Genesis and Current State of Joint Activities in Educational Conditions

In the article we carried out a historical and psychological analysis of psychological and pedagogical research of joint activities (its genesis) from the 60s of the XX century to the present time. Research reference points have been identified/ The first one is the beginning of the 60s of the XX century with a primary study of the genesis of the subject of joint activity in groups of children of preschool and primary school age. The secon is the end of the 80s of the XX, early XXI centuries within the framework of the development of the theory of developmental education (V.V. Davydov, V.V. Rubtsov, D.B. Elkonin, etc.) based on the positions of cultural-historical psychology L.S. Vygotsky, who emphasizes joint activity as the most important sociocultural mechanism of development. The third point takes place in the second decade - the beginning of the third decade of the XXI century, it’s the study of the issues of promoting the ideas of sociogenesis in the traditions of cultural-historical psychology and activity theory, and an attempt to look differently at the key problems of joint activities in a modern school environment. The space of possibilities for modern children is analyzed. Current research shows that educational organizations today form and develop not only the abilities of students, but also their activities (from joint games, educational activities, to role-playing experimentation and project activities).

Introduction

The relevance of studying the content of joint activities today is beyond doubt. Indubitably, we face the realities of our time, that points to the challenges and risks of the modern education system, where the leading role is played not only by the expansion of new knowledge combined with the development of the infosphere but also by the manifestation of the processes of transformation of traditional activities and already established social communities. Striving to find new ways of involving individuals in social spaces under modern conditions, the established education system undoubtedly takes a leading position. On the one hand, it implements the principle of mastering a limited amount of knowledge, and on the other, the aspiration for a person's readiness to function in specific types of activities.

The aim of our article is to conduct a historical and psychological analysis of numerous psychological and pedagogical studies devoted to joint activities (its genesis) from the 60s of the XX century to the present, thereby stating the potential practical opportunities that largely determine the sustainable interest of scientists and practitioners in the modern education system.

Genesis of Joint Activities in Psychological Science from the Late 60s to the Early 80s of the XX Century

Conditional starting point of a series of studies on joint activities is the period of the late 1960s. Since then, in psychological science, terms have begun to be developed and presented in various ways, which later evolved into numerous concepts for studying different groups and collectives. As A.L. Zhuravlev [17] notes in his monographic study, terms such as “group activity”, “collective activity”, “joint activity”, and “joint involvement” have come to the forefront. It is worth noting that during this period, this issue was studied and activated in several directions simultaneously. Thus, scientific research, conducted mainly in laboratory conditions, was presented in the field of engineering psychology (works by F.D. Gorbov [9], V.V. Medvedev [29], M.A. Novikov [10], N.N. Obozov [30]), in social and pedagogical psychology when solving practical tasks of training school leaders, then educational-production collectives (studies by A.S. Kosarev and L.I. Umansky [21; 40], A.S. Chernyshov [41]), in the analysis of interpersonal relationships when implementing indicators of the effectiveness of joint labor activity (N.V. Golubeva [8], E.S. Chugunova [42]). Foreign studies on joint activities of this period are traced within the framework of the normative-value approach (T. Tyler), structural-functional approach (I. Steiner) (described in the monograph by A.L. Zhuravlev). In them, the authors describe, on the one hand, the influence of group identity, on the other, the structure of solving various tasks related to the analysis of the specifics of joint activity. Undoubtedly, the most intensive and in-depth studies of joint activities appeared at the turn of the 70s-80s and are associated with B.F. Lomov, who sought to study the specific psychological characteristics of joint activities. Our analysis of the author's publications [25-27] showed that his works were comprehensive and largely met the demands of that time, namely labor psychology, where the features of the functional connections of labor group members, the influence of the level of positive relationships on intragroup psychological compatibility, and common effective management impacts on them were studied. We cannot fail to mention such classics of domestic social psychology as G.M. Andreeva [1] and A.V. Petrovsky [31]. As renowned methodologists, the researchers, in their theoretical works, showed the mechanisms of mediation by the content of joint activities of key socio-psychological phenomena (primarily the structure of interpersonal relationships). Of particular interest to us are the works of A.S. Chernyshov and T.I. Suryaninova. The authors studied, in our opinion, an important issue related to the study of the genesis of the subject of joint activities in groups of children from preschool to early school age. Describing the main mechanisms that determined the genesis of the subject of joint activities in groups of children of different ages, A.S. Chernyshov states: “... the process of formation is determined by at least two factors: the level of organization of children in the group and the degree of uncertainty of the activity that needs to be organized independently” [41; p. 15]. Thus, the results of psychological and pedagogical research of that period show us the success of joint activities in connection with a variety of socio-psychological factors (G.M. Andreeva, A.V. Zhuravlev, B.F. Lomov, N.N. Obozov, A.V. Petrovsky, L.I. Umansky, A.S. Chernyshov, and others).

