Fundamental principles of the cultural-activity approach in the psychology of giftedness

Babaeva, Yu.D. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Attention to the problems ofgiftedness is determined largely by public interest connected to the provisionof progress in different spheres of human activity. Gifted people are seen notonly as a source of national pride but also as a “strategic resource” becauseof their achievements. For this reason, in many countries including Russia theprograms for gifted children and youth are carried out by the government, andthe relevant diagnostic, educational, and developmental issues are elaborated.Special attention is given to providing gifted people with help and support,specifically psychological.

There are more than 100 definitions of“giftedness” in contemporary psychology as well as dozens of theories, many ofwhich turn out to be “local” and application-specific (Freeman, 1995; Babaeva,2008; Babaeva & Voiskounsky, 2003). Such abundance complicates rather thansimplifies giftedness identification and exploration of its patterns and of thepsychological mechanisms of its genesis and development. The lack of generalmethodological publications results in empirical research and applied work thatis ineffective; they do not have a strong methodological foundation.

In my view the cultural-activityapproach, which is attracting rising interest, can be such a foundation. Themethodological potential of classic works by L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, S.L. Rubinstein, and A. R. Luria has not yet been fully explored. These works arenow being successfully revealed in contemporary studies that are carried outusing new psychological techniques and modern methods of data analysis.

The aim of this article is thesubstantiation of the possibility of using this approach, which is based onVygotsky’s ideas, Leontiev’s activity theory, and the theoretical-experimentalconcepts developed in O. K. Tikhomirov’s scientific school, as a strongfoundation for solving the many problems that the modern psychology ofgiftedness faces. Among the essentials of this approach are the principles ofpolymorphism and of dynamics, together with the holistic analysis of thephenomenon of giftedness (Babaeva, 2008).

The principle ofpolymorphism

The principle of polymorphismunderlines the qualitative diversity of different types of giftedness. Itrefers also to the impossibility of reducing this complex and multiaspectphenomenon to a single item, as is suggested by proponents of the single-factormodel of giftedness, which obtained wide acceptance in the past. This model isbased on the hypothesis of a G-factor that does not vary according to the typeof task and that determines the success of intellectual activity. In this waygiftedness was identified with intelligence, particularly with the quantityindex of its development, the intelligence quotient (IQ), which is measured bypsychometric tests. The popularity of this model can be explained by therelative simplicity of its application and its unambiguous identification ofgiftedness. Vygotsky (1983) criticized this approach, noting the unacceptablesimplification of the giftedness phenomenon. According to critics, abandoningthe G-factor idea and accepting the qualitative diversity of different types ofgiftedness will facilitate radical changes in understanding its nature.

Critics of the single-factor model andthe uncritical devotion to tests noted that using this model for theidentification of giftedness can lead to gross errors caused by ignorance ofthe child’s potential opportunities, his or her personal traits, and the socialenvironment (Heller, 1997). Students may not achieve their learning potentialfor various reasons. Their development may be negatively affected by differentsocial-psychological factors; they may, for example, come from dysfunctionalfamilies. As a result, the giftedness of many children may be unnoticed, andthey get no help and no support. But, despite serious criticism of thesingle-factor approach, it still quite often forms the theoretical base formany empirical studies and for practical work with gifted children.

Types of giftedness can bedistinguished according to different criteria—for example, spheres of activity(musical, linguistic, mathematical). More general abilities can be a criterionas well, as was done in the definition of giftedness suggested by Americanpsychologists and introduced in a report from the Commissioner of Education tothe Congress of the United States in 1972. The list of abilities includedintellectual abilities, specific academic aptitudes, creative or productivethinking, leadership abilities, abilities in the visual and performing arts,and psychomotor abilities (Marland, 1972).

This classification has beencriticized as well. For example, Renzulli pointed out the unacceptable confusionof intellectual, creative, and leadership abilities withtheir realization in the arts or in communication (Renzulli, 1978, 1986;Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981).

