Formation of spatial thinking in children of primary school age during mathematics lessons. Methodology and instructions Federal Agency for Education

"Labyrinth" technique.

Material.

The material consists of images of clearings with branching paths and houses at their ends, as well as “letters” conditionally indicating the path to one of the houses placed under the clearing. The first two pages of the notebook correspond to introductory tasks 1, 2 (see Fig. 1, a, b). The solution to each problem is checked by an experimenter.

The main tasks follow. The pictures for tasks 1-2 show only branched paths and houses at the end of each of them (Fig. 2, a); on all others, each section of the path after a branch is marked with a specific landmark, and in tasks 3-4 landmarks of identical content are given in different sequences (Fig. 3, a), in tasks 5 - 6, each branch is marked with two identical landmarks (Fig. 4, A). In problems 7-10, two repeating landmarks are given in different sequences and placed not on sections of the path, but at branching points (Fig. 5, a and 6, a).

On the “letters” for tasks 1-2 there is a broken line showing the direction of the path along which the search should be carried out (Fig. 2, b, c). In the “letters” for tasks 3 - 6, in a certain sequence from bottom to top, images of those objects that you need to walk past are given (Fig. 3, b, c and Fig. 4, b, c). In the “letters” for problems 7-10, both the turns of the path (broken line) and the necessary landmarks are depicted simultaneously (Fig. 5, b, c and Fig. 6, b, c).

To find the right path, the child must take into account in tasks 1-2 the directions of turns, in tasks 3-4 - the nature of landmarks and their sequence, in tasks 5-6 - a combination of landmarks in a certain sequence, in tasks 7-10 - both landmarks and directions of turns.

Instructions for carrying out.

Children are given two introductory problems, then tasks 1 - 10 in order.

Instructions are given after the children have opened the first sheet of the notebook with the introductory task. “In front of you is a clearing, paths and houses are drawn on it at the end of each of them. You need to correctly find one house and cross it out. To find this house, you need to look at the letter. (The experimenter points to the bottom of the page where it is placed.) In The letter says that you need to go from the grass, past the Christmas tree, and then past the fungus, then you will find the right house, and I’ll see if you’re wrong.”

The examiner looks at how each child solved the problem and, if necessary, explains and corrects errors.

Moving on to the second introductory task, the examiner invites the children to turn over the piece of paper and says: “There are also two houses here, and again you need to find the right house. But the letter here is different: it shows how to go and where to turn. Again you need to go straight from the grass, and then turn to the side." With these words, the inspector “guides” the children through the drawing in the “letter.” The solution to the problem is checked again, errors are explained and corrected.

Then comes the solution of the main problems. Brief additional instructions are given for each of them.

To problems 1-2: “The letter shows how to go, which way to turn, start moving from the grass. Find the house you need and cross it out.”

To problem 3: “Look at the letter. You have to go from the grass, past the flower, then past the fungus, then past the birch tree, then the Christmas tree. Find the right house and cross it out.”

To problem 4: “Look at the letter. You need to go from the grass, first past the birch tree, then past the fungus, the Christmas tree, then the chair. Mark the house.”

For tasks 5 - 6:“Be very careful. Look at the letter, find the right house and cross it out.”

To problems 7-10: “Look at the letter, it shows how to walk, what object to turn around and in which direction. Be careful, find the right house and cross it out.”

Evaluation of results.

When evaluating the results, it is necessary to take into account the number of the house chosen by the child and the number of the task. Both of these indicators are included in the rating scale: one - vertically, the other - horizontally. At the intersection of their coordinates, a score (in points) is indicated, which is awarded to the child for his search and choice of house (see the rating scale below).

The instructions are accompanied by a protocol form and a rating scale.

Rice. 1. a) introductory task 1; b). introductory task 2

Rice. 2. Material for tasks 1 and 2: a) clearing 1; b) 1st “letter”;

c) 2nd "letter" Rice. 3.

Material for tasks 3 and 4: a) clearing 2; b) 1st “letter”; c) 2nd "letter"

Rice. 4. Material for tasks 5 and 6: a) clearing 3; b) 1st “letter”;

c) 2nd "letter" Rice. 5.

Material for tasks 7 and 8: a) clearing 4; b) 1st “letter”; c) 2nd "letter"

Rice. 6. Material for tasks 9 and 10: a) clearing 5; b) 1st “letter”;

c) 2nd "letter"

Rice. 7a.

Problems 1 - 6

Rice. 7b.
Problems 7 - 8

Interpretation of the results obtained.

38-44 points - children with a detailed correlation of two parameters simultaneously.

They have fairly complete and dissected spatial representations.

31-38 - children with incomplete orientation to two parameters (usually solve the first 6 problems correctly). When taking into account two parameters at the same time, they constantly slide towards one. This is due to insufficient stability and mobility in the development of spatial concepts.

24-31 points - children with clear completeness of orientation to only one sign. They can construct and use spatial representations of the simplest structure. 18-24 - these children are characterized by incomplete orientation even to one sign. They divide the task into stages, but by the end of the work they lose their bearings. They are just beginning to develop a method of visual-figurative orientation in space.

After mathematics and design lessons, I conducted a control experiment. In the control experiment, the same set of techniques was used as in the ascertaining experiment.

