The modern world is very dynamic, and it is changing so rapidly that it forces modern psychology to reconsider the role and importance of research behavior in human life, and pedagogy focuses on reassessing the role of research teaching methods in the practice of mass education. With the beginning of the 21st century, it becomes more and more obvious that the skills and abilities of research search are required not only for those whose life is already connected or will be connected with scientific work, they are necessary for every person. In modern Russian education, this is expressed in the striving for theoretical ideas and practice of research education, actively manifested by teachers and practical psychologists.

It is no secret to anyone that children's need for research is biologically determined. Every healthy child is born an explorer. An unquenchable thirst for new experiences, curiosity, the desire to observe and experiment, independently seek new information about the world are traditionally considered the most important features of children's behavior. Constantly shown research activity is a normal, natural state of the child. He is tuned to the knowledge of the world and wants to know it. It is this inner desire for knowledge through research that gives rise to exploratory behavior and creates the conditions for exploratory learning. In today's dynamic world, it is fundamentally important that the mental development of the child, already at the very first stages, unfold as a process of self-development.

Since ancient times, teachers have identified two main ways of learning: "passive learning" - through teaching - and "active learning" - through their own experience (terms of K.D. Ushinsky). Despite fierce disputes regarding the very possibility of dividing teaching into “passive” and “active”, it is impossible not to notice that we are talking about two fundamentally different ways of getting an education. At different times, their ratio in the practice of education has changed significantly. First one came to the fore, then the other.

Valentina Yakovleva
Children's research activity (technology Savenkov A. I.)

MBDOU " Kindergarten №122"Sunbeam" general developmental type with priority implementation activities on cognitive and speech development of children in Cheboksary

Children's research activities

(technology Savenkov A. AND.)

Prepared:

educator

Yakovleva Valentina Sergeevna

Cheboksary 2016

Children's research activities of preschoolers(technology Savenkov A. AND.)

Modern children live and develop in the era of information and computerization. In a rapidly changing life, a person is required not only to possess knowledge, but, first of all, the ability to obtain this knowledge himself and operate with it, to think independently and creatively.

A child - a preschooler in itself is already researcher, showing a keen interest in various kinds of . Preparing a child for research activities teaching his skills and abilities research search is becoming the most important task of modern education.

I present to your attention the "Methodology for conducting training research in kindergarten", the author of which is Savenkov Alexander Ilyich, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Department of Developmental Psychology, Moscow State Pedagogical University.

Study- search for information on a problem, followed by its generalization (writing research work and conclusion)

main feature research learning - to activate the educational work of children, giving it exploratory character, and thus give children the initiative in organizing their cognitive activities.

Educational preschooler research, also,

like study conducted by an adult researcher, inevitable

but includes the following elements:

Identifying and posing a problem (choice of topic research) ;

Development of hypotheses;

Search and offer possible solutions;

Collection of material;

Analysis and generalization of the obtained data;

Preparation and defense of the final product (message, report,

layout, etc.).

The proposed method allows you to include the child in his own research search in any subject classes in kindergarten. It is designed not only to teach children observation and experimentation, but includes a full cycle research activities. From defining the problem, to presenting and defending the results.

In order to acquaint children with the methodology, 1-2 frontal training sessions will be required, for which it is better to divide the group into subgroups of 10-13 people.

"Training sessions"

Preparing for classes:

Cards with symbolic images are required for classes. "methods research» : on the back of each card, a verbal designation of each method, cards with pictures indicating the topics of possible children's research.

In addition, you need to prepare pens, pencils, felt-tip pens and small pieces of paper for fixing by children obtained during research, information.

Small lecterns, robes and academic headdresses will not be superfluous.

Conducting a lesson:

To show children how to behave at each stage research search, it is necessary to single out a couple of the most active guys on a voluntary basis. It is advisable to pick up energetic, active children with well-developed speech.

Together with the teacher they will do the main work researchers from the first to the last stage, all other children in the first lessons will participate as active helpers.

1. Choosing a theme

Step one - the pair we selected « researchers» determines the theme of research. In order for children to be able to do this, offer them prepared cards with various images - themes of future research.

After a short discussion directed by the teacher, the children usually opt for a topic - they choose one or another card.

2. Making a plan research

Let's explain researchers that their task is to obtain as much new information as possible about what (who) is the subject of their research and prepare a message about it - a short report

Let's start with the usual problem questions, for example: "What should we do first?" "Where do you think it starts? research scientist?»

In a group discussion, children usually name methods research, the sequence of its implementation and it is necessary to lay out cards with the designation methods:

"think for yourself".

"ask someone else"

"observation and experiment".

"learn from a book"

"look on computer"

"contact a specialist".

3. Collection of material

The pictographic writing used at this stage allows you to reflect the information received through various sensory channels. (vision, hearing, taste, temperature, etc.).

4. Generalization of the obtained data

At this stage, it is necessary to highlight the main ideas, note the secondary ones, and then the tertiary ones.

5. Report.

When conducting training research, to report on what has been learned is important, first of all, to the one who prepared this message.

After the speech researchers- the completion of the report, it is necessary to arrange a discussion of it, give the audience the opportunity to ask questions.

After mastering the general scheme activities, you can move on to another option for organizing this work - independent research practice of children. Now each child will conduct his own study.

preparation

Once again, cards with images of themes will be needed for future research, special "folder researcher» for each child in the group and an unlimited number of small pieces of paper and a pen.

folder device- researcher: on a sheet of A4 cardboard on-

glued small (3X3 cm) thick white paper pockets. On the

each pocket is a schematic representation of the "method research-

niya". In these pockets, children will put their pictographic

information notes.

At this stage, active exploratory search are involved

all participants in the class. During the lesson, children should have complete freedom of movement in the group.

Having chosen a topic, each child receives a special “folder research

provider", sheets for collecting information and a pen, pencil and fl-

masters. Plan research in this case, it is not necessary to pronounce

important, because it is outlined and already fixed on the pockets of the folder.

Armed with everything necessary, each child begins to act on one's own: included in own exploratory search. The task of the teacher is to perform the duties of an active assistant, consultant researchers to help those who need help at this moment.

As soon as the first messages are prepared, the children can be gathered and seated to listen to the reports. We put on the speaker a mantle and a special headdress. A small table can serve as a pulpit.

Rules for educators when using technology A. AND. Savenkova

Do not instruct; help children act independently, do not give direct instructions about what they will do.

o Based on careful observation and evaluation, identify children's strengths and weaknesses.

o Do not hold back children's initiatives and do not do for them what they can do on their own.

o Teach children to trace interdisciplinary connections; don't rush into judgments.

o Help children learn to manage the learning process.

o Get creative with everything.

o be able to see the problem and ask questions;

o be able to prove;

o draw conclusions;

o make assumptions and make plans to test them.

Bibliography:

1. Savenkov, A.I. Children's study as a method of teaching older preschoolers”: Lectures 5–8. / A.I. Savenkov. - M.: Pedagogical University "First of September". - 2007. - 92 p.

2. Savenkov, A. I. Methodology research teaching preschoolers / A.I. Savenkov. Series: - publishing house: House of Fedorov. – 2010.

A.I. Savenkov,

Doctor of Psychology,

Professor, Department of Developmental Psychology, Moscow State Pedagogical University,

Moscow city

FORECASTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN'S TALENTEDNESS

Of the range of issues related to giftedness, the problem of predicting the development of a child's mental potential is the most important from the point of view of social and pedagogical practice and is the least developed.

One of the most important is the question of the genotypic and environmental conditionality of the pace or speed of development of the individual and, first of all, creativity and cognitive functions. The degree of genetic predetermination and environmental dependence of this rate (meaning the rate of maturation) in accordance with the data of psychogenetic studies is the same as the final level.

It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the influence of the environment can be so negative that, under a certain set of circumstances, maturation can be blocked. The range of these influences can be very large - from traumatic brain injuries to negative psychological and pedagogical influences. The notion that a gifted person is able to overcome any negative influence of the environment, usually expressed in the commonplace statement "talent will always break through", is fundamentally wrong. It is probably more appropriate to talk about a certain minimum of positive environmental influences, and the higher this minimum, the more opportunities for the realization of talent, its materialization in outstanding achievements.

Special studies of the degree of dependence of the rate of maturation and development of personality on genotypic and environmental influences are extremely complex. That is why the problem of predicting development, predicting the possible achievements of the child is the least developed. To a large extent, it is not clear in which cases the accelerated rate of development of mental abilities, usually qualified as a child's giftedness, should be considered as a guarantee of future high achievements of the individual in science, art, or other fields. We have already noted that many outstanding scientists, artists, musicians did not stand out in childhood, and, on the contrary, many former child prodigies remained “former”.

