CC BY
28Результата факторного аналiзу показали, що виокремлеш два фактори мають схожють з результатами проведеного нами кореляцiйного аналiзу зi шкалами «суб'ективна рацюнальшсть» та «схиль-нють до ризику» за методикою «Особислсш фактори прийняття ршення» Т. Корншово! з iншими методиками.
Висновки. Таким чином, з огляду на прове-дене експериментальне дослiдження, нам вдалося виокремити двi групи командирiв. До першо! групи командирiв увiйшли командири, як1 схильнi до ра-цюнального прийняття рiшення. Вони глибоко ре-флексують перед здiйсненням вибору, проявляють пильнiсть в процесi ухвалення ршення, достатньо винахiдливi, впевненi та оптимютичш в своему рь шеннi. Разом з тим, таким командирам важко адап-туватися до нових умов обстановки, в яких вони проявляють так1 негативнi котнги в прийняттi рь шення як надпильшсть та прокрастинацiя, !м бра-куе смiливостi прийняти рiшення в якому е багато неввдомих. Вони не здатш ефективно працювати в умовах невизначеносл, невiдомостi, маючи висо-кий рiвень iнтолерантностi до невизначеносл. В дано! категори командирiв достатньо сформованi смисложиттевi орiентацi!. Вони визначилися з щ-лями в житл, задоволенi собою та своею дгяльш-стю, тому не мають потреби в самореалiзацi!, само-розвитку, вiдчуттi причетностi та затребуваностi. Ключовими мотивами вважають потреби в безпещ, надiйностi та вiдчуттi власно! пдносл.
Другу групу склали командири, яш в прийняттi рiшення схильнi до ризику. Для них не властиво ре-флексувати в процесi ухвалення ршення, детально та пильно розглядати варiанти та альтернативи. 1м легко вдаеться адаптуватися до нових незвичних
умов. Вони не уникають прийняття ршення, а смь ливо, впевнено та оптимютично здiйснюють свiй вибiр. У них високий рiвень толерантностi до невизначеносл та двозначностi. Смисложиш^ орiента-ци не вiдiграють ключову роль в процесi прийняття ними ршень. Головними мотивами при здшсненш вибору у них е професшш iнтереси й цiнностi та потреба в самореалiзацu, саморозвитку. При цьому потреби у безпецi, надшносл, ввдчутл власно! пд-ностi вщходять на другий план.
Резюмуючи вищеописане, можемо констату-вати, що в командирiв першо! групи у прийнятл рь шення переважають когнiтивний та цшшсно-моти-вацiйний компоненти, тодi як у командирiв друго! групи ми спостертаемо наявну перевагу в прийнятл ршення емоцiйно-вольового компоненту.
Список лггератури
1. Черевичний С. В. Компоненти та показ-ники прийняття ршення командиром в умовах невизначеносл. Вюник Нацiонального унiверситету оборони Укра!ни: зб. наук. пр. Ки!в: НУОУ, 2020. Вип. 2 (55). С. 130-137.
2. Черевичний С. В. Невизначешсть в дiяль-носл командира: психологiчнi аспекти. EUROPEAN HUMANITIES STUDIES: State and Society, Issue 4, 2020 P. 104-131. ISSN 2450-6486.
3. Черевичний С. В. Шдходи до проблеми прийняття ршень в фшософп та психологи. Вюник Нацюнального унiверситету оборони Укра!ни: зб. наук. пр. Ки!в: НУОУ, 2019. Вип. 2 (52). С. 146-154.
4. Khmilar O., Cherevychnyi S. Uncertainty tolerance in the process of commander's decisionmaking. Security challenges of Europe. Brussels, Torun 2021. P.79-89. NATO ISBN: 978-92-845-02189.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN REFLECTION AND THE TYPE OF
TASKS IN YOUNGER SCHOOLCHILDREN
Zak A.
Leading Researcher, Psychological Institute RAE, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The article describes methodological approaches to determining the types of cognitive reflection in younger students. Methods are presented, including, in one case, operational-logical tasks, in another case, plot-logical tasks. On a significant contingent of pupils in grades 2, 3 and 4, it was shown that when solving operational-logical problems, children more often carry out meaningful cognitive reflection than when solving plot-logical problems.
Keywords: primary school students, requirements for the construction of an experimental situation, meaningful and formal reflection of a cognitive nature.
