User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 29 |  Issue 2 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Albert, R. S. (1994). The achievement of eminence: A longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 282–315). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Armstrong, T. (1999). Seven kinds of smart. New York: Plume.
  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (2004). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Chan, D. W. (2000). Learning and teaching through the multiple-intelligences perspective: Implications for curriculum reform in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal, 15, 187–201.
  • Chan, D. W. (2001a). Assessing giftedness of Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong: A multiple intelligences perspective. High Ability Studies, 12, 215–234.
  • Chan, D. W. (2001b). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 35–44.
  • Chan, D. W. (2003). Adjustment problems and multiple intelligences among gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the revised Student Adjustment Problems Inventory. High Ability Studies, 14, 41–54.
  • Chan, D. W. (in press). Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: The structure of the Student Multiple Intelligences Profile. Gifted Child Quarterly..
  • Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (1997). Alternative assessment from a multiple intelligences theoretical perspective. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Colangelo, N. (2003). Counseling gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 373–387). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Delisle, J. R. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Convenient, simple, wrong. Gifted Child Today, 19(6), 12–13.
  • Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research in learning styles. Educational Researcher, 70, 50–58.
  • Fasko, D., Jr. (2001). An analysis of multiple intelligences theory and its use with the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 23, 126–130.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how school should teach. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1999b). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. In A. Woolfolk (Ed.), Readings in educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 64–66). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Gardner, H. (1999c). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K–12 education that every child deserves. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 24–40). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Griggs, S. (1984). Counseling the gifted and talented based on learning style. Exceptional Children, 50, 429–432.
  • Griggs, S., & Dunn, R. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 115–129.
  • Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63, 295–312.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hong Kong Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission Report No. 4. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
  • Hong Kong Education Department. (2000). Gifted education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Special Educational Needs Section, Curriculum Development Institute, Hong Kong.
  • Hudak, M. A. (1985). Learning Styles Inventory. In D. J. Daniel & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques. (Vol. 2, pp. 402–410). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
  • Karolyi, C. V., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. David (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Klein, P. (2002). Multiplying the problem of intelligence by eight. In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 219–232). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Duskin.
  • Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Kornhaber, M., Krechevsky, M., & Gardner, H. (1990). Engaging intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 25, 177–199.
  • Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4–19.
  • Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17.
  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scale. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 184–203). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). Learning Styles Inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Rizza, M. G. (1998). Learning Styles Inventory. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Roets, L. F. (1997). Leadership: A skills training program (8th ed.). Des Moines, IA: Leadership Publishers.
  • Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244–251.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223–243). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 43–53). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22, 231–235.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: Teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 383–393.
  • Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal of Education for the Gifted, 19, 181–193.
  • Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The theory of multiple intelligences: Some issues and answers. In R. J. Sternberg & R. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligences (pp. 163–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • White, D. A., & Breen, M. (1998). Edutainment: Gifted education and the perils of misusing multiple intelligences. Gifted Child Today, 21(2), 12–14, 16–17.
  • White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 29
  •  Issue 2
  • Publication Date: Winter 2005



Perceived Multiple Intelligences and Learning Preferences Among Chinese Gifted Students in Hong Kong

David W. Chan

This study examined the relationships between self-perceived multiple intelligences and five learning preferences among 604 Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. These students perceived their strengths in interpersonal, intrapersonal, and verbal-linguistic intelligences and their weaknesses in bodily-kinesthetic and naturalist intelligences. They also indicated greater preferences in learning activities related to discussion, lecture, and peer teaching, followed by projects and simulations. In predicting the five learning preferences, personal intelligences generally emerged as common and significant predictors, suggesting that reflection and interpersonal skills contributed substantially to these learning activities. Students who reported having a greater number of learning preferences also gave themselves higher ratings on personal intelligences and verbal-linguistic intelligence. Implications of the findings in mapping learning preferences on multiple intelligences for teaching and learning are discussed.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.