Features of gifted teenagers’ representations of a person in a digital society

Abstract

Background. Subjective representations mediate people’s perception and comprehension of the world, influencing their activity and behavior. The study analyzes the subjective representations of modern teenagers about a person in a digital society, which are of great importance for their socialization and life plans.

Objective. To study the specifics of representations of a person in a digital society in the gifted adolescents compared to those of their normotypic peers.

Study Participants. T110 students of grades 7–10 aged 13–16 years (m. = 57, f. = 53), in- cluding 56 schoolchildren selected by the Center for gifted children support “Strategy” in Lipetsk for their achievements in physics and math and 54 pupils of general educa- tion schools in Moscow.

Methods. Data collection was carried out using the modified projective technique “Bubbles”.

Results. It is shown that intellectually gifted adolescents are significantly more likely than their normotypic peers to endow a person of a digital society with intellectual, motivational, and professional characteristics, describing him as intelligent, educated, purposeful, with high level of digital literacy, able to use the latest technologies, whereas normotypic adolescents are significantly more likely to characterize him in terms of external features: clothing, physique and lifestyle, describing him as fashionable, athletic or, on the contrary, untidy, fond of playing computer games, walking, etc. It was also found that gifted teenagers are significantly more likely than their peers to describe a person in a digital society as lonely and friendless.

Conclusions. The gifted teenagers’ representations of a person in a digital society are more diverse, meaningful, and differentiated than those of their normotypic peers, and are also characterized by meaningful features. The data analysis allowed to identify a “problem area” specific for the gifted adolescents, indicating their experience of loneliness and difficulties in communicating and finding friends, deficits in carrying out their leading activities.

References

Abdulla Alabbasi, A.M., Ayoub, A., Ziegler, A. (2021). Are gifted students more emotion- ally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A meta-analysis. High Ability Studies, 32, 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1770704

Al-Hroub, A., Khoury, S. (2018). Definitions and Conceptions of Giftedness Around the World. Gifted Education in Lebanese Schools, 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78592-9_2

Androsova, S.A., Sinelnikov, Yu.G. (2014). The structure of the linguistic category “human characteristics”. Vestnik VGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya = Bulletin of the VSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, (1), 27–31. (In Russ.)

Barbier, K., Donche, V., Verschueren, K. (2019). Academic (Under)achievement of Intellectually Gifted Students in the Transition Between Primary and Secondary Education: An Individual Learner Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02533

Deeva, N.A. (2022). Subjective individual representations of success in life in the current situation. National Journal of Psychology, (2), 14–24. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/ npj.2022.0202

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group Publ.

Ekici, G., Erdoğan, E. (2019). Perception of Peace in Gifted Students (Case of Kırıkkale). Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 14(28), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.465783

Johnson, G., Puplampu, K. (2008). A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of the Internet on child development: The ecological technosubsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(1), 19–28. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/13183

Krneta, D.L. (2016). Perception of Present and Vision of Future of Gifted Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(8), 1745–1752. http://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040801

Lyusova, O.V., Solyankina, L.E. (2016). The image of the future as a component of the value-semantic sphere of boys and girls. Mir nauki, kul’tury, obrazovaniya = The World of Science, Culture, and Education, (3), 202–206. (In Russ.)

Mahover, K. (2003). The projective drawing of a person. Moscow: Smysl Publ. (In Russ.)

Makarov, V.L. (1917). The global digital society and the transformation of values. The global world: systemic shifts, challenges and contours of the future: XVII International Likhachev Scientific Readings. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University. (In Russ.)

Maker, C.J. (2021). Exceptional talent in the21st century context: Conceptual framework, definition, assessment, and development. Gifted Education International, 37(2), 158–198. http://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421995188

Matyushkin, A.M. (2012). The concept of creative giftedness. Vestnik prakticheskoi psikhologii obrazovaniya = Bulletin of Practical Psychology of Education, 9(4), 83−86. (In Russ.)

Novikova, I.A., Bychkova, P.A. (2024). Students’ attitude to digital educational technologies: definition, diagnosis, gender characteristics. Teoreticheskaya i eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 17(1), 70−84. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-24-04

Okur, A., Alevli, O. (2018). New media literacy skills in gifted students. Croatian Journal of Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i1.2553

Ryumina, M.T. (2020). Digital society and the human problem. Scientific Research, 79−89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31249/scis/2020.00.06

Shcheblanova, E.I. (2023). Intellectually gifted schoolchildren: cognitive, emotional and social development: monograph. Moscow: FSC PMR Publ. (In Russ.)

Shumakova, N.B. (2019). The idea of a creative and successful personality among intellectually gifted teenagers. Voprosy psikhologii = Questions of Psychology, (4), 88−99. (In Russ.)

Shumakova, N.B., Bogpomocheva, O.A. (2015). Research activity as a factor in the formation of an image of the world among gifted adolescents. Voprosy psikhologii = Questions of Psychology, (3), 30–38. (In Russ.)

Soldatova, G.U., Rasskazova, E.I., Nestik, T.A. (2017). The digital generation of Russia: competence and security. Moscow: Smysl Publ. (In Russ.)

Soldatova, G.U., Rasskazova, E.I. (2023). Digital socialization of Russian teenagers: through the prism of comparison with teenagers from 18 European countries. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 14(3), 11–30. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140302

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan Publ.

Urraca, M.L., Sastre-Riba, S., Viana, L. (2021). World Perception and High Intellectual Ability: A Comparative Study. Psicología Educativa, 27(1), 21–25. http://doi.org/10.5093/psed2020a15

Uymaz, M. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Gifted and Typically Developing Secondary School Students’ Perceptions of the Future. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 13(3), 504−526. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1380751

Volodarskaya, E.A. (2021). The study of the image of a scientist in the context of the concept of social representations by Serge Moscovici. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika = Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Psychology and Pedagogy, 18(2), 402−421. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2021-18-2-402-421

Yemelyanova, T.P. (2001). Social representation — concept and concept: the results of the last decade. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 22(6), 39−47. (In Russ.)

Yildirim, F. (2022). An investigation of perceptions of gifted students toward the concept of digital citizenship. In EJER Congress 2022 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 116–129). Izmir: Ege University Publ.

Yılmaz, F., Kahraman, A.D. (2015). Science and nature perception in the images and pictures of the children. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 650–658.