Research on Collaborative Activities in Psychology from the Late 1980s to the Early 21st Century

A deeper immersion into the issues of joint activities was carried out within the framework of the development of the theory of developmental education (V.V. Davydov, V.V. Rubtsov, D.B. Elkonin, and others). The authors of this theory relied on the positions of L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology, emphasizing joint activity as the most important socio-cultural mechanism of development. Reflecting on the need to find effective forms of joint activity in L.S. Vygotsky's scientific school, the studied phenomenon is mainly associated with the concept of “organization of joint activities”, which substantially reflects, firstly, the distribution, action, and exchange of them, secondly, mutual understanding, thirdly, communication, and fourthly, reflection as a special action with the methods of joint work. It is important to clarify that the key question of organizing joint activities as the genetically original form of education was described in the 1970s by L.S. Vygotsky's student A.N. Leontiev. At the same time, a deeper immersion into this issue of his positions was especially appreciated in the 1980s when representatives of V.V. Davydov's school emphasized the importance of understanding the interrelationship between the subject and the structure of the emerging action and the content of common tasks and goals in explaining the phenomenology of joint activities. The practice of research on joint activities of that period was implemented through active interaction and communication, serving as an important means not only for the main psychosocial but also for the cognitive characteristics of the child. This is discussed in the works of A.V. Zaporozhets [18] and his scientific school. According to the author, joint activities not only contribute to the formation of the foundations of collective relationships but also develop communicative processes, improve cooperation skills, and the ability to empathize with other people. During this period, a group of researchers (A.I. Dontsov, E.M. Dubovskaya, I.M. Ulanovskaya) developed theoretical aspects of the problem of defining criteria for analyzing joint activities, which made it possible to analyze more deeply the mechanisms of action and the psychological and pedagogical possibilities of joint activities [16]. As noted above, it was V.V. Davydov's school with its new paradigm of education that began to comprehensively study the content of joint activities based on primary education. This period was characterized by several crucial and, at that time, extremely promising research directions. Among them, we especially note the specific characteristics of the relationship between individual and group forms of education, understanding how the educational actions of the child and the adult correlate in the developing community of "adult-child," and, importantly, understanding which symbolic means are most effective in organizing joint activities [32]. In discussing the importance of the adult's key task in actively striving to determine the zone of proximal development within the educational activity, M. Seligman [52] speaks of the importance of growing children's efforts in forming their independent experience of overcoming difficulties both in educational activities and others. In the late 1980s, foreign psychology saw a flourishing of research concerning the comparative effectiveness of individual and joint ways of solving intellectual problems by children. Among them are the works of A.-N. Perret-Clermont [51]. In our opinion, the author's interest in the problem of joint activities was driven by addressing several questions, among which, firstly, the possibility of assessing the influence of social relations involved in joint activities by other participants on their development, and secondly, analyzing the impact of different strategies used by group members striving to perform various joint tasks. The author noted the effectiveness of group activities under the key condition - the presence of subjects with different viewpoints when solving specific tasks. In the late 1990s, an interesting study emerged, the data of which allowed, on the one hand, to show the key ways of organizing joint activities, thus obtaining the opportunity to construct an optimal group effect, and on the other hand, in G. Wells' work [54], we observed the influence of various variables on the result of joint activities (the author showed the importance of the nature of the task presented, the role of the adult (teacher), and their assessment of the quality of the group work performed. Also, in the 1990s, foreign psychology researchers actively sought to clarify the concept of “joint activity”, and its classical interpretation in the literature of that time took on the following names “cooperation”, “die Kooperation”, “la cooperation”. S. Alper, D. Tjosvold, and K. [50], striving for their generalization, primarily emphasized their main meaning, aimed at cooperation, within which interaction occurs, including common goals and actions of individuals. Attempting to qualitatively describe this interaction, the authors analyzed the very specifics of the activity, namely the activity within which participants strive to exchange information, as well as in communication, taking into account the opinions of partners and providing mutual support.

