Interaction with Culture in the Preschool Education as a Space for Development

The article is devoted to the analysis of the process of interaction of a child with culture. Domestic psychologists, including L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, D.B. Elkonin, A.V. Zaporozhets and others, assigned a decisive role in the development process to the development of culture by the child as a source of development. One of the issues that is specifically considered in this paper is related to the analysis of situations that allow a child to master cultural forms. The publication examines three types of situations in the context of which the child's appeal to culture occurs. First of all, the study of normative situations, the structure of which includes cultural artifacts, is carried out. Being in such a situation requires the child to master the rules of interaction with a cultural artifact. The second type of situations in which children turn to culture are imaginary or imaginary situations. The third type of situations includes creative situations. Each situation determines its own way of addressing preschoolers to culture and its own form of development. There are three forms of development: learning, play and creativity. All these forms of development should be presented in preschool childhood, which will allow to amplify children's development.

The Problem of Children’s Interaction with Culture

A. Leontiev, discussing human development, pointed to the culture’s decisive role. He emphasized that mankind's achievements are preserved in culture. The child development during childhood is understood as a process determined by the mastering of cultural heritage [15, p. 425].

However, to understand child development, we cannot limit ourselves to recognizing the culture’s importance. D. Elkonin emphasized that culture is a source of development, but only if the child himself/herself actively interacts with it [19, p. 15].

According to L. Vygotsky, the mastering of culture is ensured by the development of higher mental functions, which are characterized by mediation, awareness, arbitrariness and systematicity. In other words, one must admit that there is a process of interaction between the child and culture.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the process of interaction between a child and culture in the structure of preschool age. We consider the following analysis tasks.

1. To determine the structural units of the space in which the process of interaction with culture unfolds.
2. To identify mechanisms of interaction with culture.
3. To explore the structure of preschool age.

We believe that the process of interaction with culture is actualized in a special space, which is society.

Speaking about society, one must keep in mind that the concept of “society” is in the formation process and it undergoes transformation in the developing of interpretations in the context of a particular theory. We use the “society” concept as a working definition that allows us to highlight the properties of culture that interest us as an object with which the child interacts. When we talk about society, we mean that, along with other components, society has a system of rules (or norms) associated with objects of human culture (or artifacts). In this sense, a cultural artifact is a completed (relatively integral) fragment of content that has become significant for society members. According to A. Leontiev, artifacts are discoveries, inventions or works of art. Due to this circumstance, a normative situation is created, including an artifact and rules of action associated with this artifact. In this regard, we are close to the position of R. Merton, who identified norms, roles and values ​​as part of the society’s normative structure (p. 258). As we noted earlier, society includes a normative system associated with cultural artifacts [3]. This means that a normative system is a union of normative situations, which are units of this system, and therefore units of society. The normative system characterizes one of the basic layers of society. The normative situation is structured as follows.

It is a cultural artifact, in relation to which rules of action or instructions for certain behavior are given. A subject who physically approaches an artifact enters the space of a normative situation and must act in accordance with its rules or norms. Moreover, if a person does not comply with social norms, society uses various forms of coercion: from friendly advice to direct violence.

The normative situation presupposes the presence of two sides: visible and hidden. The visible side is determined by the material from which the artifact is created. The hidden side is determined by the rules, regulations, etc., which constitute its ideal side. According to A. Losev, any situation includes visible signs as well as hidden ones, such as expectations, requirements, rules [17, p. 805-806].

It is clear that mastering a normative situation outside of communication and activity with an adult is impossible since the rules of interaction with an artifact are not derived from its appearance, but are transmitted by adult members of society, as written by L. Vygotsky, A. Leontiev and other authors.

