Ranking of Gifted Students:a Tool for Monitoring Development and Improvingthe Educational Environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63437/2309-3935-2025-1(96)-05Keywords:
gifted students, ranking system, education monitoring, academic competitions, talent identification, competitive normalization, educational development, data-driven educationAbstract
Modern education requires effective mechanisms for identifying, supporting, and developing gifted students, as they represent the intellectual potential of the state and are the key resource for its socio-economic development. One of the crucial steps in this direction is the creation of a national database of gifted students, which will enable a comprehensive assessment of young people’s intellectual achievements, analyze the effectiveness of educational institutions, and identify best practices for supporting talented students.
We propose a ranking-based database that relies on students’ success in various academic competitions. The selection of this specific indicator allows for an objective assessment of the realization of students’ creative potential within specific educational institutions. The advantages of our model include:
– Use of open-access data, ensuring transparency and verification by any interested party;
– Application of a standardized scoring system through a competitive normalization algorithm, which considers both absolute scores and a participant’s competitive advantage relative to direct competitors;
– Inclusion of a wide range of intellectual contests and competitions, regardless of their scale or specialization;
– Capability for continuous updates, allowing the monitoring of individual student development as well as institutional progress over time.
Our database will contribute to the improvement of educational programs, the development of school rankings, and the enhancement of experience exchange among teachers working with gifted students. The annual database update will allow tracking the dynamics of both individual student growth and institutional development trends. In the future, this information may be utilized for forming secondary education institution rankings, facilitating experience exchange between schools, and engaging the most successful and experienced administrators and educators in training other teachers.
Downloads
References
Використані літературні джерела
1. Aina C. Ranking high schools using university student performance in Italy / C. Aina, M. Bratti, E. Lippo // Economia Politica. – 2021. – Vol. 38. – P. 293–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00208-2.
2. Boric S. Possibilities for ranking business schools and considerations concerning the stability of such rankings / S. Boric, G. Reichmann, C. Schlögl // PLoS ONE. – 2024. – Vol. 19, № 12. – e0295334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295334.
3. Guskey T. R. Ranking school districts on the basis of statewide test results: Is it meaningful or misleading? / T. R. Guskey, E. W. Kifer // Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. – 1990. – Vol. 9, № 1. – P. 11–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1990.tb00350.x.
4. Huang H. Environmental literacy education and sustainable development in schools based on teaching effectiveness / H. Huang, C. T. Hsin // International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning. – 2023. – Vol. 18. – P. 1639–1648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180535
5. Leider J. P. Rethinking rankings in public health graduate education—Who are they for? / J. P. Leider // American Journal of Public Health. – 2024. – Vol. 114, № 11. – P. 1195–1198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307848.
6. Murphy C. Introduction and definitions of giftedness in the early years / C. Murphy, D. Walker. – NZCER Press, 2015.
7. Narikbayeva L. Development and implementation of the project «A Gifted Student» / L. Narikbayeva, A. Kalimoldayeva, K. Ibrayeva, Z. Madalieva, A. Ussenova // Revista Espacios Education. – 2018. – Vol. 39. – No. 10.
8. The International Ranking Expert Group. Berlin Principles – IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence. – URL: https://ireg-observatory.org/en/about-us/.
9. Thieme C. Value added, educational accountability approaches and their effects on schools’ rankings: Evidence from Chile / C. Thieme, D. Prior, E. Tortosa-Ausina, R. Gempp // European Journal of Operational Research. – 2016. – Vol. 253, № 2. – P. 456–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.01.023.
10. Toutkoushian R. K. Effects of socioeconomic factors on public high school outcomes and rankings / R. K. Toutkoushian, T. Curtis // The Journal of Educational Research. – 2005. – Vol. 98, No. 5. – P. 259–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.5.259-271.
11. Yuldoshov F. Effectiveness of using information technologies in determining talent requirements / F. Yuldoshov, T. Delov // AIP Conference Proceedings. – 2024. – Vol. 3147, No. 1. – P. 060005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0210417.
