LEARNING ACQUISITION
English translation © 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2001 “Psi-khologicheskii zhurnal.” “Kul’turno-istoricheskie osnovy zony blizhaishego razvitiia,” Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 2001, no. 4, 42–50.
E.E. Kravtsova is affiliated with the L.S. Vygotsky Institute of Psychology, Russian State University for the Humanities.
Translated by Nora Seligman Favorov.
9
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 47, no. 6, November–December 2009, pp. 9–24. © 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 1061–0405/2010 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/RPO1061-0405470601
E.E. Kravtsova
The Cultural-Historical Foundations of the Zone of Proximal Development
This theoretical article attempts to locate the concept of a zone of proximal development within the holistic context of cultural-historical theory. In order to analyze the psychological content of processes tak- ing place within the zone of proximal development, special content of personality and mental development has been singled out. We propose methodologically correlating the concept “zone of proximal develop- ment” and personality development. It has been demonstrated that neoformations and leading activity, which serve as indicators of child development, also define the zone of proximal development at each specific psychological age. The article argues that only education that influences the zone of proximal development’s boundaries is develop- mental education (as understood by L.S. Vygotsky).
One of the most important concepts contained in cultural-historical theory is the concept of a zone of proximal development. This is where the most important mechanisms and regularities of mental development in ontogeny are concentrated. It is this concept that
10 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
allows us to understand human individuality and the uniqueness of personality. And with the help of this concept it becomes possible to realize an integral theoretical as well as a practical approach to the study and development of mind and personality.
To put this in concrete terms, one might say that the concept of the zone of proximal development reflects the sources and mecha- nisms of mental development, that the concept enables understand- ing of individual human features, that with its help it becomes possible to both theoretically and in practice model and shape the development of mind and personality in ontogenesis.
Nonetheless, the concept of a zone of proximal development has been little studied and, one could even say, has been in little demand from contemporary theory and practice. It seems to us that this fact is largely explained by and reflects the current attitude among pedagogues and psychologies toward the theories of L.S. Vygotsky. V.S. Bibler put this best of all many years ago when he said that modern scholars have left Vygotsky’s ideas in a state of anabiosis.
In many ways, contemporary psychology has existed, and still exists, not “inside” Vygotsky’s thoughts and ideas, but next to them. In our opinion, this explains the fact that even most of his immedi- ate disciples and followers have limited themselves to individual ideas, paying virtually no attention to Vygotsky’s holistic vision and understanding of human development. If we look at the prac- tical implications of this, then it could be said that pedagogy has not yet even come close to being “next to” the author of cultural- historical theory’s thoughts, since for a long time it has been, and largely remains, under the influence of the forces of traditional education in Russia.
It turns out, therefore, that the concept of a zone of proximal de- velopment has remained essentially unrealized, both in the theory and practice of education: psychologists working “next to” and “in- side” Vygotsky’s ideas have not been able to see the entire approach holistically, while pedagogues have only made a very modest start at realizing individual psychological approaches and practices.
This work is an attempt to locate the concept of a zone of proxi- mal development within the holistic context of cultural-historical
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 11
theory. Throughout this process a critical role was played both by individual theoretical-experimental studies conducted at vari- ous periods and stages of mental and personality development in ontogenesis and findings of psychological interventions, where the main reasons for learning difficulties and problems at various stages were targeted, diagnosed, and, where needed, remediated. A special place in this process of understanding the cultural-historical foundations of the zone of proximal development was assigned to educational programs based on Vygotsky’s ideas and their realiza- tion in kindergartens and schools.
The zone of proximal development concept was introduced by Vygotsky as a counterbalance to actual development. In explain- ing his understanding of the relationship between education and development he pointed out that in addition to what children are today, they also have a certain limited potential found not within the zone of their actual development, but in the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky further identifies the main methodologi- cal and methodical principle for studying and using the zone of proximal development: what children cannot do on their own but can do with the help of an adult constitutes the zone of proximal development. Based on this understanding of the psychological essence of the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky drew two conclusions that are noteworthy for cultural-historical theory:
1. The only good education is one that leads to development. 2. What children do today with the help of an adult they will
be able to do tomorrow independently.
