No abstract

No abstract

This article reviews progress toward the development of a cognitive theory of aptitude for learning and presents descriptive and prescriptive goals for aptitude theories. Preliminary hypotheses about the nature of cognitive processes in aptitude for learning from instruction are reviewed. Twelve constituent points of the descriptive theory are presented. Some of these points are summary conclusions of much prior research, whereas others are less well supported at present. However, all contribute to the effort to describe learning and aptitude for learning in conformable terms. Finally, some prescriptive implications of the theory are discussed.The existence of individual differences in cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction is the most longstanding, wellestablished fact in educational psychology. This fact has been extensively studied and variously interpreted over the history of the field; it has been given its place in many theoretical models of school learning, both old and new, and a formidable measurement

No abstract

In this study, the authors compare the validity of three nonverbal tests for the purpose of identifying academically gifted English-language learners (ELLs). Participants were 1,198 elementary children (approximately 40% ELLs). All were administered the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and Form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Results show that the U.S. national norms for the Raven substantially overestimate the number of high-scoring children; that because of errors in norming, the NNAT overestimates the number of both high-scoring and low-scoring children; that primary-level ELL children score especially poorly on the NNAT; that the standard error of measurement was twice as large for the NNAT as for the Raven or the CogAT; that ELL children scored .5 to .67 standard deviations lower than non-ELL children on the three nonverbal tests; and that none of the nonverbal tests predict achievement for ELL students very well. Putting Research to Use: Do nonverbal reasoning tests level the field for ELL children? Many practitioners have assumed that they do. However ELL children in this study scored 8 to 10 points lower than non-ELL children on the three nonverbal tests. The study also shows that practitioners cannot assume that national norms on the tests are of comparable quality. When put on the same scale as CogAT, Raven scores averaged 10 points higher than CogAT and NNAT scores. For NNAT, the mean is correct but the variability was up to 40% too large. Thus, when using national norms, both the Raven and NNAT will substantially overestimate the number of high-scoring children.