Contemporary potential of pedagogical diagnostics for identifying indicators of giftedness in learners

Context and relevance. The identification of giftedness is a significant and pressing task of contemporary education in light of the need to develop the abilities of gifted students for the purpose of advancing the human resources of the Russian Federation. In the context of demarcating the professional competencies of teachers and psychologists, criteria-based parameters for pedagogical diagnostic tools are necessary to fundamentally distinguish pedagogical diagnostics from the use of psychological instruments. Objective. To identify and typologize the tools of pedagogical diagnostics for giftedness and their current potential for identifying significant indicators. Hypothesis. There are significant indicators of giftedness that are not supported by pedagogical diagnostic tools of one or more types. Methods and materials. The material for analysis consisted of the criteria for identifying giftedness described in the Working Concept of Giftedness, as well as the tools designed to identify these criteria and the possibility of their application within the framework of pedagogical diagnostics. The dataset comprised eight generalized criteria for identifying giftedness and the tools described in verified sources (articles, dissertations, monographs, textbooks). The primary methods were literature analysis, selection, and classification of pedagogical diagnostic tools. Results. A detailed specification of requirements is presented for tools used to identify giftedness that correspond to the content of the concept of “pedagogical diagnostics”. A typology of tools that align with the content of the concept of "pedagogical diagnostics" is defined, as well as a set of tools aimed at identifying the criteria-based indicators of giftedness outlined in the Working Concept of Giftedness. Conclusions. By constructing a fan matrix, the criteria for identifying giftedness that are instrumentally supported and those that are insufficiently instrumentally supported were identified. Based on the analysis of instrumentally unsupported indicators of giftedness, directions for the development of research aimed at improving programs and means of identifying gifted students were formulated.

1. Ануфриев, А.Ф. (2025). Распознавание как репродуктивная и эвристическая деятельность психолога. Научное мнение, (1–2), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.25807/22224378_2025_1-2_342
   Anufriev, A.F. (2025). Recognition as reproductive and heuristic activity of a psychologist. Nauchnoe mnenie, (1–2), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.25807/22224378_2025_1-2_34 (In Russ.).
2. Гордеева, Т.О., Сычев, О.А., Гижицкий, В.В., Гавриченкова, Т.К. (2017). Шкалы внутренней и внешней академической мотивации школьников. Психологическая наука и образование, 22(2), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.20172202064
   Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A., Gizhitskii, V.V., Gavrichenkova, T.K. (2017). Scales of internal and external academic motivation of schoolchildren. Psychological Science and Education, 22(2), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2017220206 (In Russ.).
3. Исаев, Е.И., Сафронова, М.А. (2024). Диагностика развития в системе оценки образовательных результатов младших школьников: от культурно-исторической психологии к психологической антропологии. Культурно-историческая психология, 20(4), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.20242004025
   Isaev, E., Safronova, M. (2024). Diagnostics of Development in the System of Assessment of Educational Results of Primary School Children: from Cultural-Historical Psychology to Psychological Anthropology. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 20, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2024200402
4. Кротков, Е.А. (2014). Диагностика как универсальная форма научного познания (эпистемологический анализ). Вопросы философии, (3), 85–94.
   Krotkov, E.A. (2014). Diagnostics as universal form of scientific cognition (epistemological analysis). Voprosy Filosofii, (3), 85–94. (In Russ.).
5. Мазилов, В.А., Слепко, Ю.Н., Ушаков, Д.В., Шадриков, В.Д. (2023). Проблемы исследований способностей в новейшей российской психологии: в поисках новой теории. Психологический журнал, 44(4), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920027081-57
   Mazilov, V.A., Slepko, Yu.N., Ushakov, D.V., Shadrikov, V.D. (2023). Problems of ability research in the newest Russian psychology: in search of a new theory. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 44(4), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920027081-5 (In Russ.).
6. Савенков, А.И. (2024). Психология детской одаренности. М.: Юрайт.