These tenets did not go unnoticed by Vygotsky’s disciples and followers and even became the basis for the design of special educa- tion programs. They were generally understood, first of all, to mean that if education is oriented on the zone of proximal development it will be developmental. Second, they caused education to be regarded within the context of communication and collaboration between the participants in this process.
While recognizing the meaning and importance of the education programs that were put into practice based on the tenets of cultural- historical theory, we must nevertheless point out that these ideas
12 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
lying on the surface of Vygotsky’s theories by no means reflect the complete and comprehensive psychological sense of the zone of proximal development.
Even putting Vygotsky’s first conclusion into educational prac- tice presents serious methodological difficulty. For example, if education has to be oriented on the zone of proximal development, how can children’s individual features be taken into account when program content is the same for everyone? After all, in order to ex- plain what psychological meaning he assigns the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky offers the example of two boys with the same psychological age and the same level of actual development but different zones of proximal development. In this case, what constitutes developmental education and what does not? What educational program should be offered to them? And, finally, on whose zone of proximal development should organized instruction be oriented?
Furthermore, beyond the bounds of developmental education un- derstood in this way is a question that is in some ways global—what are the psychological mechanisms behind the fact that one child has a “small” and another child a “large” zone of proximal develop- ment? Analysis of the second conclusion drawn by Vygotsky reveals that in addition to collaboration and communication it involves another important aspect, without which its realization in educa- tion winds up far afield of the zone of proximal development that Vygotsky described. So, first of all, as children advance from col- lective activity with adults (with the help of an adult) to individual activity, there should at the very least be an understanding of the process by which the zone of proximal development becomes the zone of actual development and why, in some cases, this transition occurs smoothly and, in others, the zone of proximal development remains unrealized. Furthermore, the place of and role played in this process by classmates and communication and collaboration with them is a question that has to be resolved separately. At the same time, if this conclusion is examined within the overall context of Vygotsky’s understanding of the regularities of psychological and personality development in ontogenesis, we are confronted with
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 13
a whole array of problems associated with exactly how the zone of proximal development is realized in lytic and critical periods, with the succession of mental development during various stages of ontogenesis, and with the psychological mechanisms that govern the zone of proximal development.
We feel that answers to the above questions will allow us to ap- proach a holistic and comprehensive understanding of the zone of proximal development and will provide a cultural-historical basis for using this concept in theory and practice.
According to Vygotsky, development of the mind and personal- ity in ontogenesis occurs in stages, in the form of two periods of development. Cultural-historical theory refers to these periods as “lytic periods,” during which development is slow and incremental, and “critical periods,” during which development occurs abruptly. At the same time, of course, every subsequent period of mental development, whatever form it takes, can be seen as a zone of proximal development. These basic ideas allow us to think in terms of designing programs, for example, for preschoolers or adolescents, where conditions are created and the conditions are put in place for the emergence and development of the next developmental period. However, as extensive experience shows, any attempt to impose the regularities and features of the following developmental period onto the preceding one not only fails to enhance the developmental nature of education, but often acts as an inhibitor and obstacle blocking full- fledged child development during ontogenesis. A striking example of this is the experience of large-scale education of six-year-olds in Russia. Even the initial experience of moving the starting age for school back to six shows that children’s development not only does not advance more quickly than when they start school at age seven, but often these children never achieve the main outcome of pre- school mental development—psychological readiness for classroom education. Thus, education of preschoolers (and most six-year-olds belong to this developmental period in terms of their psychology) using means and methods targeted at the following developmental period cannot be described as “developmental” or related to the zone of proximal development.
14 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
In this case, what can the zone of proximal development deter- mine during the lytic and critical periods of mental development? To answer this question one must first understand what characterizes the zone of proximal development and know what it serves to indi- cate. Taking into account that Vygotsky introduces the concept of a zone of proximal development specifically in regard to education and that education has long been associated with children’s intellect (and indeed this is still sometimes what it is primarily associated with), the zone of proximal development has mainly been seen as a criterion and indicator of children’s intellectual development. This is made most clearly evident when we analyze experimental data from studies of the zone of proximal development, primarily those conducted using various kinds of problem-solving tasks.
