h e 1977  of gifted  T.  (1982). P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  and average  learners  on a  multiple  discrimination  task.  Gifted Child Quarterly,  26(3),  99-104. Lucito,  L.  (1963).  Educating  G i f t e d c h i l d r e n . In  Exceptional  S.  A.  Children. Boston:  Kirk  (Ed.),  Houghton  Mifflin  Company. McCord, Marie Cognitive and  (1973). Factor  McFee, J .  K.  with  I n E.  Eisner  Education. McFee, J .  K.  Toronto,  San  Francisco, (Original  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r change i n a r t  & D.  W.  Ecker  Toronto, Ontario: M.  (Eds.),  Readings  Xerox College  (1977).  A  education  in  Art  Publishing.  Catalyst for  Teaching.  C a n a d a : K e n d a l l / H u n t P u b l i s h i n g Company. N.  (1969).  The  relevance  Through A r t  R.  The  N.  index  in Art  M a c G r e g o r , R. elementary  (1972).  N.  (1975).  school  c h i l d r e n to  Canadian  Research Journals,  i n the  validation teaching  of  s t r a t e g i e s adopted  by  13_(2) ,  Response  education  perception.  d e v e l o p m e n t and  for ultilization  Education,  for art  visual  for Education  perceptual Studies  Index  doctoral  for Art.  certain investigations into  MacGregor,  Perceptual  Indiana.  Preparation  & D e g g e , R.  M a c G r e g o r , R.  Society  ETS  1961.)  (1966).  W.  Unpublished  Six  Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company I n c .  work p u b l i s h e d M c F e e , J . K.  I.Q.  MacGregor's  U n i v e r s i t y of  (1970).  California:  of  Tests  Three Measures of  dissertation,  *  A C o r r e l a t i o n Study of  11-18.  items  in a  perceptual  1. of  a  art.  113. index: An e x p l o r a t o r y 16 (3),  study. S t u d i e s i n A r t E d u c a t i o n ,  54-61.  MacKinnon, D. potential.  (1963). S e l e c t i n g students with  creative  In P. H e i s t  College  ( E d . ) , The C r e a t i v e  Student: An Unmet Challenge  (pp.  101-116). San F r a n c i s c o ,  CA: J o s s e y - B a s s . Maker, J . C .  (1982) . Teaching Models i n E d u c a t i o n of  the  G i f t e d . C o l o r a d o : Aspen P r e s s . Maker, J . C .  (1984) . C u r r i c u l u m f o r E d u c a t i o n o f  the  Gifted.  C o l o r a d o : Aspen P r e s s . Mann-Whitney U T e s t . Nonparametric (International i n Psychology, Marland,  In Sidney S i e g e l  S t a t i s t i c s f o r the B e h a v i o u r a l  (Ed.), Sciences  Student E d i t i o n ) . . Tokyo: M c G r a w - H i l l  Series  Kogakusha L t d .  S. P. J .  Talented.  (1956).  (1972). E d u c a t i o n of the G i f t e d and  Report to the Sub-Committee on E d u c a t i o n ,  Committee of Labour and P u b l i c W e l f a r e ,  U.S.  Senate,  Washington, D . C . M a r t i n s o n , R.  (1974). The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n  of  the G i f t e d and  T a l e n t e d . V e n t u r a , C a l i f o r n i a : Ventura County S c h o o l s . Meeker, M. & Meeker, R. Screening  (1979). S t r u c t u r e of  Intelligence:  Form f o r the G i f t e d . E l Segundo, C a l i f o r n i a  SOI I n s t i t u t e . Meier, N. E .  (1966) . F a c t o r s i n a r t i s t i c  summary of a t e n - y e a r study of s p e c i a l  aptitude: ability.  Final In  E.  W.  E i s n e r & D.  Education. (Original Mittler, in  G.  A.  (1983). C l a r i f y i n g  and  of Northern  New  H.  York:  (1971). Holt,  P.  square.  Scientific  e r , D.  P a s s o w , A. Gifted P a s s o w , A.  L.  Held  H.  H.  H.  &  Child  Row.  (pp.  of  the  diamond  73-77.  Eye  & W.  Development  movements and  Richards  113-122).  (Eds.)  San  visual Readings  Francisco,  in  CA:  & Company. (1979).  (1981).  Child  Inc.  (1974).  Harper  (1971).  and  Development.  (1976) . O r i e n t a t i o n  Two  i n Art Education,  Curriculum paper  York:  American  Freeman  Studies  A  I n R.  Colorado:  Arts Press.  P e r c e p t i o n , 5_,  & S t a r k , L.  perception.  Paris  Liberal  Conger, J . & Kagan, J .  & Harris,  process  14-22.  I t s Philosophy  Rinehart & Winston  H.  H.  Company.  Colorado.  Fundamentals of C h i l d  New  N o t o n , D.  W.  York:  Personality.  the  2_5 (1) ,  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . N a t i o n a l ART-TAG S u r v e y .  Psychology.  M u s s e n , P.,  Publishing  the decision-making  (1956) . A r t E d u c a t i o n :  Munsinger,  in Art  work p u b l i s h e d 1939.)  J.  M u n r o , T.  Naeli,  (Eds.), Readings  Waltham, Mass: B l a i s d e l l  University  and  Ecker  a r t . Studies i n Art Education,  M o o d y , G.  New  W.  The  methods o f 20.(3),  nature  of  Q u a r t e r l y , 2_5 (1) ,  & T a n n e n b a u m , A. f o r the G i f t e d  prepared  J.  and  teaching drawing  30-37. g i f t e d n e s s and  talent.  5-10. (1978).  Differentiated  Talented: A  f o r the O f f i c e  skills.  of  Conceptual  Projects  f o r the  Model. gifted  115. and  t a l e n t e d . New  Public Pearce,  (1983).  Standard  A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e WISC-R,  Progressive  Matrices,  and Meeker's  f o r the Gifted. Gifted Child  Piaget,  (Maryland)  Schools.  N.  Form  York: Montgomery County  J . (1969).  Mechanisms  Raven's SOI-Screening  Quarterly,  27(1),  13-19.  ( T r a n s l a t e d b y G. N . S e a g r i m ) T h e  of Perception.  London:  Routledge  & Kegan  Paul  Ltd. Raven,  J . C.  Sets  (1958).  Standard  Progressive  A , B , C, D & E . L o n d o n :  Matrices:  H. K. L e w i s  P u b l i s h i n g Company  Inc. Renzulli,  J . S.  a definition. Renzulli,  (1970).  Illinois:  and Rock,  M.  C.  Charles  Kappan.  I . (1975).  Macmillan  60_(3) ,  (1979).  Mansfield  New  Reexamining  180-184.  A Guidebook f o r Programs  Centre,  forGifted  Connecticut:  Press. The G i f t e d : D e v e l o p i n g C.  Total  Talent.  Thomas.  (1978) . I n f a n t s  Learning.  Rosinski,  Students.  Learning  J . P.  Robeck,  Phi Delta  Individualized Educational  Talented  Creative Rice,  What makes g i f t e d n e s s ?  J . S. & S m i t h , L . H.  Developing and  (1978).  York:  and C h i l d r e n : T h e i r  McGraw-Hill  Book  Development  Company.  An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P e r c e p t i o n .  New  York:  P u b l i s h i n g Company L t d .  R. R.  Santa Monica,  (1977).  The D e v e l o p m e n t  California:  Goodyear  of Visual  Perception.  P u b l i s h i n g Company I n c .  R o u s e , M.  J . (1963). C h i l d r e n ' s  Intellectual R u n y o n , R.  Maturity.  New  P. & H a b e r , A .  Behavioural Publishing  Drawings  York:  as Measures of  Harcourt, Brace  (1967). Fundamentals  Statistics.  Reading,  Mass:  &  World.  of  Addison-Wesley  Company.  S a l o m e , R. A .  (1965). The e f f e c t s  of perception training  upon t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l drawings  of children.  