dissertation on school readiness

• < Previous

Home > ETDs > Doctoral Dissertations > 490

Doctoral Dissertations

The relative importance of six classes of school-readiness variables with academic achievement in elementary- school students: a growth analysis of the ecls-k:2011.

Kimberly Kalkbrenner Follow

Date of Graduation

Document type.

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

College/School

School of Education

Learning and Instruction

Learning & Instruction EdD

First Advisor

Robert Burns

Second Advisor

Patricia Busk

Third Advisor

Helen Maniates

School readiness is a multi-variable construct that includes six classes of variables: (a) cognitive knowledge and skills, (b) social and emotional skills, (c) physical skills and health, (d) family structure and home environment, (e) access to community resources, and (e) early school experiences. The problem with school readiness is that the six classes have been studied separately but never together, which raises the question, what variables make children the most ready to succeed academically in school? Answering this question may help to address the achievement gap because differences in students’ academic achievement can be linked to differences in school readiness. This study examined the relationships between 13 school-readiness variables that were organized into six classes with students’ academic achievement and growth as represented by students’ reading and mathematics assessment scores over 5 years of elementary school (fall kindergarten through spring fourth grade). This study was a secondary analysis of the longitudinal data set ECLS-K:2011, a national probability sample of more than 18,000 U.S. elementary-school students, using hierarchical linear growth modeling (HLM growth modeling). Results indicated that of the six classes of variables the three with the strongest relationship to academic achievement in fall kindergarten were student’s cognitive knowledge and skills, social and emotional skills, and family structure and home environment. Within these three classes, the variables with the strongest influence on reading and mathematics academic achievement in fall kindergarten as well as on academic growth in elementary school in order of importance were kindergarten teachers’ ratings of students’ general academic knowledge, students’ working memory ability, students’ socioeconomic status (SES), students’ cognitive flexibility, and teachers’ ratings of students’ behavior. The academic starting points as measured by reading and mathematics assessment scores in fall kindergarten and the growth rates for each variable as measured by reading and mathematics assessment points in the spring semesters of grades first through fourth are provided in this study. Implications for future research include examining the relationships between students’ general academic knowledge, SES, and working memory. Implications for future practice include providing more feedback to early-childhood educators and elementary school teachers in the form of classroom observations to help them improve their teaching practice. By improving their teaching practice, early-childhood teachers can help their young students achieve greater academic success and preparedness to start elementary school, which in turn can help alleviate the school-readiness gap and ultimately the achievement gap.

Recommended Citation

Kalkbrenner, K. (2019). THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SIX CLASSES OF SCHOOL-READINESS VARIABLES WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN ELEMENTARY- SCHOOL STUDENTS: A GROWTH ANALYSIS OF THE ECLS-K:2011. Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/490

Since December 02, 2019

Included in

Early Childhood Education Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submit Research
• Electronic Theses/Projects Submission Guide
• Nursing and Health Professions Submission Guide

Library Links

• Gleeson Library
• Zief Law Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

School Readiness: A Culture of Compliance?

--> Kay, Louise (2018) School Readiness: A Culture of Compliance? EdD thesis, University of Sheffield.

'School readiness' is at the forefront of current Early Childhood Educational policy and is seen politically as a way of narrowing the attainment gap and breaking the cycle of poverty, and preparing children for the formal learning of Year One. However, there is no clear definition of what 'school readiness' means for teachers and children. Without this in place the phrase is left open to interpretation and contradictions, resulting in key divisions between policymakers and the Early Childhood community as to what being 'school ready' means. Furthermore, when 'school readiness' is positioned within policy as 'academic readiness', conflicts and tensions arise between traditional Early Childhood pedagogical practices and the realities of working within a framework where there is a clear emphasis on Mathematical and Literacy outcomes. Viewed through a socio-constructivist lens, 'readiness for school' is seen as a fluid construct, dependent on the beliefs of those working with children. The aim of this research was to explore the beliefs of two Reception teachers using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) that acknowledges teachers as being part of a collective activity system. Within this methodological framework, teachers are seen as thinkers and actors whose purposes, values and knowledge are displayed within the activity systems they inhabit. The ways in which 'school readiness' was constructed through pedagogical practices were identified, and the tensions and contradictions that emerged between these practices and the beliefs of the teachers were explored in depth. An Internet survey questionnaire was used as a way of providing a broader understanding of teacher perceptions around constructs of ‘school readiness’. Interviews with the two participants were carried out to illuminate specific beliefs about 'school readiness', and to identify how teachers conceptualised the construction of 'school readiness' in the classroom. The analysis of these interviews focused on 'manifestations of contradictions' (Engeström & Sannino, 2011) within the data that highlighted tensions between beliefs, pedagogical practices, and curricular and assessment policy frameworks. The findings from the research illustrate the complexities of 'school readiness' as a transitional concept, and the reductionist nature of using the Good Level of Development (GLD) as a measure of 'school readiness'. Using 'school readiness' as a performativity and accountability measure serves to subjugate both teachers and children, and further marginalises already marginalised groups of children if they fail to reach the GLD. This study reiterates the importance of providing a clear definition with regards to what 'school readiness' means, and whether it refers to the institutional transition into school, or the curricular transition from Reception into Year One. The research also furthers the debate around the outcomes children are expected to reach by the end of Reception as a measure of 'school readiness', particularly those focusing on more instrumental skills such as Mathematics and Literacy.

--> school_readiness --> -->

Filename: school_readiness.pdf

Embargo Date:

You do not need to contact us to get a copy of this thesis. Please use the 'Download' link(s) above to get a copy. You can contact us about this thesis . If you need to make a general enquiry, please see the Contact us page.

Psychophysiological factors of school readiness in six-year-old children

• Published: 03 June 2012
• Volume 38 , pages 264–270, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

• I. A. Krivolapchuk 1 &
• M. B. Chernova 1  

164 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of biomedical ethics in healthy six-year-old children ( n = 120). The following psychophysiological factors determining the school readiness of six-year-old children were identified in the course of the research: selectivity of voluntary attention (factor I); general work capacity (factor II); physiological maturity (factor III); and sensorimotor coordination of voluntary movement (factor IV). Factors I, II, and IV are related to the activities of the information, energy, and regulatory units of the central nervous system singled out by Luria in the context of the structural-functional model of performance of the brain as a substrate of mental activity. The research has revealed an interrelation between some indicators of school readiness and the parameters of the capacity for physical work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Cognitive Performance Degradation in High School Students as the Response to the Psychophysiological Changes

Effect of computer work on the state of physiological functions in children aged 7 to 10 years

Health state, emotional intelligence, and behavior strategy: i. the development of emotional intelligence and the variability of behavior strategies in older preschool children with different levels of habitual physical activity.

Bezrukikh, M.M., Gotov li rebenok k shkole? (Is a Child Ready for School?), Moscow: Ventana-Graf, 2004.

Google Scholar  

Kostina, L.M., Adaptation of First Formers to Schooling via Reduction of their Anxiety, Vopr. Psikhol. , 2004, no. 1, p. 137–143.

Litvinenko, N.V., Adaptatsiya shkol’nikov v kriticheskie periody razvitiya k obrazovatel’noi srede (Adaptation of Schoolchildren in the Critical Periods of Development to Educational Environment), Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Psychology) Dissertation , Samara, Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2009.