The very fact of recognizing the dependence of the rate of personal development on the genotype explains at the theoretical level why children's giftedness is not always realized, i.e. does not lead to high creative achievements in adulthood. In addition to the negative influence of the environment, to which they usually try to write off everything in this case, it is quite likely that a program determined by the genotype is at work here.
So, genotypically, the rate of maturation can be accelerated, which will manifest itself in the practice of development. And the end result of development, the same genotype, can be set as the norm. In this case, acceleration in one period, which occurred under the influence of genotypic factors, may be replaced by a slowdown in another period, under the influence of the same genotype.

This problem was also considered in the framework of the study of gender specifics. According to a number of studies, as well as our own studies, among girls of senior preschool and primary school age there are several percent more gifted children than boys. But at an older age (at the stage of puberty), this percentage changes in favor of boys. And a significant part of the girls, who were earlier ahead of their peers in development, “even out” and leave the category of gifted ones. But the question of what causes this is not so simple. Maybe some kind of genetic program is working, or maybe the environment is to blame.

There are known attempts to explain this fact by environmental influence, presenting it as the result of certain "social expectations". It must be admitted that these assertions are not unfounded. Indeed, in a boy, our cultural traditions require to awaken activity, energy, initiative, the desire for self-affirmation. Traditional ideas about male behavior force us to teach him to deal with external circumstances, to be a leader, a “winner”, strong, courageous, courageous, and at the same time be sure to be able to hide his feelings (especially pain, resentment, etc.).

Of particular interest to both scientists and the townsfolk have always been the children of prominent people. First of all, they attracted the attention of biographers of geniuses. And this is no coincidence, because it is these children who, if we talk formally, have the maximum advantages. Moreover, the advantages include not only a favorable external environment, but also no less favorable genotypic features.
As a result of observations, statistics have accumulated that indicate that the children of outstanding people rarely achieve the same results as their "great" parents. Everyone knows outstanding political leaders, scientists, writers, poets, musicians, artists who had children who followed “in their footsteps”. But, as adults, these children very rarely reached the heights to which their parents rose.

Thanks to these and similar observations, the idea was formed in the public mind that "nature rests on the children of great people." And you can count on outstanding manifestations in descendants only in the next, third generation. Other observations served as a kind of confirmation of this idea. So, for example, it has long been noticed that in people of very short stature, as a rule, children grow taller than them, and, conversely, in very tall children, children are often shorter than their parents.

If we take into account the fact that nature builds its structures according to general algorithms, then we have to admit that this rule should also apply to other signs. Consequently, the same should happen with the inheritance of the inclinations of mental, creative abilities. Scientists have made the assumption that, probably, nature retains a certain norm, allowing the possibility of fluctuations only within certain limits.

To understand how these statements correspond to reality, we emphasize once again that geneticists say that an organism does not inherit a trait as such, but only the ability to form this trait under certain environmental conditions. The gene that determines the trait has a characteristic, which is called the special term "reaction rate". This refers to the range in which the genotype allows the possibility of fluctuations under the influence of the external environment. And since the conditions for the development of parents and their children are objectively different, the degree of manifestation of certain signs (even in the absence of mutations) will inevitably turn out to be different. As a result, children (and grandchildren) may be more or less talented than their parents or grandparents. And the aforementioned "rule" about the supposedly "resting nature" is probably one of the many myths that are literally full of judgments about giftedness.

As we have already noted, some physical, chemical and biological factors can significantly affect the “reaction rate” of a gene.

Giftedness, manifested in the child's activity brightly and distinctly, is called "explicit". Veiled, disguised is called "hidden" or "latent" giftedness. There is another, very similar gradation - "actual" and "potential" giftedness. The manifested, obvious giftedness, noticed by psychologists, teachers, parents, is called "actual". Children who demonstrate "actual" giftedness are more often called not "gifted", but "talented" children.

And vice versa, giftedness, which represents only certain mental capabilities (potential) for high achievements, but cannot be realized at the moment in activity, due to their functional insufficiency, is called "potential".

Many famous scientists, musicians, artists and even writers showed their outstanding abilities at an early age. Everyone knows the brilliant creative achievements of little A. Mozart, the outstanding successes in childhood of K. Bryulov, F. Galton, I.I. Mechnikov, K. Gauss, N. Winner, G.V. Leibniz, W. Hugo, F. Schubert, N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov, M. Mussorgsky, and this list can be continued for a long time. It's no secret that gifted kids often make great adults, but not always.

No less often the opposite happens - people who did not show themselves in childhood achieved outstanding results later, in adulthood. Often, outstanding mental potential, as evidenced by the biographies of many famous people, for a long time remained unnoticed by others. For example, biographers of Carl Linnaeus (the great Swedish botanist) note that in childhood his development was slow. True, at the same time, he began to acquire fame from the age of 24. The famous Russian writer I.S. Krylov began his literary activity relatively late. Among the pupils of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, who were fond of poetic creativity, A. Pushkin was not considered the first, A. Illichevsky successfully challenged the "palm". In childhood, many famous scientists and artists did not stand out among their peers.

Naturally, in each such case, the reasons why giftedness went unnoticed are different. Potential may not really manifest itself until a certain time. Or maybe parents, teachers and other adults did not show due attention to the subtle movements of the child's soul, they did not have enough knowledge, their intuition did not work. Or maybe, on the contrary, due to misunderstanding, they did not notice these outstanding, potential opportunities in the child and even considered manifestations of “creativity”, intellectual initiative as negative properties. And the most valuable were considered completely different.

We all know from our own experience that there are often parents, school teachers, university professors, production managers who value diligence, obedience, accuracy above initiative - originality, courage, independence of action and judgment. A kind of confirmation of this idea was found by American scientists who studied, from this angle, the biographies of 400 prominent people. The study found that 60% of them had serious problems during the period of schooling, in terms of adapting to the conditions of school life.

The facts of the existence of "actual" and "potential", "obvious" and "hidden", "early" and "late" giftedness emphasize the complexity and importance of the problem of predicting development. What signs, personality traits, character traits, behavior and activities can indicate to an adult that a child in the future can become an outstanding scientist, artist, leader, etc. The answer to this complex question cannot be simple. Scientists have already discovered a number of patterns that make it possible to predict the future of a child, but the algorithm for constructing reliable, well-founded forecasts is still infinitely far away.

World pedagogical experience shows that often faith in the abilities of the pupil, multiplied by the skill of parents and teachers, is capable of creating pedagogical miracles. In life, it often turns out that it is not even what nature has given a person that is important, but what he himself has managed to do with the gift that he has.

This problem is related to another, no less important one. The mental potential of a person, as we have already noted above, is not static. It exists only in dynamics and is constantly changing. Therefore, many scientists devoted their research to the study of human productivity in various periods of his life. So, for example, American psychologists G. Leman and W. Denis found that the most productive period of creativity for writers, artists, thinkers is the age of 20-40 years, for mathematicians - 23 years, for chemists - 20-30 years, for physicists - 32-33 years, astronomers - 41-44 years.
Often, when developing a forecasting problem, random signs set researchers on the wrong track. So, for example, in the XVIII-XIX centuries. it was noticed that almost all outstanding commanders (A.V. Suvorov, Bonaparte Napoleon and others) and naval commanders (G. Nelson and others) were short. Some biographers hastened to declare this a pattern and even came up with the theory of "undersized giants."

But, having considered this idea more closely, F. Galton came to curious conclusions. According to him, one of the most important qualities of an outstanding commander is courage. A. Suvorov, and G. Nelson, and other generals and naval commanders were distinguished by this. But it was precisely this quality that did not allow most tall people to reach adulthood and become commanders. F. Galton writes that they died while still being junior officers. The shooter usually aims first of all at a tall person, like a hunter trying to shoot the largest bird.

One of the serious problems of forecasting is that the requirements for an outstanding person change significantly over time. So, for example, one time requires some abilities from an outstanding person, and another - completely different.

For example, a person engaged in science, up to the middle of the 20th century. called "scientist". Thus, it was assumed that this person knows a lot, and therefore a “scientist”. In our time, scientists themselves are increasingly trying to call themselves not scientists, but “researchers”, thereby emphasizing that they may not own (and often do not strive to own) a large amount of information in the field where they conduct their research. The modern scientific worker is not so much the one who knows a lot, but the one who knows where and how to search for something new.

No less important is another problem - during his professional career, a person has to perform a variety of roles, sometimes requiring mutually exclusive personal properties.

