The boot technique is the study of learning. L. A. Venger’s method of diagnosing intellectual development (1). Methodology for the study of verbal-logical thinking

PART II.
Diagnostic program to determine the psychological readiness of children 6-7 years old for schooling by N.I. Gutkina.
From the point of view of N.I. Gutkina, “psychological readiness for school is judged by the level of development of the following mental spheres: affective-need, voluntary, intellectual and speech. The program consists of methods: “Methods for determining the dominance of cognitive or play motives in the affective-need sphere of a child”, “Experimental conversation to determine the “internal position of a schoolchild”, “House”, “Yes and no”, “Boots”, “Sequence of events ”, “Sound hide and seek”. Methods I and II determine the level of development of the affective-need sphere; III and IV - the level of development of an arbitrary sphere; V, VI and VII - the level of development of the intellectual and speech sphere.

1. Methodology for determining the dominance of cognitive or play motives in the affective-need sphere of the child.

The child is invited into a room where ordinary, not very attractive toys are displayed on the tables, and they are offered to examine them for a minute. Then the experimenter calls him to him and invites him to listen to a fairy tale. The child is read an interesting fairy tale for his age, which he has not heard before (see stimulus material). At the most interesting place, the reading is interrupted, and the experimenter asks the subject what he wants more at the moment, to play with the toys displayed on the tables or to listen to the story to the end.

Children with a pronounced cognitive interest usually prefer to listen to the continuation of the tale. Children with a weak cognitive need prefer to play. But their game, as a rule, is manipulative in nature.

Fairy tale

(to the methodology for determining the dominance of cognitive or game motives)

Why do hares wear white coats in winter?

Frost and a hare met somehow in the forest. Frost boasted:

- I am the strongest in the forest. I will defeat anyone, freeze them, turn them into an icicle.

- Don't brag, Moroz Vasilievich, you won't win! - says the hare.

- No, I will win!

- No, you won't win! - the hare stands on its own.

They argued, argued, and Frost decided to freeze the hare. And says:

-Come on, hare, bet that I will defeat you.

- Come on, - the hare agreed. *

Here Frost began to freeze the hare. He let in a cold-cold, swirled with an icy wind. And the hare started running at full speed and jumping. It's not cold while running. And then he rides in the snow and sings:

The prince is warm

The prince is hot!

Warms, burns -

The sun is bright!

Frost began to get tired, thinking: “What a strong hare!” And he himself is even more fierce, he let in such a cold that the bark on the trees bursts, the stumps crack. And the hare doesn’t care about anything - either running up the mountain, then somersaulting down the mountain, then rushing through the meadow like a hall.

Frost is completely exhausted, and the hare does not even think of freezing. Frost retreated from the hare:

- Do you, oblique, freeze - dexterity and agility you hurt!

Frost gave the hare a white coat. Since then, all hares wear white fur coats in winter.

* Reading is interrupted after the words: Come on, agreed the hare.

2. Experimental conversation to determine the "internal position of the student."
The content of the experimental conversation is determined by the characteristic features of the "internal position of the student", identified in experimental work for her study. Thus, the formation of the “internal position of a schoolchild” manifests itself in a peculiar way in the game at school: children prefer the role of a student rather than a teacher and want the entire content of the game to be reduced to real learning activities (writing, reading, solving examples, etc.). On the contrary, if this education is not developed, children prefer the role of a teacher rather than a student in the game to school, and also instead of a specific educational activity - a game of change, acting out coming and going from school, etc.

The conversation consists of 12 questions (see stimulus material). The key questions are 2 - 8,10 - 12.

Questions No. 1 and No. 9 are not key, since almost all children answer them in the affirmative, and therefore they are not informative.

If a child wants to go to school, then, as a rule, he answers question No. 2 by disagreeing to stay in school for another year. kindergarten or at home and vice versa.

It is important to pay attention to how the child explains his desire to go to school, answering question number 7. Some children say that they want to go to school to learn how to read, write, etc. But some guys answer that they want to go to school because they are tired of kindergarten or do not want to sleep during the day in kindergarten, etc., that is, the desire to go to school is not related to the content of educational activities or changes social status child.

Questions No. 3, 4, 5, 6 are aimed at clarifying the cognitive interest of the subject, as well as the level of his development. The answer to question No. 6 about favorite books gives some idea of the latter.

The answer to question 8 gives an idea of how the child feels about difficulties at work.

If the subject still does not really want to become a student, then he will be quite satisfied with the situation offered to him in question No. 10 and vice versa.

If a child wants to learn, then, as a rule, in the game at school, he chooses the role of a student, explaining this with a desire to learn (question No. 11), and prefers that the lesson in the game is longer than the break, so that he can study longer in the lesson learning activities(question number 12). If the child still does not really want to learn, then the role of the teacher is chosen accordingly, and change is preferred.

Analysis of the answers to the questions shows the formation (+) or not formation (-) of the “internal position of the student”. In unclear cases, the sign (±) is put. The Appendix to practice gives examples of possible answers to key questions in the case of a formed and unformed “internal position of a schoolchild”.

3. Method "House"

The technique is a task for drawing a picture depicting a house, the individual details of which are made up of elements of capital letters (see stimulus material). The task allows you to identify the child's ability to focus on a sample in his work, the ability to accurately copy it, reveals the features of development voluntary attention, spatial perception, sensorimotor coordination and fine motor skills of the hand.

The technique can be used in determining the readiness of children for schooling. The technique is designed for children 5.5 - 10 years; is clinical in nature and does not imply obtaining normative indicators.

Instruction to the subject : “In front of you is a sheet of paper and a pencil. On this sheet, I ask you to draw exactly the picture that you see in this drawing (a sheet with a sample house is placed in front of the subject). Take your time, be careful, try to make your drawing exactly the same as this one on the sample. If you draw something wrong, then you can’t erase anything with an elastic band or a finger (you need to make sure that the subject does not have an elastic band), but you need to draw it correctly on top of the wrong one or next to it. Do you understand the task? Then get to work."

In the course of the child's work, it is necessary to fix the following: 1) with which hand the child draws (right or left); 2) how he works with the sample: whether he often looks at it, whether he draws air lines over the sample drawing, repeating the contours of the picture, whether he checks what he has done with the sample or, after glancing at it, draws from memory; 3) draw lines quickly or slowly; 4) distractibility during work; 5) statements and questions during drawing; 6) whether the subject checks his drawing with the sample after finishing work. When the child reports the end of work, he should be asked to check whether everything is correct with him. If he sees inaccuracies in his drawing, he may correct them, but this must be recorded by the experimenter.

Processing of experimental material is carried out by counting the points awarded for errors. Errors are:

but) the absence of any detail of the picture (4 points). Smoke, a chimney, a roof, hatching on the roof, a window, a line depicting the base of the house, a fence (one or both halves) may be missing in the picture, and 4 points are awarded for each missing half of the fence;

b) an increase in individual details of the drawing by more than two times while maintaining the relatively correct size of the entire drawing (3 points for each enlarged detail);

in) incorrectly depicted element of the picture (2 points). Smoke rings, a fence, shading on a roof, a window, a chimney can be depicted incorrectly. Moreover, if the sticks that make up the right (left) part of the fence are drawn incorrectly, 2 points are awarded not for each incorrectly depicted stick, but for the entire right (left) part of the fence as a whole. The same applies to smoke rings coming out of the chimney and hatching on the roof of the house: 2 points are awarded not for every wrong ring, but for all incorrectly copied smoke, not for every wrong line in the hatching, but for the entire hatching as a whole . The right and left parts of the fence are evaluated separately, so if the right part is incorrectly copied, and the left part is copied without error (or vice versa), then the subject receives 2 points for the drawn fence, if errors are made in both the right and left parts, then the subject receives 4 points (2 points for each part). If a part of the right (left) side of the fence is copied correctly, and a part is incorrect, then 1 point is awarded for this side of the fence; the same applies to smoke rings , and to the shading on the roof: if some of the smoke rings are drawn correctly, and some are not, then the smoke is estimated at 1 point; if part of the shading on the roof is reproduced correctly, but part is not, then the entire shading is rated 1 point.

misreproduced amount of elements in the details of the drawing is not considered an error, that is, it does not matter how many rings of smoke, sticks in the fence or lines in the hatching of the roof ;

G) incorrect arrangement of details in the space of the picture (1 point). Errors of this kind include: the location of the fence is not on a common line with the base of the house, but, as it were, suspended in the air or below the line of the base of the house; mixing pipe to the left corner of the roof; a significant shift of the window in any direction from the center; the location of the smoke deviates more than 30° from the horizontal line; the base of the roof corresponds in size to the base of the house, and does not exceed it (on the sample, the roof hangs over the house);

e) deviation of straight lines by more than 30° from the given direction (1 point). This includes the skew of the vertical and horizontal lines (more than 30 °) that make up the house and the roof; “collapsing” (more than 30°) of the fence sticks; changing the angle of inclination of the side lines of the roof (their location under a straight or obtuse angle to the base of the roof instead of a sharp one); deviation of the fence base line by more than 30 ° from the horizontal line;

e) breaks between lines where they should be connected (1 point for each break). In the event that the hatch lines on the roof do not reach the roof line, 1 point is given for the entire hatch as a whole, and not for each incorrect hatch line;

g) climbing lines one after another (1 pointfor eachclimbing). In the case where the hatch lines on the roof go beyond the roof lines, 1 point is given for the entire hatch as a whole, and not for each incorrect hatch line.

