DISORDERS OF NEUROMOTOR DEVELOPMENT AS AN INDICATOR OF INSUFFICIENT READINESS FOR SCHOOLING

DISORDERS OF NEUROMOTOR DEVELOPMENT AS AN INDICATOR OF INSUFFICIENT READINESS FOR SCHOOLING

Irina Doronina

Master student, Moscow Institute of Psychoanalysis,

Russia, Moscow

A significant percentage of schoolchildren in general education organizations demonstrate immaturity of motor-motor skills. The cause is often the primitive reflexes that are present in the active phase (these are usually present in infants 6 months to 1 year of age and are eventually replaced by postural reflexes). It is known to have reflexes, i.e. unconsciously performed movements, became conscious of the individual, the possibility of training is necessary. What all children adore - crawling, experimenting with the doors of various lockers, climbing, taking out things, pouring liquid, performing many other movements that seem unimportant to adults - all this gives them the opportunity to master their own body. The development of motor components is closely related to the formation and development of the brain, and in the first seven years of life, up to 80% of future interneuronal connections - synapses - are formed.

Research has shown that there is a direct link between motor immaturity and academic performance. For example, if a child misses one of the last stages of the development of the grip reflex, he will most likely learn to write correctly, but will tire very quickly because he cannot hold the pen correctly.For him, the need to write will always be stressful, and at the smallest opportunity, he will seek to avoid this task. An immature (non-integrated) reflex of support can manifest itself, for example, in a lack of awareness of the actual boundaries of one's own body and a violation of the personal space of others.

Dr. S. Masgutova examined more than 3,000 children aged 1 month to 18 years and found that 78% of children with memory problems had an incorrectly integrated asymmetric cervicotonic reflex, 57% of children had difficulties with the transition from operations on specific objects to figurative logical thinking. In 57% of children diagnosed with ADHD, hyperactivity, attention deficit, cervical-tonic reflexes are incorrectly built in - symmetric and asymmetric, Galant and Perez reflexes, 54% of children with allergies and variable sensitivity to certain types of food have a non-integrated Perez reflex. And in 72% of children with enuresis or poor control of urination, the Galant reflex is poorly integrated or not integrated at all. [16,17]

In the UK, a longitudinal study was published in February 2010 of almost 15,000 babies born in 2000 and 2001. The data show that children who, by 9 months of age, had four main stages of gross motor development (ability to sit and sit unaided, crawl, stand, and take their first steps) lagged 5 points behind on tests to determine cognitive abilities. compared to children who completed these steps on time.Delays in gross and fine motor development during the first year of a child's life are largely associated with cognitive development and behavioral adaptation in children aged 5 years. [27,29]

Preparing for schooling requires not only chronological age for a child to study successfully, he must have the following skills [1,7,9,11]:

• be able to sit calmly;

• focus on the task and not be distracted by banal stimuli from the environment;

• hold a writing tool in your hands and be able to use it;

• control eye movements to maintain a stable image on the page;

• be able to follow the line so that the eyes do not "jump" and the line is not lost;

• operatively adjust visual focus between different distances.

These physical skills are associated with the development and complex training of motor skills, control of your own posture and body position. Motor development is important not only for the physical well-being of the child, but also for his education. Currently, in most educational institutions, the intellectual abilities of children are tested, but there is no assessment of the level of physical development. One of the consequences of this is that children with a delay in certain areas of physical development are left without qualified assistance, because these children have not been given a medical diagnosis. (Hereinafter, we will refer to this group of children as children with MCH - children with delayed motor (neuromotor) development). These children tend to be at risk of being in the lowest performing group. But not because they lack cognitive ability or motivation to learn, but because the physical skills necessary to support and realize cognitive abilities in the classroom are underdeveloped.

In this regard, the problem of determining an approach that optimizes the process of corrective work with older preschool children with impaired neuromotor development is urgent; the search for such approaches is possible only on the basis of understanding the neurophysiological mechanisms of impairment and their compensation.

Thus, as a result of the analysis of the literature, a research problem was formulated: What are the features of the manifestation of neuromotor disorders in preschoolers in preparatory groups for school and the content of correctional work.Research hypothesis: Neuromotor maturity of brain structures as a determining factor in readiness for schooling.

The aim of the research is to study the neuromotor component as a leading one in determining readiness for schooling.

Organization and research methods.

The study involved 52 children (29 boys and 23 girls)

preparatory preschool groups GBOU School No. 1798 "Phoenix" preschool building No. 4.

The research was conducted during the academic year 2020 - 2021.

All examined children were not registered with a psychiatrist and were somatically healthy. Written consent was obtained from the parents of the examined children; the study was conducted in accordance with the basic principles of biomedical ethics. The research results and practical recommendations were provided to parents and educators.

