The Main Characteristics of the Intellectual and Personal Development of Today’s Primary Schoolchildren

Introduction

Changes in education, including its optimization and control, the introduction of digital technologies in the educational process, and the recent pandemic have confronted all participants in the educational process with the need to adapt to new conditions. Teachers and psychologists are now turning to analysis of the methodological and pedagogical aspects of teaching, asking themselves not only what to teach, but also how to teach in order to keep the child’s interest. According to our data, cognitive motivation ensures the preservation and growth of the level of intellectual development (Bogoyavlenskaya & Joukova, 2020). T.O. Gordeeva and colleagues talk about the need to preserve the student’s internal motivation, which is understood as the preservation of pleasure and joy from learning (Gordeeva, Sychev, & Lunkina, 2019). Expressed intrinsic motivation leads to increased satisfaction with school, to self-esteem, and is manifested in a sense of academic well-being. Modern ideas about the quality of childhood and its leading component of “well-being” shift attention to the personality of the children, their sense of self and satisfaction with school. With the reduction of psychological and speech therapy services at school, it is up to the teacher to solve this problem.

A recent study reports that 37.7% of fourth-graders experience difficulties in schooling at the time of graduation from elementary school (Kantorova & Gorbachevskaya, 2020). Chinese colleagues in their study of more than 10,000 children found a decrease in regulatory functions by the end of primary school age. After grade 4, the proportion of students with regulatory problems increased. Negative changes have been noted in the transition to higher grades, which are “reflected in the declining trend of agreeableness, intelligence, extraversion, and conscientiousness” (Yu & Zhang, 2021, p. 7). This is also noted by other authors (Soto et al., 2011; Van den Akker et al., 2010, 2014). Longitudinal studies have found that this period is particularly important because of its long-term effects. For example, Conte and colleagues (2022) indicate the presence of a “gravitational” effect, which is characterized by the ability to predict the future level of cognitive development in adulthood based on data obtained at the age of 11. The idea of intergenerational differences in the acquisition of knowledge is also expressed by university teachers.

Conducting research to compare the development of children today with their peers of the previous decade would make it possible to identify the causes of the changes that are occurring. A decade as a time period provides a sufficiently long period of time for the maturation of changes, and at the same time it is a duration that brings people together in a common life and common views. Longitudinal studies allowed us to collect material for comparing the indicators of intellectual and personal development in two groups of primary school children, with a difference of 10 years. The choice for the study of second graders was justified by a certain level of adaptation of the child to school education while maintaining the relative novelty of the activity, which should have been reflected in the preservation of interest in learning. Conducting two sections within the framework of one educational institution in Moscow provided relatively identical conditions for the pedagogical and educational process of these groups.

Methods

The study of the special features of the children’s intellectual development was carried out using the “Animals in the Circus” technique of the Creative Field method by D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya (1971, 2009), and the Standard Progressive Matrices test by J. Raven. Personal development, in particular in the motivational–need sphere (leading motif), was assessed by the Creative Field method.

The Creative Field method (Bogoyavlenskaya, 1971), in contrast to the study of thinking by the method of problem situations, consists in solving a system of similar tasks. The method includes training and main experiments. In a Creative Field Training Experiment (CFTE), children master a new activity, which allows them to equalize their abilities and assess the level of learning that characterizes their intellectual abilities, their regulatory features. Successful mastery of the activity in the learning experiment makes it possible to proceed to the Creative Field Main Experiment (CFME), in which the child is offered a number of tasks of the same type, where, in addition to the level of intelligence, the ability to develop activities on their own initiative is assessed as the ability to be creative. If a child throughout the experiment uses the found method of solving the first task (even improving it), we classify him or her as a member of the stimulus-productive group, since their cognitive interest ends at the moment the solution is found. Their activity is externally stimulated. The heuristic level involves the development of activity on one’s own initiative; it is not stimulated by the conditions of the problem. Analysis of the system of tasks and the discovery of new patterns, one’s own ways of solving problems, is possible only with the dominance of cognitive motivation in the structure of the personality. At a creative level, open patterns are already seen as the problem of why they are the way they are. In the Main Experiment, we assess the level of intelligence, including the regulatory component, and the ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative.