That being the case, in relation to the normative situation, the child is an individual dependent on the adult. In other words, a child is a student of an adult, and an adult act for him/her as a teacher, that is, as a bearer of mankind’s achievements. Consequently, the normative situation is a tool aimed at mastering mankind’s achievements. The mastering process has as its goal the formation of behavior that is adequate to the rules developed during the society’s cultural development for this situation. Otherwise stated, mastering a normative situation is a learning process. Learning occurs in the zone of proximal development, which is located on the border of the normative situation. It should be borne in mind that the children’s actions in a normative situation may correspond to the level of actual development, or they may be on the border of an under mastered normative situation, that is, in the zone of proximal development.

We also would like to note that, according to E. Ilyenkov, the ideal form exists only in activity [13]. In the products of activity, such as, for example, various artifacts of human culture, alienated, frozen forms of the ideal are presented. They can only be brought to life for the child with an adult’s help who mastered these forms. In this case, the function of normative situations becomes clear. Finding himself/herself in a normative situation with a child, the adult specifically reveals the artifact’s ideal, invisible side.

A similar position was taken by A. Leontiev. He proceeded from the fact that the activity’s essence is determined by its objectivity. Objectivity, as a property of activity, arises as a result of resolving the contradiction between a person’s need and the object’s properties that satisfies this need. Satisfying a need with the help of an object does not occur naturally, directly. In order for an object to act as an object of need, it must be subject to transformation as a result of the subject’s activity. During this transformation, an object from a natural one turns into a cultural artifact, which is what the creation of an object of need consists of as a resolution of the contradiction between the object and the subject. In this case, the object transformed in the process of the subject’s activity is normalized; a system of activity is prescribed to it (as the object becomes a cultural artifact), which carries the activity’s objective side. The activity’s objective side, as a prescribed activity, becomes objective in a normative situation. Thus, the normative situation is a tool for objectifying activity, collapsing it into a frozen objective form and subsequently reviving it. It is the normative situation that fixes the object as an object of need. The original thing, having natural properties, acquires objective or cultural properties, that is, it becomes an artifact capable of satisfying certain human needs.

Thus, we can say that in culture, objects with material properties, thanks to activity, are transformed into cultural artifacts with objective properties. The things’ objective properties represent their ideal side. They cannot be revealed through natural actions, since their formation occurred only as a result of cultural or subject transformations in the course of subject’s activity, focused on resolving the contradiction between the needs of the subject and the object. From this position it follows that the child himself/herself cannot develop the human psyche precisely because objects demonstrate a natural side for him/her. In other words, a child, starting from early childhood, masters the things’ objective properties in normative situations under the adults’ guidance. In our opinion, the child’s zone of proximal development is located in the normative situation.

It is no coincidence that A. Zaporozhets noted that the childhood analysis involves a more detailed study of the processes of “...learning and development, identifying different types and forms of these processes” [11, p. 249].

We would like to point out that we do not limit learning to mastering normative situations. Another thing is that the process of mastering normative situations is built largely on learning. Introducing preschoolers to digitalization processes and the use of digital gadgets does not always occur under the adult’s guidance. In some cases the child can act independently.

Thus, summarizing what has been said, we can conclude that already at an early age, in order to master culture, the child must be included in a system of repeated normative situations that allow him/her to master cultural artifacts in the learning process under the adults’ guidance. Only in this case does the primary form gain the opportunity to develop through interaction with a higher form [7]. Based on the above, it is logical, following V. Davydov, to consider learning as a form of preschooler’s cultural development [9], during which the child turns to culture using a system of normative situations.

Normative Situation and Opportunities for Interaction with Culture

We are faced with the task to describe situations that arise in preschool age in which the child interacts with culture. We consider a normative situation as such a situation.

We see the peculiarity of the normative situation’s characteristics in the fact that it is determined by the artifacts of human culture. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that an artifact is a standard of cultural externality - an object included in the everyday, i.e., repeated functioning of society. It should be mentioned that the artifact itself remains unchanged. Moreover, if it changes, it is either restored or replaced.