Students of class 2 "A" showed the following results: Method "Walk through the labyrinth". (

A.L. Wenger)

Target:

Less than 18 points - children with inadequate forms of orientation. They try to find the right house, but their choice is random. This is due to the lack of development of the ability to relate the diagram to the real situation, i.e. underdevelopment of visual-figurative thinking. The technique is designed to study orientation in space. With its help, the ability to listen carefully and accurately follow the instructions of an adult, correctly reproduce the given direction of a line, and independently act as directed by an adult is determined.

The results obtained and their analysis:

After carrying out the “Graphic Dictation” technique, the following results were obtained:

Last name and first name				Number of points
Atnazheva Yulia
Gracheva Elizaveta
Deyankova Daria
Efimova Sofia
Linkova Polina
Lukicheva Elizaveta
Makarov Ivan
Mokeev Alexander
Nazarov Nikita
Novozhilova Svetlana
Okhlopkov Dmitry
Pankratova Elizaveta
Parfenova Alina
Savin Daniil
Sevastyanova Valentina
Sukhorov Ilya
Trineev Daniil
Turkova Daria
Tyukaeva Ekaterina
Tyurina Victoria

Analysis: The table shows that:

6 students (30%) - high level

12 students (60%) - intermediate level

The results can be presented in the form of a diagram:

"House" technique. (N.I. Gutkina)

Less than 18 points - children with inadequate forms of orientation. They try to find the right house, but their choice is random. This is due to the lack of development of the ability to relate the diagram to the real situation, i.e. underdevelopment of visual-figurative thinking. to identify the features of the development of voluntary attention, spatial perception and spatial thinking, sensorimotor coordination and fine motor skills of the hand, the child’s ability to focus his work on a model, the ability to accurately copy it. The test also allows you to identify (in general terms) the child’s developmental intelligence, the children’s ability to reproduce a model; identify spatial orientation associated with drawing:

1. Place geometric shapes on a sheet of paper in the indicated manner, drawing them or using ready-made ones;

2. Without reference points, reproduce the direction of the drawing using the sample. In case of difficulty - additional exercises in which you need:

A) distinguish the sides of the sheet;

B) draw straight lines from the middle of the sheet in different directions;

B) trace the outline of the drawing;

D) reproduce a drawing of greater complexity than the one proposed in the main task.

The results obtained and their analysis:

When performing the tasks of the "House" Method, the subjects made the following mistakes:

A) some details of the drawing were missing;

B) in some drawings proportionality was not observed: an increase in individual details of the drawing while maintaining a relatively arbitrary size of the entire drawing;

C) incorrect representation of the elements of the picture; the right and left parts of the fence are assessed separately;

D) deviation of lines from a given direction;

D) gaps between lines at junctions;

E) lines climbing on top of one another;

The results of this technique are presented in the table:

Last name and first name							Number of points
Atnazheva Yulia
Gracheva Elizaveta
Deyankova Daria
Efimova Sofia
Linkova Polina
Lukicheva Elizaveta
Makarov Ivan
Mokeev Alexander
Nazarov Nikita
Novozhilova Svetlana
Okhlopkov Dmitry
Pankratova Elizaveta
Parfenova Alina
Savin Daniil
Sevastyanova Valya Valentina
Sukhorov Ilya
Trineev Daniil
Turkova Daria
Tyukaeva Ekaterina
Tyurina Victoria

Analysis: The table shows that:

9 students (45%) - high level

9 students (45%) - intermediate level

2 students (10%) - low level

The results can be presented in the form of a diagram:

Thus, during the preliminary experiment, students of class 2 "A" showed the following results:

38% - high level of development of spatial thinking,

50% of children have an average level of development of spatial thinking,

12% - low level of development of spatial thinking.

The diagnostic results can be presented in the form of a diagram:

Thus, after the lessons in mathematics and design, the level of development of spatial thinking increased significantly. This suggests that the lessons we conducted in grade 2 significantly improved the development of this type of thinking in second-graders, which was the basis for proving the correct hypothesis we put forward.

The technique was developed at the Research Institute of Preschool Education of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR and is intended to identify the level of development of visual-schematic thinking (the ability to use diagrams and conventional images when navigating situations). The assessment is made in raw points without conversion to a normalized scale.

STUDY PROCEDURE

Before starting the study, children are given little books, which are stapled sheets of paper depicting clearings with branched paths and houses at their ends, as well as “letters” conditionally indicating the path to one of the houses placed under the clearing. The first two sheets (A and B) correspond to introductory problems. The solution to each problem is checked by an experimenter.

First, children are given two introductory tasks (A and B), then all the other tasks in order. Children open a book of tasks that begin with an introductory task. After this, the psychologist offers instructions: “In front of you is a clearing, paths and houses are drawn on it at the end of each of them. You need to correctly find one house and cross it out. To find this house, you need to look at the letter (the psychologist points to the bottom of the page, where a “letter” is placed). The letter says that you need to go from the grass, past the Christmas tree, then past the fungus, then you will find the right house. Everyone, find this house, and I’ll see if you made a mistake.”

The psychologist checks how each child solved the problem; if necessary, corrects errors and explains. Having made sure that all the children have completed the first introductory task (A), the psychologist invites them to turn over the piece of paper and solve the second problem (B): “There are also two houses here, and again you need to find the right house. But the letter here is different: it shows how to go and where to turn. You need to go straight from the grass again, and then turn to the side.” The psychologist shows the “letter” at the bottom of the sheet. After the explanation, the children solve the problem, the psychologist checks and gives clarification.