Let's turn to examples. It never occurred to the parents of Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov that their son, who was lagging behind in physical development, a sickly boy, could become a military man. And the fact that an outstanding commander could grow out of him was out of the question. At the same time, almost all of his noble peers from the day of birth were included in the lists of military units and by the time they grew up had officer ranks. Alexander Suvorov, in his teens, insisted on being accepted into military service. That is why he served as a soldier for a long time. And only at the age of 24 he received his first officer rank.

Everyone knows that in order to be a good soldier, you need some qualities, to be a good officer - others, and a field marshal - still others. Can all this be combined in one person? A. Suvorov proved that this is possible, but perhaps his example is the exception rather than the rule.

In special books devoted to the problems of giftedness, they often write that society usually does not like the gifted and does not appreciate giftedness. Of course, this very "society" can be stigmatized for this. But if we look at this problem without emotions, then it is easy to understand that there is justice in this. Giftedness, as we have already noted, is only potential. And society values ​​outstanding achievements, not opportunities to achieve them. What is important for society is not what a person could do, but what he actually did.

Throughout the 20th century there have been many special studies devoted to the problems of predicting outstanding achievements. The term "outstanding achievement" is not scientific, so its definitions are very vague. However, it is easy to guess that by saying it, we assume that a person has achieved some brilliant results, achieved exceptional success. It is legitimate to ask where is the line between "outstanding achievement" and "above average achievement" or even "average achievement".

There are, of course, many options here. Some believe that outstanding achievements are only epoch-making discoveries of a genius, while others are guided by prestigious awards and titles. There is an approach according to which this concept can be characterized statistically as success, assessed on a scale, exceeding a certain value. That is, according to the ranking results.

In a word, we are talking about a level of achievement that far exceeds the average level. Some researchers have tried to find out whether it is possible to predict relatively close events: success in school, in extra-curricular activities, in higher education, at work.

The German psychologist Günter Trost summarized the results of many such studies. Studying the predictions of the school success of a preschool child by parents, he notes that many scientists question them. But, analyzing the results of these predictions, he noted one curious feature - many parents are indeed characterized by an overestimation of the child's giftedness. At the same time, parents with a high educational status often underestimate the giftedness of their children, and parents with a low educational status often overestimate it.

A similar study of the predictability of outstanding achievements in higher education allowed G. Trost to draw the following conclusions: achievements in secondary school and the results of school aptitude tests are the best guides for predictions; high scores on intelligence tests also have satisfactory predictive value. Other factors, especially interests, motivation, self-esteem, have low predictive value on their own. But they make an additional contribution to the overall prediction of academic success. For high-intelligence students, a distinction can be made between very well-performing and brilliant students based on them. For predicting extracurricular achievements, the most significant are interest, dedication, and various aspects of creativity.

It is also important that, when studying the prediction of success at work, the researcher notes that “general intelligence” (IQ) is the best guide for predictions. But only if we are talking about the future: administrators, scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers. The predictive value of this indicator (IQ) for this category of future specialists is higher than for low-skilled or unskilled workers. The relationship between average college grades and job performance is much lower.

The influence of the environment on the level of development of the intellectual and creative potential of the individual and the level of its achievements are traditionally devoted to many special studies. Naturally, teachers are the most active in this regard. Often new educational technologies open up previously unknown horizons. And thanks to this, the level of achievement, previously perceived as outstanding, suddenly becomes ordinary and accessible to everyone. For example, it has been observed that quite often gifted children (often without outside help) learn to read at the age of two or three years. Currently, educational technologies have been created that allow any healthy child at the age of one and a half years to master this operation without any special difficulties.

Many former students of the Soviet school remember how, starting to study a foreign language in the fifth grade, then, continuing to study it at a university (and some even in graduate school), most of them came out of this many years of “training” with a memory unclouded by foreign words and speech turnovers. But as soon as new educational technologies appeared, it suddenly became obvious that almost every kid is a “linguistic genius” (K.I. Chukovsky). In a year and a half or two, he is able to master not even one, but dozens of different, dissimilar languages ​​(G. Doman and others). In this regard, the question is legitimate: is it possible to purposefully raise an outstanding person?

Such attempts are known, and they can rightfully be considered successful. A classic example is Karl Witte, a pastor and educator from Germany. Even before the birth of his son, the pastor, arguing with the audience of his lectures - members of the Macdeburg Pedagogical Society of Gymnasium Teachers, told them: "If God sends me a son ... then, as I decided, I will make an outstanding person out of him."

The pastor's son was born shortly after this dispute, in 1800. He was named after his father - Karl. Through the efforts of his parents, the boy achieved outstanding success by the age of six. He amazed the gymnasium teachers with his abilities. At the age of nine, young Karl Witte entered the University of Leipzig, where, after the first year of study, he successfully passed all the exams. At the age of 13, he became a doctor of philosophy at the University of Giessen, then, after studying for four semesters, received a doctorate in law from Heidelberg. At 18, he becomes a professor at the University of Heidelberg.
Karl Witte Jr. left his mark on science, but still did not deserve the title of genius. However, the pedagogical discoveries of the father were very valuable. The method of home education developed by Karl Witte Sr. was described by the author at the request of the great Swiss teacher I.G. Pestalozzi. According to this book, many gifted children were brought up by their parents. Perhaps the most striking among them was the founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener.

Many specialists who do not recognize "children's giftedness" cite this example as allegedly confirming that the main thing in the development of talent is the environment and special training. But is it not possible to assume that the son of Karl Witte Karl Witte Jr. (like Norbert Winner) was a gifted child, thanks to which, with the help of his father's methods, he achieved such results in childhood and adolescence.

However, it should be understood that new pedagogical technologies are not able to “make all children gifted,” as some teachers (G. Doman, P.V. Tyulenev, S. Suzuki, etc.) try to assert, this process has a fundamentally different mechanics. However, the question of the influence of the environment on the development of the intellectual and creative potential of the child does not become less significant from this.

The decisive environmental factor in the development of children's intelligence is recognized as "psychic stimulation" that occurs during communication between a child and an adult. One of the most important components of environmental impact is recognized as "intra-family environment". In the work of V.N. Druzhinin identified three groups of models that explain its influence on the intelligence of children.

The first group of models argues that the decisive role belongs to communication between parents and children. This, according to their supporters, has a decisive influence on the development of the child's intellect. Especially in this case, the importance of the time factor is emphasized. The more a parent communicates with a child, the greater his intellectual influence on the child. However, it is easy to see that these assertions are dubious.

Since the average mother communicates more with the child than the father, then in this case, in psychogenetic studies, there should be greater correlations between the intelligence levels of children and the intelligence of mothers than fathers. But in reality this is not the case.

The second group of models, called identification, assumes that the child develops due to the fact that he masters new roles. When identifying himself with one of the parents (of the same sex), he masters the ways of behavior that are characteristic of the parent. Empirical studies also do not support these assumptions.

As the third V.N. Druzhinin highlights the model of R. Zayonts. It predicts the dependence of the child's intelligence on the number of children in the family. R. Zayonts suggested that the "intellectual climate" depends on the number of children in a family. This climate is made up of the sum of the levels of each family member. Naturally, in this case, each member of the family influences others and the family influences each member.

According to the observations of R. Zajonc, first-borns receive advantages in intellectual development. They interact more with their parents than their later-born siblings. Brothers and sisters born after a short period of time are similar to each other, like twins. They compete for parental attention. The level of development of their intellect is negatively affected by the fact that they interact not only with their parents, but also with each other, thus reducing the possibility of “intellectual stimulation”.

Research by R. Zayonts, who studied the relationship between the "intelligence quotient" and the child's place in the family structure, showed that IQ decreases on average with an increase in the number of children in the family. The highest IQ scores, in most cases, are obtained by older children. The further the younger from the firstborn and the more children in the family, the lower the IQ of the younger.

It is curious that these data were confirmed as a result of the verification of the forecast made by R. Zajonc. Noticing the upward trend in the average size of the American family that began in 1976, he accurately predicted a progressive decline in school aptitude test scores in American schoolchildren through 1980.

Other results were obtained from researchers who studied the dependence of the level of creativity on the number of children in the family. It turned out that in this situation the model of R. Zajonc does not work. Researchers M. Runko and M. Baled tested the level of development of divergent thinking according to J. Gilford in adolescents (5th-6th grade). According to their data, only children have the best results in divergent thinking. The first-born are in second place, followed by the younger children. The worst indicators in terms of creativity were demonstrated by children average in terms of time of birth. Importantly, children with more siblings perform better than children with one sibling.

This idea is indirectly supported by other studies. Many experts noted that children who have many brothers and sisters are less self-centered, more open to experience, easier to cooperate with others, more persistent and sociable.

