Diagnostics of Development in the System of Assessment of Educational Results of Primary School Children: from Cultural-Historical Psychology to Psychological Anthropology

The article distinguishes between pedagogical and psychological diagnostics of educational outcomes. Pedagogical diagnostics is focused on assessing the achievements of students of the planned results of mastering the educational program and has a long tradition in education. It is noted that psychological diagnostics in education is a diagnosis of the development of students in the educational process. In Russian education, the psychological diagnosis of the developmental effect of the educational program of primary general education has not been developed. L.S. Vygotsky's analysis of the main groups of theories of the relationship between learning and development and the resulting qualification of the type of diagnosis in each of the approaches to solving the problem is presented. L.S. Vygotsky's views on learning and development are investigated, and the position justified by the scientist on the initial inclusion of developmental diagnostics in school education is emphasized. The views of D.B. Elkonin on the goals and content of psychological diagnostics in developing primary education are presented. The analysis of the practice of diagnosing the general course of development of primary school children in the system of developmental education by L.V. Zankov is carried out. An anthropological approach to the diagnosis of development in education is presented. The age-normative development model of primary school children is described as the basis for the development of a system of psychological diagnostics of educational outcomes of primary general education.

Introduction

The issue of assessing the educational results of primary school students is given special attention in the state, regulatory and legal documents, in psychological and pedagogical research. The FSES of primary general education notes that the results of mastering the program of primary general education are subject to evaluation taking into account the specifics and features of the subject of evaluation [Federal'nyj gosudarstvennyj obrazovatel'nyj, 2022]. The Federal Educational Program of Primary General Education describes the monitoring (external and internal) of students’ achievements [Federal'naya obrazovatel'naya programma, 2023].

Analysis of the practice of assessing students’ achievements of the planned results of mastering the programs of primary general education shows that there is a system of pedagogical assessment (diagnostics) of subject results: the federal working programs of academic disciplines provide thematic tests, primary school graduates perform All-Russian tests in the main academic subjects; the amount of teaching time allocated for control activities on academic topics is rationed. The development of tools for assessing meta-subject educational outcomes and functional literacy of primary school students is underway [5, 8, 15,19]. Pedagogical diagnostics is focused on the assessment of specific subject, meta-subject, and personal educational results. Educational and subject tasks are defined as a diagnostic tool.

Psychological diagnostics in education as a science and practice of making a psychological diagnosis with the help of specially designed tools is developmental diagnostics. The learner is at the center of such diagnostics in education — the new formations of age development and the dynamics of their formation are subject to evaluation. The subject of psychological diagnostics of educational results is psychological processes that ensure the achievement of planned personal, meta-subject and subject educational results. Tools of psychological diagnostics for assessment of personal and subject educational results need to be substantiated. These should be tools with evidentiary effectiveness of assessment of the developmental effect of the educational program of primary general education.

The need for psychological diagnostics of development in education first appears in the ideology of developmental education. In developmental education not only educational results as the results of learning subject material — knowledge, skills, competences, functional literacy — but also the results of development of psychological properties and qualities of a student are subject to evaluation. Properties and qualities that are prerequisites for mastering subject knowledge, skills and abilities and at the same time the results of their mastering. Unlike pedagogical diagnostics of educational results, psychological diagnostics of personal and metaeducational results as developmental diagnostics in education has no serious tradition.

Diagnostics of students’ development has an important practical significance. L.S. Vygotsky pointed out the main function of psychological diagnostics in education: control over the course and results of normal development of a child in the process of education and upbringing, identification of developmental disorders, solving a variety of practical tasks of education and upbringing. Such tasks include the prevention of risks of school failure, identification of the causes of learning difficulties and the development of an individual program of overcoming them by a pedagogical psychologist together with the teacher, the definition of the zone of the proximal development of the student and the forecast of his further development, the development of programs of psychological and pedagogical support in the transition of students to the main stage of general education. The solution of various practical tasks of education, upbringing and development by means of psychological diagnostics presupposes theoretical and methodological justification of diagnostics of students’ development in the educational process: the content (lines, new formations) of development, age norms of development, means and tools for assessing the process and results of development.