After solving the introductory tasks, they begin to solve the main problems. Brief additional instructions are given for each of them:

Tasks 1–2:“The letter shows how to go, which way to turn, start moving from the grass. Find the house you need and cross it out.”

Task 3:“Look at the letter. You have to go from the grass, past the flower, then past the fungus, then past the birch tree, then the Christmas tree. Find the right house and cross it out.”

Task 4:“Look at the letter. You need to go from the grass, first past the birch tree, then past the fungus, the Christmas tree, then the chair. Mark the house.”

Problems 5–6:“Be very careful. Look at the letter, find the right house and cross it out.”

Problems 7–10:“Look at the letter, it shows how you should walk, what object to turn near and in which direction. Be careful. Find the house you need and cross it out.”

RESULTS EVALUATION

Solving introductory problems is not assessed. When solving problems 1–6, 1 point is awarded for each correct turn. Since in problems 1–6 you need to make four turns, the maximum number of points for each of the problems is 4. In problems 7–10, 2 points are given for each correct turn: in problems 7–8 (2 turns) the maximum number of points is 4, in problems 9–10 (3 turns) – 6 points. The points received for solving each problem are summed up. The maximum number of points is 44.

The three presented methods ("Graphic Dictation", "Sample and Rule", "Labyrinth") form a complex, the total points of which determine the level of completion of the task by each child (Table 1.4). Five levels of completion of each task were identified.

Table 1.4

Total score corresponding to the level of task completion

The final assessment of the child’s performance of a set of diagnostic tasks is the sum of conditional points received for completing the techniques (Table 1.5). It can range from 0 to 36 points. Based on the final assessment, the level of formation of the components of educational work is determined.

Table 1.5

Final assessment corresponding to the level of development of the components of educational work

Final grade (conditional points)	Child's age
Final grade (conditional points)	6 years (entry to school)	7 years (end of first - beginning of second grade)	8 years (end of second grade)
	Particularly low	Particularly low	Particularly low
		Particularly low	Particularly low
	Below the average		Particularly low
		Below the average
	Above average		Below the average
		Above average
	Particularly high		Above average

The data for each child obtained as a result of group testing is summarized in a general table or an individual sheet.

Form of an individual sheet

Last name, first name	Petrov Sasha
Age 7.5		15.07.2008
Techniques		Total score
1. Graphic dictation
2. Pattern and rule
3. Labyrinth
final grade
Level of development of components
academic work
4. Kern – Jerasek Drawing subtests
Verbal subtest
Readiness level
Conclusion

The set of methods proposed in the work allows the psychologist to almost immediately identify the circle of children who need clarification of the results of a group examination. This group mainly includes children with low results in completing the Kern-Jerasek method (12–15 points) and a low level of development of the components of educational work.

Further analysis of the results of a group survey may change the circle of people in need of individual research, mainly by expanding the list.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Research procedure:

The technique is carried out individually. The research procedure is a conversation with a child using a certain rating scale on which he places himself and presumably determines the place where other people will place him.

Carrying out the test:

The child is given a piece of paper with a ladder drawn on it and the meaning of the steps is explained. It is important to check whether the child understood your explanation correctly. If necessary, it should be repeated. After this, questions are asked and the answers are recorded.

Analysis of results:

First of all, they pay attention to what level the child has placed himself on. It is considered normal if children of this age put themselves on the level of “very good” and even “very good” children.

In any case, these should be the upper steps, since a position on any of the lower steps (and even more so on the lowest) does not indicate an adequate assessment, but a negative attitude towards oneself, lack of confidence in one’s own abilities. This is a very serious disorder of the personality structure, which can lead to depression, neuroses, and antisocial behavior in children.

As a rule, this is associated with a cold attitude towards children, rejection or harsh, authoritarian upbringing, in which the child himself is devalued, who comes to the conclusion that he is loved only when he behaves well.

And since children cannot be good all the time, and certainly cannot meet all the demands of adults, fulfill all their demands, then, naturally, children under these conditions begin to doubt themselves, their abilities and the love of their parents for them. Also Children who are not cared for at all at home are not confident in themselves and in parental love. Thus, as we see, extreme neglect of a child, as well as extreme authoritarianism, constant guardianship and control, lead to similar results.

The answers to the question about where adults will put them - dad, mom, teacher - speak specifically about the attitude of parents towards the child and their requirements.

For a normal, comfortable feeling of self, which is associated with the emergence of a sense of security, it is important that one of the adults puts the child on the highest level.

Ideally, the child himself can place himself on the second step from above, and the mother puts him on the highest step.

Methodology for determining the level of development of the communication sphere

The level of development of a child’s sociability is determined by kindergarten teacher during general children's games. The more active a child is in communicating with peers, the higher the level of development of the communication system.

* 10 points - overactive, that is, he constantly disturbs his peers, involving them in games and communication.

* 9 points - very active: involves and actively participates in games and communication.

* 8 points - active: makes contact, participates in games, sometimes involves peers in games, communication.

* 7 points - more active than passive: participates in games and communication, but does not encourage others to do so.

* 6 points - it’s difficult to determine whether he’s active or passive: if he’s called to play, he’ll go, if he’s not called, he won’t go, he doesn’t show any activity, but he doesn’t refuse to participate either.

* 5 points - more passive than active: sometimes refuses to communicate, but more often still participates in games and communication.

* 4 points -- passive: only sometimes participates in games when he is persistently invited.

* 3 points - very passive: does not participate in games, only observes.

* 2 points - withdrawn, does not react to the games of peers.

