The emergence and development of pedology. Pedology - the science of a growing and developing child Pedology as a psychological and pedagogical direction

P.Ya. Shvartsman, I.V. Kuznetsova. Pedology // Repressed science. Issue 2. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994, pp. 121-139.

Among the desecrated sciences, pedology occupies, perhaps, a special place. There are only a few witnesses of its flourishing, but we habitually judge its death by the well-known decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of July 4, 1936, the mention of which importunately migrates from one dictionary to another with unchanged remarks. A closer and less orthodox view of pedology was until recently perceived as a slander on Soviet pedagogy, undermining its very foundations. In the current historical situation, there are calls for the revival and development of domestic pedology. We will try to give an analysis of the development of pedology, its ideas, methodology and prospects for revival.

We can say that pedology had a relatively long prehistory, a rapid and complete history.

There are conflicting views on the starting date in the history of pedology. It is attributed either to the 18th century. and are associated with the name of D. Tiedemann 1 , or by the 19th century. in connection with the works of L.A. Quetelet and timed to coincide with the publication of the works of the great teachers J.Zh. Russo, Ya.A. Comenius and others. “The wisest educators teach children that,” wrote Zh.Zh. Rousseau in his "Introduction to" Emile "in 1762 - what is important for an adult to know, without taking into account what children are able to learn. They are constantly looking for a person in a child, without thinking about what he is before becoming a person.

The primary sources of pedology, therefore, are in a rather distant past, and if we take them into account as the basis for pedagogical theory and practice, then they are in a very distant past.

The formation of pedology is associated with the name of I. Herbart (1776-1841), who creates a system of such a psychology, on which, as one of the foundations, pedagogy should be built, and for the first time, his followers began to systematically develop educational psychology 2 .

Usually, educational psychology was defined as a branch of applied psychology, which deals with the application of psychology data to the process of education and training. This science, on the one hand, should draw from general psychology results that are of interest to pedagogy, and on the other hand, discuss pedagogical provisions from the point of view of their correspondence to psychological laws. Unlike didactics and private methods that decide how a teacher should teach, the task of educational psychology is to find out how students learn.

In the process of formation of pedagogical psychology, in the middle of the 19th century, there was an intensified restructuring of general psychology. Under the influence of the developing experimental natural science, in particular the experimental physiology of the sense organs, psychology also became experimental. Herbartian psychology with its abstract-deductive method (the reduction of psychology to the mechanics of the flow of ideas) was replaced by Wundtian experimental psychology, which studies mental phenomena using the methods of experimental physiology. Educational psychology is increasingly calling itself experimental pedagogy, or experimental educational psychology.

There are, as it were, two stages in the development of experimental pedagogy 3: the end of the 19th century. (mechanical transfer of the findings of general experimental psychology to pedagogy), and the 20th century. (The subject of experimental research in psychological laboratories is the very problems of learning).

The experimental pedagogy of that time reveals some age-related mental characteristics of children, their individual characteristics, the technique and economics of memorization and the application of psychology to learning 4,5.

A general picture of a child's life was to be given by another, as they believed, special science - the science of young age 4, which, in addition to psychological data, required research into the physical life of the child, knowledge of the dependence of the life of a growing person on external, especially social conditions, his upbringing. Thus, the need for a special science of children, pedology, was derived from the development of pedagogical psychology and experimental pedagogy 3 .

The same need also grew out of child psychology, which, in contrast to educational psychology with its applied nature, grew out of evolutionary concepts and experimental natural science, raising, together with questions about the phylogenetic development of man, the question of his ontogenetic development. Under the influence of discussions in evolutionary theory, a genetic psychology began to be created, mainly in the USA (especially among psychologists grouped around Stanley Hall), which considered it impossible to study the mental development of a child in isolation from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - pedology, which would be devoid of this shortcoming and would give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. "The science of the child or pedology - it is often confused with genetic psychology, while it is only the main part of the latter - arose relatively recently and has made significant progress over the past decade" 6 .