The above results of the study of environmental influences on the level of intellectual and creative development of the child do not reflect the entire palette of research. A lot of special literature has been published on this topic recently. In addition, many aspects of this complex problem are simply not explored.

For example, recently the term “information pollution of the environment” has appeared. An unsystematized avalanche of information, falling on a child, can lead to the same negative consequences that physical, chemical, biological factors can cause. True, as experts in the field of neurophysiology note, the brain does not suffer from it, but the course of development of the most valuable personal quality - creativity - can be significantly disrupted.

Socio-pedagogical research shows that the more unfavorable the environment, the greater the role it plays in general differences. Where only a limited part of the population can provide their children with a good education, a lot depends on the environment, but in conditions when education becomes generally accessible, hereditary factors come forward. It is they who begin to determine the future of man in the first place.

There is hardly any doubt that people are born mentally different, even in the same family. But the main question is not only what the genotype or environment plays the main role, but also how, according to what laws, the interaction between them occurs. The result of these interactions is not a simple quantitative addition of their forces, but qualitative changes in the psyche. The multifactorial nature of heredity plus the multifactorial nature of the environment give rise to an infinite variety of collisions of these two elements. As a result of these collisions, the same infinite variety of mental properties is born. But where, which element dominates and where, which of them is inferior to the other?

In this regard, the question arises as to whether it is possible to increase the capabilities of the brain in a pedagogical way. Modern psychology and pedagogy give an affirmative answer to it, but this answer cannot be attributed to the number of simple ones. American psychologist Watson John Broadus (1878-1978) back in the 20s of the XX century. in his book "Behaviorism" (1925) wrote that humanity has entered an era of boundless self-improvement. In our time, it should be noted that the pace of this self-development has a pronounced tendency to accelerate.

We consider development as the transition of a growing organism to a qualitatively higher level. This transition depends on "maturation", i.e. deployment of an internal program determined by the genotype, and from "learning" - the impact of environmental factors. Understanding and recognizing the significance of each of these factors does not remove the question of how they interact.

The search for an answer to this question has been going on for more than a century, and many solutions have been found. We will not consider those of them that are only of historical interest. This is the field of activity of professionals studying the history of pedagogy. Let us dwell on those theories that underlie modern methods and technologies for the development of a child's abilities.

A significant part of the specialists who were at the origins of the experimental study of the problems of children's giftedness had a very popular idea of ​​recapitulation, also called the "basic biogenetic law". From this point of view, development was presented as a reproduction in the main features of the evolution of the species to which the individual belongs ("basic biogenetic law"). At the same time, the exclusively speculative search for external analogies of mental development and the evolutionary process as a whole was rather quickly supplemented by the same kind of analogies with the main stages of the process of cultural and historical development of society (E. Claparede, V. Stern, and others).

One of the proponents of this approach was the famous American scientist Hall Grenville Stanley (1845-1924). He, like other supporters of the theory of the "basic biogenetic law", sought to identify the stages of human development with the stages of evolution of human culture as a whole. He argued that the development of each child reproduces the history of the human race. However, Stanley Hall entered the history of science, first of all, as the creator of pedology, a complex science of the child.

It is impossible not to recognize the partial plausibility of these analogies, and therefore, even admitting such a representation as one of the possible ones, one cannot but note that the idea of ​​recapitulation does not provide answers to the main questions that are directly related to the problem of giftedness. Much more productive in this regard are other theories that have directly studied the problems of the interaction of hereditary and environmental factors. One of the most unpopular in world theory and practice, and at the same time still recognized by some domestic educators, both practitioners and theorists, is a theory rooted in the teachings of the ideologists of the philosophy of "enlightenment" (D. Locke, K.A. Helvetius and etc.).

Of course, no one will dare to seriously defend the idea of ​​tabula rassa, but the ideas of the supporters of the so-called "revolutionary theory" are very close to it. So, referring to the approach that was formed in Soviet psychology in the 30s and 40s, as well as research in the field of pedagogy and psychology up to the 70s, the famous Soviet philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov writes: “... in the composition of the higher mental functions of a person there is and cannot be absolutely nothing innate, genetically inherited ... the entire human psyche is a lifetime education, the result of education in the broad sense of the word, i.e. is transmitted from generation to generation not naturally, but exclusively “artificially” (E.V. Ilyenkov, 1990, p. 89).

Thus, it turns out that the development of an individual, especially his cognitive sphere, depends almost entirely on environmental influences and, first of all, on the part artificially isolated from it - “education and training”. At the same time, while recognizing the presence of genetic factors, supporters of this approach constantly emphasize that the latter have practically no effect on the development of higher mental functions. These genetic factors appear, in the understanding of the representatives of this point of view, in the form of "inclinations", which are deliberately defined by them as "anatomical and physiological". What emphasizes that the physical development of the organism, to some extent, depends on the genotype, and the mental is completely free from its influence. It follows that any person, regardless of his "anatomical and physiological" inclinations, can form any psychological and behavioral properties, while the level of their development depends entirely on the quality of training and education.

This approach received the conditional name - "revolutionary". A modified version of it is another approach called "functional". Defending the idea that both the formation and transformation of a function is determined by how often it is exploited; “... abilities are manifested and formed in activity” (B.G. Ananiev, A.N. Leontiev, SL. Rubinshtein, B.M. Teplov, etc.); “... the earlier a function is put into use and the more intensively it is exploited, the higher the level of its development” (G. Doman, E. Thomas, etc.). Proponents of this theory defend the position of the determining role of lifestyle in the development of the psyche.

One of the founders of this approach was the outstanding Soviet psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, author of the cultural-historical theory of the development of higher mental functions. In his theoretical developments, he noted that the psyche of a modern person is the result of the interaction of the processes of biological maturation and learning. But in the view of L.S. Vygotsky, these processes are soldered together; with the birth of a child, they merge into a single line of development.

Considering the genesis of mental functions, he noted that they are based on two forms: innate (natural) and acquired (cultural). The first is determined biologically, the second - culturally-historically. Calling the second mediated, he gave her a clear preference. This theory, like any other, needed creative development, based on new scientific data. However, many followers of L.S. Vygotsky, in accordance with the old, Russian, intellectual tradition, noted by N. Berdyaev, turned it into an object of worship, into a kind of religion, a doctrine with a strict set of immovable dogmas.

The ideological bans on research in the field of pedology that followed the adoption and approval of this theory, and then the declaration of genetics as a "bourgeois pseudoscience" contributed not so much to the development of this approach as to its vulgarization and the real return of a significant part of its supporters to the bosom of the "revolutionary" approach.

One of the consequences of this phenomenon was that a significant part of the supporters of this concept still denies the concept of "giftedness". And gifted children, since they really exist in nature, as well as mentally retarded, and you can’t argue with this fact, are called an amorphous term - “children with advanced development”. As evidence of their point of view, this group of researchers especially often cites arguments about the lack of clear ideas, concepts of intellectual, creative giftedness. But the lack of our knowledge in this area is not yet evidence of the absence of this objective existing phenomenon in nature.

The most popular object of criticism from researchers who deny giftedness as a mental phenomenon is the IQ testing system. But all the advantages and disadvantages of this approach are the merits and problems of the IQ system itself and its progenitor "testology". All this has little to do with the question of the presence or absence of children's giftedness as such. Is it possible, referring to the imperfection of the ruler or its absence, to assert that all measured objects are equal?

Opposing the previous theory was called "evolutionary". Its supporters believed that development, which they consider as the transition of an individual to a higher level, is, in the most general form, the result of the biological maturation of the organism and its interaction with the environment. By biological maturation, in this case, we mean the gradual (evolutionary) transformation of the possibilities genetically inherent in the body that exist in the form of inclinations. According to this concept, both in the end result and in the very process of the evolutionary deployment of inclinations (meaning, first of all, the pace), represented as the ontogenetic development of an organism, there is nothing that would not be contained in the genotype.

Naturally, no one has long considered the interaction of the genotype and the environment as a one-dimensional phenomenon, which was largely characteristic of the founders of this approach (F. Galton, G. Joly, and others). Inheritance is the most complex process, determined by a huge number of factors, and largely unexplored. But still, a number of discoveries made on the basis of experimental studies allow us to confidently assert that when considering the problem of children's giftedness, as well as the other pole - mental retardation, one cannot brush aside hereditary factors, declaring them insignificant.

The most popular approach is called "probabilistic" ("stochastic"). Its appearance and approval is due to the fact that the results of many longitudinal studies of the problems of the development of cognitive processes have been summed up and summarized, including the results of studies of the development of gifted children (L. Termen et al.).