Good execution of the drawing is rated "0". Thus, the worse the task is performed, the higher the total score received by the subject. But when interpreting the results of the experiment, it is necessary to take into account the age of the subject. So, children 5.5 - 6 years old rarely get an "O" grade due to the insufficient maturity of the brain structures responsible for sensory-motor coordination. If the subject receives more than 1 point for 10 years, then this indicates a trouble in the development of one or more psychological spheres studied by the method.

When analyzing a child's drawing, it is necessary to pay attention to the nature of the lines: very bold or "shaggy" lines may indicate, according to the literature available on this issue, the child's anxiety. But in no case can a conclusion about anxiety be made on the basis of a drawing alone. The suspicion that has arisen must be checked by special experimental methods definition of anxiety.

The “House” technique can be considered as an analogue of the II and III tasks of the Kern-Jirasek test, namely, drawing written letters (task II) and drawing a group of dots (task III). Comparison of the results according to the indicated methods allowed us to conclude that the "House" method reveals the same psychological features in the development of the child, which is the same as the II and III tasks of the Kern-Jirasek test.

Method "Yes" and "No".

The technique is used to study the ability to act according to the rule.

The technique is a modification of the well-known children's game "Yes" and "no" do not say, do not wear black and white. As the game progresses, the host asks the participants such questions that are easiest to answer with the words “yes” or “no”, as well as using the names of white or black colors. But that's exactly what the rules of the game can't do.

For the methodology, we took only the first part of the rules of the game, namely: we forbade children to answer questions with the words “yes” and “no”.

Test subject instructions: “Now we will play a game in which you cannot say the word “yes” and the word “no”. Repeat, please, what words will not be spoken? (The subject repeats these words). Now be careful, I will ask you questions, answering which you cannot say the words “yes” and “no”. Understandably?" After the subject confirms that he understands the rules of the game, the experimenter begins to ask him questions that provoke answers "yes" and "no" (see Stimulus material).

Only the words "yes" and "no" are considered errors. The words "aha", "nope" and the like are not considered as errors. Also, a meaningless answer is not considered an error if it satisfies the formal rule of the game. It is quite acceptable if the child is generally silent and is only limited to an affirmative or negative movement of the head.

The task was performed at a good level, if no one error (+).

If one mistake is made, then it is - average level (±).

If more than one mistake is made, then it is considered that the subject did not cope with the task (-).

Questions about the "Yes and No" method.
Full name____________________age___________________
1. Do you want to go to school?

2. Do you like listening to fairy tales?

3. Do you like to watch cartoons?

4. Do you like walking in the forest?

5. Do you like to play with toys?

6. Do you want to study?

7. Do you like to play in the yard with the guys?

8. Do you like being sick?

9. Do you like to watch TV?

Method "Boots".

The technique allows you to explore the learning ability of a child, that is, to trace how he uses a rule that he has never encountered before to solve problems. The difficulty of the proposed tasks gradually increases due to the introduction of objects into them, in relation to which the learned rule can be applied only after the necessary generalization process has been carried out. The tasks used in the methodology are constructed in such a way that their solution requires an empirical or theoretical generalization. Empirical generalization is understood as the ability to classify objects according to their essential features, or to bring them under general concept. A theoretical generalization is understood as a generalization based on meaningful abstraction, when the reference point is not a specific distinguishing feature, but a fact. availability or absence symptom, regardless of the form of its manifestation.

Thus, the "Boots" method allows you to explore the learning ability of children, as well as the features of the development of the generalization process. The technique is designed for children 5.5 - 10 years old; is clinical in nature and does not imply obtaining normative indicators.

As an experimental task, the subject is taught to digitally code color pictures (a horse, a girl, a stork) by the presence or absence of one sign - boots on their feet. There are boots - the picture is indicated, "1", no boots - "0". Color pictures are offered to the subject in the form of a table that contains: 1) the coding rule (the first two lines); 2) the stage of fixing the rule (3, 4, 5 lines); 3) the so-called "riddles" that the subject must encode (6, 7 lines). In addition to the table of color pictures, the experiment uses a sheet of paper with the image of geometric figures, which are two more riddles (see stimulus material).

The table of color pictures looks like this:

Line I - the first cell is empty, in the second a horse is drawn, in the third - a girl, in the fourth - a stork standing on one leg, and in the fifth cell is the number "0".

Line II - the first cell is empty, in the second the same horse is drawn as in the first row, but only on all its four legs are wearing red boots , the same girl is drawn in the third cell, but in red boots, the same stork is drawn in the fourth cell, but in red boot, in the fifth cell is the number "1".

In lines I and II of the table, a rule is introduced for designating figures with the numbers "1" and "0" according to the presence or absence of a distinctive feature - boots.

Line III - the first cell is empty, in the second cell a horse without boots is drawn, in the third - a girl in red boots, in the fourth - a stork without a boot, the fifth cell is empty.

IV line - the first cell is empty, in the second a horse without boots is drawn, in the third - a girl without boots, in the fourth - a stork in a red boot, the fifth cell is empty.

Line V - the first cell is empty, in the second a horse in red boots is drawn, in the third - a girl in red boots, in the fourth - a stork without a boot, the fifth cell is empty.

Lines III, IV and V are given to consolidate the rules for encoding pictures introduced in lines I and II using numbers, “0” and “1”.

Line VI - in the first cell a hedgehog is drawn in blue boots, in the second cage - a horse in red boots, in the third cage - a girl without boots, in the fourth cage - a stork in red boot, the fifth cell is empty.

Line VII - in the first cell a snowman is drawn, on whose head a hat-cylinder is drawn, in the second cell the same snowman is drawn, only without a hat, in the third cell the same snowman is drawn again, only with a bucket on his head, in the fourth cell - all the same a snowman, but he has a frying pan on his head, the fifth cage is empty.

Lines VI and VII contain riddles, respectively the first and second, which the subject needs to “guess”, based on the rule he has learned for designating figures with numbers, depending on the presence or absence of boots.

As already mentioned, in addition to the table of color pictures, a sheet of paper with the image of two horizontal rows of geometric figures is also used as experimental material. In the first row are drawn: a shaded square, a shaded circle, a shaded triangle and an unshaded rectangle. In the II row - a rhombus lined in a small cell; a trapezoid lined in a small cell; an empty square not lined in a box and a circle, also lined in a small box.

The geometric figures depicted on the sheet, as well as the VI and VII lines of the table, are riddles that the subject needs to “guess”, based on the rule for encoding pictures introduced in the first two lines of the table, depending on the presence or absence of a distinctive feature. Accordingly, the first row of geometric figures is the III riddle, and the second is the IV riddle.

The first instruction to the subject: “Now I will teach you a game in which the colored pictures drawn in this table will have to be denoted by the numbers “O” and “1”. Look at the pictures (the first line of the table is shown), who is drawn here? (The subject names the pictures. In case of difficulty, the experimenter helps him). “That's right, now pay attention: in the first line, the figures of the horse, the girl and the stork are drawn without boots, and the number “O” is opposite them, and in the second line they are all drawn in boots, and the number “1” is opposite them. For the correct designation of pictures with numbers, you need to remember that if the figure is shown in the picture without boots, then it must be denoted by the number “O”, and if in boots, then by the number “1”. Remember? Please repeat". (The subject repeats the rule). Then the child is asked to arrange the numbers in the next three rows of the table. This stage is considered as the consolidation of the learned rule. When working at this stage, the rule contained in - the first two lines of the table should be open. If the child makes mistakes, the experimenter again asks him to repeat the rule for designating figures and points to the sample (the first two rows of the table). For each answer, the subject must explain why he answered the way he did. The reinforcing stage shows how quickly and easily the child learns a new rule and can apply it when solving problems. At this stage, the experimenter fixes all the erroneous answers of the subject, since the nature of the errors can show whether the child simply did not remember the rule firmly and confuses where to put “0” and where “1”, or he does not apply the necessary rule at all. So, for example, there are mistakes when a horse is indicated by the number "4", a girl - by the number "2", and a stork - by the number "1" and such answers are explained based on the number of legs of these characters. After the experimenter is satisfied that the child has learned to apply the rule he was taught, the subject is given a second instruction.

The second instruction to the subject: "You I have already learned how to label pictures with numbers, and now, using this skill, try to “guess” the riddles drawn here. “Guessing a riddle” means correctly labeling the figures drawn in it with the numbers “0” and “1”.

The first riddle (located in the VI row of the table) is a coding task, which includes an object that has not previously been encountered by the subject, but contains the same information as previously encountered objects. In this line, for the first time, the picture “hedgehog” appears, which had not previously come across to the child in the table, in addition, the hedgehog is wearing blue, not red boots. When solving this riddle, the subject must strictly follow the given rule for designating figures with numbers according to the presence or absence of a distinctive feature - boots, without being distracted by the color of this feature or the appearance of completely new objects that have not been seen before, but also differ in this feature.

The mistakes made by children when “guessing” this riddle are very diverse: not using the learned rule or incorrectly applying it to those pictures in which the subject has already trained (that is, the same nature of errors as at the fixing stage, although it was with this subject there might not have been any errors at the reinforcing stage), or there might be an error due to the fact that the subject could not apply the introduced rule on a new object (an error only when designating a hedgehog). Therefore, in case of incorrect guessing of the “riddle”, it is necessary to analyze the nature of the mistakes made in order to understand what exactly prevented the child from coping with the task.

