Experience in Applying the CLASS Method for Assessing the Quality of a Kindergarten’s Educational Environment

Introduction

International longitudinal studies show that the quality of preschool education is of great importance for children’s readiness for school and their further psychological development and academic success (Hall et al., 2013; Hamre & Pianta, 2003; Hamre et al., 2014; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Sylva et al., 2014; Vandell et al., 2010). The search for the most effective instruments for measuring the quality of the educational environment in kindergarten groups is thus an important task for both educational and child psychology (Krivtsova, 2022; Schad & Arnold, 2019; Shiyan, 2013; Smirnova, 2019; Veraksa & Veraksa, 2011).

The most popular and widely used tool for assessing the quality of the kindergarten educational environment in our country is the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised, ECERS-R (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2016), which was tested in 40 constituent regions of the Russian Federation (Remarenko et al., 2017). However, this article will consider the experience of another methodology for assessing the quality of the educational environment, which seems promising for use in scientific research and practical work in Russian preschool institutions: the CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System) method (Almazova, Bukhalenkova, & Simonyan, 2018; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008).

ECERS-R makes it possible to obtain a general assessment of the quality of the educational environment, including information about both the material and subject-matter arrangement of the kindergarten environment and the child’s interaction with the surroundings and the social environment. Unlike ECERS-R, CLASS does not evaluate the availability of various materials, the physical environment or safety, but focuses on the relationship between teacher and pupils, as well as what teachers do with the materials at their disposal, how effectively they use them. The criteria used in the CLASS methodology are based on research showing that the relationship between pupils and adults is a basic mechanism for children’s development and learning (Hamre & Pianta, 2007; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Pianta et al., 2002), which coheres well with the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky (Vygotsky,1984) about the “zone of proximal development” and the leading role of the adult in the mental development of a child.

According to Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1984), learning and teaching [obuchenie] lead to development, and properly organized instruction is based on the child’s zone of proximal development. In essence, learning and teaching are a special way of organizing communication between a child and an adult. The teacher is a conveyor and translator of cultural norms and values, a model of voluntary, self-regulating behavior that children seek to imitate. According to Vygotsky, “human behavior is a product of the development ... of a system of social connections and relations, collective forms of behavior and social cooperation” (Vygotsky, 2005, p. 865); therefore, quality assessment of the educational environment is of great interest, notably the study of social development in a kindergarten group, which the CLASS method is aimed at studying.

The CLASS method was developed in the USA and has been used and tested in thousands of classes, with children from preschool to senior school age (Hamre et al., 2014; Murray & Pianta, 2015). Regardless of the age group under consideration, 10 dimensions are used, forming three main domains: 1) Emotional Support, 2) Classroom Organization, and 3) Instructional Support. Each of the scales is scored on a 7-point scale. Let us consider the value of each of the three main parameters and the scales included in it.

Emotional Support

From the point of view of the authors of the CLASS method, the domain Emotional Support is the set of parameters that describe the social and emotional interaction of the teacher and pupils (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). When scoring this domain, it is important to consider the teacher’s creation of a positive, emotionally accepting atmosphere, a sensitive attitude to the opinions and emotional states of the children, and a flexible and effective response to their difficulties. To score the quality of interaction in a group according to the Emotional Support domain, four dimensions are used in the CLASS method:

1. Positive Climate (PC) – reflects kindness, respect, sincere interest and pleasure in the interaction between the teacher and pupils, as well as in the children’s communication with each other;
2. Negative Climate (NC) – reflects the level of negative emotions (anger, irritation, threats) in the teacher’s communication with the children in the group, as well as extreme manifestations of negative relationships (fights, quarrels, bullying);
3. Teacher Sensitivity (TS) – reflects how often the teacher notices, responds in a timely manner, and helps children when they have learning or emotional problems, or problems at home, as well as the pupils’ level of comfort in the group (how freely children ask the teachers for help);
4. Regard for Student Perspectives (RSP) – reflects the extent to which the interests and opinions of pupils are considered by the teacher; how much the teacher manages to maintain and develop the pupils’ independence and leadership qualities, not restricting their self-expression.

Classroom Organization

Classroom Organization reflects the effectiveness of the teacher’s organization of lessons and the pupils’ daily routine, supervision of their behavior, management of their time and attention. The CLASS authors believe that group work is most effective and creates the most opportunities for learning when students are well-behaved, constantly engaged in some kind of activity, interested and passionate about solving the tasks assigned to them (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008).

