Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 59–80
© Maznichenko M. A., Neskoromnykh N. I., Platonova A. N., Fomenko V. A., Khovyakova A. L., 2021
UDC: 
371.21

Mythologemes of gifted education: Representations in art, scientific discourse, and educational practice

Maznichenko M. A. 1 (Sochi, Russian Federation), Neskoromnykh N. I. 2 (Sochi, Russian Federation), Platonova A. N. 3 (Sochi, Russian Federation), Fomenko V. A. 1 (Sochi, Russian Federation), Khovyakova A. L. 1 (Sochi, Russian Federation)
1 Sochi State University
2 Center for Creative Development and Humanitarian Education
3 Gymnasium «School of Business»
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 907
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article examines the problem of identifying the key ideas employed by the teachers who are involved in gifted education. The purpose of the article is to reveal the key mythologemes of gifted education and trace their representations in art, scientific discourse, and educational practice.

Materials and Methods. In order to achieve the goal, the authors used methods of analysis of scholarly literature, program documents of Russian education, folklore texts, academic texts, literary works and films about gifted children. A questionnaire methodology was used to elicit attitudes about giftedness from teachers working with gifted children.

Results. The research findings indicate that mythologemes – sensually ideal projections of rational ideas in representations and images, the absolutization of which by teachers can lead to the formation of unproductive educational scenarios - can act as guidelines for gifted education. The study has revealed the following key mythologemes of gifted education: “Giftedness as an exclusivity”, “Giftedness as destiny”, “Giftedness as a challenge”, “Giftedness as a path to success and achievements”, “Exploitation of giftedness”. Specific examples show their representation in art (folklore, fiction, cinema), scientific discourse, educational practice (teachers' ideas, scenarios of interaction between parents and teachers with gifted children). It is emphasized that absolutization of mythologemes in educational practice leads to the formation and stereotyping of unproductive educational scenarios.

Conclusions. The authors conclude that gifted education should be based on the balance between the attitude towards gifted children as holders of a special gift and ordinary children with their own interests and needs, between the development of enhanced abilities and the solution of the problems of moral and social education, between “placing upon a pedestal” and ignorance.

Keywords: 

Gifted education; Gifted children; Ideas about gifted education, Mythologemes of gifted children; Representation of mythologemes of gifted education.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:46233035

For citation:
Maznichenko M. A., Neskoromnykh N. I., Platonova A. N., Fomenko V. A., Khovyakova A. L. Mythologemes of gifted education: Representations in art, scientific discourse, and educational practice. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 59–80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2103.04
References: 
  1. Gidlund U. Teachers' attitudes towards including students with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream school: A systematic research synthesis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2018, vol. 17 (2), pp. 45–63. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.2.3
  2. Abegglen H., Hessels M. G. P. Measures of individual, collaborative and environmental characteristics predict Swiss school principals’, teachers’ and student teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Psychoeducational Assessment, Intervention and Rehabilitation, 2018, vol. 1 (1), pp. 1–24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30436/PAIR18-01
  3. Guillén-Gámez F. D., Mayorga-Fernández M. J. Identification of variables that predict teachers' attitudes toward ICT in higher education for teaching and research: A study with regression. Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12 (4), pp. 1312. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12041312
  4. Manches A., McKenna P. E., Rajendran G., Robertson J. Identifying embodied metaphors for computing education. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020, vol. 105, pp. 105859. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.037
  5. Banville D., Dyson B., Kulinna P. H., Stylianou M. Classroom teachers’ and administrators’ views of teaching health and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 2020, vol. 26 (2), рр. 448–464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19867731
  6. Burdina S. V., Mokrushina O. A. The image of school in Russian literature of xix century: main trends. Bulletin of the Perm University. Russian and Foreign Philology, 2014, no. 2, pp. 99–108. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21649071 
  7. Burdina S. V., Shumilova O. A. Evolution of the genre of school stories in Russian literature of the 20th century. Bulletin of Perm University. Russian and Foreign Philology, 2016, no. 2, pp. 128–134. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2037-6681-2016-2-128-134 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27285568
  8. Pehkonen E. K. On teachers’ beliefs and changing mathematics teaching. Journal Fuer Mathematik-Didaktik, 1994, vol. 15 (3–4), pp. 177–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338807
  9. Hoyles С. Mathematics Teaching and Mathematics Teachers: A Meta-Case. Learning of Mathematics, 1992, vol. 12 (3), pp. 32–44. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ466004

10. Mishuchkov A. A. Theory of myth and mythocivilizational discourse in education: monograph. Orenburg, 2015. 242 p. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30668486

11. Bermus A. G. Innovation policy in education as a liberal-democratic myth. Politicheskaya Kontseptologiya, 2012, no. 3, pp. 132–137. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18247474

12. Efremova O. I. Mythologization of the educational evaluation as a means of psychological manipulation in the teacher's activity. Psychology of Education, 2016, no. 12, pp. 80–95. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27346306

13. Tyunnikov Yu., Maznichenko М., Afanasyeva T. Continuity of mythologized representations of future and practical teachers. Psycholinguistics, 2019, vol. 25 (1), pp. 300–337. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-25-1-300-337

14. Akhmetova G., Mynbayeva A., Mukasheva A. Stereotypes in the professional activity of teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 171, pp. 771–775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.190