Let’s consider a cup as an example of a cultural artifact. This artifact is embedded in the family’s daily functioning. This means that the cup is not just an artifact, but a certain instruction is associated with it, explaining what forms of behavior can be carried out in relation to the cup as a culture’s artifact. One of the family members drinks tea, water and other drinks from a cup. At the same time, the cup itself can stand alone in the closet without any interaction with any family members, but the instructions remain. If a cup cracks or breaks, it is replaced with another cup. All these features of the corresponding normative situation make it possible to maintain its external side.

In this case, the normative situation is characterized by the following parameters. The appearance of the normative situation is the appearance of the artifact itself. Its hidden side is the rules imposed on subjects who find themselves in a normative situation. So the ability to follow instructions means mastery of a cultural artifact.

The baby itself can be called the most social creature. But it is important for us to emphasize one more point that D. Elkonin drew attention to: all human abilities are already contained in the world of artifacts surrounding the child. It should be borne in mind that from the moment of his/her birth a child finds himself/herself in various normative situations. L. Vygotsky pointed out that since all the baby’s needs are satisfied by adults, then almost all the child’s behavior is social in nature [8, p. 280-281].

In connection with this circumstance, we can assume that the child not only lives in normative situations related to feeding, dressing, washing, etc. But he/she is also beginning to gain experience in acting in such situations. Since these situations will be repeated over a long period of his/her life. For example, the above-mentioned normative cup situation will continue throughout a person's life, beginning in infancy. At first, an adult will be present in each of them. We find confirmation of this in the works by L. Vygotsky [8, p. 281]. If we examine in detail the normative situation as a society’s unit, we can see another feature of it. L.Vygotsky highlighted that the child “all the time hears speech addressed to him/her, and is always in the process of interaction with the ideal speech form” [7, p. 92].

In this fragment, attention is drawn to the fact that interaction with the ideal speech form occurs all the time. What does “all the time” mean? In other words, we can say that the child interacts with the same ideal speech form in different normative situations.

Clarifying this conclusion, we can say that there are processes that permeate a number of normative situations, as in the case under discussion, where the communication of the primary form with the ideal one can and does actually take place in various normative situations.

One of the fundamental issues that requires its own consideration involves an analysis of the processes themselves implemented in the normative situations’ system. According to L. Vygotsky, these are the processes of higher mental functions development, which involve the interaction of the primary and higher (ideal) forms.

A. Leontiev considered various types of activities as processes. He asked: “But what is human life?” [16, p. 81] and answered: “This is a set, or rather a system, of successive activities” [16, p. 81].

It is logical to expect that activity can also “permeate” normative situations. A. Leontiev, as far as we know, did not use the term normative situation. However, indirect indications that activities are carried out in normative situations can be found in his works. Thus, A. Leontiev wrote: “No matter in what conditions and forms human activity takes place, no matter what structure it acquires, it cannot be considered as withdrawn from social relations, from the life of society. For all its originality, the activity of a human individual is a system included in the society relations system. Outside of these relationships, human activity does not exist at all” [16, p. 82-83].

From the quoted passage it follows that A. Leontiev distinguished human activity as one system, which is included in another system - in the system of “society relations.” In our opinion, if in the first case he spoke about the activities of an individual, then in the second case a system of normative situations comes to the fore, which sets certain rules of interaction between members of society.

Considering motivation as an activity’s component, A. Leontiev noted that there are two types of motives: “meaning-forming motives” and “motives-stimuli” [16, p. 202].

It is clear that meaning-forming motives reflect the peculiarities of the course of activity as a process in specific circumstances that require the subjects of activity to have a certain attitude towards a given situation. This means that the meaning-forming motive begins to operate throughout the entire activity, generating different meanings in specific normative situations. We believe that meaning is precisely born in the context of a collision between activity and a normative situation, that is, when activity permeates a normative situation.

