Pursuing Qualitative Differences in the Flexible Use of Problem-Solving Strategy by Young Children

Abstract

Research literature has offered educators little guidance in their efforts to respond to demands for qualitatively differentiated education for the gifted. To address this state of neglect, an interactive assessment environment was designed to explore a number of qualitative and quantitative dimensions of young children's learning as they generalized a problem-solving strategy learned on one version of the Tower of Hanoi to a similar but different version of the task. Eighty-nine 4- to 8-year-olds were assigned to one of four groups based on their IQ and age: young average IQ (n = 20, CA = 58.3 months, IQ = 105.2); young high IQ (n = 22, CA = 59.3 months, IQ = 153.5); older average IQ (n = 22, CA = 94.5 months, IQ = 103.2); and older high IQ (n = 25, CA = 94.8 months, IQ = 155.4). Quantitative comparisons of the children's performances on the two tasks confirmed the expected benefits of intellectual ability and age on the generalization of learning. The qualitative data suggest that the high IQ children had a more accurate conception of the problem; preferred to “own” their solution to the problems; learned more from their illegal moves, and more frequently recognized the similarity of features of the two tasks. In some cases the 4 and 5 year-old high IQ children were superior to the 7 and 8 year-olds of the same mental age. Based on these findings recommendations for the design of appropriate learning opportunities for high IQ children are offered.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Campione

Brown

Ferrara

Jones

Steinberg

(1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9, 297–315.

Clark

(1988). Growing up gifted (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Crisafi

Brown

(1986). Analogical transfer in very young children: Combining learned solutions to reach a goal. Child Development, 57, 953–968.

Davidson

Sternberg

(1986). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58–64.

Davis

Rimm

(1989). Education of the gifted and talented. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ferrara

Brown

Campione

(1986). Children's learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087–1099.

Gallagher

Lucito

(1961). Intellectual patterns of gifted compared with average and retarded. Exceptional Children, 27, 479–481.

Gelman

(1979). Preschool thought. American Psychologist, 34, 900–905.

Jacobson

Cramond

(1988). A comparison of the formal reasoning abilities of gifted and nongifted children. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Gifted Children, Orlando, FL.

10.

Kanevsky

(April, 1988). Generalization of a problem solving strategy by average and high IQ children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

11.

Kitano

Kirby

(1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

12.

Klahr

(1981). Goal formation, planning and learning by preschool problem solvers or: “My socks are in the dryer.” In Siegler

, Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 181–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

13.

Klahr

Robinson

(1981). Formal assessment of problem solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 113–148.

14.

Ludlow

Woodrum

(1982). Problem-solving strategies of gifted and average learners on a multiple discrimination task. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 99–104.

15.

Magaret

Thompson

(1950). Differential test responses of normal, superior and mentally defective subjects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 163–167.

16.

Maker

(1986). Critical issues in gifted education. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

17.

Marr

Sternberg

(1986). Analogical reasoning with novel concepts: Differential attention of intellectually gifted and non-gifted children to relevant and irrelevant novel stimuli. Cognitive Development, 1, 53–72.

18.

Martinson

(1974). The identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: National State Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and Talented.

19.

Merrill

(1924). On the relation of intelligence to achievement in the case of mentally retarded children. Comparative Psychology Monographs, 2, 1–100.

20.

Passow

(1985). Intellectual development of the gifted. In Link

F. R.

, Essays on the intellect (pp. 23–44). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

21.

Piaget

(1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Renzulli

Hartman

(1981). Scales for rating the behavior characteristics of superior students. In Barbe

Renzulli

, Psychology and education of the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 157–164). New York: Irvington.

23.

Rogers

(1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17–39.

24.

Scruggs

Cohn

(1983). Learning characteristics of verbally gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 169–172.

25.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

(1988). Acquisition and transfer of learning strategies by gifted and nongifted students. Journal of Special Education, 22, 153–166.

26.

Shore

(1986). Cognition and giftedness: New research directions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 24–27.

27.

Spitz

(1982). Intellectual extremes, mental age, and the nature of human intelligence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 167–192.

28.

Sternberg

(Ed.) (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Thompson

Finley

(1962). A further comparison of intellectual patterns of gifted and mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 28, 379–381.

30.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31.

Wong

(1982). Strategic behaviors in selecting retrieval cues in gifted, normal achieving and learning-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(1), 33–37.