However, the very methodological principle inherent in the concept of a zone of proximal development is so appealing and convenient that this term began to be used in other spheres of hu- man development—a zone of proximal emotional development, a zone of proximal personality development, and so on. A close look at the concept of a zone of proximal development in the overall context of cultural-historical theory suggests that this concept primarily relates to the development of personality in ontogenesis. We consider it very important to methodologically relate the con- cept of a zone of proximal development specifically to personality development, since as Vygotsky understood it, this automatically means that personality is realized and manifested in all spheres of mental development in ontogenesis. At the same time, understand- ing the zone of proximal development as an indicator of personality development allows us to link its sources and mechanisms to the specific features of personality development.
In cultural-historical theory there are two very noteworthy references to the specific nature of personality development in ontogenesis. The first has to do with the principle of the unity of affect and intellect. Vygotsky emphasized that if we want to study the processes of personality development, we must study the pro- cesses of intellectual and emotional development as a unity. Another related comment made by the author of cultural-historical theory
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 15
is that our actions are rooted in personality when we are aware of ourselves as the source of our actions and activity.
If we apply these comments in analyzing the concept of the zone of proximal development, we see two things: that the zone of proximal development relates to both emotional and intellectual processes and that its developmental significance is associated with people’s awareness of themselves as the main source of their behavior and activity. It is within the process of this behavior and activity that the emergence and development of their personality occurs.
Analyzing types of learning in ontogenesis, Vygotsky identifies two, one reactive, where learners are educated with a program designed by someone else, and the other spontaneous, when they follow “their own program.” A self-generated learning program is the very design of learning where learners are aware of themselves as the source of this design. This suggests that the zone of proximal development manifested in the intellectual and emotional spheres of the child mind assumes learning (behavior, activity, etc.) organized along spontaneous lines.
If activities or learning are spontaneous, one would assume that they are manifested and develop without any outside guidance or assistance. However, when we take advantage of this type of learn- ing in practice, we see that spontaneity is something that can be imposed from the outside. Take the example of an adult teaching preschoolers to orient themselves on a geographic map. The adult can ask the children to look at the map, can point out different parts of the world on it, can tell about interesting countries and cultural customs, and so forth. This would be an example of reactive educa- tion. But consider another approach. Several days before the map lesson the adult brings the children a toy bear. The children love the bear—they play with it, take it on walks, give it presents, and so on. A few days later they find their dear friend is no longer there. In its place is a note saying that it went north to visit its mother. The children ask the adult to go north as soon as possible to bring the bear home. But such a trip demands preparation—the north has to be studied, found on a map, the people of the north and the unique features of their culture have to be read about. In this case, the
16 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
children feel that they themselves are the source of their behavior and activity. This is manifested both in their emotions and their intellect, and therefore it can be hoped that learning organized in this way is oriented on the zone of proximal development. However this requires us to address the relationship between age-specific and individual indicators of the zone of proximal development. In the case of the example described here, we have to figure out how age-related features of children who are being taught to read a geographic map are expressed and identify the differences that, according to Vygotsky, exist in the zones of proximal development of different children. In order to address this question, we must sort out the specific nature of personality development, the ways in which it is similar to mental development in ontogenesis, and the ways in which it differs.
All four possible connections between the development of mind and personality can be found in contemporary psychological lit- erature. Some investigators view both types of development with a unified logic, others feel that personality development is a part of mental development, a third view holds that mental development is one aspect of personality development, and, finally, a fourth perspective is confident that mental and personality development in ontogenesis are independent of one another. The proponents of all these views reference the periodization of mental development and the terminology and concepts used for this periodization: leading activity, age-related psychological neoformations, central mental functions, and so on.
Without pretending to offer an integral analysis and understand- ing of all questions surrounding mental and personality develop- ment in ontogenesis, we attempt here to make certain proposals concerning the features of personality development in childhood. Our proposals are primarily based on Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory and the understanding of the psychological content of the concept of personality it contains.