The main assertion of the supporters of this theory is that the end result of development, achieved at each of its stages, is not initially contained in the genotype. At the same time, one or another result of development cannot be arbitrary, i.e. completely free from the genotype. Thus, the development of the cognitive functions of an individual is associated with the genotype and the environment, but the most important thing is that the level of development is determined not by dominant genotypic or, on the contrary, dominant environmental factors, but by their combination as a result of random and therefore difficult to predict circumstances of an individual's life.

It is also important that the supporters of this approach emphasize the fatal nature of the previous stages of development in the subsequent development. That is, what is achieved at the previous level is decisive at each stage. In other words, what was achieved at the previous stages of development is the foundation of future achievements. And it is especially important that what is lost at one stage of development can be either completely irreplaceable in the future, or made up, but with significant losses.

This idea is confirmed by the universally recognized idea of ​​"sensitive periods". These ideas have their own explanation from biologists. Geneticists point out that genetic information is needed to build a substance from cells. But the structure of the brain cannot be programmed with genetic information. From 50 to 100 thousand genes are involved in the formation of heredity, which means from 50 to 100 thousand messages embedded in them. But to describe the state of the brain, you need to describe each of its cells, each synapse - a place of switching, where information is transferred from one neuron to another. And there are a million billion of them. Therefore, if there were a million billion messages in the gene code, it could be assumed that heredity created the brain.

But in reality, according to the supporters of this point of view, the child, in the figurative expression of the French geneticist A. Jacquard, builds his own brain. He is in the position of a worker who was given a million billion parts and offered to create a machine where all these parts must not only be used, but connected to each other so that the machine works. But there are no plans, no plans. There are only 50 (100) thousand parts on the drawing. Incomparably less than what is given to the worker. And he begins to act at his own discretion, creating from these parts any nodes of the machine, and the child enters any, forming his own brain.

All the considered theories are attempts to explain the essence of the problem of development. As you can see, none of them can be recognized as absolutely true, each only reveals to us a certain facet of this complex phenomenon. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the accents of the supporters of each point of view.

From the moment of birth or even the conception of a child, the genotype and environment, figuratively speaking, merge into a single line of development. And then it is almost very difficult to understand where the influence of the genotype is, and where the environment is. In modern science, it is generally accepted that the human psyche in many of its manifestations has an innate character, i.e. determined by genotype. But it is not known what are the real, potential possibilities inherent in the genotype. It is also not clear what will be the result of their interaction with the environment at each of the moments of development.

"Gifted Child". – 2012 . - Number 3 . – S. 26-42.



Savenkov Alexander Ilyich - Professor, Doctor of Science in Pedagogy and Psychology. An outstanding psychologist devoted his life to creating programs for the identification and development of gifted children. Wrote many scientific papers and practical manuals for teachers and educators.

Biography

Savenkov Alexander Ilyich was born on September 25, 1957 in a small village in the Novosibirsk Region. He grew up as an ordinary Soviet boy. He was fond of sports, went to an ordinary rural school. Nevertheless, the guy was distinguished by his extraordinary abilities in the field of the humanities.

After school, Alexander entered the National State Pedagogical Institute. In 1983 he received a diploma of graduation from the art and graphics faculty of the National State Pedagogical Institute.

The newly minted teacher did not stop there and went to Moscow according to the target program.

In 1988 Savenkov Alexander Ilyich defended his Ph.D. thesis at the Moscow Pedagogical Institute named after Lenin in the direction of "Theory and History of Pedagogics", received a scientific degree - Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences.

Alexander Ilyich Savenkov is an example of a scientist who is engaged in self-education and does not get tired of developing throughout his life.

At the age of 40, he defended his dissertation on the topic "Pedagogical foundations for the development of productive thinking in gifted children," which he wrote with the support and guidance of Dr. Ped. Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education A. M. Matyushkin. So in 1997 Alexander Ilyich became a doctor of pedagogical sciences.

Despite such a high pedagogical rank, Savenkov felt a gap in knowledge in the field of educational psychology. Developing the theory of giftedness and developing a methodology for working with gifted children, the scientist seriously engaged in deepening knowledge of the psychology of childhood and education.

This prompted him to write and defend his doctoral dissertation, which revealed the main points of the development of capable children in an educational environment. So, in 2002, Alexander Ilyich Savenkov received a doctorate in psychology.

In the professional field, Alexander Ilyich reached great heights. He is a lecturer at the Moscow State Pedagogical University, the head of the Department of Educational Psychology and the director of the IOPS of the Moscow State Pedagogical University.

But this did not prevent the scientist in 2012 from graduating from the MSGU under the training program "Psychology of Education Management".

"Live and learn for a century" - this saying describes the life of Alexander Ilyich Savenkov as accurately as possible.

Scientific and pedagogical activity

Doctor of Sciences has devoted his life to the study of children's giftedness. He developed programs for the diagnosis and development of giftedness. He published many scientific articles and practical manuals on organizing work with preschool children and primary school students. Under his leadership, an experimental program "Gifted child in a public school" was created and is being actively introduced into the practice of Russian schools. Today, this program has been adopted by some schools in Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Khabarovsk and other cities of our vast Motherland.

Another area that Alexander Ilyich Savenkov is actively developing is the research activities of preschoolers and elementary school students. This topic is devoted to many scientific works of an outstanding teacher-psychologist.

Savenkov is the author of a unique program, a methodology for research education of preschoolers. Savenkov Alexander Ilyich initiated the organization in 2005 of the competition of research works and creative projects "I am a researcher", in which children from 4 to 11 years old take part. The doctor of science himself is the permanent chairman of the jury of this All-Russian Competition for Young Researchers.

Project activities and the development of research skills have acquired particular relevance in the context of the introduction of the Federal State Educational Standard in Russian schools.

In 2016, Alexander Ilyich was elected to the position of corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education.

Social activity

Alexander Ilyich takes an active public position.

On a voluntary basis, he is an assistant to a member of the Federation Council V.S. Kosourova.

The outstanding scientist was invited to the Expert Council of the Federation Council Committee dealing with science, education, culture and information policy.

Alexander Ilyich is also a member of the expert group for the development of the social infrastructure of childhood and the safety of children's products.

Recently, Savenkov has been an expert in the Committee on Family, Women and Children of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Awards

For his educational activities, Alexander Savenkov was awarded the Diploma of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.

Working with gifted children

Savenkov has been dealing with issues of children's giftedness for more than 30 years. He developed a program to identify the inclinations and abilities of children at an early age. He issued a number of recommendations for the development of these abilities and practical guides for parents and teachers. Alexander Ilyich insists that with the right approach one or another type of giftedness can be detected and revealed in most children. He expressed his thoughts in scientific works devoted to the study of the phenomenon of giftedness and the development of the hidden abilities of children.

• in kindergarten and school";
• "Gifted child in public school";
• "Diagnostics and development of children's giftedness";
• "The path to giftedness. Exploratory behavior of preschoolers".

Research program

In his scientific work, he pays much attention to the development of research abilities of pupils of preschool institutions and primary school students. In his writings, the scientist claims that children are researchers by nature. That is why the educational process must be built on the basis of research activities. Education should not be problematic, only then it will lead to success, it will be interesting for the child.

The author describes in detail the methodology of research teaching in his scientific articles and manuals for parents and teachers. These include books by Savenkov Alexander Ilyich, dedicated to the organization and implementation of the foundations of research education:

• "Content and organization of research education for schoolchildren";
• "Psychological foundations of the research approach to learning".

In total, the bibliography of Alexander Savenkov consists of more than 340 scientific publications that reveal the problems of psychology, pedagogy and psychodidactics.

The products of the scientist's activity are in demand not only among teachers. Responsible parents find in Savenkov's books answers to such important questions as teaching their daughter or son to read, what to do if the baby does not want to learn, how to help their child acquire knowledge "and others.

Gifted children in kindergarten and school: Proc. allowance for students. higher ped. textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 20p. ISBN-3

INTRODUCTION

Human thinking, the ability to create - the greatest of the gifts of nature. With this gift, nature marks each person. But the idea that nature does not equally divide its gifts and rewards someone more and someone less is also obvious. It is customary to call gifted someone whose gift clearly exceeds certain average capabilities, the abilities of the majority.

Therefore, most scientists call giftedness a genetically determined component of abilities, which to a large extent determines both the final result (the result of development) and the pace of development. Environment, upbringing either suppress this gift, or help it to open up. And just as a skilled jeweler can turn a natural diamond into a luxurious diamond, a favorable environment and qualified pedagogical guidance can turn a gift into an outstanding talent. This simple and seemingly obvious thought made its way with great difficulty in Russian pedagogy and pedagogical psychology. Many in our country did not want and still do not want to "wait for favors from nature"...

