Journal of Russian & East European Psychology最新文献

{"title":"Does the Adult Open or Close the Child’s Path to Independence?","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034725","url":null,"abstract":"A loving and capable adult is the center of a child’s existence. Deprivation of or defective communication and joint actions with adults can certainly have detrimental consequences for children’s health (mental and physical) and psychological development [1]. It is well known that anomalies and developmental delays in children who have no organic impairment of the nervous system are based on certain difficulties and problems in their relationships with adults who are significant to them [2]. This position has received so much confirmation in life and experimental work, has so taken possession of scientific and everyday pedagogical consciousness, that the “child–adult” relationship has come to be seen as a kind of psychological panacea. The universally recognized idea of the leading role of an adult in the mental development of a child began to be vaguely replaced by the idea of self-sufficiency of the adult, in the discourse of many teachers and in the practice of many parents and teachers; there was a logical substitution of the thesis that “collaboration with an adult is a necessary condition for child development” with the thesis (never formulated openly) that “an adult is the sufficient condition for the child’s psychological well-being” (at least in the classroom). We emphasize once again: this logical (and practical) substitution is not completely conscious. No teacher (at least from the several hundred we surveyed) and the rare parent will maintain that the most loving, delicate, sensitive adult, the most skillful, pedagogically gifted educator, can provide a child with the fullest conditions for development and improvement. The objections refer to friends, peers, younger people . . . But this is at the level of verbal consciousness. And in practice? The practice of modern preschool upbringing is based on the idea of play as the leading activity of preschoolers. The development of the form of play","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124440842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Reflective Abilities of Schoolchildren","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034724","url":null,"abstract":"The question asked here is not a rhetorical reference to what we have said up to now. The choice of goals and, accordingly, methods of elementary instruction depends on how it is answered. We have only formulated one possible answer: not knowing what one does not know, it is impossible to set targets for self-education, to teach oneself, to be the subject of one’s own learning activity. But there is another possible answer: not knowing what one does not know can be an excellent topic for study, prompting one to avidly absorb any knowledge, abilities, and skills. Children can be taught to read, write, and count perfectly; they can even be made into experts, highly qualified specialists who can solve any problem within the bounds of their competence. But is it possible, without knowing the limits of one’s competence, to go beyond these limits and set fundamentally new tasks, without waiting for “life itself” (in the person of a teacher, boss, or leader) to prod one? We have no wish to engage in unproductive, purely confessional debate about which school is better: one that nurtures the subjects of instruction, or one that looks at the child as the object of its tender pedagogical concerns. Both approaches to the instruction of primary schoolchildren are acceptable, but they are incompatible, and the main thing is not to confuse them: not to impute to a school oriented toward the training of specialists and technicians, the cultivation of learning to learn, which it cannot attain; and not to judge a school that cultivates learning to learn, only by the skillful achievements of its students. And each school should proceed according to its internal laws, not applying alien and even harmful approaches from a different educational system. For example, for knowledgeable adults who invest their knowledge in children’s minds (“the reasonable, the good, the eternal”), academic discussion about learning is not useful: there should be one truth, clear and not corroded by doubt. But teachers who encourage students to learn on their own simply cannot do","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130625399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developmental Effects of Learning Collaboration","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034763","url":null,"abstract":"This book is devoted to issues of learning collaboration, which is aimed at the reflective development of primary schoolchildren, the skill that underlies learning to learn. Diagnostics of our experimental instruction’s developmental effects are therefore centered around development of the child’s reflective ability and do not touch upon the many other questions that intrigue psy-chologists and teachers: reasons for studying in cooperation with peers, the altruistic intent of such studying, resistance to neuroticism of children who work in a constant mode of searching and uncertainty, and so forth. The purpose of this chapter is to show that the methods of organizing learning collaboration previously described are effective for solving the task before us: learning primary schoolchildren.","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130036459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Learning Independence of Young Schoolchildren","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034723","url":null,"abstract":"When we speak of someone who knows how to teach himself, we think of a scholar obsessed with a cognitive passion. Having stumbled upon some gap in his education, he begins to experience a spiritual yearning, a thirst for knowledge. And to quench that thirst, he goes to the library, compiles a detailed bibliography on the issue of interest to him, digs into specialist literature, and studies it until he feels sufficiently well informed. But learning to learn should not be understood so narrowly. It reveals itself not only in the cognitive domain and does not coincide with the ability to use reference literature and extract the necessary information from books. Some people grow wiser by drawing life experience from communication with other people, from reflections, music, novels, contemplation of nature. People who know how to teach themselves are basically able to do the following: They know their own abilities very accurately and specifically, and, consequently, their limitations: a lack of