Studies  i n A r t E d u c a t i o n , 7_(1) , 1 8 - 3 3 . S a l o m e , R. A . readiness  (1968) . P e r c e p t u a l t r a i n i n g and i m p l i c a t i o n s  i n A r t Education, 10^1), Stake,  R.  E.  Stern,  William  Testing  In  P.  In (pp.  &  Publishing  Whipple).  York.  York:  process.  An E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e  Hastings  House. Intelligence.  Mifflin.  (1971). B i n e t ' s method o f measuring  341-345).  Company.  Methods o f  b y G. M.  (1916) . The M e a s u r e m e n t o f  H. M u n s i n g e r  (Original  (translated  (Ed.) C r e a t i v i t y :  Houghton  T e r m a n , L . M.  i n Education.  (1914). The P s y c h o l o g i c a l  P r o c e s s . New  T e r m a n , L . M.  the Arts  (1959). The n a t u r e o f t h e c r e a t i v e  Smith  Boston:  L.  Warwick  I . A.  Creative  58-67.  C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l  Intelligence  Baltimore: Taylor,  f o r a r t education. Studies  (1975) . E v a l u a t i n g  Columbus, Ohio:  i n reading  (Ed.) R e a d i n g s New  York:  Holt,  work p u b l i s h e d 1916.)  i n Child  intelligence.  Development  Rinehart & Winston I n c .  Thalberg,  I.  (19 7 7 ) .  P e r c e p t i o n , Emotion  Component A p p r o a c h . Torrance,  E.  P.  New  E.  Torrance,  P.  Princeton,  tests  E. of  Tuttle,  P.  and  (1972).  6_,  B.  Publishing  Ltd.  Test  Predictive  thinking.  Classroom.  Co.  Jersey: Personnel  creative  F.  C h i l d r e n i n the  (1966). Torrance  New  Behaviour,  Camelot Press  Prentice-Hall.  Gifted  Macmillan  E.  Torrance,  N.J.:  (1965).  York:  Britain:  A  (1962) . G u i d i n g C r e a t i v e T a l e n t .  Englewood C l i f f s , Torrance,  Great  & Action:  of C r e a t i v e Thinking.  Press. , validity  of  the  Torrance  Journal of Creative  236-252.  J r . & Becker,  Identification  Washington, D.C:  L.  A.'  of G i f t e d  and  (1980).  Characteristics  Talented  A National Education  Students.  Association  Publication. Vernon, The  P.  E.,  A d a m s o n , G.,  Psychology  and  Education  L o n d o n : M e t h u e n & Co. Vurpillot,  E.  (1976) . The  London: George, A l l e n W e r t h e i m e r , M. Harper Weschler, Scale  (1945).  & V e r n o n , D. of G i f t e d  F.  (1977).  Children.  Ltd. Visual  World  of  the  Child.  & Unwin L t d .  P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g . New  York:  Press. D.  (1949,  R e v i s e d WISC-R 1 9 7 4 ) .  for Children.  Corporation.  M a n u a l , New  Weschler  Intelligence  York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l  118. Whipple,  G. M.  (Ed.)  23rd Yearbook, of  Education.  Wilson,  B.  Part  I.  M.  gifted.  The E d u c a t i o n  National  Chicago:  & Wilson,  artistically  (1924).  Society  University  of  of  Gifted  for  the  Chicago  Study  Press.  (1976). V i s u a l n a r r a t i v e Gifted Child  Children.  Quarterly,  and  the  20(4),  432-447. Youngblood, Studies  M . S.  in Art Education,  Zachkowsky, (19 8 0 ) .  L. D.,  J.  and t h e  St.  Zachkowsky,  L . B.  State provisions  talented.  Talented.  the  Study  of  test.  57-63. & Martinek, and  T. J . Physical  L o u i s : The C . V . Mosby Company.  (1979).  the  Press.  20_(3) ,  ability  G r o w t h and D e v e l o p m e n t : The C h i l d  Activity. Zettel,  (1979). A nonverbal  I n H . A . Passow  78th Yearbook, Education.  Part  Chicago:  for  educating the  (Ed.), I,  The G i f t e d  National  University  of  gifted and  Society Chicago  for  APPENDIX A C a l c u l a t i o n f o r T a b l e s 1-8  120, MPI  Raw  Score  Group A  Totals  U = n n +n- ( n + D 1  2  2  L  - R  2 =  (11)(13)  +  (11)(14)  - 79.5  2 = 143 + 77 - 79.5 = 140.5 Group B  1^= =  n n 1  2  + n  2  (n +l) 2  -  2  (11) (13) +  R  2  (13) (14) - 220.5 2  = 143 + 91 - 220.5 = 13.5* Group C  U = r ^ n ^ =  (n +l) 2 2  (13) (15) +  -  (13) (16) - 142 2  = 195 + 104 - 142 = Group D  U = 1  =  157 r ^ n ^ n  2  (n +l) 2  (13) (15) +  2  - R2  (15) (16) - 264 2  = 195 + 120 - 264 = 51* * p  <.05  121. Perception Group A  of Distance U = " n + 1  2  n^(n +l) 2  - R^  2 = 11.13 + 11(14) - 120.5 — 2 = 143 + 77 - 1 2 0 . 5 = 99.5 Group B  U=  n n + n (n +l)  ±  1  2  2  2  -  R  2  2 =  (11) (13) +  (13) (14) - 1 7 9 . 5  = 143 + 91 - 179.5 = 54.5 Group C  U =  n  i  n  2  +  n (n +l) 1  2  - R^  2 = 13.15 + 13.16 - 201.5 = 195 + 104 - 2 0 1 . 5  Group D  = 97.5 U^= n ^ n + n ( n + l ) 2  2  2  -  R  2  2 = 13.15 + 15.16 - 204.5 2 = 195 + 120 - 204.5 110.5  122 Perception  Group  A  o f Embedded  Figures  U = n- n L  + n (n +l)  2  1  -  2  2 = 11.13 + 11(14) - 147.5 2 = 143 + 77 - 147.5 = 72.5 Group  B  0^=  n n 1  + n (n +l) -  2  2  2  R  2  2 = 11.13 + 13(14) - 152.5 2 = 143 + 91 - 152.5 = 81.5 Group  C  U = n n 1  + n (n +l)  2  1  2  -  R^  2 = 13.15 + 13.16 - 162.5 2 = 195 + 104 - 162.5 = 136.5 Group  D  U = 1  n n 1  2  + n (n +l) 2  2  -  R  2  2 = 13.15 + 15.16 - 243.5 2 = 195 + 120 -'243.5 = 71.5  123 Perception Group A  of  Shape U = n^n  + n^(n +l) -  2  2  R-^  2 =  11.13  +  11.14  -  102.5  2  Group  B  Group C  =  143  =  117.5  U^=  n^n  + 77  -  + n (n +l) 2  2  2  =  11.13  =  143 + 91 -  =  36.5*  U = n^n  102.5  2  + 13.14 2  -  2  197.5-  197.5  + n (n +l) -  2  R  1  2  R^  2  Group  D  =  13.15  =  195  =  184.5  U = 1  n n 1  + 13.16 2  + 104  2  = 13.15  -  -  114.5  114.5  + n (n +l) 2  2  + 15.16  -  * p  <.05  19 5 + 1 2 0  =  94.5  2  220.5  2 =  R  -- 2 2 0 . 5  124 P e r c e p t i o n of S i m i l a r i t i e s and D i f f e r e n c e s Group A  U= n n 1  2  + n ^ C n ^ l ) - R^ 2  = 11.13 + 11.14 - 10 5 2 = 143 + 77 - 150 = 70 Group B  17^= n-^n + n ( n + l ) 2 2  2  2  - R  2  = 11.13 + 13.14 - 150 2 = 143 + 91 - 150 = 84 Group C  U = n^n + n ( n + l ) 2  1  2  - R-j^  2 = 13.15 + 13.16 - R, 2  X  = 195 + 104 - 156 = 143 Group D  1^= n-^n + n (n +l) 2 2  2  2  - R  = 13.15 + 15.16 - 250 2 = 195 + 120 - 250 = 65  2  Perception of the V e r t i c a l Group A  U = n n 1  + n (n +l) - R  2  1  2  = 11.13 + 11.14 2  - 104  = 143 + 77 - 104 = Group B  U  116  l=  n  l 2 n  +  n  2  (  n  2 2 +  1  ~ :  )  R  = 11.13 + 13.14 2 = 143 + 91 -  - 196  196  = 38* Group C  U = n n x  + n ( n + l ) - R.  2  1  2  2 = 13.15 + 13.16 2  - 165  = 195 + 104 - 165 = Group D  °1  =  134 n  l 2 n  +  n  2  (  n  2  +  1  )  = 13.15 + 15.16  "  = * p  <.05  74  :  - 241  2 = 195 + 120 -  R  241  126 Perception Modified Group A  by  Constancy  U = n n 1  + n (n +l)  2  1  -  2  2 =  11.13  + 11.14  -  84.5  2 =  1 4 3 + 77  -  84.5  = 135.5 U = n n + n (n +l)  Group B  x  x  2  2  -  2  R  2  2 = 11.13  Group C  + 13.14 2  =  143 + 91 -  =  18.5*  U = n n 1  + n (n +l)  2  1  =  13.15  =  195  2  =  132  U = 1  n n 1  2  -  -  R  167  2  -  R  2  p  <  .05  =  13.15  =  195 + 120  + 15.16 2  =  76  -  1  167  + n (n +l) 2  -  ~  + 13.16 2  + 104  215.5  215.5  2  Group D  -  -  239  239  2  127,  P e r c e p t i o n of Contour  Group A  U = nn 1  + n (n +l)  2  1  -  2  2 = 11.13  + 11.14  -  100.5  2 = 143 = Group B  Uj=  + 77 -  119.5 n^n  + n (n +l) 2  2  2  = 11.13 = 143 = Group C  100.5  2  + 13.14 2  + 91 -  - R  - 19 5  195  39*  U = n n 1  + n (n +l)  2  1  2  -  R  1  2 = 13.15  + 13.16  -  157  2  Group D  -  195  =  142  u = x  n n 1  + 104  -  157  + n (n +l)  2  2  2  -  R  2 = 13.15 = 195 = * p  ^.05  64  + 15.16 2  + 120  -  251  251  2  APPENDIX B Th.e M a c G r e g o r  Perceptual  Index  Test  129. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE l'ERCEPTUAL INDEX  Each student requires a copy of the Teat Bookiet, a set of Answer Sheets (numbered ONE through ttfttii)*} and a pencil. When these have been passed out the teacher addresses the students as follows:  t  The booklets which you have in front of you have photographs In them which you w i l l be looking at In a few minutes. I have some questions about them which I would like you to answer on the Answer Sheets. Usually, you w i l l have ten seconds to answer each question. At the end of ten seconds, I shall say "Stop. Let's go on to the next question." Use your pencils to answer each question: you are required only to make check marks. You may erase your answer and put in another i f you change your mind. Ten seconds i s quite a long time. Study each photograph carefully before answering: don't guess wildly. If you miss one question, don't stop to think i t out. It's more important to keep up with me as I go over the next question with you. Ready? Then look at Answer Sheet ONE. Tn rhr n p n r r - Tn the top righthand corner, £±£1 i n your name, the grade you are In, how old you are; draw a circle around "Boy" i f you are a boy, and around " G i r l " i f you are a g i r l . Now open your Test Booklets at page 1. I want you to think of this photograph as i f i t was a scene that you were looking at through a window. When you look at things through a window you can t e l l that some of the things you are seeing are quite near or close to you and some things are far away. For example, in the photograph on page 1 you can see a g i r l , marked X, and a house, marked Y. Which looks nearer to you: the g i r l marked X or the house marked Y? Now look-at Question 1 on your Answer Sheet. You can see that you have three choices in answering. The f i r s t says: The part marked X (that Is, the girl) looks nearer (to me) than the part marked Y (that i s , the house). There is a l i t t l e square beside that sentence. If you think that is the best of the three choices, you would put a check mark in that square. The second says: The part marked Y looks nearer to me than the pait marked X. If you think that is the best choice, you would put,a check mark i n that square. The third says: The part marked X and the part marked Y look the same distance away from me. If you think that i s the best of the three choices, you would put a check mark in that square. (The teacher may clarify as necessary).  You have three choices: seconds, starting NOW.  make one check mark with your pencils, in ten  -  At  the  end  of  ten  seconds,  the  2  130.  -  teacher  says:  Stop. The n e x t f i v e q u e s t i o n s a r e g o i n g t o a s k f o r t h e same c h o i c e s : Does che p a r e m a r k e d X l o o k n e a r e r t h a n che p a r t m a r k e d Y? Does t h e p a r t marked Y l o o k n e a r e r Chan che p a r t m a r k e d X? Do p a r e s X and Y l o o k che same d i s t a n c e away? W e ' l l do Chem one aC a t i m e . T u r n Co page 2 i n y o u r T e s C B o o k l e C s and l o o k a c p h o t o g r a p h 2 ( c h e F e r r i s w h e e l ) . On y o u r A n s w e r S h e e C , w h e r e i c s a y s Q u e s t i o n 2, p u t a c h e c k m a r k i n t h e l i t t l e s q u a r e b e s i d e t h e c h o i c e y o u make, i n t e n s e c o n d s , s C a r C i n g NOW. SCop.  Uock of  fU.H  Now p h o t o g r a p h 3 (t-bn a p a r C m a n t b l o d e s ) . A n s w e r Q u e s t i o n 3 by c h e c k i n g s q u a r e o f y o u r c h o i c e i n cen seconds s t a r C i n g NOW.  the SCop  Now p h o C o g r a p h 4 ( t h e c r a n e ) . A n s w e r Q u e s t i o n 4 by y o u r c h o i c e i n cen s e c o n d s sCartingNOW.  of S l  ° f^^f»^  che  P  c^,*~«<-  W  c h e c k i n g che  square  Tu»o.  Now p h o C o g r a p h 5 ( c h e s c r e e t l i g h t ) . Answer O u e s c i o n s q u a r e o f y o u r c h o i c e i n Cen s e c o n d s s c a r C i n g NOW.  5 by c h e c k i n g  Stop. Now p h o C o g r a p h 6 ( c h e c o n v e y e r b e l C s ) . A n s w e r Q u e s t i o n 6 by c h e c k i n g t h e square of your c h o i c e i n ten seconds s c a r C i n g NOW. Scop. Now we h a v e a n o C h e r k i n d o f p r o b l e m f o r y o u co s o l v e . Look a t Answer S h e e c TWO. Y o u w i l l s e e ChaC some s h a p e s h a v e b e e n d r a w n on i c , w i c h a l i n e b e s i d e each shape. I n a f e w m o m e n t s I'm g o i n g Co a s k y o u t o t u r n Che p a g e o f y o u r T e s C B o o k l e C s ,°ana V.1iGis^y'ou?^o y o u ' l l s e e s i x pho t o g r a p h s , n u m b e r e d 7 eh r o u g h 12. E a c h p h o t o g r a p h h a s one o f t h e s h a p e s on A n s w e r Sheec TWO s o m e w h e r e i n i c . Y o u a r e Co w r i c e t h e number o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h w h e r e y o u f i n d t h e s h a p e on t h e l i n e b e s i d e Che s h a p e . S u p p o s e y o u d i s c o v e r t h a t che f i r s t s h a p e on y o u r a n s w e r s h e e c c a n be f o u n d i n p h o t o g r a p h 9. You w o u l d w r i t e 9 o n t h e l i n e b e s i d e che f i r s t shape.  is  and  The teacher required.  demonstrates  until  all  the  children  seen  to  understated  what  E a c h s h a p e i s u s e d o n l y o n c e , s o y o u s h o u l d u s e e v e r y number b e t w e e n 7 12. A l l d i e s h a p e s on t h e An.swer SheeC a r e a b o u t t h e same s i z e as t h e y  - 3 -  131 .  are i n che p h o t o g r a p h s . T h i s t i m e , i n s C e a d o f s t o p p i n g you a f t e r 10 s e c o n d s , w e ' l l a d d a l l the t i m e s t o g e t h e r Co g i v e us 60 s e c o n d s . You have 60 s e c o n d s Co answer a l l o f Answer Sheec TWO, s o t u r n Co pages 4 and 5 o f che TesC B o o k l e C and b e g i n NOW. Stop. Nww-We' 11 move t o the n e x t s e c o f p r o b l e m s . Look aC phoCograph 13 o n page 7 o f y o u r TesC B o o k l e C , and Chen aC QueaCion 13 on Answer SheeC THREE. The q u e s C i o n s a y s : How many p e o p l e do you see i n C h i s phoCograph? When y o u know che answer, you make a c h e c k mark i n Che numbered s q u a r e . So i f you see two p e o p l e i n c h i s phoCograph, you would make a c h e c k mark i n c h e square with 2 prinCed i n i t .  