Recently, the situation has changed significantly, the term "giftedness" again received public recognition and began to be used in professional literature. Recognition of the social significance of the problem of teaching gifted children is, of course, an important step towards its solution. But the recognition and the increased attention it engendered cannot in themselves guarantee a solution. This solution must be sought by revisiting many domestic cultural and educational traditions, studying foreign experience, and conducting theoretical and experimental research.

This book is a step on this great path. It was written on the basis of many years of research and is designed specifically for students of pedagogical universities and colleges. Therefore, the material in it is structured not so much on the basis of personal research interests, but on the basis of the logic of considering pedagogical phenomena, adopted in the domestic educational psychological and pedagogical literature.

Accordingly, the book consists of seven sections, each including several chapters.

The first section is devoted to the fundamental problem - the concept of giftedness. It outlines the evolution of the views of scientists and the main modern conceptual models of giftedness.

The second section highlights the issues of genetic and environmental determinants of development. The results of psychogenetic studies are considered.

The third section is devoted to the problem of external manifestations of giftedness, that is, to those specific qualities and personality traits that distinguish a gifted child from his peers. Are there external signs, "markers" by which one can determine giftedness, bypassing special techniques. At the same time, personality traits that should be developed in order to increase the intellectual and creative abilities of the child are singled out and considered.

In the fourth section, the problem of identifying the gifted is considered in more detail. It is generally accepted that the identification of the gifted is the work of psychologists. To a large extent, this is true, but teachers and parents can and should play a certain role in the diagnosis of giftedness.

The fifth section is devoted to the central link in the theory of learning - the content of education. It is also considered in the context of the tasks of developing children's giftedness. An analysis of modern approaches to the development of the content of education for gifted children is given, and an author's model for enriching the content of education is proposed.

The sixth section contains material devoted to the problem of forms of organization of educational activities - both traditional and innovative. On the basis of theoretical sources and own experimental work, an analysis of the organizational structure of educational activity is carried out.

In full accordance with the domestic educational tradition, the seventh section discusses methods, techniques, technologies for teaching and developing the intellectual and creative potential of the child.

The appendices provide practical materials. These are methods for diagnosing giftedness for teachers and parents, as well as a method for holding an intellectual competition for older preschoolers and younger students.

SECTION 1 THE CONCEPT OF GIFTED

HISTORY OF STUDYING GIFTEDness

The evolution of the doctrines of giftedness in the history of philosophy

Observations indicating that the mental capabilities of people are unequal are as old as the world. This was not a secret either for science or for everyday consciousness, which accumulated, in the apt expression of Hegel, not only scientific theories, but also all the prejudices of its time. Both the outstanding philosophers of antiquity and their contemporaries, less knowledgeable in the sciences, well understood how significant the difference between an outstanding creator (genius) and a mere mortal person is. It has also long been noted that these differences often appear already in childhood.

Naturally, both the researchers themselves and society as a whole have long been concerned about the origin and nature of these differences. But the human psyche of all the phenomena of reality is the most difficult object to know. This is probably why genetically the first explanation of the nature of individual differences and the existence of outstanding abilities in individuals was the conclusion about their "unearthly", divine origin. An outstanding person (genius), according to the ancients, a happy chosen one of the gods. He was sent to earth in order to overcome ordinary ideas and by the power of the spirit to illuminate the path to perfection and greatness for humanity.

Bypassing the concept of "divine gift", it was not possible to explain the achievements of outstanding artists, poets (and later scientists and public figures) at that time. So, for example, a very characteristic statement on this occasion belongs to Plato: the poet creates "not from art and knowledge, but from divine predestination and obsession." It is noteworthy that his ideological opponent Democritus held a similar opinion.

Treatises on the genius of philosophers, beginning with Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, and including their numerous followers in later times, contain many interesting facts, observations and patterns revealed on their basis. However, all this was developed independently from educational activities. Social production at that time did not require narrow specialization, and, consequently, social and pedagogical practice was not interested in the problems of differentiation and early diagnosis of abilities. To a large extent, therefore, to the study of the nature of genius, researchers practically until the beginning of the 19th century. addressed only insofar as it was necessary to clarify the general philosophical problems of creativity.

These ideas have also given rise to the corresponding terminology. From ancient times up to the 19th century. (A. Baumgarten, G. Hegel, I. Kant, etc.) the term “genius” (from Latin genius - spirit) has firmly established itself in scientific treatises. They denoted the phenomenon, which in later times began to be called much more modestly - "the subject of creative activity."

Initially, in ancient culture, a "genius" is a mythological figure that combines an immortal deity and a mortal person. It was this idea of ​​the combination of the divine spirit with man that was the basis of the concept of genius in European philosophy and in everyday consciousness until the end of the 19th century. It is known that Socrates, jokingly, told those who were interested in the reasons for his unusual insight that it helps him, prompting that his good demon is a genius. Having gained a foothold in the minds of most people thanks to fiction, this idea lives on to this day. And often all of us, like the brilliant joker Socrates, explaining the reasons for our own successes, we talk about the help of a kind "angel" or "genius".

Therefore, people were often inclined to mystify the origin, life and work of geniuses. And, as a result, the biographies of prominent people were usually overgrown with many legends, rumors and the most incredible details. For example, there was a legend about the outstanding ancient Greek philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Pythagoras that he was the son of Apollo or Hermes, that he had a golden thigh, that he remembered all the incarnations of his soul (“he was first the son of Hermes Efalid, then Euphorbus , who was wounded by Menelaus during the siege of Troy, by Pyrrhus, and finally born by Pythagoras").

No less fantastic details about the lives of many prominent people spread in much later times throughout Europe, which already considered itself enlightened. Over time, these legends began to be perceived as an integral part of the "image of a genius." And although there was never a shortage of writers of such stories, many prominent people themselves - intentionally - composed fantastic stories about themselves, spread rumors, which actively contributed to the creation of a "halo of mystery" around their own personality. Vivid examples of such behavior can be found in the biographies of Niccolo Paganini, Salvador Dali and many other prominent people.

As you know, the Christian tradition, recorded in the Book of Genesis, claims that "God created man from the dust of the earth and the breath of God." Considering this, when considering the problem of genius, one must keep in mind that the term “genius” should be understood not as “spirit” in some of its general, traditional form for Christian dogma, but as “spirit” precisely as “genius”, in its exclusive form. meaning, as it was interpreted in ancient mythology and philosophy - a patron, teacher, prophet, etc.

Despite the fact that the doctrine of genius and genius was originally developed independently of socio-pedagogical practice, it should be noted that in the view of almost all the outstanding philosophers of the past (Plato, Aristotle, and later A. Baumgarten, I. Kant, etc.) the divine predestination of genius does not cancel or exclude the importance of upbringing and education. Each of them justified this point of view in their own way. However, the significance of education, as well as other external (environmental) influences, was still considered a secondary matter compared to the “divine” gift itself.

The term "talent" began to be used almost simultaneously with the term "genius". But unlike "genius", "talent" has a less noble origin. Initially, the word talent (from the Greek talanton) referred to a large measure of gold.

We can assume that the appearance of the term "talent" in scientific use was associated with ideas about the possibility of measuring the degree of genius and - on this basis - ranking geniuses. It is possible that initially "talent" was intended to be a unit of measurement of genius, but this is just a guess. Gradually, an idea was formed of talent as simply a high degree of development of abilities for a certain type (types) of activity, while “genius” began to be understood as the highest, maximum level of their manifestation, located, figuratively speaking, above talent.

An important feature of the notions of genius, from ancient times up to the 19th century, is that both science and ordinary consciousness firmly adhered to the belief that genius can manifest itself only in art. Statesmen, military leaders and even scientists were denied the title of genius until the 19th century. But attempts to cast doubt on this point of view were repeatedly made already in the teachings of the ancient philosophers.

One such example is the understanding of genius set forth in the writings of Aristotle. Emphasizing the connection of artistic creativity with intellectual, cognitive activity, he introduces the term "contemplative activity of the mind", which encompasses the concepts of scientific and artistic creativity (this means not only the creation of works of art, but also their perception).

Of particular interest are Aristotle's differentiation and ranking of human activities that require genius. The "contemplative activity of the mind" (scientific and artistic) is, in his opinion, higher than any other, for it is akin to the divine. Although it cannot be denied, he notes, virtuous activities (political and military) stand out above others in beauty and grandeur.

At the same time, in the works of Aristotle, the creative process largely loses its mystical character. Creativity, according to him, is comprehensible and subject to control. He is trying to justify the existence of norms, rules, canons that are necessary when creating works of art. And as a consequence of this - the requirement to learn artistic creativity and aesthetic judgment.