1. Introduction
Based on the provisions of dialectical logic (see, for example, [2]), developed and experimentally implemented (see, for example, [1], [3]) the idea that cognitive reflection as a person's appeal to his own way of action has two type: internal, meaningful and external, formal.
In the first case, a person can generalize the tasks successfully solved by him as belonging to one class, since he relies on the method of solving them associated
with essential relations, with a single principle for their solution. In the second case, there is no way to generalize successfully solved problems as belonging to the same class, since here a person relies on the external features of the conditions of the problems.
To determine the type of reflection in solving problems, a general scheme for constructing an experimental situation was developed [3]. In its first part, the subject was asked to solve several problems, which, firstly, should relate not to one, but to two classes (or
subclasses) - this means that some problems are solved on the basis of one principle, and some - with the use of another, and, secondly, the conditions of the tasks should differ in external, directly perceived features.
In the second part, - in case of successful solution of problems, - it was proposed to group them. The nature of the grouping determined the presence and absence of meaningful, internal reflection in their solution. If the generality (typicality) of the decision method was taken as the basis of the grouping, then, in the decision process, meaningful reflection was carried out, and if the external similarity of the features of the conditions was taken as the basis, then, therefore, meaningful reflection - as an understanding of the connection of actions with essential relations and generalization on their basis of the method of solution - was absent.
The experimental situation with the grouping of successfully solved problems was used on the material of operational-logical problems - the solution of such problems is associated with the operations of analysis and synthesis, abstraction and generalization.
The purpose of this study was to determine the age-related dynamics of meaningful reflection during the education of primary schoolchildren in the second, third and fourth grades of primary school. The study used techniques based on different problematic material. In one case, children solved operational-logical problems, in other cases - plot-logical problems.
It was assumed that when solving operational-logical problems, children in a greater number of cases will be able to perform meaningful reflection than when solving plot-logical problems.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The "Anagrams" method
At the beginning of a diagnostic lesson using this technique, the organizer of the lesson distributes forms with the conditions of the problems and the children write their names on them.
Further, the organizer of the lesson distributes to the children the forms with the tasks: Form
1. Y, B, A, B ^_
2. N, Y, M, A ^_
3. A, F, O, S ^_
4. L, Y, H, O ^__
5. Y, R, U, B ^_
6. N, Y, P, O ^_
Opinions
1. All tasks are similar.
2. All tasks are different.
3. Tasks 1, 2, 3 and tasks 4, 5, 6 are similar.
4. Tasks 1, 3, 5 and tasks 2, 4, 6 are similar.
5. Tasks 1, 2, tasks 3, 4 and tasks 5, 6 are similar.
* * *
Then the organizer says: "There are six tasks on the form. Each has a meaningless word. In this word, you need to rearrange the letters in places so that you get a meaningful word. After solving these six problems, choose one of the five opinions about these problems that you think is the most correct, and circle its
number. Write down why you chose this particular opinion about the problems. "
The proposed tasks are structured so that in the first, third and fifth tasks the anagram is converted into a word by interchanging the places of the first and fourth, second and third letters (i.e., by reading the proposed letter combination from right to left), and in the second, fourth and sixth tasks the way of converting anagrams is different - by interchanging the places of the first and third, second and fourth letters (i.e., by rearranging two syllables in places).
If the children, having correctly solved all six problems, chose the fourth opinion about the problems, then this indicates that when solving them they carried out meaningful reflection, generalizing, according to essential characteristics, the methods of solving the first, third and fifth problems as built on the same principle, and the second, fourth, sixth tasks as built on a different principle. In this case, the children indicated, for example: "... in the first, third and fifth problems, you need to read the opposite, and in others - rearrange the syllables ...".
Any other opinion about the tasks indicates the absence of meaningful reflection in their solution and about the manifestation of the implementation of formal reflection associated with the generalization of tasks according to the external features of their conditions.
So, when choosing the first opinion ("All tasks are similar"), the children indicated, in particular: "... in all words the letters change places ...".
When choosing the second opinion ("All tasks are different") - "... everywhere different letters ...".
When choosing the third opinion ("Problems 1, 2, 3 and tasks 4, 5, 6 are similar") - "... in the first, second and third problems there is the letter A, and in the fourth, fifth sixth - the letter Y ...".
With choosing the fifth opinion ("Problems 1, 2, tasks 3, 4 and tasks 5, 6 are similar") - "... in the first and second problems the same letter A, in the third and fourth problems the same letter O, in the fifth and sixth problems the same letter Y...").