Sometimes you w i l l s e e o n l y p a r e o f the o b j e c c . CounC che p a r t a s one; buc remember t h a c Cwo p a r e s o f t h e same t h i n g don't c o u n t a s Cwo. S i n c e chey are p a r e s o f che same c h i n g , y o u w o u l d o n l y counC one. We w i l l d o c h e s e one a t a t i m e , C a k i n g Cen s e c o n d s Co answer e a c h q u e s C i o n . T u r n che page on y o u r TesC B o o k l e t Co page 8, l o o k aC phoCograph 14, and c h e c k how many l e a v e s you s e e , i n cen seconds s c a r C i n g NOW. Scop. Now Q u e s C i o n 15. s c a r C i n g NOW.  How many irc»lgrrt>«-isai'3 ao you s e e , i n 10 s e c o n d s  SCop. Now Q u e s C i o n 16. s c a r C i n g NOW.  How many wagon w h e e l s do you s e e , i n 10 s e c o n d s  Scop. Now Q u e s C i o n 17.  How many c h i l d r e n d o you s e e , i n 10 s e c o n d s s c a r C i n g  NOW. SCop. SU*jrC^c<>~Arr^»CTF--^ —ar»4-~ee--p«g«~i^Hk*--y«t^^ . *ou w i l l see a p h o C o g r a p h o f a f e n c e , w i c h a b l a c k p a t c h c o v e r i n g p a r t o f i c . Q u e s C i o n 18 on Answer Sheet HMfK?shows Chree d r a w i n g s , and you a r e a s k e d t o c h o o s e w h i c h o f the t h r e e d r a w i n g s l o o k s most l i k e the way t h i n g s would l o o k u n d e r t h e b l a c k p a t c h i n p h o t o g r a p h 18. I f you d e c i d e t h a t d r a w i n g A l o o k s most l i k e the way t h i n g s would l o o k u n d e r the b l a c k p a t c h , you would make a c h e c k mark i n che l i e t l e s q u a r e marked A. I f you d e c i d e d che besC answer was B, you'd c h e c k the B s q u a r e , and s o on. Make y o u r c h e c k mark i n s q u a r e A, B, or C now.  132. - A We are g o i n g to add together the times f o r q u e s t i o n s 19, 20, and 21, so that you have 30 seconds to "do a l l t h r e e . Turn the page i n your Test B o o k l e t s to page iS* and begin NOW. lO  Stop. The next q u e s t i o n s are about how one t h i n g looks l i k e another. Sometimes two t h i n g s l o o k e x a c t l y the same. At other times you can make the best c h o i c e from a l o t of t h i n g s that are r e a l l y a l l a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t . If I say: Who i s Joe l i k e i n t h i s c l a s s ? You might answer that he i s n ' t e x a c t l y l i k e anybody e l s e , but he looks more l i k e B i l l than any of the others because they are about the same height and have the same c o l o u r of h a i r . You'd have made your c h o i c e by d e c i d i n g that B i l l has more f e a t u r e s that look l i k e Joe's f e a t u r e s than anybody e l s e i n the c l a s s .  The teacher may clarify as necessary. It is important that the childrrn realize that they should look for as many points of similarity as possible in making a choice. \\  <*C^> Look at photograph 22, on page t§ of your Test B o o k l e t s . There are f o u r gear wheels, marked A, B, C, and D. I am going to ask which o t h e r gear wheel A l o o k s most l i k e : or do they -111 look e x a c t l y the same? Now look at Q u e s t i o n 22, on Answer Sheet r i V . " . Y o u have f o u r c h o i c e s : A looks most l i k e B; A l o o k s most l i k e C; A looks raosi l i k e D; they a l l l o o k e x a c t l y the same. You would put a check mark i n the square b e s i d e the best answer. Take 10 seconds t o do t h a t , s t a r t i n g NOW. Now w e ' l l t r y the next one: Look at Q u e s t i o n 23, on the Answer Sheet.fYour c h o i c e s are A and B; A and C: B and C: and A l l the Same. Turn the  it  page to page M of your Test B o o k l e t s i n ten seconds, s t a r t i n g NOW. Stop.  and  answer Q u e s t i o n  starting  23  Now  Question  24  (Knives) i n ten sconds,  Now  Question  23  (Spoons) i n ten seconds, s t a r t i n g  NOW.  Now  Question  26  (Gloves)  NOW.  (Grain e l e v a t o r s ) ^r»\v\ sUoi  NOW.  Stop.  Stop. i n ten seconds, s t a r t i n g  Stop.  in  Turn to page ±6. i n your Tost ten seconds, s t a r t i n g NOW.  Stop.  Booklets.  Now  do Q u e s t i o n  27  (Fire  hydrants)  IS"  Now l o o k a t p a g e i=? i n y o u r T e a t B o o k l e t s . P h o t o g r a p h 28 was p r o d u c e d by b e g i n n i n g w i t h a n o r m a l p h o t o g r a p h ( F i r s t s t a g e ) t i l t i n g i t ( S e c o n d s t a g e ) and c u t t i n g i t s e d g e s ( T h i r d s t a g e ) . L o o k a t Q u e s t i o n 28 on A n s w e r S h e e t S I X Y o u a r e a s k e d t o d e c i d e w h i c h o f t h t h r e e d r a w i n g s , A, B o r C, i s most l i k e t h e way p h o t o g r a p h 28 ( T h i r d s t a g e ) was b e f o r e i t was t i l t e d a n d c u t . T h i s i s v e r y e a s y , b e c a u s e we h a v e t h e f i r s t s t a g e a t t h e t o p o f p a g e t?', and we can see t h a t d r a w i n g B i s most l i k e i t . So we w o u l d make a c h e c k mark i n t h e l i t t l e s q u a r e marked B i n Q u e s t i o n 28. 5  The o t h e r s a r e n o t s o e a s y , b e c a u s e a l l y o u w i l l h a v e i s t h e t i l t e d a n d c u t p h o t o g r a p h ( l i k e p h o t o g r a p h 28: T h i r d S t a g e ) . You w i l l have t o d e c i d e w h i c h o f t h e t h r e e d r a w i n g s , A, B o r C, i s m o s t l i k e t h e way e a c h p h o t o g r a p h was b e f o r e i t was t i l t e d a n d c u t . (The teacher may pause at this point and check to see that every one seems to understand what is required. ) We w i l l add a l l o u r t e n s e c o n d s t o g e t h e r t h i s t i m e , s o t h a t y o u h a v e 50 s e c o n d s t o a n s w e r Q u e s t i o n s 29 t h r o u g h 3 3 . T u r n t h e page o f y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t s t o p a g e s 1 * a n d 19- a n d b e g i n NOW. Stop. T h e s e n e x t q u e s t i o n s a r e a b o u t t h e way t h i n g s l o o k a n d t h e way t h i n g s r e a l l y are. S u p p o s e y o u s e e y o u r f r i e n d a t t h e en'd o f a l o n g s t r e e t . How d o e s he l o o k - v e r y s m a l l ? B u t h a s he r e a l l y g r o w n v e r y s m a l l ? Or i s he r e a l l y t h e same s i z e a s he a l w a y s w a s , b u t j u s t l o o k s s m a l l b e c a u s e he i s f a r away? L o o k a t p h o t o g r a p h 3 4 , on p a g e ^ 2 * o f y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t s . There a r some s t r e e t l i g h t s , m a r k e d A, B, C, a n d D. Now l o o k a t Q u e s t i o n 3 4 , on Answe S h e e t S E V C N . f The q u e s t i o n a s k s : A r e t h e s t r e e t l i g h t s A, B, C a n d D r e a l l y t h e same h e i g h t ? I f y o u t h i n k t h e y a r e , c h e c k t h e s q u a r e m a r k e d Y E S . I f you t h i n k t h e y a r e n o t , c h e c k t h e s q u a r e m a r k e d NO. Remember t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e way t h i n g s l o o k , and t h e way t h i n g s r e a l l y a r e . I O - ? , G C L  I s boy NOW.  