The Standard Progressive Matrices test by J. Raven examines non-verbal intelligence and is resistant to cultural differences (Carpenter et al., 1990). The first three series are a series of progressively more complex tasks that need to be compared using the analysis of the proposed matrix and solution options.

Participants

The sample consisted of 100 subjects: 50 students in 2013 (sample No. 1) and 50 students in 2022–2023 (sample No. 2), which represented the standard classes of a comprehensive school. The average age of sample No. 1 was 8 years, sample No. 2 was 8.5 years. Both samples consisted of 28 girls and 22 boys, which is 56% versus 44%. The average age of the boys for sample 1 was 8 years, for sample 2 – 8 years 4 months. The average age of the girls for the first sample was 8 years, for the second sample – 8 years 6 months. The samples were studied within the same educational institution and the same school programs.

Procedure

The following indicators were identified in the “Animals in the Circus” methodology. We used the intellectual indicators “Number of Errors in the Creative Field Training Experiment (NE CFTE)” and “Time to Solve the main task in the Main Creative Field Experiment (TS CFME)”. NE CFTE represents the number of mistakes made by the subjects in the process of mastering the activity in the experiment. The best result is the absence of errors; the worst is the maximum number of errors in the group. TS CFME reflects the actual intellectual level of the child, the ability to accept the conditions of the problem and find its solution. The best result is the solution of the main task in the shortest time; the worst result is the absence of a solution. As a regulatory indicator, Sensorimotor Coordination (SC) was considered, which is easily distinguished in the children's version of the methodology within the framework of the Creative Field method. Here the nature of the drawn line was evaluated, together with the accuracy of the trajectory through the corners of the cells of the experimental field. Personal indicators include “Ability to develop activities on the Initiative of the Subject” (IS). Interest and cognitive motivation were assessed here, as realized in the subjects’ development of activities on their own initiative.

The Standard Progressive Matrices test by J. Raven determined the level of intellectual development (RS). This is the most frequently used and informative non-verbal test (Davydova & Ptuha, 2013; Vucicevic, 2022). Series A, B, and C were conducted with the group.

To process the data, we used descriptive statistical methods, the U-Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test, and correlation analysis. The calculations were carried out using the R programming language. The conventions for the measured values are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Symbols of the studied indicators

Results

The results of the descriptive statistics of the experimental data are presented in Tables 2 and 3. According to the indicator of intellectual development of the J. Raven test, the maximum value in samples 1 and 2 is represented by 36 versus 34 (36 points is the highest possible result in the test), while the minimum number of points differs more significantly: 24 versus 11. This allows us to say that the modern sample is characterized by a drop in the lower values of indicators of intellectual development. The decrease in the median and mean in the modern sample (by 6.5 and 6.78 units, respectively), which is 19% of the total score, also confirms the conclusion. In the first quartile of the data of sample No. 1, we see a large scatter of data – 9 divisions – which characterizes the decline in indicators in the modern sample. In the third quartile, we see a less dramatic decline, where the difference is 5.25 units. This suggests that the drift of the extreme low results is directed towards their even greater decline. At the same time, a slightly smoother drop also applies to high values of intelligence in the sample. Thus, the difference in the values of the first and third quartiles between the 2013 and 2023 slices shows that the identified decrease affects the entire sample.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for sample No. 1 (2013)

Table 3

Descriptive statistics for sample No. 2 (2022–2023)

The indicator “Number of Errors in the Creative Field Training Experiment (NE CFTE)” in both samples has the same minimum – 0.00, which indicates the children who learned without a single error (here, a zero result is the best). The maximum for this indicator differs in the direction of deterioration in sample No. 2 (39 versus 52). Comparison of the medians, arithmetic means, and indicators of the first and third quartiles of both samples demonstrates an increase in values approximately twice in sample No. 2, which shows a significant increase in the number of errors in mastering activities within the entire second group.