The Classroom Organization domain is assessed by three dimensions:

1. Behavioral Management (BM) – reflects the effectiveness of teachers’ methods to prevent and redirect inappropriate pupil behavior;
2. Productivity (Pd) – reflects how effectively teachers organize children’s activities throughout the day (how quickly transitions occur between different activities and whether the time during which the children are not busy is minimized), to what extent the daily routine is understandable and familiar to the children;
3. Instructional Learning Formats (ILF) – reflect the extent to which the teacher organizes the teaching and learning process and provides interesting materials in order to involve children as much as possible and maximize their learning opportunities.

Instructional Support

Instructional Support reflects the frequency and effectiveness of the teacher’s use of techniques to develop thinking and language in the children. The theoretical basis for the selection of criteria related to Instructional Support in the CLASS methodology is, first of all, studies of the cognitive and speech development of children (e.g., Catts et al., 1999; Fujiki, Brinton, & Clarke, 2002; Romberg, Carpenter, & Dremock, 2005; Taylor et al., 2003), including works by L.S. Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1991). These works emphasize the difference between simply learning facts and gaining “useful knowledge,” that is, learning how different concepts and facts are interconnected, organized, and related to one another (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). The authors of the method focus on the development of metacognitive skills – awareness and understanding of thought processes – which are of great importance for the development of children’s ability to learn (Veenman, Kok, & Blote, 2005; Williams et al., 2002). According to the available research, children’s ability to develop metacognitive skills depends on the extent to which the adult provides them with opportunities to demonstrate their abilities and to develop more complex skills (Davis & Miyake, 2004; Kazanskaya & Romashchuk, 2021; Skibbe, Behnke, & Justice, 2004; Vygotsky, 1984).

The CLASS authors identify three main dimensions to assess the quality of Instructional Support in the kindergarten group:

1. Concept Development (CD) – reflects the extent to which teachers use pedagogical methods that contribute to the formation of high-order thinking skills, as opposed to rote memorization (for example, using questions that encourage children to analyze and make comparisons and predictions; organization of discussions or project work; generalization and integration of different areas of the children’s knowledge);
2. Quality of Feedback (QF) – reflects the extent of the teacher’s mastery of techniques that deepen the children’s understanding of the learning material, stimulate their thinking, and also help to increase their confidence in their strengths and abilities;
3. Language Modeling (LM) – reflects the extent to which teachers stimulate children’s communication and contribute to the development of their language skills.

Thus, the three main parameters of the CLASS method make it possible to assess the main psychological factors that contribute to preschoolers’ successful development and learning: creating an emotionally comfortable atmosphere in the kindergarten group, effective organization of its work, and use by the teacher of methodological techniques that contribute to the development of the children’s cognitive abilities.

The objective of the study was to validate the use of the CLASS method in Russia for the first time.

Materials and Methods

Sample

Observation according to the CLASS method was performed in 41 preparatory groups of kindergartens in Moscow (they were attended by children aged 6-7 years; this is the last group in kindergarten, after which the children go to school). The number of observations in each group was from 2 to 5. The total number of observations was 140. In 26 of these groups, the educational environment was also assessed using ECERS-R.

The number of teachers in the groups varied from 1 to 3. The average age of the teachers was 45.5 years (SD = 11.8 years) and their work experience in preschools was an average of 15 years. Of the total, 34.5% had graduated only from a pedagogical college/specialized school, 5% had higher education not related to pedagogy (engineering, law, economics), and the rest had higher pedagogical education.

Methods

The study used the CLASS (Pre-K) and ECERS-R methods to assess the quality of the educational environment.

The CLASS measure (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) involves at least four 30-minute observation cycles per group (total duration = 120 minutes per group) by a specially trained expert. After each observation, the expert assigns scores on a 7-point Likert scale for each of the 10 dimensions of the methodology, according to which 1 and 2 points conditionally refer to a low level, 3–5 points to an average level, and 6–7 points to a high level of interaction quality. For each dimension, the arithmetic mean of the scores for all observations in the group is calculated, and based on the values obtained, scores are calculated using a special formula for the three main domains of the methodology (Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, Instructional Support).