Now let's look at the motives-stimuli. The appearance of such a motive indicates its external nature in relation to the ongoing activity. This means that such a motive arises in any specific normative situation, different from the activity itself, since it is there that certain requirements for the subject’s behavior or for his/her activity in this other situation are born. In connection with the above, we have grounds to distinguish between a normative situation and activity. Such a distinction seems important, since during the analysis it becomes necessary to attribute the activity shown by the child either to the fulfillment of the requirements of a normative situation, or to the implementation of an activity.

A. Leontiev differentiated between the individual’s activity and the forms and means of material and spiritual communication. The latter, we believe, represent various mankind’s achievements or units of culture. It is they who define a normative situations’ system that differ both on the visible side (that is, in the appearance of the artifact) and on the internal, hidden side, in differences in rules and regulations.

A. Leontiev emphasized that in society a person is faced with conditions that can produce the meanings of his/her activities [16, p. 82-83]. Of course, A. Leontiev’s remark is of interest, that social conditions can produce transformation processes and transitions of these conditions into activity. One of the possible options for such transitions may look like this: imagine a normative situation in which there is an appearance or external circumstances in relation to which the rules of action or behavior of the subject are given. In other words, the goals of his/her activity are defined. In this case, the normative situation actually acts as a fragment of activity, alienated from a person and contains the possibility of using it as a fragment of activity, representing an action.

By saying that the normative situation sets only the operational composition, we are not asserting that, being in a normative situation, a person cannot set his/her own goals. For example, R. Merton cites the use of doping by professional athletes as an example of going beyond the normative situation. We are saying that in a normative situation there are actions that are specified in advance, that is, before the child finds himself/herself in such a situation. This means that not only actions, but also the goals of these actions are determined in advance. Thus, any person in a normative situation must fulfill the requirements for normative behavior associated with the artifact.

Social relations, as a normative situations system, are objectified forms of actions’ existence. They can constitute a set of actions (possibly also means) of the activity that the subject performs.

Such an interpretation of the normative situation is of interest in the sense that it not only represents an objectified product of human activity, but is also at the same time a fragment of human social activity. Such activity has a duality: it can be perceived, on the one hand, as one of the fragments of the society’s social structure, and on the other, as a process of individual activity that permeates various normative situations.

Let's focus on this in more detail. It turns out that culture appears in two of its contexts simultaneously: on the one part, as the basis for building a social structure consisting of normative situations and in this sense quite immobile; on the other part, as a basis for constructing fragments of activity in the form of actions and operations. It seems to us that the culture’s first side is largely reflected in the cultural-historical concept of L. Vygotsky and it is associated with the higher mental functions formation, while the second side is represented to a greater extent in the theory of activity by A. Leontiev.

Thus, we have made a preliminary sketch of the relationship between the structural relations of culture and the normative situation and processes within the framework of cultural-historical theory and activity theory. In the context of a cultural-historical perspective, a normative situation can be considered as a space in which two processes can occur: the mastering of the normative situation itself as a unit of space for social interaction and as a process of higher mental functions development in the context of the zone of proximal development. Within the activity theory framework, the normative situation itself can be considered either as a fragment of activity in the form of action and operation, or as a structural unit of the social space of culture.

Play and Culture

In addition to the standard normative situation, we also highlight the situation of play, in which preschool children turn to culture. According to L. Vygotsky, play is characterized by the presence of an imaginary situation. The imaginary situation’s features are determined by the objects that preschool children use while playing: these are toys. With their help, the child is oriented towards real situations. Toys are the basis for their modeling. We also consider toys to be cultural artifacts in the sense that they are man-made. Accordingly, interaction with toys is interaction with culture. It should be noted that this culture is addressed to children.

The imaginary situation is determined by the role that child takes on voluntarily as well as by the rules corresponding to this role. The child voluntarily obeys the assumed rules associated with the role, which, according to L. Vygotsky, determines the zone of proximal development of play activity.

