Characteristics of Interpersonal Communication Among Primary School Students in Different Educational Systems

Introduction

Interpersonal communication with peers constitutes a distinct and crucial aspect of students' school life of students. The nature of a student's relationships with peers determines their status within the group (Moskvina, 2017; Rubin et al., 2006; Zuckerman, 1993) and forms a foundation for academic achievement (Țepordei et al., 2023; Wentzel, 2005), emotional well-being, and social adaptation (Kapustina & Ignatovich, 2022; Ladd, 1999; Walker, 2004). It is within the school environment that a student's communicative skills are fundamentally shaped, and a specific style of interaction is developed. Thus, interpersonal relationships function as a unique factor influencing the formation of the child's personality.

The problem of developing effective interpersonal communication skills among students in educational practice remains one of the most pressing issues and, simultaneously, an insufficiently developed area within the traditional educational system. An emphasis on knowledge transmission at the expense of communicative skill development leads to a deficit in adequate interpersonal communication among students, which, in turn, constrains not only their social adaptation but also their cognitive development (Zuckerman, 2020; Rubtsov, 2024). In contrast to this approach, there exist alternative systems of education – such as the Elkonin–Davydov system, Waldorf pedagogy, cooperative learning pedagogy, the school of dialogue of cultures, and the Montessori system – that emphasise the importance of interpersonal interaction as a fundamental foundation for organising the educational process. These systems are grounded in the understanding that learning is a dynamic process, unfolding within conditions of genuine dialogue, cooperation, and collaborative activity among all its participants.

Despite the recognised correlation between effective interpersonal communication and the quality of learning (Aisyah et al., 2024; Chukwu, 2025; Rubtsov, 2024), many educational institutions continue to experience persistent difficulties in integrating the principles of effective communication into their curricula. In this context, educational systems where interpersonal communication is inherently integrated into the learning process, such as the Elkonin-Davydov system and Waldorf pedagogy, are of particular interest. Both systems are founded on a specific form of educational collaboration among children, characterised by a sense of community, mutual belonging, and shared purpose, while simultaneously preserving each child's individuality.

A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal Communication Features across Different Educational Systems

The traditional educational system, based predominantly on the transmission of ready-made knowledge from teacher to student, is characterised by a hierarchical model of interaction, where the main focus is on individual academic achievement. Under such conditions, interpersonal communication among students often becomes situational, confined to the boundaries of academic tasks, and does not receive deliberate pedagogical support. This can result in insufficient development of skills in cooperation, mutual assistance, and emotional understanding among students. Moreover, the patterns of interaction and content of communication that are established within groups in traditional schools exist as separate tasks – that is, disconnected from the subject matter for which this communication is structured (Rubtsov & Ulanovskaya, 2021). Consequently, under such conditions, the capacity for dialogical communication, cooperation with peers, and reflection remains comparatively low (Ilyin, 2009; Rubtsov et al., 2021; Zimnyaya, 2005).

In the Elkonin-Davydov developmental system, primary attention is devoted to the formation of theoretical concepts and general modes of action, which necessarily presupposes collaborative educational activity in solving academic tasks and, within this framework, educational collaboration. Here, interpersonal communication functions not merely as an accompanying factor but is deliberately integrated into the learning process as its essential component. Collaborative problem-solving and work in pairs and groups facilitate the development of communicative and cooperative skills, enhance the effectiveness of learning, increase the level of responsibility for collective outcomes, and promote the formation of students' social competence and reflection (Rubtsov & Ulanovskaya, 2021; Rubtsov, 2024). Furthermore, the engagement of students in learning is heightened through the implementation of educational dialogue and the construction of dialogue during classroom instruction.

In the Elkonin-Davydov developmental system, the teacher organises forms of group work in which students exchange opinions, actions, and collectively monitor and evaluate one another, because in the Elkonin-Davydov system, the development of the student as a subject of educational activity occurs within the very process of the formation of educational activity itself (Zuckerman, & Obukhova; Rubtsov, 2005). At the initial stage, the student carries out educational activity together with other students and with teacher support – that is, educational activity is performed by a collective subject, and it is precisely in these situations that zones of proximal development emerge (Sivashinsksaya & Punchik, 2010). Research demonstrates that students from schools implementing the Elkonin-Davydov system exhibit a more reflective stance during group work and more frequently achieve correct solutions in collaborative tasks (Rubtsov & Ulanovskaya, 2021). This can be explained by the fact that students actively employ such mechanisms as constructive feedback, active listening and mutual respect, and consideration of the perspectives of partners, which transforms the educational process into educational dialogue with peers and with teachers.