Psychological diagnostics in developmental education

The question of assessing the developmental effect of educational programs was first raised in the theory and practice of developmental education. The theoretical solution to the problem was proposed by L.S. Vygotsky in his article ‘The Problem of Learning and Mental Development at School Age’ written by him in 1933/34 academic year [Vy`gotskij, 1991]. L.S. Vygotsky critically analyzed the available approaches to the problem of learning and development and proposed his solution. His analysis has not lost its relevance for understanding the purpose and content of psychological diagnostics in education.

L.S. Vygotsky identified three inadequate approaches (groups of theories) to the problem of learning and development. According to the first approach, learning and development are independent processes. This approach is most consistently presented in the works of J. Piaget. L.S. Vygotsky notes that Piaget separates the learning process from the developmental process and believes that the developmental process goes beyond the learning processes.

The second approach identifies learning and development: learning is development. This approach is most consistently represented in behaviorism and it, in fact, removes the problem of learning and development. Development is reduced mainly to the accumulation of more and more complex forms of behavior. According to L.S. Vygotsky, in this approach, development and learning coincide with each other like two equal geometric figures.

Within the framework of this approach, a special procedure for testing educational results was developed — criterion-oriented or subject-oriented testing. Subject-oriented testing is aimed at assessing the quality or level of mastery of certain subject content by a learner. The main tool of criterion-referenced testing is achievement tests. A. Anastasi, an authoritative researcher in the field of psychological testing, points out that standardised achievement tests have the advantages of objectivity, uniformity and efficiency, reveal the shortcomings of past learning, set the direction of subsequent learning and motivate the student [Anastazi, 2001]. At the same time, it remains unknown what psychological formations are behind learning outcomes: whether these outcomes are obtained through thinking or mnemic actions, independently or with the help of an adult. The effects of students’ development are not assessed by criterion-referenced testing.The third approach to the problem of learning and development is fully represented in the works of K. Koffka, a prominent representative of Gestalt psychology. According to the scientist, development is based on two different in nature but interrelated processes development is based on two different in nature, but interrelated processes: development-maturation and development-learning. The process of maturation prepares and makes possible the process of learning, and learning stimulates and advances the process of maturation. L.S. Vygotsky notes that this approach combines the features of the first two approaches and, at the same time, positively evaluates the views of K. Koffka on the learning as development [Vy`gotskij, 1991].

The starting point of Vygotsky’s own solution of the question is the fact that a child’s education begins long before schooling and that a child makes a certain path of development before school. The level of development with which a child enters school, according to L.S. Vygotsky, characterizes the real state of the child’s mental development or actual level of development. According to L.S. Vygotsky, determining the actual level of development is an undoubted fact, knowledge of which is important for school education. However, determining only the actual level of development does not give a complete picture of the child’s capabilities in the learning process. In order to identify the possibilities of child’s development to the prospects of his learning it is necessary to know the zone of his proximal development. The zone of proximal development allows a more complete assessment of the state and possibilities of child development.

The concept of ‘zone of proximal development’ introduced by L.S. Vygotsky explains the mechanism of connection between learning and development. In the process of learning as a co-operation between an adult and a child, the zone of the child’s proximal development is revealed and formed [12, 14].

For L.S. Vygotsky, the solution to the issue of learning and development is inextricably linked to the tasks of diagnostics. For each level of education, an age-normal diagnostics should be created, revealing the actual level of development and the zone of the proximal development of students. ‘Determination of the actual level of development and the zone of the proximal development, — writes L.S. Vygotsky, — is together what is usually called normative age diagnostics’ [Vy`gotskij, 1984, p. 268]. [Vy`gotskij, 1984, с. 268]. The basis of age diagnostics should be age norms or standards of a given state of development. The task of creating normative age diagnostics and determining the norms of child development at a certain stage of education remains an urgent task of psychological and pedagogical science.