First of all, we would like to note that A. Leontiev identified a special type of actions, which he called play ones. Play actions arise in a child based on the need to act like adults [15, p. 479].

A. Leontiev emphasized that play actions have a special structure. In other words, they differ from the usual actions typical for a normative situation. Based on an analysis of the simple game of “riding on a stick,” he explained this difference by saying that the action itself corresponds to a horse, while performing the action corresponds to a stick. In other words, according to A. Leontievc, play action differs significantly from the real one [15, p. 479-480].

Let's try to characterize the playful action, and subsequently the entire imaginary situation. So, according to A. Leontiev, the play action corresponds to the real, i.e. cultural action of an adult, whom the child imitates and which he/she himself/herself wants to reproduce in the game. However, the operations by which the play action is performed do not correspond to the cultural action. Thus, in terms of their goals, play actions correspond to real cultural actions. It follows that the imaginary situation simulates the real situation. But the operational composition of the play action is different.

In addition to the toys’ inclusion, play actions are distinguished by the use of substitute objects. It is the ability not to reproduce operations or to reproduce them partially and in a simplified manner that differentiates the play from other types of activities. The consequence arising from this circumstance is of some interest. It turns out that when playing, a child acts in the zone of proximal development, but not under the guidance of an adult, but independently. D. Elkonin showed that a child cannot directly become involved in the production activities of adults. Due to this circumstance, there is a special period when the child is left to his/her own devices. This period is childhood, the peculiarity of which is the emergence of play. At the same time, D.B. Elkonin noted: “The earlier the stage of development of society, the earlier children are included in the productive labor of adults and become independent producers” [20, p. 41].

According to D. Elkonin, the child plays due to the inability to join in the activities of adults due to the limitations of his/her own operational sphere. Therefore, one of the main characteristics of play activity becomes its procedural nature, caused by the underdevelopment of the operational sphere of preschool children. This means that in play the child replaces real operations with conventional play actions with toys or substitute objects. The discrepancy between the play action and the cultural one is caused by the fact that the play action is performed by the child himself/herself without instructions from adults.

In connection with the above, one clarification needs to be made. Considering the genesis of play activity, we can highlight moments of adult’s influence. However, subsequent play activity occurs largely without the adult’s influence. At least, such games can be observed among senior preschoolers.

This poses the question: if there are no operations in the game, then what is the play activity’s objective side, what is the play aimed at and what does it reveal to the child? The answer may be that there are two sides to the play - operational and motivational. Since the play activity’s operational side is a relative one, the play is apparently aimed at mastering the motivational and semantic side of the simulated situations. Thus, the play represents another space, different from the social space of culture, consisting of normative situations as its units. In this case, the play appears as a semantic space, that is, a subjective space. It implements play actions aimed at building relationships with cultural artifacts.

The play action analysis shows two of its important features. Firstly, let’s consider the fact that the play action, as A. Leontiev writes about it, aimed at reproducing what the child saw in the reality around him/her. Therefore during play the child turns to the adult culture around him/her. In other words, the game reproduces (models) those situations that reflect the present. Secondly, another feature is characterized by the position that the child takes during the play. The position’s uniqueness is that the child does not need to learn from adults to perform a play action. We want to say that the child, at a certain stage in the genesis of play activity, himself/herself defines the play action’s content and, therefore, is its subject. But since the actions are imitative, we cannot name the child as the author of these actions. Thus, the play action is performed by the child independently, leaving the adult to observe what is happening.

The imaginary situation acts as a special play situation, and the role accepted by the child and the rules corresponding to it become tools for child development in the play. In an imaginary situation, the child also turns to culture. But this reference is different from interaction with culture in a normative situation. Here play actions become characteristic. The child interacts with artifacts specially created for children - i.e. toys, which are initially aimed at mastering the meaning of cultural ( i.e., normative) situations from the child’s immediate environment.