Waldorf pedagogy, which belongs to the category of person-centered educational approaches, emphasises not only intellectual development but also the harmonious development of the emotional, physical, and spiritual dimensions of the child's personality (Steiner, 1997). Here, interpersonal communication is viewed as the foundation for community formation, where students learn to live and work within an atmosphere of trust, mutual respect, and support (Mantilla, 2007; Selfors, 2024; Valeev, 2006). Students spend several years of their education within the same collective under the guidance of a single teacher, which facilitates the formation of stable social bonds and promotes deep understanding of the individual characteristics of each group member. Such an approach creates a unique educational environment where the process of learning is organically integrated with the cultivation of social responsibility and appreciation for the value of others. However, this system also has certain limitations. Specifically, the emphasis on individual student development may restrict collective forms of interaction, despite the creation of a favourable environment for interpersonal communication within the group (Dahlin, 2007). Nevertheless, Waldorf pedagogy represents a valuable approach to the realisation of humanistic principles in education, demonstrating alternative pathways for personal development grounded in principles of wholeness, continuity, and respect for the individual pace of child development (Kartashova, 2020).

Significant differences are evident in the interpersonal communication styles of students across different pedagogical systems.

The traditional educational system, characterised by a predominantly authoritarian and monological style of interaction, is defined by subject-object relationships. In this framework, the teacher is positioned as the primary source of knowledge and controlling authority, while the student assumes the role of a passive recipient of information. Communication is primarily directive, focusing on the acquisition of subject matter rather than on developing communicative skills during the learning process. This approach limits opportunities for the free exchange of opinions and hinders the development of social competencies, including skills in argumentation, discussion, and cooperation. Consequently, patterns of dependence, submission, and uncertainty during interpersonal interactions are reinforced. Students often struggle not only to establish constructive peer relationships but also to engage in productive dialogue with educators, which adversely affects both their academic motivation and socio-emotional development (Sanina & Rastorgueva, 2023).

In contrast, the Elkonin-Davydov developmental education system and humanistically oriented approaches like Waldorf pedagogy are grounded in a subject-subject model of communication. This model presupposes students' active engagement in the learning process, where interpersonal interaction is built on dialogue, cooperation, mutual respect, and – as exemplified in Waldorf schools – the recognition of each individual's inherent value. Such an environment significantly broadens opportunities for developing critical thinking, initiative, reflection, and academic autonomy. Students form sustained communicative competencies: the ability to negotiate, listen actively, articulate and defend a viewpoint, consider diverse perspectives, and collaborate effectively in groups (Zuckerman, 1993; Polyakova, 2009).

Furthermore, the Elkonin-Davydov system involves a deliberate focus on fostering learning cooperation. Here, students learn not only to solve academic tasks collectively but also to regulate group interactions, distribute roles, and jointly establish norms for engagement. This focus is particularly vital in light of contemporary demands for flexible skills, including communication, teamwork, creativity, and emotional intelligence (Zaitseva & Korotaeva, 2017; Evseeva & Pozdeyeva, 2024).

Consequently, contemporary educational practice should strive toward the integration of elements of dialogical interaction and cooperation into the learning process, even within the framework of the traditional classroom-based system. This will enable the creation of conditions under which interpersonal communication among students becomes not only an instrument for the mastery of academic content but also an important factor in their personal, social, and emotional development.

Methods

The primary objective of the study was to compare the characteristics of interpersonal communication across three distinct educational systems: the Elkonin–Davydov developmental system (DE), the traditional system of education (TS), and Waldorf pedagogy (WP).

We hypothesised that classes implementing the Elkonin–Davydov developmental system (DE) and Waldorf pedagogy (WP) would demonstrate higher levels of group cohesion, more pronounced cooperative behaviours among students, and greater effectiveness in group problem-solving compared to their counterparts in the traditional educational system (TS).

Research Questions

1. To what extent do the educational systems differ in terms of group cohesion at the socio-emotional level?

2. What are the differences in task-solving effectiveness between individual and collaborative group work across the educational systems?

3. How do the systems differ in children's propensity for collaborative work, as evidenced by the level of coordination among group members?

Questionnaires

Moreno's Sociometric Test

The sociometric assessment was conducted in three stages, each designed to elicit choices based on a distinct motive. The first scenario targeted socio-emotional motives within the learning context. The second, interpersonal motives unrelated to academic collaboration (choosing a “leisure companion”. The third, academic-task-oriented motives (Moreno, 1958). Accordingly, students were presented with three sociometric questions: one from the academic domain (“If your class were to be reorganised, with whom would you prefer to continue studying in a new group?”); a second from the leisure domain (“Who from your class would you invite to your birthday party?”); and a third from the domain of academic tasks (“Who would you choose to sit next to during a challenging test?”).