The realities of the present time dictate a crucial aim for adjusting approaches to children's education and fostering their abilities for independent knowledge acquisition. Works by scholars such as P.Y. Galperin [7], V.A. Guruzhapov [13], E.I. Isaeva [19], G.G. Kravtsov [22], A.V. Konokotin [33], A.A. Margolis [12], N.N. Nechaeva [28], V.V. Rubtsov [34-36], G.A. Tsukerman [45-47], B.D. Elkonin [48], among others, based on the genetic-modeling method developed by L.S. Vygotsky, have comprehensively substantiated the position on collectively distributed forms as an initially formed form of organizing educational activities. The studies conducted by researchers of both theoretical and applied nature have enabled the establishment of the positive impact of using collectively distributed forms of organizing educational activities on the cognitive processes of learners. During that period, particular relevance was attributed to the hypothesis that the educational-cognitive action itself arises not always, not in all forms, but only in a certain one. For us, this scientific fact led to an understanding that jointness is a subject of significant investigation. Equally important is how the interaction of specific participants in joint action (students, educators, parents, etc.) is established, essentially being a basic characteristic of commonality. It is noteworthy that the subject under study at the present time focuses on what should be considered a crucial condition of joint activity in modern education. Approaching the studies of the early 21st century, based on their profound systematization presented in the monograph (V.V. Rubtsov, 2021) [39], specific characteristics of commonality in the form of communication, mutual understanding, and reflection were identified, systematized, and described. In our view, these characteristics determine the content of the structure of joint activity. Such valuable substantiation allows us to conduct an analysis of L.S. Vygotsky's research [4-5], which stated that the development of mental functions is linked to changes in the social situation of development. Simultaneously, this idea was supported by V.V. Davydov [14;32], emphasizing the connection of creativity with changes in the social situation through the alteration of communities and participants' modes of action. The author asserts that undoubtedly, the key ability of a modern individual is their capability to engage in various forms of community and various types of activities, with the primary condition for organizing learning being the process of distributing and exchanging modes of action, wherein the processes of communication and reflection, as mentioned earlier, are traceable. V.V. Rubtsov states: “...The fact that the distribution and exchange of common modes of action, requiring communication, mutual understanding, and reflection, should become the primary condition for organizing education conducive to development, does not give rise to any doubts for me” [33; p.8].

Joint Activity in Psychological Science of the 21st Century (Discussion Points)

Second, the early third decade of the 21st century brings to the forefront of scientific research on this problem the promotion of sociogenesis ideas in the traditions of cultural-historical psychology and activity theory, as well as attempts to revisit key issues of collaborative activity in modern school settings. Before inviting further discussion on this issue, we would like to highlight two profound monographic works (V.V. Rubtsov et al.) [33, 39] that have been published in recent years. These works have, on one hand, revealed the content and practical outcomes of collaborative learning activities, demonstrating their role in the holistic mental development of children, and on the other, delved deeper into the analysis of the obtained indicators and features of the development of communicative-reflective abilities in children aged 6-10 under educational conditions. We undoubtedly agree with V.V. Davydov's opinion that education is a space of opportunities where a child's abilities are formed and developed. At the start of the discussion, we will focus on the content of the analyzed issues of collaborative activity in preschool education. In the initial justifications for the development of collaborative activity, it is impossible not to touch upon the works of E.E. Kravtsova [23]. The researcher identifies an important trend in preschool age - a striving for collaborative play, which serves as a predictor of psychological readiness for the formation of collaborative activity. Kravtsova's long-term studies have shown that for the successful implementation of collaborative activities (collaborative play), a child must have developed individual play activity. In this regard, Elena Evgenievna describes the collaborative activity of a preschooler not only as external but also as internal. To resolve contradictions in the conclusions previously developed in the works of L.S. Vygotsky and later V.V. Davydov, the author was keen on thoroughly testing this hypothesis through a system of correctional and developmental work with them, which we consider particularly valuable (the key goal was to assess the readiness of future first-graders for schooling). Consequently, children who showed satisfactory and below-average indicators of school readiness were much more difficult to engage in collective-distributed activities. We also noted an interesting study conducted in 2020 by T.D. Savenkova. In her opinion [38], representatives of preschool pedagogy and psychology are interested not only in the effectiveness of group activities and the participating preschooler but also in their pedagogical value, as the author states that for preschool education, the child's socialization experience, gained against the backdrop of developing communicative-reflective processes, is crucial (it depends on how preschoolers communicate with each other and what experiences they gain during collaborative activities). In this regard, the researcher identifies five main types of interactions during collaborative activities. We will briefly discuss and comment on them. Firstly, there is the collaborative activity of an adult with a child. Commenting on this type, let us refer to L.S. Vygotsky's well-known arguments [5] that learning leads development, where the adult's role is built according to the child's zone of proximal development, striving to enrich the zone of their actual development. The teacher's task in working with preschoolers is to teach them something new. Secondly, collaborative activity between a child and an adult is built on equal footing (equal partners). Thirdly, collaborative activity of a group of children is carried out under the guidance of an adult. Guided by L.S. Vygotsky's ideas, these reflections have found direct reflection in the development of theoretical and practical provisions of pedagogy and psychology of developing communities. It is important to note here that the cooperation between children and teachers creates conditions for the formation of communicative-reflective processes (including the development of new productive activities, communication skills, and socialization). Fourthly, collaborative activity among preschoolers unfolds without adult participation but according to their assignment. Undoubtedly, this activity is fundamental, allowing the preschool teacher to mainly act as an organizer. The teacher sets the task for the children but does not participate in it, with the result being the formation of leadership resources among preschoolers. Finally, fifthly, there is spontaneous collaborative activity among children. This is represented by various forms of collective children's games, communicative practices, carried out by children without any participation from teachers. Briefly summarizing the above, we note that in preschool education, collaborative activity is characterized by diversity in organization, subject matter, and thematic focus (e.g., collaborative artistic, sports, musical events, etc.). In studying the prerequisites for the development of collaborative activity in preschool age, researchers M. Hedegaard and N. Liben [44] constructed a “radically localized” methodology, based on the traditions of cultural-historical psychology, aimed at studying the social situation of preschoolers' development. The authors of this methodology were able to fully assess their interaction not only with adults (teachers) but also with peers. Since we continue the discussion on the formation of collaborative activity within the framework of preschool education, we would like to address another important and relevant issue - the determination of the level of readiness of children with special educational needs to interact with peers. In this regard, an interesting dissertation study by O.G. Boldinova [2], conducted in 2023, caught our attention. In the experimental part of her research, the author described criteria for collaborative activity of preschoolers with visual impairments; in particular, she revealed the abilities of students considering typhlo-pedagogical conditions to use primary communicative means, the characteristics of emotional involvement in the interaction process with peers, and the desire to participate in long-lasting stable associations combined with transitioning to further types of activities.