Now t u r n t h e p a g e i n y o u r t e s t b o o k l e t s t o p a g e 2-3. Q u e s t i o n 35 a s k s : B r e a l l y t a l l e r t h a n Boy A? A n s w e r YES o r jNO i n t e n s e c o n d s , s t a r t i n g  Stop.  in  Q u e s t i o n 36. Are bowls t e n s e c o n d s , s t a r t i n g NOW.  A, B,  C and  D r e a l l y t h e same s i z e ? »  Yes  or  No  Stop.  side  Q u e s t i o n 37. B? Y e s o r No  I s s i d e A of the board r e a l l y i n ten seconds, s t a r t i n g NOW.  f u r t h e r away f r o m y o u  than  S top. Q u e s t i o n 38. I s i t r e a l l y t h e same d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n p o s t s A a n d B, B and C, C and D, D and E, E and F, a n d F and G? Y e s o r No i n t e n s e c o n d s , starting NOW.  134 .  - 6-  Now t u r n t o p a g e 2-5 I n y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t s . On t h i s p a g e t h e r e a r e t h r e e photographs of c l o c k s . Now l o o k a t Q u e s t i o n 39 o n A n s w e r S h e e t £ I G ! 1 ? ^ The q u e s t i o n g i v e s y o u some c h o i c e s , and y o u h a v e t o d e c i d e w h i c h i s t h e best, choice. T h e f i r s t i s t h a t a l l t h r e e p h o t o g r a p h s a r e o f t h e same c l o c k . The s e c o n d i s t h a t p h o t o g r a p h s B a n d C a r e o f t h e same c l o c k , b u t A i s o f a different clock. T h e t h i r d i s t h a t p h o t o g r a p h s A a n d C a r e o f t h e same c l o c k , but B i s o f a d i f f e r e n t c l o c k . The f o u r t h c h o i c e i s t h a t A a n d B a r e o f t h e same c l o c k , b u t C i s o f a d i f f e r e n t c l o c k . And the l a s t c h o i c e i s t h a t a l l three photographs are of d i f f e r e n t c l o c k s . Your choices again are: A l l same, A different, B different, C different, a l l different. Make a c h e c k m a r k i n t h e s q u a r e b e s i d e t h e b e s t c h o i c e , i n t e n s e c o n d s , s t a r t i n g NOW. F o r Q u e s t i o n 40, t h e c h o i c e s a r e t h e s a m e . T u r n t o p a g e £6 i n y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t s , l o o k a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e s e a t s a n d do q u e s t i o n 40 i n t e n s e c o n d s , s t a r t i n g NOW. Stop. Question  41,  the  irons.  Same c h o i c e s ,  i n ten  seconds,  s t a r t i n g NOW.  Stop.  2.4Turn to Same c h o i c e s ,  p a g e 2ft" i n y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t s , a n d a n s w e r i n t e n s e c o n d s , s t a r t i n g NOW.  question  42  (aircraft).  Stop. II Now l o o k a t A n s w e r S h e e t N B ? C . T h e r e a r e some s h a p e s d r a w n o n i t , a n d e a c h one h a s a l i n e b e s i d e i t . ^ W h e n I t e l l y o u , y o u w i l l t u r n t h e p a g e o f y o u r T e s t B o o k l e t t o p a g e s 20- a n d 5± a n d s e e s i x p h o t o g r a p h s n u m b e r e d 43 .thr-ougfo +t? 48. I n e a c h p h o t o g r a p h t h e r e i s an o b j e c t t h a t h a s a n o u t l i n e l i k e o n e o f t h e s e s h a p e s on A n s w e r S h e e t K B t g ! ^ and I want y o u t o w r i t e t h e number o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h w h e r e t h e o u l i n e c a n be f o u n d o n t h e l i n e b e s i d e t h e s h a p e . So i f y o u w e r e t o f i n d t h e f i r s t o u t l i n e i n p h o t o g r a p h 48, y o u w o u l d w r i t e 48 on t h e l i n e b e s i d e it. The s h a p e s o n t h e A n s w e r S h e e t may n o t be t h e same s i z e a s i n the. p h o t o g r a p h , and some o f t h e m may h a v e b e e n t u r n e d u p s i d e down o r s i d e w a y s . Each shape has b e e n u s e d o n l y o n c e , s o y o u s h o u l d h a v e u s e d e v e r y number f r o m 43 f h r n - i t r h 4 8 when y o u h a v e c o m p l e t e d a l l s i x i t e m s .  to  W e ' l l add t o g e t h e r the t i m e s f o r a l l s i x i t e m s , a n s w e r t h e w h o l e p a g e , s t a r t i n g NOW.  Stop. Close  your  books.  so  t h a t y o u have  60  seconds  Answer S h e e t ONE Question  135.  1  Part. X l o o k s n e a r e r t h a n p a r t Y Part Y looks nearer than p a r t X  Q  P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away  Q  Question 2 Part X looks nearer than part Y  Q  Part Y looks nearer than p a r t X  £j[  P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away Question  Q  3  Part X looks nearer than p a r t Y  Q  P a r t Y l o o k s n e a r e r than p a r t X P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away Question  Q  4  Part X looks nearer than part Y Part Y looks nearer than p a r t X P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away  Q  Qestion 5 Part X looks nearer than p a r t Y Part Y looks nearer than p a r t X P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away  Q  Question 6 Part X looks nearer than p a r t Y P a r t Y l o o k s n e a r e r than p a r t X P a r t X and p a r t Y l o o k t h e same d i s t a n c e away  Q fJ^J Q  Answer S h e e t TWO  136.  Answer Sheet THREE  137.  Question 13 How many people do you see i n this photograph  Question 14 How many leaves do you see i n t h i s photograph  Question 15 How many IfulglH cars do you see i n this photograph  3  4  Question 16 How many wagon wheels do you see  i n this photograph  Question 17 How many c h i l d r e n do you see i n t h i s photograph 4  5  Answer S h e e t FOUR  138 .  Answer Sheet  Question  22  A l o o k s most l i k e  B  j  J  A l o o k s most l i k e  C  j  J  A l o o k s most l i k e  D  1  J  j  (  23  (Grain elevators)  A l o o k s most l i k e  B  j  |  A l o o k s most l i k e  C  ]  |  B l o o k s most l i k e  C  |  |  |  [  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Question  24  (Knives)  A l o o k s most l i k e  B  j  j  A l o o k s most l i k e  C  |  J  B l o o k s most l i k e  C  |  /  j  )  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Question  25  (Spoons)  B l o o k s most l i k e  A  |  |  B l o o k s most l i k e  D  |  |  B l o o k s most l i k e  E  | f  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Question  26  f  [  (Gloves)  A l o o k s most l i k e  B  {  }  A l o o k s most l i k e  C  |  |  A l o o k s most l i k e  D  |  f  I  |  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Question  139 .  (Gear w h e e l s )  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Question  FIVE  27  (Fire  hydrants)  A l o o k s most l i k e  B  1  )  A l o o k s most l i k e  C  |  )  B l o o k s most l i k e  C  j  |  1  |  They a l l l o o k e x a c t l y a l i k e  Answer Sheet SIX  Question  28  Q u e s t i o n 29  Q u e s t i o n 30  Q u e s t i o n 31  Question  32  Q u e s t i o n 33  21  140.  Answer Sheet SEVEN  141.  