To study the intellectual sphere, we chose the “Labyrinth” method (A.L. Wenger), “Memorizing 10 words” (Luria), Correction test (Pieron-Ruzer), “House” (N.I. Gutkina)

“Labyrinth” technique (A.L. Wenger)

In its original version, this technique was proposed to diagnose the level of development of visual-figurative thinking. The practice of its use has shown that when performing tasks, the child uses the “letter” as a model or rule; in order to achieve a positive result, he needs to strictly follow the given sequence (chain) of guidelines. These features of the simulated activity make it possible to identify the level of development of the child’s voluntary sphere. We use original stimulus material, but we offer a new option for interpreting and assessing task performance. The technique can be presented both individually and in a group version. The examination time is 15 minutes.

Goal: Diagnosis of the ability to act according to visual guidelines in a given sequence.

Material: 12 tables with a diagram and instructions. Instructions: “In front of you is a clearing with paths running through it (show). You can follow these paths to any house, but we are looking for only one of them, the one in which the bunny lives. He sent you a letter indicating the landmarks you need to pass by. There may be a wolf in other houses, he will eat you. Be careful, find the right path!” .

Analysis of results. The total score is entered into the protocol of the methodology. When evaluating the results, it is necessary to take into account the number of the house chosen by the child and the number of the task. Both of these indicators are located in the key..

"Memorizing 10 words" (A.R.Luria)

The technique is used to study direct short-term, long-term, voluntary and involuntary memorization. The subject is read ten words, selected so that it is difficult to establish any semantic relationships between them (mountain, needle, rose, cat, watch, wine, coat, book, window, saw). After reading, you are asked to reproduce the words in any order. Then the words are read again. It is considered normal to reproduce 6-9 words after 4-5 repetitions. After 20-30 minutes. the subject is asked to reproduce these words in any order.

The following indicators are distinguished:

1. number of words reproduced;

2. dynamics of word reproduction (voluntary memorization curve).

The test results indicate the following memorization features:

· Direct memorization is not impaired - if the subject, immediately after reading ten words, reproduces at least 6-7 words in four or five attempts.

· Direct memorization is impaired - if the subject, immediately after reading ten words, reproduces less than 5 words. The fewer words are reproduced, the more pronounced the violations of immediate memorization are recognized.

· Long-term memory is not impaired - if after 20-30 minutes. without prior warning, the subject reproduces at least 6-7 memorized words.

· Long-term memory is reduced - if after 20-30 minutes. without prior warning, the subject reproduces less than 5 memorized words.

Pieron-Ruser technique

This technique is used to study the stability of attention and the possibilities of its switching. At the same time, one can note the peculiarities of the pace of activity, “working” into the task, and the manifestation of signs of fatigue and satiety. The technique also gives an idea of the speed and quality of developing a simple skill, mastering a new method of action, and developing basic graphic skills.

At the top of the form, geometric figures are marked with symbols (dot, dash, vertical line), which the child must place in the proposed form.

Procedure

A blank form is placed in front of the child, and the psychologist, filling in the empty figures of the sample (Appendix 6), says: “Look, in this square I will put a dot, in the triangle - this is the dash (vertical), I will leave the circle blank, there is nothing in it I’ll draw a line like this (horizontal) in the rhombus. You will fill out all the other figures yourself, exactly the same way as I showed you” (you should repeat once again where and what to draw - orally). After the child has started work, the psychologist starts the stopwatch and records the number of signs made by the child in 1 minute (a total of 3 minutes is given) - marks it with a dot or dash directly on the form. Note. It is advisable to record (at least approximately) from what moment the child begins to work from memory, that is, without relying on a model. It is necessary to note in the protocol how the child fills out the figures: diligently, carefully or carelessly, as this affects the pace of work. Analyzed indicators:

Ability to retain instructions and purposeful activity; - parameters of attention (stability, distribution and switching); - total number of filled figures;

Number of completed figures per minute (dynamics of changes in the pace of activity); - number of errors (total);

Number of errors for each minute of work (dynamics of changes in the number of errors);

Distribution of errors (and their number) in different parts of the sheet. Age characteristics of performance. The technique can be used in working with children from 5.5 years of age to 8-9 years. Depending on the age of the child and the objectives of the study, various symbols (dot, dash, vertical line) can be placed in one, two or three figures. The fourth figure should always remain “empty”. The sample on the sheet remains open until the child finishes his work.

The following are considered good results from the implementation of the technique: - quick memorization of symbols;

A situation when, after the first completed line, the child stops looking at the sample;

A small number of errors (1-2 in 3 minutes).

“House” technique

The “House” technique (N.I. Gutkina) is a task for drawing a picture depicting a house, the individual details of which are made up of elements of capital letters. The technique is designed for children 5-10 years old and can be used to determine the readiness of children for schooling.

Purpose of the study: to determine the child’s ability to copy a complex pattern.

The task allows you to identify the child’s ability to focus on a model, copy it accurately, and determine the features of the development of voluntary attention, spatial perception, sensorimotor coordination and fine motor skills of the hand.

Materials and equipment: sample drawing, sheet of paper, pencil

Examination procedure

Before completing the task, the child is given next instruction: “There is a piece of paper and a pencil in front of you. I ask you to draw on this sheet exactly the same picture as on this piece of paper (a piece of paper with a picture of a house is placed in front of the subject). Take your time, be careful, try to ensure that your drawing is exactly the same as on this sample. If you draw something wrong, do not erase it with an eraser or your finger (you must make sure that the child does not have an eraser). You need to draw the correct one on top of the incorrect one or next to it. Do you understand the task? Then get to work."

