Davydov’s mathematics curriculum was designed according to the principles of the Cultural Historical Activity Theory. In this study, we analyzed some developmental effects of its realization in Grade 1, in relation to the children’s school readiness level, and their teacher’s experience. We assessed two groups of developmental effects: some general math abilities ; and some abilities, which are very specific to Davydov’s mathematics curriculum. At the beginning of the Grade 1, we divided all participants into three groups according to their (...) level of motivation, voluntary regulation, and logical preservation in terms of J. Piaget. After 1 year we measured general effects again and also measured specific effects. The results showed that all the children became significantly better in all general math abilities. It was also found that progress in math abilities does not depend on the initial level of school readiness of children. Children with different levels of voluntary regulation, motivational readiness, and the level of logical preservation show improvements in general math abilities. As for the mathematical skills specific to the Davydov’ program, the achieved level of their development is also not related to the initial parameters of readiness for school. Also, there were no differences in improvements in general effects and in specific effects between the classes with experienced and not-so-experienced teacher. So, there are some reasons to believe that the level of the child’s actual development does not play a fundamental role for education, which built in accordance with the principles of CHAT. (shrink)

Activity theory has long been an influential framework in the field of education. However, its theoretical concepts are not easily grasped by scholars, mainly due to difficulties in translation from the original Russian works, the complexity of these concepts and multiple versions embedded within the tradition. The two major approaches within activity theory were established by Leontiev and another version proposed later by Engeström, and they have often been confused and conflated together in the literature. This paper provides a much-needed (...) theoretical comparison between these approaches in regard to the field of education. The criteria for comparison involve their theoretical foundations, central phenomena of interest, key theoretical concepts, units of analysis and explanatory mechanisms. Insights from this paper contribute to establishing a more refined understanding of activity theory and its variants, which in turn allows researchers to make more informed decisions when selecting and using these frameworks. Implications for practical research practices are discussed with examples from the area of teacher professional development. (shrink)