Diagnostic Problems of the Agency in a Project Group

A child-adult group building an educational project is an effective environment for the formation of adolescent agency. Agency is аn important parameter of professionalism and maturity in any work. However, so far, the diagnostics of agency has not been sufficiently developed; conceptually grounded indicators of agency in activity have not been formulated. The aim of our research is to develop indicators of agency and create diagnostic techniques based on the thinking-activity approach. Agency is not an ability, but a certain level of mastery of activity, allowing grasping it as a whole, managing it and developing it. Either an individual person or a community-group or a community consisting of individual groups can be an agent. There are two main phases in the process of the agency formation: agency initiation and agency action. From the point of view of project agency formation, we can distinguish three activities which form it: game, educational and project activities. The types of agency corresponding to them form a hierarchy.

Introduction

The relevance of agency diagnostics can hardly be overestimated. The spheres of career guidance, education, HR, management of employees professional growth need instruments of diagnosis of employees’ agency and diagnosis of the process of agency enhancement [5]. However, ‘agency’ as a qualitative indicator of activity possession is still insufficiently developed. The development of diagnostic tools relies on the conceptual representation of the object under study, so let us consider the conceptual representations underlying the understanding of agency today [10].

Let us turn to the history of this concept. The category ‘subject’ is clearly present in Kant  philosophy, where the ‘subject’ is able to cognize the world of ‘objects’ by means of sensory experience and its ordering on the basis of reason. The famous ‘subject-object’ scheme has long defined the scientific view of the cognition process. Further development of this category is associated with the emergence in the 20th century of the activity approach, in which the ‘subject’ ceased to unambiguously oppose the ‘object’, and along with it turned into a certain characteristic of activity, in which the processes of subjectivation and objectivation were also distinguished [8]. The concept of ‘agency’ that emerged on this basis means the expression of the subject's characteristics in the activity of its certain carriers or in its certain fragments [11]. In the 20th century, ‘agency’ in the key of activity methodology in psychology was considered by such scientists as S.L. Rubinstein, A.N. Leontiev, V.A. Lektorsky [13], V.V. Davydov, and their followers [14,16].

A.K.Abulkhanova-Slavskaya [1] and O.A.Konopkin [9] reveal ‘agency’ as a specific ability of a person to perceive the surrounding reality as a personal problem, which leads to ‘self-determination of all aspects of being’. V.V.Davydov believed that agency is associated with the ability of a person to develop activity. An important contribution of his school to the formation of this concept is also in the development of agency problems in teaching, where an important role is played by the formation of the ability to learn. The notion of the subject of activity, agency was developed in the theory of learning activity by V.T.Kudryavtsev, V.V.Rubtsov [18,19] B.D.Elkonin [20], A.V.Konokotin.

Thus, from the psychological point of view, ‘agency’ is a characteristic of a person that contributes to the implementation of conscious, motivated and purposeful activity, capable of development, to overcoming the established, habitual way of performing actions. agency is associated with the author's position (V.T. Kudryavtsev) [12], with creativity (D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya) [2], realised in the transformation of the way of action (V.V. Rubtsov) [19], (Y.V. Gromyko) [6].

The main hypothesis on which our development of means for diagnosing the level of agency of activity is based is that the individual agency of a single person is formed within the collective subject. At the same time, two main phases can be distinguished in the process of agency formation: agency initiation and subjective action. The hypothesis is in line with the activity approach to the process of anthropological development and corresponds to the ideas about interiorisation as its most important mechanism.

The theoretical significance of the article is determined by the conceptual model of agency proposed within the framework of the activity approach, as well as by the set of diagnostic indicators of individual agency, built on the basis of this conceptual model and embedded in the diagnostic techniques of questionnaire-questionnaire type. The practical significance of the work lies in the created diagnostic techniques of individual agency level, which can be used in the framework of educational design to assess the most important parameter of the educational result [15]. Diagnostic questionnaires require a short time for answering (10-15') and therefore are convenient for use within the educational process of any type. The developed methods have passed the initial phase of approbation, during which they were carried out on 2 groups of subjects. The type of analysis and interpretation of the obtained data has been worked out.

An important question in the context of the tasks of analysing and forming agency is whether agency is an ability? If it is, then being formed at a certain moment, it will be manifested in any professional and activity fields and situations. That is, having agency as an ability, a person will be a subject of activity in any situation.