Let us note, however, the fact that by the time pedology was formed as an independent scientific direction, the stock of knowledge was too poor both in experimental pedagogical psychology, and in the psychology of childhood, and in those biological sciences that could underlie ideas about human individuality. This applies, first of all, to the state of only the emerging human genetics.

The originality of a separate science, however, is demonstrated by its defining apparatus and research methods. As a substantiation of the independence of science 7, the analysis of its own methods is of particular interest.

Despite the fact that pedology was called upon to give a picture of the development of the child and the unity of his mental and physical properties, using a comprehensive, systematic approach to the study of childhood, having previously dialectically solved the problem of the “bio-socio” relationship in research methodology, from the very beginning priority is given to psychological study child (even the founder of pedology, St. Hall, considers pedology only a part of genetic psychology), and this hegemony has been maintained naturally or artificially throughout the history of science. Such a one-sided understanding of pedology did not satisfy E. Maiman, 4 who considers the psychological study of the child alone to be inferior and considers it necessary to provide a broad physiological and anthropological substantiation of pedology. In pedology, he also includes pathological and psychopathological studies of the development of the child, to which many psychiatrists devoted their work.

But the inclusion of physiological and anthropological components in pedological research does not yet satisfy the existence of pedology as an independent and original science. The reason for dissatisfaction is illustrated by the following thought: “We must tell the truth: even now pedology courses are actually a vinaigrette from the most diverse branches of knowledge, a simple collection of information from various sciences, everything that relates to the child. But is such a vinaigrette a special independent science? Of course not." 8 From this point of view, what E. Meiman understands by pedology is a “simple vinaigrette” (though 90% composed of homogeneous psychological material and only 10% of materials from other sciences). In this case, the question of the subject of pedology is posed in such a way that for the first time the work of the author himself, P.P. Blonsky, which, therefore, should be "the first stone in the building of genuine pedology."

In this regard, let us dwell on the understanding of the subject of pedology by prof. P.P. Blonsky. He gives four formulas for its definition, three of which mutually complement and develop each other, and the fourth (and last) contradicts them all and, apparently, was formulated under the influence of social order. The first formula defines pedology as the science of the characteristics of childhood. This is the most general formula encountered earlier by other authors 9 .

The second formula defines pedology as "the science of the growth, constitution and behavior of a typical mass child in various childhood epochs". So, if the first formula only points to the child as an object of pedology, then the second says that pedology should study it not from any one side, but from different; at the same time, a limitation is introduced: not every child in general, but a typical mass child, is studied by pedology. Both of these formulas only prepare the third, which gives the definition its final form: "Pedology studies the symptom complexes of various epochs, phases and stages of childhood in their temporal sequence and in their dependence on various conditions." The content of the subject of pedology in the last formula is revealed more fully than in the previous ones. Nevertheless, significant difficulties associated with the question of defining pedology as a science (fourth formula) remain unsurmounted.

They boil down mainly to the following: the child as a subject of study is a natural phenomenon no less complex than the adult himself; in many respects even more difficult questions may arise here. Naturally, such a complex object from the very beginning required a differentiated cognitive attitude towards itself. It is exactly the same as in the study of man at all Since ancient times, such scientific disciplines as anatomy, physiology and psychology have arisen, studying the same subject, but each from its own point of view, likewise, in the study of the child, from the very beginning, these same paths were used, thanks to which anatomy, physiology arose and developed. and psychology of early childhood.

With development, the differentiation of this knowledge always increases. In this respect, the scientific knowledge of the child is far from having completed its differentiation even today. On the other hand, in order to understand many of the special functions and patterns of child development, a general concept of childhood is needed as a special period in human ontogenesis and phylogeny, the provisions of which would guide the research of special sciences, the process of education and training.