The indicator “Time to Solve the main task in the Main Creative Field Experiment (TS CFME)” reflects the speed of solving the problem, where the best result is a shorter period of time. This indicator is characterized by an increase in the minimum value of sample No. 2 by 5 points. The maximum is the same, since the last values were assigned to children who did not solve the problem. Here, the most informative for us are the indicators of the median and the arithmetic mean. The median difference is 40 units (210.5 versus 250). The arithmetic mean differs in the direction of increasing values in sample No. 2, 372.9 versus 478.6, that is, by 105 units. The difference begins to appear in the lower ranges (288 in 2013 versus 441.5 in 2023), that is, in children who have difficulty solving the problem.

The “Sensorimotor Coordination” (SC) indicator, allocated within the framework of regulatory indicators, has the same minimum and maximum in both samples, since it was evaluated as a ranking scale, where the value of 1 corresponded to the best indicator, while the value of 4 was the weakest development of this indicator. The mean and quartiles are characterized by somewhat higher results in sample No. 2, but the level of these differences does not reach the degree of significance.

The indicator “Ability to develop activities on the Initiative of the Subject” (IS) is characterized by significant differences in the two samples. The mean of the first sample is higher than that of the second sample, which indicates a greater number of children who showed the ability to develop activities on their own initiative in 2013 and, accordingly, a decrease in this indicator in 2022–2023, which is manifested in a smaller number of children who switched to the heuristic level of activity in the Creative Field method.

The results indicate that the level of intellectual development of today’s second-graders is lower than that of a similar age group 10 years ago. Mastering a new activity in the Creative Field, and the level of intelligence according to the Raven test, show a decrease in the average values of learning ability and intelligence among today’s schoolchildren. The time to solve the main problem tends to worsen in sample No. 2. The difference in the level of sensorimotor coordination of the two samples does not reach a significant level and has a positive trend in sample No. 2.

In the personal development of sample No. 2, we observe a decrease in the ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative. The number of children who went to heuristic level is reduced more than two-fold (12 people in 2013 and 5 people in 2022–2023). Children today demonstrate a stimulus–productive strategy in activity.

Below are the results of statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U test.

• The average “Level of intellectual development (according to J. Raven)” in sample No. 1 (R3) is greater than in sample No. 2 (R4) - W = 2,187.5, p-value = 4.606e-11.

• The average number of errors in mastering a new activity (NE CFTE) in sample No. 1 (E3) is less than in sample No. 2 (E4) - W = 761.5, p-value = 0.0003755.

• The average time to solve the main problem (TS CFME) in the samples does not differ significantly - W = 1,124.5, p-value = 0.1944. At the same time, in sample No. 1 (T3), it is generally less than in sample No. 2 (T4).

• “Ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative” (В3 and B4) in the two samples differs significantly in the direction of its decrease in the modern sample B4 - W = 1,425, p-value = 0.03224.

• “Sensorimotor Coordination” (S3 and S4) in the two samples does not differ on average - W = 1,402, p-value = 0.131. In sample No. 2, it is slightly better.

The results of Spearman’s correlation analysis are shown in Tables 4 and 5 for the first and second samples, respectively. The number of stars next to the correlation number corresponds to its significance: ***p = 0.001; **p = 0.01; *p = 0.05.