Our first thesis concerning the features of personality development in childhood, while related to the idea that personality development is closely linked to the periods of mental development Vygotsky iden- tified, nevertheless proposes its own mechanisms and regularities. In
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 17
this context, the link between personality development and mental development is conditioned by characteristic periods of develop- ment that were identified by the author of cultural-historical theory. We are referring first and foremost to the concepts of age-related psychological neoformations and leading activity. In the case of the latter, there is some doubt as to whether or not Vygotsky used this term and what psychological meaning it holds in relation to cultural-historical theory as a whole.
Our analysis shows that Vygotsky used the concept of leading activity only in regard to play. However, Vygotsky’s theoretical study of play activity, including research that used the concept of leading activity, suggests both that this term can be included in the arsenal of cultural-historical theory and that it can be used in discussing the cultural-historical basis for a zone of proximal development.
Analyzing play, Vygotsky writes that “the relationship between play and development is the relationship between learning and development,” and, later, that, “play is the source of development and creates a zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1999). This indicates that play as leading activity in the preschool period of development creates a zone of proximal development for the child and therefore “in play, the child’s highest achievement is pos- sible, achievement that tomorrow will become his actual middle level” (ibid.).
Such an understanding of the role of play as leading activity suggests that the concept of leading activity that gained currency after Vygotsky’s death through A.N. Leontiev’s activity theory has a somewhat different meaning within cultural-historical theory. For example, while Leontiev emphasizes that leading activity in a particular period is responsible for mental development during that period, that it assigns the forms and norms of relationships during that developmental period and, finally, that it prepares the child to move to a new stage, to a new leading activity, for Vygotsky, lead- ing activity meant, first and foremost, a child’s zone of proximal development. Evidence of this can be seen in Vygotsky’s assertion that the child at play is “a head taller than himself.”
Unlike leading activity, the concept of age-related psychological
18 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
neoformations was used by Vygotsky in relation to a number of developmental periods. In his opinion, the most important things taking place during developmental periods are specifically the new formations that can be divided into neoformations emerging during lytic periods and neoformations emerging during critical periods. Furthermore, Vygotsky repeatedly pointed out that different fates await these neoformations. One type, lytic-period neoformations, continue to exist and develop even after the end of the period, while the other, critical-period neoformations, disappear from mental development.
Identifying age-related psychological neoformations and leading activity as a connecting link between the development of mind and personality makes to regularly separate out the problem of their mutual connection and dependence.
With respect to the development of child personality, we believe that, developing within the same period, the neoformation and leading activity that characterize this period, when taken together, comprise a certain formation that we designate as the basic structure of personality. These formations are simultaneously indicators of personality development during particular periods and stages in the development of personality in ontogenesis. At the same time, the basic structure of personality includes the so-called self (sub”ekt) of both neoformations and of leading activity.
When we talk about the self of neoformations and leading activity we primarily have in mind that children must have a sense of themselves as their source. Furthermore, being the self of a particular activity, children must be able to use them in their everyday lives.
Unlike personality development, mental development is directly tied to the beginning of the development of age-related psychologi- cal neoformations. For example, when imagination as a preschool neoformation will emerge is determined during the preschool pe- riod of mental development, beginning with the crisis at age three. However, it is not yet possible to talk even about the beginning of personality development during this period. When imagination reaches a certain point in its development, children begin to use it
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 19
in their activity. This is when play begins to develop—a leading activity of this period.
If we analyze just how imagination and play emerge, we discover something interesting associated with the fact that both age-related psychological neoformations and leading activity in their initial forms become usable for the child only with the help of an adult. For example, a little boy might bang a spoon on his chair. His mother could point to his father, who is working with a hammer, and say, “What a clever boy Misha is. He’s hammering a nail just like his Papa!” Sometime later the child begins not simply to bang his spoon, but really pretends to hammer a nail with it. It should be noted that in this case we clearly see imagination in the absence of play activity.
The exact same picture is evident with the emergence of play. The child, while independently performing individual play actions, still has not acquired play, since he does not have the ability to create an imaginary situation—the basis for play according to Vygotsky. The first imagined situations in play are offered to children by adults—children accept them and begin to play.