The second riddle (located in row VII of the table) is a coding task, the solution of which depends on whether the subject sees between different classes of objects that common , which will allow him to apply the same rule to completely different objects. Snowmen are drawn in the cells of this line, that is, pictures that the child has not seen before in the table. Snowmen differ in that three of them have a headdress, and one does not. And since these are snowmen, then, in addition to a real hat, any more or less suitable item (bucket, frying pan) is used as a headdress. The solution of this problem involves the implementation of an empirical generalization at the first stage of "guessing the riddle", which consists in the fact that all objects depicted on the heads of snowmen, the subject must classify as "hats". Such a generalization, from our point of view, should be facilitated by the fact that a real hat is put on the head of the first snowman, giving an orientation to the consideration of other objects. from this point of view. Since in the riddle with snowmen the subject also needs to place the numbers “O” and “1”, he must assume that the presence or absence of a “hat” should serve as a guide for this, as in the previous riddle the presence or absence of boots acted as such a guide. If, when comparing riddles I and II, the child singled out distinctive landmarks that make it possible to solve the problem, and was able to transfer the rule he had learned for designating figures with numbers from one specific feature to another (from boots to hats), then he correctly “guesses the riddle”.

Children who correctly "guessed" this riddle are divided into two groups. One group is the subjects who came to the correct decision due to another empirical generalization, a generalization of distinctive landmarks, when boots and hats are considered as one class of features - “clothing”, and therefore “1” denotes figures in clothes, and “O " - without her. The other group is the subjects who found the answer on the basis of meaningful abstraction, that is, identifying the principle of solving a whole class of problems, which consists in focusing on the very fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of its form. manifestations.

The subjects who “guessed the riddle” thanks to empirical generalization, as a rule, explaining their answer, refer to the fact that “1” should be given to dressed snowmen, and “0” to undressed ones. But there are cases when, when explaining their answer, the guys use the words “hats”, “headgear”, but the solution still remains at the level of an empirical generalization. Also, ambiguity remains in relation to those subjects who cannot explain their answer. In order to understand at what level of generalization this problem is solved, it is necessary to see how the child will solve III and IV riddles.

The third and fourth riddles, located on a separate sheet of paper and representing a horizontal row of geometric shapes, allow you to find out if the child can solve the problem at an abstract level. There are no longer figurines depicting animals and people, and accordingly there are no details of clothing. The depicted geometric figures differ in terms of the presence or absence of shading.

If the subject cannot “guess” these riddles, then most likely this indicates that the solution to the problem with snowmen occurred due to empirical generalization, since riddles III and IV are designed for a level of meaningful abstraction, when the subject is not guided by a specific distinguishing feature, but on the fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of its form manifestations. With the correct "guessing" of these riddles, it is very important to listen to the explanations of the subject on the answer given to him. If the explanation includes the words “dressed”, “naked”, “clothed”, “without clothes”, then this indicates that all tasks have been solved at the level of empirical generalization, when all the distinctive landmarks (boots, hats, shading ) are summarized by the concept of "clothes". When explaining the type: “1” we put that with stripes or with cells, and “0” - that without “stripes and cells”, it can be assumed that II, III and IV riddles are solved on the basis of meaningful abstraction (if in the second riddle, the explanation did not include a sign of clothing, and a reference was made to the presence or absence of a hat, headdress, or any objects on the snowmen's heads). It is also possible that the second riddle is "guessed" on the basis of an empirical generalization, and III and IV - already on the basis of meaningful abstraction. It seems that it is in this case that the subjects, who correctly “solved” riddles III and IV, cannot explain their answers. Most likely, this is explained by the fact that theoretical thinking is “first of all expressed in the ways of mental activity, and then in various sign-symbolic systems, in particular by means of artificial and natural language (a theoretical concept may already exist as a way of deriving the individual from the universal, but not yet have terminology). It is no coincidence that the highest level of development of theoretical thinking is associated with reflection, that is, the conscious possession of one's mental apparatus.

Thus, the solution of riddles III and IV can clarify whether the subject transfers the rule for designating figures with numbers from one feature to another as a result of an empirical generalization of distinctive features or as a result of meaningful abstraction, that is, orientation to an abstract feature.

It should be noted that there are children who cannot "guess" the second riddle (with snowmen and hats), but "guess" III and IV (with geometric shapes), and the answers are given the correct explanation. Among these subjects, two groups can be distinguished. The first group is children who have meaningful abstraction, but do not have empirical generalization. Riddles III and IV are solved by them, since they highlight the principle of solving this class of problems, which consists in finding a sign by which the objects of the problem differ. Riddle II is beyond their power, because, although they understand the principle of solving this class of problems, in this case they cannot single out a common landmark, without which problems of this type cannot be solved. Children belonging to this group of subjects cannot generalize the objects on the heads of snowmen with one concept of “hats” or “headgear”, and therefore they cannot find the sign by which snowmen differ.

There are subjects who partially cope with this task. This is manifested in the fact that they designate the first and third snowmen with the number "1", and the second and fourth - with the number "O". In explaining their answer, they refer to the fact that two snowmen have "hats" on their heads, while two do not. They refuse to consider the frying pan on the head of the last snowman as a "hat", believing that the frying pan cannot be used as a headdress even for a snowman. Perhaps such answers indicate a certain rigidity of the child's thinking, since it is difficult for him to think of objects that usually do not belong to hats in a new meaning for them. The bucket does not cause such difficulties, since it is traditionally put on the snowman's head.

The second group is children who initially reformulate the instructions for themselves. When repeating the instructions before starting work, they say: “We designate naked,“ 0 ”, and dressed, we designate“ 1 ””. They solve the problem with snowmen incorrectly, because they perceive all snowmen as naked, and they solve problems with geometric figures correctly, explaining their answers by the presence or absence of clothes in the figures. “We will put “1” for the dressed, and “0” for the naked,” these subjects say, meaning the shading on geometric shapes by clothing. Here we are faced with a phenomenon when, apparently, no type of generalization is used at all when solving generalization problems, and the solution is carried out at the level of visual-figurative thinking. The assumption about the absence of empirical generalization in these children is confirmed by the results obtained when carrying out the "Exclusion of the superfluous" technique with the same subjects.

The most typical mistake when solving the second riddle is the designation of all snowmen as “0”, while the subjects refer to the fact that snowmen have no legs and boots. When “guessing” riddles III and IV, there are often cases of chaotic arrangement of numbers without any explanation, but the most interesting are errors in which “angle” is chosen as a sign for coding figures, that is, the presence or absence of angles in the drawn geometric figures. Then figures without angles (circles) are designated "0", and figures with corners (all others) - "1". It may seem that the selection of this feature for solving the problem (as in the previous cases "boots" and "headwear") is quite legitimate. But this only at first glance, since the originally given rule, as the basis of which the rest of the riddles should be solved by theoretical generalization, implicitly contains the condition that when coding pictures according to the presence or absence of a distinctive feature on the figure, the figure itself should not change. the corners of a geometric figure are considered, then when the corners disappear or appear, the geometric figure itself changes. mu such a solution of III and IV riddles is unlawful.

Notes on the implementation of the methodology. If at the fixing stage the child makes mistakes, then the experimenter immediately analyzes the nature of the mistakes made and, by means of leading questions, as well as by re-referring to the model for designating figures with numbers contained in the first two lines of the table, tries to achieve error-free work of the subject. When the experimenter is sure that the subject has learned well to apply the given rule, one can proceed to “solving riddles”.

If the subject cannot "guess the riddle", then the experimenter should ask him leading questions to find out if the child can solve this problem with the help of an adult. In the case when, with the help of an adult, the child does not cope with the task, then they move on to the next riddle. With the correct solution of a new riddle, you should again return to the previous one in order to find out if the subsequent riddle played the role of a hint for the previous one. Such repeated returns can be made several times. So, for example, you can return from the II riddle to the I, and then from the III again to the I.

To clarify the nature of generalization when “guessing riddles”, it is necessary to ask children in detail about why the figures are indicated in this way. If the child correctly “guessed the riddle”, but cannot give an explanation, then they move on to the next riddle. In the case of a correct explanation of the answer to the subject in the new riddle, one should return to the previous one and again ask him to explain the answer in it.

Of fundamental importance in the implementation of the methodology is the correct handling of the sample for designating figures with numbers. At the fixing stage, a sample of designating figures with numbers should be opened. Turning to "guessing riddles", the sample should be closed. If the subject cannot "guess the riddle", then the first help from the adult should be opening the sample. There are times when a visual reference to a sample is enough for the child to be able to “guess the riddle”.

The younger the children, the more they need visual support for the sample. Senior subjects must cope with the task even with a closed sample.

It should be remembered that this technique is clinical in nature and does not have normative indicators, and therefore the results obtained using it should not be interpreted from the point of view of normality - abnormal development of the child. The results obtained should be considered from the point of view of the peculiarities of the development of generalization processes in a given child.

In the course of the entire experiment, a detailed protocol must be kept, where all statements of the subject's direction of his gaze, as well as all questions and comments of the experimenter, will be recorded.

Stimulus material for the "Boots" method.

6. Methodology "Sequence of events".

The technique was proposed by A.N. Bernshtein, but the instruction and the procedure for its implementation was somewhat changed by N.I. Gutkina.

