PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT OF TYPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF CREATIVITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32405/2309-3935-2022-2(85)-5-12Keywords:
individual differences between individuals, sexual intelligence differences;, gifted differences;, academic differences between gifted;, gifted individuals with special needs;, educational policy in solving the problem of individual differences.Abstract
The article focuses on the fact that children come to an institution of education with different academic preparation, different levels of mental development, etc. Individual differences are inherent in children of any age. As a result, there is a dilemma. What to do: make an effort to balance the knowledge and mental characteristics of children, or, conversely, take care to further enhance the unique differences between them?
It is also noted that one of the manifestations of individual differences between individuals is undoubtedly intellectual differences. The problem of individual intellectual differences includes the problem of the limit values of a qualitative interpretation of the existing quantitative differences. The problem of individual (including intellectual) differences is the subject of cognitive and differential psychology. As we can see, the methodology of studying individual differences is the cornerstone in establishing the intellectual differences between individuals. Analysis of the practice of recording individual differences indicates the availability of a whole arsenal of means adequate to the tasks. A number of techniques are based on the features of short-term memory. Individual intellectual differences are projected, undoubtedly, on the plane of the learning strategies and self-awareness of individuals. The next block of individual differences form research on sexual differences. It is natural to expect the research of sex differences in the level of mathematical knowledge and skills, the filling of mathematical classes by girls. Another feature associated with individual differences relates to the fact of becoming or not being trained in the training of intellectually gifted individuals. Lack of gifted, at f irst sight, appears to be akin to an oxymoron (something that mutually excludes itself). The problem of gaps in achievements among different subgroups of students has been evident for many years. In different countries, they are looking for their own strategies to close gaps in academic achievements. The scientific literature on this problem is not disregarded by the segment of compensatory strategies for highly skilled students with learning disabilities. Equally important is the problem of teaching gifted pupils with special needs. In the end, what is and should be an educational policy in the context of cultivating individual differences or their leveling? Research on gifted education continues to maintain a relatively tight focus, dealing mainly with a policy of contributions, such as the availability and development of written mandates or the existence or lack of public funding. It seems like a trivial thought that talent is always, under all conditions, sprouted, firmly rooted in the minds of those who define the educational policy of gifted and talented people.
Downloads
References
1. Pagnin, A. (1995). Excellence and equality in education: conflicting values in a democratic society. High Ability Studies. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 128–136.
2. Plucker, J. A. (2000). Flip Sides of the Same Coin or Marching to the Beat of Different Drummers? A Response to Pyryt. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 3. P. 193–195.
3. Jolly, J. L. (2008). Historical Perspectives: Lewis Terman: Genetic Study of Genius—Elementary School Students. GCT. Vol. 31. No. 1.
4. Treffinger, D. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (1986). Giftedness as Potential for Creative Productivity: Transcending IQ Scores. Roeper Review. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 150–154.
5. Hunt, E., MacLeod, C. M. The sentence-verification paradigm: A case study of two conflicting aproaches to individual differences. Intelligence. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 129–144.
6. Humphreys, L. G. (1978). Research on individual differences requires correlational analysis, not ANOVA. Intelligence. Vol. 2. No.1. P. 1–5.
7. Carlin, M. T., Soraci, S., Goldman, A. L., & McIlvane, W. (1995). Visual search in unidimensional arrays: A comparison between subjects with and without mental retardation Intelligence. Vol. 21. No.2. P. 175–196.
8. Cohen R. L., & Nealon J. (1979). An analysis of short-term memory differences between retardates and non retardates. Intelligence. Vol. 3. No.1. P. 65–72.
9. Kaizer, C., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Strategy Flexibility in More and Less Competent Students on Mathematical Word Problems. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 77–82.
10. Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted Students’ Perceptions of Their Class Activities: Differences Among Rural, Urban, and Suburban Student Attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 115–129.
11. Baucom, D. H., & Welsh, G. S. (1978). In support of extreme groups design for studying masculinity-femininity and intelligence. Intelligence. Vol. 2. No.1. P. 6–10.
12. Reynolds, N. G., & Conaway, B. J. (2003). Factors Affecting Mathematically Talented Females’ Enrollment in High School Calculus. JSGE. Vol. 14. No. 4.