L.S. Vygotsky discusses the question of the composition of age diagnosis or developmental lines. He distinguished central and lateral lines of development. According to L.S. Vygotsky, the central line of development in primary school is mental development in the process of learning scientific concepts. L.S. Vygotsky notes the important practical significance of developmental diagnostics in the learning process. The most important function of developmental diagnostics is to protect the developmental process of a child at a certain age, to identify developmental disorders and their causes.

The development of the issues of diagnostics and development in the learning process was continued by D.B. Elkonin. He emphasized the inseparable connection between diagnostics in age psychology and diagnostics in pedagogical psychology. Psychological and pedagogical diagnostics should be primarily age-specific: there cannot be diagnostic systems identical for different age periods. ‘For each age period,’ writes D.B. Elkonin, “there should be a special system of diagnosed aspects of mental development in terms of content” [E`l`konin, 1989, p. 302]. [E`l`konin, 1989, с. 302].

D.B. Elkonin defines the age-specific, leading type of activity and basic new-formations as a system of diagnosable aspects of mental development. In this case, the point of reference for determining the development at any given moment is the level achieved by the child by the end of the period in optimal conditions of education and upbringing. D.B. Elkonin pointed out that the centre of diagnostics should be an individual child, the process and results of his/her development: ‘Diagnostics in the proper sense of the word should be understood as such diagnostics, the centre of which is first of all an individual child — his/her level of development, difficulties, prognosis and corrective-pedagogical measures’ [ibid., p.304]. [ibid., p.304].

D.B. Elkonin’s ideas about developmental diagnostics in education were implemented in the development of a new practice of primary education, which later received the name of the D.B. Elkonin-V.V. Davydov system of developmental education. Diagnostics of the results of developmental education was carried out along the lines of assessing the formation of theoretical thinking as the main new formation of junior schoolchildren’s development. Diagnostic methods were developed mainly to assess the development of individual components of theoretical thinking: content analysis, content planning, and content reflection [4, 6].

In L.V. Zankov’s didactic system of developmental learning, the study of pupils’ developmental progress is a necessary part of experimental learning. L.V. Zankov identifies three lines of development in the learning process: observation activity, thinking activity, and practical actions. Assessing L.V. Zankov’s approach to the allocation of lines of the general course of development, we note the dominance of the intellectual component inthem. We also note the importance of the assessment of personal formations of junior schoolchildren in the system of developmental education: diagnostics of the need for cognition as a basis for the successful mastering of educational programs of basic and secondary general education.

The development of the theory of developmental learning went in synthesis with the theory of activity and at a certain stage, in our opinion, the justified departure from ‘psychologizing’ of learning, attention to ‘lower’ mental functions (perception, attention, memory) to learning (education) as mastering by an individual of cultural-historical forms (ways, samples) of activity brought psychological diagnostics beyond the boundaries of a particular individual into the space of culture and activity. In turn, the development of didactics in the 20th century made a step from the projection of the content of education as a set of knowledge representing the reduction of the basics of sciences, to the content as a set of cultural and historical experience (samples and standards of activity, thinking, attitudes, etc.), which should be mastered by an individual. Moreover, in relation to the content of education, the question of not only the reproduction of experience, but also the design of such forms of activity, which are not dominant in culture or are absent at all, but will become predominant in the future in the conditions of changes in the mode of production and social life, has become more and more relevant over time. In this situation, pedagogical criterion-oriented testing has reached a new level, offering various models and tools for diagnosing competences (competencies) as an individual’s ability to demonstrate virtually the same universal ways of activity.