The technique is designed to study the development of logical thinking, speech and the ability to generalize.

As an experimental material, we use three pictures that show a flood in a village (see stimulus material). First picture(1): People are sitting on the roof of a flooded house. Second picture(2); people on a boat came for the victims. Third picture (3): a boat with people floats from a sunken house to the shore.

The pictures are placed in front of the subject in the following order (from left to right): 2-3-1.

Before starting the experiment, you need to make sure that the child understands all the details of the drawing in each of the pictures. To do this, the experimenter alternately shows him pictures of a house, people, water, trees, a shore, a boat, the roof of a flooded house and asks what it is. If the child correctly understands all the components of the pictures, then you can proceed to the experiment. If the subject does not understand one or another detail of the picture, for example, cannot understand that the roof of a flooded house sticks out in picture No. 3, then he should explain what it is, and only after that the experiment can begin.

Test subject instructions: “Look, there are pictures in front of you that depict some kind of event. The order of the pictures is mixed up, and you have to guess how to swap them so that it becomes clear what the artist drew. Think, rearrange the pictures as you see fit, and then make up a story about the event that is depicted here from them.

The task consists of two parts: 1) laying out a sequence of pictures; 2) oral story on them.

A correctly found sequence of pictures (1-2-3) indicates that the child understands the meaning of the plot, and an oral story shows whether he can express his understanding in verbal form.

There are cases when, with an incorrectly laid out sequence of drawings, the subject, nevertheless, composes a logical version of the story (see Appendix to practice). Such performance of the task is considered as good.

It should be noted that not all children are familiar with the “flood” phenomenon, especially for the six-year-old subjects. Therefore, the main thing in this task is the child's understanding of the main meaning of the plot: the house is flooded; people, fleeing from the water, climbed onto the roof, other people swam to their aid and saved them.

Well-developed children understand what is shown in the drawings, because if they have not met this phenomenon in their lives, then they read about it in books, they saw it on TV and found out what it is. It is acceptable if the guys consider that heavy rains, spring floods, hurricanes, etc. can be the cause of the flood. Accordingly, they can connect what is happening in the drawings with both spring and autumn, but not with summer, since the people in the pictures are dressed in warm clothes. Often, children use the word “flood” to refer to events in the drawings.

If the subject correctly laid out a sequence of pictures, but could not compose a good story, then it is advisable to ask him a few questions to clarify what his knowledge of the depicted natural phenomenon is (see Appendix to practice). Making up a story using leading questions is regarded as an average performance task for seven-year-olds and quite good for six-year-olds. If the subject correctly laid out the sequence of pictures, but could not compose a story even with the help of leading questions, then such a performance of the task is considered unsatisfactory (see Appendix to practice). It is especially necessary to consider cases when the child's silence is due to personal reasons: fear of communicating with strangers, fear of making a mistake, pronounced self-doubt, etc.

It is considered that the subject did not cope with the task if:

1) could not restore the sequence of pictures and refused to tell the story;

2) according to the sequence of pictures laid out by him, he made up an illogical story;

3) the sequence of pictures laid out by the subjects does not correspond to the story (except in those cases when the child, after a leading question from an adult, changes the sequence to the one corresponding to the story (Appendix to practice).

4) each picture is told separately, on its own, without connection with the others - as a result, the story does not work out (Appendix to practice).

5) Each figure simply lists individual items.

A well-executed task is indicated by a “+” sign. The average completed task is indicated by the sign "±". A poorly completed task is indicated by a "-" sign. The development of a child's speech is judged by how he builds phrases, whether he speaks fluently, what his vocabulary is, etc.

The technique is used to study the ability to act according to the rule.

The technique is a modification of the well-known children's game "Yes" and "no" do not say, do not wear black and white. As the game progresses, the facilitator asks the participants such questions that are easiest to answer with the words "yes" or "no", as well as using the names of white or black colors. But that's exactly what the rules of the game can't do.

The technique is based only on the first part of the rules of the game, namely: children are not allowed to answer questions with the words "yes" and "no".

Instruction to the subject: “Now we will play a game in which you cannot say the word “yes” and the word “no.” Repeat, please, what words can not be said? (The subject repeats these words). Now be careful, I will ask you questions that cannot be answered with the words "yes" and "no". After the subject confirms that he understands the rules of the game, the experimenter begins to ask him questions that provoke answers "yes" and "no" (see Stimulus material).

If the subject, having correctly repeated the rule of the game, nevertheless begins to answer with the words "yes" and "no", the experimenter does not interrupt him, but asks all the necessary questions to the end. After that, the child is asked whether he won the game or lost it. If the child understands that he lost, and understands why, then the adult offers him to play again to win back. Before the second trial, it is necessary to repeat the rule of the game again and ask the child to reproduce this rule again. If there are no errors in the second sample, then it is counted as the best result. We can assume that in this case we see the possibilities of the child in the zone of proximal development.

The task was completed at a good level, if no errors were made (+).

If one mistake is made, then this is the average level (±).

If more than one mistake is made, then it is considered that the subject did not cope with the task (-).

III. Research of the intellectual and speech sphere

5. Method "boots" (developed by N.I. Gutkina, 1993, 1996, 2002)

The technique allows you to explore the learning ability of a child, that is, to trace how he uses a rule that he has never encountered before to solve problems. The difficulty of the proposed tasks gradually increases due to the introduction of objects into them, in relation to which the learned rule can be applied only after the necessary generalization process has been carried out. The tasks used in the methodology are constructed in such a way that their solution requires an empirical or theoretical generalization. Empirical generalization is understood as the ability to classify objects according to their essential features, or to bring them under a general concept. Theoretical generalization is understood as a generalization based on meaningful abstraction, when the reference point is not a specific distinctive feature, but the fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of the form of its manifestation.

Thus, the "Boots" method allows you to explore the learning ability of children, as well as the features of the development of the generalization process.

The technique is clinical in nature and does not imply obtaining normative indicators. In the program for the study of psychological readiness for school, the methodology is used for children 6-7 years old, and in the case of a special use of it to determine the child's learning ability and developmental features of the generalization process, the age range can be extended from 5.5 to 10 years.

As an experimental task, the subject is taught to digitally encode color pictures.

(horse, girl, stork) by the presence or absence of one sign - boots on their feet. There are boots - the picture is indicated by "1", no boots - "0". Color pictures are offered to the subject in the form of a table (see Stimulus material), which contains: 1) coding rule (1, 2 lines); 2) the stage of fixing the rule (3, 4, 5 lines); 3) the so-called "riddles", which the subject must "guess" by correctly coding the figures with the numbers "0" and "1" (6, 7 lines). Accordingly, the 6th line is the I riddle, and the 7th line is the II riddle.

In addition to the table of color pictures, the experiment uses a sheet with the image of geometric figures, which are two more riddles (see Stimulus material), which the subject also needs to "guess", based on the rule for encoding pictures introduced in the first two lines of the table, depending on the presence or absence of hallmark. Accordingly, the first row of geometric figures is the III riddle, and the second is the IV riddle.

All answers and statements of the subject are recorded in the protocol, and each solution to the riddle must be explained by the child, why he arranged the numbers in this way.

The first instruction to the subject: "Now I will teach you a game in which the figures drawn in this table will have to be denoted by the numbers "0" and "1". Look at the pictures (the first line of the table is shown), who is drawn here?"

(The subject names the pictures. In case of difficulty, the experimenter helps him). "That's right, now pay attention: in the first line, the figures of the horse, the girl and the stork are drawn without boots, and the number "0" is opposite them, and in the second line the figures are drawn in boots, and the number "1" is opposite them. For the correct designating the figures with numbers, you need to remember that if the figure is shown in the picture without boots, then it must be designated with the number "0", and if in boots, then with the number "1". Remember? Repeat, please." (The subject repeats the rule). Then the child is asked to arrange the numbers in the next three rows of the table. This stage is considered as the consolidation of the learned rule. If the child makes mistakes, the experimenter again asks him to repeat the rule for designating figures and points to the sample (the first two rows of the table). For each answer, the subject must explain why he answered the way he did. The reinforcing stage shows how quickly and easily the child learns a new rule and begins to apply it, that is, the speed of the child's learning is determined. At this stage, the experimenter fixes all the erroneous answers of the subject, since the nature of the errors can show whether the child simply did not remember the rule firmly and confuses where to put "0" and where "1", or he does not apply the necessary rule at all. So, for example, there are mistakes when a horse is designated by the number "4", a girl - by the number "2", and a stork - by the number "1" and such answers are explained based on the number of legs of these characters. After the experimenter is satisfied that the child has learned to apply the rule he was taught, the subject is given a second instruction.

The second instruction to the subject: “You have already learned how to designate the figures with numbers, and now, using this skill, try to “guess” the riddles drawn here. To "guess" a riddle means to correctly designate the figures drawn in it with the numbers "0" and "1".

Riddle I (located in the 6th row of the table) is a coding task, which includes an object that has not previously been encountered by the subject, but contains the same information as previously encountered objects. In this line, for the first time, the picture "hedgehog" appears, which had not previously come across to the child in the table, in addition, the hedgehog is wearing boots not red, but blue. When solving this riddle, the subject must strictly follow the given rule for designating figures with numbers according to the presence or absence of a distinctive feature - boots, without being distracted by the color of this feature or the appearance of completely new objects that have not been seen before, but also differ in this feature. The child must explain his answer, why he marked the figures in this way. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter no longer draws the subject's attention to the rule of work, but immediately proceeds to the next riddle. The first riddle shows the child's learning ability, which is manifested in the fact that he must apply the given rule on a similar object (a hedgehog in blue boots). With good learning ability, the subject easily transfers the rule to a new object and treats it in the same way as with already familiar ones (due to the process of generalization).