knowledge, inability to cope with a particular situation (or task), lack of skill, incompetence. And, faced with a task for which they lack certain knowledge, skills, and abilities to solve (note that they determine for themselves what exactly they lack, and know what to look for), they do not avoid it, declaring the new task stupid or uninteresting, but look for ways to expand their capabilities, studying someone else’s experience (including from books), and, if all else fails,","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125556563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Role of Peers in the Mental Development of the Child","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034739","url":null,"abstract":"In the European cultural tradition with its super-values of freedom, equality, autonomy, and independence, an adult’s position in relation to a child is always ambiguous. While leading children toward freedom, adults inevitably restrict their freedom, given that children are incapable of self-restraint, being not so much free as willful, incapable of harmonizing their own will with that of someone else. Planning and managing a child’s life (ideally in the gentlest, most democratic, hands-off way) is the direct responsibility of adults, and equality in this work between a child and an adult is, in principle, impossible. When adults insist on the equality of their relations with children, they mean a completeness and reciprocity of feelings, as well as unconditional, absolute respect for the unique identity of each person, regardless of age. But if an adult insists on equality with a child in everything, this is either sentimental selfdeception, or follows the logic: “On the possibility of breaking the law of universal gravitation on Thursdays.” Alas, the famous aphorism of G. Orwell applies to relations between children and adults: “All are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Unlike the “adult–child” relationship (in principle, equal–unequal), relations with peers are, first and foremost, based on equality. (Only those children’s groups in which a child begins to play the adult role of the boss, leader, or dictator are built on a “control–subordination” relationship.) What do association and collaboration with peers do for the mental development of children? This question seems self-evident only at first glance. But can someone who is ignorant and incapable teach? Can someone who is imperfect improve someone else? Let us cut off in advance any attempt at a superficial, quantitative solution. We will not discuss peer relationships as relationships of those who are slightly more or less skillful, knowledgeable,","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133318373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Communication and Generalization","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034721","url":null,"abstract":"“We have found the key to the problem of developmental instruction in primary school age. The key is the content of the instruction. If we want instruction in elementary school to be continuously developing, we must first attend to the scientific nature of the content [emphasis added—G.Z.],” wrote D.B. El’konin in 1974, summing up the results of a fifteen-year experimental study of the age cabilities of primary schoolchildren [1]. These experiments showed that the introduction of young schoolchildren to the foundations of the sciences and the development of a system of theoretical concepts are a) possible and b) open to the potential for a radical restructuring of the entire character of the child’s development and to the emergence of theoretical thinking and the reflection that underlies it — the central mental neoformation of primary school age. The systemic and symbolic–model nature of theoretical knowledge distinguish the content of school instruction [obuchenie] from the mass of cultural content that children assimilate before entering school. It is clear that qualitatively new content requires qualitatively new forms of assimilation. The initial form of mastering any cultural content is collaboration between the child and an adult. The relationship between the form and content of the collaboration was aphoristically formulated by L.S. Vygotsky: “A new type of generalization requires a new type of communication” [2]. This work is devoted to deciphering and concretizing Vygotsky’s elegant formula, considering only one question in detail: what specific learning collaboration between a child and an adult is necessary for the assimilation of new — theoretical — knowledge and the child’s transition to a new — theoretical — method of generalization? In order to meaningfully define learning collaboration, which should first appear in primary school age, it should be distinguished from the previous preschool, pre-educational forms of child–adult collaboration. What forms of interaction with an adult does the child who has arrived at school already have; why is the entire arsenal of preschool means and methods of collaboration insufficient to master the educational content? This chapter will be devoted to","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128023063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Learning Collaboration of Primary Schoolchildren","authors":"G. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.2034756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.2034756","url":null,"abstract":"The question “HOW,” in which modern science specializes, is secondary to the question “WHY.” We have already formulated our opinion: everything at school, including the organization of learning collaboration, should be aimed at educating a person who, once an adult, can independently determine their place in the world of human relations, their own way of thinking and acting, their own POSITION. We differentiate “position” as a relationship that a person constructs to the human world, from “status” and “role.” Status is a characteristic of extremely regimented relationships, in which a person is unambiguously prescribed, in finished form, his or her place, methods of interaction, and system of views and evaluations. Unlike the relationships of position and status that permeate all domains of human existence, “roles” (social and playful) are always partial, do not fully encompass the human “self.” For example, the position (always personal!) of the “believer” is embodied in Luther’s god-building: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” The status of a believer is embodied in the scrupulous Talmudic prescription of every step of a righteous life. And the role of a believer is played by those who, though they attend church on holidays, do