In our opinion, it is not so. Agency is not an ability, which, according to the activity approach, is followed by some universal way. There is always a question, what is the subject of a particular person? One can be a subject of the laboratory activity and at the same time not be a subject of the organisation of the hike in which one is participating. This happens because one of the characteristics of agency, which allows us to manage and develop activities and set goals for the team that implements them, is subject mastery of the activity itself, competence. A person can only be a subject of the activity he or she possesses. This means that agency sets a certain mode of work with any abilities, leading to their development and necessary reformation [4].

The category of agency, as it is used in the field of consulting and design of professional activity, is not purely psychological or even purely anthropological. It connects the actual activity reality with anthropological reality. Therefore, the principles of agency, which a person possesses, are his ability to connect the social and technical ‘machinery’ of the activity in which he participates with his semantic, volitional, thinking, affective capabilities, goals, values and interests and to manage it on their basis. Thus, agency is a qualitative level, a quality of possession of activity that allows its bearer to manage and develop the activity in which he/she participates.

From the point of view of the process of agency formation, we can distinguish two main phases of its manifestation: the phase of agency initiation and the phase of subjective action. This structure of agency is presented in Fig. 1. Within each phase its components are highlighted.

Fig.1 Phases of agency formation

The scheme shows that the emergence of agency passes through the initiation phase, the most important moment of which is a person's acceptance of a certain challenge that is important for the community in which the initiation takes place. ‘Challenge’ means that a person assumes a task that exceeds his or her capabilities, but is nevertheless necessary for the existence or development of the community with which he or she associates.

The fact that the task has the character of a challenge means that at the moment no one can cope with its solution, i.e. that behind what seems to be a task there is an objective socio-cultural problem. Therefore, the second component of initiation is the realization of the problem that a person has to overcome. By accepting the challenge, the person thereby determines the direction of his or her development, which is necessary to solve the task he or she has taken on.

As a rule, initiation takes place as a result of the transmission of a challenge from a Teacher, Master, Hero, or other type of subject to a representative of the next younger generation, thanks to which the process of transmitting socio-cultural problems and activities to solve them from generation to generation takes place. The process of transmitting and accepting the challenge also relies on the ideology and value-worldview environment of the community.

The task of diagnosing agency raises the question of who or what can be its bearer and what material we should analyse. From the complex activity-anthropological nature of the concept of agency, it follows that the carrier of agency can be not only an individual, but also a collective, an organization and even a group of organizations. Therefore, we should distinguish between an individual subject, a collective subject and a communitarian subject.

We believe that the individual subject is initially formed within the collective subject. Related to this is the allocation of characteristics indicating the deep embedding of a potential individual subject in the sociocultural basis of the collective subject [7].  This issue is studied in detail in the works of V.V. Rubtsov and his school [16, 19]. The internal properties and characteristics of the subject in the above three cases will be somewhat different from each other while maintaining a common functional orientation. 

In order to develop the diagnostics of agency, it is necessary to formulate the conceptual structure of agency beforehand, within the framework of which the corresponding diagnostic indicators should be defined. Thus, a number of researchers have attempted to identify the structure of agency [8, 17]. 

We have developed a number of questionnaire diagnostic techniques aimed at determining the level of agency of professionals. We have developed two diagnostic questionnaires aimed at assessing the level of individual agency of the participants of the Circle Movement (hereinafter referred to as CM). The first one is designed for the participants of CM, and the second one is designed for the mentors of CM activities.

Let us consider the conceptual structure of agency and the corresponding set of indicators, which formed the basis of the developed diagnostic techniques.

Diagnostic characteristics of agency Individual subject.

1. Integration into a collective subject.
   • Acceptance of ideology
   • Acceptance of the principles of the world picture
   • Acceptance of goals and intent
   • Adoption of a pattern of action
   • Acceptance of tradition
2. Initiation.
   • Going through a problematization. Overcoming
   • Change in understanding of mission (meaning of activity), picture of the world
   • Emergence of a vision of the life trajectory and meaning of life related to the mission or the main problem
   • Acquisition of an ancestral name
   • Spiritual acceptance of the challenge
3. Leadership.
   • Functionalization in the community.
   • Emergence of a position in the community.
   • Becoming part of the core of the community.
   • Leadership and acceptance by the community as a leader.
   • Agency of action.
4. Competence.
   • Understanding of the main problem to which the collective subject's action is directed.
   • Mastery of the main method (mode) of action of the collective subject.
   • Ability to overcome social barriers in project activities.
   • The ability to organize the collective and distributed action of the collective subject on the basis of the basic method.
5. Autonomy of action.
   • Presence of independent goals and projects at the level of the collective subject (in continuation of the collective subject or in opposition with it). 
   • Management of one's own professional development.
6. Task and goal-oriented agency.
   • Collective subject.