The selection criterion was the student's desire to engage in a joint activity with a classmate. The more group members chose a particular classmate for collaborative work, the more popular that student was considered, and the higher their sociometric status. The instrument used for the assessment was a standard sociometric questionnaire. Responses for each question were limited to three classmates^[1] .

During the administration of the survey, the researcher ensured that participants did not communicate with one another and repeatedly emphasised the mandatory nature of completing all items. Visual contact between participants was not prevented.

Based on the collected data, a score was calculated for each participant – the number of “choices” received for collaborative activity – indicating their relative position within the peer group. Students were then classified into one of four status categories based on their number of positive choices for them: «stars» (>5 choices), “preferred” (3-5 choices), “accepted” (1-2 choices), and “isolated” (0 choices). This categorisation enabled the calculation of the group cohesion index and the coefficient of psychological reciprocity, which served as quantitative indicators of the structure of interpersonal relationships within the classroom.

The “Conflict” Technique

The “Conflict” technique (Polivanova et al., 2013) is used to assess the level of development of collaborative action abilities in primary school graduates, as well as students' readiness to constructively resolve conflicts through cooperation, which is a key component of effective interpersonal communication in the educational environment. The assessment of “jointness” – the children's capacity for meaningful collaborative interaction in solving learning tasks, constructively overcoming disagreements, and coordinating individual positions to achieve a common group solution – is carried out by comparing the effectiveness of individual and group solutions. This approach allows for a comparative analysis of this component of interpersonal communication across different educational conditions.

The procedure comprises two stages: an individual problem-solving phase, in which participants complete four empty cells in a table of abstract schematic faces within 7-8 minutes, followed by a collaborative group discussion in teams of four over 20 minutes. A critical feature of the methodology is that the identical “schematic faces”^[2] are assigned different numerical labels in each individual's worksheet. This design forces participants during the group discussion to reconcile these divergent labelling systems, thereby creating a cognitive conflict that stimulates substantive discussion and necessitates the negotiation of a unified solution.

The indicators of children's ability to act collaboratively in a conflict situation are as follows:

1. Correctness of the solution, which serves as the key quantitative indicator.

2. Coordination among group members in selecting a strategy and determining the action's outcome.

3. The nature of the collaborative problem-solving strategy employed.

Thus, the following variables were calculated for each participant: sociometric status; the number of choices received according to the three sociometric criteria (academic sphere, leisure sphere, and task-oriented sphere); and individual performance on the “Conflict” technique (scored from 0 to 4 points).

For each class, the following group-level metrics were computed: the group cohesion index, the coefficient of reciprocity, the relationship well-being level, group task performance, the degree of coordination in the group solution, and the predominant interaction strategies.

A statistical analysis of the empirical data from the three schools was conducted. The core metric for assessing the development of collaborative ability was the comparison of performance (correctness) between individual and group solutions. The effectiveness of individual and group solutions was quantified using a scoring system when comparing data across the three schools. The number and percentage of correct answers for each of the four matrix cells were calculated. Each correctly completed cell earned an individual student or a group of children 1 point, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 4. Subsequently, to enhance the clarity of the statistical data and facilitate the derivation of conclusions, the data were tabulated and used to construct diagrams.

Participants

The study involved 62 fourth-grade students from three different educational systems (56.5% boys; M_age = 10.7 years, SD = 0.3). The distribution of participants across educational systems was as follows:

• Traditional system: n = 22 (35.5% of the sample);

• Elkonin–Davydov system: n = 21 (33.9%);

• Waldorf pedagogy: n = 19 (30.6%).

Results

Means and standard deviations for all variables under study are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Sociometric Data

A Comparison of Educational Systems by the Level of Relationship Well-Being

To facilitate a clear comparison of the sociometric structure across the three classes studied, a summary table was compiled (see Table 2). This table reflects the distribution of students across the four status categories: “stars”, “preferred”, “accepted”, and “isolated”.

Table 2
Status Distribution of Fourth-Grade Students from Three Schools with Different Educational Systems (TS; DE; WP)

Data analysis reveals the following distinctive patterns. In the school with the traditional system (TS), the largest proportion of children (46%) falls into the “accepted” category, suggesting a neutral yet superficial level of interpersonal connections within this fourth-grade class. Conversely, the largest proportion of students from the Elkonin-Davydov developmental education system (DE) is categorised as “preferred” (63%). This points to a more equitable distribution of peer affection, a less pronounced status hierarchy, and more harmoniously structured relationships within the collective.

Status polarisation – evident in the high proportion of both “stars” and “isolated” students (23% each) in the Waldorf school (WP) – suggests more distinct social differentiation. This class also contains the highest number of isolated children. This outcome may be linked to the core philosophy of Waldorf education, which emphasises individual child development and immerses students in processes of individual creative self-actualisation. This focus can, in some instances, reduce the emphasis on collaborative activities and consequently weaken group integration.