As a result, both variants of diagnostics (‘psychological’ in the tradition of developmental learning and pedagogical) have significantly converged, if not identified. In both cases, it is a question of diagnosing a person’s mastering of patterns (ways) of activity in the process of development through diagnosing the ‘external’ — a person’s performance of certain types of activity (more or less complex). Accordingly, at the new stage, learning (now education) was identified with development. In this case, the problematics of age, in fact, disappears, and in the tools of pedagogical diagnostics the age norm is fixed on an empirical basis. Psychological diagnostics as diagnostics of ‘lower mental functions’ continued to exist and develop, especially due to the methods of neuropsychology. In this diagnostics, the question of age, age dynamics of development in the traditional sense as maturation, remains relevant.

What place does a person occupy in these variants of diagnostics? In the first variant of diagnostics, where a person is just a carrier of ways of activity, the ‘white spot’ remains what provides the possibility of their mastering on the human side (in addition to the content of education and the efforts of teachers), to what extent a person himself is able to regulate the process of education. In the second variant of diagnostics, a person is his/ her psyche, where a person’s self-regulation abilities are even less obvious.

In our point of view, it is the ‘return’ of the individual that allows us to return to the question of the relationship between learning and development and enables us to discuss learning leading to development, the age-normative model of development, and appropriate developmental diagnostics.

Anthropological approach to developmental diagnosis

As a theoretical and methodological basis of developmental diagnostics in education, we have defined the anthropological approach in psychology, substantiated and fully described in psychological anthropology [9, 13, 16—18]. Let us highlight its principal provisions that are directly related to the issue of psychological diagnostics of development in education.

The subject area of psychological anthropology is subjective reality (subjectivity), its development in ontogenesis and formation in educational processes. The definition of subjectivity as a subject of psychology is justified by the need to identify a special subject of human psychology. In accordance with this understanding of the subject of psychology, the central psychological projection of a person is his being as a subject.

The understanding of the subject in psychology is associated with the endowment of a human individual with the qualities of being active, independent, capable, and skillful in the implementation of specifically human forms of life activity. At the same time, the concept of the subject in psychology is considered in a broader context — as the creator of his own life, as the manager of mental and bodily abilities. The central (nuclear) formation of human subjectivity is subjectivity. Subjectivity is a variety of psychological abilities and mechanisms, generalized in such psychological realities as reason, feelings, motivations, will, abilities, character. The formation of the basic formations of human subjectivity is carried out in education. Achievement of the level of subjectivity by a person presupposes mastering a set of generic psychological abilities: thinking, consciousness, desires, will, feelings, etc.

Another projection of a person, which takes shape in education, is personality. The concept of personality in psychology denotes a special way of being a person — his existence as a member of society, as a representative of a certain social group. The most integral characteristic of a person as a personality is his position. Personality is a person who freely, independently and responsibly determines his place in the group, in society, in culture. We can talk about a special personal being of a person. The personal way of being of a person is provided due to special personal formations: value orientations, personality orientation, self-esteem, independence, responsibility, prospects and goals of a person.

The authors have developed an age-normative model of development and presented its description in relation to each level of general education: preschool, primary, basic, secondary [10, 11, 13, 18]. The authors introduce the concept of ‘developmental norm’ to denote the potential capabilities of children of a certain age at a certain level of education’.

The concept of ‘age-normative model of development’ is a pedagogical interpretation of the psychological concept of developmental norms. The age-normative model of development includes three basic components: the main lines of development; developmental situations; developmental neo-formations. The main lines of development are the lines that represent the process of formation and development of subjective reality in ontogenesis. These lines are transversal for all periods of ontogenesis and have no final end. At a certain stage of ontogenesis, the main lines acquire a relatively complete character and function as new-formations of age.

In describing the lines and results of development as the composition and structure of the age-normative model of human development in education, the authors proceed from the understanding of the ultimate human ontology. Community, consciousness, and activity are singled out as categories for describing the ontological foundations of the human way of being in the world: ‘Community (event community), activity, and consciousness constitute the ontological foundations of the human way of life. These bases mutually presuppose each other, but are not reducible one to the other, each of them has a specific content’ [Slobodchikov, 2013, p. 121] [Slobodchikov, 2013, с. 121].