The Russian-language version of the ECERS-R Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2016) is an expert assessment method based on a specially developed assessment sheet, with which an expert scores 43 indicators of the kindergarten educational environment, organized into seven subscales (scores from 1 to 7): 1) Space and Furnishing, 2) Personal Care Routines, 3) Language - Reasoning, 4) Activitites, 5) Interaction, 6) Program Structure, 7) Parents and Staff. Researchers have made great efforts to translate and adapt the ECERS-R for Russia (Shiyan, 2013; Shiyan & Vorobieva, 2015; Shiyan et al., 2016).

Procedure

In all the groups, the experts made observations using each of the methods (CLASS and ECERS-R) during one academic year (with children in the preparatory group of the kindergarten). Observations were performed in the morning; the teachers were not warned in advance about the purpose of the experts’ visit to their group.

Results

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of the CLASS Domains and Dimensions

Considering that scores 1 and 2 indicate a low level, 3, 4, and 5 an average level, and 6–7 a high level, we can state that 19 groups (46.3%) were average for Emotional Support and 22 (53.7%) were high; for Classroom Organization, 21 groups (51.2%) were average and 20 (48.8%) were high, and for Instructional Support, 16 groups (39.0%) were low and 25 (61.0%) were average (see Table 1).

Since the distribution on almost all the scales and parameters differs from the normal (Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion), non-parametric statistical tests were also used.

Using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test to compare pairs of dependent samples, we found that the scores for Instructional Support were significantly lower than those for Emotional Support (W = -5.579; p < 0.001) and Classroom Organization (W = -5.579; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the scores for Emotional Support and Classroom Organization (W = -1.238; p = 0.216).

We cannot yet verify the factor structure of the method (the distribution of scales by parameters) due to insufficient data. However, correlation analysis will more fully show how the domainsare related and how the dimensions are related to each other. Using Spearman’s correlation coefficient, we found that the scores for all three domains of the CLASS measure had a medium strength correlation (r from 0.43 to 0.62 at p < 0.001). The strengths of the correlations of Instructional Support with Emotional Support and Classroom Organization are smaller than those between Emotional Support and Classroom Organization (see Figure 1).

Тable 2

Relationships between CLASS Dimensions (Spearman correlation coefficient)

The scores on the dimensions within each domain are correlated with one another (see Table 2). The scores on the dimensions of different domains, in most cases, are also significantly correlated with one another. The Positive Climate dimension has the smallest number of connections with other dimensions (four dimensions), and the Regard for Student Perspectives scale has the largest number (all nine dimensions).

Comparison of the Results of CLASS and ECERS-R

Correlation analysis (Spearman’s correlation coefficient) was used to check the connections between the quality of the educational environment, measured using the CLASS and ECERS-R methods (Table 3).

Table 3

Relationships between CLASS Domains and Dimensions Scores and ECERS-R Scales Scores

Out of the four CLASS dimensions related to the Emotional Support domain (PC, NC, TS, RSP), only one significant correlation was found, between the scores on the scale Regard for Student Perspectives (RSP) and the scores on the fourth scale of the ECERS-R  “Children’s Activities”.

Out of the three CLASS dimensions related to the Classroom Organization domain (BM, Pd, ILF), one significant correlation was established, between the scores on the Behavior Management (BM) domension and the scores on the fourth ECERS-R scale “Children’s Activities”. And the total score for this domain was also significantly correlated with the scores on the fourth ECERS-R scale.

The largest number of significant correlations with the ECERS-R scales was found in the three CLASS dimensions related to the Instructional Support domain (CD, QF, LM). Scores on the Concept Development (CD) dimension were significantly correlated with scores on the scales “Space and Furnishing” (first scale) and “Children’s Activities” (fourth scale). The scores on the Quality of Feedback dimension were significantly correlated with the scores on the scales “Space and Furnishing” (first scale), “Personal Care Routines” (second scale), and “Children’s Activities” (fourth scale). The overall score for this domain was significantly correlated with the scores on two ECERS-R scales: “Space and Furnishing “(first scale) and “Children’s Activities” (fourth scale) (p = 0.052 at the trend level).

Thus, the largest number of significant correlations was found between the ECERS-R scales and the Instructional Support domain of the CLASS method, which characterizes the quality of development of thinking and speech in preschool children in kindergarten groups. Virtually no correlations were found, however, of the Emotional Support and Classroom Organization domains with the ECERS-R scales.

Discussion

This study tested the CLASS methodology, a new way for Russian psychology to assess the quality of the educational environment in kindergartens.