The mistakes made by children when "guessing" this riddle are very diverse: not using the learned rule or incorrectly applying it to those pictures in which the subject has already trained (that is, the same nature of errors as at the fixing stage, although it was with this subject there might not have been any errors at the reinforcing stage), or there might be an error due to the fact that the subject could not apply the introduced rule on a new object (an error only when designating a hedgehog). Therefore, in the case of an incorrect "guessing" of the riddle, it is necessary to analyze the nature of the mistakes made in order to understand what exactly prevented the child from coping with the task. Riddle II (located in the 7th row of the table) is a coding task, the solution of which depends on whether the subject sees something in common between different classes of objects that will allow him to apply the same rule to completely different objects. Snowmen are drawn in the cells of this line, that is, pictures that the child has not seen before in the table. Snowmen differ in that three of them have a headdress, and one does not. And since these are snowmen, then, in addition to a real hat, any more or less suitable item (bucket, frying pan) is used as a headdress. The solution of this problem involves the following reasoning. Snowmen have no legs at all, which means that the introduced rule for designating figures with numbers is either not applicable to them at all, or is applicable, but on the basis of some other landmark. Finding this sign-landmark just means "solving" the riddle. The installation given in the instructions for solving the riddle should help the child cope with the task. Headdresses, or "hats, caps," as children usually call them, act as a distinctive landmark in the second riddle. In order to isolate this landmark, the child must make an empirical generalization, which consists in classifying all objects depicted on the heads of snowmen as "hats". This generalization should be facilitated by the fact that a real hat is put on the head of the first snowman, giving a setting for considering other objects from this point of view. Since in the riddle with snowmen the subject also needs to place the numbers "0" and "1", he must assume that the presence or absence of a "hat" should serve as a guideline for this, as in the previous riddle the presence or absence of boots acted as such a guideline. If a child has singled out a distinctive landmark that allows solving the problem, and was able to transfer the learned rule for designating figures with numbers from one specific feature to another (from boots to "hats"), then he correctly "guesses" the riddle.

Children who correctly "guessed" this riddle are divided into two groups. One group is the subjects who came to the correct decision through empirical generalization of distinctive landmarks, when boots and "hats" are considered as one class of features - "clothes". Therefore, "1" they denote those figures that have an element of clothing they have distinguished, which serves as a landmark in this riddle ("hats"), and "0" - figures without this element of clothing. The explanations of the children also sound accordingly: “We put “1” for those who have hats (hats), and “0” for those who do not have hats (hats)”. Among the subjects of this group there are children who partially cope with the task. This is manifested in the fact that they designate a snowman in a hat and a snowman with a bucket on his head with the number "1", and a snowman with an uncovered head and a snowman with a frying pan - with the number "0". In explaining their answer, they refer to the fact that two snowmen have hats and two don't. They refuse to consider a frying pan on a snowman's head as a "hat", believing that a frying pan cannot be used as a headdress even for a snowman. Perhaps such answers indicate a certain rigidity of the child's thinking, since it is difficult for him to think of objects that usually do not belong to hats in a new meaning for them. The bucket does not cause such difficulties, since it is traditionally put on the snowman's head (in pictures, children's New Year's parties, etc.). Faced with this answer, the experimenter should try to convince the child that the frying pan can also be a snowman's headdress if nothing else is suitable. If the child agrees with the arguments of the adult, then he is asked to once again arrange the numbers in the riddle and explain his answer again. The best answer counts.

The other group is the subjects who found the answer on the basis of meaningful abstraction, that is, identifying the principle of solving a whole class of problems, which consists in focusing on the very fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of the form of its manifestation.

Within this group, the subjects are divided into two subgroups. The first subgroup is those who, focusing on an abstract feature, find it here in a concrete one - "hats", carrying out an empirical generalization of all objects on the heads of snowmen as "hats" (headgear). Explaining their answer, they, like the children of the first group, refer to the presence or absence of "hats" on the heads of snowmen. The second subgroup, represented by a small number of children, are those who single out an abstract sign of the difference between snowmen by the presence or absence of something on their heads. At the same time, the subjects, explaining their answer, say: “We put “1” for those who have something on their heads, and “0” for those who have nothing on their heads.” In order to understand whether the subjects of the second subgroup can carry out an empirical generalization, the experimenter should ask them the question: “Can the objects painted on the heads of snowmen be called in one word?” If the subject answers that these are hats, or caps, or headgear, then he owns an empirical generalization, but the solution of the second riddle was made on the basis of a theoretical generalization. If the subject cannot combine the drawn objects in one word, then this means that empirical generalization is poorly developed in him.

There are children who correctly "guess" the riddle, but cannot explain their answer.

The most typical mistake when solving the second riddle is the designation of all snowmen "0", while the subjects refer to the fact that the snowmen have no legs and no boots. This error occurs due to the fact that the child does not think about how to apply the rule given at the beginning to the solution of this riddle. After all, if snowmen don’t have legs at all, then there’s nothing to put on boots, which means that you can’t navigate by boots at all. And since this is a riddle, the child must figure out (as a result of generalization) which landmark, instead of boots, he should take into account here. (A detailed explanation of the process of solving the second riddle was given above). Faced with such a solution to the II riddle, it is advisable to return to it after the III and IV riddles in case of their successful "guessing". At the same time, returning to the second riddle, the experimenter asks the child the following question: “You have already “guessed” this riddle, and now think about whether it is possible to “guess” it differently, is it possible to place the numbers “0” and “1” here differently? » The second attempt to solve the riddle with snowmen is recorded in the protocol and the explanation of the answer given by the child is again recorded. In the case of a correct answer, the best answer is counted.

Regardless of whether the child coped with the second riddle or not, he is offered third and fourth riddles.

Riddles III and IV, located on a separate sheet and representing horizontal rows of geometric shapes, allow you to find out if the child can solve the problem at an abstract level. There are no longer figurines depicting animals and people, and accordingly there are no elements of clothing. The depicted geometric figures differ in terms of the presence or absence of shading.

If the subject cannot "guess" these riddles, then most likely this indicates that he still lacks a theoretical generalization, since riddles III and IV are designed for a level of meaningful abstraction, when the subject focuses not on a specific distinguishing feature, but on a fact the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of the form of its manifestation. Explaining their answer, the subjects in this case say: “We put “1” with those with stripes (cells), and “0” with those without stripes (cells)”. But it happens that children come to the correct answer in these riddles on the basis of empirical generalization. This becomes clear from their explanations. In this case, the explanation includes the words "dressed", "without clothes", "dressed", "naked", that is, the shading is figuratively perceived as the clothes of geometric figures. It is also possible that the guys solve III and IV riddles on the basis of a theoretical generalization, but are not yet aware of their own mode of action. It seems that it is in this case that the subjects, who correctly "solved" these riddles, cannot explain their answers. Most likely, this is due to the fact that theoretical thinking "first of all is expressed in the ways of mental activity, and then in various symbol-sign systems, in particular by means of artificial and natural language (a theoretical concept may already exist as a way of deducing the individual from the universal, but not yet have terminology). It is no coincidence that the highest level of development of theoretical thinking is associated with reflection, that is, the conscious possession of one's mental apparatus.

When "guessing" riddles III and IV, there are often cases of chaotic arrangement of numbers without any explanation or the designation of geometric figures with numbers based on the number of angles in a given figure (circle - 0, triangle - 3, square, rectangle, rhombus, trapezoid - 4). Very interesting are the errors that arise due to the fact that the presence or absence of corners in geometric shapes is chosen as a sign on the basis of which coding is carried out. Then a figure without corners (circle) is designated "0", and figures with corners (all others) - "1". It may seem that the selection of this feature for solving the problem (as in the previous cases, boots and hats) is quite legitimate. But this is only at first glance, since the originally given rule, on the basis of which the rest of the riddles must or can be solved by theoretical generalization, implicitly contains the condition that when coding pictures by the presence or absence of a distinctive feature on the figure, the figure itself should not change. If, however, the corners of a geometric figure are considered as a distinctive feature, then when the corners disappear or appear, the geometric figure itself changes. Therefore, such a solution to the III and IV riddles is illegal.

It happens that the child incorrectly solves the third riddle, and on the fourth he catches the principle of the solution and correctly explains his answer. In this case, after the fourth riddle, the subject is again offered a third one and asked to explain its new solution. In the case of a correct "guess", the best answer is counted.

It should be noted that there are children who cannot "guess" the second riddle (with snowmen), but "guess" the third and fourth (with geometric figures), and the correct explanation is given to the answers. Among these subjects, two groups can be distinguished. The first group is children who have meaningful abstraction, but do not have empirical generalization. Riddles III and IV are solved by them, since they highlight the principle of solving this class of problems, which consists in finding a sign by which the objects of the problem differ. Riddle II is beyond their power, because, although they understand the principle of solving this class of problems, in this case they cannot single out a common landmark, without which problems of this type cannot be solved. Children belonging to this group of subjects cannot generalize the objects on the heads of snowmen with one concept of "hats" or "headgear", and therefore they cannot find the sign by which snowmen differ. The same group includes subjects who partially cope with this task, namely, they do not recognize a frying pan as a snowman's headdress, and therefore a snowman with a frying pan on his head is designated "0" (more details about these guys are written above).