12. Васильєв А. Міжнародні, національні та внутрішньоуніверситетські рейтинги – мотиватор якості та успішності: досвід Сумського державного університету / А. Васильєв, Д. Смоленніков // Університети і лідерство. – 2023. – № 16. – С. 128–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2023-16-128-138.
13. Про освіту: Закон України від 5 верес. 2017 р. № 2145-VIII. – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2145-19#Text.
14. Про повну загальну середню освіту: Закон України від 16 січ. 2020 р. № 463-IX. – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/463-20#Text.
15. Мельник М. Ю. Дослідження обізнаності та ставлення педагогічної спільноти, здобувачів освіти та батьків до діагностики й супроводу розвитку обдарованої особистості / М. Ю. Мельник. – Київ : Інститут обдарованої дитини НАПН України, 2021. – 52 с.
References
1. Aina, C., Bratti, M., & Lippo, E. (2021). Ranking high schools using university student performance in Italy. Economia Politica – Economic Policy. 38, P. 293–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00208-2.
2. Boric, S., Reichmann, G., & Schlögl, C. (2024). Possibilities for ranking business schools and considerations concerning the stability of such rankings. PLoS ONE. 19 (2), e0295334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295334.
3. Guskey, T. R., & Kifer, E. W. (1990). Ranking school districts on the basis of statewide test results: Is it meaningful or misleading? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 9 (1), P. 11–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1990.tb00350.x.
4. Huang, H., & Hsin, C. T. (2023). Environmental literacy education and sustainable development in schools based on teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning. 18, P. 1639–1648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180535
5. Jonathon, P. L. (2024). Rethinking rankings in public health graduate education – Who are they for? American Journal of Public Health. 114 (11), P. 1195–1198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307848.
6. Murphy, C., & Walker, D. (2015). Introduction and definitions of giftedness in the early years. NZCER Press.
7. Narikbayeva, L., Kalimoldayeva, A., Ibrayeva, K., Madalieva, Z., & Ussenova, A. (2018). Development and implementation of the project «A Gifted Student». Revista Espacios Education. 39 (10), 32.
8. The International Ranking Expert Group. (2006). Berlin principles - IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence. Retrieved from https://ireg-observatory.org/en/about-us/
9. Thieme, C., Prior, D., Tortosa-Ausina, E., & Gempp, R. (2016). Value added, educational accountability approaches and their effects on schools’ rankings: Evidence from Chile. European Journal of Operational Research. 253 (2), P. 456–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.01.023
10. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Curtis, T. (2005). Effects of socioeconomic factors on public high school outcomes and rankings. The Journal of Educational Research. 98 (5), P. 259–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.5.259-271
11. Yuldoshov, F., & Delov, T. (2024). Effectiveness of using information technologies in determining talent requirements. AIP Conference Proceedings. 3147(1), 060005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0210417
12. Vasyliev, A., & Smolennikov, D. (2023). Mizhnarodni, natsionalni ta vnutrishnouniversytetski reitynhy – motyvator yakosti ta uspishnosti: dosvid Sumskoho derzhavnoho universytetu [International, national, and intra-university rankings as motivators for quality and success: The experience of Sumy State University]. Universytety i liderstvo – Universities and Leadership. 16, P. 128–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2023-16-128-138 [in Ukrainian].
13. (2017). Pro povnu zahalnu seredniu osvitu [On complete general secondary education]. Law of Ukraine No. 2145-VIII, September 5, 2017. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/463-20#Text [in Ukrainian].
14. (2020). Pro osvitu [On education]. Law of Ukraine No. 463-IX, January 16, 2020. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2145-19#Text [in Ukrainian].
15. Melnyk, M. Y. (2021). Doslidzhennia obiznanosti ta stavlennia pedahohichnoi spilnoty, zdobuvachiv osvity ta batkiv do diahnostyky y suprovodu rozvytku obdarovanoi osobystosti [Study of awareness and attitudes of the teaching community, students, and parents towards the diagnosis and support of gifted personality development]. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