Arguing about this, we cannot but take into account the fact that the very differentiation into “sciences”, “arts” and “virtuous activity” among the ancients was very conditional and changed significantly over time. So, for example, astronomy and history were ranked among the high arts by them. And as expected - each of these areas of knowledge had its own muse. The muse of astronomy was Urania, history - Clio. According to many historians, other sciences did not fall into the category of fine arts only because they did not yet exist when the nine famous daughters of Mnemosyne were born.

Modern ideas about what belongs to the arts, what to the sciences, and what to the sphere of practical activity, were established in the European consciousness many centuries ago. And the term "genius" acquired a meaning close to modern, in the Renaissance. Its representatives recognized genius as a divine gift, innate, inherent in true artists in the broadest sense of the word. But in the understanding of the people of this time, the artist had to be knowledgeable both in the sciences and in the arts. And the painter, and the sculptor, and the musician, and the composer, as well as representatives of other artistic professions, must be equally good at their craft, and philosophy, and natural science, and grammar, and rhetoric, and many, many other areas of knowledge and fields of activity . It is no coincidence that this time is called the time of the titans, the time of the great encyclopedists.

One of the first attempts at a deep philosophical and psychological understanding of the problem of giftedness was the study of a Spanish doctor who lived in the Renaissance, Juan Huarte. He connected the prospect of the revival of the power of the Spanish Empire with the maximum use of especially gifted people in the public service. His work was one of the first works in the history of psychology, which considered - as the main task - the study of individual differences in abilities with a view to further professional selection. This study can rightly be considered one of the first to anticipate a whole trend in the anthropological sciences and subsequently received the name "differential psychology".

X. Uarte in his work raises four questions, the main ones, in his opinion, in this problem:

what qualities does that nature possess that makes a man capable of one science and incapable of another;

what kinds of gifts are there in the human race;

what arts and sciences correspond to each talent in particular;

by what signs can one recognize the corresponding talent.

The analysis of abilities in the theory of X. Huarte was compared with temperament and with differences in areas of activity (medicine, law, military art, government, etc.), requiring certain talents corresponding to them. As the main abilities, he singled out fantasy (imagination), memory and intelligence. The presence of each of these abilities was explained by a certain "brain temperament", in the words of X. Uarte, the proportion in which "the main juices are mixed in it." In turn, the sciences and arts were evaluated in terms of which of the three abilities they required. This forced X. Uarte to make a psychological analysis of the activities of the commander, doctor, lawyer, theologian and representatives of other activities.

X. Huarte emphasized the dependence of talent on nature, but this, in his opinion, does not mean the futility of education and labor. At the same time, speaking about the education and training of talents, he focused on the need to take into account the individual and age characteristics of the trainee.

X. Uarte expressed the idea of ​​the need to create a state system of professional selection. He wrote that in order for no one to make mistakes in choosing the profession that is most suitable for his natural talent, the sovereign should have allocated authorized people of great intelligence and knowledge who would have discovered his talent in everyone at a tender age; they would then oblige him to study the field of knowledge that suits him.

Of particular interest is the approach proposed by X. Uarte to the methodology for diagnosing giftedness. He proposed to evaluate latent (potential) giftedness by external signs (shape of parts of the face, character of hair, etc.). Subsequently, this branch of diagnostics was recognized as a dead end in psychology and throughout the 20th century. caused only condescending smiles of scientists. But with the development of genetics, it gradually became clear that the appearance and characteristics of the psyche, in particular mental giftedness, are far from neutral in relation to each other.

An interesting confirmation of this idea can be considered the experiments of an outstanding domestic geneticist on the domestication of foxes, conducted in the 70s of the XX century. By selecting in the offspring of silver-black foxes "for a good attitude towards humans", he achieved - exclusively by genetic means (without accustoming and training) - changes not only in behavior, but also in the appearance of animals. The foxes, selected "on the basis of a good relationship with humans," developed external signs of dogs: hooked tails, hanging ears, "stars" on the head, extensive white and brown spots on the sides.

But this all happened much later. Let's get back to history.

The Renaissance, according to historians of philosophy, was replaced by a period called "classicism". At this time, the question of the origin of genius was increasingly discussed. Disagreements arose over whether any artistic talent (pictorial, poetic, etc.) was a divine gift or whether it had an earthly origin. The Russian philosopher, poet V. Trediakovsky noted that wise people "reduce the beginning of poetry from heaven", arguing that it is poured into the human mind from God, "and this is certainly righteous."

Analyzing the nature of poetic talent, M. Lomonosov considered the most important quality of the creator to be “the power of imagination”, that is, the ability “with one thing, presented in the mind, to imagine others, somehow associated with it.” In practice, we are talking about figurative, associative thinking, its place in creativity. Considering this quality to be the leading one, he noted that many poets have a “spiritual” talent by nature. M. Lomonosov's conviction that this quality can be developed, everyone can comprehend the "science of poetry" is also interesting.

The "blank slate" theory

It is hardly possible to find such an idea in science that would not cause doubts in anyone and would exist for a long time without opposition. The idea of ​​divine predestination of outstanding abilities (genius) was no exception. True, if its history spans millennia, then the opposite point of view theoretically took shape and spread in the minds of Europeans only a few centuries ago - in the Age of Enlightenment.

The division of labor, the process of further differentiation of the sciences and arts, the improvement of educational practice posed new problems for theorists of this period. In essence, they pinned all their hopes on education. Moreover, they assigned a special role to artistic and aesthetic education. The aesthetic principle, in their opinion, is able to mitigate the innate egoism of people, to turn a person into a citizen.

One of the prominent representatives of this era was the English philosopher and educator John Locke. He put forward a number of theoretical provisions that formed the foundation of the ideology of the Enlightenment. The main ones are:

there are no innate ideas, the process of cognition arises in experience and on the basis of experience;

the human mind is from the very beginning a "blank slate" ("tabula rasa");

there is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the senses.

The term "blank slate" used by Locke was proposed by Aristotle, but in the minds of educators and psychologists of our time, it is firmly associated with the philosophy of the Enlightenment. It was at this time that he acquired a modern sound. J. Locke, and after him many of his contemporaries and followers, believed that before contact with the material world, the human soul is “white paper, without any signs or ideas.”

Of course, the views of Enlightenment theorists were not without controversy. So, F. Hutcheson considers the ability to enjoy painting, architecture, poetic works as predetermined, and he tries to reconcile this statement with the need for enlightenment and education. Another theorist of this period, Helvetius, took a more radical point of view, arguing that by nature all people are equal. Hence his main conclusion about the need for universal upbringing and education.

More interesting in this respect is the position of D. Did-R°, who criticized Helvetius. The concept of talent is developed in the work of D. Diderot "The Paradox of the Actor". The paradox, in his opinion, lies in the fact that the best impression is made by an actor with a "cold head", and not the one who plays "inside". Playing "gut" plays unevenly, aimlessly. The true actor plays by reason, by the study of human nature, by the relentless imitation of the ideal model imagined by memory. Such an actor is always perfect.

But at the same time, Diderot, assessing more realistically than Helvetius, the ratio of innate and social in the structure of the subject of artistic activity, denies him, perhaps, the most important property - aesthetic experience.

The idea of ​​the representatives of the Enlightenment, which consisted in the fact that no gift, either divine or innate, exists at all, opposed the Cartesian concept of "innate ideas". The only subject of reason (understanding) are ideas that are “inside us”, and not external objects, G. Leibniz and R. Descartes argued. The "blank slate" theory developed by the Enlightenment, on the contrary, emphasized the idea that the soul does not have "innate ideas" or even predispositions, thanks to which extra-experimental truths can be extracted from it in the future.

Most of the philosophers who belonged to this trend insisted that nature shares its gifts equally. Each person can be developed to the highest degree of genius, the whole point is in the conditions in which he finds himself.

The main practical idea of ​​the supporters of the philosophy of the Enlightenment was to affirm the decisive role of upbringing and environmental conditions in the formation of man. They elevate educational influence to the level of a higher power capable of sculpting anything out of people. Bodily needs and passions, sensual contact with the environment, in their opinion, are the main engine of mental development (Helvetius and others).

With the obvious radicalism of this point of view, which in itself should be alarming, and its obvious contradictions with practice, this idea found its supporters not only among contemporaries, but also in later times.

The enlightenment doctrine of the social nature of man was also developed by the Russian rationalists of the late 18th century. (tuzhev, etc.). So, he wrote that the inequality that exists between one person and another arises not so much from the initial inequality between the abilities to feel, think, want, but "from the difference of causes that combine to discover them." Russian "rationalists" also assign a special role to aesthetic education and art education in the development of not only artistic talent, but also the mind as a whole. So, for example, A. F - Bestuzhev writes that the ability to understand (logical thinking), memory, imagination are honed by drawing, which teaches to observe, preserve and analyze impressions, to form an idea of ​​the perfection of things.