Kostyak, T.V., Psikhologicheskaya adaptatsiya pervoklassnikov (Psychological Adaptation of First-Formers), Moscow: Akademiya, 2008.

Biktina, N.N., Eksperimental’noye issledovaniye preduprezhdeniya rannikh proyavleniy shkol’noy dezadaptatsii u detey 6–7 let (Experimental Research in Prevention of Early Manifestations of School Deadaptation in Children in the Age of Six to Seven Years), Psikhol. Nauka Obraz. , 2009, no. 3, www.psyedu.ru .

Venger, L.A. and Venger, A.L., Gotov li vash rebenok k shkole? (Is Your Child Ready for School?), Moscow: Znanie, 1994.

Sergeeva, I.A., Psychological Aspects of Readiness of Senior Preschoolers for School Education, Doshk. Pedag. , 2006, no. 5, p. 54.

Bogen, M.M. and Bogen, M.V., Vash rebenok idet v shkolu: Psikhologicheskaya i fizicheskaya podgotovka (Your Child is Going to School: Psychological and Physical Preparation), Moscow: KD Librokom, 2009.

Murberg, T.A. and Bru, E., The Role of Neuroticism and Perceived School-Related Stress in Somatic Symptoms among Students in Norwegian Junior High Schools, J. Adolesc. , 2007, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 203.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miklyaeva, A.V. and Rumyantseva, P.V., Shkol’naya trevozhnost’: diagnostika, profilaktika, korrektsiya (School Anxiety: Diagnostics, Prevention, Correction), St. Petersburg: Rech, 2007.

Vegetativnaya disfunktsiya u detei i podrostkov (Autonomic Dysfunction in Children and Adolescents), Kozlova, L.V., Ed., Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2008.

Hayashi, Y., Adaptation to Elementary School and the Effect of Rehabilitation Approach in Children with High-Functioning Pervasive Developmental Disorders, No To Hattatsu , 2008, vol. 40, no. 4, p. 295.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Knollmann, M., Al-Mouhtasseb, K., and Hebebrand, J., School Refusal and Psychiatric Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence: Findings from an Outpatient Sample of a Psychiatric “School Refusal Ambulance,” Prax. Kinderpsychol. Kinderpsychiatr. , 2009, vol. 58, no. 6, p. 434.

Hesketh, T., Zhen, Y., Lu, L., et al., Stress and Psychosomatic Symptoms in Chinese School Children: Cross-Sectional Survey, Arch. Dis. Child. , 2010, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 136.

Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po fiziologo-gigienicheskomu izucheniyu uchebnoi nagruzki (Methodical Recommendations for Physiological and Hygienic Investigation of Educational Load), Antropova, M.V. and Kozlov, V.I, Eds., Moscow: APN SSSR, 1984.

Karpman, V.L., Belotserkovskii, Z.B., and Gudkov, I.A., Testirovanie v sportivnoi meditsine (Testing in Sport Medicine), Moscow: Fizkul’tura i Sport, 1988.

Nemov, R.S., Eksperimental’naya pedagogicheskaya psikhologiya i psikhodiagnostika (Experimental Pedagogical Psychology and Psychodiagnostics), Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1995.

Ovcharova, R.V., Prakticheskaya psikhologiya v nachal’noi shkole (Practical Psychology in Elementary School), Moscow: Sfera, 1996.

Il’ina, M.N., Paramonova, L.G., and Golovenkova, N.Ya., Testy dlya detei, sbornik testov i razvivayushchikh uprazhnenii (Tests for Children, Collection of Tests and Developing Exercises), St. Petersburg: Del’ma, 1997.

Pavlova, T.L., Diagnostika gotovnosti rebenka k shkole (Diagnostics of Child’s Readiness for School), Moscow: Sfera, 2006.

Razvitie mozga i formirovanie poznavatel’noi deyatel’nosti rebenka (Brain Development and Formation of Cognitive Activity of a Child), Farber, D.A. and Bezrukikh, M.M., Eds., Moscow: Moscow Psychological-Social Institute, 2009.

Danilova, N.N., Psikhofiziologiya (Psychophysiology), Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2000.

Fiziologiya razvitiya rebenka. Rukovodstvo po vozrastnoi fiziologii (Child Development Physiology. Guide on Age Physiology), Bezrukikh, M.M. and Farber, D.A., Eds., Moscow: Moscow Psychological-Social Institute, 2010.

Harrison, G., Weiner, J., Tanner, J., et al., Biologiya cheloveka (Human Biology), Moscow: Mir, 1979.

Korochkin, L.I., Biologiya individual’nogo razvitiya (geneticheskii aspekt) (Biology of Individual Development (Genetic Aspect), Moscow: Moscow State University, 2002.

Ingenkamp, K., Pedagogicheskaya diagnostika (Padagogische Diagnostik), Moscow: Pedagogika, 1991.

Bernshtein, N.A., Biomekhanika i fiziologiya dvizhenii (Biomechanics and Movement Physiology), Moscow: Moscow Psychological-Social Institute, 2009.

Luria, A.R., Osnovy neiropsikhologii (Basics of Neuropsychology), Moscow: Akademiya, 2006.

Khomskaya, E.D., Neiropsikhologiya (Neuropsychology), St. Petersburg: Piter, 2005.

Zaporozhets, A.V., Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy, v 2-kh tomakh (Selected Psychological Works, in 2 Volumes), Moscow: Pedagogika, 1986, vol. 2.

Kol’tsova, M.M., Dvigatel’naya aktivnost’ i razvitie funktsii mozga rebenka (Motor Activity and Development of Child’s Brain Functions), Moscow: Pedagogika, 1973.

Gentilucci, M. and Dalla Volta R., Spoken Language and Arm Gestures are Controlled by the Same Motor Control System, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. , 2008, vol. 61, no. 6, p. 944.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tyler, L.K., Stamatakis, E.A., Dick, E., et al., Objects and their Actions: Evidence for a Neurally Distributed Semantic System, Neuroimage , 2003, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 542.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Meister, I.G., Boroojerdi, B., Foltys, H., et al., Motor Cortex Hand Area and Speech: Implications for the Development of Language, Neuropsychologia , 2003, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 401.

Desai, R.H., Binder, J.R., Conant, L.L., and Seidenberg, M.S., Activation of Sensory-Motor Areas in Sentence Comprehension, Cereb. Cortex , 2010, vol. 20, no. 2, p. 468.

Hubbard, A.L., Wilson, S.M., Callan, D.E., and Dapretto, M., Giving Speech a Hand: Gesture Modulates Activity in Auditory Cortex during Speech Perception, Hum. Brain Mapp. , 2009, vol. 30, no. 31, p. 84.

Skipper, J.I., Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H.C., and Small, S.L., Speech-Associated Gestures, Broca’s Area, and the Human Mirror System, Brain Lang. , 2007, vol. 101, no. 3, p. 260.

Meister, I.G., Buelte, D., Staedtgen, M., et al., The Dorsal Premotor Cortex Orchestrates Concurrent Speech and Fingertapping Movements, Eur. J. Neurosci. , 2009, vol. 29, no. 10, p. 2074.