2.2. Plot-logical problems
In addition to operational-problems, the experimental situation with the grouping of successfully solved problems was used on the basis of plot-logical problems. Such tasks represent different types of reasoning, built on the plot material. Their conditions contain information about the properties and relationships of people and things. On the basis of this information, it is required to draw a conclusion about the presence or absence of certain properties and relations in the people and things presented in the tasks.
The organization of group lessons based on plot-logical tasks with the aim of further assessing their similarities and differences is built as follows.
First, children are given sheets of blank paper on which they write their names. Then the organizer of the lesson distributes forms with the conditions of the problems and makes explanations, drawing the attention of the children to the fact that first it is necessary to solve the training, and then the main problems.
At the same time, the organizer emphasizes that for the correct solution of the problem, you need to read several times (silently, "to yourself"), think about its question and on a blank sheet (with the name) indicate the problem number and the answer.
Further, the children are told that after solving the main problems, they need to choose only one opinion (circling its number) from those that are on the form, and briefly justify it, writing why this opinion is the most correct. After that, children begin to solve problems, then choose and substantiate one of the opinions about the main problems.
In a number of our studies (see, for example, [3], [4], [5]), to determine the characteristics of the development of cognitive reflection in schoolchildren of grades 2 - 4, various specific tasks were used, built according to the scheme of an experimental situation with a grouping of successfully solved problems.
2.2.1. The "Age" method
When performing the "Age" method, the children were asked to first solve six training tasks, then three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main tasks.
Training tasks
1. In 5 years Misha will be the same age as Vitya now. Which of the boys is older?
2. In 7 years Marina will be the same age as Nina is now. Which of the girls is younger?
3. In 4 years Vasya will be older than Dima in 4 years. Which of the guys is younger?
4. In 3 years Natasha will be younger than Kolya in 3 years. Which of the guys is older?
5. In 6 years Igor will be less years old than Vova is now. Which of the boys is older?
6. In 8 years, Nadya will be less years old than Gala is now. Which of the girls is younger?
Main goals
1. In 18 years Ivanov will be 15 years older than Borisov now. Who is older?
2. In 12 years Popov will be 17 years older than Gordeev now. Who is older?
3. In 16 years, Danilova will be 11 years more than Egorova now. Who is older?
Opinions
1. All basic tasks are similar.
2. All the main tasks are different.
3. The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third is different from them.
4. The first and third main tasks are similar, and the second differs from them.
5. The second and the third main tasks are similar,
but the first one differs from them.
* * *
In this task, the main tasks 1 and 3 are structured as follows. Of the two characters represented in the conditions of these problems, the first character after a certain time (for example, time A) will be older than the second by a number of years, less than the duration of time A. In this case, the second character turns out to be older than the first.
The second task is structured differently. Of the two characters in the problem, the first after a certain time (for example, time A) will be older than the second
by a number of years greater than the duration of time A. In this case, the first character turns out to be older than the second.
A number of children, having correctly solved three main tasks, chose the fourth opinion: "The first and third main tasks are similar, and the second is different from them." At the same time, they substantiated their opinion, for example, as follows: "... the first and the third are similar, because the second person is older in them ..." or "... the second task is different, because
the first person is older in it, and in others the second it
This fact testifies to the fact that in solving basic problems these children carried out meaningful reflection, generalizing according to essential characteristics the methods of solving the first and third problems as built on the same principle.
A number of children chose different opinions about the tasks. The first opinion "All the main tasks are similar" was justified as follows, for example: "... all the time they compared the age.").
The second opinion "All tasks are different" was justified as, for example, "... everywhere different people ..." or "... everywhere different numbers ...".
The third opinion "The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the third there are girls, and in others - boys ...".
The fifth opinion "The second and third main tasks are similar, but the first differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the first three years there is a difference, and in the other five years ...".
The choice of the first, second, third and fifth opinions is based on the external features of the conditions of the tasks and thus testifies to the absence of substantive cognitive reflection and the manifestation of formal cognitive reflection in their solution.
2.2.2. The "Negation" method
When performing the task "Negation", the children were asked first to solve two training tasks, then -three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main tasks.
Training tasks
1. Misha and Slava went on a hike: some of them went to the north, someone to the east. Where could Misha go if Slava did not go east?
2. Zina and Katya went in for sports: some of them played basketball, some - volleyball. What kind of sports could Katya go in for if Zina did not play volleyball?
