V.A. Sal'nikov, professor, Dr.Hab.
E.M. Revenko, associate professor, Ph.D.
Siberian state automobile and highway academy (SibADI), Omsk

Key words: age, development, sensitiveness, phases of development, heterochronism, individual characteristics, form of development.

Numerous studies show a certain phase structure of human ontogenestic development, which is seen as a fundamental property of ontogenesis, as a leading pattern of developmental age and individual development (B.G. Anan’ev [1]; I.A. Arshavsky [3]; V.K. Balsevich [4]).  The general rules of development of motor abilities are continuity and progressiveness, uneven changes of qualities throughout childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (A.A. Guzhalovsky [6]; A.A. Markosyan, S.I. Khaustov [13]). The extreme complexity of the process of human individual development is seen in the continuous, asynchronous and heterochronous formation and development of various structural formations and systems of the body. Versatility (divergence) of changes in certain age periods, especially during puberty is the next rule of developmental age. The alternation of sensitive and critical periods of development is observed when various organs and systems of the body are being formed (N.S. Leytes [18]; V.A. Sal'nikov [25]). These periods are most often considered as the phases which are more or less favorable for the realization of body’s potentialities. A significant, but less studied issue is the individuality of differencies in the rate of development of the body’s systems (A.A. Guzhalovsky [7]; L.V. Volkov [5]; V.A. Sal'nikov [16]).

At the same time, the identification of various ways of functional and physical development and various rates of age dynamics is an essential aspect for a more accurate assessment of not only every age stratum, but mainly of the process of individual development; the latter is associated with the possibility to detect various manifestations of age norms under the influence of diverse factors. The generalization of these data promoted formulating several laws that are fairly well represented in the modern literature:

- a higher efficiency of educational impacts is achieved in periods combined in time with the phases of accelerated development of certain motor abilities [7];

- the critical periods of development of physical qualities are unfavorable for a selectively targeted effect [5, 7];

- the intense impact of sports activity on the motor functions does not change the biological rhythm of their development, though the development itself is carried out at a higher level [4];

- the periods of accelerated and retarded development of the human motor function and underlying it morphological systems are inherent to both athletes and people who are not involved in sports; this may indicate that the rhythms of development are biologically determined [4];

- the disuse of sensitive periods for optimum changes in the body leads to the result that not all body’s potentials are implemented for achieving a certain result [4, 7].

The wide range of action of age norms is caused by the fact that age is one of the most integrative characteristics of a person. On this basis the relation of a certain activity with age is often stated, but age itself is not doubted; the main characteristics of age, its periodization, set parameters of personality development remained unchanged during the investigations. As a result, age but not the activity was the leading pattern of analysis; as a consequence, the data obtained were interpreted mainly as the characteristics of age development. As it was rightly noted by V.I. Slobodchikov and E.I. Isaev, “age is not an object or some objective reality existing in itself, which is possible to be studied and used. Accordingly, the concept of age is not a reflection of some reality (that exists), it does not have the reflective status of meaning. That is why the educational practice focused on the “age as it is”, when this age dictates the adaptation of education and is taken into account during teaching and training, is pointless” [18, p. 188].

All this emphasizes the fact that each age period can be understood only in the context of the whole process of individual development. The study of the problem of interrelation between the age and individual characteristics is the central point for understanding a child’s development. This problem started to be actively studied in the 60-70s of the last century. The researchers almost always focused on the search for age averaged standard characteristics, whereas the study of individual characteristics was of secondary importance. The latter characteristics were rather used as a means for searching the age norms and for their specific illustration, as the individual parameters were used for working out some general principles for a certain age period. Such an approach was reasonable at the initial stages of research when the foundation of age psychology and physiology was laid and a search of the basic conditions for the development and formation of new patterns in each age was carried out. Today, the main goal is to understand child’s identity, his unique path of development, so the concept of individuality becomes a value in itself. This gives rise to the study of the development of new formations, and investigations of the variety of individual differences basing on these formations. Probably this will be a crucial link which will connect the abstract age patterns with the characteristics of development in every specific individual case.