The internal reliability of the data was satisfactory, even with the relatively small sample, which indicates the legitimacy of using not only the scales, but also the parameters of the instrumentation.

Use of this method in Moscow kindergartens showed that in most of cases, the quality of Emotional Support and Classroom Organization was fairly high, but the quality of Instructional Support was fairly low. This result also confirms the analysis of the differences: the scores for Instructional Support were significantly lower than those for Emotional Support and Classroom Organization. This suggests that the teachers are able to create an emotionally supportive and comfortable atmosphere for the children and to organize their work well, but they rarely use methods during lessons that would contribute to the development of their pupils’ thinking and speech. This result may be useful in developing training programs to raise teachers’ qualifications, in which special attention would be paid to how thinking and speech develop in preschool children and how important it is to organize the teachers’ training to promote these abilities, what types of tasks and questions are best used, why it is important to encourage children to talk more with each other and to answer questions in detail, to learn to argue their point of view (Bezrukikh, Verba, Filippova, & Ivanov, 2022).

Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviations of the scores on parameters of the CLASS method obtained in our study, as well as in the studies of American (Weiland, Ulvestad, Sachs, & Yoshikawa, 2013) and Canadian colleagues (Perlman et al., 2019). It is interesting that the scores for the quality of interaction at Moscow kindergartens were closer to the results obtained by the Canadian researchers. It may be that the more widespread use of CLASS in the United States has led to a greater number of teachers in American kindergartens receiving training in accordance with the requirements of this method (Pianta, La Paro, Hamre, & 2008).

Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviations of CLASS Assessments of Domains in Russia, the USA, and Canada

The large number of correlations between the CLASS dimensions allow us to speak, on the one hand, about the internal logic of the indicators used, and on the other, about the importance of considering all the dimensions, since they do not duplicate one another (in their scores), but complement each other, creating a more complete and multifaceted picture of interaction in the kindergarten group. The smallest number of correlations between the Positive Climate dimension and the other dimensions suggests that most teachers working in the Moscow kindergartens enjoy communicating with their pupils, although the ability to create a warm, accepting atmosphere in the group is not always associated with the ability to effectively manage group behavior and develop the pupils’ cognitive skills. The significant relationships between the Regard for Student Perspectives dimension and other dimensions suggest that this scale is the systemic core of the aspects assessed by the method. Perhaps this is because teachers who are more attentive to the interests and opinions of children in the group give them more opportunities for independence and self-expression, and generally possess the skills of developmental education and harmonious upbringing of preschoolers. However, to confirm this assumption, this research should be supplemented with a study of the relationship between the results of assessing the quality of interaction in a group and teachers’ ideas about child development (Hamre et al., 2012).

The correlation analysis between the ECERS-R and CLASS scales indicated that the relationship between their contents is ambiguous, since the number of correlations is not numerous and most of the relationships were found only with the fourth ECERS-R scale, Children’s Activity. This scale contains indicators that reflect types of activities that, on the one hand, give children the freedom to express their own thoughts and feelings (for example, the Art indicator), which may explain the identified relationships with the Regard for Student Perspectives dimension. On the other hand, many types of children’s activities described in this scale are associated with experimentation, planning, and prediction (for example, the indicators Nature/Science, Sand and Water), which may explain the connection with the scales of the CLASS Instructional Support domain.

It is important to note that only three ECERS-R scales were significantly correlated with the CLASS scales – Space and Its Arrangement, Childcare, and Children’s Activity – while there were no significant relationships with the Speech and Thinking scale, which according to its meaning should be associated with the Instructional Support domain, and with the Interaction scale, which should presumably be associated with the Class Organization domain. Probably such contradictory results are related to the ECERS-R assessment system: on the one hand, high scores for each of the parameters are possible only if very strict requirements for the material environment of the kindergarten are met; on the other hand, ECERS-R experts give scores based not only on their observations, but also from conversations with the teachers about the characteristics of learning and teaching in the group, while CLASS experts’ scores are based only on what they saw. It is interesting that the Instructional Support domain and its scales had the greatest number of correlations with the ECERS-R scores, while the Emotional Support and Classroom Organization domains were virtually unrelated to the ECERS-R scores, suggesting that probably these CLASS parameters are not fully taken into account by ECERS-R. Thus, the small number of relationships identified between the results of these methods suggests that by using both methods to assess the quality of the educational environment, they can complement each other and be useful for specialists.