Main goals
1. Borisov, Nikitin and Petrov bought furniture: someone - a wardrobe, someone - a sofa, someone - a table. What could Nikitin buy if Petrov did not buy a wardrobe, and Borisov did not buy a wardrobe and a table?
2. Misha, Kolya and Vova ate porridge: some -buckwheat, some - rice, some - semolina. What kind of porridge did Kolya eat if Misha did not eat buckwheat and Vova did not eat rice?
3. Vera, Galya and Sonya read: someone - a fable, someone - a story, someone - poetry. What could Galya
read if Sonya did not read the fable, and Vera did not read the fable and poetry?
Opinions
1. All basic tasks are similar.
2. All the main tasks are different.
3. The main tasks of the 1st and 2nd are similar, and the 3rd is different from them.
4. The main tasks of the 1st and 3rd are similar, and the 2nd is different from them.
5. The main tasks of the 2nd and 3rd are similar,
and the 1st is different from them.
* * *
The main tasks 1 and 3 are structured so that it would be possible to draw a conclusion about the unambiguous correspondence of subjects and their attributes, the second task is structured differently: the information presented in its condition does not allow one to unambiguously correlate the attributes with the subjects of judgments (i.e., it is impossible to draw a conclusion about about what kind of porridge Kolya ate). This allows us to consider that the fourth will be the correct opinion about the tasks.
A number of children, having correctly solved three main problems, chose the fourth opinion "The main tasks of the 1st and 3rd are similar, but the 2nd differs from them," justifying it as follows, for example: "... the second is not solved ..." ... This indicates that in solving them, they carried out meaningful reflection, generalizing, according to their essential characteristics, the methods of solving the first and third problems as built on a single principle.
A number of children chose different opinions about the tasks. The first opinion "All the main tasks are similar" was justified as follows, for example: "... there are three people everywhere ...". The second opinion "All tasks are different" was justified as, for example, "... everything is different everywhere...".
The third opinion "The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the third there are girls, and in others - boys ...". The fifth opinion "The second and third main tasks are similar, but the first differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the first surname, and in two - names ...".
As in the performance of the previous task, the choice of the first, second, third and fifth opinions is based on the external features of the conditions of the tasks and thus indicates the absence of meaningful cognitive reflection and the manifestation of formal cognitive reflection during their solution.
2.2.3. The "Difference " method
When performing the task "Difference", the children were asked first to solve two training tasks, then -three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main tasks.
Training tasks
1. Slava and Kolya read books, one read about the war, the other about sports. What did Slava read if Kolya read about sports?
2. Two girls sculpted pies and dumplings: someone sculpted one thing, someone else. What did Sveta sculpt if Marina sculpted dumplings?
Main goals
1. Three boys went in for sports. Two boys were fond of boxing, and one was fond of wrestling. What kind of sport did Yura go in for if Kolya and Yura, Kolya and Sasha went in for different kinds of sports?
2. Three boys played musical instruments: one on the trumpet, one on the guitar, one on the drums. What did Misha play if Roma and Misha, Roma and Gena played different instruments?
3. Three girls collected stamps: two - about composers, and one - about artists. What stamps did Katya collect if Valya and Katya, Valya and Nina collected different stamps?
Opinions
1. All basic tasks are similar.
2. All the main tasks are different.
3. The main tasks 1 and 2 are similar, but the third is different from them.
4. The main tasks of the 1st and 3rd are similar, and the 2nd is different from them.
5. The main tasks of the 2nd and 3rd are similar,
and the 1st is different from them.
* * *
In this method, the main tasks 1 and 3 are structured as follows. In these tasks, two subjects have one attribute, and the third subject has one attribute.
The second task is structured differently: one attribute corresponds to each subject. Such a difference in the construction of tasks allows us to consider that the most correct opinion about the tasks will be the fourth.
A number of children, having correctly solved three main tasks, chose the fourth opinion: "The first and third main tasks are similar, and the second is different from them." At the same time, they substantiated their opinion, for example, as follows: "... in the first and third two do one thing, and in the second - not so ... " or "... in the second task, each does his own thing, and in other tasks - differently ...".
This fact testifies to the fact that when solving basic problems, these children carried out meaningful cognitive reflection, generalizing, according to their essential characteristics, the methods of solving the first and third problems as built on the same principle.
A number of children chose different opinions about the tasks. The first opinion "All the main tasks are similar" was justified as follows, for example: "... there are three people everywhere."). The second opinion "All tasks are different" was substantiated as, for example, "... each task speaks of a different one.".