The body’s individual characteristics are very diverse and can be seen at the earliest stages of ontogenesis. Despite the obvious importance of this issue, there is a very small number of works aimed at the study of individual characteristics of children’s developmental age. Among the individual natural preconditions of psychological development, the properties of the nervous system are most studied; B.M. Teplov [19] noted that these properties are comprised in the natural basis of development of abilities and in their preconditions. At the same time it is not always possible to distinguish between the characteristics of child’s physical development determined by the features of nervous system (individual faculties) and the characteristics coming from age. As N.S. Leytes stated [11], weak nervous system is not only an age but also an individual characteristic of some children, and it persists during their development. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the concepts of “age” and “development”.

I.A. Arshavsky [3] noted that age is not something independent and separate; it only accompanies major qualitative changes that characterize and transform the body. Like everything else in nature, any quantity is related to some quality. According to A.V. Zaporozhets [8], it is important to distinguish between closely related, but not identical forms of child’s development: the so-called functional development, directly depending on the child’s mastery of particular knowledge and modes of activity, and actual developmental age which is characterized by a new psychophysiological level, a new pattern of reflection of reality, and new activities. The functional development proceeds differently at different age stages, and it is one of the prerequisites for more general age-related changes.

Referring to the problem of development, S.L. Rubinstein [15] noted that the development of a person… is exactly the development of his abilities, and the development of human abilities constitutes the development per se. This differs from the concepts of development, adopted in foreign studies, where the development is reduced to the processes of adaptation, whereas the domestic researchers emphasize the realization of child’s creative power and abilities. This is the basis for considering the developmental age as that particular reality in which the abilities “grow” and form. Probably, the internal logic of mental development finds its specific expression particularly in the problem of age approach to abilities. As a result it is hardly correct to interrelate formally the problem of sensitive periods and the concept of development as just continuous increase of child’s possibilities for implementing its capabilities. N.S. Leytes, being one of the most active researchers of children's sensitivity, noted [11] that the alternating periods of childhood are the epochs of life with unique opportunities inherent to them. Another essential aspect of the preconditions (background) for abilities is the natural individual differences. According to the scientist, the latter constitute another psychophysiological reality that forms the “ground” for “growing” the abilities (as mentioned above, the child’s age characteristics are considered as a “soil” on which the abilities “grow”).

Meanwhile, as noted by A.V. Zaporozhets [8], these possibilities are not completed mental qualities and abilities, but only formed during the child’s previous development psychophysiological preconditions required for their formation; this formation requires appropriate education and training. The resultant effect of the interaction between the innate and acquired factors will consist of the relations between the variables involved in this interaction, and the level of interaction will be largely determined by the elasticity of systems [17]. This assumption is caused by the fact that the central nervous system (CNS) is the main link which mediates possible influences of genotype on the human physical development in ontogenesis. Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that the CNS does not merely mediate the effect of genotype on the psychological level in the personality structure. There is a confidence in the fact that the CNS performs the inverse function as well, mediating the impact of environment on the implementation of the genotypic program of development. This impact is higher for more complex function forming.

This suggests a significant influence of individual characteristics of developmental age on the dynamics of certain motor abilities, morpho-functional features and other systems of the body, in spite of age, type of sports activity, nature of training, and training level. At the same time, the investigation of particularly individual differences, their nature and development provides information which cannot be reduced to that given by an analysis of standard trends. In this case, it is particularly important that the data on average trends appear to be ineffective upon more careful analysis. This is explained by the fact that the range of individual differences is always wider than that of group differences, and the latter may not coincide with the former in a certain characteristic.

The research data confirm the idea proposed by P.K. Anokhin [2] that the adaptabilities of a developing organism are determined by the interaction of a complex set of functional systems with continuously changing conditions of external and internal environment, that leads to the heterochronic development of these systems, depending on their adaptive value at a certain stage of ontogenesis. Apparently, the social factors become prevailing ones after they have been perceived during personality development.