The ascertaining experiment consisted of three blocks: diagnostics of psychological readiness for school, neuropsychological diagnostics of HMF, and assessment of neuromotor readiness for schooling. To diagnose psychological readiness for school, Gutkina's program was chosen and was carried out in an individual form, except for the “House” method, which was proposed to be performed by children in a group. Neuropsychological diagnostics was carried out, also in an individual form, according to an adapted scheme of neuropsychological research and according to the methodological recommendations developed by the All-Russian Center for Pediatric Neurology. Assessment of neuromotor regulation was carried out according to the method of Sally Goddard-Blythe [13] in an individual form.

Results and discussion

Analysis of the results for individual components of psychological readiness for school shows the following picture. In the motivational sphere, namely in the motives for establishing and maintaining positive relationships with adults and children, the dynamics are not traced. This can be explained by the fact that for most children 6-7 years old at the beginning of the school year, the leading activity is still play, or the prospect of studying at school is negative. I would like to note that about 15 children were asked: "Do you want to go to school?" gave a negative answer, arguing with the experience of older siblings, a frequent example: "Andrei does not like it there." We, adhering to the objectives of our research, considered more indicative of the indirect points: the definition of the leading activity (the "Fairy Tale" method and the definition of the inner position of the student (questions No. 11,12).

During the group performance of the "House" task, small circumstances arose that affected the "purity" of the experiment. Some children, having completed the task according to the instructions, paid attention to the neighbor's drawing, and noticed the additions in the drawing: the sun, flowers, etc. They transferred unnecessary elements into their drawing, after some time (meaning that the child has already finished drawing, put down the pencil and folded his hands on the desk). Therefore, here we tracked the “primacy” of the idea, and the score was accrued accordingly: 1 point for “extra elements”, 0.5 point for “transferring elements” into your drawing.In the process of diagnostics, we noticed that a significant percentage of children "stuck" on the "Sequence of events" method (the development of logical thinking, speech and the ability to generalize). Here I would like to make clarifications, here we evaluate the performance of the assignment with a "double grade". Initially, it was determined that the main criterion for us for selection into the experimental group will be the child's ability to correctly establish the sequence of events (first assessment). Because, based on work experience, and carrying out this diagnostic work annually according to the work plan of the teacher-psychologist in the preparatory group, we found that children at the beginning of the school year show extremely low results in the ability to compose a story (second grade). The second assessment according to this method was not decisive for us.

The course of the experiment according to the “Yes and No” and “Sound hide and seek” methods did not reveal any peculiarities.

The results of diagnostics according to the Gutkina program are reflected in the table below (Fig. 1):

Figure 1. The results of diagnostics according to the program Gutkina N.I.

From the table we can observe that the guys showed pretty good results at the beginning of the school year. The motivational sphere already demonstrates the predominance of the educational motive over the play one, but the “inner position of the student” is still in the process of formation. The “House” technique shows insufficient voluntary readiness, as well as an insufficient level of formation of visual-motor skills. But the ability of the guys to act according to the rule takes a rather mature position. Assessment of learning ability, development of logical thinking and generalization shows good performance for children 6-7. Phonemic hearing is sufficient for most children and it is associated with the fact that in this preschool institution, children begin to learn the basics of literacy from the age of 5.

The analysis of neuromotor regulation is presented in the table below (Fig. 2):

Figure 2. Results of the assessment of neuromotor development

Analyzing the data obtained in the course of the study for 2 blocks: psychological and neuromotor, we did not reveal a total correlation between the methods used. Children who showed extremely low results in the diagnosis of the neuromotor component had rather high overall results according to the Gutkina method. But delving into the details, you can see that the "House" technique was their only "weak" link, and it is associated with the visual-motor component. Thus, within the framework of our study, when selecting children for the experimental group for further research, we were guided by the results of tests for neuromotor diagnostics. Since this group of children was of greater interest to us - it was in the interests of our research - and promised to shed light and answer the question: why children with sufficient cognitive abilities are unsuccessful in school. Is it only cognitive development that determines school success?

In the course of further research, we selected 8 children who showed extremely low results in neuromotor block and high overall results according to Gutkina's diagnostic program (except for the “Little House” method). Already these children participated in neuropsychological examination.

The analysis of neuropsychological examination required a more painstaking and thorough approach due to the large volume of the studied parameters. Tasks for latent left-handedness showed that 3 out of 8 children had this component.

The analysis showed the weakness of the functions of dynamic praxis, auditory-motor coordination, auditory-speech and visual memory, graphic skills.

The results are presented in the diagram (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Results of neuropsychological examination

Analyzing the data obtained, the question arises: "Why did this category of children show quite decent results according to Gutkina's diagnostic program?" Yes, it reflects well the cognitive preservation of the child, but does not it show the existing dysfunctionality of the functional blocks? In our opinion, the answer lies in the research procedure, namely in the form of conducting: individual. The behavior of the child during the diagnosis is organized and regulated by the adult, i.e. the child is in a "supportive" adult atmosphere and the child has the opportunity to maximize his potential. But as soon as a given child finds himself in a group environment, his attention and regulatory function “found themselves without support” pull down the rest of the functions, a “kind of swamp” is formed, into which the potential future success of schooling is drawn. This once again suggests the need to pay closer attention to children who do not have any diagnoses, but demonstrate markers of possible future failure to succeed in school conditions.