Gurfinkel, V.S. and Levik, Yu.S., Movement Control, in Osnovy psikhofiziologii (Principles of Psychophysiology), Aleksandrov, Yu.I, Ed., Moscow: INFRA-M, 1998, p. 93.

Bogen, M.M., Fizicheskoe vospitanie i sportivnaya trenirovka. Obuchenie dvigatel’nym deistviyam (Physical Education and Sports Training. Learning Motor Actions), Moscow: Librokom, 2010.

Bobrova, E.V., Mekhanizmy sensomotornoi koordinatsii dvizhenii i pozy cheloveka (Mechanisms of Sensorimotor Coordination of Human Movements and Posture), Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Biol.) Dissertation , St.-Petersburg, 2010.

Oja, L. and Jürimäe, T., Physical Activity, Motor Ability, and School Readiness of 6-Yr.-Old Children, Percept. Mot. Skills , 2002, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 407.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Developmental Physiology, Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, 119121, Russia

I. A. Krivolapchuk & M. B. Chernova

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Original Russian Text © I.A. Krivolapchuk, M.B. Chernova, 2012, published in Fiziologiya Cheloveka, 2012, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 48–55.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Krivolapchuk, I.A., Chernova, M.B. Psychophysiological factors of school readiness in six-year-old children. Hum Physiol 38 , 264–270 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0362119712020120

Download citation

Received : 19 May 2011

Published : 03 June 2012

Issue Date : May 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S0362119712020120

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• school readiness
• psychophysiological factors
• work capacity
• sensorimotor coordination
• physiological maturity
• voluntary attention
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Developmental effects of davydov’s mathematics curriculum in relation to school readiness level and teacher experience.

• Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Davydov’s mathematics curriculum was designed according to the principles of the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). In this study, we analyzed some developmental effects of its realization in Grade 1 ( N = 46, two classes), in relation to the children’s school readiness level (specifically, their motivation, voluntary regulation, and intellectual development), and their teacher’s experience (a very experienced teacher in one class, and a less experienced one in the other). We assessed two groups of developmental effects: (1) some general math abilities (comparison of objects, measurement and ability to solve simple problems of addition and subtraction); and (2) some abilities, which are very specific to Davydov’s mathematics curriculum (i.e., the ability to put numbers on a number line and to measure quantity using different measures). At the beginning of the Grade 1, we divided all participants into three groups according to their level of motivation (low, medium, or high), voluntary regulation (low, medium, or high), and logical preservation (low, medium, or high) in terms of J. Piaget. After 1 year (at the beginning of Grade 2) we measured general effects again and also measured specific effects. The results showed that all the children became significantly better in all general math abilities. It was also found that progress in math abilities does not depend on the initial level of school readiness of children. Children with different levels of voluntary regulation, motivational readiness, and the level of logical preservation show improvements in general math abilities. As for the mathematical skills specific to the Davydov’ program, the achieved level of their development (both according to the test results and the results of the expert assessment by the teacher) is also not related to the initial parameters of readiness for school. Also, there were no differences in improvements in general effects and in specific effects between the classes with experienced and not-so-experienced teacher. So, there are some reasons to believe that the level of the child’s actual development does not play a fundamental role for education, which built in accordance with the principles of CHAT.

Introduction

The Elkonin-Davydov educational system emerged in the Soviet Union more than 60 years ago. It was among others (see, for example, Zankov, 1975 ; Cole, 1990 ; Bibler, 1993 ; Puentes, 2017 ) the attempt to apply Vygotsky’s main idea about the interconnection between learning and development to education. Vygotsky (1978) suggested absolutely different way for understanding human nature, and, as the result, for understanding of the role of learning and teaching in child development. In contrast to J. Piaget, in whose studies development is considered as a natural process of adaptation to the environment, Vygotsky believed that a “subjective world is born from the objective world of art, from the world of production tools, from the world of industry” ( Obukhova, 2012 , p. 51), i.e., child development should be considered as cultural development. So, learning and teaching according to Vygotsky is the major factor of cognitive development. If, according to Piaget, learning depends on the level of development achieved by the child, then according to Vygotsky (1956) , learning leads development, “bringing to life” those processes that cannot arise without it. Moreover, each subject at school has its own, special relation to the course of child development and it is important for a psychologist to find “the internal structure of school subjects from the point of view of the child’s development and changes in this structure along with the methods of school teaching” ( Vygotsky, 1956 ). So what are these developmental processes that are brought to life by school teaching, in particular, mathematics? Does mathematics curriculum, which was built in Vygotsky’ foundations, can help even students with less school readiness to achieve some key math abilities?

Elkonin-Davydov’s Developmental Education: General Principles and Composition of Math Curriculum

Elkonin-Davydov approach was called developmental education (DE), because the main goal of such system is to encourage students’ learning initiative, independent critical thinking, and the development of reflective abilities ( Zuckerman, 2014 ). Moreover, such learning has to be organized in a specific way and therefore requires a radical restructuring of both the content and form of classroom learning ( Elkonin, 1975 ; Davydov, 1990 ; Zuckerman, 2014 ). The main differences between the content of DE and traditional education (TE) concern, first of all, the type of subject matter: the DE curriculum involves theoretical concepts and the TE-system involves empirical ones ( Davydov, 1990 ). Theoretical knowledge is knowledge about the genesis of the concept being learned. Theoretical knowledge allows children to understand not only how to do something, but also why to perform a task this way and not another. The second point is the way children’s learning activities are organized. It is important to choose actions in which theoretical concepts can assume the role of a cultural mediator ( Vygotsky, 1978 ), a model. It means that students’ aware of the functions of these concepts in the whole system (i.e., in which kind of tasks do people need a number?). The definition of such a function was the goal of a specific action, which was called a “learning task” in El’konin’s and Davydov’s theory. The “generation” of such theoretical concept through solving of learning task should be constructed on the basis of special “logical-genetic” reconstruction of the process by which a concept emerges ( Davydov, 1990 ). So, after an understanding and accepting of learning task the next student’s learning action is the transformation of the situation and discovering of the general foundation for the further solution of a variety of individual problems. Other learning actions are modeling of the general way of actions, their application to different problems, control and assessment. Active and problem-oriented methods of instruction are also widely used in this curriculum, as well as forms of student self-assessment from the first grade on ( Davydov, 1990 ).

The mathematics curriculum is a classical example of the implementation of the Elkonin-Davydov approach to practice of teaching. Most traditional math curricula assume that if children can count when they enter first grade then they “know what number is,” and move on to training the children in operations with number ( Moxhay, 2008 ). Davydov’ mathematics curriculum is structured in this way so the concept of number (as theoretical concept) emerges out of the concept of mathematical quantity as its precondition. One ( Gorbov et al., 2008 ) or two ( Aleksandrova, 2001 ) trimesters of Grade 1 in the DE curriculum focuses on pre-numerical learning. Students study the properties of objects such as color, shape, and size, and then quantities such as length, volume, area, mass, and the number of discrete objects (i.e., collections of things, but without yet using number to enumerate “how many”). The concept of a number is introduced here through the measurement of the quantity, which is carried out through the “deposition” of a unit of measurement on the measured quantity and the calculation of such depositions. The number in this case is a characteristic of the quantity and depends not only on the measured quantity, but also on the chosen measure. By changing the conditions for solving measurement problems and their inverse ones (reproducing a quantity through adding of measurements), students “grow” different types of numbers and ways of designating them (single and multi-digit numbers in different counting systems). As a result, children know for sure that (a) the number always refers to some quantity (when asked “how much?” children would always specify – “what exactly?”), (b) the choice of the measure (“what did they measure?”) is not arbitrary, the measure is always a part of the measured quantity, and (c) the number is needed to preserve/reproduce in new conditions the relationship between the quantity and the measure by which it is measured. And, finally, after the introduction of the concept of number, it is not just “worked out” in various tasks, but is developed into an integral system of learning tasks. It means that the end of Grade 1 a number line appears to be as the general model of number, as special cultural tool. Such curriculum can be considered as completely changing of traditional math education paradigm and it can be called as Relational paradigm instead of Operational paradigm ( Polotskaia, 2018 ).

Studies have shown that certain differences in cognitive and personality characteristics ( Shadrikov et al., 2011 ; Gordeeva et al., 2018 ) can be detected between DE and TE students. Speaking about mathematics DE students often demonstrate higher levels of mathematical ability than TE students ( Atakhanov, 1995 ; Pavlova, 2008 ). However, most of these studies measured the differences at the end of Fourth Grade (some researchers, Moxhay, 2008 , demonstrated developmental effects after Grade 2), and there are not many which have assessed the effects after the 1st year of the DE curriculum. Since there are such crucial differences between the 1st year mathematics curriculum designed by Davydov and other math programs, it makes sense to compare students in Davydov’s math program after Grade 1 with the same students before completing Grade 1. The other interesting research questions concern the impact of school readiness to development of key math abilities. Is it really true that students with low school readiness cannot achieve good results? According to J. Piaget teaching and learning should adapt to child development while Vygotsky (1978) believed that good teaching leads to development. Is it really true that Davydov’s math curriculum does not required special child school readiness?

School Readiness

School readiness is not assumed to correspond to a child’s chronological age or specific capabilities; it includes factors such as the child’s level of mental development, as well as preschool factors, such as whether the child participated in some type of high-quality preschool education ( Nisskaya, 2018 ). We are going to speak only about the level of the child’s mental development that is necessary and sufficient for the development of a common school curriculum ( Vygotsky, 1956 ). The main factors determining that level are voluntary behavior regulation and motivation ( Gutkina, 2000 ). Voluntary behavior regulation means following the rules and an adult’s instructions. The construct “voluntary regulation” is very closed to the modern construct “executive functioning.” Executive functioning includes three interrelated components: working memory, inhibitory control, and attention shifting ( Miyake et al., 2000 ) and all of them are considered as predictors of early mathematical learning ( Clark et al., 2010 ; Aarnoudse-Moens et al., 2013 ). Only two of them (inhibitory control, and attention shifting) can be considered as the essential parts of psychological readiness to school. But it would be good to assess the impact of voluntary regulation to effects after specific Davydov’s curriculum.

Motivation in this context is also called the “inner schoolchild position” – the child’s attitude toward school showing that he or she is willing and ready to fulfill the duties of a student. Motivational readiness is a factor of voluntary behavior development ( Gutkina, 2000 ), but it can be analyzed independently. Some studies have shown that children with high motivational readiness learn better than others ( Nezhnova, 1981 ).

The other essential component of school readiness is intellectual component. According to J. Piaget the most critical here is preservation. The concept of “preservation” means that an object or a set of objects are recognized as unchanged in the composition of the elements or in any physical parameter, despite changes in their shape or external location. At the preoperative stage of the development of intelligence ( Piaget, 1964 ), the child relies exclusively on perceptual visualization, therefore, any movement of elements within a set means for him a change in the set itself as a whole. At the level of specific operations (usually, at the beginning of Grade 1) an understanding of the principle of preservation in relation to different physical characteristics of objects and phenomena (mass, weight, length, etc.) does not arise in a child simultaneously (i.e., understanding of the principle of conservation of mass does not mean that understanding of the principle of preservation of weight and volume). But the level of preservation (how many particular characteristics student have already preserved) can differentiate students according their cognitive readiness. We choose the ability to preserve also because is strongly depended on understanding what we are going to measure and there was some findings (see, for example, Obukhova, 1972 ), which have shown that after special teaching (teaching how to compere objects, using different characteristics through measurement) even 6-year old children can have logical preservation. The content of Davydov’s math curriculum includes very same things, so we expected that the level of logical preservation does not play very important role in children’s improvements.

Possible Developmental Effects of Davydov’s Math Curriculum

In exploring the developmental effects of Davydov’s curriculum, Moxhay (2008) used specific problems for assessment, the very same ones which are used in real lessons (for example, telling the child to cut off a piece of paper tape “just like this one,” but not allowing him to carry it from one table to the other). Moxhay also posed problems to the children, which are not specific to a math curriculum, but measure general theoretical thinking ( Zak, 1984 ). In our opinion, it is interesting to compare characteristics, which are closely connected with the contents of Davydov’s math curriculum, especially after Grade 1 (so, they should be some math abilities). We have chosen two groups of characteristics: (1) the general ones (which can improve during the year regardless of the specific Davydov’s program) and (2) the specific ones (which probably can be the result of Davydov’s curriculum). As the general characteristics, we have chosen, first of all, ability to compare objects using only one characteristic in spite of others ( comparison ). Comparison is the part of preschool education in most kindergartens in Russia ( Veraksa et al., 2019 ) and it can improve after a 1 year because almost all math existing programs for Grade 1 include tasks about comparison. They should be able to highlight the comparison parameter before making the comparison itself, and not get confused if the objects are also similar in other aspects. The second characteristic is the measurement ability (it was ability to measure of length as the simplest one) – to start with the beginning, to choose the same units and to put them one by one without any spaces ( measurement ). The ability to measure of length is often used in real life and also a part of preschool education curriculum, so such tasks can be solved and we have some reasons to expect improvements here too. The last general ability is the ability to solve simple problems of addition and subtraction ( math problems ; many students can do it before the Grade 1 and it also can improve during the year).

Also, we decided to check some other specific abilities, which should be the possible results of specific Davydov’s curriculum. The first one is the ability to put numbers on a number line ( number line ) and the second one is the ability to measure quantity ( measuring of quantity ; in our case – square) in case quantity and the different units are suggested, so children are supposed to find an exact number. This was necessary to show the extent to which students had mastered the program as a whole.

What were our initial expectations?

The Hypotheses

First, we expected that the improvements in general math abilities probably would not depend on initial levels of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation. This is because the main goal of the Davydov’s curriculum is developmental education, which probably is suitable for all children regardless of their initial school readiness. Such curriculum should lead to the increasing of motivation and voluntary regulation and also preservation (because during the Grade 1 children work constantly with different physical characteristics of objects and phenomena).

General Hypothesis 1: Improvements in general math abilities after the curriculum do not depend on initial level of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation.

Hypothesis 1.1: Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) do not depend on level of voluntary regulation .

Hypothesis 1.2: Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) after the curriculum do not depend on level of motivation .

Hypothesis 1.3: Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) after the curriculum do not depend on level of preservation .

General Hypothesis 2: There are not any differences in specific math capabilities (measuring of quantity and number line) after the year’s curriculum between students with different levels of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation.