Question 34 Are the s t r e e t l i g h t s ABC and D r e a l l y the same height Yes  Q  No  Q  Yes  •  No  •  Ye8  •  No  •  Question 35 Is boy B r e a l l y t a l l e r than boy A  Question 36 Are bowls ABC and D r e a l l y the same size  Question 37 Is side A of the board r e a l l y further away from you than side B I — i Yes • No Q  Question 38 Is i t r e a l l y the same distance between posts A and B, B and C, C and D, D and E, E and F and F and G Yes  •  No  Q  Answer Sheet EIGHT  Question 39 Photographs A, B, and C are a l l of the same clock Photograph A is of a d i f f e r e n t  clock  Photograph B is of a d i f f e r e n t  clock  Photograph C i s of a d i f f e r e n t  clock  Photographs A, B and C are a l l of d i f f e r e n t  clocks  Question 40 Photographs A, B and C are a l l of the same seat Photograph A i s of a d i f f e r e n t  seat  Photograph B i s of a d i f f e r e n t  seat  Photograph C i s of a d i f f e r e n t  seat  Photographs A, B and C are a l l of d i f f e r e n t  seats  Question 41 Photographs A, B and C are a l l of the same i r o n Photograph A i s of a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Photograph B i s of a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Ph o tograph C i s of a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Photograph A,B and C are a l l of d i f f e r e n t  irons  Question 42 Photographs A, B and C are a l l of the same a i r c r a f t Photograph A i s of a d i f f e r e n t  aircraft  Photograph B i s of a d i f f e r e n t  aircraft  Photograph C i s of a d i f f e r e n t  aircraft  Photograph A, B and C are a l l of different  aircraft  Answer Sheet NINE  143  MPI  (Amended v e r s i o n , Answer  C a t e g o r y ONE: Question  Perception  Question  The  girl  The  house Y l o o k s  The  girl  Distance  X looks  nearer  than t h e house  Y  than the g i r l  X  nearer  X and t h e house  same d i s t a n c e  Y look  t o be  away  2 The  part X looks  nearest  t o me  The  part  Y looks  nearest  t o me  The  part  Z looks  nearest  t o me  The  part X looks  nearer  than the part  Y  The  part  Y looks  nearer  than the part  X  The  part  X and t h e p a r t  3  the Question  of  ONE  1  the Question  Sheet  Collier)  same d i s t a n c e  Y look  away f r o m  t o be me  4 The  part  X looks  nearer  than  the part  Y  The  part  Y looks  nearer  than  the part  X  The  part  X and t h e P a r t Y look  the  same d i s t a n c e  away  t o be  145.  Answer Sheet TWO Question 5 The  p a r t X l o o k s nearer  than the p a r t Y  The  part Y l o o k s nearer  than the p a r t X  • •  The p a r t X and t h e part Y look to be the same j^j d i s t a n c e away  Question 6  ' The  p a r t X l o o k s nearer  than the p a r t Y  The  part Y l o o k s nearer  than the p a r t X  The p a r t X and the p a r t Y look: t o be the same d i s t a n c e away Category TWO:  Perception  Questions  o f Embedded F i g u r e s  7-12  • •  146,  Answer Sheet THREE C a t e g o r y THREE:  P e r c e p t i o n o f Shape  Q u e s t i o n 13 How many p e o p l e ( o r p a r t s o f p e o p l e ) 1 2 do y o u see?  • ••••  Q u e s t i o n 14  3  4  5  How many l e a v e s ( o r p a r t s o f l e a v e s )  doyousee? Q u e s t i o n 15  \h6h6£  How many t r a i n c a r r i a g e s ( o r p a r t s o f t r a i n c a r r i a g e s ) do y o u see? 3 4  5  g  7  Q u e s t i o n 16 How many wagon wheels ( o r p a r t s o f wagon wheels) do y o u see? 3 4  • ••••  Question 1 7  How many c h i l d r e n ( o r p a r t s o f c h i l d r e n ) do y o u see? 1 Q u e s t i o n 18  6  -7  • ••••  B  • Q u e s t i o n 19  5  2  3  4  5  Answer  Sheet  147.  FOUR  Question 2 0  Question  21  DO  • Category  ?0UK:  Question  22  Perception  and  Gear A and gear  3 look  most  alike  Gear- A a n d g e a r  C look  most  alike  C-ear A a n d g e a r  D look  most  alike  They a l l l o o k  Question  of Similarities  exactly  differences  • • • •  alike  23 Grain  silo  A and g r a i n  silo  B look  most a l i k e |  Gi-ain s i l o  A and g r a i n  silo  C look  most  alike I  j  Grain  B and j r a i n  silo  C look  most  alike j  j  silo  They a l l l o o k  exactly  alike  •  )  Answer Sheet FIVE Question 24 K n i f e C and k n i f e B look most a l i k e K n i f e C and k n i f e A look most a l i k e K n i f e A and k n i f e B look most a l i k e They a l l look e x a c t l y  alike  Question 25 opoon C and spoon A look most a l i k e Spoon C and spoon B look most a l i k e Spoon G and spoon D look most a l i k e Spoon C and spoon S look most a l i k e They a l l look e x a c t l y  alike  Question 26 Glove A and Glove B look most a l i k e Glove A and glove C look most a l i k e Glove A and glove D look most a l i k e They a l l look e x a c t l y Question  alike  27 F i r e hydrant A and F i r e hydrant B look most a l i k e F i r e hydrant A and F i r e hydrant C look most a l i k e F i r e hydrant  B and F i r e hydrant C l o o k most a l i k e  They a l l look, e x a c t l y  alike  Answer S h e e t Category  FIVE:  Q u e s t i o n 28  P e r c e p t i o n of  149.  SIX the  Vertical  150.  Answer Sheet SEVEN Question 30 <3\  <  •  A  0  • Question 31  ) ra  • c  Question 32  4 A  •  n c  13  151. Answer Sheet EIGHT Question 33  fU)  o  A  Category SIX:  P e r c e p t i o n M o d i f i e d bv Constancy  Question 34  Are the s t r e e t l i g h t s A,B,C & D r e a l l y the same h e i g h t ?  Tea No  Q Q  Question 35 Is boy B r e a l l y t a l l e r Boy A?  than Yes No  •  Q  Question 36 Are bowls A.,B,C & D r e a l l y the same s i z e . ? Yes No  Q Q  152.  Answer Sheet NINE Question 37  Is s i d e A o f one board r e a l l y f u r t h e r away from you than Side B?  Yes  Is i t r e a l l y the same d i s t a n c e between p o s t s A & B, B & C, C & D, D & E, E & F, and F & G?  yes  No  Question 38  No  Q u e s t i o n 39 Photographs A, B and C are a l l o f the same c l o c k Photograph A i s o f a d i f f e r e n t clock Photograph B i s o f a d i f f e r e n t clock Photograph C i s o f a d i f f e r e n t clock Photographs A,B and C a r e a l l o f d i f f e r e n t clocks  Answer Sheet TEN  Q u e s t i o n 40 Photographs A , B and C a r e a l l o f t h e same t h i n g Photograph A i s o f a d i f f e r e n t thing Photograph B i s o f a d i f f e r e n t thing Photograph C i s o f a d i f f e r e n t thing Photographs A , B and C a r e a l l o f different things Q u e s t i o n 41 Photographs A , B and C a r e a l l of t h e same i r o n Photograph A i s o f a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Photograph B i s o f a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Photograph 0 i s o f a d i f f e r e n t  iron  Photographs A, B and C a r e a l l o f different irons Q u e s t i o n 42 Photographs A, B and C a r e a l l o f the same a i r c r a f t Photograph A i s o f a d i f f e r e n t aircraft Photograph B i s o f a d i f f e r e n t aircraft Photograph C i s o f a d i f f e r e n t aircraft Photographs A , B and C a r e a l l of d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t  154.  