1. Having a mission or problem at the edge of the problem frontier.
2. Existence of coordinated goals among participants that are consistent with the mission
3. Going through trials together and recognising them as points of birth and formation of the subject. Recognizing themselves as a unified force with a common destiny.
4. Possession of a method to achieve the goals, to move towards the realization of the mission.
5. Functionalization of the participants and mutual understanding of the functions.
6. Presence of common cultural patterns.
7. Presence of a governing nucleus and a system of self-organization and self-management in the community. High level of trust in the governing actions of the core.
8. Presence of mechanisms for collective goal setting.
9. Presence of mechanisms for collective reflection of the situation and achieved goals.
10. Existence of the subject's history
11. Presence of educational mechanisms
12. Presence of a field of collective consciousness - a common picture of the world.

Communitarian (public) subject

1. Presence of a common mission
2. Coordinated goals of the organisations' activities
3. availability of communicative mechanisms for sharing results. Horizontal links.
4. Existence of value communication.
5. Existence of mechanisms for coordinated reflection on the situation and goal setting.
6. Mutual complementarity of organizations' competences in relation to the mission.
7. Availability of educational mechanisms

An important point in analyzing agency is to distinguish its manifestations in different types of activity. Our analysis shows that collective work, which has the features of agency, always contains several layers of different types of activity, which make it heterogeneous.  This heterogeneity is connected, first of all, with the different qualification levels of the participants, as well as with the differences in their professionalism and the tasks they solve. As a minimum, every collective project includes, in addition to the project activity itself, educational and, presumably, play activities. The educational conditions necessary for the unfolding of adolescents' project activities in different strata are presented in the work of Y.V. Gromyko, V.V. Rubtsov, and A.A. Akhmetov. Rubtsov, A.A. Margolis [6].

The necessity of learning activity is connected with the fact that inside the project work all participants have to master a lot of competences, tasks, and knowledge that are new for them, which are required by the emerging situation. The necessity of game activities within the project work is less obvious. However, it is also necessary due to the situations of high uncertainty that arise in project work, in which it is not possible to set specific tasks for implementation, and some fragments of the situation remain unclear and must first be played out as if by trial and error. Playing out acts as a trial action, on the basis of which those fragments of work are built , which will then be carried out in the real design. However, effective switching between the three types of activity is possible only when they are fully mastered and reflection is developed.

This allows us to distinguish between project, educational and game agency. Using V.V. Rubtsov's term [6], we can say that these are ‘form-forming’ levels of agency, which correspond to the modern periodization of the leading activity in ontogenesis, based on D.B. Elkonin's classical periodization scheme.

Probably, while carrying out project activity, a person returns to learning or game activity if necessary. If the primary criterion of project agency is the presence of a visionary idea, the basic criteria of learning agency are the experience of overcoming difficulties in collective work at the expense of learning activities, transformation of the form of organization of joint action of participants in a learning situation, and the ability to set adequate learning tasks for oneself in a given situation. Game agency is determined by the ability to arrange a game probing an uncertain situation and to change the rules of interaction in a game mode.

Method

Based on the identified parameters of agency, we developed questionnaire diagnostic methods for participants and mentors of the CM.

Initial testing of the questionnaire diagnostics of agency on the material of participants of the Association of participants of technological circles

Participants of the approbation. Two groups of subjects were interviewed: a mixed group of 7 participants of CM, including students, managers, experts, leaders of CM, and then a group of 25 mentors of different CM circles. The age of the participants of the first group is 18-58 years old, the age of the participants of the 2nd group is 18-27 years old. The total number of people examined was 32.Procedure. Determination of possibilities of data interpretation. In both cases the questionnaire was administered on-line.  In both cases, the subjects answered the questions voluntarily in response to the request of diagnosticians and CM supervisors.In the first case, they were participants in a face-to-face CM innovation workshop. In the second case, the request was posted in the chat room of the CM mentors. The number of participants in the chat room was 80.What does the proposed survey diagnostics allow to evaluate? The first diagnostic measurement was done on a heterogeneous group of 7 CM participants. The point of this survey was to test the questionnaire technique itself and to determine what it can give - the possibilities of interpreting its data.