15. Pautova L. A. Giftedness in Russia: a phenomenon through the scope of sociological surveys. Psychological Science and Education, 2009, no. 4, pp. 50–63. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12991704

16. Cross T. L. Coleman L. J. Stewart R. A. The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 1993, vol. 16, pp. 37–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553532

17. Dvoinin A.M. The phenomenon of giftedness in the public consciousness of Soviet teachers (the beginning of the 50s of the XX century). Problems of Modern Education, 2011, no. 5, pp. 46–53. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17716488

18. Haataja E., Laine A., Hannula M. S. Educators’ perceptions of mathematically gifted students and a socially supportive learning environment – A case study of a Finnish upper secondary school. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 2020, vol. 8 (1), pp. 44–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.8.1.1368

19. Popova L. V., Hieu Ph. T. Representations of giftedness and gifted children’s peculiarities (based on a Vietnamese Survey). Prepodavatel XXI vek, 2011, no. 3–2, pp. 343–350. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17318324

20. Tavani J. L. Zenasni F., Pereira-Fradin M. Social representation of gifted children: A preliminary study in France. Gifted and Talented International, 2009, vol. 24 (2), pp. 61–70. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886908

21. Markina N. V., Makovetskaya Yu. G. Image of gifted student in the perception of teacher. Scientific Support of a System of Advanced Training, 2016, no. 1, pp. 61–66. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26507981

22. Weyns T., Preckel F., Verschueren K. Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children's characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2021, vol. 97, pp. 103215.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103215

23. McCoach Betsy D., Siegle D. What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 2007, vol. 51 (3), pp. 246–254. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719

24. Llinares-Insa L. I., Casino-García A. M., García-Pérez J. Subjective well-being, emotional intelligence, and mood of parents: A model of relationships. Impact of giftedness. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2020, vol. 12 (21), pp. 8810. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218810

25. Akgül G. Teachers’ metaphors and views about gifted students and their education. Gifted Education International, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421988927

26. Callahan C. M. Beyond the gifted stereotype. Education Leadership, 2001, vol. 59 (3), pp. 42–46. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ636982

27. Ely K. Understanding the stereotypes against gifted students: A look at the social and emotional struggles of stereotyped students. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 2010, vol. 8 (3), pp. 56. URL: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol8/iss3/56

28. Baudson T. G. The mad genius stereotype: Still alive and well. Frontier Psychology, 2016, vol. 7, pp. 368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368

29. Matheis S., Keller L. K., Kronborg L., Schmitt M., Preckel F. Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 2020, vol. 48 (2), pp. 213–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029

30. Babenko I. I. Gifted child in the mirror of social expectations: semantic-pragmatic transformation of the image in the media discourse. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2014, no. 10, pp. 119–122. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22478184

31. Pérez J., Aperribai L., Cortabarría L., Borges А. Examining the most and least changeable elements of the social representation of giftedness. Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12 (13), pp. 5361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135361

32. Cross T. L. Competing with myths about the social and emotional development of gifted students. Gift Child Today, 2002, vol. 25 (3), pp. 44–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/gct-2002-76 URL: https://www.sengifted.org/post/competing-with-myths-about-the-social-and-emotional-development-of-gifted-students

33. Siegle D., Powell T. Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2004, vol. 48, pp. 21–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103

34. Laluev V. Ya. The myth of freedom in the education of personality. Philosophy of Education, 2008, no. 3, pp. 179–182. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=11789535

35. Andreeva G. M., Leontiev A. N. Methodological problems in the study of the psychological aspects of social change. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2018, vol. 15 (4), pp. 646–654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2018-4-646-654 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37350913

36. Eriksson K., Strimling P., Berezina E., Bovina I., Dvoryanchikov N. Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature Communications, 2021, vol. 12 (1), pp. 1481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44805956

37. Moliner P., Bovina I. B. On Serge Moscovici’s 95th anniversary: The theory of social representations – history, postulates and dissemination. Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, Russian University of the Friendship of Nations, 2020, vol. 17 (3), pp. 542–553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2020-17-3-542-553 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44077017

38. Kasavin I. From avocation to vocation: an ambivalence of professional science (introduction to the special issue). Social Epistemology, 2020, vol. 34 (2), pp. 101–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1695009 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=43213500

39. Naidysh V. М. Existential foundations of mystery creativity. Problems of Philosophy, 2020, no. 4, pp. 31–40. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-4-31-40 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42761616

40. Ratner F. L., Gubaidullina R. N. Problems and barriers of gifted children. Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2014, no. 5, pp. 105–109. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21570993

41. Shcheblanova E. I. Neuspeshnye odarennye shkolniki: monografiya. M.: BINOM, 2014. 248 p. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22322282

42. Plucker J. A., Barber H. Talent development plans help guide consistent, equitable service delivery. Gifted Child Today, 2021, vol. 44 (1), pp. 39–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520963673

43. Yurkevich V. S. Gifted children: Today's trends and tomorrow's challenges. Psychological Science and Education, 2011, no. 4, pp. 99–108. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17729608

44. Bjørnda C. T., Ronglan L. T. Engaging with uncertainty in athlete development–orchestrating talent development through incremental leadership. Sport, Education and Society, 2021, vol. 26 (1), pp. 104–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1695198

Date of the publication 30.06.2021