Continuing the discussion, we will emphasize several points on the “movement” of child-adult communities, specifically in primary school (“school as an educational activity”). In substantiating the most important points in its description, we once again touch upon the concept of the zone of proximal development, considered by L.S. Vygotsky as the “key law of child development”, as well as the possibility of organizing collaborative activities (interaction in the community with an adult (teacher) and peers). A modern study conducted by A.V. Konokotin et al. [36] not only implemented the ideas of the system of developmental education (D.B. Elkonin-V.V. Davydov) and its method (educational activity) but also modern research on collaborative educational activities in primary school age, which allowed identifying psychological conditions for the development of communicative and reflective processes. The authors note: “Experimental studies of collaborative activities as a zone of proximal development of reflective and communicative abilities of primary school children revealed three types of interaction in the process of searching and identifying a common way of acting in a situation: pre-organizational, organizational, and reflective-analytical. Each of these types of interactions is characterized by a qualitatively specific way of implementing communicative and reflective actions” [33; p. 38]. Thus, in a monographic study (edited by V.V. Rubtsov), it is noted that “the following components can be distinguished in the organization of joint action:

• distribution of initial actions and operations — determined by the system of transformations that underlie the search for the principle of constructing the studied object;
• exchange of ways of acting — determined by the need to transform various ways of acting to obtain the cumulative product of activity;
• mutual understanding — determined by the nature of the inclusion of different ways of acting in joint activity (mutual understanding allows establishing the correspondence of one's own action and its product to the actions of other participants in the activity). Among the means that ensure the implementation of collaborative activities, the most important from a psychological point of view are:
• communication, without which distribution, exchange, and mutual understanding are impossible, and which allows for planning adequate conditions for the educational task and choosing appropriate ways of acting;
• reflection, through which the participant's attitude towards their own action is established, and this action is transformed in accordance with the content and form of collaborative activity” [39; p. 40].   

In support of the above, it should be noted that modern school education, including at the primary general education level, rapidly recognizes the importance of forming not only subject knowledge, skills, and abilities during this period but also processes of communication, reflection, interaction, and cooperation.

The transition to adolescence and its analysis from the perspective of collaborative activity is described as deeply controversial. Contemporary researchers do not fully support the domestic concept of D.B. Elkonin that the leading activity in adolescence is dictated by intimate-personal communication [49]. N.N. Veresov [3] offers his justification, stating that in A.N. Leontiev's reasoning, the leading activity should have a certain structure, which, unfortunately, is not worked out in the content of communication. In analyzing alternative possibilities for the development of intimate-personal communication during adolescence, scientists have considered, on the one hand, socially significant (V.V. Davydov), project-based (K.N. Polivanova), socially useful (D.I. Feldstein), but on the other hand, an attempt (within the framework of modern studies by O.V. Rubtsova [37]) to describe primarily from the point of view of the “ideal form” of adolescence to analyze the content of the development of a growing adolescent in the process of involving them in the system of social interactions. This process is presented by the author in the form of “role dramas”. O.V. Rubtsova theoretically and empirically proved that the system of social roles in which a child develops and matures is considered the “ideal” form of adolescence. Through the process of interiorizing these roles, the content of mental development during adolescence, unfolding in activity, takes the form of role experimentation. It is important to note that the ideas presented by the author partially address the gap in the implementation of the current Federal State Educational Standards for General Education (FSES GE), which highlight the necessity for adolescents to assimilate social roles as part of the educational process. The importance of its development is due not only to the prevention of key problems in secondary school, such as decreased learning motivation, disruption of adaptation, frequent formation of intra- and interpersonal conflicts, but also to issues of risky and negative (including self-destructive) behavior. Thus, the effectiveness of the teaching and educational process for adolescents aged 13-15 depends on the content of collaborative activities, thanks to their ability to engage in role-playing trials. O.V. Rubtsova presents the experience of creating a real platform within educational organizations in Moscow (theatrical activities, the “Multimedia Theater” activity technology). The implementation of role-based forms in collaborative activities (experimenting with roles, positions, and relationships) allows adolescents not only to internalize cultural norms, values, and methods of joint activity but also creates conditions for externalizing internal conflicts and experiences, overcoming the negative phenomena of modern educational environments. Foreign studies on the issues of collaborative activity within the framework of cultural-historical psychology and the analysis of L.S. Vygotsky's works are again presented by N.N. Veresov. In his research, he reminds us that higher mental functions were initially external, social, and later demonstrated the ability to speak about the social relationship between two people [53]. Galina Anatolyevna Tsukerman, considering Nikolai Nikolaevich a keen researcher, pointed out his active effort to avoid the simplified perception of Lev Semenovich Vygotsky's works regarding the study of interactions in which a child can be involved. 