Conclusion

The experience of using the CLASS method has shown its significance and potential benefits for assessing the quality of the educational environment in Moscow kindergartens. This method can be useful for developing programs to improve teachers’ qualifications, to assess and improve the quality of education in individual kindergartens, which will help increase the psychological readiness of children for the transition to the next level of education and their further success in life.

Limitations

It is important to note the limitations of the study. First, little data has been collected so far, which does not allow us to test the factor model of the methodology, or to analyze the discriminatory power of the indicators. It will also be important to test the identified relationships and patterns on a larger number of groups in the future. Second, not all estimates by the CLASS method can be considered completely reliable, since in some groups the number of observations was less than the minimum (four) recommended by the CLASS authors. This was due to the routines of the kindergarten children: attending various additional lessons during the morning (music, physical education, lessons with a speech therapist, etc.), which we decided not to assess in this study. Third, this study did not take into account: a) the possible influence of various factors related to the qualifications and experience of the teachers (their level of education, experience teaching in kindergarten), and b) their personality traits and ideas about child development, which can also influence the mental development of preschoolers (Hamre et al., 2012).

In the future, we plan to increase the number of groups, which will allow us to analyze how teachers’ ability to create a developing educational environment correlates with their education and work experience. This will help to check the discriminant validity of the methodology, that is, its ability to differentiate among groups with teachers of different professional levels. Another important task for further research is to compare the results of the assessment of the quality of the educational environment obtained using ECERS-R and CLASS with the development of cognitive abilities in the pupils of the assessed kindergartens.