An individual’s inclusion in one or another form of being sets the level, scale and type of his/her subjectivity: subjectivity in activity, subjectivity in community, subjectivity in consciousness. The formation of subjectivity in consciousness, subjectivity in community, subjectivity in activity form the main lines of human development as a subject of his/her own life, as a subject of development and self-development in education.

Along the line of subjectivity in activity there is the development of initiative and independence in joint activity, mastering of its separate components and integral structure — becoming the subject of his/her own activity. Along the line of subjectivity in the community, the child’s means and ways of communicating with an adult, perception and understanding of the adult’s position, communication with peers, and becoming a subject of communication with others in joint activities are developing. The process of development of reflexive consciousness as a basic human ability, as the main mechanism for transforming cultural and historical experience into individual psychological formations of personality, is carried out along the line of subjectivity in consciousness.

Developmental situations act as a ‘supporting structure’ in the age-normative model of development. A developmental situation is a space of joint activity and communication between an adult and a child, a source of development of the subjects of the educational process. At a certain age stage there are three typical developmental situations associated with the child’s entry into a given age, with the maximum realization of the potential of the age, with the formation of new formations of the age as a prerequisite for the transition to a new period (type) of development.

The description of the age-normative model of development in the elementary school age is presented in Table 1. 

Т a b l e 1. Age-normative model of development in the elementary school age

School, student and learning development situations are distinguished at the younger school age. Their general characterisation is presented in Table 1. 

The result of normal development in primary general education along the lines of subjectivity in activity is the formation of a junior schoolchild as a subject of cumulative learning activity. He or she is capable of setting, maintaining and realising a learning task, but in interaction with peers and under the guidance of a teacher. A student is a subject of learning activity if he/she participates in the search and construction of new ways of action in the situation of setting a learning task.

The result of normal development in primary general education along the lines of subjectivity in the community is the learner’s position. In cooperative learning activities, the learner’s position is formalised as an orientation towards the search for a common way of action, the principle of solving a new learning task. Joint learning activity generates a common aspiration, sets common tasks, makes it possible to identify different points of view and agree. Younger students are able to conduct a dialogue; accept the position of another, reasonably justify their point of view and assessment of events, reach mutual understanding, cooperate to achieve a common result.

The result of normal development in primary general education along the line of consciousness is reflexive consciousness (thinking). Reflexion is the basis for scientific-theoretical cognition of the world, for solving problems of creative and search character; it allows to carry out cognitive actions aimed at analysing and discovering essential characteristics of the studied subject, at planning an interrelated set of educational-cognitive actions to achieve the set goal. The determining factor for the development of reflexive thinking is both the theoretical content of teaching and the form of building a learning community. In a jointly distributed learning activity, the teacher creates situations that generate different opinions of students about the ways of solving a new problem, contribute to the identification of common and different in these opinions, and help each student realise his/her position in the learning community.

The results of students’ development in primary general education are consistent with the meta-subject and personal educational results of this level of education. In accordance with L.S. Vygotsky’s position on the unity, but not the identity, of learning and development, subjectivity in activity, subjectivity in community, subjectivity in consciousness (cognition) are the prerequisite and at the same time the result of the formation of a variety of universal learning actions (learning and cognitive, communicative, regulatory), value orientations and moral qualities of personality. Subjectivity in learning activity is the basis for such universal learning and cognitive actions as basic research and work with information. Subjectivity in community ensures the formation of numerous universal educational communicative actions of communication and interaction with a teacher and peers in junior schoolchildren. Subjectivity in consciousness (cognition) interfaces with basic logical actions as universal educational cognitive actions, and ensures the mastery of universal educational regulatory actions of self-organisation and self-control. The correlation of new developmental transformations and meta-subject and personal educational outcomes in primary general education is presented in Table 2.