In this understanding, pedology was given a special, and sometimes unjustifiably superior place among other sciences that study the child 6,13. The sciences that study the child also investigate the process of development of various aspects of the child's nature, establishing epochs, phases and stages. It is clear that each of these areas of the child's nature is not something simple and homogeneous; in each of them, the researcher encounters the most diverse and complex phenomena. Studying the development of these individual phenomena, each researcher can, should and actually strives, without going beyond his own field, to trace not only individual lines of development of these phenomena, but also their mutual connection with each other at different levels, their relationships and all that complex configuration. , which they form in their totality at a certain stage of ontogeny. In other words, in a single psychological study of a child, the researcher faces the task of identifying complex "age-related symptom complexes" in exactly the same way as it arises in the anatomical and physiological study of him. But only these will be either morphological, or physiological, or psychological symptom complexes, the only peculiarity of which is that they will be one-sided, which does not prevent them from remaining very complex and naturally organized within themselves.

Thus, pedology not only considers the age-related symptom complex, but it must make a cumulative analysis of everything that is accumulated by individual scientific disciplines that study the child. Moreover, this analysis is not a simple sum of heterogeneous information, mechanically combined on the basis of their belonging. In essence, this should be a synthesis based on the organic connection of the constituent parts into a single whole, and not simply their combination with each other, in the process of which a number of independently complex questions may arise; those. pedology as a science was supposed to lead to achievements of a higher order, to the solution of new problems, which, of course, are not any final problems of knowledge, but are only part of one problem - the problem of man.

Proceeding from such provisions, it was believed that the boundaries of pedological research are very extensive, and there is no reason to narrow them down in any way 4,10. When studying the child as a whole, the researcher's field of vision should include not only the "symptoms" of certain states of the child, but also the process of ontogeny itself, the change and transition from one state to another. In addition, an important task of the study was something in the middle, typical, something that immediately covers a wide range of studied properties. A huge variety of all kinds of features - individual, sexual, social, etc. - was also the material for pedological research. The task of systematizing scientific data in various areas of the study of the child was considered a priority.

The above consideration of the defining apparatus of pedology can be supplemented with two more definitions of pedology that were in use until 1931: 1) Pedology is the science of the factors, patterns, stages and types of the socio-biological formation of the individual, 16 the development of new mechanisms that become more complex under the influence of new factors, about the breaking, restructuring, transformation of functions and the material substrates underlying them in the conditions of the growth of the child's organism.

Thus, there was no consensus on pedology; the content of science was understood differently, respectively, the boundaries of pedological research varied widely, and the very fact of the formation of an independent science was disputed for a long time, which is natural in the early period of the development of science, but, as will be seen from what follows, these problems were not solved in pedology in the future.

A kind of attempt to build a system of methods of pedology are the works of S.S. Youthful 12 . He proceeds from the following provisions: every act of a growing organism is a process of balancing it with the environment and can be objectively understood only from its functional state (1); it is a holistic process in which the organism is responsible for the environmental situation with all its aspects and functions (2); restoration of the disturbed balance of the human body with the environment is at the same time the process of its change, therefore, any act of the human body can be understood only dynamically, not only as an act of detection, but also as an act of growth, restructuring and consolidation of the behavior system (3); it is possible to approach the type of behavior, its stable, more or less constant moments, only by studying a series of integral acts of human behavior, for only they are capable of revealing its available fund and its further possibilities (4); the moments of the organism's behavior accessible to our perception are links in the chain of the reaction process: they can become indicators of this process only when comparing the situation of the environment that initiates the process with the visible response that completes it (5).

These provisions of S.S. Molozhavy were very actively challenged by Ya.I. Shapiro 13 .

The method of observation was considered very promising among pedologists. A prominent place in its development belongs to M.Ya. Basov and his school, which worked at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. Two types of methods of pedological work were distinguished: the method of studying the processes of behavior and the method of studying all kinds of results of these processes. Behavior was supposed to be studied from the point of view of the structure of behavioral processes and the factors that determine them. In this case, behavior was usually opposed to experimental research. Such a contrast, however, is not entirely correct, since the experiment is also applicable to the study of behavioral processes, if we are talking about a natural experiment in which the child is in conditions of life situations.