The second group is children who initially reformulate for themselves the rule presented in the first two lines of the color table. When repeating the rule after the experimenter, they modify it as follows: "Naked we denote "0", and dressed we denote "1"". They solve the problem with snowmen incorrectly, because they perceive all snowmen as naked, and they solve problems with geometric figures correctly, explaining their answers by the presence or absence of clothes in the figures. “We will put “1” for the dressed, and “0” for the naked,” these subjects say, meaning by clothing the shading on geometric shapes. Here we are faced with a phenomenon when, apparently, no type of generalization is used at all when solving generalization problems, and the solution is carried out at the level of visual-figurative thinking. The assumption about the absence of empirical generalization in these children is confirmed by the results obtained when the technique "Exclusion of the superfluous" was carried out with the same subjects.

Notes on the implementation of the methodology. If at the fixing stage the child makes mistakes, then the experimenter immediately analyzes the nature of the mistakes made and by means of leading questions, as well as by re-referring to the rule for designating figures with numbers contained in the first two lines of the table, tries to achieve error-free work of the subject. When the experimenter is sure that the subject has learned well to apply the given rule, one can proceed to "solving" riddles. If the subject, with repeated repeated attempts, does not master the application of the given rule, that is, he cannot correctly place the numbers "0" and "1" at the fixing stage, then they do not proceed to "solving" riddles. In this case, a thorough examination of the child's intellectual development for mental retardation is necessary.

In the case of an incorrect "guessing" of the riddle, the experimenter does not inform the subject about this, but presents him with the following riddle. With the correct solution of a new riddle, you should again return to the previous one to find out if the subsequent riddle played the role of a hint for the previous one. Such repeated returns can be made several times. So, it is advisable after the second riddle to return to the first; after the fourth - to the third and to the second. Returning after a successful solution of a subsequent riddle to the previous one can be regarded as the help of an adult, and therefore the correct completion of the task in this case is the zone of proximal development of the child.

To clarify the nature of generalization when "guessing" riddles, it is necessary to ask children in detail about why the figures are indicated in this way. If the child correctly "guessed" the riddle, but cannot give an explanation, then they move on to the next riddle. In the case of a correct explanation of the answer to the subject in the new riddle, one should return to the previous one and again ask him to explain the answer in it.

At all stages of work, the rule contained in the first two lines of the table must be open.

In the course of the entire experiment, a detailed protocol should be kept, where all the statements of the subject, the direction of his gaze, as well as all the questions and comments of the experimenter will be recorded.

Since this technique is clinical in nature and does not have normative indicators, the results obtained using it are interpreted not from the point of view of the normality-abnormality of the child's development, but from the point of view of the developmental features of the generalization process in him.

The technique allows you to explore the learning ability of a child, that is, to trace how he uses a rule that he has never encountered before to solve problems. The difficulty of the proposed tasks gradually increases due to the introduction of objects into them, in relation to which the learned rule can be applied only after the necessary generalization process has been carried out. The tasks used in the methodology are constructed in such a way that their solution requires an empirical or theoretical generalization. Empirical generalization is understood as the ability to classify objects according to their essential features, or to bring them under a general concept. Theoretical generalization is understood as a generalization based on meaningful abstraction, when the reference point is not a specific distinguishing feature, but the fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of the form of its manifestation. Thus, the "Boots" method allows you to explore the learning ability of children, as well as the features of the development of the generalization process. The technique is clinical in nature and does not imply obtaining normative indicators.

As an experimental task, the subject is taught to digitally code color pictures (a horse, a girl, a stork) by the presence or absence of one sign - boots on their feet. There are boots - the picture is indicated by "1" (one), no boots - "0" (zero). Color pictures are offered to the subject in the form of a table containing: 1) the coding rule; 2) the stage of fixing the rule; 3) the so-called "riddles", which the subject must solve by coding. In addition to the table of color pictures, the experiment uses a white sheet of paper with the image of geometric shapes, which are two more riddles.

The first instruction to the subject: Now I will teach you a game in which the colored pictures drawn in this table will have to be denoted by the numbers "0" and "1". Look at the pictures (the first line of the table is shown), who is drawn here? (The subject names the pictures, in case of difficulty the experimenter helps him.) That's right, now pay attention: in the first line, the figures of the horse, the girl and the stork are drawn without boots, and the number “0” is opposite them, and in the second line the figures are drawn in boots , and opposite them is the number "1". For the correct designation of pictures with numbers, you need to remember: if the figure is shown in the picture without boots, then it must be marked with the number “0”, and if in boots, then with the number “1”. Remember? Please repeat". (The subject repeats the rule.) Then the child is asked to arrange the numbers in the next three rows of the table. This stage is considered as the consolidation of the learned rule. If the child makes mistakes, the experimenter again asks to repeat his rule for designating figures and points to the sample (the first two rows of the table). For each answer, the subject must explain why he answered that way. The reinforcing stage shows how quickly and easily the child learns a new rule and can apply it when solving problems. At this stage, the experimenter fixes all the erroneous answers of the subject, since the nature of the errors can show whether the child simply did not remember the rule firmly and confuses where “0” should be put and where “1”, or whether he does not apply the necessary rule at all. So, for example, there are mistakes when a horse is designated by the number "4", a girl - by the number "2", and a stork - by the number "1" and such answers are explained based on the number of legs of these characters. After the experimenter is sure that the child has learned to apply the rule he was taught, the subject is given a second instruction.

The second instruction to the subject: You have already learned how to label pictures with numbers, and now, using this skill, try to guess the riddles drawn here. “To guess the riddle” means to correctly designate the figures drawn in it with the numbers “0” and “1”.

Notes on the implementation of the methodology. If at the fixing stage the child makes mistakes, then the experimenter immediately analyzes the nature of the mistakes made and, by means of leading questions, as well as by re-referring to the model for designating figures with numbers contained in the first two lines of the table, tries to achieve error-free work of the subject. When the experimenter is sure that the subject has learned well to apply the given rule, one can proceed to solving riddles.

If the subject cannot "guess the riddle", then the experimenter should ask him leading questions to find out if the child can solve this problem with the help of an adult. In the case when, with the help of an adult, the child does not cope with the task, then they move on to the next riddle. At right decision a new riddle should again return to the previous one in order to find out if the subsequent riddle played the role of a hint for the previous one. Such repeated returns can be made several times. So, for example, you can return from riddle IV to III, and then from III to II.

To clarify the nature of generalization when “guessing riddles”, it is necessary to ask children in detail about why the figures are indicated in this way. If the child correctly “guessed the riddle”, but cannot give an explanation, then they move on to the next riddle. If the test subjects correctly explain the answer in the new riddle, they should return to the previous one and again ask the child to explain the answer in it.

5. Research of the intellectual and speech sphere. Method "Boots".

When studying a child's intellect from the point of view of readiness for schooling, the characteristics necessary and sufficient for starting schooling should come to the fore. The most striking such characteristic is learning, which includes two stages of intellectual operations. The first is the assimilation of a new rule of work (problem solving, etc.); the second is the transfer of the learned rule for completing the task to similar ones, but not identical to it. The second stage is possible only when the process of generalization is carried out.

The technique allows you to explore the learning ability of the child, i.e. see how he uses a rule that he has never encountered before to solve problems. The complexity of the proposed tasks gradually increases due to the introduction of objects into them, in relation to which the learned rule can be applied only after the necessary generalization process has been carried out. The tasks used in the methodology are constructed in such a way that their solution requires an empirical or theoretical generalization. Empirical generalization is understood as the ability to classify objects according to essential features or to bring them under a general concept. Theoretical generalization is understood as a generalization based on meaningful abstraction, when the reference point is not a specific distinguishing feature, but the fact of the presence or absence of a distinctive feature, regardless of the form of its manifestation.

As an experimental task, the subject is taught to digitally code color pictures (a horse, a girl, a stork) by the presence or absence of one sign - boots on their feet. There are boots - the picture is indicated by "1" (one), no boots - "0" (zero). Color pictures are offered to the subject in the form of a table containing: 1) the coding rule; 2) the stage of fixing the rule; 3) the so-called "riddles", which the subject must solve by coding. In addition to the table of color pictures in the experiment is used.

The first instruction to the subject: “Now I will teach you a game in which the colored pictures drawn in this table will have to be denoted by the numbers “0” and “1”. Look at the pictures (the first line of the table is shown), who is drawn here? (the subject names the pictures, in case of difficulty the experimenter helps him). “That's right, now pay attention: in the first line, the figures of a horse, a girl and a stork are drawn without boots, and the number “0” is opposite them, and in the second line they are all drawn in boots, and the number “1” is opposite them. For the correct designation of pictures with numbers, you need to remember: if the figure is shown in the picture without boots, then it must be denoted by the number "0", and if in boots, then by the number "1". Remember? Repeat, please ”(the subject repeats the rule). Then the child is asked to arrange the numbers in the next three rows of the table. This stage is considered as the consolidation of the learned rule. When working at this stage, the rule contained in the first two lines of the table must be open. If the child makes mistakes, the experimenter again asks to repeat his rule for designating figures and points to the sample (the first two rows of the table). For each answer, the subject must explain why he answered the way he did. The reinforcing stage shows how quickly and easily the child learns a new rule and can apply it when solving problems. At this stage, the experimenter fixes all the erroneous answers of the subject, since the nature of the errors can show whether the child simply did not remember the rule firmly and confuses where “0” should be put and where “1”, or whether he does not apply the necessary rule at all.