The third opinion "The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the third task, girls, and in the other two, boys ...". The fifth opinion "The second and the third main tasks are similar, but the first differs from them" was substantiated as follows, for example: "... in the first problem - about sports, and in the other two - about music ...".
The choice of the first, second, third and fifth opinions is based on the external features of the conditions of the tasks and thus testifies to the absence of substantive cognitive reflection and the manifestation of formal cognitive reflection in their solution.
2.2.4. The "Speed" method
When performing the "Speed" task, the children were asked to first solve two training problems, then three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main problems.
Training tasks
1. Seva and Masha left Moscow for Leningrad at the same time. After 3 days, it turned out that Seva was closer to Leningrad than Masha. Who was driving faster?
2. Nina and Katya ran a race: from the first floor to the sixth. They started running at the same time. After 10 minutes, it turned out that Katya had run more steps than Nina. Who was running slower?
Main goals
1. Kolya went from Kiev to Minsk, Borya went from Minsk to Kiev. They went out at the same time. Two days later, Borya was closer to Kiev than Kolya was to Minsk. Which of them went faster?
2. Vladimirov went from Voronezh to Baku, Gor-deev - from Voronezh to Kazan. They went out at the same time. In 2 days Gordeev was closer to Kazan than Vladimirov to Baku. Which of them went faster?
3. Yegorova went from the village of Gribnaya to the village of Yagodnaya, Petrova went from the village of Yagodnaya to the village of Gribnaya. They went out early in the morning. In the evening of the day, Petrova was closer to the village of Gribnaya than Yegorova to the village of Yagodnaya. Which of them went faster?
Opinions
1. All basic tasks are similar.
2. All the main tasks are different.
3. The main tasks of the 1st and 2nd are similar, and the 3rd is different from them.
4. The main tasks of the 1st and 3rd are similar, and the 2nd is different from them.
5. The main tasks of the 2nd and 3rd are similar,
and the 1st is different from them.
* * *
When performing the "Speed" task, the children were asked to first solve two training problems, then three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main problems.
The main tasks 1 and 3 are structured in such a way that one attribute corresponds to two subjects -they walked the same road, which creates grounds for comparing their speed and, accordingly, the distance they traveled.
The second task is structured differently: two subjects correspond to two attributes - they walked on different roads, which makes it impossible to compare their speed and distance traveled. This allows us to consider that the fourth will be the correct opinion about the tasks.
A number of children, having correctly solved the three main tasks, chose the fourth opinion "The main tasks of the 1st and the 3rd are similar, but the 2nd differs from them," justifying it as follows, for example: "... the second task cannot be solved ..." ... This indicates that in solving them, they carried out meaningful reflection, generalizing, according to their essential characteristics, the methods of solving the first and third problems as built on a single principle.
A number of children chose different opinions about the tasks. The first opinion "All the main tasks are similar" was justified as follows, for example: "... everywhere people go ...". The second opinion "All tasks are different" was justified as, for example, ". different cities are everywhere .".
The third opinion "The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in two - boys, and in the third - girls ...". The fifth opinion "The second and third main tasks are similar, but the first differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the first - names, and in others - surnames ...".
As in the performance of the previous task, the choice of the first, second, third and fifth opinions is based on the external features of the conditions of the tasks and thus indicates the absence of meaningful cognitive reflection and the manifestation of formal cognitive reflection during their solution.
2.2.5. The "Combination" method
When performing the "Combination" task, the children were asked to first solve two training tasks, then - three main ones, and after that choose an opinion about the main tasks.
Training tasks
1. Yura and Gena had dogs: some had a shepherd, some had a spaniel. What kind of dog did Yura have if Gena had a shepherd?
2. Natasha and Galya read books: someone had a book about animals, someone about travelers. Who read what book if Natasha did not have a book about travelers?
Main goals
1. Wolf, Fox and Bear lived in three houses. The first house was red and made of wood, the second house was red and made of stone, the third house was white and made of wood. Wolf and Fox lived in a wooden house, and Fox and Bear lived in a red house. Who lived in which house?
2. Boris, Vova and Kolya were gathering mushrooms. Someone - collected boletus mushrooms in a basket, someone - in a bag, someone - russula in a box. Vova did not collect mushrooms in a box, Borya did not collect in a basket, and Kolya did not collect in a bag. Who collected what mushrooms?