In sample No. 1 (Table 4), we can talk about a significant possible relationship of the indicator “Ability to develop activities on the Initiative of the Subject” (B3) with the intellectual component: the Raven test (R3) (ρ = 0.57 at p = 0.001), with the indicator “Number of Errors in the process of mastering activities in the Creative Field” (E3) (ρ = -0.49 at p = 0.001), with the indicator “Time to Solve the main task in the Creative Field” (T3) (ρ = -0.44, at p = 0.01), with the indicator “Sensorimotor Coordination” (S3) (ρ = -0.34 at p = 0.05). This means that the group of heurists (with big IS) in sample No. 1 more often had a high level of intelligence. They coped more easily with solving the problem in the Creative Field and are characterized by a relative absence of intellectual and psychophysiological problems.

Table 4

Spearman correlations of indicators for sample No. 1 (2013)

Table 5

Spearman correlations of indicators for sample No. 2 (2022–2023)

In sample No. 2 (Table 5), we can talk about a non-significant possible relationship of the indicator “Ability to develop activities on the Initiative of the Subject” (B4) with the indicator of intellectual development according to the Raven test (R4). In addition, there is a decrease in the relationship between all intellectual indicators. Indicators of different time slices do not reveal any significant correlations.

Discussion

Generalization of the results suggests that the children in the 2023–2023 sample find it more difficult to master a new activity, and solving the main task in the experiment is a somewhat slower process. Raven’s test also shows a decrease in average intelligence values among schoolchildren today. We also observe a decrease in their cognitive motivation. At the same time, their level of sensorimotor coordination does not differ from their peers 10 years ago.

The absence of significant differences in regulatory indicators suggests that the cause of the identified problems should be sought not in the physiological and psychophysiological context, but rather in the pedagogical and social context. Since these samples were studied within the framework of one institution and one school program, we can assume that this situation is a consequence of new phenomena that have appeared over the past 10 years (digitalization, reorganization of the pedagogical system, the possibility of parental influence on the educational process). With a qualitative analysis of the protocols, we see that the decline in intellectual development is characterized by difficulties in mastering mental operations (generalization, anticipation, ease of transfer, as well as preservation of the mode of action).

With a qualitative analysis of the work of younger schoolchildren in the experiment, we managed to identify some phenomena that, in our opinion, reflect the particular features of thinking of second graders today.

The increase in the number of errors is embodied in the growth of repetitive errors, which indicates difficulties of generalization and poor preservation of the mode of action. It is difficult for the child to single out the essential features of the situation – in this case, the change in the size of the “cell” and the spatial position of the object.

The difficulties of anticipation are expressed in the inability to synthesize particular individual private representations into a holistic image. Understanding becomes available only with a visual explanation by an adult.

Another phenomenon can be called the quick result effect. If the child does not achieve a quick result and does not receive satisfaction, then interest fades, and he or she is ready to quit the activity (“I want everything to work right the first time”). The 2022–2023 sample is characterized by the lack of ability to exert effort without external dominance.

In sample No. 1 and earlier, we met children who continued to think about the proposed task “outside” of the activity with the experimenter (“I drew circles at home like you do”, “Where can I get such a form?”, “But I understood at home”). In sample No. 2, such desires (“May I take the form home?”, “Is it possible to take a picture?”), even when they appear, quickly fade away, are replaced by an external situation, do not have the character of a purposeful activity or persistent desire, and, accordingly, as a rule, are not maintained. Even with heurists in sample No. 2, we rarely see the effect of further development of activity after entering heuristics. Only in two people did we see gradual progress in the analysis of the system of tasks: the discovery of many new regularities. The other part of the heuristic group remained within the same identified heuristic.

It should be said that the results we obtained, allow us to take a fresh look at today’s trend, which recognizes “the importance of a student’s well-being and experiences beyond their connection with achievements” (Polivanova, 2020, p. 26). Without questioning the importance of self-awareness and self-esteem, let us assume that learning activity, being the main activity at this age, should be successful as such. And if we do not associate well-being with academic achievement, then we are “getting away from the problem”. Polivanova writes about “a significant change in the ‘education’ construct itself: it is now considered not only as a preparation for future life through the achievement of educational results by the student, but also as a part of the life cycle, valuable in itself” (Polivanova, 2020, p. 27). It seems to us that the school life of many generations before these declarations met these requirements, including in addition to the educational labor, civil, active social component, which ensured the personal development of the child. And with the positioning of the school as only an educational, and not a parenting institution, with the total control and accountability of the teacher, the intervention of parenthood in the educational process, the school often becomes only a translator of knowledge, information without attention to the individual pace and personal characteristics of the child.