Thus, the most favourable socio-psychological climate is observed in the class from the school implementing the Elkonin-Davydov developmental system, characterised by balanced and non-conflictual interpersonal relationships. While both the traditional and Waldorf schools demonstrate a moderate level of relational well-being, the underlying causes and manifestations differ substantially: the traditional class exhibits neutral-passive social ties, whereas the Waldorf class shows pronounced stratification into popular and isolated students (see Table 2).

A Comparative Analysis of Educational Systems Based on the Group Cohesion Index and Coefficient of Reciprocity

In terms of the group cohesion index at the socio-emotional level, all three student groups from schools with different educational systems can be classified at the first (low) level of cohesion (Cn (TS) = 11%, Cn (DE) = 17%, Cn (WP) = 14%), as values ranging from 0% to 25% correspond to this category (see Table 3). Consequently, all three fourth-grade groups can be considered insufficiently cohesive, regardless of the educational system.

When calculating reciprocity rates relative to the actual number of choices made rather than the theoretical maximum, all groups showed improved reciprocity indices. However, only the Elkonin-Davydov system (DE) group reached the moderate reciprocity level (50-75%), indicating most preferences were mutually reciprocated. Both traditional (TS) and Waldorf (WP) groups remained at the upper threshold of the low reciprocity level (0-50%), where most affinities remained unreciprocated. Consequently, satisfactory relational development was observed exclusively in the Elkonin-Davydov fourth-grade class (see Table 3).

Table 3
Group Indices of Fourth-Grade Classes from Three Schools with Different Educational Systems (TS; DE; WP)

A Comparison of Educational Systems Based on Models of Intellectual Leadership

Distinct models of intellectual leadership were identified across the three classes. In the Traditional System (TS), leadership was distributed among four students (14% of the class), with three of them forming central micro-groups within the classroom. In the Elkonin-Davydov Developmental system (DE), leadership was clearly concentrated in one student (4% of the class), who formed the core around which the class coalesced. In the Waldorf Pedagogy (WP), four students (18% of the class) emerged as intellectual leaders, all possessing favourable sociometric statuses. In this particular fourth-grade class, the intellectual leaders did not constitute the class “core” but were neither isolated nor formed a closed group. Across all cases, intellectual leaders maintained high sociometric status, confirming their influence in both academic and communicative domains.

Children's ability to collaborate in groups while solving visual-logical tasks was assessed through the “Conflict” technique, which involved both individual and group assignments. The study included 62 fourth-grade students (N = 62) from three different educational systems: Elkonin-Davydov system (DE) - 21 students, Waldorf school (WP) - 19 students, and traditional school (TS) - 22 students. Additional data were gathered through systematic observation of student interactions in four-person working groups within their classrooms.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Individual and Group Work

Correctness of Solutions. The data on the success rates of individual and group solutions obtained in the three described classes from schools implementing different educational systems are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. As evident from Table 5, in the school with the Waldorf educational system (WP) and the school implementing the Elkonin–Davydov developmental education system (DE) with its specific organisation of collaborative work, the level of collaborative effectiveness significantly exceeds the corresponding results of students from the school with the traditional educational programme (TS). Whereas the average score for successful group task completion in the TS school is 1.2 (with a maximum score of 4), in the DE and WP samples, it is 3.2 and 3.0 points, respectively. The difference between the sample from the traditional school (TS) and the other two samples is statistically significant (p < .001).

Table 4

Correctness Indicators of Individual Solutions in the Three Studied Student Samples (Based on the “Conflict” technique)

Table 5

Correctness Indicators of Group Solutions in the Three Studied Student Samples (Based on the “Conflict” technique)

Figure 1. Difference in the effectiveness of individual versus group work — the results of students from the different school types — DE, WP, and TS
Note. The X axis shows individual and group solutions. On the Y axis — percentage of maximum possible score (mjn — 0%, max — 100%)

The dynamics of the increase in group results compared to individual results in the samples from the three school types are presented in Figure 1. On the graph, the effectiveness of individual and group solutions is expressed as the percentage of the average correctness score relative to the maximum score. The graph shows that the correctness of individual solutions in the three samples, namely from the school with the Elkonin–Davydov system (DE), the Waldorf school (WP), and the traditional school (TS) — are close to each other. Despite this, the correctness of individual solutions in the traditional school is nevertheless significantly lower than in the other two samples. The correctness of group solutions in the DE and WP samples is two and a half times higher than in the TS sample. Furthermore, in the school with the Elkonin–Davydov system, which emphasises collaborative learning, the gain in effectiveness of group solutions — despite relatively low individual indicators comparable to those in the traditional school — is several times greater than the corresponding gain in the traditional school. This indicates that the adequate use of group formats in educational work significantly enhances the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving.