The “operational conception ofgiftedness” (Bogoyavlenskaya, Shadrikov, Babaeva, Kholodnaya et al., 2003),which was developed by Russian psychologists commissioned by the Ministry ofEducation, is a new approach to the classification of giftedness. It is basedon five main criteria. To describe the qualitative uniqueness of each type ofgiftedness it is not enough simply to specify its implementation area. It isappropriate to introduce a double criterion—the “kind of activities” and the“sphere of the psyche mediating it.” According to this criterion, the maincategories of activities are practical, cognitive, artistic-aesthetic,communicative, and spiritual-axiological. These activities, in turn, areprovided by three main psychic spheres: intellectual, emotional, andmotivational-volitional, each of which is characterized by different levels ofpsychic organization. For example, with regard to the intellectual sphere, thesensory-motor, spatial-visual, and conceptual-logical levels can bedifferentiated. Application of this scheme allows the identification anddescription in detail of types of giftedness with different content; such adescription reflects not only the qualitative uniqueness of giftedness but alsofeatures specific to a gifted person.

The need to posit creative talent asan independent type of giftedness (as is done in many classifications) isdebatable. In everyday representations “smart” and “creative” persons areusually distinguished. The literature presents different perspectives on therelationship of intelligence and creativity: from their independence to theirnecessary coincidence. According to the theory of the intelligence “threshold,”the relationship between indicators of intelligence and creativity is ambiguousand is determined largely by IQ measures (Guilford & Christensen, 1973;Runco & Albert, 1986; Sternberg, 1999).

In the operational conception ofgiftedness a new attempt to resolve these controversial issues is made.Creativity is defined as the development of activity occurring on theinitiative of the subject. In the course of this development the continuous improvementand enrichment of the activity itself occurs, new ideas and goals emerge, andthe new results are significantly better than those originally expected. Theactivity the subject is initiating manifests his or her passion for work anddesire to continue even after the original goal is reached, at which time newgoals are set. In this approach, it is assumed that “creative giftedness” is infact synonymous with the “giftedness” inherent in any kind of work and is acharacteristic of “not just the top-level performance of any activity, but itstransformation and development” (Bogoyavlenskaya, Shadrikov, Babaeva,Kholodnaya et al., 2003, p. 22). The value of this approach to teachingpractices is also emphasized. It is unacceptable to develop only variouseducational programs for gifted students (accelerated, advanced, deep). It isnecessary also to create an enabling environment to nurture them; such anenvironment will facilitate the development of intrinsic motivation as well asthe formation of a value system as the basis for a person’s spirituality.

Other approaches exist. InTikhomirov’s scientific school the analysis of creativity is based on the studyof various new formations arising in the subject’s activity (Babaeva,Berezanskaya, Vasilyev, Voiskounsky, & Kornilova, 2009). They may occur inthe “pole of the object” (i.e., the object of the activity) and in the “pole ofthe subject,” whose creative process can bring new motives, meanings, emotionalevaluations, and so forth. Furthermore, in the process of work creativeactivity is being transformed itself. These changes can be constructive ordestructive, as is evidenced by the data obtained in the study of adults’creative crises and of the phenomenon of children’s “fear of creativity”(Babaeva, 1998; Babaeva & Varvaricheva, 2011). The mere existence of thesenew formations as well as their number does not mean that they are connected tocreative giftedness, so deep qualitative analysis is needed. With thisapproach, the selection of creative giftedness as a special type of giftednessis quite reasonable and justified.

By the criterion of the “largeness ofmanifestations in various activities” general giftedness (expressed in awide range of activities) and special giftedness (manifested in a narrowerrange—for example, only in mathematics) are distinguished. The question of theuniversal manifestation of general giftedness remains controversial. Teplovsharply criticized the view according to which general giftedness is a “toolfor anything in the world” that provides success in any activity and promoteseffective adaptation to any new conditions (Teplov, 1985). Basing his views onthe opinions of Rubinstein (1989), Teplov believed that it is necessary torelate general giftedness to specific activities and to search “inside” specialgiftedness.

In modern psychology, generalgiftedness is often associated with metacognitive abilities that determine thedynamics and regulation of the process of thinking (Alexander, Carr, &Schwanenflugel, 1995). The concept of metacognitive giftedness has alsobeen discussed (Karpov & Skityaeva, 2005).