Hypothesis 2.1: There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of voluntary regulation.

Hypothesis 2.2: There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of motivation.

Hypothesis 2.3: There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of preservation.

General Hypothesis 3: There are not any differences between classes with different in teacher experience. We did not expect any differences between classes with teachers with different levels of experience. The main reason of that is that both teachers did not have any experience of teaching according the Elkonin-Davydov’s principals.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The participants were 46 first graders from one public school in Moscow, 21 boys and 25 girls (average age = 7.5, SD = 0.46). The participants were drawn from two school classes with different teachers (class A: N = 23, and class B: N = 23). All participants studied mathematics according Davydov’s mathematics curriculum, but their teachers had different levels of experience. The teacher of class A had worked at the school more than 25 years, while the teacher of class B had just graduated from university before taking this class. However, it was the first experience for both teachers to teach according to the principles of the Elkonin-Davydov’s system.

Motivational Readiness

To measure motivational readiness, we used the “A conversation about school” method designed by Nezhnova (1981) . The conversation aims at assessing the development of the “inner schoolchild position.” We suggested five alternatives to the children and asked them which they preferred. The children received a piece of paper with red and blue circles drawn to represent red and blue schools, respectively. Each question had a description of a “red” or “blue” school, and the children had to choose the school they liked more and mark the corresponding circle.

For each answer corresponding to a positive inner schoolchild position, the children received a 1; otherwise they got a 0. The questions concerned: (1) the lesson schedule (in the red school, you will study more reading, mathematics, and writing, and less drawing, physical education, and music; in the blue one, you will study more drawing, physical education, and music, and less reading, mathematics, and writing); (2) school rules (in the red one, there are a lot of rules, while in the blue, no rules at all); (3) studying in school or at home; (4) the possibility of inviting mothers to be schoolteachers; and (5) the method of assessment (marks in the red school and sweets for performance in the blue one). The maximum score for that test was 5.

Voluntary Regulation

To measure voluntary regulation, we used the “Graphic dictation” test designed by D.B. Elkonin ( Gutkina, 2000 , p. 69). The children are invited to draw on the checkered paper a line down, then right, up, right, down, and so on. In this case, the test administrator should not dictate where the line should end, and once the pattern of organization is identifiable, should invite the students to continue the picture themselves. We used one pattern for training and three different patterns for the test. Each of them was assessed from 0 to 4. The maximum score for that test was 12.

Preservation

We measured preservation using J. Piaget’s tests. Children were presented with initial pictures and changed pictures (see Figure 1 ). They were then asked to make sure that the number of circles (length of strips or amounts of water) was the same. Then the administrator pointed out that something had changed (blue circles were pushed apart, a blue strip was moved, water from one glass was poured into another glass). Then he/she asked which picture had more circles now; which strip was longer; which glass held more water, or maybe they were the same? The children had to circle those which were more, or put a sign “=” if they were equal.

Figure 1 . The initial pictures and changed pictures, which were shown to students for preservation measurement.

Developmental Effects of the Math Curriculum

General math abilities, comparison of objects.

To measure this skill, we offered a picture with seven strips (see Figure 2 ) and asked the children to circle those that were equal in length. Moreover, among the strips there were some not only of the same length, but also of the same color and width, or of the same color, width, and length at the same time. In total, there were five rectangles of equal length. For this task the maximum score was 5.

Figure 2 . The task of assessing the ability to compare objects by one characteristic. Students were supposed to circle those strips that were equal in length.

Measurement

We suggested a picture and the instruction was as follows: “The children measured the pencil with paper clips. Here’s how they did it. Which of them measured the pencil correctly? Please circle.” After that we gave them the next picture (with pens measured by coins) and the same instruction (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . Two tasks to measure the ability to choose an appropriate measure of quantity.

Math Problems

There were five simple problems (1 + 3, 7–5, 9 + 1, 2 + 6, and 8–4); the maximum score was 5.

Specific Math Capabilities

For specific math effects, we assessed two abilities. The first one was the ability to measure quantity using different measures ( measuring of quantity ). Students had to supply a number describing how many times a small measure fits into a large measure (see Figure 4 ).

Figure 4 . Tasks for assessing the ability to measure quantity using different measures.

The second measured ability was the ability to put numbers on a number line ( number line ). We used these standard problems: (1) the number line was directed to the right; (2) a number line was directed to the left; (3) there was a number line in which the measure was one cell and several cells; and (4) instead of a number line, there was a line without direction with a single digit. The last problem had no solution.

External validity was provided by the teacher’s assessment of the same parameters. We asked teacher to assess all involved students using same characteristics: the general characteristics (comparison, measurement, math problems) and the specific ones (measuring of quantity and number line). All correlations were significant ( p < 0.05, Pirson’ correlation), except comparison – it was not. Probably, it can be explained by the fact that teacher assess in more detail (not only lengh comparison but also comparison of volume, square, and others).

The study included two stages. At the beginning of the first school year, we measured the children’s motivation, voluntary regulation, and general math capabilities. At the beginning of the second school year, we measured general math abilities again, as well as specific math abilities.

Data Processing

We used SPSS Statistics 23 for data processing.

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 . The results showed that all the children became better in all the general math abilities – comparison, measurement, and math problems (we have used Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, p < 0.001). Moreover, such improvements in comparison, measurement, and math problems are significant for each groups of respondents (we have made One-Sample t -test for all three regulation groups, motivation groups, and preservation groups, p < 0.001 (only for low and high levels of motivation improvement in measurement significant with p < 0.01).

Table 1 . Descriptive statistics for all measured characteristics.

We have not found any significant differences between the two classes in voluntary regulation, motivation, preservation, measurement, and math tasks at the beginning of the first school year except differences in the tasks of comparison; class A did it better ( p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney test for independent samples). We also did not explore any correlations between voluntary regulation, motivation, or preservation, so we can divide the whole sample into groups separately by each these characteristics. How we did it? We divided all participants into three groups: low (25th percentile and below), average (26th–74th percentile), and high levels (75th percentile and above), depending on their (a) motivational readiness and (b) regulation readiness. Concerning preservation we have found that most children did the preservation task pretty perfect (65.2%), so we decided to divide the whole sample into two groups – high level and lower levels. The distribution of the sample depending on voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation is presented in Table 2 .

Table 2 . The distribution of the sample depending on voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation (in %).

Also, for each participant, we have counted improvements in all three general math abilities among whole sample as the difference between levels after a year and before the year (you can see in Table 3 , how many students have improved each ability). Improvements of each group depending on voluntary regulation, motivational readiness, and preservation are shown on the pictures ( Figures 5 – 7 ).

Table 3 . The distribution of the sample depending on improvement in general math abilities.

Figure 5 . The average improvements in each characteristic (measurement, comparison, and math problems) for each group of children (with low, medium, and high regulation readiness).

Figure 6 . The average improvements in each characteristic (measurement, comparison, and math problems) for each group of children (with low, medium, and high motivational readiness).

Figure 7 . The average improvements in each characteristic (measurement, comparison, and math problems) for each group of children (with low and high levels of preservation).