Coordination. The results for this indicator demonstrate that the majority of children across all studied samples were ready and willing to work collaboratively. This was evidenced by the presence of drawings in all empty cells across all groups, with the exception of one. However, as described in the data above, group solutions were not always successful. Observational data indicate that while children's positive attitude towards collaborative work is a crucial factor, primarily for resolving interpersonal conflicts (i.e., non-substantive conflicts that escalate into personal attacks), it is insufficient for developing a successful group problem-solving strategy.

Strategy. To identify strategies for collaborative problem-solving, we analysed observational data from an experiment involving fourth-grade students in a school implementing the Elkonin–Davydov developmental system (DE), which places particular emphasis on collaborative work. The analysis revealed that the most successful strategies, in terms of solution correctness, were those that achieved a reflexive analysis of the group members' positions, involving an exchange, confrontation, or acceptance of differing viewpoints. The triggering factor in most effective group strategies was the children's detection of the methodologically embedded conflict. This is further supported by the fact that the only group in the class that failed to detect this pre-designed methodological conflict was also unable to solve the task correctly. The detection of the conflict was manifested in the group members' realisation that the numbering of pictures differed across their otherwise identical individual sets. In their subsequent collaborative work, the groups approached the problem in different ways. In the work “Assessment of Metasubject Competencies of Primary School Graduates” (Ulanovskaya, 2015), the author identified and described three main group strategies for resolving a given socio-cognitive conflict to reach a common group solution. These same strategies were also identified in the present study (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategies Across Different Educational Systems

Observation results revealed substantial differences in collaborative problem-solving strategies among students from different educational systems (see Figure 2). In the traditional educational setting, a leadership strategy predominated, as evidenced by characteristic student statements (“Let's first choose a leader and then solve the problem”) that were not observed in other educational environments.

In the classroom from the school implementing the Elkonin-Davydov system, a diversity of cognitive problem-solving strategies was observed. The greatest effectiveness was noted in groups that employed:

• an elaborate analytical strategy, where participants systematically compared their individual solutions by analysing visual elements and the reasoning behind their systematisation;

• a compacted integrative strategy, characterised by abandoning reliance on pre-formed individual solutions and constructing a shared solution from scratch;

• a leadership strategy with an organisational management style, where the group leader solicited input from participants through clear role distribution and decision-making.

The Waldorf school presented a different pattern: the majority of groups preferred an elaborate step-by-step (analytical) strategy for resolving socio-cognitive conflict. This preference may be attributed to the specifics of the pedagogical approach, which emphasises detailed analysis and individual reflection (Rawson, 2019).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of interpersonal communication in different educational systems: the Elkonin-Davydov developmental system, the traditional system, and the Waldorf pedagogy. The results revealed that the Elkonin-Davydov system demonstrated the highest Coefficient of Mutual Choices (CMC=64%) compared to the traditional (CMC=49%) and Waldorf (CMC=43%) systems. This finding aligns with the theoretical principles of the Elkonin-Davydov system, where learning cooperation is not a random byproduct but a central tenet of the educational process organisation (Rubtsov et al., 2024; Zuckerman, 1996). For instance, studies on elementary school students (Rubtsov et al., 2021) have shown that the purposeful organisation of learning cooperation enhances classroom cohesion. International research (Alacapinar & Uysal, 2020; Johnson & Johnson, 1975; Johnson & Johnson, 1994) corroborates that cooperative-based learning systems foster more stable positive peer relationships compared to the traditional system, which primarily focuses on individual work.

Students from the Elkonin-Davydov system demonstrated a threefold higher effectiveness of group work (M = 3.2) compared to students from the traditional system (M = 1.2). This result can be explained by the specific organisation of learning activity within this system, where student development occurs through the very process of forming learning activity (Polivanova, 2017). A meta-analysis (Slavin, 1996) showed that 50 out of 64 studies (78%) found significant positive effects on student achievement when Cooperative^[3] Learning methods were incorporated into the educational process, with no studies reporting significant negative effects. Domestic research (Rubtsov et al., 2024; Ulanovskaya & Yanishevskaya, 2023; Zuckerman & Venger, 2010) also confirms improvements in academic performance and motivation among students following the implementation of group work in the learning process.

The traditional educational system demonstrated the lowest results both in terms of the level of reciprocity of positive relations and the effectiveness of group work. These findings are consistent with research on the shortcomings of traditional education in developing social competencies (Johnson & Johnson, 2013; Polivanova, 2000; Zuckerman, 1996). As these researchers note, traditional education contributes little to the development of trust, effective group communication skills, student autonomy, and initiative, which is attributed to its authoritarian teaching style and competitive environment. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the emphasis on knowledge transmission at the expense of developing communicative skills in traditional education leads to a deficit in adequate interpersonal communication among students (Johnson & Johnson, 2013; Polivanova, 2000; Prasolova, 2018).

