Theoretical Principles of the Diagnostics of Academic Giftedness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63437/3083-6425-2026-1(100)-04Keywords:
giftedness, general giftedness, special giftedness, academic giftedness, methodology for diagnosing academic giftednessAbstract
In order to organize an eff ective educational process for gifted individuals, it is fi rst necessary to know how specifi cally gifted
they are and whether they are generally gifted. In addition, it is necessary to know how to diagnose special or general giftedness,
and therefore, optimally reliably identify such individuals. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of giftedness has been studied for a
century, but today there is no established vision of giftedness, its division into general and special giftedness, and suffi ciently valid
diagnostic methods for the fi rst and second. As a rule, the generally gifted (mistakenly considered intellectually gifted) are identifi ed
on the basis of testing their intelligence (which is questionable for several reasons, because the level of intelligence is not the only
criterion of general giftedness, and the existing intelligence tests are far from being able to objectively examine intelligence as
such, rather than individual fragmentary intellectual abilities, and to set a critical limit of giftedness on the basis of substantiated
criteria). The situation is far from better with regard to the specially gifted. First of all, there is no established typology of special
giftedness. Many researchers, being captive to their own scientifi c interests, produce the corresponding types of special giftedness
without thinking about how justifi ed it is from a scientifi c point of view, whether there are the necessary tools, and how pedagogically
appropriate it is. This creates at least some chaos for both educational practice and researchers in this scientifi c segment, including
in the fi eld of academic giftedness. A priori, it is believed that students studying in academic lyceums are academically gifted. But
this is far from the case. First of all, because they are enrolled in such educational institutions at best on the basis of intellectual
ability testing, which, as noted above, is questionable. In addition, excellent students are admitted to such educational institutions
on the basis of their previous education, which also does not withstand serious criticism. As a result, this article is devoted to the
problem of structuring giftedness, diff erentiation of special giftedness, development of principles for diagnosing academic
giftedness of students in order to carry out various kinds of research involving academically gifted students and, including, the
problem of forming socio-economic motives for the practical use of knowledge in natural disciplines by students of academic
lyceums and the development of their intellectual abilities.
Downloads
References
Використані літературні джерела
1. Plucker J. A. Is gifted education still viable? Education Week. 1998. No. 17. P. 33–34.
2. Gardner H. Zero-based arts education: An introduction to Arts PROPEL. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research. 1989. Vol. 30. P. 71–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1320774.
3. Sternberg R. J. Death, taxes and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence. 1991. No 15. P. 257-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(91)90035-C.
4. Naglieri J. A., Das J. P. Planning-Arousal-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS): A Model for Assessment. Journal of School Psychology. 1988. No. 26. P. 35–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(88)90030-1.
5. Cattell J. M. Physical and mental measurements of the students of Columbia University. Psychological Review. 1896. No 3 (6). P. 618–648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070786.
6. Lubinski D., Benbow C. P. States of excellence. American Psychologist. 2000. No. 55(1). P. 137–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.137.
7. Bingham W. V. Psychological services in the United States Army. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1941. No 5. P. 221–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060549.
8. Flynn J. R. Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist. 1999. No. 54. P. 5-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.54.1.5.
9. Renzulli J. S. What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan. 1978. No. 60(3). P. 180–184, 261.
10. Гальченко М. С., Волощук І. С., Мадзігон В. М., Рудик Я. М. Обдарованість як атрибут розумної поведінки. Київ: Інститут обдарованої дитини НАПН України, 2021. 248 с.
11. Piaget J. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development. 1972. No. 15(1). P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000271225.
References
1. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Is gifted education still viable? Education Week – Education Week, (17), 33-34. Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/.
2. Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education: An introduction to Arts PROPEL. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research – Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 30, 71-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1320774.
3. Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Death, taxes and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence – Intelligence, (15), 257-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(91)90035-C.
4. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1988). Planning-Arousal-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS): A Model for Assessment. Journal of School Psychology – Journal of School Psychology, (26), 35-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(88)90030-1.
5. Cattell, J. M. (1896). Physical and mental measurements of the students of Columbia University. Psychological Review – Psychological Review, 3(6), 618-648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070786.
6. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist – American Psychologist, 55(1), 137-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.137.
7. Bingham, W. V. (1941). Psychological services in the United States Army. Journal of Consulting Psychology – Journal of Consulting Psychology, (5), 221-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060549.
8. Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist – American Psychologist, (54), 5-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.54.1.5.
9. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan – Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184. Retrieved from: https://www.pdkintl.org/.
10. Halchenko, M. S., Voloshchuk, I. S., Madzihon, V. M., & Rudyk, Ya. M. (2021). Obdarovanist yak autrybut rozumnoi povedinky [Giftedness as an attribute of intelligent behavior]. Kyiv. 248 p. [in Ukrainian].
11. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development – Human Development, 15(1), 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000271225.