After the experimenter is sure that the child has learned to apply the rule he was taught, a second instruction is given.

The second instruction to the subject: “You have already learned how to designate pictures with numbers, and now, using this skill, try to guess the “riddles” drawn here. To guess the “riddle” means to correctly designate the figures drawn in it with the numbers “0” and “1”.

Research progress. If, after the instruction, at the fixing stage, the child made mistakes, the experimenter immediately analyzed the nature of the mistakes made (for example, Dima designated the horse with the number “4”, the girl with the number “2”, and the stork with the number “1” and explaining such answers based on from the number of legs of these characters) and by leading questions, as well as by re-referring to the model for designating figures with numbers contained in the first two lines of the table, he tried to achieve error-free work of the subject. When the experimenter was sure that the subject had learned to apply the given rule well, he proceeded to solve the "riddles".

If the subject could not guess the "riddle", then the experimenter asked him leading questions to find out if the child could solve this problem with the help of an adult. In the case when the child could not cope with the task with the help, they moved on to the next “riddle”. With the correct solution of the new "riddle", they returned again to the previous one in order to find out if the subsequent "riddle" played the role of a hint for the previous one.

To clarify the nature of the generalization when guessing the "riddles", the children were asked in detail about why the figures were designated in this way. If the child correctly “guessed the riddle”, but cannot give an explanation, then they move on to the next “riddle”. In the case of a correct explanation of the answer in the new “riddle” to the subjects, one should return to the previous one and again ask the child to explain the answer in it.

At the fixing stage, the pattern of figurine designation was opened. Turning to guessing "riddles", the sample was closed. If the subject could not guess the "riddle", then the first help from the adult was to open the sample. There were cases when visual support on the sample was enough for the child to be able to guess the “riddle” (Alexander, Dima, Elena).

“Good” performance is the correct “guessing” of all riddles (possibly with a repeated return to “unsolved” riddles). "Satisfactory" performance - the child realized the principle of solving problems ("guesses"), but could hardly use it, or "guessed" based on a visual sample. “Unsatisfactory” performance - the child either did not realize the principle of solving problems, or could not use it, tried to guess the answers.

Histogram 4

Analyzing the results of the methodology (Appendix 5, histogram 4), we see that 40% of the children (1, 3, 7, 8 row) coped with the task completely - 40% (2, 4, 6, 10), " unsatisfactory "- 20% of the subjects (5, 9 row).

Methods of diagnostic research during the period of internship, was carried out under the guidance of a psychologist of the MDOU and depended on the topic practical task, namely the diagnosis of the child's psychological readiness for school. A comprehensive program for diagnosing children was used preschool age to schooling. With the help of diagnostic methods, it was proved that timely diagnosis ...

The child is guided by signs, analyzing judgments. Thus, the intellectual readiness of the child is characterized by the maturation of analytical psychological processes, the mastery of the skills of mental activity. Personal readiness for schooling. In order for a child to study successfully, he must first of all strive for a new school life, to "serious" studies, "responsible" ...

...), equals = (same). VIII. Study of the child's psychological readiness for schooling. Study methods For the purpose of practical study of the psychological readiness of the child to study at school, the testing method was used as the main one, and the experimental method (children of different age groups were taken) Research results and their analysis TESTS FOR STUDYING DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OF ATTENTION ...

Communication is limited to close adults, and the experience of joint activities and communication with peers is insignificant. The development and testing of specific psychodiagnostic methods that allow to study the child's personal readiness for school, as well as a cycle of developmental classes, is the next stage of work. In this article, a theoretical analysis of this component of school maturity will be carried out. To...

Home > Document

Diagnostics for determining the intellectual readiness of children for school.

The modern school, focused on the development of the versatile development of the personality, taking into account the individualization of the educational process, needs a competent diagnosis of the psychological readiness of the child for schooling. Results of various long-term studies school readiness showed that the factor of intellectual development is, although insufficient, but indisputably necessary condition successful transition of the child to schooling. It was the request for the study of intellectual readiness that necessitated the development of various methods for diagnosing this aspect of school maturity. 1.1. L. A. Vengera’s method of diagnosing intellectual development. Doctor of Psychology, Professor L. A. Wenger, who headed the laboratory of the Research Institute of Preschool Education, and his colleagues worked on the problem of diagnosing mental development. Mental development is considered by the authors of the methods as a process of appropriation by the child of certain forms of social experience, material and spiritual culture created by mankind. Central link. As shown by the authors of the study, it lies precisely in children of early and preschool age. The authors of the methods used the cognitive orienting action as the main structural unit of cognition as the main reference point in the creation of the methods. In their opinion, the basis of mental development is the mastery of different types of cognitive orienting actions (perceptual and mental). Wenger identified 5 types of cognitive actions: 3 types of perceptual actions - perceptual modeling - identification actions - equating to the standard 2 types of mental actions .- visually -creative thinking

logical thinking Based on this, L.A. Wenger and his colleagues created a methodology that allows you to determine the level of intellectual development for preschoolers. Diagnosis of the degree of mastery of perceptual actions of a modeling nature. Technique "Perceptual modeling". Purpose: to identify the level of development of perceptual actions. Description: the child is invited to fold a figure, consisting of geometric details, in accordance with this sample. To complete the task correctly, the child had to be able to distinguish between various geometric shapes (triangles of various shapes, squares, etc.) and correctly arrange them in space (in accordance with the model). Diagnostics of the degree of mastering the action of identification. Purpose: to identify the degree of mastery of the identification action Description: the technique is a child's search for a color object identical to the sample in a color matrix of 49 elements (tasks for choosing color objects). The child is given a sheet on which squares are arranged in a certain way (5 colors, each color has 5 shades). The psychologist takes turns presenting the squares and the child will have to show the presented square on his sheet. Diagnostics of the degree of mastering the actions of attributing the properties of objects to given standards Purpose: to identify the degree of mastery of the actions of attributing the properties of objects to given standards Description: the child is provided with subject pictures and several boxes with drawn geometric shapes. The child needs to look at which of the geometric shapes a particular object looks like (ex: a ball, a tomato; an electric lamp, a guitar, etc.) and put it in the right box. Diagnosis of the degree of mastery of the actions of visual-figurative thinking. Methodology "Schematization" (or "Labyrinths"). Purpose: to identify the level of development of visual-figurative thinking Description: in the methodology, children are invited to find the right path in the path system based on the use of conditionally schematic images. . The child receives a sheet with a path diagram. You need to find a track, as in this diagram. Diagnosis of the degree of formation of actions of logical thinking Purpose: identifying the level of development of logical thinking Description: The child is offered a table with geometric shapes arranged in a certain sequence. Some squares are empty, they need to be filled in by identifying patterns logical series. The authors note that the resulting system of indicators of mental development is only its operational and technical characteristics. 1.2. Methodology for diagnosing the level of intellectual readiness for school N. Gutkina "Boots". Candidate of Psychological Sciences N.I. Gutkin, based on the theoretical provisions of L.S. Vygotsky, L.I. Bozhovich and D.B. Elkonina about the psychological readiness for school, developed a diagnostic program to determine the psychological readiness of children 6–7 years old for schooling, which makes it possible to determine, among other things, the level of development of the intellectual sphere. Purpose: to determine the level of development of the generalization operation, to trace their use in solving problems the introduced rule, which has not been encountered before. Equipment: The subject is offered a table containing a subject picture (dog, man, bird) with the presence or absence of one sign - boots on his feet. If there are boots, the picture is indicated by the number "1", if not, by the number "0". A table of color pictures contains: 1) coding rule; 2) the stage of fixing the rule; 3) the so-called "riddles" that the subject must solve by coding. Methodology and instructions: As part of the study of readiness for schooling - the intellectual aspect - children 6-7 years old participate in the study. The tasks used in the methodology are designed in such a way that when solving them, it is necessary to carry out an empirical generalization (the ability to classify objects according to essential features or bring them under a general concept) or theoretical generalization (generalization based on meaningful abstraction). The tasks are gradually becoming more complicated due to the introduction of objects into them, to which one or another generalization is required. The experimenter gives instructions and determines the rule: “To correctly designate pictures with numbers, you need to remember: if the figure is shown in the picture without boots, then it must be designated with a number" Oh", and if in boots, then the number "1". Remember? Repeat, please." After repeating the rule, the subject is asked to place the numbers in the next three rows of the table, as a stage of consolidating the learned rule. The subject must explain why this is so for each answer. In case of an error, the experimenter analyzes the nature of the errors, asks to repeat his rule for designating figures and points to the sample (the first two rows of the table), achieves a 100% result. At the fixing stage, the child’s learning rate is determined, i.e. shows how quickly and easily the child learns a new rule and can apply it when solving problems. ” is given by the experimenter when he is sure that the child has learned to apply the rule that he was taught. "You have already learned how to label pictures with numbers, and now, using this skill, try to guess the riddles drawn here. "Guessing a riddle" means correctly labeling the figures drawn in it with the numbers "O" and "1". After the first riddle, even if it was admitted mistake, it is proposed to solve the following.During the conduct, a repeated return to the previous riddles is used.When "guessing", to clarify the nature of the generalization, the experimenter asks the child to explain why it is indicated in this way.At the same time, at all stages of work, the first two lines of the table should be open .Processing: During the diagnosis, a protocol is kept with fixing the correct answers, errors and explanations of the subject and the questions and comments of the experimenter.This technique is clinical in nature and does not have normative indicators.The results are interpreted from the point of view of the developmental characteristics of the child's generalization process. 1.3. Methodology for the study of verbal-logical thinking. (according to J. Jerasek). One of the successful methods for studying verbal-logical thinking as a component of a child's intellectual readiness for school was proposed by J. Jerasek. Purpose: determining the level of verbal thinking, the ability to think logically and express one's thoughts. Equipment: a test form for determining the level of “Verbal thinking”. Conduct: the child is asked questions, the answers to which are evaluated on a scale.