 Based on the results of the survey, a ‘group agency profile’ was constructed, showing the ratio of expression of different aspects of agency in the group (based on the averaging of individual indicators of all group members).

Fig.2. Group agency profile

The picture shows that in the group the aspect of autonomy of action (presence of independent goals and projects) is maximally expressed, and the aspect of initiation (passing through the problematization event, overcoming, changing the understanding of the meaning of activity) is minimally expressed.

A similar profile was constructed for each individual member of the group based on their individual data. Comparing the individual profile with the group profile allows us to see the peculiarities of a particular community member's agency. For example, the following individual profile shows that initiation and leadership are primarily expressed in this group member, while joining the collective subject and autonomy of action are much weaker. This member is unusual, non-standard for this group.

Fig.3.Individual profile of agency

Based on the individual data obtained, we can construct a rating of the agency level of the group participants.

The second group we surveyed consisted of 25 CM mentors, mostly students. This group was quite homogeneous, all participants were mentors of young age, predominantly students of different universities. Therefore, the results of the survey are relevant not only for the validation of the methodology itself, but also allow us to characterize the group of CM mentors.

Fig.4. Comparative importance of different aspects of mentors' agency

The agency profile of this group seriously differs from that of the mixed group. Initiation is still at the lowest level, ideological inclusion in the collective subject and leadership are of the highest importance, and autonomy of action takes the second-to-last place in terms of expression. The main difference from the mixed group lies in the significantly higher level of ideological inclusion in the collective subject and lower level of action autonomy. The rating of individual levels of mentors' agency was compiled both as a whole for the sum of indicators and for each agency indicator separately. In each case, three leaders were identified, occupying the 1st, 2nd and 3rd places of the rating. The rating showed that each of the three leaders of the overall rating is a leader in only one of the indicators. There are no leaders in several indicators. This means that the highlighted aspects of agency are rather independent entities.

One of the questions of the questionnaire was the question about the priority of tasks that mentors solve with their mentees. The results of answering this question are presented in Fig.4.  It shows that in their work with adolescents, mentors' task of transmitting the ideology of CM comes last, while the first task is to teach adolescents to independently set and solve tasks in teamwork.  At the same time, the mentors themselves have the indicator of ideological entry into collective activities in the first place among other indicators of agency (Fig. 4). This means that the mentors are not sufficiently aware of the role of adopting the ideology of CM for effective participation in the circle, in particular, for learning to independently set and solve tasks in collective work. That is, they do not seek to form in adolescents the worldview that led them to participate in CM, but try to transfer skills related to operational self-organisation. We assume that this will lead to the fact that the type of agency of the new generation of CM participants will be significantly different from that of the mentors. However, this hypothesis should be tested.

Figure 5. Relative prevalence of mentors' agency tasks

An analysis of the average group scores obtained by the participants for answering specific questions showed that the maximum scores were obtained for answering the following questions.

1. How do you understand the main goals and intent of the CM?
2. Who and where taught you how to work as a mentor?
3. Why do you participate in the CM? The minimum points are obtained by answering the questions.

1. Do you present the results of your mentoring work at conferences? If yes, where?
2. Do you have a model that you use as a mentor? If so, what is it?

This allows us to conclude that there is a collective subject within which mentors are formed (learning mechanisms are present), but they are insufficiently related to cultural tradition (low level of presence of common activity and cultural patterns). The communitarian subject is manifested to a lesser extent - the exchange of results of mentoring activities among members of different groups working in the CM is poorly represented.

Results and conclusions

The developed diagnostic questionnaire techniques for assessing agency in project activities are based on the idea that agency is a certain level of mastery of the activity on the part of the participant. agency is not a universal ability and can be manifested only within the framework of the activity in which the subject is competent [3]. The carrier of agency can be an individual person (individual subject), as well as a community-group (collective subject) and a community consisting of many groups (communitarian subject).The authors believe that the individual subject is formed within the collective subject.