By the criterion of “age developmentspecifics” early and late manifestations of giftedness aredistinguished. According to Leytes (2000), in some cases it is just an agephenomenon. Not all child prodigies become outstanding adults. Often a childwith surprising early development loses this advantage with age. Delayeddevelopment is possible too when “dormant” brilliant abilities manifest inadults and even older people who engage in creative work professionally andgain fame.

By the criterion of “degree ofgiftedness development” actual and potential giftedness aredistinguished. The abilities of actually gifted children are already at a levelthat can provide them with high achievements in a particular field of activity.The abilities of children with potential giftedness have not formed to the samedegree, and their achievements can even be lower than the standard. Accordingto Jung (1997), this “latent” giftedness is difficult to recognize, andattempts to do so, based on separate characteristics, often lead to seriousmistakes. According to Efroimson (1998), it is necessary to distinguishpotential, developed, and accomplished geniuses. He also points out that a largenumber of potential geniuses “extinguished” because they did not manage todevelop their abilities, and among those who did many “extinguished” at theimplementation stage.

By the criterion of “form ofmanifestation” explicit giftedness (obvious in its manifestations) and hiddengiftedness (atypical, masked) are distinguished. The most gross mistakesare made in the process of identifying hidden giftedness. A contributing factorhere is the so-called dyssynchrony of development, which is usual in many giftedchildren (Terrassier, 1985). Because traditional psychometric tests are not“sensitive” to potential and hidden giftedness, I have developed a specialmethod—psychodiagnostic training (Babaeva, 1998).

The dynamic principle

The dynamic principle reflects therole of process aspects in the phenomenon of giftedness. In many concepts ofgiftedness the approach that Vygotsky called static is typical. Proponents ofthis approach are interested mainly in the various parameters and appropriatemethods of ability measurement, not in the “element of giftedness.” In thisregard, Vygotsky (1983) pointed out the need to create a new, dynamic theory ofgiftedness in the future. He formulated some basic principles for this future“dialectical doctrine of plus- and minus-giftedness.” The core of this dynamictheory of giftedness, according to Vygotsky, should include three basicprinciples. When enunciating them, he relied on Lipps’s (1907) “theory of thedam,” Pavlov’s (1951) concept of the “target reflex,” and Adler’s idea ofovercompensation (1927).

The “social determination ofdevelopment” principle states that a child’s maladjustment to thesocial-cultural environment brings about the formation of barriers to positivepsychological development.

The “prospect of the future” principlesays that the emerging barriers stimulate “the switching on” of a compensationprocess; they become “purposeful points” of development and direct it.

The “compensation” principle statesthat the presence of a barrier strengthens and perfects psychologicalfunctions. This process can lead to the child’s successfully overcomingpsychological barriers and finally to the child’s adjustment to thesocial-cultural environment. But there is a danger that compensation may goalong the wrong path, causing the inadequate, delayed development of a child’smind.

The novelty of the dynamic theory ofgiftedness is not new methods for the quantitative measurement of giftedness orsome new parameters for its evaluation. Its novelty consists in the refusal tobelieve that these measures are crucial. Barriers to the development of mentalprocesses and even defects don’t become a verdict for the child’s developmentas a whole. Thus, a paradigm shift occurs: the transition from selectiondiagnostics to developmental diagnostics (Asmolov, 1996).

Research project

Based on the ideas of Vygotsky, Iconducted a 10-year longitudinal study of Moscow schoolchildren who learned inthree different schools (Babaeva, 1999, 2001). In Russia the selection ofchildren for enrollment in programs for the gifted is of- ten based on expertevaluation by teachers and on psychometric testing. The target group consistedof children who were evaluated as “nongifted” on the basis of these criteria(31 children aged 6–7 years; average IQ = 100.4. measured with the Wechslertest). Four other classes were control groups. Two classes (C1 and C2) includedgifted children attending the same school but being educated in specialprograms; two additional classes (C3 and C4) included “average” children fromother schools running traditional programs. The number of students and the meanIQ for these classes were as follows: C1: 30 children, IQ = 123.3; C2: 28, IQ =120.5; C3: 36, IQ = 112.4; C4: 38, IQ = 103.2.