Psychological diagnostics for the assessment of meta-subject competences should be conducted according to the results of development along the lines of subjectivity in activity, subjectivity in community, subjectivity in consciousness (cognition). Psychology has developed appropriate tools (techniques) for diagnosing learning activity, reflexive thinking, and communicative abilities of junior schoolchildren.

Subjectivity in activity, community, consciousness form the basis for the formation of personal properties and qualities of junior schoolchildren. In joint educational and cognitive activities, in extracurricular activities, in the system of additional education, cognitive in

T a b l e 2

Correlation of new developmental transformations and meta- and personal educational outcomes in primary general education

terests, activity, initiative, curiosity and independence in cognition are formed; stable personal qualities: internal motivation of actions, activities, assessments; ability to regulate their activity in the process of achieving goals and solving problems; adequate self-assessment, the ability to see themselves, their actions in this or that situation and to give them an objective assessment; self-determination and self-development of learning. 

The construction of normative age diagnostics in primary general education on the basis of the age-normative model of development implies the development of a set of diagnostic techniques that identify the child’s readiness for school education and monitor development in the process of learning and at the stage of completion of school education. The system of developmental diagnostics, covering the whole period of primary education, will allow solving a variety of practical issues of education and upbringing of junior schoolchildren: preventing difficulties in learning and education, identifying their causes, determining the zone of proximal development and ensuring the safe transition of students to the next level of education. between diagnostics of the actual level and the zone of proximal development. Identification of the actual level and the zone of proximal development at a certain level of education leaves the basis of normative age diagnostics, the creation of which will make it possible to solve a variety of practical issues of training and education of schoolchildren.

The anthropological approach in psychology is defined as the theoretical and methodological basis of developmental diagnostics in education. The age-normative model of development developed in psychological anthropology is justified as the basis for age-normative diagnostics of development in junior school age. The model allows assessing the development process of junior schoolchildren within the boundaries of the level of education: when the child enters school, in the course of education, at the end of primary education. Psychological diagnostics of developmental outcomes at the primary education level acts as a reliable basis for assessing the achievement of planned meta-subject and personal educational outcomes by students.

The prospect of further research and development in the field of psychological diagnostics for the assessment of meta-subject and personal educational results of primary general education is the substantiation of a set of methods for diagnosing developmental neoplasms in the younger school age.