Therefore, both age-related psychological neoformations and leading activity constitute the zone of proximal development for preschoolers. At the same time, as indicated above, they are both indicators of mental development. Furthermore, in some cases this mental development does not become an asset for personality development. This is primarily due to the fact that while being a “source” of development of a given formation in ontogenesis, the child is not able to govern it. The reason for the lack of this ability is, in our opinion, that the child remains inside play and imagina- tion, and not above them. Vygotsky, in discussing the mechanisms of voluntariness, points to the “external point of support” identified by Kurt Lewin. Using this terminology it could be said that when children lack an external point of support in play and imagination, their development will not change anything in the development of child personality. At the same time, if children are able to break free and look at their imagination and play “from the side,” then these things become the property of their personalities. One important
20 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
feature of personality development must be mentioned here. It is associated with the appearance not of individual formations of play and imagination, as in mental development, but in the fact that it is expressed as an aggregate self of the neoformation and leading activity. Keeping in mind that in leading activity and in neoforma- tions, children become “a head taller” than themselves (which is why, in Vygotsky’s words, they are both leading and predominat- ing), their aggregate self is exactly what characterizes and assigns the zone of proximal development.
An analysis of the relationship between the age-related psy- chological neoformation and leading activity showed that they relate to one another in complex, equivocal ways. At the start of a developmental period, a child has two neoformations: one associ- ated with the developmental period that has just passed and another that is characterized by the incipient lytic period of development. For example, during young preschool age (the beginning of the preschool developmental period) there is the neoformation of the age-three crisis, which is characterized by children’s awareness of their “I” and imagination, which is directly dependent on children’s objective environment and experience. While in the development of imagination Vygotsky sees the meaning of the preschool period of development, children’s overinvolvement in their own inner world interferes with the further development of their mind and personality. This contradiction is eliminated in play, the leading activity of the preschool age, since in play children are able to realize themselves and at the same time not only not interfere with development, but create—according to cultural-historical theory—a zone of proximal development.
Play thus eliminates conflict between the crisis neoformation and the features of mental development at a lytic age. Additionally, imagination, the neoformation of stable preschool age, becomes the foundation of play. To summarize, it could be said that lead- ing activity makes it possible to incorporate and assimilate the neoformation of the critical period and create conditions for the development of a lytic age neoformation. At the same time, at the beginning of a lytic age this activity is assigned by an adult, and thus for children it is their zone of proximal development. As it
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 21
develops, children learn to master it independently and it becomes the zone of their actual development.
While over the course of a stable age, age-related neoformations and leading activities develop according to a single logic, during critical periods a completely different set of relationships is estab- lished between them. This can be clearly seen in the example of play and imagination. While during preschool age, play and imagination are virtually inseparable from one another (Vygotsky wrote that play is imagination in action), during the crisis of the seventh year, their development progresses according to different laws. The rule comes to the forefront of play and its processual aspect is minimized and becomes maximally verbalized, while imagination begins to be primarily realized by the child in real-life situations. It should be noted, however, that for this to become children’s zone of actual development, adults must build communication and collaborative activity with them where its processual aspect is immediately con- nected with leading activity that has already been mastered and its evaluative, conceptual aspect winds up being taken from the following developmental period.
To give a specific example from the preschool period, it could be said that at older preschool age the zone of proximal development is associated with a “special” activity that, in terms of its mode, is play, but its meaning for personality comes from the learning activ- ity of the young schoolchild. This is a specific sort of play where you have to actually measure, write, or count something. There- fore, if at the beginning of the lytic period the zone of proximal development is associated with the emergence and development of the neoformation and leading activity, by the end of this period and during the crisis, the zone of proximal development winds up tied to the neoformation and leading activity of the following lytic period. The intermediate form of the zone of proximal development, meanwhile, is associated with a sort of hybrid activity, its proces- sual half from the leading activity of the previous period and its meaning and directionality are determined by the leading activity of the upcoming developmental period.