Data showing a positive impact on the executive functions development during the play are presented in the works of such authors as [2; 24; 25; 26; 29; 33; 35; 36]. The studies by [22; 27; 28; 30; 31; 32] as well as other childhood researchers have established that role-playing games promote the development of creativity and intelligence in preschool children, influence the formation of theory of consciousness, symbolic representation, children’s thinking, including the ability to reason, etc.

L. Vygotsky mentioned that play arises in conditions of contradiction between the child’s ability to act and his/her desires. L. Vygotsky’s point of view is in a way reproduced by A. Leontiev. He also considered the emergence of play activity as a resolution of the contradiction between the need to act and the inability to perform the necessary operations. He emphasized that this contradiction can be resolved only in play activity, since “... the play action is free from that obligatory side of it, which is determined by the real conditions of this action, i.e. free from mandatory methods of action and operations” [15, p. 475].

L. Vygotsky set a high value on play activities. Thanks to the imaginary situation’s emergence, the child is freed from the perceptual field’s influence and begins to act in accordance with the meanings given by the imaginary situation. Taking on a play role requires the child to obey the rules of action set by this role, which makes the child’s behavior arbitrary.

It is obvious that it is impossible to act in accordance with meanings without awareness of these meanings. This means that a child’s behavior in an imaginary situation presupposes not only the ability to control one’s actions and subordinate them to the rules associated with the role, but also to constantly reflect on one’s own activity. It is no coincidence that L. Vygotsky highlighted that play creates a child’s zone of proximal development and that in play the child becomes head and shoulders above than in ordinary non-play situations [6]. Taking into account all the above circumstances, we can conclude that socio-dramatic play for preschoolers is another form of development for preschool children.

It remains to discuss one more question regarding the connection between play and the normative situation: can we consider the preschooler’s play activity as a process that permeates various normative situations? Here we will give a positive answer. Indeed, if we consider children’s play activity from the point of view of spatial localization, we can see that there are special places in which this activity takes place. One of these places is the so-called “playcorners”. Their specificity lies in the fact that they contain material for play activities unfolding. This suggests that adults strive to normalize the play space, i.e., an imaginary situation. The same trend is typical, in our opinion, for “play worlds” [3].

Thus, special normative situations are created to organize preschoolers’ play activities. Here we are again faced with a double orientation of the normative situation: on the one hand, as a unit of social interaction, and on the other, as a fragment of a play action that can be used to build play activity. The features of such normative situations addressed to preschool children are that: firstly, if in cultural normative situations the rules are spelled out to the operations’ level, then here the rules are spelled out to the actions’ level; and, secondly, the situation does not imply that children’s activity goes beyond its limits.

Creativity and Culture

The following question is legitimate: if a child is provided with an operational repertoire, will he/she be involved in activities similar to those of adults, associated with obtaining a socially significant product? A similar situation is modeled in project activity, which have recently been used in preschool education [18; 21; 23]. Project activities are understood as activities that are associated with solving a problem formulated by the child. The problem itself contains a question to which there is no direct answer. Solving a problem involves studying the conditions and analyzing the possibilities that can be identified in the context of the proposed circumstances. In this regard, a search is underway for various options for answering the question posed. Each option is analyzed, defined and justified. Then the best one is selected. On its basis, a plan for the implementation of project activities is drawn up, in accordance with which the product is created. The result of project activity must necessarily be socially significant. It is presented in a social environment that is significant for the child and is assessed as important for the functioning of the society that develops around the child.

The main task of project activity is to support the child’s cognitive initiative and its transformation into a socially and culturally significant activity aimed at obtaining a socially approved and used product.

Thus, we can tentatively draw the following conclusion. Project activity is initiated by the child and supported by adults (teachers and parents). It contains a question posed by the child and to which there is no direct answer. Project activity involves turning to culture in order to analyze various possible answers to the question posed, including choosing and justifying the best solution [4]. Based on the chosen solution, a plan is built to achieve a socially significant product and its implementation and presentation is carried out.