As the task progresses, it is necessary to record: 1) which hand the child is drawing with (right or left); 2) how he works with the sample: does he often look at it, does he draw air lines over the sample drawing, repeating the contours of the picture, does he compare what he has done with the sample, or, after briefly glancing at it, draws from memory; 3) draws lines quickly or slowly; 4) is he distracted while working? 5) statements and questions while drawing; 6) after finishing the work, checks his drawing with the sample.

When the child reports finishing the work, he is asked to check if everything is correct. If he sees inaccuracies in his drawing, he can correct them, but this must be recorded by the experimenter.

Processing and analysis of results

Processing of experimental material is carried out by counting points awarded for errors. The errors are as follows.

1. Absence of any detail in the drawing (4 points). The picture may not include a fence (one or two halves), smoke, a chimney, a roof, shading on the roof, a window, or a line depicting the base of the house.

2. Enlargement of individual details of the picture by more than two times while maintaining the relatively correct size of the entire picture (3 points for each enlarged detail).

3. Incorrectly depicted element of the picture (3 points). Smoke rings, a fence, shading on the roof, a window, or a chimney may be depicted incorrectly. Moreover, if the sticks that make up the right (left) part of the fence are drawn incorrectly, then 2 points are awarded not for each incorrectly drawn stick, but for the entire right (left) part of the fence. The same applies to the smoke rings coming out of the chimney, and to the shading on the roof of the house: 2 points are awarded not for each incorrect ring, but for all the incorrectly copied smoke; not for each incorrect line in the hatching, but for the entire hatching as a whole.

The right and left parts of the fence are scored separately: so, if the right part is copied incorrectly, 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 on both the right and left sides, then the subject receives 4 points (2 points for each part). If part of the right (left) side of the fence is copied correctly, and part is incorrect, then 1 point is awarded for this side of the fence; the same applies to the smoke rings and the shading on the roof: if only one part of the smoke rings is drawn correctly, then the smoke is scored 1 point; If only one part of the shading on the roof is reproduced correctly, then the entire shading is scored 1 point. An incorrectly reproduced number of elements in a detail of a drawing is not considered an error, that is, it does not matter how many sticks there are in the fence, smoke rings or lines in the shading of the roof.

4. Incorrect arrangement of parts in the space of the drawing (1 point). Errors of this kind include: the location of the fence is not on a line common with the base of the house, but above it, the house seems to be hanging in the air, or below the line of the base of the house; displacement of the pipe to the left corner of the roof; significant displacement 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 (in the example, the roof hangs over the house).

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

6. 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.

7. Climbing lines one after another (1 point for each climb). In the case where the hatch lines on the roof extend 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 assessed as “O” points. Thus, the worse the task is completed, 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. Thus, 5-year-old children almost never receive an “O” grade due to insufficient maturity of the brain structures responsible for sensorimotor coordination. If a 10-year-old subject receives more than 1 point, this indicates trouble in the development of one or more psychological areas studied by the method.

When analyzing children'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, a state of anxiety in the child. But under no circumstances should a conclusion about anxiety be drawn based on the drawing alone. The suspicion that arises must be verified using special experimental methods to determine anxiety.

The “House” technique can be considered as an analogue of tasks II and III of the Kern-Jirasek test, namely: copying written letters(II task) and drawing a group of points (III task). A comparison of the results using these methods allowed us to conclude that the “House” method reveals the same psychological characteristics in the development of a child as tasks II and III of the Kern-Jirasek test. The “House” technique can be carried out both individually and in small groups.

The result of the method is calculated in points not so much to compare one child with another, but to track changes in the sensorimotor development of the same child at different ages.

ChapterIII. Description and analysis of research results

3.1 Research resultssocio-psychological readiness of children for school

Analysis of diagnostic characteristics of children's relationships preschool age to peers.

Let us consider the analysis of the results of the sociometric method “Two Houses”. According to the classification proposed by Ya.L. Kolomensky, two significant categories can be distinguished: group members with a favorable status (categories I and II), and group members with an unfavorable status (categories III and IV). The ratio of the total values of favorable and unfavorable status categories is a significant diagnostic indicator, which qualifies as the “relationship well-being coefficient” (RBC). The “isolation index”—the percentage of group members who find themselves in status category IV—can also be considered as a diagnostic parameter.

The following results were obtained: 20% of the children in the group are “sociometric stars” - outwardly attractive, fairly self-confident children who enjoy authority in the peer group, they are leaders in games, other children are willing to be friends with them. The second group did not have such children.

48% of the children in the study group are “preferred” - these children prefer games and communication with a constant limited circle of friends (or one constant friend), while they have almost no conflicts with other children; in their small group they can be leaders.

There were 16% of “neglected” children in the group - these children are simply not noticed, it is as if they are not in the group, as a rule, these are quiet, inactive children who play alone and do not strive for contact with peers.

Also in the diagnostic group were “isolated” children. In the group, the number of such children was 16% - these are children who are rejected by their peers, often they are outwardly unattractive or are nervous, overly conflictual, and have a negative attitude towards other children (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Analysis of the results of the sociometric test “Two Houses”

Let's consider the analysis of the "Ladder" technique. The following results were obtained: 32% of children have inflated self-esteem, after some thought and hesitation, they put themselves on the highest level, named some of their shortcomings and mistakes, but explained them by external reasons independent of them, they believed that the assessment of adults in some cases it may be somewhat lower than his own: “I am, of course, good, but sometimes I am lazy. Mom says I'm sloppy."