Special diagnostic and remedial workwas carried out with the target group. Diagnostics included both traditionalpsychometric tests and original methods de- signed to identify barriers to thedevelopment of abilities. Their educational program was extended with developmentaltraining and new educational courses (an integrative course and a psychologycourse).

This longitudinal study allowed us toverify the main points of the dynamic theory of giftedness and confirm theefficacy of our original diagnostic, developing and training methods based onthis theory. The results revealed the high developmental potential of thechildren who were classified as nongifted on the basis of traditional selectivemethods. After 6 years of special education and of nurturing, these children(with a mean IQ of 128.9) became almost equal to the “gifted children” onintelligence and creativity measures, and they were far ahead of children inthe “average” groups, who were educated in traditional programs.

This research confirmed the assumptionthat an increase in intelligence and creativity indexes is determined largelyby the peculiarities of psychological coping mechanisms. Therefore, to continueresearch in this direction my colleagues and I conducted a study of giftedchildren’s coping behavior (Babaeva, Briseva, Koltsova, 2013). It allowed us toanalyze in detail the role of barriers to the development of giftedness and toevaluate children’s ability to overcome these barriers.

Suggestions for furtherresearch

The dynamic approach may be useful formodernizing traditional psychometric tests. Often the diagnostics of giftednessfocuses only on the productive side of the phenomenon, and important processaspects are ignored. This procedure can lead to serious errors in theidentification of gifted children. In this regard, some attempts have been madeto combine Vygotsky’s ideas of the “zone of proximal development” with thepsychometric paradigm; these attempts have led to the creation of methods of“dynamic testing” (Guthke & Beckmann, 2003).

Consideration of the dynamic aspectsof the testing procedure can also contribute to solving a number ofcontroversial issues—for example, the various limitations in the testingprocedure. According to Druzhinin (2007), tests of intelligence and creativitycan be figuratively ranged on a scale from “regimentation” to “freedom.” Whenregimentation is high, the number of tasks, the completion time, and so forthare rigidly fixed. It is assumed that these restrictions intensify intellectualactivity, while creativity requires freedom. This view is challenged by anumber of authors who believe that a time limit should not be set in thediagnostics of intelligence.

The question of the relationshipbetween creativity and intelligence is controversial too. Thus, according tothe theory of the intelligence “threshold,” with IQ scores below 115–120intelligence and creativity form a single factor, but when IQ is above 120,creativity becomes independent of the IQ index. Also, when IQ is above 180,this pattern is broken. Varying test conditions (time limits, instructions,etc.) lead to significant changes in the correlation of IQ with indicators ofcreativity (Sternberg, 1999).

Identification of the psychologicalmechanisms that underlie these results re- quires special methods and tools.Tikhomirov’s scientific school claims that the structure of mental activitydepends on the conditions of its occurrence and the specifics of the goals ofthe subject (Tikhomirov, 1969; Tikhomirov, Babaeva, Berezanskaya, Vasilyev,& Voiskounsky, 1999). In our studies my colleagues and Iused eye-tracking and pupillometry methods; the tasks from Raven’sProgressive Matrices were performed by subjects in different time modes(Babaeva, Rotova, & Sabadosh, 2012). Under time pressure significantreductions in hypothesizing, verbalization, refinement, and validation ofhypotheses were detected, as well as in the process of selecting the finalchoice of several alternatives posed by the subject. In general, there was anarrowing of the orientation zone, finding the solution to the task was notextensive, and the feeling of uncertainty in regard to the correctness of thechosen decision increased. These data largely explain the changes ofcorrelations between IQ and creativity measures when time limits for solvingthe task vary. They are consistent with the results of studies performed bySmirnov and Grigorenko (1988), according to which the number of hypothesesformulated by subjects solving intellectual tasks correlated with creativity levelas measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

The principle of theholistic analysis of the phenomenon of giftedness

For a long time the level ofintelligence development was considered to be the main indicator of giftedness.Many authors have noted that personality traits and specific social-culturalliving conditions should also be taken into account in the giftednessdiagnostics. Studies of the emotional and motivational aspects and thepersonality characteristics of outstanding people were carried out in theframework of the personal approach, which has become an alternative to thecognitive approach. However, in this case, the cognitive processes have eludedthe attention of researchers. Many modern psychologists assume the importance ofa holistic approach to the analysis of giftedness, noting the impossibility ofa “break” between its cognitive and personal aspects and stressing that theindissoluble unity of the whole is dynamic and combines individual and social,intellectual, and emotional aspects (Babaeva & Voiskounsky, 2003; Landau,2002).