The transition to the analysis of collaborative activities in late adolescence allows us to introduce young people to project activities. Although, as V.V. Rubtsov notes, “the real project school is still conceptually out of reach” [35; p. 8], we strive to focus more on this topic in our ongoing discussion. In discussing our chosen topic, we want to emphasize the conceptual model “School of the Future” as an ecosystem of developing child-adult communities, constructed in the works of Y.V. Gromyko [11] and A.A. Margolis [12]. The concept presented by these scholars involves integrating growing young people into communities by mastering various social practices, through which they can develop personal cognitive strategies. The authors see the ecosystem based on various types of child-adult activities and the creation of a communicative-activity semiotic environment. Discussing this issue, the renowned scholar V.S. Lazarev expressed interest in this concept but also raised several questions, including that “the inclusion of children in activities does not guarantee their development” [24; p. 72]. The author does not see clarity in the content of subject and project education. In expressing his views on the school of the future in high school, Valery Lazarev offers several justifications; first, he believes that project activities for adolescents should not be leading but should be a form of leading developmental education, representing real research activities. Secondly, the collaborative activities of educators are crucial. In an article dedicated to the content of a methodological seminar roundtable held in 2018, the author recalls a conversation with V.V. Davydov about the need to “cultivate new learning activities...develop the ability to make decisions...” [35; p. 20]. In this regard, he sees the key task in constructing a model for the development of the modern school as creating mechanisms for its development. Galina A. Tsukerman also discusses the perspectives of creating the school of the future (“normal school of collaboration”) [35]. She provides several arguments that, in the context of collaborative activities, foster the development of cognitive processes and other abilities. The author approaches the analysis of these arguments through the evaluation of the mechanisms and tools of modern education. Firstly, she convincingly argues that collaborative activities as a condition for developing important mental processes arise when there is joint action. Secondly, a type of pedagogical consciousness that facilitates the organization of joint action is formed. Thirdly, the methods of organizing collaborative activities are inherently technological. The general assumptions presented by Galina Tsukerman emphasize the importance of initiatives in activities (analyzing how they are organized, on what subject matter, and in what specific semiotic form they are manifested). Essentially, as the author believes, this is “the normal action of a professional educator”. Greek colleagues Dafermos M., Chronaki A., Kontopodis M. [15], analyzing the significance of ideas including the formation of collaborative activities, relied primarily on the ideas of the cultural-historical and activity-based approach in the Greek context from the perspectives of the academic environment, educational policy, and reforms in the socio-cultural space of the country. The research of our French colleague Laura Clotzer [20] is also important to us. Dynamically analyzing the views of L.S. Vygotsky and Politzer, the author presents the concept of “activity clinic”, using cross-self-confrontation interviews, capable of having a developmental dramatic impact on a person. 

Concluding Thoughts 

Collaborative activity – in contemporary psychological and pedagogical works, this term is actively used both in research and educational contexts. Its formation and development are linked to the semantic transitions observed when addressing key issues in modern education, which are directly associated with the intensively evolving interactions between children of different ages (preschool, elementary school, and adolescence) and adults, their mastery of communicative-reflective processes, and various forms of cooperation. Intensive engagement with the topic of collaborative activity was undertaken within the framework of developing the theory of developmental education (V.V. Davydov, V.V. Rubtsov, D.B. Elkonin, and others) in the 1980s. The authors of this theory drew on the principles of L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology, which emphasizes collaborative activity as a crucial sociocultural mechanism of development. The 21st century provides a space of opportunities for contemporary children. Education for today's child is not only about the formation and development of their abilities but also about the transition between child-adult communities and activities (from joint games and educational activities to role-playing experiments and project activities).