It seems to us that the attention of the pedagogical community, first of all, should be directed precisely to the problem of educational achievements in a “weak” child, and not to the formation of a sense of well-being in the face of real educational problems. The timely mastery of the necessary amount of knowledge and skills by the child with maximum assistance, including support for self-esteem, should remain the main point of the efforts of teachers and students, while also paying attention to the individual characteristics of this development and maintaining the opportunity for pedagogical maneuver. The need to focus on the zone of proximal development of any student, changing of communication in the degree and nature of the provision by adults of the assistance necessary for the child in mastering knowledge (Kravtsov & Kravtsova, 2020), changing adult–child relationships through expanding “the proactive repertoire of each student in a situation of an intellectual task” (Shur & Zuckerman, 2022, p. 83) are defined by researchers as necessary components of the educational process today. Changes in education should follow the path not so much of optimization as of a differentiated assessment of the need for the attention of different specialists (teacher, tutor, psychologist, speech therapist, special education teacher) in relation to all categories of students and the organization of this work within the school.

The largest monitoring study of educational achievement in different countries, PISA, determined that a qualified teacher is the main factor in a child’s success. Practical conclusions indicate the importance of effective forms of teaching when technical devices are under the control of the teacher and not at the disposal of students. Some classroom technologies, such as laptops, tablets, and e-readers, actually slow down productivity. The best results are obtained by methods of active teaching of students (they put forward hypotheses and organize experiments), but only on the basis of the “foundation” received from the teacher, which is mastered in the strategy when “the teacher dominates”. A decline in positive results is associated with the frequent use of discussions and debates without the basic knowledge conveyed by the teacher (Denoël et al., 2017).

The formation of the ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative occurs only with the maturation of the intellectual and motivational components, which is expressed in a level of intelligence that allows one to master this activity and a level of cognitive motivation that provides the ability to independently advance in it beyond external requirements (Artemenkov, Bogoyavlenskaya, & Joukova, 2021; Bogoyavlenskaya, Artemenkov, & Joukova, 2021; Joukova 2021; Joukova, Artemenkov, & Bogoyavlenskaya, 2022). It seems to us that the significant differences in the intellectual level of the two samples make it possible to determine that the decline in the intellectual level is one of the reasons for the decreased ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative in sample No. 2. At the same time, the most important change seems to us at the motivational–need level, which is characterized by a decrease in cognitive motivation, which ultimately leads to a decrease in the ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative. And this applies to children with different levels of intelligence.

Analyzing the results, let us try to understand their causes, which are likely to be of a systemic nature. The introduction of technical, digital means (Prikhozhan, 2010) is characterized by a variety of ready-made products that allow you to quickly and easily solve any problem. This creates a sense of success and well-being, but true skill is not born. Children do not learn to master either mental operations or the development of their own character and will. A.D. Andreeva writes that “new technical teaching aids create only the illusion that the educational environment of a modern school corresponds to some ‘special’ cognitive abilities of children of the 21st century that have not yet received scientific confirmation” (Andreeva, 2019, p. 13).