A number of basic research directionspromote the cultural-activity approach in the psychology of giftedness. One ofthem is connected with Vygotsky’s thesis about the “unity of intellect andaffect” and with identification of the (both positive and negative) roles ofemotions in the development and manifestation of giftedness. At the same timeattention should be paid not only to “social” but also to “intellectual”emotions. According to my data, these components of the emotional sphere ofgifted children develop unevenly and nonsimultaneously (Babaeva, 2008).

The “key” to the development andmanifestation of skills lies in changing the motivation and the attitude of thesubject toward his or her activity. Therefore it is necessary to investigatethe processes of task acceptance and the formation of attitudes toward it. Inthis context one of the study cycles my colleagues and I have conducted isdevoted to exploring the relationships between subjective creativity value,implicit ideas about it, and the connection between performance on creativitytests and the results of its subjective evaluation (Babaeva, Popova, &Sabadosh, 2008; Babaeva & Sabadosh, 2011).

Traditionally, in theactivity-approach framework the semantic and incentive functions of motive areanalyzed. The structuring function of motive was developed and empiricallyverified by Tikhomirov’s scientific school (Babaeva et al.,2009; Tikhomirov et al., 1999). These issues open up new perspectivesfor the study of the ontogenesis of giftedness and actual genesis, includingthe specifics of gifted children’s “zone of proximal development.”

Equally important is the study ofco-creation, including an analysis of idea exchange. Among the psychologicalmechanisms that ensure the success of these processes, we have identified thefollowing: cognitive enrichment, translation of “creative emotionalbackground,” and comparison of one’s own options and creative products withsimilar partner’s characteristics (Babaeva & Yagolkovskiy, 2006).

Revealing the social-cultural aspectsof giftedness is undeniably crucial to the implementation of thecultural-activity approach. These aspects concern not only the formulation ofnew problems but also the revision of previously collected data—for example,data on the U-shaped dependence of the creativity index on age: in primaryschool children creativity “slowdown” is often observed; it is explainedlargely by the negative influence of the traditional school system, and it isjust temporary (Sternberg, 1999). According to many authors, one of thelimitations to creativity is stereotypical thinking. I have identifiedqualitatively different forms of stereotypes: cognitive and social. In thefirst case an independent overcoming of the stereotype seems rather tough for achild; in the second case a “little dreamer” can voluntarily give up his or heroriginal ideas in favor of creative products which are approved by the socialenvironment and “match the format” in order to get a good grade orencouragement from adults (Babaeva, 2001).

Conclusion

Analysis of current trends in thestudy of giftedness suggests that the general psychological cultural-activityapproach, based on the ideas of Vygotsky and Leontiev, as well as thetheoretical and empirical developments of Tikhomirov’s scientific school, isproductive for solving many theoretical, empirical, and applied problems inthis area. Analysis of the qualitative uniqueness of different aspects andmanifestations of children’s giftedness involves not only measuring theirperformance but also revealing the specifics of the underlying processes andthe specific psycho- logical mechanisms. A paradigm shift in the psychology ofgiftedness connected with the transition from the static to theholistic/dynamic approach also involves a transition to new psycho-pedagogicaltechnologies for the identification, education, and development of giftedchildren.

References

Adler, A. (1927). The practice and theory ofindividual psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.

 Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., &Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in giftedchildren: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15(1), 1–37.doi:10.1006/drev.1995.1001

Asmolov, A. G. (1996). Kulturno­istoricheskayapsihologiya i konstruirovanie mirov [Cultural-historical psychology and thedesign of worlds]. Moscow: Institut Prakticheskoy Psikhologii; Voronezh: NPOMODEK.