3. Natasha, Galya and Valya painted trees: someone painted tall spruce trees, someone high birch trees, someone low birch trees. Natasha and Galya drew tall trees, Galya and Valya drew birches. Who painted what trees?
Opinions
1. All basic tasks are similar.
2. All the main tasks are different.
3. The main tasks of the 1st and 2nd are similar, and the 3rd is different from them.
4. Problems 1 and 3 are similar, but 2 is different from them.
5. Problems 2 and 3 are similar, but 1 is different from them.
* * *
The main tasks 1 and 3 are structured in such a way that the same attribute is attributed to two subjects at once (in the first task, this is the material of the
The third opinion "The first and second main tasks are similar, and the third differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the third problem about girls ...". The fifth opinion "The second and third main tasks are similar, but the first differs from them" was justified as follows, for example: "... in the first, animals, and in others - people ...".
As in the performance of the previous task, the choice of the first, second, third and fifth opinions is based on the external features of the conditions of the tasks and thus indicates the absence of meaningful cognitive reflection and the manifestation of formal cognitive reflection during their solution.
3. Results
So, the study examined the features of meaningful cognitive reflection carried out by pupils of grades 2, 3 and 4 when solving problems of different types: operational-logical ("Anagrams" method) and plot-logical tasks ("Age", "Negation", "Difference", "Speed", "Combination").
Need to emphasize that the table presents data from various studies, in which a total of 292 second graders, 284 third graders and 275 fourth graders from different schools in Moscow participated at the end of the academic year.
Table
The number of pupils in grades 2, 3 and 4 who carried out meaningful reflection when solving problems of the _methods "Anagrams", "Age", " Negation ", "Difference", "Speed", "Combination" (in%)_
Methods Classes
Second Third Fourth
Anagrams 17,2 28,2 36,4
Age 10,3 17,6 25,8
Negation 12,1 21,1 30,2
Difference 13,7 24,6 32,7
Speed 10,9 20,4 28,7
Combination 10,6 19,7 26,2
houses and their color, in the third task, this is the height of the trees and their type).
The second problem is structured differently: each subject of judgment is assigned one attribute (boletus mushrooms in a basket, porcini mushrooms in a bag, russula - in a box). This arrangement of the three tasks allows us to consider that the fourth will be the correct opinion about the tasks.
A number of children, having correctly solved three main problems, chose the fourth opinion "The main tasks of the 1st and the 3rd are similar, but the 2nd differs from them", justifying it as follows, for example: "... the first and third have an answer, and the second one does not ... ". This indicates that in solving them, they carried out meaningful reflection, generalizing, according to their essential characteristics, the methods of solving the first and third problems as built on a single principle.
A number of children chose different opinions about the tasks. The first opinion "All the main tasks are similar" was justified as follows, for example: ". Everywhere the question is: "Who. ". The second opinion "All tasks are different" was justified as, for example, "... the tasks tell about different things .".
The data presented in the table indicate the following.
Firstly, in tasks that include plot-logical tasks -"Age", " Negation ", "Difference", "Speed", "Combination" - there is approximately the same number of second graders, third graders and fourth graders who have carried out meaningful cognitive reflection. On average, 12.1% of children carried out meaningful reflection on these five tasks in the second grade, in the third grade - 20.7% of children and in the fourth grade -28.7% of children.
At the same time, it can be seen from the table that in each of the three classes the proportion of children who carried out meaningful reflection when solving the operational-logical tasks of the task "Anagrams" is greater than the proportion of children who have carried out meaningful reflection when solving the plot-logical tasks of the above tasks. respectively: in the second grade: 17.2% and 12.1%, in the third grade: 28.2% and 20.7%, in the fourth grade: 36.4% and 28.7%.
Thus, when solving the above types of tasks, different conditions are created for the children to carry out meaningful reflection in relation to their actions. First, when faced with operational-logical tasks, children often switch to a generalized method of their actions when solving problems. Secondly, when solving
the five types of plot-logical problems, children carry out meaningful reflection of their actions in approximately the same number of cases, but this happens somewhat less often than when solving the indicated types of operational-logical problems.
Analyzing the data obtained in the study, it can be noted that there are about the same number of second-graders who carried out meaningful reflection when solving the operational-logical problems of the "Anagrams" task as there are third-graders who carried out meaningful reflection when solving plot-logical problems, respectively: 28.2% and 28.7%. This fact shows that the implementation of reflection is really connected with the peculiarities of the problems proposed for the solution.