Answer Sheet ELEVEN  155.  ANSWER KEY  (Answers f o r b o t h m o d i f i e d and o r i g i n a l  Q.  Q.  1 - 6  7-12  MPI T e s t s )  X looks nearer than Y,  X looks  nearer than Y  Y looks  nearer than X,  X looks  nearer than Y  X looks  nearer than Y,  Y looks  nearer than X  11,  7, 5,  8, 4,  12,  Q.  13 -  17  2,  6,  Q.  18 -  21  C , C , B, C  Q.  22-27  10,  9  3  A l o o k s most l i k e D ,  A l o o k s most  A l o o k s most  B l o o k s most l i k e E  like C,  A l o o k s most l i k e B , Q.  28 -  33  B, B, B, C , B, B  Q.  34 -  38  Yes, no,  Q.  39-42  B is all  no,  no,  different, same  like C  A l o o k s most  like B  yes all  same s e a t ,  C is  different,  aircraft  Q.  43 -  48  (original version)  47,  44,  48,  46,  43,  45  Q.  43 -  48  (modified version)  44,  48,  46,  47,  43,  45  TEST BOOKLET  157.. TEST BOOKLET page  1  1  158.  3  159. page  3  page 4  163. page 7  164.  165. page  9  167. page 11  168.'  170.  page  17  174. page  18  177.  181.  182.  APPENDIX C R e s p o n s e s t o t h e MPI  184 .  RESPONSES TO THE MPI ' NON-GIFTED iirls  r? o  §>  <D CM •P «J  °  GRADE 5  GIFT G.LADE 6 Girls Boys  Boys  GRADE 5 Giils  2  4 \ - \ \ \ \ \ - \ - - \ \\ \ \ - v - - \ \ \ \ - " ^ - \ ^ ' - -• 5 • \ \ \ \ • \ \ • \ \ • \ v \ \ \ • ' • • • \ • • • \ \• • \ • \ \ 6 '• • \ • • \ \ \ \ v \ . . \ - . \ \ . « - \ - -  7 . • • • • • • \ \ - - \ - - \  8 • • • •• 9 • • ' •. 10 11  -  . \ \ • \ \ ••  • •• • • \ • -\ \  12 • • • • ' * 13 - N • • \ • • • • x  r  •  \ •  \ • • • \ '  \ \ ....• \ \ \ •\ \ \ . \ •\ • \ \ \  v  1 4 \ . ^ \ . \ \ v . \ . . \ 15 \  \  \  \  \  •  •  \  \  -  \  \ . •• • .• • • • • - \ \ \ - \ - ••  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  -  -  \  \  \  V  \  \  \  \  \  -  u o t»0n a  16' \ •\ \ \ \ v \ •. \ \ \ \ \\ -\ ••\ \ \ W 17N • v \ \ \ v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • • s \ • • • \ • • \ \ \ 18 ^ \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - • - \ \ - \\  u  19* • \ N • • •• • \ \ \ \ • • • \ • • N • \ * ' ' \ ' • \ • \ • * • • 20 • \ \ • - \ . \ . \ . \ \ \ \ . . . \ \ . \ . * . . \ \ \ . . \ . . 21- v • • \ V \ ' • • .\ " \ •• •• \ •  "5 •» S  22- • • • •  \ . . .  23' • • \ 25* ••• • •\ • \\ • •\ 24 * • N • N \ \ - ' V ACD »3- 26 * \ -P 27 \ N ' \ v \ • \ U \ • N >» 28 \ £ 2 9 \ v  Vi  N  Vi  30 \ N \ \ \ v  ®  31 • v \  a  v  • • \  \ \  \ \  • . • • •\ •• • \ • • \ • \ \ \\ \\ -\ \ \ \ \ \\ • • \ \ \ - \ ' \ ' \ ' - \ \--\\\\'\-\\N \ . \ \ \ \ - -\ - \ \ \\ - - \ \ \ \ \ • . . . \ . - \ . . . . \ - . \ . . . . - \  \  \ -  \ *  - V X N V ^ - V ^ X ' X X  V - \ - \ \ \ \ N N V \ \ - \  \  - •  •\ - v • • • N \ v • • \ \  32. N • \ • • • . s \ . \ . . \ \ \ v . \ \ \ . - - - - \ - \ - - - - ' 3 3 \ - ' - - N \ \ * * \ \ v -\ \ .. • • 34 • • • • • \ . . . . . . . . . . . \ • 35\ • • • \\\ -• •• • 36 • •• \ • • \ • \ • • • \\ -  ,  \  ©VO  "S o  §,  39 \  \  '\ N  • •  4 0 . s \ \ - . - . \ \ \ w - .  41-.v *\ • 4 2 \ \ - \ \ . \ v v \ \ \ N . . \ •\ 43 \ N .s s ••• 44 • • \ • • • • • • v • \ • • • • - \  CDC- 4 5 . . - • \ • \ \ • • • • • • \ S 46 - • • . . v . • • -•  o  Totals  s  47 • • * ^ v \ 48 • • \ • v • v • • • - - • 3i«yi i~v-v\\%  w t - u v v i\  V?IM,%  "s  \ \ -  x • •\ •\  N•  \ •\ • •  •.s V •-x • \ - • • \ • \ • •• • • . . v. . . • x • • \ v -• • •••  • •\ \ • . • • \ •  • •\ • •••• s • • • • N  *C  • \  9*21 -^>%^yt vsi  •  • •  • •  •  nm  °il S « +i£ Vi Vn  /Ii  \S ft 0> i s  j £ H? S i k * <L£ %i ll $i ° *  • * • • . ' •  .  51  • •  -n-n  bt  • \  • \ '  \  •  •rti IS  cWi V i Ml  Vn Vi  . • \  . •  \ \ \ \  •  \ \ \ \ \ \ • \  \ \ • \ \ \ • "\ - \  .  . '  • * •  • • .  • •  -hi-  U *)>  05 ai  ^ \ \  • \ \ \ \ \ • \ • . \ N • . \. . . \ • •  \ N  N  • \ • \  ZA  °n  °11 •h-n  •  . \  • \  '  • .  . •  \ • \  \  \ • • \ • .  • •  as >*>  •  ft  t * * ». \ • • . \ \ \  \  \  • • \ • . • \  °\l o\  LI 0>  w H  \  . \ \ \  5* 05 Hi Vh  1* 15 1+ 11  5-1 CI  •  N \ \ \ \ • \ • \ • V• • \ \ \ \ • \ . \ • \ \ \ • \ \ . \ \ • • • • • \  t  •  •  >  • * • • * •  • \ \ \  . \ \ \ \ • - N \ \ \ . • • \ . \ • . \ \ \ \ \ • \ \\ \ \ \ s \ \ N \ \ • \ • \ \ • • • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N . • N  . .• N • • » * • • •  #  .  . .  . •  . \ . \ • \ • \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ . • • . . \ \ •\ • \ • • . \ • \ • . \ . •\ \ \ • • \ • \ • • \ \ \ \ \ • • • . \ • • • \ \  S  ? i  3H1  OA  •  a  »  . • * • s  i  9  IdW  • \  N  • • \ •'• . • " * • * • • * * . \ • • •  "S8T  .  3CTYJK)  S3SN0dS3tf  "I  -*> s S i C o g  i  s, •*  APPENDIX D Authorization Letters  188 . T h e H o l t S c h o o l  20th May, 1985.  Dear P a r e n t s , Ms. Robyn C o l l i e r i s undergoing p o s t - g r a d u a t e work i n E d u c a t i o n . She would l i k e t o t e s t a random sample o f Year 5/6 c h i l d r e n at our s c h o o l . The c h i l d r e n would be asked t o look a t a s e r i e s of 'pictures'. The c h i l d r e n would then respond t o a set o f t h r e e or f o u r answers by i n d i c a t i n g which one b e s t d e s c r i b e s the p i c t u r e . The time r e q u i r e d would be a maximum o f one hour. The Schools A u t h o r i t y has g i v e n a p p r o v a l f o r t h i s study. We a r e seeking your a p p r o v a l f o r your c h i l d t o be i n v o l v e d i n this project. P l e a s e complete the s l i p below i f you have no obj e c t i o n s .  R.D. Blakey Acting Principal.  RANDOM SAMPLE - RETURN SLIP I hereby g i v e a p p r o v a l f o r my to be i n v o l v e d i n t h i s  son/daughter  study.  Signed Parent/Guardian  189 . 27 M a r c h 1985  LYONS PRIMARY SCHOOL Dear P a r e n t s ,  Ms. Robyn C o l l i e r i s u n d e r g o i n g p o s t - g r a d u a t e work i n E d u c a t i o n . She w o u l d l i k e t o t e s t a random s a m p l e o f Y e a r 5/6 c h i l d r e n a t o u r s c h o o l . The c h i l d r e n w o u l d be a s k e d t o l o o k a t a s e r i e s o f ' p i c t u r e s ' . The c h i l d r e n w o u l d t h e n r e s p o n d t o a s e t o f t h r e e o r f o u r a n s w e r s by i n d i c a t i n g w h i c h o n e best describes the p i c t u r e . The t i m e r e q u i r e d w o u l d be a maximum o f one hour. The S c h o o l s A u t h o r i t y h a s g i v e n a p p r o v a l f o r t h i s s t u d y . We a r e s e e k i n g y o u r a p p r o v a l f o r y o u r c h i l d t o be i n v o l v e d i n t h i s P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h e s l i p b e l o w i f y o u h a v e no o b j e c t i o n s .  project.  A. BISHOP ACTING  PRINCIPAL  RANDOM SAMPLE - RETURN S L I P I h e r e b y g i v e a p p r o v a l f o r my s o n / d a u g h t e r be i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s t u d y .  