Babaeva, J. D. (1998). Psihologicheskiy trening dlya viyavleniyaodarennosti [Psychological training for the identification of giftedness].Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya.

Babaeva, J. D. (1999). A dynamic approach to giftedness: Theory andpractice. High Abilities Studies, 10(1), 51–68. doi:10.1080/1359813990100105

Babaeva, J. D. (2001). Idei L. S. Vygotskogo o dinamicheskompodhode k odarennosti i perspectivy ikh razvitiya [L. S. Vygotsky’s ideasabout the dynamic approach to giftedness and perspectives on its development].In I.A. Petuhova (Ed.) Kulturno­istoricheskaya Psihologiya Razvitiya:materialypervyh chteniy, posvyashennyh pamyati L.S. Vygotskogo. [Cultural-historical psychology of development: proceedings of the first readings in L.S.Vygotsky’s memory]. (pp. 126–145). Moscow: Smysl.

Babaeva, J. D. (2008). Sovremennye tendencii v issledovaniiodarennosti [Modern tendencies in giftedness studies]. VestnikMoskovskogo Universiteta, ser. 14, Psikhologiya [Moscow UniversityPsychology Bulletin], 2, 154–168.

Babaeva, J. D., Berezanskaya, N. B., Vasilyev, I. V., Voiskounsky, A.E., & Kornilova, T. V. (2009). O vklade O. K. Tikhomirova v metodologiyu,teoriyu i experimentalnuyu praktiku psihologicheskoy nauki [Thecontribution of Oleg K. Tikhomirov to the methodology, theory, and experimentalpractice of psychology]. Methodology and History of Psychology, 4(4),9–27.

Babaeva, J. D., Briseva, Y., & Koltsova, A. (2013). The specialties of copingbehavior and the difficult life situations of Russian school students withdifferent intelligence levels. Academic Journal of InterdisciplinaryStudies, 2 (3), 489-506.

Babaeva, J. D., Popova, E. N., & Sabadosh, P. A. (2008). Tvorcheskiye sposobnostii tsennostnaya struktura lichnosti. [Creative values and a person’s valuesystem]. Psikhologiya i Shkola [Psychology and School], 1, 55–59.

Babaeva, J. D., Rotova, N. A., & Sabadosh, P. A. (2012). Determinanty vypolneniya testaintellekta v usloviyah ogranicheniya vremeni [Determinants of intellectualtest performance under time pressure]. Psihologicheskiye Issledovaniya[Psychological Studies], 5(25), 4. Retrieved fromhttp://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/2012v5n25e/745-babaeva25e.html

Babaeva, J. D., & Sabadosh, P. A. (2011).Akademicheskaya odarennost i tsennostipodrostkov [Academic giftedness and adolescents’ values]. In L. I.Larionova (Ed.), Psyhologo­pedagogicheskiye problemy odarennosti: Teoriya ipraktika: Proceedings of VII international conference (Vol. 2, pp. 10–17).Irkutsk: Irkutskii gosudarstvennyi tekhnicheskiy universitet (Irkutsk statetechnical university).

Babaeva, J. D., & Varvaricheva, Y. I. (2011, July). Types, causes and functionsof creative crises. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress ofPsychology, Istanbul, p. 324.

Babaeva, J. D., & Voiskounsky, A. E. (2003). Odarennyi rebenok za komputerom [The gifted child at acomputer]. Moscow: Skanrus.

Babaeva, J. D., & Yagolkovskiy, S. R. (2006). Dinamika proyavleniy kreativnostiv usloviyah obmena ideyami [Manifestations of the dynamics of creativity inthe process of idea exchange]. In B. S. Bratus & E. E. Sokolova (Eds.), Uchenyezapiski kafedry obschey psikhologii, 2, 317–337.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B., Shadrikov V.D., Babaeva J.D., Kholodnaya M.A. etal. (2003). Rabochaya konceptsiya odarennosti [Anoperational conception of giftedness]. Moscow: MO RF.

Druzhinin, V. N. (2007). Psikhologiyaobschih sposobnostey [Psychology of general abilities]. (3rd ed.). St.Petersburg: Piter.