1. Andreeva G.M. Razvitie marksistskoi traditsii v sotsial'no-psikhologicheskom znanii [Development of the marxist tradition in socio-psychological knowledge]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya [Bulletin of Moscow State University, Episode 14. Psychology], 1977, no. 3, pp.21—29. (In Russ.).
2. Boldinova O.G. Pedagogicheskoe soprovozhdenie sovmestnoi deyatel'nosti detei doshkol'nogo vozrasta s narusheniyami zreniya v usloviyakh inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya: avtoreferat diss. na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata pedagogicheskikh nauk [Pedagogical support for joint activities of preschool children with visual impairments in inclusive education]. Moscow, 2023. 26 p. (In Russ.).
3. Veresov N.N. Vedushchaya deyatel'nost' v psikhologii razvitiya: ponyatie i printsip [Leading activity in developmental psychology: concept and principle]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2005. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 76—86. (In Russ.).
4. Vygotskii L.S. Razvitie vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii [Development of higher mental functions]. Moscow: Akad. ped. nauk, I960. 500 p. (In Russ.)
5. Vy`gotskij L.S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 6-ti t. T. 2. Problemy` obshhej psixologii [Collected works: In 6 volumes. Vol. 2. Problems of general psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982. 504 p. (In Russ.).
6. Davydov V.V.. Problemy obshchei psikhologii [Problems of general psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982. 514 p. (In Russ.).
7. Gal'perin P.Ya. Psikhologiya myshleniya i uchenie o poetapnom formirovanii umstvennykh deistvii [Psychology of thinking and the doctrine of the gradual formation of mental actions]. Voronezh: MODEK; M.: Institut prakticheskoi psikhologii, 1998. рр. 272—317. (In Russ.).
8. Golubeva N.V., Kuz'min E.S. Opyt izucheniya proizvodstvennykh kollektivov [Experience in studying production teams]. Sotsiologiya v SSSR [Sociology in the USSR], Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl', 1965. 312 p. (In Russ.).
9. Gorbov F.D. Nekotorye voprosy kosmicheskoi psikhologii [Some questions of space psychology]. Voprosy psikhologii [Questions of psychology], 1962, no.6, pp.12-23. (In Russ.).
10. Gorbov F.D. Novikov M.A. Eksperimental'no-psikhologicheskoe issledovanie gruppy kosmonavtov [Experimental psychological study of a group of astronauts]. Problemy kosmicheskoi biologii [Problems of space biology], 1965. Vol.4, pp. 17–26. (In Russ.).
11. Gromyko Yu.V. K probleme sozdaniya obshchenarodnoi shkoly budushchego: sintez predmetnogo i proektnogo obrazovaniya [On the problem of creating a national school of the future: synthesis of subject and project-based education]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie=Psychological Science and Education, 2018. Vol.23, no.1, pp. 93—105. DOI:10.17759/pse.2018230108 (In Russ.).
12. Gromyko Yu.V., Rubtsov V.V., Margolis A.A. Shkola kak ekosistema razvivayushchikhsya detsko-vzroslykh soobshchestv: deyatel'nostnyi podkhod k proektirovaniyu shkoly budushchego [School as an ecosystem of developing child-adult communities: an activity-based approach to designing the school of the future]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 57—67. (In Russ.).
13. Guruzhapov V.A. Real'nyi uchenik i perspektivy razvitiya obrazovatel'noi deyatel'nosti v Rossii [A real schoolboy and prospects for the development of educational activities in Russia]. Pedagogicheskii vestnik [Pedagogical Bulletin], 2004, no. 21-22. (In Russ.).
14. Davydov V.V. Problemy razvivayushchego obucheniya. Opyt teoreticheskogo i eksperimental'nogo psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya. [Problems of developmental education. Experience in theoretical and experimental psychological research]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1986. 240 p. (In Russ.).
15. Dafermos M., Chronaki A., Kontopodis M. Kul'turno-istoricheskaja teorija dejatel'nosti v Grecii: dejstvujushhie lica, konteksty, politika prinjatija i interpretacii [Cultural-historical theory of activity in Greece: actors, contexts, policies of acceptance and interpretation]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 33—41. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2020160205 (In Russ.).
16. Dontsov A.I., Dubovskaya E.M., Ulanovskaya I.M. Razrabotka kriteriev analiza sovmestnoi deyatel'nosti [Development of criteria for analyzing joint activities]. Voprosy psikhologii= [Questions of psychology],1998, no. 2, pp. 61-71. (In Russ.).
17. Zhuravlev A.L. Psikhologiya sovmestnoi deyatel'nosti [Psychology of joint activities]. Ros. akad. nauk, In-t psikhologii. Moscow: In-t psikhologii RAN, 2005. 638 p. (In Russ.).
18. Zaporozhets A.V. Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy: v 2 t.[Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1986. Vol.1. 323 p. (In Russ.).
19. Isaev E.I. Vo,zrastno-normativnaya model' razvitiya v doshkol'nom detstve [Age-normative model [of development in preschool childhood]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya= Psychological and pedagogical research, 2017. Vol.9, no. 2, pp. 166–177. DOI: 10.17759/psyedu.2017090214 (In Russ.).