Parent/Guardian  to  APPENDIX E T e s t Schedule  191.  APPENDIX Test  E  Schedule  Date Group  A  April  Time  11 Group  Group  Group  B  C  D  9:05  11 '  —  10;35  9:45  am  1 1 ; 1 0 am 1 2 : 0 5 pm  11  11;30  12  ,9:05  9:45  12  11:15  - 1 1 : 4 5 am  23  9:30  1 0 : 0 5 am  23  10:35  23  11:30  24  9:30  24  10:35  -  am  1 1 : 0 5 am noon 1 0 : 1 0 am 1 1 : 1 0 am  APPENDIX F Mann-Whitney U. Table of C r i t i c a l  Values  AI'I'KNDIX TAHI.E K . T A B L E or C U I T I C A L VAI.TJES»OF U I N T H E M A N N - W I I I T N E T TEST* (Continued) Tabic K i v . Critirhl Viilucs of U for n One-tailed Test at o Teal at a - .10 ni  .05 or fur a Two-tailed  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  1G  17  18  19  20  1 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54  1 4 7 11 14 17 20 24 27 31 34 37 41 44 48 51 55 58 G2  1 5 8 12 16 19 23 27  2 5 9 13 17 21 20 30 34 38 42 47 51 55 60 64 68 72 77  2 6 10 15 19 24 28 33 37 42 47 51 56 61 65 70 75 80 84  2 7 11 16 21 2G 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 77 82 87 92  3 7 12 18 23 28 33 39 44 50 55 61 66 72 77 83 88 94 100  3 8 14 19 25 30 36 42 48 54 60 65 71 77 83 89 95 101 107  3 9 15 20 2G 33 39 45 51 57 64 70 77 83 89 90 102 109 115  4 9 16 22 28 35 41 48 55 61 68 75 82 8S 95 102 109 116 123  0 4 10 17 23 30 3" 44 51 58 65 72 80 87 94 101 109 116 123 130  0 4 11 18 25 32 39 47 54 62 69 77 84 92 100 107 115 123 130 138  X  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 1" 18 19 20  31. 34, 38 42 46 50 54 57 61 65 69  * Adapted and abridged from Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7 of Aublc, D . 1953. Extended tables for the Mann-\Vhitney statistic. Bulletin of the Institute of Educational Research at Indiana University, 1, No. 2, with the kind permission of the author and the publisher.  Sidney Siegel  (1'956),  the Behavioral Sciences,  Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s New York: McGraw-Hill.  for  APPENDIX G LGA  Socio-economic  indicator  scores  (used to s e l e c t p o p u l a t i o n !  195. The Development o f the 1984 ' I n d i c a t o r of Disadvantage' and i t s A p p l i c a t i o n t o Resource A l l o c a t i o n D e c i s i o n s f o r the Disadvantaged Schools Program i n A u s t r a l i a . Kenneth Ross, Deakin U n i v e r s i t y , J u l y 1984.  LGA  SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATOR SCORES BASED ON 1 9 S 1 CD CENSUS DATA C ' I N D E X ' ) •RANK' ' RANK Of LGA Br INDICATOR ACROSS AUSTRALIA •S RANK • » RANK OF LGA BY INDICATOR WITHIN THE STATE/TERRITORY ORDERED BY LGA WITHIN STATES --  LGA  1 2 J I  5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 74 25 26  27 2a 29  30 Jl 32 i3 14 55  36 37 18 39 4 1 42 4 1 44 4 S 46 i. /  48 49 50 S I 5 2  LGA  INDEX  NAME  AC TON A 1 ML I E ARANDA BARTON  74.6 55.1  70.2 55.8  BELCONNEN  BEK.ONNEN BRAOOON BMULE CAMPBELL  BALANCE  CHAPMAN CMARNWOOD  CHllLf Y CITY CGI1K  CURT IN DE A * IN DICKSON DOWNE R  1  OUI f EVA! ! f  STATE-ACT  ARRER  f 1 SHEH FLORE Y ( L Y N N  F O H REST iUAS tR f YSnuICK GARHAN G1MALANG GOWR1 £ GRIFFITH GuNGAHL 1 N II A C • £ 1 T HALL Il A U < E R HlGGI'JS HOLDER HOI 1 MUGHt'S JlMKAHOMBERRA J ikv1S DAY * Al au A K II A tl • 1 N I . S VON I.OWE H L A 1 HAM I YNE ><AH I TONS MC&EILAR MAl_l.REi.OM MACOliAHIE  52 . 7 53.2 54.5 57.9 66.8 74.1 54.6 60.6 59.6 68. 1 65.2 71.5 59.1 57.0 64 .7 61.6 67.8 61.5 64 .5 66.0 7 3.6 69.5 49.6 68.4 62.5 67.4 61 .9 54.5 63.0 60.3 72.2 58.9 64 . 1 59.6 66 . 6 46.5  4/.8 63 . 3 62.3  so. a  53.1 62.9 56 . 7 59.3 54 . 1 . 3 62.3  RANK 1137 952 1125 973 887 906 940 1015 1 112 1 1 36 942 1048 1033 1 116 1 104 1 1 30 1028 999 1102 1061 1115 1087 1099 1108 1 1 35 1 122 709 1118 107S 1113 1064 939 1082 1045 1131 1026 1096 1032 1 1 10 284 4 33 1084 1069 809 905 1079 991 1030 926 1068 1071  S RANK 80 1 7 74 IB 9 12 15 25 66 79 16 37 33 69 61 75 30 22 59 39 68 53 58 64 78 73 5 71 46 67 41 14 51 35 76 28 56 32 65 1  3 52 44 6 1 1 48 21 31 1 3 43 45  iLGA_POPN 1498 4748 J047 713 499 91 2442 367 4214 3536 3479 2901 301 3257 6167 2759 2295 4075 3855 5791 4066 3779 284 4289 1174 2453 80 3655 3779 411 3025 95 3403 2.. .'• 3030 4013 3410 4 370 3144 7 76 787 74 71 16351 850 38 3424 2269 3208 34 4 365 24 7 7  NO_CDS 1 9 S i  i i 4 1 7 J 5 3 1 5 11 5 4 5 4 7 5 5 1 4  2  3 \ 4 4 1 5 1 S 1 5 5 4 5 6 1 3 10 18 2 1 3 5 6  STD _DEW  5 .7 4 .8 .  9 .2 . 6 .9 2 .0 3.3 1 .2 . B .0 3 .2 7 .5 4 .6 1 .0 4. 1 5 .0 4 .5 2 .9  .  4 .6 7 .8 3 .6 5 .1 2 .5 ,  6 .0 4 .5 8. 1 1 .8 2 .4 3 .0 5. 1 4 .5 16 .9 2 9 4 0 14 2 2 2 5 7 10 3  ]  5 3  4 2 3 8  MIM_CO 7*.6 47.3 67.2 55.6 52.7 53.2 40.4 57.9 56.2 71.» 50.7 59.1 59.6 62.6 59.7 63.2 . SI.3 SS.S 61.9 S3.3 60.6 60.3 ' 64.5 61.8 68.9 66.6 ' 49.6 64.1 60.4 67.4 51.S 54.5 54.8 60.3 56.4 56.9 62.0 57.4 61.0 41.4 23.0 58.8 56.9 33.6 53.1 60.9 50.9 36.7 54.1 58.7 58.9  MAX 74 65 79 55 52 53 60 57 76 ' 75 58 61 59 83 70 80 61 58 70 67 72 68 64 72 80 73 49 74 66 67 66 54 66 60 75 61 67 64 75 50 55 67 70 53 53 65 63 64 54 68 66  196.  INDICATOR SCORES BASED ON 19B1 CO CENSUS D A T A ( INDEX'I • R A N K ' - RANK OF LGA BY INDICATOR ACROSS AUSTRALIA •S_RANK' • RANK OF L G A BY INDICATOR WITHIN THE STATE/TERRITORY ORDERED BY LGA WITHIN STATES  LGA  1  S O C l O - E C O N O M I C  STATE-ACT LGA  INDEX  LGA_NAMfc  55  ME L B A  58  . 1 .9 . 6  57  MONASH  64  .3  58  NARRAOUNPAM  52  .0  39  0•CONNOR  58 .4  60  0 ' M A L L E  41  CAGE  59 . 0  6 3  PEARCE  65  61  P H I L L I P  68 . 3  65  P1 A L L A G O  56 . 2 68 . 6 57 .0  53  MAJURA  53  54  MAUSON  61  66  RED  6 7  HE 10  68  RIVE 11  69  i C UL L 1  70  SPENCE  71  S I I R L 1 N G  71  S 1ROMl  7 ;  s yMON  71  IORRENS  75  IUGGERANONC  76 7  7  77 .9  r  MILL  61 . 3  H  60 . 4  .9 62 . 7 63  0  60  5 TON -  BALANCE  TURNER UANNIASSA WARAMANGA  79  WAT S O N  80  UEE T ANGERA  81  WESTON  87  WESION  CREEK  83  Y ARRALUML A  84  ACT  -  REMAINDER  Source:  . 3  48 .3 65  78  -  . 4  BALANCE  .•2  56 . 5 61 . 7 63 . 7 63 . 0 57 . 9 73 .1 65 . 4 4 7 .0  62 . 9 51 . 3  RANK 901 1065 1023 1098 870 1021 1138 1027 1105 1117 981 1120 1000 1053 1046 1093 1076 1044 520 1103 988 1062 1090 1081 1014 1133 1106 352 1080 846  S_RANK 10 42 27 57 8 26 81 29 62 70 19 72 23 38 36 55 47 34 4 60 20 40 54 50 24 77 63 2 49 7  LGA_POPN 343 2815 4647 2034 5512 5266 105 2635 2938 355 131 3118 1420 4100 3200 3321 1287 180 244 2627 98 1968 8742 3138 4085 3304 3739 95 2882 378  N0_C0S  2 4 6  1 8 10 1 3 3 1 1 5 3 7 4 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 9 3 6  4 6 1 5 3  «TO_OEW J.9 7.5 If .0  .  11.0  r.o •  6.4  .  11.7 1J.7 2.7 1.4 1.6 • 5.2  »!*  3.7 4.4 3.0 2.7 4.9  .  4.1 10.8  The A u s t r a l i a n Department o f E d u c a t i o n , A.C.T,  MIN CO 57 71 73 64 67 65 77 59 72 68 56 81 69.0 66.3 61.5 65.8 62.7 60.3 48.3 69.0 56 69 73 66 63 76 73 47 70. 1 65.3  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097261/manifest

Comment

Related Items