   Savenkov, A.I. (2024). Psychology of child giftedness. Moscow: Urait. (In Russ.).
7. Щебланова, Е.И. (2023). Концепции и модели интеллектуальной одаренности детей: мировые тенденции и перспективы в XXI веке. Теоретическая и экспериментальная психология, 16(2), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-23-109
   Shcheblanova, E.I. (2023). Concepts and models of children's intellectual giftedness: global trends and prospects in the 21st century. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 16(2), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-23-10 (In Russ.).
8. Юркевич, В.С. (2021). От детской одаренности к реальному таланту: проблема «перехода». Современная зарубежная психология, 10(4), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2021100403
   Yurkewitch, V.S. (2021). From Children’s Giftedness to Real Talent: The Problem of “Transition”. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 10(4), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2021100403 (In Russ.).
9. Arbeni, W., Naomira, D., Syahrapi, R., Pratiwi, R., Molita, P., Halim, A. (2025). Educational Evaluation: Types, Processes, Challenges, and Implications for Educational Policy. Holistic Science, 5, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.56495/hs.v5i1.83310
10. Bessadok, A., Abouzinadah, E., Rabie, O. (2023). Exploring students digital activities and performances through their activities logged in learning management system using educational data mining approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 20, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2021-014811
11. Boulahmel, A., Djelil, F., Smits, G. (2025). Investigating Self-Regulated Learning Measurement Based on Trace Data: A Systematic Literature Review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 119–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09816-y12
12. Buntins, K., Kerres, M., Heinemann, A. (2021). A scoping review of research instruments for measuring student engagement: In need for convergence. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.10009913
13. Carniel da Silva, L., Espinosa, T., Heidemann, L. (2025). Student Engagement: an Analysis of Indicators, Facilitators, and Measurement Methods in Literature Reviews. Educação em Revista, 41, e53973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-469853973T14
14. Choi, H., Winne, P.H., Brooks, C., Li, W., Shedden, K. (2023). Logs or Self-Reports? Misalignment Between Behavioral Trace data and Surveys when Modeling Learner Achievement Goal Orientation. Computers & Education, 201, 104827. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.357605215
15. Dignath, C., Veenman, M. (2020). The Role of Direct Strategy Instruction and Indirect Activation of Self-Regulated Learning – Evidence from Classroom Observation Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 489–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09534-016
16. Ding, Z. (2025). Psychoeducational Evaluation and Profiling Using the Educational Therapy Framework: A Case Study. The Asian Educational Therapist, 3, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.64663/aet.2217
17. Elosua, P., Aguado, D., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Abad, F.J., Santamaría, P. (2023). New Trends in Digital Technology-Based Psychological and Educational Assessment. Psicothema, 35(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.24118
18. Goltermann, J., Meinert, S., Hülsmann, C., … Dannlowski, U. (2023). Temporal stability and state-dependence of retrospective self-reports of childhood maltreatment in healthy and depressed adults. Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas000118619
19. Kraus, S.F. (2023). The Method of Observation in Science Education: Characteristic Dimensions from an Educational Perspective. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00461-420
20. Pecuchová, J., Drlík, M. (2024). Enhancing the Early Student Dropout Prediction Model Through Clustering Analysis of Students' Digital Traces. IEEE Access, 12, 159336–159367. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.346554021
21. Renzulli, J. (1979). What Makes Giftedness: A Reexamination of the Definition. Science and Children, 16(6), 14–15.
22. Salazar, C., Salazar, N. (2024). Identifying talented learners in the educational context. Journal of Advanced Academics, 35(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X24123456723
23. Säljö, R. (2023). Learning in Educational Settings: What Classics Can Teach Us about the Value of Attending to Participant Perspectives in Social Practices. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics, 9, 18–41. https://doi.org/10.3384/confero.2001-4562.23121724
24. Zhang, M. (2023). Educational Measurement for Applied Researchers: Theory into Practice. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 21, 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2023.2182755