It is important to understand that school skills are based on functions that are formed at preschool age. Thus, recent longitudinal studies have revealed the relationship between the ability of children to maintain an isochronous beat (drumming task) with preliteracy skills in more than 150 preschoolers. Children who did well on the rhythm synchronization task had higher preliteracy scores, which is a predictor of successful language acquisition and reading skills. (Bonacina et al., 2021). Previous research emphasized that the child’s ability to perceive and remember time signals helps first with speech development and then with reading (White-Schwoch et al., 2015). The data define the preschool period as extremely critical for the full development of the foundations of educational activity, and personal development of the child. Thus, the early debut of school activities (reading, counting) “forces out” the actual preschool activities (playing, modeling, drawing, experimenting), which are the basis for the development of mental functions that ensure successful schooling. Violation of the natural course of the maturation of these functions in the long term can distort the further development of the child. The real preparation for schooling is the full development of the capabilities of one’s age, which will provide a physiological foundation and be realized in the ease of passing to the next stage of development (Denisenkova & Fedorov, 2021; Joukova, 2021; Kantorova & Gorbachevskaya 2020).

It should be said that the subject of learning is distinguished not only by intellectual readiness, but also by motivational, personal readiness. Claudia M. Mueller and Carol S. Dweck conducted a study confirming that singling out children on the basis of intelligence (praise for intelligence) can negatively affect motivation and academic performance: “praise for intelligence seemed to teach children to value performance, even when following their own information-seeking interests, whereas praise for hard work seemed to lead children to value learning opportunities” (Mueller & Dweck, 1998, p. 48). Years of PISA research have shown that the change in learning comes along the lines of learning motivation. Numerous Olympiads and competitions aimed at testing the level of knowledge, but not passion and problem development, also do not contribute to the development of cognitive motivation, but stimulate the achievement motive. Rational changes towards reducing the supervisory function in the school and creating conditions for activities according to children’s interests could be a solution to this problem.

Conclusion

The analysis allows us to speak about a trend towards a decline in the general characteristics of thinking in today’s 8-year-old. Thinking is more difficult for them than for their peers 10 years ago, given the preservation of the mode of action, its transfer to new spatial and metric conditions, the generalization of action in the absence of a difference in the level of sensorimotor coordination. The decline occurs in all ranges, but is more pronounced in the lower range of the sample: in other words, the weak pupils become even weaker.

The identified differences probably need to be assessed in terms of pedagogical and social impacts, as well as environmental factors in the child’s life. It is necessary to pay attention to those types of activities that were cultivated in preschool, and occupied the greatest time and attention of the child, to assess their pedagogical impact in the present period of his or her development. The data allow us to speak about the social situation of a child’s development 10 years ago as more favorable than today.

We consider the most important change at the motivational–need level, which is characterized not only by a decrease in cognitive motivation, but by “paralysis of the will”, a refusal to make efforts, which ultimately leads to a decline in the ability to develop activities on one’s own initiative. And this applies to children with different levels of intelligence.

It seems to us that attention should be paid not only to educational activities, but also to all spheres of a child’s life. Personal maturity presupposes the formation of such personal qualities as independence and responsibility, which can only be “grown” through a relationship with a significant adult built in a certain way, the possibility of a safe experience, independence in choosing activities and goals. Informational “noise” that competes with real life and creates an imaginary feeling of success often replaces the necessary efforts and experience that can only be acquired in live communication with the real world, objective or social. At the same time, it is important to build this communication more directly, reducing rather than increasing the chains of mediation in the process of organizing the study and life of schoolchildren. Unfortunately, the trends in society are typically directed in the opposite direction and this is not recognized as a problem (Artemenkov, 2021). Thus, we are raising a generation that is perhaps more knowledgeable than the previous one, but in terms of readiness for action, “loses” to its predecessors.

Limitations

For greater validity of the conclusions, it is desirable to expand the sample through research at different educational institutions, which will confirm the data obtained and exclude the influence of the social component. This will allow a deeper analysis of the development of giftedness and intelligence at school age.

Ethics Statement

Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the parents of all students. Parents and teachers received recommendations on the current situation of children’s development.