Thus, the age and individual characteristics should be distinguished. Their main distinguishing feature is that the age characteristics are transient, whereas the individual ones are more stable. Therefore, it is not fully justified when the signs allowing insights into the differences of developmental age are being searched for, and almost no attention is paid to the identification of the regularities of individual development. According to V.I. Slobodchikov [18], the interpretation of age as a periodically changing characteristic completely eliminates the independent significance of development process. This process appears only as a particular and nuances of age self-development, being replaced by so-called “age changes”.  As noted by V.I. Kozlov and D.A. Farber [9], this interpretation of age norm absolutizes the quantitative assessment of body’s development at various stages of ontogenesis, and so “does not reflect the intrinsic characteristics of age-related changes determining the body’s adaptive properties”. According to D.I. Feldstein [20], the popularity of the differentiated approach to children has resulted in the disappearance of the holistic view of a child among psychologists. On the other hand, most of professionals are basing in their work on the traditional concepts of childhood, though these concepts have significantly changed in the last decades. Really, the study of changes in the activity of body’s particular systems during ontogenesis does not enable both to comprehend the functions of body and personality as a whole and understand the significance of detected transformations for a specific system considered separately from the body’s needs as a whole. According to I.S. Kon [10], it is also unreasonable to consider that the first few years of child’s life strictly determine the future characteristics and fate in adult age; studies show that only preconditions and potentials for further development are laid during the childhood, and the degree and areas of implementation of these potentials depend on the subsequent life experience of a person.

The assertion of occurrence of the most important events during the earlier period of ontogenesis was considered by H.E. Guber as a wrong one. What are the reasons that the earlier obtained finsings and conclusions are not always confirmed in the later studies? In our opinion, the main reason is that a variety of factors related to physical development is most often studied and treated by comparison with an integral characteristic, namely age. However, the age is just a specific period limited by arbitrary chronological boundaries in the human development (infancy, preschool age, school age, adolescence, adult age, and senility).  As a result, the “age” is used to refer to some formal boundaries of human development. Such an approach is clearly insufficient for the studies of the current period, as the age criteria do not enable to account for many patterns of individual physical development. Indeed, a wide range of age norms is determined by the fact that the age acts as one of the most integrative characteristics of human physical development. However, E. Rosset [14] noted that the classification of age is to a greater extent a product of various intellectual concepts rather than a reflection of objective reality. The reason is that the variability and ambiguity of same age characteristics are determined not only by the influence of external factors, but also by the internal conditions of human life. This gives grounds to conclude that each age period of individual development is characterized by “a complex” consisting of a specific set of leading characteristics that can be successfully implemented in sports activities. The occurrence of sensitive periods is caused by the fact that various functional zones of the brain mature with different rates. Furthermore, some mental processes and properties can be formed only on the basis of other already existing processes and properties. According to V.I. Lyakh [12], the general pattern of sensitive periods is natural as a whole, but it is affected to a certain extent by the arrangement of physical training, the use of means and methods for improvement, the individual characteristics of schoolchildren belonging to a particular age group, and so on. Unfortunately, the latter factor was studied insufficiently.

D.B. El'konin [21] pointed out that, approaching the question of the role of age-related factors, it should be borne in mind that the characteristics of a certain age do not represent something unchanging and only repeating since the beginning of time. Developing this idea, N.S. Leytes [11] noted that the very age characteristics and their dynamics in time to a great extend depend on the socio-historical conditions. For example, an acceleration of both physical and mental developmental age had been observed in the late twentieth century, whereas at the beginning of the twenty-first century this acceleration was replaced by the opposite process of retarded development. Today, children are significantly inferior to their parents in their childhood in the full range of morphological characteristics, and, according to the assumptions of anthropologists, this difference will be aggravating. At the same time, our children are more informed and erudite persons compared to us due to the rapid pace of scientific and technological progress. Are there any typical for modern schoolchildren features in the development of their physical and intellectual abilities, and what are these features and how they relate to age?

Probably V.I. Slobodchikov was right when he said that “the age is not an independent external form for the development, not the content of the development and not its result. The age is a form of development.” [18, p. 190]. This suggests that the most significant factor for working out the theory of human ontogenetic development is not age itself or even periodization of age phases (stages, periods), but the individual characteristics of developmental age, i.e. each age period can be understood only in the context of the whole process of individual development, since the body throughout the life cycle of individual development is a unity of all its constituent periods. They are not only closely related but mutually dependent on each other. One can say that the development is formed and resulted in age; that is why age does not develop, it arises as a form which, due to its integrity and completeness, can only be changed or replaced by another form.