The tendency of pedologists, who defended the independence of their science, to look for new methodological paths is manifested especially clearly in the heated discussion around the question of the method of psychological tests. Since the use of this method in our country was one of the reasons for the destruction of pedology, we should dwell on it in more detail. Numerous works devoted to the use of the test methodology put forward a huge number of arguments for and against its use in pedology 10, 14-20.

A fierce discussion and the widespread use of test methods in public education in our country (practically every student had to go through a test assessment) led to the fact that even today pedology is most often recalled in connection with the use of tests with the “fear” of revealing oneself as a result of testing. A variety of tests were developed and applied for the first time in the United States. The first broad review of American tests in Russian to identify the mental giftedness and school success of children was given by N.A. Buchholz and A.M. Schubert in 1926. 19 An analysis of these tests, their tasks and results leads the authors to the conclusion that their application in pedology is undoubtedly promising. Scientific psychological commission, which worked out for 1919-1921. a series of well-known to this day "National Tests", designed for use in all public schools in the United States, defined the task of these studies as follows: 1) to help subdivide children of various school groups into smaller subgroups: children who are mentally stronger and mentally weaker; 2) to help the teacher navigate the individual characteristics of the children of the group with which this teacher begins to work for the first time; 3) to help reveal those individual reasons why individual children cannot adapt to class work and school life; 4) to promote the cause of professional orientation of children, if only for the purpose of preliminary selection of those suitable for more highly skilled work 19 .

In the mid 20s. tests are beginning to be widely distributed in our country, first in scientific research, and by the end of the 20s. introduced into the practice of schools and other children's institutions. On the basis of tests, the giftedness and success of children are determined; forecasts of learning ability, specific didactic and educational recommendations of teachers are given; original domestic tests similar to Binet's tests are being developed. Testing is carried out in natural conditions for schoolchildren, in a classroom team 10,20,21; tests become mass, and the results can be statistically processed. These tests allow us to judge not only the success of the student, but also the work of teachers and the school as a whole. For the period of the 20s. it was one of the most objective criteria in evaluating the work of the school. An objective and quantitatively more accurate record of the success of children is necessary in order to monitor the comparative characteristics of different schools, the growth in the success of various children compared to the average growth in the success of a school group. Thus, the "mental age" of the student is determined, which allows him to be transferred to a group that is most appropriate for his intellectual development and, on the other hand, to form more homogeneous training groups. This is contrary to the totalitarian tenets of egalitarian education, the failure of which has been experienced by several generations.

In American schools, individualization of learning underlies the formation of class groups to this day. Our violent earlier, and now increasingly weakened, resistance to such an “assault” on the integrity of class teams, the desire to educate a person who is not really socially active, who would easily come into contact with any new group of people, would learn to understand and love not only a narrow circle, but and all people, to educate “philanthropists”, and not a person who is socially closed in a team, apparently, is a consequence of the unitarity of the state, the dominance of authoritarianism, the closeness of the individual, our thinking.

The method of tests was credited with “transforming pedology from a science of general and subjective reasoning into a science that studies reality” 3 .

Criticism of the test method usually boiled down to the following points: 1) tests are characterized by a purely experimental beginning; 2) they take into account not the process, but the result of the process; 3) criticized the standardized bias at the expense of the statistical method; 4) the tests are superficial, far from the deep mechanism of the child's behavior.

Criticism was based on a fairly strong initial imperfection of the tests. The practice of many years of using the test method abroad and in recent domestic psychodiagnostics has shown the inconsistency of such criticism in many positions and its insufficient validity.

Differences in the application of the test method in the theory and practice of pedology can be reduced to three main points of view:

• the use of testing was fundamentally rejected 12,20;
• limited use of tests (in terms of coverage and conditions) was allowed, with the obligatory primacy of other research methods 10,16,22;
• the need for widespread introduction of tests in research and practical work was recognized 18,19,23.

However, with the exception of some works 24 , in Soviet pedology the primacy remained with psychological methods.

After getting acquainted with the subject and methods of science, it is necessary to consider the originality of the main stages of its development.