1. Anastazi A., Urbina S. Psihologicheskoe testirovanie [Psychological testing]. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. 688 p. (In Russ.).
2. Vy`gotskij L.S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 6-ti т. T. 4. Detskaya psihologiya [Collected works: In 6 volumes 4. Child psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1984. 432 p. (In Russ.).
3. Vy`gotskij L.S. Pedagogicheskaya psixologiya [Pedagogical psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1991. 480 p. (In Russ.).
4. Davy`dov V.V. Teoriya razvivayushhego obucheniya [Theory of developmental learning]. Moscow: INTOR, 1996. 544 p. (In Russ.).
5. Diagnostika uchebnoj uspeshnosti v nachal'noj shkole / pod red. P.G. Nezhnova, I.D. Frumina, B.I. Hasana, B.D. El'konina [Diagnosis of academic success in primary school] / P.G. Nezhnov, I.D. Frumin, B.I. Hasan, B.D. Elkonin. Moscow: Otkrytyj institut «Razvivayushchee obrazovanie», 2019. 240 p. (In Russ.).
6. Zak, A.Z. Diagnostika razlichij v my`shlenii mladshix shkol`nikov: Ocenka gotovnosti k nachal`noj i srednej shkole: Kontrol` razvitiya v period 6-10 let [Diagnostics of differences in the thinking of younger schoolchildren: Assessment of readiness for primary and secondary school: Control of development in the period of 6-10 years]. Moscow: Genesis. 2007. 160 p. (In Russ.).
7. Zankov L.V. Izbrannye psihologicheskie trudy [Selected psychological works]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1990. 424 p. (In Russ.).
8. Ivanova S.V. Innovacionnye podhody k ocenke metapredmetnyh rezul'tatov v nachal'noj shkole [Innovative approaches to the assessment of meta-subject results in primary school]. Kazan: KFU, 2024. 210 p. (In Russ.).
9. Isaev E.I. Vvedenie v psihologo-pedagogicheskuyu antropologiyu [Introduction to psychological and pedagogical anthropology]. Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2017. 180 p. (In Russ.).
10. Isaev E.I. Vozrastno-normativnoj model' razvitiya v doshkol'nom vozraste [Age-normative model of development in preschool age] [Electronic resource]. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2017. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 178-189 (In Russ.).
11. Isaev E.I. Vozrastno-normativnoj model' razvitiya mladshih shkol'nikov [The age-normative model of the development of younger schoolchildren] [Electronic resource]. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2017. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 166-177 (In Russ.).
12. Isaev E.I., Margolis A.A. Trudnosti v obuchenii: diagnostika, profilaktika, preodolenie [Learning difficulties: diagnosis, prevention, overcoming]. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education. 2023. Vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 7-20. (In Russ.).
13. Isaev E.I., Slobodchikov V.I. Psihologiya obrazovaniya cheloveka: Stanovlenie sub"ektnosti v obrazovatel'nyh processah. Uchebnoe posobie [Psychology of human education: The formation of subjectivity in educational processes. Study guide]. Moscow: Private educational institution of higher education Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University for the Humanities, 2013, 432 p. (In Russ.).
14. Kotlyar I.A., Safronova M.A. Tri ponyatiya o real`nosti detskogo razvitiya: obuchaemost`, zona blizhajshego razvitiya i skaffolding [Three concepts about the reality of child development: learning ability, the zone of proximal development and scaffolding]. Kul`turno-istoricheskaya psixologiya = Cultural and Historical Psychology, 2011. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 74-83 (In Russ.).
15. Nezhnov P. G. Testy SAM v obrazovatel'noj praktike [SAM tests in educational practice]. Moscow: The author's club, 2018. 48 p. (In Russ.).
16. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Antropologicheskij princip v psihologii razvitiya [The anthropological principle in developmental psychology]. Voprosy psihologii = Questions of Psychology, 1998, no. 6, pp. 3-17 (In Russ.).
17. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Psihologiya cheloveka: Vvedenie v psihologiyu sub"ektivnosti. Uchebnoe posobie [Human Psychology: An Introduction to the psychology of Subjectivity. Study guide]. Moscow: Private educational institution of higher education Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University for the Humanities, 2013, 360 p. (In Russ.).
18. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Psihologiya razvitiya cheloveka: Razvitie sub"ektivnoj real'nosti v ontogeneze. Uchebnoe posobie [Psychology of human development: The development of subjective reality in ontogenesis. Study guide]. Moscow: Izd-vo PSTGU, 2013. 400 p. (In Russ.).
19. Tihonova N.B. Sovremennye tekhnologii ocenki obrazovatel'nyh rezul'tatov v nachal'noj shkole [Modern technologies for assessing educational outcomes in primary schools]. Ekaterinburg: UrGPU, 2018. 160 p. (In Russ.).
20. Federal'nyj gosudarstvennyj obrazovatel'nyj standart nachal'nogo obshchego obrazovaniya. [The Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education]. Moscow: Enlightenment, 2022. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202307130044 (Accessed 28.08.2024). (In Russ.).
21. Federal'naya obrazovatel'naya programma nachal'nogo obshchego obrazovaniya. [The Federal Educational Program of primary general Education]. Moscow: Enlightenment, 2023. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202307130044 (Accessed 28.08.2024). (In Russ.).
22. E`l`konin D.B. Izbranny`e psixologicheskie trudy` [Selected psychological works]. Moscow.: Pedagogika, 1989. 560 p. (In Russ.).