Project activity is fundamentally different from socio-dramatic play, since in it the child acts as the author of a positive idea, implemented in the form of a socially significant product, which allows the child’s personality development [10; 14]. So, project activity becomes a form of preschool children’s creative activity and, at the same time, a form of the child’s personality development [1; 34].

The structure of the connection between normative situations and project activity is of particular interest. Apparently, the project activity implementation in a creative situation presupposes the presence of a special system consisting of a number of normative situations constructed in relation to cultural artifacts, which act simultaneously as both project activity’s fragments as well as units of social interaction. We believe that such a system of interconnected normative situations can constitute a special space for the development of a child’s personality in a kindergarten group, which we call the space of children’s realization [5]. Each normative situation involves turning to culture as a system of artifacts, since the artifact is part of the normative situation. We believe that familiarization with the history of the issue, drawing up a project plan, choosing the optimal solution, presentation of the author's product, etc. can be understood in two ways - both as project activity stages and as normative situations in which the order of actions is defined. For example, a product presentation includes: a presenter’s speech → a child’s presentation of the product → questions to the child → free speeches with a positive assessment of the product and an explanation of its uniqueness → congratulations. Therefore, they represent a structure of a sufficiently high complexity level, the mastery of which by children presupposes a corresponding cognitive abilities development.

Conclusion: Childhood as a Development Space and a Form of Reference to Culture

When we talk about childhood, it is important to understand it as the space in which the child develops. The units of this space are situations that determine the forms of a child’s approach to culture and the corresponding to them development forms.

We distinguish three types of situations: normative, imaginary and creative ones. Each of these situations defines its own version of the child’s approach to culture as a system of artifacts. A normative situation is a situation that has arisen due to certain forms of activity attributed to the artifact. An imaginary or virtual situation arises in play and orients the child to reproduce the meanings presented in the normative situations surrounding the child. A creative situation is associated with the implementation of a child’s idea and the creation of a unique product. It encourages the preschooler to turn to culture in order to analyze what already exists and identify opportunities for creating a new product.

Since development occurs in childhood age, it includes development forms and tools. We highlight three processes as forms of development: learning, play and creativity. Thus, we emphasize that a full-fledged educational process in preschool educational institutions should include all of these three forms of children's activity.

An essential point in the mastering of culture is associated with the role of an adult who teaches the child a correct understanding of the culture’s content. Every cultural artifact is characterized not only by its appearance, but also by the way it is culturally used. This way is not directly deduced from the artifact’s appearance. In order to understand the way of usage, an adult is needed to show the child how to act correctly. In this case, the culture is mastered in the learning process. The key here is the interaction between an adult and a child, as between a teacher and a student in a normative situation. This process does not exclude the child’s independent activity aimed at mastering culture. We would like to highlight that for a preschooler to master culture, the key condition is the learning process, in which an adult plays the leading role. The adult appears as an instructor, revealing to the child the correct ways to use cultural artifacts, and the child acts as a student, carrying out the adult’s instructions. V. Davydov emphasized that learning should be considered as a form of development.

Development also occurs in play and characterizes the transformation of activity’s natural forms into cultural ones. The child makes transformations in play while fulfilling the role he/she has assumed, imitating the adults’ actions and reaching a certain level of actual development. It is no coincidence that A. Zaporozhets noted that play is a form of life for a child [12]; we would add that play is a form of development for a preschooler.

Children's creativity can be understood in two ways: as following the adult’s instructions, i.e. reproductively, and as the creation of a new product that is absent in the child's environment. Finding himself/herself in the space of children's realization, unfolding with the help of adults the process of creativity as an appeal to the culture of the possible, the child gains experience in creating a unique product.

So, we have the opportunity to describe, to a first approximation, the childhood structure. In the childhood structure, we distinguish three spaces in which children’s activity is realized: normative, semantic, and the space of children’s intentions.