56% of children in the group have adequate self-esteem. Having thought about the task, the children put themselves on the 2nd or 3rd level, explaining their actions, referring to real situations and achievements, and believed that the adult’s assessment was the same or slightly lower. These children placed themselves on the lower steps, did not explain their choice, or referred to the opinion of an adult: “Mom said so,” (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Analysis of results using the “Ladder” method

Based on the results, we can conclude: that the rate of adequate self-esteem of children in the study group is 56%, can be explained by the fact that to assess behavior, an adult gives the child a “reference point”, in kindergarten as a result joint activities and communication with other people, the child learns important guidelines for behavior. Also for children higher value has an assessment from parents and educators.

Let's consider an analysis of the methodology for determining the level of the communicative sphere. The following results were obtained: 20% of children have a level of communication, that is, such children are active in establishing contact with children, participating in joint games, independently involving peers in games, and communicating.

The average level of development of the communicative sphere in the diagnostic group was identified in 52% of children. These children did not show independent activity in games or in communication; sometimes they refused the offer to participate in games, but more often they all took part in the games. 28% of children had a low level of development of the communicative sphere; such children showed passivity and lack of initiative during play activities and communication with peers (Fig. 2).

Rice. 3. Analysis of the results using the methodology for determining the level of the communicative sphere

3.2 Research resultsintellectual readiness of preschool children

Analysis of the results using the “Labyrinth” method (A.L. Wenger) showed that 32% of children showed a high level of visual-figurative thinking, 48% of children showed an average level of visual-figurative thinking, 20% of children showed a low level of visual-figurative thinking ( Fig. 3).

Fig.4. Analysis of results using the “Labyrinth” method (A.L. Wenger)

The results obtained during the diagnostic study using the “Memorizing 10 Words” method to determine short-term auditory memory, the results were as follows: 28% of children - high volume of auditory memory (showed memorization of 9-8 words), 40% of children showed average volume of auditory memory (remembered 7-5 words), 32% of children - low volume of auditory memory (Fig. 4) .

Rice. 5. Analysis of results using the “Memorizing 10 words” method (A.R. Luria)

To study the stability and switchability of attention, the Pieron-Ruzer technique was used. The results were as follows: 20% of children showed a high level of stability and switchability of attention, 48% of children showed an average level, 32% of children showed a low level of stability and switchability of attention (Fig. 5).

Rice. 6. Analysis of the results using the “Pieron-Ruzer correction test” method

To study sensorimotor coordination and fine motor skills of the hand, we used the “House” technique (N.I. Gutkina). The following results were obtained: 24% of children showed a high level of sensorimotor coordination, 48% of children - an average level, 28% of children - a low level (Fig. 6).

Rice. 7. Analysis of results using the “House” method (N.I. Gutkina)

3.3 Studying the ratiosocio-psychological readiness and intellectual readiness of children for school

To study the relationship between two components of psychological readiness for school in preschool children: intellectual and socio-psychological readiness, the Spearman rs rank correlation method was used. Correlations between the components of socio-psychological readiness and intellectual readiness were calculated. The following statistically significant relationships were identified (Table 1).

Table 1 Results of mathematical processing using the Spearman rs rank correlation method

Name of ranks	r s empir.	r s crit.	Result
Level of interpersonal communication and thinking			Statistically significant
Interpersonal communication level and memory			Statistically significant
Level of interpersonal communication and attention			Statistically significant
Interpersonal communication level and motor skills			Statistically significant
Self-esteem and interpersonal relationships			Statistically significant
Self-esteem and thinking			Statistically significant
Self-esteem and memory			Statistically significant
Self-esteem and attention			Statistically significant
Self-esteem and motor skills			Statistically significant
Level of communication and thinking			Statistically significant
Communication level and memory			Statistically significant
Level of communication and attention			Statistically significant
Level of communication and motor skills			Statistically significant

Using Spearman's rank correlation method for mathematical processing of data, we obtained the following results: a high correlation was established between the level of interpersonal relationships with peers and visual-figurative thinking (0.937); between the level of interpersonal relationships and attention (0.82); between the level of interpersonal relationships and self-esteem (0.76); A high correlation was also found between self-esteem and attention (0.71). A negative correlation was established between motor skills and self-esteem, and between the level of interpersonal relationships. Also, a correlation was found between the level of the communicative sphere and thinking (0.739), between the level of the communicative sphere and memory (0.567), the level of the communicative sphere and attention (0.782), and the level of the communicative sphere and motor skills (0.539).

By comparing and summarizing the data obtained during a comprehensive study of the socio-psychological component of a child’s readiness and intellectual readiness for school, we can conclude that these two components of psychological readiness for school correlate with each other and are interconnected. This indicates confirmation of our hypothesis.

conclusions

Thus, according to the results of the diagnostic study, we received confirmation of our hypothesis that there is a relationship between socio-psychological readiness for learning at school and intellectual readiness for learning at school in children of senior preschool age. Having studied the features of socio-psychological readiness, we came to the conclusion that the majority of children of senior preschool age have developed a level of socio-psychological readiness of children for school, which is manifested in the level of sociability, perception from peers, and level of self-esteem.