13. Hébert, Th. P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2000). Mentors for Gifted Underachieving Males: Developing Potential and Realizing Promise. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 3. P. 196–207.
14. Hébert Th. P., Sergent D. (2005). Using Movies to Guide: Teachers and Counselors Collaborating to Support Gifted Students. GCT. Vol. 28. No. 4.
15. Reis, S.M., McGuire, J.M., Neu, T.W. (2000). Compensation Strategies Used by High-Ability Students With Learning Disabilities who Succeed In College. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 123–134.
16. Cooper, C.R., Baum, S. M., & Neu, T. W. (2004). Developing Scientific Talent in Students with Special Needs: An Alternative Model for Identification, Curriculum, and Assessment. JSGE. Vol. 15. No. 4.
17. Guskey Th.R. (2007). Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”. JAA. Vol. 19. No. 1.
18. Timperley, H. S., Parr, J. M. (2007). Closing the Achievement Gap through Evidence–Based Inquiry at Multiple Levels of the Education System. JAA. Vol. 19. No. 1.
19. Levine, Th. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the Achievement Gap Through Teacher Collaboration: Facilitating Multiple Trajectories of Teacher Learning. JAA. Vol. 19. No. 1.
20. Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the Achievement Gap with Curriculum Enrichment and Differentiation: One School’s Story. JAA. Vol. 19. No. 3.
21. Place, D. J., McCluskey, A. L. A., McCluskey, K. W., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). The Second Chance Project: Creative Approaches to Developing the Talents of At-Risk
Native Inmates. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Vol. 34. No. 3. P. 165–174.
22. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1977). Training strategic study time apportionment in educable retarded children. Intelligence. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 94–107.
23. Siegel P. S., Sawczyn W., Passman R. H. A study of some conditions relating to the retarded adult’s stereotyped responding in a binary-choice task. Intelligence. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 208–217.
24. Hoover-Schultz, B. (2005). Gifted Underachievement: Oxymoron or Educational Enigma? GCT. Vol. 28. No. 2.
25. Spitz, H. H. (1993). When prophecy fails: On Ramey’s response to Spitz’s critique of the Abecedarian project. Intelligence. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 17–23.
26. Spitz, H. H. (1993). Spitz’s reply to Ramey’s response to Spitz’s first reply to Ramey’s first response to Spitz’s critique of the Abecedarian Project. Intelligence. Vol. 17. No.1. P. 31–35.
27. Baker, B. D. (2001). Measuring the Outcomes of State Policies for Gifted Education: An Equity Analysis of Texas School Districts. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No.1. P. 4–15.
28. Persson, R. S. (2000). Survival of the Fittest or the Most Talented? Deconstructing the Myth of the Musical Maestro. JSGE. Vol. 12. No.1.29. Coleman, L. J., & Southern, W. Th. (2006). Bringing the Potential of Underserved Children to the Threshold of Talent Development. GCT. Vol. 29. No. 3.
30. Cuffaro, M. A., & Bates, R. B. (2007). Journal Writing as a Coping Mechanism: A Case Study of a Gifted Young Woman -Lucy Maud Montgomery. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 22. No. 2.
31. Shuell, Th. J. (1983). The effect of instructions to organize for good and poor learners. Intelligence. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 271–286.
32. Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2007). Resources for Gifted Students Studying the Future. GCT. Vol. 30. No. 1.
33. Scarr, S., Weinberg, R. A. (1979). Nature and nurture strike (out) again. Intelligence. Vol. 3. No.1. P. 31–39.
34. Rice, T., Fulker, D.W., DeFries, J.C., Plomin, R. (1988). Path analysis of IQ during infancy and early childhood and an index of the home environment in the Colorado Adoption Project. Intelligence. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 27–45.
35. Rinn, A. N., & Plucker, J. A. (2004). We Recruit Them, But Then What? The Educational and Psychological Experiences of Academically Talented Undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 48. No.1. P. 54–67.
36. Wood, B. K., Kittler-Hunter, K., Robinson, A. E., & Wood, S. C. (2005). Evaluating a Practicum for Gifted Education Graduate Students. GCT. Vol. 28. No. 2.