20. Klotcer L. Konkretnaja psihologija i podhod «kliniki dejatel'nosti»: znachimost' dlja intervencionnyh issledovanij v 21 veke [Concrete psychology and the "clinic of activity" approach: relevance for interventional research in the 21st century]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 42—50. DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160206 (In Russ.).
21. Kosarev A.S., Umanskii L.I. Usloviya i puti razvitiya organizatorskikh sposobnostei shkol'nikov [Conditions and ways to develop schoolchildren’s organizational abilities]. Sovetskaya pedagogika [Soviet pedagogy], 1963, no.11. (In Russ.).
22. Kravtsov G.G. Problema lichnosti v kul'turno-istoricheskoi psikhologii [The problem of personality in cultural-historical psychology]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2006. Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 18—25. (In Russ.).
23. Kravtsov G.G., Kravtsova E.E. Kul'turno-istoricheskii podkhod k voprosam obrazovaniya [Cultural-historical approach to education issues]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp.4–13.DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160401 (In Russ.).
24. Lazarev V.S. K probleme postroeniya modeli «shkoly budushchego» [On the problem of building a model of the «school of the future»]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie= Psychological Science and Education, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 69–79. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2021260406 (In Russ.).
25. Lomov B.F. K probleme deyatel'nosti v psikhologii [On the problem of activity in psychology On the problem of activity in psychology]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 1981. Vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 3–22. (In Russ.).
26. Lomov B.F. Psikhicheskie protsessy i obshchenie. Metodologicheskie problemy sotsial'noi psikhologii [Mental processes and communication. Methodological problems of social psychology]. Moscow: Nauka, 1975, pp.151–164. (In Russ.).
27. Lomov B.F. Sovmestnaya (gruppovaya) deyatel'nost' lyudei, formirovanie trudovykh kollektivov i psikhologicheskie aspekty upravleniya imi. Pravovye i sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie aspekty upravleniya [Joint (group) activities of people, the formation of work collectives and psychological aspects of their management Legal and socio-psychological aspects of management]. V.G. Shorin (eds.). Moscow: Znanie, 1972. pp. 211–240. (In Russ.).
28. Nechaev N.N. «Dvoistvennost'» sovmestnoi deyatel'nosti kak osnova stanovleniya psikhologicheskikh novoobrazovanii: puti razvitiya deyatel'nostnogo podkhoda [«Duality» of joint activity as the basis for the formation of new psychological formations: ways to develop the activity approach]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 27–37. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2020160304 (In Russ.).
29. Medvedev V.V. Eksperimental'naya ustanovka dlya issledovaniya soglasovannosti gruppovykh deistvii i ratsional'nogo podbora gruppy [Experimental setup for studying the consistency of group actions and rational group selection]. Voprosy psikhologii [Questions of psychology], 1967, no. 2. (In Russ.).
30. Obozov N.N. K voprosu optimal'noi sovmestimosti psikhomotornykh funktsii v gruppovoi deyatel'nosti. Chelovek i obshchestvo [On the issue of optimal compatibility of psychomotor functions in group activities. Man and Society]. Vol. 5. Leningrad: LGU, 1969, pp. 144–148. (In Russ.).
31. Petrovskii A.V. Deyatel'nostnyi podkhod v sotsial'no-psikhologicheskom issledovanii [Activity approach in socio-psychological research]. Vestnik MGU. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya [Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series 14. Psychology], 1978, no. 4, рр. 3–10. (In Russ.).
32. Problemy obshchei psikhologii [Problems of general psychology]. Davydov V.V. (ed.). Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982, 504 р. (In Russ.).
33. Razvitie kommunikativno-refleksivnykh sposobnostei u detei 6–10 let v zavisimosti ot sposobov organizatsii uchebnykh vzaimodeistvii: Kollektivnaya monografiya  [Development of communicative and reflexive abilities in children 6–10 years old, depending on the methods of organizing educational interactions]. Rubtsov V.V (eds.). Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2023. 203 p. (In Russ.).
34. Rubtsov V.V. Organizatsiya i razvitie sovmestnykh deistvii u detei v protsesse obucheniya [Organization and development of joint actions in children during the learning process]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1987. 160 p. (In Russ.).
35. Rubtsov V.V., Lektorskii V.A., El'konin B.D., Asmolov A.G., Kudryavtsev V.T., Frumin I.D., Gromyko Yu.V., Bolotov V.A., Lazarev V.S., Kravtsov G.G., Kravtsova E.E., Tsukerman G.A., Urazalieva G.K., Kovaleva T.M. Ot sovmestnogo deistviya — k konstruirovaniyunovykh sotsial'nykh obshchnostei: Sovmestnost'. Tvorchestvo. Obrazovanie. Shkola (Kruglyi stol metodologicheskogo seminara pod rukovodstvom V.V. Rubtsova, B.D. El'konina) [From joint action to the construction of new social communities: Collaboration. Creation. Education. School (Round table of a methodological seminar led by V.V. Rubtsov, B.D. Elkonin)]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiy a= Cultural-Historical psychology, 2018. Vol. 14, no.3, рр. 5–30. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2018140301 (In Russ.).