Author Contributions

Research and experiments were carried out by E.S. Joukova. S.L. Artemenkov conducted a mathematical analysis of the data. Dr. D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya developed the theoretical and practical base for the study: a method, scales, and techniques for experimental diagnosis of giftedness in children of different ages. The authors jointly discussed the results of the study and collaborated on the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research project did not have special funding. The work was carried out according to the research plan of the PI RAO in consortium with MSUPE. The authors express their gratitude to all parents, teachers, and children, to their colleagues from PI RAO and MSUPE, as well as to the employees of the Moscow school who helped in this work.

References

Andreeva, A.D. (2019). Otnoshenie shkol’nikov 7-12 let k svoemu vozrastu kak sub”ektivnyi komponent sotsial’noi situatsii razvitiia [The attitude of 7–12-year-old school students towards their age as a subjective component of social situation of development]. Teoreticheskaia i eksperimental’naia psikhologiia [Theoretical and Experimental Psychology], 12(1), 6–14.

Artemenkov, S.L. (2021). Problema oposredovaniia v kiberpsikhologii [The problem of mediation in cyberpsychology]. In “Neirokomp’iutery i ikh primenenie”. XIX Vserossiiskaia nauchnaia konferentsiia. Tezisy dokladov [“Neurocomputers and their applications”. XIX All-Russian Scientific Conference. Abstracts of reports.] (pp. 391-395). Moscow.

Artemenkov, S.L., Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B., & Joukova, E.S. (2021). Intellektual’naia i motivatsionnaia komponenty v longitiudnom issledovanii odarennosti [Intellectual and motivational components in the longitudinal study of giftedness]. Problemy Sovremennogo Obrazovaniia [Problems of Modern Education], 1, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.31862/2218-8711-2021-1-47-61

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B. (1971). Metod issledovaniia urovnei intellektual’noi aktivnosti [The method of studying the level of intellectual activity]. Voprosy Psikhologii [Issues of Psychology], 1, 144–146.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B. (2009). Psikhologiia tvorcheskikh sposobnostei [Psychology of creative abilities]. Samara: Fedorov.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B., Artemenkov, S.L., & Joukova, E.S. (2021). Longitiudnoe issledovanie razvitiia odarennosti [Longitudinal study on the development of giftedness]. Eksperimental’naia psikhologiia [Experimental Psychology], 14(3), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2021140309

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B., & Joukova, E.S. (2021). Rol’ motivatsii v razvitii kognitivnykh sposobnostei [The role of motivation in the development of cognitive abilities]. In Pervyi natsional’nyi kongress po kognitivnym issledovaniiam, iskusstvennomu intellektu i neiroinformatike. IX mezhdunarodnaia konferentsiia po kognitivnoi nauke. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [The First National Congress on Cognitive Research of Artificial Intelligence and Neuroinformatics. IX International Conference on Cognitive Science. Collection of scientific papers] (pp. 399–402). Moscow.

Bonacina, S., Huang, S., White-Schwoch, T., Krizman, J., Nicol, T. & Krauset, N. (2021). Rhythm, reading, and sound processing in the brain in preschool children. Science of Learning, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00097-5

Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404

Conte, F., Okely, J.A., Hamilton, O., Corley, J., Page, D., Redmond, P., Taylor, A.M., Russ, T.C., Deary, I.J., & Cox, S.R. (2022). Cognitive change before old age (11 to 70) predicts cognitive change during old age (70 to 82). Psychological Science in the Public Eye, 11(33), 1803–1817. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221100264

Davydova, Yu.A., & Ptuha M.V. (2013). Individual’nye osobennosti neverbal’nogo intellekta u mladshih shkol’nikov [Individual features of non-verbal intelligence in primary school students]. Vestnik KRSU, 13(3), 94–98.