Instruction: "Please answer me a few questions."

Questions	Correct answer	Incorrect answer	Other answers
Which animal is bigger - a horse or a dog?	0	-5
People have breakfast in the morning. And in the evening?	0	-3
It's bright outside during the day, but at night?	0	-4
The sky is blue, but the grass?	0	-4
Apples, pears, plums, peaches - what's that?	+1	-1
What is Moscow, St. Petersburg, Khabarovsk?	Cities +1	-1	Stations 0
Football, swimming, hockey, volleyball...	Sports, physical education +3	0	Games, exercise. +2
Is the little cow a calf? A small dog is...? Little horse?	Puppy, foal +4	- 1	Someone one puppy or foal 0
Why do all cars have brakes?	2 reasons from: braking downhill, on a curve, stopping in case of danger of a collision, after finishing a ride +1	-1	Named one reason0
How are hammer and ax similar to each other?	2 common traits +3	0	Named one attribute +2
What is the difference between a nail and a screw?	Screw thread +3	0	The screw is screwed, and the nail is hammered, the screw has a nut +2
Is the dog more like a cat or a chicken? How? What do they have the same?	For a cat (with highlighting similarity features) 0	For chicken - 3	For a cat (without highlighting signs of similarity) - 1
How are squirrels and cats similar?	2 signs +3	0	1 sign +2
What vehicles do you know?	3 means: ground, water, air, etc. +4	Nothing is named or incorrect 0	3 ground facilities
What is the difference between a young person and an old one?	3 signs +4	0	1-2 signs +2
TOTAL:

Processing: At the conductive key. Answers are evaluated on 3 parameters: correct, incorrect, another answer. The answer is considered correct if it is reasonable enough and corresponds to the meaning of the question posed. I level - 24 and more - very high II level - from 14 - 23 - high III level - from 0 -13 - average IV level - (- 1) - (-10) - low V level - (-11) and less - very low 1.4. Other methods for determining the level of intellectual readiness for school. Diagnostics of thinking is carried out according to 4 main parameters: analysis and synthesis, comparison, classification, generalization. This division is rather conditional and the methods proposed in the relevant sections simultaneously affect a number of characteristics and properties of thinking. Methodology "The fourth extra" (according to E.L. Agayeva) Purpose: to determine the level of development of the classification operation Equipment: sets of pictures according to classifications ("Dishes", "Furniture", "Toys", etc.), where one of the items cannot be generalized with others in common with it essential feature, that is, “extra”. Conduct: The child is offered 5 classification cards on different topics. “Dishes”: plate, pan, cup, iron. "Furniture": table, chair, television, cabinet "Toys": doll, briefcase, ball, pyramid. "Shoes": boots, cap, felt boots, shoes "Birds": perch, tit, nightingale, crow. Instruction: “Look carefully at the picture. What item is missing here? What is the name of all the other subjects in one word? Processing: The correctness of the generalization and the presence or absence of a classification operation (generalizing word) are evaluated. Tasks are evaluated in points:

generalization on an essential basis - 2 points; the use of a generalizing word - 1 point. The maximum number of points is 15. Methodology "Classification according to a given principle" Purpose: to determine the level of development of the classification operation Equipment: cut sets of pictures according to classifications ("Dishes", "Furniture", "Toys", etc.). Conduct: The child is offered cards with pictures that can be classified into 5 groups on different topics .Ex: “Dishes”, “Furniture”, “Shoes”, “Toys”, “Birds”. Cards: plate, titmouse, shoes, pan, pyramid, cup, boots, chair, typewriter, wardrobe, felt boots, crow, doll, nightingale, table. Instruction: “The pictures crumbled. Carefully examine them and arrange them so that together there are pictures, objects on which are somewhat similar, which can be called in one word. ”Processing: The correctness of the generalization and the presence or absence of a classification operation (generalizing word) are evaluated. In case of a mistake, the experimenter invites the child to find and correct the mistakes on his own. Groups are decomposed without errors: “+” 3 groups are correctly decomposed: “±” Errors in more than 3 groups “-” Method "Cut pictures". Purpose: diagnostics of analytical and synthetic characteristics of thinking, identification of the features of the development of the comparison operation. Equipment: Two subject pictures or simple postcards. The first (simpler) one is cut into 6 parts by straight perpendicular lines. The second picture is cut into N parts at different angles. Conduct: The child is asked to assemble two pictures from parts. The image is not commented on. Instruction: “You see, the picture is broken, fix it.” Processing: In case of an error, the experimenter invites the child to find and correct the errors on his own. Both pictures are assembled correctly “+” Only one is folded correctly “±” Both pictures are assembled incorrectly “ -» Method "Name it in one word" Purpose: determining the level of development of the generalization operation Conducting: The child is offered to name a group of objects in one word. It is done orally.

Trolleybus, bus, tram -

Wardrobe, bedside table, bed -

Wolf, bear, hare -

Blue, red, green -

Porridge, bread, sweets -

Rose, carnation, lily of the valley -

Oak, birch, linden -

Russula, fly agaric, boletus -

Catfish, crucian, perch -

Cabbage, potatoes, onions -

Pen, pencil, felt-tip pen -

Arm, leg, head

Instruction: "Now I will call you different words, and you think and tell me, how can these objects be called in one word? ”: Processing: The correctness of generalization, designation of concepts is evaluated. Tasks are evaluated in points. The maximum number of points is 13. There are 4 conditional levels of generalization formation: I level - 13 points - high II level - 11-13 - average III level - 7-11 - low IV level - less than 7 - very low Method "Sample Analysis" Purpose: to identify the level of development of such thinking operations as comparison, analysis and synthesis. Equipment: matches, a sample of a man made of matches. Conduct: A figure of a man made of matches is laid out on the table in front of the child. The attention of the child to the features of the sample is not drawn. After completing the task, the experimenter opens the sample and invites the child to compare it with what happened. In case of a mistake, the experimenter invites the child to find and correct the mistakes on their own. With incomplete correction of errors, the inspector can ask him leading questions. Instruction: “I made a little man out of matches. Look at it carefully and try to remember. Now I’ll close it, and you try to do exactly the same. ”Processing: The correctness of the folded figure is evaluated, taking into account which way the match heads are turned. The sample is reproduced exactly or the child independently found errors and corrected them - high level The sample was reproduced with errors, child corrected mistakes with the help of an adult who fixes attention on the features of the sample - medium level The sample is reproduced with errors, the child cannot correct his mistakes with the active help of an adult - low level Methodology "Sequence of events" (proposed by A.N. Bernshtein) Purpose: to study the development of logical thinking, speech and the ability to generalize. Equipment: three plot pictures presented to the subject in the wrong sequence. Conduct: The child must understand the plot, build the correct sequence of events and make up a story from the pictures. The task consists of two parts: 1) laying out a sequence of pictures; 2) an oral story on them. Instruction: "Look, there are pictures in front of you, on which some event is drawn. The order of the pictures is mixed up, and you need to guess how to change the colors so that it becomes clear what the artist painted. Think, rearrange pictures as you see fit, and then make up a story based on them about the event that is depicted here. "Processing: It is necessary to fix the nature of the subject's speech. the pictures are laid out in the correct sequence Good level of task completion - the child composes a logical version of the story, but the pictures are laid out in the wrong sequence. The average level of task completion - the child correctly found the sequence, but could not compose a good story on his own, but managed with the help of leading questions. Unsatisfactory level of performance tasks - the child correctly found the sequence, but could not compose a story even with the help of leading questions. The child did not cope with the task if: 1) he did not find a sequence of pictures and could not compose a story; 2) he found the sequence on his own, but made up an illogical story; 3 ) the compiled sequence does not correspond to the story (leading questions from an adult did not help); 4) tells separately for each picture, is not connected with the others - the story does not work; 5) lists only individual objects in each picture CONCLUSION Within the framework of the concept of differentiation and individualization of the educational process, a pedagogical approach to children based on objective information about their readiness for school in general and intellectual readiness in particular, as well as the level of development of the ability to learn, enables the teacher to best take into account individual characteristics child, build studying proccess in such a way as to determine the further educational path, in accordance with the zone of proximal development: to select a system of corrective exercises for children in order to compensate for developmental deficiencies, or vice versa, a system of working with children with a high level of development to create conditions for personal growth. The results of the study in identifying the features of the intellectual readiness of children attending preschool educational institutions, can be used primarily to solve an important practical problem - optimizing the process of preparing for schooling, in order to create favorable conditions for the transition of the child to the next level of the educational system.