Efroimson, V. P. (1998). Genialnost igenetica [Exceptional intellectual ability and genetics]. Moscow: RusskiyMir.

Freeman, J. (1995). Recent Studies of Giftedness in Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36: 531-547. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb02313.x

Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973).The one-way relation between creativepotential and IQ. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(4),247–252. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1973.tb01096.x

Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J. F. (2003). Dynamic assessment withdiagnostic programs. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. I. Lubart(Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Heller, K. A. (1997) Diagnostika i razvitie odarennyh detey ipodrostkov [Diagnostics and development of gifted children and youth]. InD. B. Bogoyavlenskaya (Ed.), Osnovnye sovremennye koncepcii tvorchestva iodarennosti [The main contemporary concepts of creativity and giftedness],pp. 243–264. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya.

Jung, K. G. (1997). Fenomen odarennosti [The giftednessphenomenon]. In Konflikty detskoy dushi [Conflicts of a child’s soul](pp. 151–164). Moscow: Kanon.

Karpov, A. V., & Skityaeva, I. M. (2005). Psikhologiya metacognitivnykh protsessov lichnosti [Thepsychology of a person’s metacognitive processes]. Moscow: IP RAN.

Landau, E. (2002) Odarennosttrebuet muzhestva [The courage to be gifted]. Moscow: Academia.

Leytes, N. S. (2000) Vozrastnayaodarennost shkolnikov [The growth of giftedness in schoolchildren]. Moscow:Academia.

Lipps, T. (1907) Rukovodstvo k psikhologii. [Manualon psychology]. St. Petersburg: O. N. Popova.

Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education ofthe gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by theU.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S.Office of Education (2 vols.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Pavlov, I. P. (1951) Dvadtsatiletniy opyt objectivnogo izucheniyavysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti (povedeniya) jivotnyh. [The twenty-yearexperience of the objective study of the highest nervous activity (animalbehavior)]. In I. P. Pavlov, Collected works (Vol. 3). Moscow/Leningrad:AN USSR.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining adefinition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986) The three-ring conception of giftedness: Adevelopmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. MansfieldCenter, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Rubinstein, S. L. (1989) Osnovy obsheypsikhologii [The foundations of general psychology]. (3rd ed.). Moscow:Pedagogika.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold hypothesis regardingcreativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and non-giftedchildren. Creative Child Quarterly, 11, 212–218.

Smirnov, S. D., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1988). Issledovaniye processavydvizheniya i proverki gipotez pri reshenii zadach s neopredelennymiusloviyami [An investigation of the process of hypothesizing and testingfor solving problems under uncertain conditions]. Vestnik MoskovskogoUniversiteta, ser. 14, Psikhologiya [Moscow University PsychologyBulletin], 1, 61–68.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbookof creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Teplov, B. M. (1985).Sposobnosti i odarennost [Abilities and giftedness]. In B. M. Teplov, Izbranniyetrudy [Selected works], Vol. 1, pp. 15–41. Moscow: Pedagogika.

Terrassier, J.-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony-uneven development. In J.Freeman (Ed.), The psychologyofgifted children (pp. 265–274). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Tikhomirov, O. K. (1969). Strukturamyslitelnoy deyatelnosti cheloveka (opyt teoreticheskogo i experimentalnogoissledovaniya) [The structure of human mental activity (a theoretical andempirical study)]. Moscow University Press.

Tikhomirov, O. K., Babaeva, J. D., Berezanskaya, N. B., Vasilev, I. A.,& Voiskounsky, A. E. (1999). Razvitiye deyatelnostnogo podhoda vpsikhologii myshleniya [The development of the activity approach in thepsychology of thinking]. In A. E. Voiskounsky, A. N. Zhdan, & O. K.Tikhomirov (Eds.), Traditsii i perspektivy deyatelnostnogo podkhoda vpsikhologii. Shkola A. N. Leontiyeva [Traditions and perspectives of theactivity approach in psychology. A. N. Leontiev’s school] (191–234). Moscow:Smysl.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1983). Osnovy defectologii [The foundations of defectology]. In L. S.Vygotsky, Collected works, Vol. 5. Moscow: Pedagogika.