Having examined the level of intellectual readiness, we found that preschoolers entering school have formed the components of this component psychological readiness for school: most children have developed a high and average level of visual-figurative thinking, switching attention, auditory memory and hand-eye coordination.

To study the relationship between intellectual readiness and socio-psychological readiness using the method of mathematical processing, we obtained the following high correlations: positive connections - between the level of interpersonal relationships with peers and visual-figurative thinking, between the level of interpersonal relationships and attention, between the level of interpersonal relationships and self-esteem ; between self-esteem and attention; a negative correlation was established between motor skills and self-esteem, and between the level of interpersonal relationships and motor skills, between the level of the communicative sphere and cognitive processes: thinking, memory, attention, and motor skills.

Based on this, the result of our study is confirmation of the hypothesis.

Children's readiness for school is the result of all educational work with children carried out by the family and preschool throughout preschool age.

A child entering school must be mature physiologically and socially, the success of a child’s education at school also depends on the maturity of the basic mental processes. Psychological readiness for learning is a multidimensional concept. It does not provide for individual knowledge and skills, but a specific set in which all the basic elements must be present. The main components of readiness for schooling are: intellectual, personal, socio-psychological and volitional readiness. All of the listed components of school readiness are important in the development of a child. If there is insufficient development of any one component, there is a need for psychological help for the child.

Personal readiness includes the formation in the child of readiness to accept a new social position the position of a schoolchild who has a range of rights and responsibilities. This personal readiness is expressed in the child’s attitude towards school, towards educational activities, teachers, yourself.

Social and psychological readiness includes the formation of qualities in children, thanks to which they could communicate with other children and the teacher. The presence of flexible ways to establish relationships with other children, necessary for entering the children's society (actions together with other children, the ability to give in and defend themselves). This component presupposes the development in children of the need for communication, the ability to obey the interests and rules of communication of the children's group, and the developing ability to cope with the role of a schoolchild in a school learning situation.

Intellectual readiness presupposes that a child has an outlook and a stock of specific knowledge. The child must have systematic and dissected perception, elements of a theoretical attitude to the material being studied, generalized forms of thinking and basic logical operations, and semantic memorization. Intellectual readiness also presupposes the development in a child of initial skills in the field of educational activity, in particular, the ability to identify an educational task and turn it into an independent goal of activity.

Based on the results of our research, we can conclude that our hypothesis was confirmed: that there is a relationship between socio-psychological readiness for learning at school and intellectual readiness for learning at school in children of senior preschool age.

To prevent school maladaptation of a future schoolchild, it is necessary to comprehensively develop all components of psychological readiness for school; this requires comprehensive correctional and developmental work to prepare children for school in preschool age.

List of used literature

1. Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psychological testing. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. - 688 p.: ill. - (Series “Masters of Psychology”).

2. Arkhipova I. A. Preparing a child for school. A book for the parent of a future first-grader. - Ekaterinburg, U - Factory-2006.-224

3. Bozhovich L.I. Personality and its formation in childhood - M-1968

4. Wenger A.L. Is your child ready for school. - M., 1994. - 192 p.

5. Developmental and educational psychology: Reader / Compiled by: I.V. Dubrovina, V.V. Zatsepin, A.M. Parishioners. - M.: Academia, 2003. - 368 p.

6. Developmental psychology: Personality from youth to old age: Tutorial for universities / Ed. M.V. Gerasimova, M.V. Gomezo, G.V. Gorelova, L.V. Orlova. - M.: Pedagogy, 2001. - 272 p.

7. Volkov B.S., Volkova N.V. Preparing the child for school. 4th ed. Reperad and additional - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008. - 192 p.

8. Vygotsky L.S. Psychology. - M.: Publishing house "EXMO-Press", 2002. - 1008 p.

9. Gutkina N.I. Psychological readiness for school. 4th ed., revised. and additional - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - 208 p.: ill.

10. Zakharova A.V., Nguyen Tkhan Thoi. Development of knowledge about oneself in primary school age: Communication. 1 - 2 // New research in psychology. - 2001. - No. 1, 2.

11. Zaporozhets A.V. Development of voluntary movements. -M., I960.-430 p.

12. Kovalchuk Ya.I. Understand the world of childhood. Mn.: “People's Asveta”, 1973. - 160 p.

13. Kolominsky L.L., Panko E.A. To the teacher about the psychology of six-year-old children. M: 1998 - 190 p.

14. Kravtsov G.G., Kravtsova E.E. Six year old child. Psychological readiness for school. - M., Knowledge, 1987. - 80 p.

15. Kravtsova E.E. Psychological problems of children's readiness to study at school. - M.: Pedagogy, 1991. - 152 p.

16. Kulagina I.Yu. Age-related psychology. - M., 1991. - 132 p.

17. Lunkov A.I. How to help your child study at school and at home. M., 1995. - 40 p.

18. Maklakov A.G. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. - 592 p.

19. Mukhina V.S. Six-year-old child at school. - M 1986.

20. Nemov R.S. General psychology for special educational institutions. - M.: “VLADOS”, 2003. - 400 p.

21. Nizhegorodtseva N.V., Shadrikov V.D., Psychological and pedagogical readiness of a child for school. - M., 2002. - 256 p.

22. Obukhova L.F. Child psychology. - M., 1995.

23. Pavlova T.L. Diagnosis of a child's readiness for school. - M.: TC Sfera, 2006. - 128 p. - (Library of a practical psychologist)

24. Panfilova M.A. Game therapy of communication: Tests and correctional games. A practical guide for psychologists, teachers and parents. - M.: GNOM and D, 2005. - 160 p.