Without dwelling on the variety of revealed age-related features in the development of motor (physical) abilities, quite fully covered in the literature (A.A. Guzhalovsky, V.K. Balsevich, L.V. Volkov, V.P. Guba, E.P. Il’in, V.P. Ozerov, V.A. Sal'nikov, et al.), it should be noted that thanks to using modern methods and methodological approaches a potentially infinite number of new mental theoretical concepts of the manifestations of developmental age of body's systems can arise. The reason is that each new researcher brings something new in the methodological techniques and improvement of the technology of incentive impacts on the physical development. However, this extensive way of research, being preferred by many investigators, will not lead to the expected results. The process of physical development (in case of child, adolescent or young man) cannot be determined only by its result. It is necessary to remember that the development initiates certain functional properties of body’s systems in a particular situation; therefore, the integral and general aspects of the structural organization of developmental age and its true structure should be revealed.

Indeed, the dynamics of motor manifestations to some extent depends on the development of morpho-functional features, typological features of the expression of the essential characteristics of the nervous system and other body systems, as well as their specific focus and combination. In the process of growing the dynamics of these relationships can change due to the non-simultaneity of their development, and it is determined largely by external and internal factors. The latter can influence due to the fact that the individual characteristics of personality do not act in isolation but form complex dynamic structures. The nature of these structures will be deeply individual, depending on a certain personality.

Hence, it seems not right to restrict the sensitive and critical periods related to a particular motor ability by a certain age period. The variety of obtained and analyzed data suggests that a sensitive period functions as an environmental filter that admits the impact (of either external or internal factors) of motor abilities which correspond to personal psychophysiological characteristics and rejects those that do not conform them. As a result, one can conclude that the dynamics of development is not determined by a single characteristic, and is related with a set of operating factors. This confirms the theoretical statement that the important professional qualities and abilities determined by tests do not play an independent role, and they should be accompanied by knowledge of individual psychological characteristics (preconditions). As a result, the existence of different typological characteristics or their certain combinations within the structure of a given property determine the greater development of speed abilities of some students, while others have higher strength characteristics, and again others – high endurance.

Obviously, it is time to change the concept of research paradigm: a transition is necessary from describing the variety of individual age-related changes to the analysis of integrative factors within the structure of developmental age, with respect to which the individual age characteristics are derivatives; i.e. the individual characteristics of developmental age should be studied instead of age characteristics, as the former always exist in the form of individual variants of development. As noted by D.B. El'konin [21], an extended range of the individual variants of developmental age can provide upon a comparative analysis a matter for answering the question about the conditions under which the main new formation occurred.

In a number of studies a great similarity of the characteristics of personality development in childhood, adolescence, early, middle, and mature adulthood age was established, that indicates the presence of various individual systems of development. According to V.I. Slobodchikov [18], the concept of age is derivative from the theory of development and the principle of periodization. Furthermore, all these categories (development, periodization, and age) are interrelated, and each of them has no independent significance without referencing two others.

In general, it is noted that the development is formed and resulted in age; that is why age does not develop but arises as a form which, due to its integrity and completeness, can only be changed or replaced by another form.

At the same time it should be borne in mind that once discovered patterns are not permanent and absolute, since the development depends on the combination of many external and internal factors, including the social situation of development, leading activity, educational and training impacts, and socio-historical conditions. The latter is related to the fact that particular characteristics within the structure of personality do not act separately and make up complex dynamic formations. The properties of the type of nervous system change significantly during growing, and individual characteristics appear not immediately and not entirely, but change and enrich during growing as well. The periods of active growth and development of particular systems of the body and interrelation between them can be significantly reduced, that is often caused by the irregularity and multidirectionality of their formation [5]. All these changes are hardly associated with a particular periodization of developmental age; they are rather related to the development.

Conclusion. It should be noted that the developmental age dynamics is still too mosaic and represents a combination of different age phases, almost unrelated with each other. But not enough attention is being paid to the "interfaces", transitions from one phase to another. On the other hand, a variety of factors related to the physical and morpho-functional development more often correlates with age and hardly reveals the influence of individual natural preconditions. At the same time the latter are very diverse and arise in the early phases of ontogenesis. As a result, it is fairly marked that age is a form of development, meaning development is completed and implemented in age. Age and personality characteristics should be more clearly distinguished: the former are transient, the latter are more stable. Based on this, it is most appropriate to study the development of the individual characteristics of developmental age, but in this case, each age period can be understood as an integral process of individual development.