Education based on the Waldorf pedagogy system demonstrated a paradoxical combination of high group work effectiveness (M=3.0) with pronounced status polarisation: 23% “stars” and 23% “isolated” students. Research on Waldorf education indicates that its non-evaluative system creates a psychologically comfortable environment for self-realisation but may alter collective forms of interaction (Taplin, 2024). As noted by international researchers, despite the generally favorable atmosphere in Waldorf schools, certain social stratification can be observed, attributed to a deficit in structured interaction alongside the emphasis on individual development of each child (Taplin, 2024; Ruhi, 2024).

Unlike the traditional and Elkonin-Davydov systems, where intellectual leaders with high sociometric status were identified, this phenomenon was not observed in the Waldorf system. This may be attributed to fundamental differences in the organisation of the educational process. Research on the sociometric status of primary school students indicates that in systems utilising grades, the social structure of a class naturally forms around students with high academic performance (Bityanova, 2005). Such “intellectual leaders” become social hubs for several reasons.  Firstly, they are perceived as possessors of valuable knowledge who can provide assistance.  Secondly, their academic success confers a certain social status; and thirdly, from a practical standpoint, associating with them can be advantageous for academic purposes (e.g., obtaining help, copying work). This leads to the formation of a distinct class “core” composed of academically successful students. It can be hypothesised that in Waldorf schools, the use of a non-evaluative system in the primary grades removes academic performance as a criterion for social preference. The absence of this factor alters the motivational structure for choosing communication partners, as the practical necessity to select partners based on their academic achievements disappears (Bityanova, 2005; Taplin, 2024; Ruhi, 2024;).

Furthermore, it is important to note that the absence of pronounced intellectual leaders in Waldorf schools does not indicate a lack of academically strong students. Rather, it reflects a fundamentally different value system, where academic achievements are not subject to social comparison and do not determine an individual's position within the group hierarchy.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that, despite methodological limitations and sample size constraints, the educational system exerts a determining influence on the nature of students' interpersonal interactions, their capacity for effective cooperation, and the formation of the socio-psychological climate within the classroom community. The Elkonin-Davydov developmental system creates the most favourable conditions for fostering interpersonal communication among peers. This, in turn, leads to effective group interaction strategies and significantly enhances task-solving efficiency. This outcome is achieved through the targeted development of collaboration skills within the educational process and an orientation toward subject-subject communication mediated through dialogue.

Limitations

Like any research, this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings:

1. The research was based on a comparative analysis of three classes: one from a school with a traditional educational programme, another from a school implementing the Elkonin-Davydov developmental education system, and a third from a Waldorf school. This sample size does not allow for the generalisation of the conclusions to the entire domain of children's interpersonal communication in schools with different educational systems.

2. The absence of some students in all three classes during the sociometric data collection affected the accuracy and reliability of the results. The partial exclusion of these pupils from the overall social context of the classroom distorted the actual picture of interpersonal preferences and relationship dynamics.

3. The study design did not allow for the observation of students' everyday interactions in the natural school environment, specifically during classroom instruction and breaks. Consequently, it was impossible to account for aspects of interpersonal communication that manifest themselves in various daily communicative situations within school life.

Ethics Statement

Approved by the Ethics Commission for Scientific Research at the Federal Scientific Centre for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research (conclusion dated 31.01.2024 No. 4)

Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the parents of all students.

Author Contributions

A.S. conceived the idea. K.P. collected the data. A.S. and K.P. supervised the results of this work. All the authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

The study was carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research (FNRE-2024-0012) 'Phenomenology of Modern Childhood: Cognitive and Personal Development of Children'."

Notes

1. Full participation of all students in the class was desirable for the study. However, students who were absent during data collection remained eligible for selection by their participating classmates.

2. The term “schematic faces” refers to stylised facial diagrams that vary along four distinct features and are arranged in a 3×3 matrix (comprising 9 cells).

3. Cooperative Learning methods – refer to a broad range of pedagogical approaches and techniques in which students work in small groups to help one another master academic material.

References

Aisyah, A., Arianto, A., & Mau, M. (2024). The effect of interpersonal communication between lecturers and students on student academic achievement. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Linguistics and Culture (ICLC-4 2023) (pp. 22–27). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-251-4_4

Bitianova, M.R. (2005). Kak izmerit otnosheniia v klasse: Sotsiometricheskii metod v shkolnoi praktike [How to measure relationships in the classroom: Sociometric method in school practice]. Chistye Prudy.