We also made correlation between regulation readiness with all general math abilities after a year and the same for motivational readiness and for preservation. We results showed that regulation readiness positively correlates with measurement ( R = 0.39, p < 0.05, N = 33) and with math tasks (but only according to teacher’s assessment; R = 0.35, p < 0.05). We have not founded any correlations for motivational readiness. But preservation positively correlates with measurement and comparison, assessed by teacher. So, there are some reasons to think that regulation readiness and logical preservation are more important for Davydov’s curriculum than motivational readiness. The ANOVA analysis showed the interaction of regulatory readiness and preservation in student’s progress in the ability to measure.

We then proceeded to test all our hypotheses.

General Hypothesis 1 was completely confirmed. Improvements in general math abilities after the curriculum do not depend on initial level of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation.

Hypothesis 1.1 was confirmed. Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) do not depend on level of voluntary regulation ( t -test for independent samples).

Which particular regulation groups have significantly improved their general math abilities comparing with overs? According to our results, all groups of students became significantly better in all math abilities ( p < 0.001, One-sample t -test).

Hypothesis 1.2 was confirmed. Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) after the curriculum do not depend on level of motivation . Interesting, that children with medium level of motivation have showed the most improvements in math tasks comparing with children with high level of motivation (differences are not significant, but they can be if we have more respondents, because p = 0.08).

Hypothesis 1.3 was confirmed. Improvements in general math abilities (comparison, measurement, and math problems) after the curriculum do not depend on level of preservation.

The second, we expected that there could not be differences in specific math effects between children with different levels of motivation, voluntary regulation, and preservation after the year’s curriculum.

General Hypothesis 2 was partly confirmed . There are not any differences in specific math capabilities (measuring of quantity and number line) after the year’s curriculum between students with different levels of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation.

Hypothesis 2.1 was confirmed. There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of voluntary regulation. There was some tendency that there were differences between groups with high and low levels of voluntary regulation because according to teacher’s assessment children with high level are better in line number ( p = 0.067) and in measuring of quantity ( p = 0.07).

Hypothesis 2.2 was partly confirmed. There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of motivation except measuring of quantity (we explored that students with low motivation did it better after a year of learning than students with high level of motivation). But this fact does not confirm by the results of teacher’s assessment (according to teacher there are not any differences in measuring of quantity between low and high groups).

Hypothesis 2.3 was confirmed. There are not any differences in specific math capabilities among students with different levels of preservation.

General Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. There are not any differences between classes with different teacher’s experience. But there are some reasons to think that class A, with the less experienced teacher, was better ( p = 0.07) in measuring quantity (only according to teacher’s assessment).

Davydov’s curriculum is often considered by parents (and some teachers) to be more difficult than other math curricula. The program has special requirements not so much related to the child’s capabilities as to the quality of the child’s psychological readiness for school. Our study involved children with different levels of motivational readiness for school, with different levels of voluntary regulation, and different levels of logical preservation. After a year of study under the Davydov’s curriculum, there were changes in general math abilities for all groups of children (from 30 to 40% of whole sample have improved their abilities), and such changes, according to our results do not depend on their initial levels of school readiness. We can see that the progress is possible for children with all levels of voluntary regulation, motivational, and cognitive readiness. So, the Davydov’ program, probably, does not have any special requirements, related to the quality of the child’s psychological readiness for school, which give us a reasons to think that Vygotsky’s point about interconnection between learning and development ( Vygotsky, 1956 ) was correct. Especially it concerns the level of logical preservation in terms of J. Piaget – according to our results it does not play an essential role. Works of L. Obujkova, actually, confirm this results because she has shown that logical preservation can be acquired through measurement ( Obukhova, 1972 ). We also did not found any differences in specific math effects between classes with teachers with different levels of experience, but it can be explained by the fact that both teachers did not have the experience in teaching according to Davydov principals. We suppose, more effective would be to analyze and compare the real lessons of each teacher in terms of compliance with the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) methodology. Let us discuss several possible limitations to our study. First, in general the effectiveness of classroom methods of school readiness’ diagnostics is always lower than the effectiveness of methods conducted individually with a child. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were not able to conduct individual examinations. So in future it would be good to test our respondents individually. Secondly, the teachers’ lack of experience with the Elkonin-Davydov program could mean that the program itself was not being implemented quite correctly. This means that the effects obtained cannot be reliably recognized as the effects of this educational system. And, finally, an insufficient number of subjects could also affect the results. Nevertheless, we believe that these results reflect reality to some extent, although they require further research.

In our research, we have analyzed some developmental effects of the realization of Davydov’s math curriculum in Grade 1, in relation to the children’s levels of school readiness (motivation and voluntary regulation) and their teacher’s experience. First, we expected to find differences in general math capabilities at the beginning of the Grade 1 between particular groups of students. Our first general hypothesis was completely confirmed: improvements in general math abilities after the curriculum do not depend on initial level of voluntary regulation, motivation, and logical preservation. Our second general hypothesis was partly confirmed. There are not any differences in specific math capabilities (measuring of quantity and number line) after the year’s curriculum between students with different levels of voluntary regulation, motivation, and preservation, but results are contradictable: according to teacher’s assessment there are differences in measuring of quantity between low and high motivated children, but according to our methods students with low motivation did it better than students with high level of motivation!. Our third hypothesis was confirmed. There are not any differences between classes with different teacher’s experience. So, the most interesting our finding was school readiness (understanding as motivational, voluntary regulation, and cognitive) do not play so important role in teaching mathematics, based on Elkonin-Davydov principals.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics committee of the Russian Psychological Society. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

AS designed the model and the computational framework, picked up and analyzed the data, and wrote this manuscript.

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation of Fundamental Investigations (RFFI No. 19–29-07373).

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks to the administration and teachers of Moscow Public School 1788 for the opportunity to collect data.

Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Weisglas-Kuperus, N., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Van Goudoever, J. B., and Oosterlaan, J. (2013). Executive function and IQ predict mathematical and attention problems in very preterm children. PLoS One 8:e55994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055994

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aleksandrova, E. I. (2001). “Matematika [Mathematics]” in Sbornik primernykh programm dlia nachal’noi shkoly [Collection of sample programs for elementary school] . ed. A. B. Vorontsov (Moscow: VITA-PRESS publ.), 290–328.

Google Scholar

Atakhanov, R. А. (1995). Sootnoshenie Obshchikh Zakonomernostei Myshleniia i Matematicheskogo Myshleniia [Correlation of general laws of thinking and mathematical thinking]. Vopr. Psikhol. 5, 41–50.

Bibler, V. S. (ed.) (1993). Shkola dialoga kul’tur: Idei. Opyt [School of dialogue of cultures: Ideas, experience, problems] . Kemerovo: AlEF.

Clark, C. A. C., Pritchard, V. E., and Woodward, L. J. (2010). Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics achievement. Dev. Psychol. 46, 1176–1191. doi: 10.1037/a0019672

Cole, M. (1990). “Cognitive development and formal schooling: the evidence from crosscultural research” in Vygotsky and education . ed. L. C. Moll (New York: Cambridge University Press), 89110.

Davydov, V. V. (1990). “Types of generalization in instruction” in Soviet studies in mathematics education . Vol. 2. 1–223.

Elkonin, D. B. (1975). “Primary schoolchildren’s intellectual capabilities and the content of instruction” in Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics . Vol. VII. eds. J. KilpatrIck, E. G. Begle, I. Wirszup, and J. W. Wilson, 13–54.