References

1. Anan'ev, B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 V. / B.G. Anan'ev. – Moscow: Pedagogika, 1980. – V. 1. – 232 P. (In Russian)
2. Anokhin, P.K. Systemic mechanisms of higher nervous activity / P.K. Anokhin. – Moscow: Nauka, 1979. – 453 P. (In Russian)
3. Arshavsky, I.A. The basics of age periodization / I.A. Arshavsky // Vozrastnaya fiziologiya. – Leningrad, 1975. – P. 5-67. (In Russian)
4. Balsevich, V.K. Human ontokineziology / V.K. Balsevich. – Moscow: Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. 2000. – 275 P. (In Russian)
5. Volkov, L.V. Theory and methods of child and youth sports / L.V. Volkov. – Kiev: Olimpiyskaya literatura, 2002. – 295 P. (In Russian)
6. Guzhalovsky, A.A. Phased development of physical (motor) qualities and problems of optimization of physical training of schoolchildren: doctoral thesis (Hab.) / A.A. Guzhalovsky. – Moscow, 1979. – 331 P. (In Russian)
7. Guzhalovsky, A.A. Problems of "critical" periods of ontogenesis and their role for the theory and practice of physical education / A.A. Guzhalovsky // Essays on the theory and practice of physical culture. – Moscow, 1984. – P. 211-223. (In Russian)
8. Zaporozhets, A.V. The role of various periods of childhood for the formation of child's personality / A.V. Zaporozhets // Development principles in psychology. – Moscow, 1978. – P. 243-267. (In Russian)
9. Kozlov, V.I. Physiology of child development / V.I. Kozlov, D.A. Farber. – Moscow, 1983. – P. 5-14. (In Russian)
10. Kon, I.S. Psychology of adolescence (problems of identity formation): study guide for students of pedagogical institute / I.S. Kon. – Moscow: Prosveschenie, 1989. – 175 P. (In Russian)
11. Leytes, N.S. Age-related talent and individual differences / N.S. Leytes. – Moscow: Voronezh, 1997. – 448 P. (In Russian)
12. Lyakh, V.I. Sensitive periods of development of coordination abilities of school-aged children / V.I. Lyakh // Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. – 1990. – № 3. – P. 15-18. (In Russian)
13. Markosian, A.A. Matters of developmental physiology / A.A. Markosyan, S.I. Khaustov. – Moscow, 1974. – 164 P. (In Russian)
14. Rosset, E. The process of people's aging: demographic studies / E. Rosset; transl. from Pol. by P.N. Malyutkin, E.N. Ferberov; ed. by A.G. Volkova. – Moscow: Statistika, 1978. – 509 P.
15. Rubinstein, S.L. The fundamentals of general psychology: in 2 V. / S.L. Rubinstein. – Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989. – V. II. – 323 P. (In Russian)
16. Sal'nikov, V.A. Individual features of age development: monograph / V.A. Sal'nikov. – Omsl: SibADI, 2013. – 411 P. (In Russian)
17. Sergienko, E.A. The principle of development and system determination of visual behavior in early ontogenesis / E.A. Sergienko // System analysis of sensory-perceptual processes. – Moscow, 1988. – P. 6-25. (In Russian)
18. Slobodchikov, V.I. Psychology of human development / V.I. Slobodchikov, E.I. Isaev. – Moscow: Shkol'naya pressa, 2000. – 416 P. (In Russian)
19. Teplov, B.M. Works on psychophysiology of individual differences / B.M. Teplov. – Moscow: Nauka, 2004. – 444 P. (In Russian)
20. Feldstein, D.I. Psychology of maturation: Structural and substantive characteristics of the process of personality development: selected works / D.I. Feldstein. – Moscow: Flinta, 2004. – 676 P. (In Russian)
21. El'konin, D.B. Developmental and individual characteristics of junior teenagers. Selected psychological works / D.B. El'konin. – Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989. – P. 258-280. (In Russian)

Corresponding author: revenko.76@mail.ru