Critical analysis of the development of pedology in the USSR is devoted to the work of many authors during the period of formation of pedology in our country 3,10,13,25. One of the first domestic pedological works is the study of A.P. Nechaev, and then his school. In his "Experimental Psychology in its Relation to Questions of School Education"27 he outlined possible ways of experimental psychological investigation of didactic problems. A.P. Nechaev and his students studied individual mental functions (memory, attention, judgment, etc.). Under the guidance of prof. Nechaev in 1901, a laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology was organized in St. Petersburg, in the autumn of 1904 the first pedological courses in Russia were opened, and in 1906 the First All-Russian Congress on Educational Psychology was convened with a special exhibition and short-term pedological courses.

In Moscow, work in this area also began to develop. G.I. Rossolimo in 1911 founded and at his own expense maintained a clinic for nervous diseases of childhood, transformed into a special Institute of Child Psychology and Neurology. The result of the work of his school was the original method of "psychological profiles" 49 , in which G.I. Rosselimo went further than A.P. Nechaev along the path of splitting the psyche into separate functions: in order to compile a complete “psychological profile”, it is proposed to investigate 38 separate mental functions, ten experiments for each psychological function. G.I.Rosselimo’s methodology quickly took root and was used in the form of a “mass psychological profile”. But his works were also limited only to the psyche, without touching upon the biological features of the child's ontogeny. The dominant research method of the Rossolimo school was experiment, which was criticized by contemporaries for the "artificiality of the laboratory environment." The characterization of the child given by G.I. Rossolimo, with the differentiation of children only by sex and age, without taking into account their social and class affiliation (!).

The founder and creator of pedology in the USSR is also called V.M. Bekhterev 29, who back in 1903 expressed the idea of ​​the need to create a special institution for the study of children - a pedagogical institute in connection with the creation of the Psychoneurological Institute in St. Petersburg. The Institute's project was submitted to the Russian Society for Normal and Pathological Psychology. In addition to the psychological department, the pedological department was included for experimental and other research, and a scientific center for the study of personality was created. In connection with the foundation of the department of pedology at V.M. Bekhterev came up with the idea of ​​creating a Pedological Institute, which existed at first as a private institution (with funds donated by V.T. Zimin). The director of the institute was K.I. Povarnin. The Institute was financially poorly supported, and V.M. Bekhterev had to submit a number of notes and applications to government authorities. On this occasion, he wrote: “The purpose of the institution was so important and tangible that it was not necessary to think about creating it even with modest funds. We were only interested in the tasks underlying this institution” 29 .

Bekhterev's students note that he considered the following problems urgent for pedology: the study of the laws of a developing personality, the use of school age for education, the use of a number of measures to prevent abnormal development, protection from the decline of intelligence and morality, and the development of self-activity of the individual.

Thanks to the tirelessness of V.M. Bekhterev, a number of institutions were created to implement these ideas: pedological and research institutes, an auxiliary school for the handicapped, an otophonetic institute, an educational and clinical institute for nervously ill children, an institute for moral education, and a children's psychiatric clinic. He united all these institutions with a scientific and laboratory department - the Institute for the Study of the Brain, as well as a scientific and clinical - Pathoreflexological Institute. The general scheme of the biosocial study of the child according to Bekhterev is as follows: 1) the introduction of reflexological methods into the field of study of the child; 2) the study of the autonomic nervous system and the connection between the central nervous system and the endocrine glands; 3) comparative study of the ontogeny of human and animal behavior; 4) study of the full development of brain regions; 5) study of the environment; 6) the impact of the social environment on development; 7) children's handicap; 8) child psychopathy; 9) childhood neuroses; 10) labor reflexology; 11) reflexological pedagogy; 12) the reflexological method in teaching literacy 30 .

The work in the children's institutions listed above was carried out under the guidance of professors A.S. Griboedova, P.G. Belsky, D.V. Felderg. The closest collaborators in the field of pedology were at first K.I. Povarin, and then N.M. Shchelovanov. For 9 years of existence of the first Pedological Institute with a very small number of employees, 48 ​​scientific papers were published.