Conclusions

Thus, the results obtained did not reveal a total correlation between the psychological and neuromotor components. But the ratio of the neuromotor and neuropsychological components is in direct proportion. This is clearly reflected in the weakness of the functions of dynamic praxis, auditory-motor coordination, auditory-speech and visual memory, graphic skills.

This once again suggests the need to pay closer attention to children who do not have any diagnoses, but demonstrate markers of possible future failure to succeed in school conditions.

Also, the obtained data confirm the importance and necessity of conducting an in-depth and comprehensive neuropsychological diagnostic examination of children of the preparatory groups of kindergarten, as well as the need to develop programs of psychological and pedagogical support for children with delayed motor development.

References:

1. Bugrimenko EA, Venger AL, Politova KN, Sushkova E. Yu. Children's readiness for school. Diagnostics of mental development and correction of its unfavorable variants. - M., 1992.
2. Wenger LA How a preschooler becomes a schoolboy // Preschool education. - 1995. - No. 8.
3. Volkov BS Younger schoolboy. How to help him learn. - M., 2004.
4. Vyunov NI, Gaidar KM, Temnova LV Psychological readiness of the child for learning at school. Psychological and pedagogical foundations. - M., 2003.
5. Gamezo MV Senior preschooler and junior schoolchild: psychodiagnostics and correction of development. - M., 1998.7. Grigorovich L. On the issue of children's readiness to learn at school // Preschool education. - 199 - No. 3.
6. Diagnostics of children's readiness to learn at school - behavior analysis / Ed. V. M. Astapova. - M., 1993.
7. Drobinskaya AO School difficulties of “non-standard” children. - M., 2001.
8. Mukhina VS Six-year-old child at school. - M., 1990.
9. Nizhegorodova NV, Shadrikov VD Psychological and pedagogical readiness of the child for school. - M., 2004.
10. Polivanov KN Such different six-year-olds. Individual readiness for school. Diagnostics and correction. - M., 2003.
11. Sally Goddard Blythe. Assessment of neuromotor readiness for learning. Moscow, Linka-Press, 2017.     14. Одри Мак-Аллен. Дополнительный урок. Киев, «Наири», 2014.
12. Sally Goddard Blythe. Greifen und Begreifen. VAK VerlagsGmBH, Deutschland, 2016.
13. Integration of Dynamic and Postural Reflexes into the Whole Body Movement System, Svetlana Masgutova, Ph.D., with Nelly Akhmatova, Ph.D., Svetlana Masgutova and International Neurokinesiology Institute, Warsaw, 2004.
14. Neuro-Structural Reflex Integration Therapy, Dr. Svetlana Masgutova, International Dr. Svetlana Masgutova Institute of Movement Development and Reflex integration, Warsaw, 2006.
15. Aktual'nye problemy nejropsihologii detskogo vozrasta: Ucheb, posobie / L.S. Cvetkova, A.V. Semenovich, S.N. Kotyagina,
16. E.G. Grishina, T.YU. Gogberashvili; Podred.
17. L.S. Cvetkovoj. - 2-e izd., ispr. - M.: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo psihologosocial'nogo instituta; Voronezh: Izd- vo NPO «MODEHK», 2006. — 296 s.
18. Ahutina T.V., Pylaeva N.M., Preodolenie              trudnostej          ucheniya: nejropsihologicheskij podhod. – SPb.: Piter, 2008. -320s.
19. Bozhovich, L.I. Lichnost' i ee formirovanie v detskom vozraste. M : Znanie, 2008. 306 s.
20. Venger, L.A. Psihologicheskie voprosy podgotovki detej k obucheniyu v shkole,
21. «Doshkol'noe vospitanie». M : Prosveshchenie, 2009. T. 289 s.
22. Kravcova, E.E. Psihologicheskie problemy gotovnosti detej k obucheniyu v shkole. M : Pedagogika, 2007. 145s.
23. Mikadze, YU.V. Nejropsihologicheskaya diagnostika sposobnosti k obucheniyu // Vestn. Mosk. un- ta. Ser. 14. Psihologiya, 1996.
24. Nejropsihologicheskaya diagnostika, obsledovanie pis'ma i chteniya mladshih shkol'nikov / Pod obshchej red. T.V. Ahutinoj, O.B. Inshakovoj. — M.: V. Sekachev, 2008. - 128 s.
25. Gail E. Dennison und Paul E. Dennison (2006). BRAIN GYM, VAK Verlag – GmbH; Kirchzarten bei Freiburg.
26. Gabriele Genauf (2010). Die Entwicklung des Kindes und der Einfluss per- sistierender frühkindlicher Reflexe.