not remember God on weekdays. While realizing that we are using “loaded” psychological terms, and not performing here a conceptual analysis and differentiating our understanding of “position,” “status,” and “role” from those accepted in various","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122939335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Chapter 3: The Duality of Activity","authors":"V. Petrovsky","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.1933829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.1933829","url":null,"abstract":"Let us return to the questions we have posed. How should the contradiction be resolved between scientific and everyday concepts of activity? The relationship, the true connection between everyday and scientific concepts, can be interpreted in different ways. One way is to simply drop the common-sense point of view in favor of theoretical conceptions. But such scientism, while it may be somewhat appropriate for nonhumanitarian knowledge, is, in our view, completely unjustified in the humanities (philosophy, pedagogy, psychology). For all the apparent respectability of the slogan “Science is always right!,” violence against common sense in the humanities is in reality no better and no worse than the obscurantism of champions of “common sense” with regard to scientific concepts. Just as colliding matter and antimatter destroy each other, so the collision of militant scientism and no less militant obscurantism leaves no room for either science or common sense. Theoretical conceptions undoubtedly subjugate conceptions of everyday consciousness, but the act of subjugating them is not at all an act of merciless negation, “bare, purposeless.” The theoretical subjugation of common sense retains, or should retain, elements of the latter’s original object-relatedness, elements anchored and mystically assimilated in mankind’s original prescientific conceptions. Breaking with common sense, as with something deliberately unsound, fallacious, fundamentally false, means breaking with the very subject-matter of research, declaring it fallacious or unworthy of the theorist’s attention, striking it at the root. Subjugating common sense theoretically must obviously be understood only as sublation. Our solution to this problem is conditioned on overcoming the postulate of congruity and on differentiation between the processes of realization and the actual motion of activity (see Chapter 1). Therefore, let us return to the questions originally posed. Is activity subjective? Let us reformulate this question as follows: If the subject is logically the bearer and conveyor of a goal, then is it legitimate in","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123912863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Chapter 5: Activities of the Subject’s Self-Positing","authors":"V. Petrovsky","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.1933833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.1933833","url":null,"abstract":"Consider the famous schoolboy’s dilemma: “Is the Lord omnipotent?” “Yes, omnipotent!” “Then can He create a stone that He cannot Himself lift?” (If God cannot create such a stone, then He is not omnipotent; but if He can create a stone that He cannot Himself lift, then He is also not omnipotent.) It is difficult to say whether the creation of such a stone could have been in the interests of the Most High, but what is remarkable is that it seems that people constantly pose and solve this problem, thereby discovering a paradoxical property of their own activity: its nonadaptivity. . . . There are two girls in the room. The first girl is of school age. She has to perform a very simple task: to reach an object lying in the middle of the table at such a distance from the edges, fenced off by a low barrier, that it is impossible to reach it directly with her hand; it would work to use a stick that is lying here. The girl walks around the table, tries one thing and then another, but the problem is still not solved. A younger girl, about five years old, at first watches quietly, and then begins to give one suggestion after another: “jump up” (this tip is clearly unsuccessful), “use the stick” (the only thing that can will work). Finally, she takes the stick herself and tries to reach the object. But the older girl quickly takes this “tool” away from her, explaining that it is not hard to reach it with the stick, “anyone can do that.” At that moment, an experimenter enters the room, to whom the test subject declares that she cannot reach the object on the table. How should this phenomenon be interpreted? Does the schoolgirl perhaps simply misunderstand the task (for example, assuming that she is “not allowed” to use the stick)? . . . No, as it turns out. What if we slightly change the conditions of the experiment? Without eliminating the objective significance of the goal to be achieved (the object lying on the table), we artificially change the subject’s attitude to how it can be achieved (for example, we explain to her that she may use the stick). The subject, of course, does not refuse to act as instructed, but tries to avoid the reward","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125619525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Chapter 4: Nonadaptivity as Inevitability","authors":"V. Petrovsky","doi":"10.1080/10610405.2021.1933831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2021.1933831","url":null,"abstract":"Nonadaptivity as inevitability. Analyzing the manifestations of a person’s vital relationship to the world, we first of all turn to the famous maxim of F. Engels: “To live means to die.” “The negation of life is essentially contained in life itself, so that life can always be understood in relation to its inevitable result, which is continually present in the embryo: death.” The “embryo” of death can, of course, be interpreted as a “goal” (“to die”). But naturally, the author of The Dialectics of Nature was far from a teleological interpretation of death, which he viewed as a result of life, in accordance with Hegel’s distinction between them. If that is so, then from this simple premise there follows an important conclusion for us: The life of the individuum as a totality cannot be represented in the form of progress toward any single original goal; the fundamental support for the postulate of congruity collapses, because the negation of life contained in life itself goes beyond what this postulate can explain.","PeriodicalId":308330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Russian & East European Psychology","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116432618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}