Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and DevelopmentHollingworth, Leta Stetter
Science
Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development
Hollingworth, Leta Stetter
Gifted children; Stanford-Binet Test
3. The advantages of early recognition, appreciation and, if
possible, measurement are apparent in the study of this small group
of exceptionally intelligent children. Although all were identified
fairly early in their lives, there are very different degrees
of adaptation to school and society, ranging from opposition
and truancy, through indifference, to rapt and enthusiastic
preoccupation. To a considerable extent these variations appear
to have depended on the earliness of identification of the child's
intellectual quality. The valuable services of surveys, guidance
clinics, and school psychologists are clearly manifested in this
group of cases.
4. The cases that have achieved most contented and socially useful
adaptation are those in which parents, teachers, and principals
have made prompt use of special gift identification, have sought
educational guidance, have personally fostered and supervised the
child's development and the solution of his adjustment problems, or
have taken advantage of such experimental classes for exceptional
children as the schools have offered at the time.
5. Among the cases herein reported the clearest ones of easy
and useful adjustment occurred when the exceptional child became
a member of an experimental group comprised of others of his
approximate kind. In the dozen cases cited, four different projects
of this kind in the New York City schools have been referred to.
CREATIVE WORK
Is it true that children such as those herein described differ from
those of less intelligence merely in having a readier and more
tenacious memory? Are their distinctive achievements only the
phenomenal reproduction of things they have learned--the recitation
of answers they have been taught? Or do they also exhibit signs
of originality and creativeness? Of their superior capacity
for learning there is of course ample evidence. Is it this
feature of their endowment that accounts for their high scores in
conventionally standardized measures such as tests and examinations?
Ordinary records and histories are perhaps not well suited to
disclose originality in childhood unless it is obtrusive. The child
who devises a new way of tying his shoes, of arranging his books,
of managing his pets, of sharpening his skates, may very easily
get no clinical credit for these inventions. No one, indeed, except
the child himself may ever know of them, and it may never occur to
him that they are "creative." A boy who writes a poem, draws a
steamboat, or devises a new game of checkers may immediately get
credit for originality, while one who invents a technique of his
own for shaving the back of his own neck may remain unheralded as
a creator.
Our concept of "creativeness" has become standardized so as to
suggest chiefly contributions to the conventional arts. It may
nevertheless be instructive to review these case histories, looking
in each for signs of activity that might in one way or another
be construed as creative.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account