So, the problem of genius in the philosophical and psychological studies of the past cannot be called peripheral. However, for many centuries it was considered somewhat autonomously from socio-pedagogical practice. And this happened primarily because these studies were not in demand by the education system. And therefore, up to the creation of specialized educational institutions, the incentive to study the nature of giftedness was, as a rule, a spontaneously arising interest in the problem, characteristic of any researcher, regardless of how valuable the results of his research from a practical point of view.

Apparently, therefore, the main attention of researchers was paid not to the phenomenon of giftedness itself as a personal formation or socio-psychological phenomenon, but to the problem of its origin (divine or earthly). At the same time, the concepts of “divine” and “natural” origin of a genius at that time were practically not differentiated, and “earthly” origin was understood as that which is formed as a result of the educational and educational impact on a person. At the same time, of course, a derivative of the answer to the question of the dominance or the presence of one and the absence of another factor in the structure of ideas about genius is the answer to the question of genius as a natural phenomenon. However, both of these points of view turn out to be unproductive from the standpoint of both studying the phenomenon itself and using the results in socio-pedagogical practice.

The notion of the divine origin of a genius makes the problem of its development under the conditions of specially organized educational systems unattractive. Go, which is created by God, is protected by him. This understanding penetrated into the mass (ordinary) consciousness and gave rise to a very harmful myth, which lives to this day, that "if a person has talent, he will always break through."

And the denial of the divine (natural) origin of talent, especially as it was understood by the theorists of the Enlightenment, at the same time excluded the concept of “gift” as such. Thus, the existence of any predisposition to creativity in general was denied. All this had its advantages for solving a number of socio-political problems of that time, but from the point of view of studying the nature of giftedness and the process of its development, it was of little use.

Teachings about genius in German classical philosophy

It is difficult to overestimate the role of German classical philosophy in the formation and development of modern scientific ideas about genius. Serious, profound works belong to its outstanding representatives, which can be considered as the pinnacle of pre-experimental study of the problem of genius in art and science. These works rightfully include the study of one of the founders of German classical philosophy, A. Baumgarten.

His teaching "On the Constituents of the Artistic Mind" contains five main points (Innate Aesthetics; Exercises in Artistic Creation; Aesthetic Theory; Aesthetic Inspiration; Artistic Finishing).

"Genius" is understood by A. Baumgarten as a "harmonized action" of natural inclinations in the intellectual and affective spheres. The direction of research into the problem of the “subject of artistic creativity” (genius), founded by A. Baumgarten, was widely developed in the aesthetics of the 18th century. Many of the properties of artistic genius proposed and substantiated by him are also present in modern theoretical models.

In his treatise “On Genius”, I. Kant argues that genius is an inborn ability to create exemplary works of art, an “aristocrat”, “the chosen one of the spirit”, capable of rising “above the flat level of ordinary logic”. And talent is the ability to create something for which there can be no specific rules, so originality is its first property.

Explaining the nature of genius, I. Kant gives a comparative description of a genius in art and a genius in science. He develops the idea, expressed by the ancient Greek philosophers, that in science even the greatest mind differs from a miserable imitator or student only in degree, and from the one “whom nature has endowed with the ability to fine arts”, the imitator differs specifically.

Given the well-known differences between artistic and scientific creativity, it should be noted that nature is one, this, of course, does not imply the identity of scientific and artistic creativity, but only emphasizes their “equality”.

Kant's "ranking" indicates that he, like his distant predecessors - the ancient Greek philosophers (Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, etc.), actually denies the scientist the right to creativity, justifying this by the fact that even the greatest achievements of science are available for assimilation almost everyone. The artistic genius, according to I. Kant, is not aware of how his ideas are born and act in him, he is not able to describe his own activity in terms of science or convey to others the method necessary to create works similar to his own.

G. Hegel's view of this problem is interesting. On this occasion, he wrote: we must touch on this aspect only in order to establish that it should be excluded from the circle of philosophical consideration, or that only a few general provisions can be put forward regarding it. Despite this, the question is often raised, where does the artist get this ability to conceive and execute a work of art, how does he do it, as if they want to have a recipe, a rule that would teach how to create a work, in what conditions and states one should put oneself in order to create something similar.

But what Hegel calls into question will become the most important pedagogical problem of the late 20th century. The study of the mechanisms of creativity and even more - teaching the skills and abilities to solve creative problems in order to increase the creative potential of each person is the most urgent task of our time and the near future.

First experimental studies

Many specialists in the field of the history of science believe that science received the right to be called such only from the time it began to truly rely on experiment and make extensive use of mathematical calculations. Moreover, many famous scientists believe that science has the right to be called a science insofar as it uses mathematics. Experiment and mathematical methods came to psychology and pedagogy much later than to physics, chemistry, and biology. It happened relatively recently, just over a hundred years ago.

An attempt to find the origins of genius not in divine predestination, but in quite earthly phenomena - innate (innate) features, marks the beginning of a fundamentally new stage in the study of giftedness. This stage is conventionally dated to the middle of the 19th century. Since that time, the experiment has firmly established itself in the studies of the human psyche, which ultimately contributed to the transformation of psychology into an independent science.

One of the pioneers of the empirical approach to the study of the problem of abilities, giftedness, and talent was the outstanding English scientist F. Galton. He is the first in the book “The heredity of talent; its laws and consequences ”tried to prove that outstanding abilities (genius) are the result of the action, first of all, of hereditary factors.

As evidence, he conducts a statistical analysis of the facts of the biographies of representatives of the English social elite. He examined 977 prominent people from 300 families. The main reason for high achievements lies, according to him, in the person himself and is transmitted biologically, from generation to generation. He gives data that for every ten famous people who have distinguished relatives, there are three or four distinguished fathers, four or five distinguished brothers, and five or six distinguished sons.

F. Galton noted that if the intelligence of a normal person is taken as 100, then a “complete idiot” will have - 0, and a genius - 200. Later, these figures were included in the formula for calculating the “intelligence quotient” (intelligensce quotient, abbr. - IQ), proposed by the famous German scientist William Stern. This formula is still used by researchers and practical psychologists all over the world.

But if, according to some representatives of differential psychology, the founder of which was F. Galton, these deviations from the conventional norm are determined by the "game of chance", then, according to F. Galton himself, they are strictly regulated by the laws of heredity.

Further work on this direction led F. Galton to the conclusion that it is necessary to artificially maintain and even improve the intellectual potential in the human community. To do this, "natural selection" in the human community must, according to him, give way to "artificial selection", for which it is necessary to artificially support the reproduction of people with desirable qualities, and prevent the reproduction of the sick, mentally retarded, etc.

The branch of knowledge created by him to provide scientific support for the solution of these social problems was called "eugenics" (from the Greek eugeiies - "of a good kind"). Biologists emphasize that eugenics is not the same as medical genetics. The main task of the latter is simply the study of the mechanisms of inheritance, while eugenics develops primarily the problems of artificial selection in relation to humans.

The methods of variational statistics developed at that time by scientists, including F. Galton, armed psychology with an important methodological tool. The method of calculating the correlation coefficient between variables turned out to be the most promising. It made it possible to draw a conclusion about the degree of randomness of the relationship between two different characteristics, for example, between the level of intelligence and academic performance, between the features of appearance and the level of development of intelligence, etc. This method was improved by the English mathematician K. Pearson, resulting in a factor analysis that received a large distribution in the psychology of the XX century. (Ch. Spearman, J. Guildford and others).

From F. Galton, modern psychodiagnostics and psychometry lead their genealogy. He introduced the concept of "test" (from the English test - test). But the theoretical foundations of F. Galton's diagnostic program, and, consequently, the entire methodological apparatus, differed significantly from those that began to dominate later. Galton proceeded from the fact that mental giftedness can be determined by the degree of sensory sensitivity. He believed that the possibilities of reason are the higher, the finer the sense organs capture and differentiate differences in the external world. This, in his opinion, was confirmed by the fact that in idiocy a person's sensory abilities (the ability to distinguish between heat, cold, pain, etc.) are often impaired.

Therefore, his research program included the identification of visual and auditory acuity, physical strength, and latent reaction time (i.e., the time that elapses from the moment a predetermined signal, such as a whistle or horn, is given until the subject answers). But the practical verification of his concept and the diagnostic approach built on it (in particular, the examination of several thousand people he conducted at the International Health Exhibition in London in 1884) did not confirm his theoretical assumptions.