Denisenkova, N.S., & Fedorov, V.V. (2021). Sravnitel’nyi analiz urovnia razvitiia umstvennykh sposobnostei sovremennykh starshikh doshkol’nikov i ikh sverstnikov, poseshchavshikh detskie sady v poslednei treti XX veka [Comparative analysis of the level of development of mental abilities of contemporary older preschoolers and their peers who attended kindergartens in the last third of the twentieth century]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 26(3), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260302

Denoël, E., Dorn, E., Goodman, A., Hiltunen, J., Krawitz, M. & Mourshed, M. (2017). Drivers of student performance: Insights from Europe. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/drivers-of studentperformance-insights-from-europe

Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A., & Lunkina, M.V. (2019). School well-being of elementary school children: Motivational and educational predictors. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 24(3), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2019240303

Joukova, E.S. (2021). Longitiudnoe issledovanie odarennosti kak sposobnosti k tvorchestvu: ot mladshego shkol’nika k starshemu podrostku [Longitudinal study of giftedness as an ability to be creative: From a primary school student to an older teenager]. In D.B. Bogoyavlenskaia (Ed.), Psikhologiia tvorchestva i odarennosti. Sbornik statei Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. V 3-kh chastiakh [Psychology of creativity and giftedness. Collection of articles of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation. In 3 parts] (pp. 129–133). Moscow, Izdatel’stvo: Assotsiatsiia tekhnicheskih universitetov

Joukova, E.S., Artemenkov, S.L., & Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B. (2022). The formation of giftedness and intelligence at school age. New Ideas in Child and Educational Psychology, 1–2(2), 80–92.

Kantorova, E.V., & Gorbachevskaya, N.L. (2020). Predposylki trudnostei shkolʹnogo obucheniia u uchashchikhsia nachalʹnykh klassov [Background for cognitive difficulties in primary school students]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 25(6), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2020250610

Kravtsov, G.G., & Kravtsova, E.E. (2020). Vzaimosviazʹ obucheniia i razvitiia: problemy i perspektivy [Relationship between learning and development: Problems and perspectives]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaia psikhologiia [Cultural-Historical Psychology], 16(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160101

Malinetsky, G.G., & Sirenko, S.N. (2020). Obrazovanie na postsovetskom prostranstve v zerkale issledovanii PISA [Education in the post-Soviet space in the mirror of PISA research]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 20: Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 20: Pedagogical education], 1, 35–69. https://doi.org/10.51314/2073-2635-2020-1-35-69

Mueller, C.M., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

Polivanova, K.N. (2020). New educational discourse: The well-being of schoolchildren. Kul’turno-istoricheskaia psikhologiia [Cultural-Historical Psychology], 16(4), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160403

Prihozhan, A. (2010). Vliianie elektronnoi informatsionnoi sredy na razvitie lichnosti detei mladshego shkol’nogo vozrasta [The influence of the electronic information environment on the development of the personality of children of primary school age]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniia [Psychological Research], 3(9). https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v3i9.942

Shur, S.E., & Zuckerman, G.A. (2022). Child-adult interaction: Orientation of children’s initiative. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 27(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2022270107

Sirenko S.N. Mezhdunarodnye issledovaniia kachestva obrazovaniia. Analiz itogov PISA 2015, 2018 dlia Belarusi i Rossii [International studies of the quality of education. Analysis of PISA 2015, 2018 results for Belarus and Russia]. Retrieved from http://elib.bspu.by/handle/doc/48402

Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717

 Van den Akker, A.L., Deković, M., & Prinzie, P. (2010). Transitioning to adolescence: How changes in child personality and overreactive parenting predict adolescent adjustment problems. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990320

Vucicevic, B. (2022). Age and individual differences in the intellectual development of elementary schoolchildren when solving SPM tasks [electronic resource]. Psychological-Educational Studies, 14(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2022140107

White-Schwoch, T., Woodruff Carr, K., Thompson, E.C., Anderson, S., Nicol, T., Bradlow, A.R., Zecker, S.G., & Kraus, N. (2015). Auditory processing in noise: A preschool biomarker for literacy. PLOS Biology, 13(7), e1002196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002196

Yu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Personality and developmental characteristics of primary school students’ personality types. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 693329. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693329