V.M. Bekhterev is considered the founder of pedoreflexology in its main areas: genetic reflexology with a clinic, the study of the first stages of the development of a child's nervous activity, age-related reflexology for preschool and school age, collective and individual reflexology. The basis of pedoreflexology included the study of the laws of temporary and permanent functional relationships of the main parts of the central nervous system and parts of the brain in their sequential development, depending on age data in connection with the action of hormones in a particular period of childhood, as well as depending on environmental conditions. 29

In 1915, G. Troshin's book "Comparative Psychology of Normal and Abnormal Children" 31 was published, in which the author criticizes the method of "psychological profiles" for excessive fragmentation of the psyche and the conditions in which the experiment is carried out, and proposes his own method based on biological principles studying the child, which in many respects has something in common with the methodology of V.M. Bekhterev. However, the works of Prof. A.F. Lazursky, deepening the method of observation. In 1918 his book The Natural Experiment 32 appeared. His student and follower is the already mentioned prof. M.Ya. bass.

The study of the anatomical and morphological features of a growing person, along with the work of the school of V.M. Bekhterev, is conducted under the guidance of prof. N.P. Gundobin, specialist in children's diseases. His book Peculiarities of Childhood, published in 1906, sums up the results of his and his collaborators' work and is a classic 9 .

In 1921, three pedological institutions were formed in Moscow at once: the Central Pedological Institute, the Medical Pedological Institute, and the Psychological and Pedological Department of the 2nd Moscow State University. However, the Central Pedological Institute dealt almost exclusively with the psychology of childhood; The very name of the newly organized department at the 2nd Moscow State University showed that its founders did not yet have a clear idea of ​​what pedology is. And, finally, in 1922, the Medico-Pedological Institute published a collection entitled "On Child Psychology and Psychopathology", in the very first article of which it is said that the main task of the named institute is the study of children's defects.

In the same year, 1922, E.A. Arkin's book "Preschool Age" 24 was published, which very fully and seriously covers the issues of the biology and hygiene of the child and (again there is no synthesis!) very few questions of the psyche and behavior.

A great revival in the study of childhood was brought by the First All-Russian Congress on Psychoneurology, which took place in Moscow in 1923, with a special section on pedology, at which 24 reports were heard. The section paid much attention to the question of the essence of pedology. For the first time, the demagogic appeal of A.B. Zalkind about the transformation of pedology into a purely social science, about the creation of "our Soviet pedology".

Shortly after the congress in Orel, a special Pedological Journal began to appear. In the same 1993, a monograph by M.Ya. Basov "Experience in the methodology of psychological observations" 33 as a result of the work of his school. Being to a large extent the successor of the work of A.F. Lazursky with his natural experiment, M.Ya. Basov pays even more attention to the factor of naturalness in the study of the child, developing a method for conducting long-term objective observation of the child in the natural conditions of his life, which makes it possible to characterize a living child's personality in a holistic way. This technique quickly won the sympathy of teachers and pedologists and began to be widely used.

In January 1924, the Second Psychoneurological Congress took place in Leningrad. At this congress, pedology occupied an even more significant place. A number of reports on genetic reflexology by N.M. Shchelovanov and his staff was devoted to the study of early childhood.

In 1925, the work of P.P. Blonsky "Pedology" 35 - an attempt to formalize pedology as an independent scientific discipline and at the same time the first textbook on pedology for students of pedagogical institutes. In 1925 P.P. Blonsky publishes two more works: "Pedology in the mass school of the first stage" 36 and "Fundamentals of Pedagogy". 23 Both books provide material on the application of pedology in the field of education and training, and their author becomes one of the most prominent propagandists of pedology, especially its applied significance. The first book provides important material for understanding the process of teaching writing and counting. In the second, a theoretical substantiation of the pedagogical process is given.

By the same time, the publication of a brochure by S.S. Molozhavy: "Program for studying the behavior of a child or a group of children" 37, in which the main attention is paid to the study of the environment surrounding the child and the characteristics of the child's behavior in connection with the influence of the environment, but very little is taken into account its anatomical and physiological features.