36. Rubtsov V.V., Isaev E.I., Konokotin A.V. Uchebnaya deyatel'nost' kak zona blizhaishego razvitiya refleksivnykh i kommunikativnykh sposobnostei detei 6—10 let [Educational activity as a zone of proximal development of reflexive and communicative abilities of children 6-10 years old]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2022. Vol. 18, no.1, рр. 28–40. DOI:10.17759/chp.2022180103 (In Russ.).
37. Rubtsova O.V. Rolevoe eksperimentirovanie podrostkov v kontekste idei L.S. Vygotskogo: deyatel'nostnaya tekhnologiya «Mul'timedia-teatr» [Role-playing experimentation of adolescents in the context of the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky: activity technology «Multimedia theater»]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2023. Vol.19, no. 2, рр. 61–69. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2023190208 (In Russ.).
38. Savenkova T.D. Sovmestnaya deyatel'nost' doshkol'nikov so sverstnikami i vzroslymi kak sredstvo pozitivnoi sotsializatsii [Joint activities of preschoolers with peers and adults as a means of positive socialization]. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities science], 2020. Vol. 25, no. 186, pp. 104-113. DOI: 10.20310/1810-0201-2020-25-186-104-113 (In Russ.).
39. Sovmestnaya uchebnaya deyatel'nost' i razvitie detei [Joint educational activities and children’s development]. Rubtsov V.V. (eds.). Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2021. 352 р. (In Russ.).
40. Umanskii L.I. Opyt izucheniya organizatorskikh sposobnostei shkol'nikov [Experience in studying organizational abilities of schoolchildren. Questions of psychology]. Voprosy psikhologii [Psychology issues], 1963, no. 1. (In Russ.).
41. Chernyshev A.S. Metodika eksperimental'nogo issledovaniya gruppovoi aktivnosti shkol'nikov. Uchenye zapiski kafedry pedagogiki i psikhologii KGPI [Methods of experimental research of group activity of schoolchildren. Scientific notes of the department of pedagogy and psychology of KSPI ], Vol. XXXI. Kursk, 1966. 214 p. (In Russ.).
42. Chugunova E.S. O nekotorykh sotsial'no-psikhologicheskikh usloviyakh professional'noi ustoichivosti molodykh rabochikh. Chelovek i obshchestvo. [On some socio-psychological conditions of professional stability of young workers Man and Society], Vol. 1. Leningrad: Publ. LGU, 1966. 188 р. (In Russ.).
43. Chernyshev A.S., Sur'yaninova T.I. Genezis gruppovogo sub"ekta deyatel'nosti [Genesis of a group subject of activity]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 1990. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 7–15. (In Russ.).
44. Hedegaard M., Libert N. Razrabotka metodiki dlja diagnostiki social'noj situacii razvitija doshkol'nikov: ot sposobnostej k dejatel'nosti [Development of a methodology for diagnosing the social situation of preschool children's development: from abilities to activity]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no.2, рр. 25–32. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2020160204 (In Russ.).
45. Tsukerman G.A. Desyati-dvenadtsatiletnie shkol'niki: "nich'ya zemlya" v vozrastnoi psikhologii [Ten- to twelve-year-old schoolchildren: “no man’s land” in developmental psychology]. Voprosy psikhologii [Psychology issues], 1998, no. 3, рр. 17-31. (In Russ.).
46. Tsukerman G.A. Vzaimodeistvie rebenka i vzroslogo, tvoryashchee zonu blizhaishego razvitiya [Elektronnyi resurs]. [Interaction between a child and an adult that creates the zone of proximal development]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical psychology, 2006. Vol.2, no.4, рр. 61—73. (In Russ.).
47. Tsukerman G.A. Sovmestnoe uchebnoe deistvie: reshennye i nereshennye voprosy [Elektronnyi resurs].[ Joint learning activity: resolved and unresolved issues Joint learning activity: resolved and unresolved issues]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie =Psychological Science and Education, 2020. Vol.25, no. 4, рр. 51—59. (In Russ.).
48. El'konin B.D. Sovremennost' teorii i praktiki Uchebnoi Deyatel'nosti: klyuchevye voprosy i perspektivy [Elektronnyi resurs].[Modern theory and practice of Educational Activities: key issues and prospects]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie =Psychological Science and Education, 2020. Vol.25, no.4, pp. C. 28—39. (In Russ.).
49. El'konin D.B. Izbrannye psikhologicheskie Trudy [Selected psychological works]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989. 560 p. (In Russ.).
50. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., Law, K.S. Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1998. Vol. 74 (1), pp. 33-52.)
51. Veresov N. Zone of proximal development (ZPD): the hidden dimension? Language as Culture — Tensions in Time and Space. AnnaLena Ostern (eds.). Vol. 1. Rapport fran Pedagogiska fakulteten vid Abo Academi. Nr. 11. Vasa, 2004.
52. Seligman, M.E.P. Power and powerlessness: Comments on «cognates of personal control». Applied and Preventive Psychology, 1992. Vol. 1, pp. 119—120.
53. Perret-Clermont А.N. Social interaction and cognitive development in children. Academic Press, 1980.
54. Wells G. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. N.Y., 1999.