Admittedly, these measures of academic and cognitive abilities are imperfect, because they only partially reflect human intelligence ( Besançon and Lubart 2012) and prove problematic considering giftedness in particular. The most preferred intelligence test to date in France is the WISC-V for children aged 6 and up (WISC-V, Wechsler 2016 Caroff 2004 Delaubier 2002 Vrignaud 2002). 1997) as they are evaluated at school or measured through intelligence tests by establishing an Intellectual Quotient (IQ). The gifted child, first of all, demonstrates exceptional development (i.e., particularly efficient and early) of his intellectual abilities (e.g., Lubart 2006 Papadopoulos 2020 Terrassier 2009 Winner et al. 2016) should not prevent the determination of giftedness constants, because the available scientific literature makes it possible to empirically distinguish several developmental characteristics shared by gifted children. However, the diversity of approaches and profiles encountered (e.g., Francis et al. This difficulty in qualifying and defining giftedness is probably attributable to social taboos relating to the question of intelligence, since educational doctrine tends to favor an egalitarian approach (e.g., Mandelman et al. There is a lack of consensus concerning giftedness, which is reflected by the coexistence of several conceptions of the phenomenon as well as by the multiplicity of terminologies used to refer to it (e.g., Caroff 2004 Liratni and Pry 2007 Doi et al. Understanding the differentiated functioning of the gifted child is indeed of practical interest in order to improve his support at school. The third component has to do with children’s creativity, through the measurement of abstract graphic creativity. The second component concerns children’s school experience through their feelings about school, including their relationship with their teacher. The first component concerns children’s commitment at school (academically and in terms of interpersonal relations), perceived and assessed by the teacher. non-gifted children) deserves to be examined on three distinct components of school development. Based on the theoretical framework of intelligence developed by Renzulli ( 1978, 1988, 2002, 2016), the presence of interindividual differences between two populations (gifted vs. This multimodal study addresses the general objective of understanding differences in functioning and perception between gifted and non-gifted children in a school setting. socio-affective sphere), offering perspectives for more adapted support for these pupils in elementary school. Such results are consistent with the idea of asynchronous development, which is characteristic of gifted children (cognitive and conative vs. In addition, a gap appears among gifted children between their significantly higher scores for motivation and intellectual skills versus standard scores for their socio-affective development. ![]() ![]() The results obtained from 328 children (including 45 gifted children) revealed that the gifted children obtained scores significantly higher than non-gifted children in terms of self-determination, feelings about school, and creativity. Three distinct measurement tools were used to enable a multimodal approach of gifted and non-gifted children with abstract graphic creativity, feelings about school and engagement in the school environment being considered. This study examines interindividual differences between gifted and non-gifted children in the school environment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |