Kanevsky (1995b) proposed a model of learning potential based on Vygotsky's (1978) notions of “good learning” and the zone of proximal development. This study investigated the contributions of general knowledge, information processing efficiency, and metacognition to differences in the learning potential of 5 gifted and 15 nongifted students. Traditional intelligence and achievement tests assessed students' knowledge: tests based on Luria's (1966) information processing model measured cognitive and metacognitive capacities; and learning potential was measured via dynamic assessments of student—tutor interactions while completing number patterns. Although the sample was small, the data supported the positions of Vygotsky, Luria, and Kanevsky on the complexity of learning potential, as well as the salience of internal functions and the social context while learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownA. L.FerraraR. A. (1985). Diagnosing ZPDs. In WertschJ. V. (Ed.), Culture communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
CampioneJ. D. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151–165.
3.
CrawfordK. P. (1986). Simultaneous and successive processing, executive control, and social experience: Individual differences in educational achievement and problem solving in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
4.
DasJ. P.NaglieriJ. A.KirbyJ. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
DayJ. D.CordonL. A. (1993). Static and dynamic measures of ability: An experimental comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 75–82.
6.
FeuersteinR. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
7.
GagnéF. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 55–80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
8.
GeakeJ. G. (1994). A computer-adaptive operationalized model of information processing as a means of identification of gifted children. In SimicA.McGrath (Eds.), Developing excellence: Potential into performance. Proceedings of the fifth national conference of the Australian Association for Education of the Gifted and Talented (pp. 51–58). Perth: Australian Association for Education of the Gifted and Talented.
9.
GeakeJ. G. (1996). Why Mozart? Information processing abilities of gifted young musicians. Research Studies in Music Education Journal, 7, 28–45.
10.
GeakeJ. G.FitzgeraldD. (1995). The relationship between information processing skills and sensitivity to pitch fluctuations: A computer based study. Report to Osborne Computers Australia, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
11.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 75–111.
12.
HolzmanL. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational models. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
KanevskyL. S. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of a problem-solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.
14.
KanevskyL. S. (1994, November). Ability-related differences in learning in reading and math. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT.
15.
KanevskyL. S. (1995a, April). Exploring ability-related differences in children's acquisition and application of pattern recognition strategies in text and numbers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
16.
KanevskyL. S. (1995b). Learning potentials of gifted students. Roeper Review, 17, 157–163.
17.
KanevskyL. (2001). Dynamic assessment. In HellerK. A.MonksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 283–295). London: Pergamon.
18.
KarnesF. A.McCallumR. A. (1983). Evidence for the Luria-Das model of information processing for gifted students: A preliminary investigation. Educational and Psychological Research, 3, 133–137.
19.
KirbyJ. R.DasJ. P. (1990). A cognitive approach to intelligence: Attention, coding, and planning. Canadian Psychology, 31, 320–333.
20.
LuriaA. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: BasicBooks.
21.
LuriaA. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: BasicBooks.
22.
SchofieldN.AshmanA. (1987). The cognitive processing of gifted, average, and low-average ability students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 9–20.
23.
SmagorinskyP. (1995). The social construction of data: Methodological problems of investigating learning in the zone of proximal development. Review of Educational Research, 65, 191–212.
24.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
SwansonH. L.LussierC. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363.
26.
TannenbaumA. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