We can distinguish separate phases of agency (initiation and subjective action), and within them - different aspects-indicators of agency.

The initial approbation of the proposed methods of diagnosing individual agency showed that they allow:

1. To build a group profile of agency including 5 separate indicators. For example, the profile of agency of the group of mentors of CM shows that the highest values are ideological integration into the collective subject and leadership, and the lowest values are indicators of initiation and autonomy of action. Based on such a profile, different groups can be compared with each other in terms of the level and individual aspects of agency.
2. To build an individual level of agency of a group participant, on the basis of which a rating of group participants can be created by the level of their agency in the activity being carried out, as well as the strongest and weakest aspects of agency of individual participants by individual indicators can be determined. The conducted analysis of the group of mentors allows us to consider that the highlighted agency indicators are sufficiently independent formations, on the basis of which it is possible to build a forecast and recommendations for further formation of agency in individual group members.
3. If necessary, the agency indicators can be examined in a more differentiated way by comparing the scores obtained on individual questions included in one or another indicator. For example, an analysis of the results obtained in the group of CM mentors on the question of the priority of the tasks that the mentor solves in work with adolescents revealed a discrepancy between this priority and the leading indicator of the mentor's own agency profile. In relation to mentees, the task of communicating the CM ideology was in the last place for mentors, whereas for mentors themselves, the acceptance of the CM ideology was the most significant indicator of their own agency profile.4.To identify manifestations of collective and communitarian subjects in the activities of individual subjects and project groups as a whole.
4. To identify manifestations of collective and communitarian subjects in the activities of individual subjects and project groups as a whole.