Bozhovich, L.I. (1968). Lichnost i ee formirovanie v detskom vozraste [Personality and its formation in childhood]. Prosveshchenie.

Chukwu, M.A. (2025). Influence of social interaction on academic performance of secondary school students in Rivers-West Senatorial District of Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Social Science & Humanities Research, 13(1), 301–311.

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557

Dahlin, B. (2007). The Waldorf school - Cultivating humanity?: A report from an evaluation of Waldorf schools in Sweden (Karlstad University Studies, 2007:29). Karlstad University.

Davydov, V.V. (1996). Teoriia razvivaiushchego obucheniia [Theory of developmental instruction]. Intor.

Evseeva, A.M., & Pozdeeva, S.I. (2024). Obrazovatelnaia kommunikatsiia, vovlechennost i agentnost kak pedagogicheskie fenomeny [Educational communication, engagement, and agency as pedagogical phenomena]. Nauchno-Pedagogicheskoe Obozrenie [Pedagogical Review], 1(53), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.23951/2307-6127-2024-1-79-89

Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education. (2021). Prikaz Ministerstva prosveshcheniia Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 31 maia 2021 g. № 286 "Ob utverzhdenii federalnogo gosudarstvennogo obrazovatelnogo standarta nachalnogo obshchego obrazovaniia" [Order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No. 286 of May 31, 2021 "On Approval of the Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education"]. (v red. Prikaza Minprosveshcheniia Rossii ot 22.01.2024 № 31) [as amended by Order of the Ministry of Education of Russia No. 31 of January 22, 2024].

Hmarenko, N.I. (2021). Geneziia, sushchnost i komponentnyi sostav pedagogicheskoi tekhnologii "Kooperativnoe obuchenie" [Genesis, essence, and component composition of the pedagogical technology "Cooperative learning"]. Vestnik Tambovskogo Universiteta. Seriia: Gumanitarnye nauki [Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities], 26(193), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2021-26-193-38-46

Ilyin, E.P. (2009). Psikhologiia obshcheniia i mezhlichnostnykh otnoshenii [Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations]. Piter.

Kapustina, I.M., & Ignatovich, S.S. (2022). K voprosu o sotsialno-psikhologicheskoi adaptatsii pervoklassnikov [On the issue of socio-psychological adaptation of first-graders]. Pedagogika: Istoriia, Perspektivy [Pedagogy: History, Perspectives], 3, 135–142.

Kartashova, V.N. (2020). Organizatsionno-metodicheskie osobennosti obucheniia v nemetskoi Valdorfskoi shkole [Organizational and methodological features of teaching in a German Waldorf school]. Sibirskii Uchitel [Siberian Teacher], (2), 88–93.

Kolominsky, Y.L. (1976). Psikhologiia vzaimootnoshenii v malykh gruppakh [Psychology of relationships in small groups]. BGU Press.

Lisina, M.I. (1986). Problemy ontogeneza obshcheniia [Problems of the ontogenesis of communication]. Pedagogika [Pedagogy].

Mantilla, A.M. (2007). Exploring children's peer relationships through verbal and non-verbal communication: A qualitative action research focused on Waldorf pedagogy. HOW, 14(1), 59–79.

Moreno, J.L. (1958). Sociometry. Foreign Literature Publishing House.

Moskvina, A.S. (2017). Osobennosti mezhlichnostnykh otnoshenii sovremennykh mladshikh shkolnikov [Features of interpersonal relations of contemporary younger schoolchildren]. Gumanitarnoe Prostranstvo [Humanitarian Space], 6(2), 210–214.

Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357

Polivanova, N.I., Rivina, I.V., & Ulanovskaya, I.M. (2013). Vydelenie sposobnosti mladshikh shkolnikov k sovmestnomu deistviiu v usloviiakh sotsiokognitivnogo konflikta [Identifying the ability of younger schoolchildren to act jointly under socio-cognitive conflict]. Psikhologicheskaia Nauka i Obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 18(4), 65–72.

Polyakova, N.A. (2009). Rol mezhlichnostnogo obshcheniia i kompetentnostno-deiatelnostnogo podkhoda v lichnostno-orientirovannom obuchenii inostrannomu iazyku [The role of interpersonal communication and competence-activity approach in learner-centered foreign language instruction]. Mir Nauki, Kultury i Obrazovaniia [World of Science, Culture and Education], 6, 154–157.

Prasolova, O.S. (2018). Razvitie kommunikativnykh umenii mladshikh shkolnikov v usloviiakh gruppovoi raboty na urokakh [Development of communicative skills of younger schoolchildren through group work in lessons] [Master’s Thesis]. Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod.

Rawson, M. (2018). Life processes and learning in Waldorf pedagogy. Research Bulletin, 23(2), 50–67.

Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W.M., & Parker, J.G. (2007). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310

Rubtsov, V.V., Vysotskaya, E.V., Zak, A.Z., et al. (2021). Sovmestnaia uchebnaia deiatelnost i razvitie detei [Joint learning activity and child development]. MGPPU Press.

Rubtsov, V.V. (2024). Sotsiogeneticheskaia psikhologiia obrazovatelnykh vzaimodeistvii. Kniga 1 [Socio-genetic psychology of educational interactions. Book 1]. Gorodets Publishing.

Rubtsov, V.V. (2024). Sotsiogeneticheskaia psikhologiia obrazovatelnykh vzaimodeistvii. Kniga 2 [Socio-genetic psychology of educational interactions. Book 2]. Gorodets Publishing.

Rubtsov, V.V., Elkonin, B.D., Zuckerman, G.A., & Ulanovskaya, I.M. (2024). Shkola D.B. Elkonina—V.V. Davydova: ot istorii k perspektivam [D.B. Elkonin–V.V. Davydov school: From history to prospects]. Kulturno-Istoricheskaia Psikhologiia [Cultural-Historical Psychology], 20(1), 16–26.. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2024200104

Ruhi, T. (2024). Waldorf education – A survey of empirical research. Research on Steiner Education, 15(1), 1–25.

Sanina, S.P., & Rastorgueva, M.D. (2023). Kommunikativnye trudnosti v obuchenii mladshikh shkolnikov [Communicative difficulties in teaching younger schoolchildren]. Psikhologicheskaia Nauka i Obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 28(5), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280511

Selsfors, H. (2024). Rhythmical and balanced education – A matter of trust and boundaries: A hermeneutic phenomenological study about pedagogic practice in Swedish Waldorf-Steiner schools [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Gothenburg.

Shteiner, R. (1997). Dukhovno-dushevnye osnovy pedagogiki [Spiritual-soul foundations of pedagogy] (S.A. Loginov, Trans.). Parsifal.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004

Sivashinskaya, E.F., & Punchik, V.N. (2010). Pedagogicheskie sistemy i tekhnologii: Kurs lektsii dlia studentov pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Pedagogical systems and technologies: Lecture course for pedagogical university students]. Ekoperspektiva.

Taplin, J.T. (2024). Waldorf early childhood care and education in the 21st century. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329773

Tenenbaum, H.R., Winstone, N.E., Leman, P.J., & Avery, R.E. (2020). How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1303–1316. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436

Tepordei, A.M., Zancu, A.S., Diaconu-Gherasim, L.R., Crumpei-Tanasă, I., Măirean, C., Sălăvăstru, D., & Labăr, A.V. (2023). Children's peer relationships, well-being, and academic achievement: The mediating role of academic competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, article № 1174127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1174127

Ulanovskaya, I.M. (2015). Otsenka metasubektnykh kompetentsii vypusknikov nachalnoi shkoly [Assessment of metasubject competencies of primary school graduates]. MGPPU Press [Moscow State University of Psychology & Education Press].

Valeev, A.A. (2006). Valdorfskaia pedagogika i ee realizatsiia v shkolnoi praktike [Waldorf pedagogy and its implementation in school practice]. TGGPU.

Wentzel, K.R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279–296). The Guilford Press.

Zaytseva, E.V., & Korotaeva, E.V. (2017). Klasnyi dialog kak faktor pozitivnoi sotsializatsii mladshikh shkolnikov [Classroom dialogue as a factor of positive socialization of primary school students]. Pedagogicheskoe Obrazovanie v Rossii [Pedagogical Education in Russia], 11, 77–81. https://doi.org/10.26170/po17-11-12

Zimnyaya, I.A. (2005). Pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia: Uchebnik dlia vuzov [Educational psychology: Textbook for higher education institutions] (2nd ed., rev. and enl.). Logos.

Zuckerman, G.A. (1993). Vidy obshcheniia v obuchenii [Types of communication in instruction]. Peleng.

Zuckerman, G.A. (1996). Ot umeniia sotrudnichat k umeniiu uchit sebia [From the ability to cooperate to the ability to self-teach]. Psikhologicheskaia Nauka i Obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 1(2), 27–42.

Zuckerman, G.A. (2020). Sovmestnoe uchebnoe deistvie: reshennye i nereshennye voprosy [Joint learning activity: Solved and unresolved issues]. Psikhologicheskaia Nauka i Obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 25(4), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2020250405

Zuckerman, G.A., & Obukhova, O.L. (2024). Obuchenie, kotoroe vedet za soboi razvitie subektnosti [Education that leads to the development of agency]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriia 14. Psikhologiia [Lomonosov Psychology Journal], 47(4), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.11621/LPJ-24-43