4. Conclusion
So, in the study, it was shown, as it was assumed, that when solving operational-logical problems, children in each grade (from the second to the fourth) more often carry out meaningful cognitive reflection than when solving plot-logical problems.
The data obtained correspond to the results of our earlier studies (see, for example: [6]). These data make it possible to formulate the position that the type of tasks that are realized in one form or another of actions
(visual-figurative, - associated with the operation of letters, - the "Anagrams" method, or verbal-sign, - associated with the operation of judgments, - the "Age", "Negation", "Difference", "Speed" and "Combination"), is a factor that determines the implementation of meaningful reflection by children when solving them. This provision expands the understanding of developmental psychology about the features of the formation of reflection in primary school age.
At the same time, the results of the study, expressed in statistical data, make it possible to determine the place of this or that student in his age group: whether he is ahead of his peers in the development of meaningful cognitive reflection or lags behind them. This is necessary in order to provide this student with the necessary assistance in a timely manner.
In further research, it is planned to conduct research on the features of the development of meaningful cognitive reflection in schoolchildren of the fifth and sixth grades of basic school on the material of operational-logical tasks included in the "Anagrams"
methodology, and on the material of plot-logical tasks on which the "Age", " Negation", "Difference", "Speed", and "Combination".
References
1. Davydov V.V. Theory of developing education. Moscow, Intor, 1996.497 p. [in Russian].
2. Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectical logic: essays on history and theory. Moskow, Science, 1984.427 p. [in Russian].
3. Zak A. Z. Development of theoretical thinking in younger students. Moscow, Pedagogika, 1984.212 p. [in Russian].
4. Zak A.Z. Differences in the mental activity of younger students. Moscow, MPSI, 200.212 p. [in Russian].
5. Zak A.Z. Thinking of a younger student. Saint Petersburg, Assistance, 2004. 828 p. [in Russian].
6. Zak A.Z. Diagnostics of differences in the thinking of primary schoolchildren. Moscow, Genesis, 2007.160 p. [in Russian].
ФАСИЛГТАЦШШИЙ СУПРОВ1Д ОС1Б З ОСОБЛИВИМИ ОСВ1ТШМИ ПОТРЕБАМИ
Вовченко О.А.
кандидат психологгчних наук, Старший науковий ствробтник в1ддту oci6 з порушеннями слуху 1нституту спецiальноi педагогiки та психологи iменi Миколи Ярмаченка НАПН Украти
FACILITATIVE SUPPORT OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
Vovchenko O.
PhD of psychological sciences, Senior researcher of department of persons with hearing impairments Institute of special education and psychology by N. Yarmachenko National academy of pedagogical sciences Ukraine
Анотащя
Свгтова стльнота, керуючись принципом piBHOCTi прав ycix oci6, незалежно ввд !х расових, етшчних, статевих, фiзичних, психiчних та шших вщмшностей (особливостей), закршило у мгжнародних правових актах ООН основш засади безперервного процесу розвитку особи з особливими освгтшми потребами, що нацшено на забезпечення яшсно! освгти та психолопчного розвитку для вах особистостей з урахуванням piзноманiтностi, потреб та здiбностей, характеристики та очшування в навчанш учшв та усунення вах форм дискримшацп. У сучасному мiжнаpодномy сшвтоварисга сформувалася нова культурна норма -повага до ввдмшностей мiж людьми та визнаеться право юно! особистосп (дитини/пвдлгтка) на iндивiдyа-льшсть, визнання та врахування сусшльством тих чи шших И особливостей, зокрема й щодо психолопчного супроводу. Тому об'ектом нашо! статгi е саме один iз видiв психологiчного супроводу оаб з особливими освiтнiми потребами, а саме - фасилгтацшний.
Abstract
The world community, guided by the principle of equality of rights of all persons, regardless of their racial, ethnic, sexual, physical, mental and other differences (features), enshrined in United Nations international law the basic principles of continuous development of persons with special educational needs, aimed at ensuring quality education and psychological development for all individuals, taking into account the diversity, needs and abilities, characteristics and expectations in student learning and the elimination of all forms of discrimination. In the modern international community, a new cultural norm has been formed - respect for differences between people and the right of a young person (child / adolescent) to individuality, recognition and consideration by society of certain features, including psychological support. Therefore, the object of our article is one of the types of psychological support for people with special educational needs, namely - facilitation.