This logic, being a characteristic of personality development in ontogenesis, determines the age-specific features of the zone
22 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
of proximal development. As for individual features of the zone of proximal development, they involve the features of children’s communication with adults. Studying the genesis of children’s forms of communication and collaboration with adults has permit- ted us to diagram the position of the “greater we,” the “above” position, the “under” position, the “equal” position, and the “independent” position.
Keeping in mind that the methodology for determining the zone of proximal development is associated with children’s ability to do, with the help of an adult, what they cannot do or solve on their own, we assume (and have certain experimental support for this) that the individual value of the zone of proximal development is associated with, on the one hand, what basic structure of personality (the aggregate self of the neoformation and leading activity) the child can realize with the help of an adult, and, on the other, what form of communication makes this help truly effective.
According to research by Zh.P. Shopina (2002), the amount of adult help that is needed is inversely proportional to the genesis of communication and joint activity. In other words, the larger the zone of proximal development, the lower the stage of communication development at which the child can process the adult’s prompt. The level of the adult’s help is determined by the logic “independent position,” “equal” position, “above” position, “under” position, and the “greater we” position.
The study of children with learning problems has shown that they have a smaller zone of proximal development than their peers. Furthermore, for the most part they are able to master only the next stage of personality development with the help of an adult, and even this proximal prospect can be assimilated only when an adult helps them from the “under” or “greater we” position, while their peers who learn more easily can realize not only the following position, but also more difficult personality positions and can do so in an “independent” position with an adult or an “equal” position.
Examining the zone of proximal development within the con- text of cultural-historical theory has permitted us to approach the problems of developmental education from a new angle. It seems to us, for example, that education oriented on the zone
NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2009 23
of proximal development is not fully entitled to the designation “developmental,” since the only thing it develops is the zone of actual development. Furthermore, it turns out that, for example, advancing from the zone of proximal development to the zone of actual development depends not on how instruction is designed, but only on the individual features of child communication. These features of communication are associated, first and foremost, with children’s ability to integrate themselves into the context of adults and internally identify with them. At the same time, they must ei- ther neglect communication and joint activity with their peers (to enhance learning) or use their peers as tools. This naturally raises the question of what education oriented on the zone of proximal development does if the zone of actual development is a func- tion of the level of educability and the existing zone of proximal development also in a sense turns out to be associated with what happened with children yesterday, which is when the conditions for their mental development were created.
We believe that education deserves to be called “developmental” only if it influences the boundaries of the zone of proximal develop- ment. In other words, if we follow in Vygotsky’s footsteps in believ- ing that the zone of proximal development is the area between what children can do independently and what they can do with the help of an adult, then developmental education must expand this area. The question of changing the boundaries of the zone of proximal development within the context of cultural-historical theory is also tied to communication. What can be done if children can perform an assigned task only at the upcoming level of their personality development with the help of an adult, especially if the adult can occupy positions in relation to them that are earlier in the genesis of communicative development?
The question asks itself. The child needs help from another angle. If in the first case, where the zone of proximal development is as- signed, the adult occupies a position that is earlier in the genesis (i.e., the adult needs help from the child), now we need another adult who will be with the child and sometimes even demonstrate incorrect actions so that the child can independently identify and “discover” for himself how to solve the assigned problem.
24 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY
If children find themselves with two such adults, with one rep- resenting the norm, the model, who opposes the child while the other helps the child, important changes take place internally, in the development of the child’s mind and personality. Children then are able to solve more difficult problems with the help of an adult, but also their zone of proximal development expands, becomes larger. It can thus be said that education designed in this way develops the zone of proximal development itself and in this context it has earned the right to be called developmental. This is the sort of goal- oriented education that will truly impact children’s future.
References
Shopina, Zh.P. 2002. “Psikhologicheskie zakonomernosti formirovaniia i aktualizatsii zony blizhaishego razvitiia.” Ph.D. diss., Moscow.
Vygotskii [Vygotsky], L.S. 1999. “Iz zapisok-konspekta k lektsiiam po psikhologii detei doshkol’nogo vozrasta.” In Pskhologiia igry, ed. D.B. El’konin [Elkonin]. Moscow.
To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.
Copyright of Journal of Russian & East European Psychology is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.