1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Sub"ektnaya i avtorskaya poziciya rebenka v obrazovanii [Social, philosophical and psychological problem of the subject]. Mir psihologii = World of Psychology, 2013, no. 2 (74), pp. 262-275. (In Russ).
2. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. O ponyatii «tvorchestvo» i «odaryonnost'» [On the concept of "creativity" AND "giftedness"]. V sbornike statej Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii mezhdunarodnym uchastiem «Psihologiya tvorchestva i odarennosti» [Collection of Articles of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation]. Moscow, 2021.
3. Glazunova O.I., Gromyko Yu.V. O dvuh podhodah k diagnostike vzaimodejstvij v sovmestnoj rabote: ot ocenki vzaimodejstvij v monitoringovyh issledovaniyah PISA k deyatel'nostnomu analizu sotrudnichestva v proektnyh komandah [Two Approaches to Assessing Interactions in Cooperative Work: From PISA Monitoring Studies to Activity-Based Analysis of Collaboration in Project Teams]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2019. Vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 58—70. doi: 10.17759/ pse.2019240506 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
4. Glazunova O.I., Gromyko Yu.V. Osvoenie sposobov dejstviya kak integral'nyj pokazatel' razvitiya intellektual'nyh sposobnostej v obuchenii: k probleme postroeniya deyatel'nostnoj diagnostiki sposobnostej [Mastering Way of Action as an Integral Indicator of the Development of Intellectual Abilities in Learning: to the Problem of Constructing an Activity Diagnostics of Abilities]. Кul’turnoistoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2021. Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 58—68. DOI: https://doi. org/10.17759/chp.2021170309
5. Gromyko Yu.V. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psihologiya ovladeniya deyatel'nost'yu i al'ternativy cifrovizacii [Cultural-Historical Psychology of Mastering Activity and Alternatives to Digitalization]. Кul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27—40. DOI: https://doi. org/10.17759/chp.2023190204
6. Gromyko Yu.V. Reanimaciya Rossijskoj sistemy obrazovaniya. Problemy i vozmozhnosti: drugaya sistema koordinat i navigator zhivogo sub"ekta obrazovaniya. [Resuscitation of the Russian education system. Challenges and opportunities: The other coordinate system and navigation system of the living education subject] // V kn. «Strategiya razvitiya komp'yuternoj real'nosti». Kollektivnaya monografiya, Biblioteka instituta strategij razvitiya. [Designing of the future. Problems of Digital Reality: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference]. Tekhnosfera: Pupl. Moscow, 2020, pp.316-336.
7. Gromyko Yu.V., Ustilovskaya A.A. O genezise kollektivnoj sub"ektnosti v deyatel'nosti tekhnologicheskogo kruzhka (k programme issledovanij) [About Genesis of Collective Subjectivity in The Activity of Technological Club (to The Research Program)]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological-Educational Studies, 2023. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 155–174. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2023150209 (In Russ.).
8. Kozhevnikova M. Fenomen sub"ektnosti: problemy interpretacii [The phenomenon of subjectnost’: problems of interpretation]. Cennosti i smysly = Values and Meanings, 2020. , Vol. 6. (70). – Pp. 31-44. (In Russ.).
9. Konopkin O.A. Obshchaya sposobnost' k samoregulyacii kak faktor sub"ektnogo razvitiya [General ability to self-regulation as a factor of subjective development]. Voprosy psihologii = Issues of psychology, 2004, no.2, pp. 128-135. (in Russ.).
10. Kotelevcev N. A. Opredelenie sub"ekta i sub"ektnosti v otechestvennoj psihologicheskoj nauke [Definition of subject and subjectivity in domestic psychological science]. Uchenye zapiski. 2019, no. 3 (51). pp. 208-212. (in Russ.).
11. Kotelevcev N. A. Sovremennoe ponimanie kategorii sub"ekta i sub"ektnosti v issledovaniyah zarubezhnyh uchenyh [Modern understanding of subject category and subjectivity in studies of foreign scientists]. Uchenye zapiski. 2020. № 2 (54). pp. 246-250. (in Russ.).
12. Kudryavtsev V.T. Urazalieva G.T.  Stanovlenie sub"ekta deyatel'nosti i vozmozhnosti sistemy obrazovaniya [Becoming a subject of activity and the possibilities of the education system] V sb. "Sub"ektnaya i avtorskaya poziciya rebenka v obrazovanii" [Subjective and authorial position of the child in education]. Moscow, 2008.
13. Lektorsky V.A. Dialektika sub"ekta i ob"ekta v deyatel'nosti i poznanii. [Dialectics of subject and object in activity and cognition]. V sb. «Teoriya poznaniya» pod red. V.A.Lektorskogo i T.I.Ojzermana [On Sat. "Theory of Knowledge" ed. V.A. Lektorsky and T.I. Oizerman]. Vol. 2, chapter 5, Moscow, 1991, pp. 117-119.
14. Leontiev D.A. Chto daet psihologii ponyatie sub"ekta: sub"ektnost' kak izmerenie lichnosti [What gives psychology the concept of subject: subjectivity as a dimension of personality]. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2010. №3. URL:https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/chto-daet-psihologii-ponyatie-subekta-subektnost-kak-izmerenie-lichnosti (Accessed 09.12.2023).
15. Mazilov V.A., Kostrigin, А.А. Lichnost' budushchego pedagoga: obzor zarubezhnyh issledovanij [The personality of the future teacher: a review of foreign studies]. Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal = Russian Psychological Journal, 2022, 19(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2022.2.7
16. Osnitsky A.K. Problemy issledovaniya sub"ektnoj aktivnosti [Issues of subject activity investigation]. Voprosy psihologii = Issues of psychology.  1996. No. 1. pp. 5-19.
17. Panov V.I., Kaptsov A.V. Struktura stadij stanovleniya sub"ektnosti obuchayushchihsya: svyaznost', celostnost', formalizaciya [Structure of stages of students' subjectivity formation: coherence, integrity, formalisation]. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education. 2021, Vol. 26., No. 4., Pp. 91-103. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2021260408
18. Rubtsov V.V. Dva podhoda k probleme razvitiya v kontekste social'nyh vzaimodejstvij: L. S. Vygotskij vs Zh. Piazhe [Two Approaches to the Problem of Development in the Context of Social Interactions: L.S. Vygotsky vs J. Piaget]. Кul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 5—14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160302
19. Rubtsov V.V. Sociogenez sovmestnogo dejstviya: vzaimoponimanie lyudej kak uslovie ponimaniya veshchej [Sociogenesis of Joint Action: Mutual Understanding between Individuals as a Precondition for Understanding Things. Interview (Carried out by V.T. Kudryavtsev)]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2018. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 106–121. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2018140413. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
20. Elkonin B.D. Sovremennost' teorii i praktiki Uchebnoj Deyatel'nosti: klyuchevye voprosy i perspektivy [Modernity of the Theory and Practice of Learning Activity: Key Issues and Prospects]. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education. 2020, Vol. 25, no. 4., Pp. 28–39. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2020250403