Gorbov, S. F., Mikulina, G. G., and Savel’eva, O. V. (2008). Obuchenie matematike. 1 klass [Teaching mathematics. 1 class] . Moscow: VITA-PRESS.

Gordeeva, T. O., Sychev, O. A., Pshenichnuk, D. V., and Sidneva, A. N. (2018). Academic motivation of elementary school children in two educational approaches — innovative and traditional. Psychol. Russ. 11, 19–36. doi: 10.11621/pir.2018.0402

Gutkina, N. I. (2000). Psikhologicheskaia Gotovnost’ k Shkole [Psychological readiness for school] . Moscow: Akademichesky Proekt.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., and Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41, 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Moxhay, P. (2008). Assessing the scientific concept of number in primary school children. In: ISCAR-2008 Proceedings.

Nezhnova, T. A. (1981). “Psikhologicheskie Razlichiia v Otnoshenii k Shkole i Ucheniiu u Shesti‐ i Semiletnikh Shkol’nikov v Nachale i Kontse Pervogo Goda Obucheniia [Psychological differences in attitudes towards school and learning among six‐ and seven-year-old schoolchildren]” in Diagnostika Uchebnoi Deiatel’nosti i Intellektual’nogo Razvitiia Detei [Diagnostics of educational activity and intellectual development of children] . eds. A. L. Elkonin and D. B. Venger (Moscow: NIIOPP).

Nisskaya, A. K. (2018). School readiness outcomes of different preschool educational approaches. Psychol. Russ. 11, 43–60. doi: 10.11621/pir.2018.0104

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Obukhova, L. F. (1972). Stages of development of children’s thinking . Moscow: MSU publ.

Obukhova, L. F. (2012). Vygotsky and developmental psychology in his and our time. Cultural-Historical Psychology [Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya] 8, 51–58.

Pavlova, V. V. (2008). Sravnitel’nyi Analiz Innovatsionnykh Tekhnologii Obucheniia s Pozitsii Deiatel’nostnogo Podkhoda [Comparative analysis of innovative teaching technologies from the standpoint of the activity approach]. PhD Dissertation. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget. Development and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2, 176–186.

Polotskaia, E. (2018). How the relational paradigm can transform the teaching and learning of mathematics: experiment in Quebec. Int. J. Math. Teach. Learn . 18.

Puentes, R. V. (2017). Didática desenvolvimental da atividade: o sistema Elkonin-Davidov (1958-2015). Obutchénie, Uberlândia 1, 20–58. doi: 10.14393/OBv1n1a2017-2

Shadrikov, V. D., Zinovieva, N. A., and Kuznetsova, M. D. (2011). Razvitie mladshikh shkolʹnikov v razlichnykh obrazovatelʹnykh sistemakh [Primary schoolchildren’s development in different educational systems]. Moscow: LOGOS.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Veraksa, N. E., Komarova, E. M., and Dorofeeva, E. M. (eds.) (2019). From birth to school. An innovative preschool education program . Moscow: Mozaika-Sintez, 336.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1956). Izbrannye psikhologicheskie issledovaniia [Selected psychological studies] . Moscow: APN RSFSR Publ.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development: Of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.

Zak, A. Z. (1984). Razvitie Teoretichesckogo Myshleniya u Mladshikh Shkol’nikov [Development of theoretical thinking in primary school children] . Moscow: Pedagogica.

Zankov, L. V. (1975). Obuchenie i razvitie [Learning and development] . Moscow: Pedagogica.

Zuckerman, G. A. (2014). “Developmental education” in The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology . eds. A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, and M. Ferrari (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 177–202.

Keywords: mathematics, school readiness, first graders, developmental effects, Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

Citation: Sidneva A (2020) Developmental Effects of Davydov’s Mathematics Curriculum in Relation to School Readiness Level and Teacher Experience. Front. Psychol . 11:603673. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603673

Received: 07 September 2020; Accepted: 28 October 2020; Published: 19 November 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Sidneva. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anastasia Sidneva, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Search form

The Graduate School

• Faculty/Staff Resources
• Programs of Study Browse the list of MSU Colleges, Departments, and Programs
• Graduate Degree List Graduate degrees offered by Michigan State University
• Research Integrity Guidelines that recognize the rights and responsibilities of researchers
• Online Programs Find all relevant pre-application information for all of MSU’s online and hybrid degree and certificate programs
• Graduate Specializations A subdivision of a major for specialized study which is indicated after the major on official transcripts
• Graduate Certificates Non-degree-granting programs to expand student knowledge and understanding about a key topic
• Interdisciplinary Graduate Study Curricular and co-curricular opportunities for advanced study that crosses disciplinary boundaries
• Theses and Dissertations Doctoral and Plan A document submission process
• Policies and Procedures important documents relating to graduate students, mentoring, research, and teaching
• Academic Programs Catalog Listing of academic programs, policies and related information
• Traveling Scholar Doctoral students pursue studies at other BTAA institutions
• Apply Now Graduate Departments review applicants based on their criteria and recommends admission to the Office of Admissions
• International Applicants Application information specific to international students
• PhD Public Data Ph.D. Program Admissions, Enrollments, Completions, Time to Degree, and Placement Data
• Costs of Graduate School Tools to estimate costs involved with graduate education
• Recruitment Awards Opportunities for departments to utilize recruitment funding
• Readmission When enrollment is interrupted for three or more consecutive terms
• Assistantships More than 3,000 assistantships are available to qualified graduate students
• Fellowships Financial support to pursue graduate studies
• Research Support Find funding for your research
• Travel Funding Find funding to travel and present your research
• External Funding Find funding outside of MSU sources
• Workshops/Events Find opportunities provided by The Graduate School and others
• Research Opportunities and programs for Research at MSU
• Career Development Programs to help you get the career you want
• Graduate Educator Advancement and Teaching Resources, workshops, and development opportunities to advance your preparation in teaching
• Cohort Fellowship Programs Spartans are stronger together!
• The Edward A. Bouchet Graduate Honor Society (BGHS) A national network society for students who have traditionally been underrepresented
• Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP) A gateway to graduate education at Big Ten Academic Alliance universities
• Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) A community that supports retention, and graduation of underrepresented doctoral students
• Recruitment and Outreach Ongoing outreach activities by The Graduate School
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Funding Funding resources to recruit diverse students
• Graduate Student Organizations MSU has over 900 registered student organizations
• Grad School Office of Well-Being Collaborates with graduate students in their pursuit of their advanced degree and a well-balanced life
• Housing and Living in MI MSU has an on and off-campus housing site to help find the perfect place to stay
• Mental Health Support MSU has several offices and systems to provide students with the mental health support that they need
• Spouse and Family Resources MSU recognizes that students with families have responsibilities that present challenges unique to this population
• Health Insurance Health insurance info for graduate student assistants and students in general at MSU
• Safety and Security MSU is committed to cultivating a safe and inclusive campus community characterized by a culture of safety and respect
• Why Mentoring Matters To Promote Inclusive Excellence in Graduate Education at MSU
• Guidelines Guidelines and tools intended to foster faculty-graduate student relationships
• Toolkit A set of resources for support units, faculty and graduate students
• Workshops Workshops covering important topics related to mentor professional development
• About the Graduate School We support graduate students in every program at MSU
• Strategic Plan Our Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals
• Social Media Connect with the Graduate School!
• History Advancing Graduate Education at MSU for over 25 years
• Staff Directory
• Driving Directions