References

1. Almazova, O.V., Bukhalenkova, D.A., & Simonyan, M.S. (2018). Izuchenie obrazovatel’noi sredy s pomoshch’iu metodiki CLASS: teoreticheskie osnovaniia i prakticheskie perspektivy [Studying the educational environment using the CLASS methodology: Theoretical foundations and practical perspectives]. Sovremennoe doshkol’noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika [Modern Preschool Education. Theory and Practice], 4(86), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2021.4.1 (In Russ.)
2. Bezrukikh, M.M., Verba, A.S., Filippova, & T.A., Ivanov, V.V. (2022). Rechevoe razvitie i formirovanie sotsial’no-kommunikativnykh navykov v starshem doshkol’nom vozraste [Speech development and the formation of social and communicative skills in older preschoolers]. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Russian Psychological Journal], 18(4). https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2021.4.1 (In Russ.)
3. Hall, J., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2013). Can preschool protect young children’s cognitive and social development? Variation by center quality and duration of attendance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 24(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.749793
4. Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., & Jamil, F. (2014). Evidence for general and domain-specific elements of teacher-child interactions: Associations with preschool children’s development. Child Development, 85, 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12184
5. Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2003). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301
6. Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. Pianta, M. Cox, & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness & the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 49–84). Brookes Publishing.
7. Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., Burchinal, M., Field, S., Locasale-Crouch, J., Downer, J. T., Howes, C., LaParo, K., & Scott-Little, C. (2012). Supporting effective teacher-child interactions through coursework: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 88–123. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211434596
8. Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R) Revised Edition. Teachers College Press.
9. Harms (Kharms), T., Clifford, R.M., & Cryer, D. (2016). Shkaly dlia kompleksnoi otsenki kachestva obrazovaniia v doshkol’nykh obrazovatel’nykh organizatsiiakh, T. 281. [Scales for a comprehensive assessment of the quality of education in preschool educational organizations, vol. 281]. Natsionalnoe obrazovanie. (In Russ.)Kazanskaya, K.O., & Romashchuk, A.N. (2021). Problema perekhoda ot zhiteiskikh k nauchnym poniatiam: podkhod “kontseptual’nykh izmenenii” i shkola L.S. Vygotskogo [The problem of the transition from naïve to scientific concepts: The conceptual change approach and L.S. Vygotsky’s school]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 3, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2021.03.12 (In Russ.)
10. Krivtsova, T.V. (2022). Tsifrovaia sreda doshkol’noi obrazovatel’noi organizatsii: prostranstvo novykh vozmozhnostei [Digital environment of a preschool educational organization: The space of new opportunities]. Sovremennoe doshkol’noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika [Modern Preschool Education. Theory and Practice], 2(110), 16–29. doi:10.24412/1997-9657-2022-2110-16-29 (In Russ.)
11. Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., & Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
12. Mashburn, A.J., & Pianta, R.C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7
13. Murray, C., & Pianta, R.C. (2015). The importance of teacher-student relationships for adolescents with high incidence disabilities. Theory into Practice, 46(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701232943
14. Perlman, M., Howe, N., Gulyas, C., & Falenchuk, O. (2019). Associations between directors’ characteristics, supervision practices and quality of early childhood education and care classrooms. Early Education and Development, 31, 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1679006
15. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, school characteristics, and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1086/499701
16. Pianta, R., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system PreK manual. Brookes Publishing.
17. Remorenko, I.M., Shmis, T.G., Shiyan, I.B., Shiyan, O.A., Levan, T.N., & Sivak, E.V. (2017). Kliuchevye problemy realizatsii FGOS doshkol’nogo obrazovaniia po itogam issledovaniia s ispol’zovaniem “Shkal dlia kompletsknoi otsenki kachestva obrazovaniia v doshkol’nykh obrazovatel’nykh organizatsii (ECERS-R): Moskva-36 [Key problems of implementation of the Federal State Educational Standard of Preschool Education based on the results of a study using the “Scales for a Comprehensive Assessment of the Quality of Education in Preschool Educational Organizations (ECERS-R)”: “Moscow-36”]. Sovremennoe doshkol’noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika [Modern Preschool Education. Theory and Practice], 2, 16–31. (In Russ.).
18. Schad, E., & Arnold, C. (2019). Educational psychology in Europe. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 12(4), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0400
19. Shiyan, O.A. (2013). Novye predstavleniia o kachestve doshkol’nogo obrazovaniia i mekhanizmy ego podderzhki: mezhdunarodnyi kontekst [New ideas about the quality of preschool education and mechanisms for its support: The international context]. Sovremennoe doshkol’noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika [Modern Preschool Education. Theory and Practice], 5, 68–78. (In Russ.).
20. Shiyan, O.A., & Vorobieva, E.V. (2015). Novye vozmozhnosti otsenki kachestva obrazovaniia: shkaly ECERS-R aprobabirovany v Rossii [New opportunities for assessing the quality of education: ECERS-R scales have been tested in Russia]. Sovremennoe doshkol’noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika [Modern Preschool Education. Theory and Practice], 7(59), 38–49. (In Russ.)
21. Shiyan, I.B., Zadadaev, S.A., Levan, T.N., & Shiyan, O.A. (2016). Aprobatsiia shkal otsenki kachestva doshkol’nogo obrazovaniia ECERS-R v detskikh sadakh goroda Moskvy [Approbation of the ECERS-R preschool education quality assessment scales in Moscow kindergartens]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya Pedagogika i psikhologiya [Bulletin of Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series Pedagogy and Psychology], 2, 77–93. (In Russ.).
22. Smirnova, E.O. (2019). Spetsifika sovremennogo doshkol’nogo detstva [Specific features of modern preschool childhood]. Natsional’nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], (12)2, 25–32. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0208 (In Russ.).
23. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E.C., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Toth, K. & Welcomme W. (2014). Effective Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education 3-16 Project (EPPSE 3-16). Students’ educational and developmental outcomes at age 16. Department for Education Research Report RR354. http://www.ioe. ac.uk/Research_Home/16-Influences-StudentsGCSE-Attainment-Progress-RR.pdf (date of retrieval: 14.04.2022)
24. Vandell, D.L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M. R., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development, 81(3), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01431.x
25. Veraksa, N.E., & Veraksa, A.N. (2014). Otsenka kachestva doshkol’nogo obrazovaniia: zarubezhnyi opyt [Assessment of the quality of preschool education: Foreign experience]. In N.E. Veraksa & A.N. Veraksa (Eds.), Doshkol’naia pedagogika i psikhologiia. Khrestomatiia [Preschool pedagogy and psychology. Anthology] (pp. 161–178). Mozaika-Sintez. (In Russ.)
26. Vygotsky, L.S. (1984). Detskaia psikhologiia. Sobranie sochinenii. V 6 t. T. 4 [Child psychology. Collected works. 6 vols. V. 4]. Pedagogika. (In Russ.).
27. Vygotsky, L.S. (2005). Psikhologiia razvitiia cheloveka [Psychology of human development]. Izd-vo Smysl; Eksmo. (In Russ.).
28. Weiland, C., Ulvestad, K., Sachs, J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Associations between classroom quality and children’s vocabulary and executive function skills in an urban public prekindergarten program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.12.002