25. Petrova O.O., Umnova T.V. Developmental psychology, lecture notes. Rostov n\A 2004. - 224 p.

26. Preparing children for school in the USSR and Czechoslovakia: Textbook / Ed. L.A. Paramonova. - M., 1989. - 146 p.

27. Practical psychology Education: Textbook / Ed. I.V. Dubrovina. - 4th ed., revised. and additional M.: Peter, 2004. - 562 p.

28. Rimashevskaya L. Socially - personal development // Preschool education. 2007. - No. 6. - P. 18 - 20.

29. Sidorenko E. Methods of mathematical processing of psychology. - St. Petersburg: Rech, 2006. - 350 p.

30. Semago N.Ya., Semago M.M. Diagnostic album for assessing the development of a child’s cognitive activity. Preschool and primary school age. - M.: Iris-Press, 2005.

31. Smirnov A.A. Selected psychological works. In 2t - M, 1987. T1.

32. Smirnova E.O. Features of communication with preschoolers: Proc. aid for students avg. ped. textbook establishments. - M.: Academy, 2000. - 160 p.

33. Elkonin D.B. Mental development in childhood: Izbr. psychological works. - 2nd ed., erased. - M.: Voronezh, 1997. - 416 p.

34. Elkonin D.B. Developmental psychology. M.: Academy, 2001. - 144 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Instructions

Instructions are given after the children have opened the first sheet of the notebook with the introductory task.

“In front of you is a clearing, paths and houses are drawn on it at the end of each of them. You need to find one house correctly and cross it out. To find this house, you need to look at the letter. (The inspector points to the bottom of the page where it is placed.) The letter says that you need to go from the grass, past the Christmas tree, and then past the fungus, then you will find the right house. Find this house, and I’ll see if you’re wrong.”

The examiner looks at how the child solved the problem and, if necessary, explains and corrects errors.

Moving on to the second introductory task, the examiner invites the children to turn over the piece of paper and says: “There are also two houses here, and again you need to find the right house. But the letter here is different: it shows how to go and where to turn. You need to go straight from the grass again, and then turn to the side” (At these words, the inspector runs along the drawing in the “letter”). The solution to the problem is checked again and errors are corrected.

Then comes the solution of the main problems. Brief additional instructions are given for each of them.

For tasks 1 - 2:“The letter shows how to go, which way to turn. Start moving away from the grass. Find the house you need and cross it out.”

To task 3:“Look at the letter. You have to go from the grass, past the flower, then past the fungus, then past the birch tree, then the Christmas tree. Find the house you need and cross it out.”

To task 4:“Look at the letter. You have to walk away from the grass, first past the birch tree, then past the fungus, past the Christmas tree, then the chair. Mark the house."

For tasks 5 - 6:“Be very careful. Look at the letter, find the house you need and cross it out.”

For problems 7 - 10:“Look at the letter, it shows how to walk, what object to turn around and in which direction. Be careful, find the right house and cross it out.”

Evaluation of results

When processing the results for each of tasks 1 - 6, 1 point is awarded for each correct turn. In problems 7 - 10, 2 points are awarded for each correct turn. All marks received by the child in individual tasks are summed up. The maximum number of points is 44.

When evaluating the results, it is necessary to take into account the number of the selected house and the task number. The score (in points) is indicated at the intersection of their coordinates. The number of the selected house and the rating are entered into the protocol (see the protocol for the “Labyrinth” method).

No. of houses	№ Problems
No. of houses	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	4	0
2	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	2	0
3	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	4	0	2
4	1	0	0	1	1	0	2	2	0	0
5	2	0	0	2	4	0	0	0	0	0
6	2	0	0	2	3	0	0	0	2	0
7	4	0	0	4	2	0	2	0	0	2
8	3	0	0	3	2	0	0	2	0	4
9	0	2	4	0	0	1	2	0	4	2
10	0	2	3	0	0	1	0	2	2	2
11	0	3	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	4
12	0	4	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	2
13	0	1	1	0	0	3	4	0	0	4
14	0	1	1	0	0	4	2	2	0	6
15	0	1	1	0	0	2	2	0	0	2
16	0	1	1	0	0	2	2	0	2	2
17									2	2
18									2	4
19									0	0
20									2	0
21									6	0
22									4	0
23									2	2
24									2	0
25									0	0
26									2	4
27									0	0
28									2	0
29									0	2
30									0	0
31									4	0
32									2	0

Protocol to the “Labyrinth” technique

№	Surname, baby name	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Sum	Notes

Interpretation of the results obtained

38-44 points- children with a detailed correlation of two parameters simultaneously. They have fairly complete and dissected spatial representations.

31-38 points- children with incomplete orientation to two parameters (usually solve the first 6 problems correctly). When taking into account two parameters at the same time, they constantly slide towards one. This is due to insufficient stability and mobility in the development of spatial concepts.

24-31 points- children with clear completeness of orientation to only one sign. They can construct and use spatial representations of the simplest structure.

18-24 points- these children are characterized by incomplete orientation even to one sign. They divide the task into stages, but by the end of the work they lose their bearings. They are just beginning to develop a method of visual-figurative orientation in space.

Less than 18 points- children with inadequate forms of orientation. They try to find the right house, but their choice is random. This is due to the lack of development of the ability to relate the diagram to the real situation, i.e. underdevelopment of visual-figurative thinking.