Dissertation Community Group (Virtual)

Doctoral Students

Location: Zooim

Date: TBD based on participant availability

Are you struggling to make progress on your dissertation? The Dissertation Community Group may be for you. This 6-week group provides doctoral students with a supportive, structured environment that helps mitigate the isolation and frustration that often accompany the dissertation process. It also creates opportunities for peer accountability to help each other stay on track. This group does NOT focus on the technical aspects of writing and there will be no review of written work, though participants are welcome to arrange for that type of review outside of group meetings. A weekly discussion topic will also allow participants to share experiences and resources that help address some of the most common barriers to progress (e.g., low motivation, time management, stress/burnout).  This group is open only to PhD students who are actively working on their dissertation . To register, please fill out this brief Qualtrics form where you can let us know a little bit about yourself and where you are in the dissertation process:

NOTE: Registration for this event series will end on Friday, September 27, 2024 and groups will begin meeting the week of October 7-11.

• Call us: (517) 353-3220
• Contact Information
• Privacy Statement
• Site Accessibility
• Call MSU: (517) 355-1855
• Visit: msu.edu
• MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer.
• Notice of Nondiscrimination
• Spartans Will.
• © Michigan State University

Updated Deadlines for Graduate Thesis, Dissertation, and Capstone Project for SY 2024-2025

18 Sep 2024 | Office of the Assistant Vice President for Graduate Education

In line with the updated graduation dates announced by the Office of the University Registrar on 11 September 2024 ( Academic Calendar ), kindly note the revised deadlines related to Thesis, Dissertation, and Capstone Projects:

Please refer to the following documents for the most recent TDCP policies and procedures:

1.  OAVPGE memo released last 5 September 2024

2.  2024 Graduate Student Handbook

Kindly disseminate this to your faculty advisers, panel members, style readers, and graduate students. 

Thank you very much.

Recent News

16th national conference for religious educators (ncre) this october is about the jubilee year.

19 Sep 2024

Ateneo BUILD Center Welcomes New Board Member

Technical issues regarding payment for registration for term 1 and trimester 1, and how to resolve these (memo no. agsb-od-2425-019), reminder: gate pass sticker issuance for sy 2024-2025 (csmo memo), officer-in-charge, office of the vice president for basic education (memo u2425-039), initial rank, upgrade in rank, permanent appointment and promotion of faculty in higher education (memo u2425-038), strengthening a continuously-growing community: highlights of math majors' gathering 2024.

18 Sep 2024

ACED’s storybook entitled 'Blueplate' receives the Kids Choice Award at the 8th National Children's Book Awards

Ags feast of the holy guardian angels fair happens 26-28 sept 2024, ags holds anti-bullying talk for partners-in-formation, you may also like these articles.

AGSB-OD-2425-019 19 September 2024 TO: AGSB Students FROM: (sgd.) Jowett Cecilio F. Magsaysay, MBA, PhD Dean SUBJECT: Technical issues regarding payment for registration for Term

19 September 2024 TO: The University Community FROM: (Sgd) Josephy F Almosera Director, Campus Safety and Mobility Office SUBJECT: REMINDER: GATE PASS STICKER ISSUANCE FOR

(Memo # U2425-039) I would like to update the community that Ms Genalyn S Sanvictores, Principal of Ateneo de Manila Junior High School will be the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Vice President for Basic Education instead of Dr Jaime Jose G Nicdao

(Memo # U2425-038) I am pleased to inform the University Community of the initial rank, upgrade in rank, permanent appointment and promotion of the following faculty in Higher Education:

Ateneo de Manila Grade School invites the University community to its annual Feast of the Holy Guardian Angels celebration happening from September 26 – 28

Building a culture of kindness, respect, and inclusivity at Ateneo de Manila Grade School is a shared responsibility, as is the creation and maintenance of

Modal title

• Preparing to Apply
• How to Apply
• After Applying
• Why Penn State?
• Military and Veteran Students
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Degree Programs
• Academic Dates and Deadlines
• Policies for Students
• Theses and Dissertations
• Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate Plans
• Commencement
• Planning Your Finances
• External Funding Opportunities
• Information for Graduate Assistants
• Student Recognition Awards
• Funding FAQ
• Professional Development
• New Students
• From the Dean
• Advising and Mentoring Tips
• Academic Support
• Student Support FAQs
• Addressing Concerns
• Well-Being Resources
• Office of Graduate Educational Equity Programs (OGEEP)
• J. Jeffrey and Ann Marie Fox Graduate School Open House
• Programs and Initiatives
• McNair Scholars Program
• Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)
• Resources and Partners
• Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean
• Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan
• By the Numbers
• Contact the J. Jeffrey and Ann Marie Fox Graduate School
• Resource Library

This dialog contains the full navigation menu for gradschool.psu.edu.

J. Jeffrey and Ann Marie Fox Graduate School at Penn State

• Student Support

Information For

• Alumni and Friends
• Veterans and Military Service Members

Helpful Links

• Graduate Education Policies
• Graduate Bulletin
• Student Teaching Certificate
• Graduate Exhibition
• Three Minute Thesis
• Accelerate to Industry

For Faculty and Staff

• Graduate Council
• Graduate Education Resource Portal

Social Media

Graduate students can now register for annual three minute thesis competition.

September 16, 2024

Graduate students looking to highlight their scholarly achievements, compete for monetary awards and recognition, and hone their research communication skills are now able to register for the second annual University-wide Three Minute Thesis competition. The deadline for competitor and community judge registration is Oct. 25.

Legal Statements

• Non-Discrimination
• Equal Opportunity
• Accessibility
• The Pennsylvania State University © 2024

Exclusive: Ammunition from India enters Ukraine, raising Russian ire

• Medium Text

• European customers have been transferring Indian munitions to Ukraine, officials say
• Indian foreign ministry says report is misleading, inaccurate
• Kyiv has dire shortage of artillery shells as it fights Russia
• Delhi and Moscow have warm relationship built on defence cooperation
• Despite Russian protests, India sees arms exports as commercial opportunity

DISCREET DELIVERIES

Friendly fire.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Krishn Kaushik in New Delhi; Additional reporting by Allison Martell in Toronto, Stephen Grey and Guy Faulconbridge in London, Gerry Doyle in Singapore, Belen Carreño in Madrid, Jonathan Landay in Washington, Jan Lopatka in Prague, Crispian Balmer in Rome, Rachel More in Berlin; Editing by Katerina Ang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Krishn reports on politics and strategic affairs from the Indian subcontinent. He has previously worked at the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, an international investigative consortium; The Indian Express; and The Caravan magazine, writing about defence, politics, law, conglomerates, media, elections and investigative projects. A graduate of Columbia University's journalism school, Krishn has won multiple awards for his work.

Explosives put in devices before they arrived in Lebanon, says Lebanon's UN mission

A preliminary investigation by Lebanese authorities into the communications devices that blew up in Lebanon this week found that they were implanted with explosives before arriving in the country, according to a letter sent to the U.N. Security Council by Lebanon's mission to the United Nations.