Normative space. The normative space refers to mankind's achievements that took shape before the child’s birth. Children must master them. These achievements (or culture) are represented as artifacts, the meaning of which is revealed through normative situations. Normative situations act as units of normative space. They combine the artifact and the rules for handling the artifact. We want to emphasize that the key condition for the normative space (or culture) development by a preschooler is the learning process in which the leading role is played by an adult. Learning is a part of the childhood structure and is a form of development. The child is a student, that is, he/she follows the adult’s instructions. This process does not exclude the child’s independent activity aimed at mastering culture. Turning to culture in the context of the past characterizes the process of mastering the way of interacting with an artifact in a normative situation.

The semantic space characterizes the specifics of children's play interaction. While playing, the child reproduces situations that he/she encounters in his/her daily life. As units of semantic space, we consider imaginary situations, including role rules and role attributes. We consider play as a component of the childhood structure, representing a form of child development. In play, the child is the subject of the activity. We consider turning to culture in the play activity context as a process of mastering the normative situations’ semantic side.

The space of children's intentions is determined by creative situations, including the intended creative product and the plan for obtaining it. Creative situations, from our point of view, are units of the children's intentions’ space. We consider creativity as a form of child development. In creativity, the child takes the position of the author. Appealing to culture in the creative process can be represented as an analysis of what has already been done and as a search for possible productive transformations of past achievements.

Let us note once again that for each of the spaces the key position of the child in interaction with the adult is determined: in the normative space, the child predominantly occupies the position of a student, i.e., a follower, and the adult - a teacher or leader; in the semantic space, the child takes a subject position, the adult acts as an observer; in the space of children's intentions, the child is characterized by the position of the author, and the adult is characterized by the position of the interpreter.

1. Bayanova L.F., Khamatvaleeva D.G. Obzor zarubezhnykh issledovanii tvorcheskogo myshleniya v psikhologii razvitiya [Review of foreign studies of creative thinking in developmental psychology]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology], 2022, no. 2, pp. 51—72. DOI:10.11621/vsp.2022.02.03 (In Russ.).
2. Veraksa A.N., Bukhalenkova D.B., Yakupova V.A. Vozmozhnosti razvitiya regulyatornykh funktsii v igrovoi deyatel'nosti: teoreticheskii obzor [Possibilities for the development of regulatory functions in gaming activities: a theoretical review]. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Russian Psychological Journal], 2019. Vol. 15, no. 4. pp. 97—112. DOI:10.21702/rpj.2018.4.5 (In Russ.).
3. Veraksa N.E., Veresov N.N., Sukhikh V.L. Kul'turnye deistviya v igre detei doshkol'nogo vozrasta. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 54—61. DOI:10.17759/chp.2023190108
4. Veraksa N.E et al. Syuzhetno-rolevaya igra i proektnaya deyatel'nost' kak faktory razvitiya detei doshkol'nogo vozrasta [Story-role play and project activity as factors in the development of preschool children]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika [Bulletin of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Psychology and pedagogy], 2023. Vol. 20, no. 2. (in print) (In Russ.).
5. Veraksa N.E. Detskoe razvitie: dve paradigm [Child development: two paradigms]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2018. Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 102—108. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2018140211 (In Russ.).
6. Vygotsky L.S. Igra i ee rol' v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka [Play and its Role in the Child’s Psychological Development]. Voprosy psikhologii [Questions of psychology], 1966, no. 6, pp.62— 68. (In Russ.).
7. Vygotsky L.S. Lektsii po pedologii [Lectures on pedology]. Izhevsk, 1996. 296 p. (In Russ.).
8. Vygotsky L.S. Detskaya psikhologiya [Child psychology]. In Elkonin D.B. (ed.), Collected works: In 6 volumes. Vol. 4. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1984. 432 p. (In Russ.).
9. Davydov V.V. Theory of developing learning: a monograph. Moscow: Intor, 1996. 544 p. (In Russ.).