By the end of 1925, the USSR had already accumulated a significant number of publications that could be attributed to pedology. However, in most publications there is no systematic analysis, which M.Ya.Basov spoke about, defining pedology as an independent science. The authors of a small part of the studies 10,25,36,38 try to adhere to that synthetic level, which makes it possible to judge the child and childhood as a special period as a whole, and not from separate sides.

Since pedology is a science about a person that affects his social status, the contradictions from the scientific often passed into the ideological sphere, took on a political coloring.

In the spring of 1927, a pedological conference was convened in Moscow at the People's Commissariat for Education of the USSR (?), which brought together all the most prominent workers in the field of pedology. The main issues discussed at this meeting were: the role of the environment, heredity and constitution in the development of the child; the importance of the collective as a factor shaping the child's personality; methods of studying the child (mainly a discussion on the method of tests); correlation of reflexology and psychology, etc.

The problem of the relationship between the environment and heredity, studied by pedology, has caused especially fierce controversy.

The most prominent representative of the sociogenic trend in pedology, one of the first to promote the primacy of the environment in the development of the child, was A.B. Zalkind. A psychiatrist by education, a specialist in sexual education, whose work was built solely on the basis of ideas about the sociogenic development of the individual and on Marxist phraseology.

The popularity of views on the bioplasticity of the organism, especially the child's organism, was supported by "genetic reflexologists", emphasizing the large and early influence of the cortex and the wide limits of this influence. They believed that the CNS has maximum plasticity and the whole evolution is in the direction of increasing this plasticity. At the same time, there are types of the nervous system that are constitutionally determined. For the practice of education, it is important "the presence of this plasticity, so that heredity is not given the place that conservative-minded teachers give it, and at the same time, taking into account the type of work of the nervous system for the individualization of education and for taking into account the constitutional features of the nervous system in terms of education of nervous hygiene" 40.

The main objections that this trend has met from a number of educators and pedologists 3,10,24 boil down to the fact that recognition of the limitless possibilities of bioplasticity, extreme "pedological optimism" and insufficient consideration of the significance of hereditary and constitutional inclinations in practice lead to an underestimation of individualization in education , exorbitantly high demands on the child and the teacher and their overload.

In a report at a meeting in 1927, V.G. Stefko. The constitution of an organism is determined by: 1) hereditary factors acting in known laws of inheritance; 2) exogenous factors affecting gametes; 3) exogenous factors affecting the embryo; 4) exogenous factors affecting the body after birth 42 .

The trend of the determining influence of the environment on the development of the organism in comparison with hereditary influences, although it was clearly revealed at this meeting, but, thanks to the significant opposition of many researchers, has not yet become self-sufficient, the only acceptable one and has dominated our country for more than a dozen years.

The second debatable issue was the problem of the relationship between the individual and the team. In connection with the installation of the Soviet school to “renounce individualistic tendencies”, the question arose of a “new” understanding of the child, since the target of the teacher “in our labor school is not an individual child, but a growing children's team. The child in this collective is interesting insofar as he is an endogenous irritant of the collective.

On the basis of the latest understanding of the child, a new part of pedology was to develop - the pedology of the collective. The new direction was headed by the head of the Ukrainian school of researchers of the children's team prof. A.A. Zaluzhny, proceeding from the following methodological socially ordered premise: pedagogical practice does not know the individual child, but only the collective; The teacher gets to know the individual child through the collective. A good student for a teacher is a good student in a given children's team, compared with other children that make up this team. Pedagogical practice pushes for collectivism, pedagogical theory - for individualism. Hence the need to "rebuild the theory" 21 . Like A.B. Salkind, prof. A.A. Zaluzhny also advocated a new "Soviet" pedology. Thus, the pedology and pedagogy that existed until now, nurtured on the ideas of Rousseau and Locke, are declared reactionary, since too much attention is paid to the child himself, his heredity, the patterns of formation of his personality, while it is necessary in a team, through a team, to educate on the system will need members of the team - social cogs, spare parts for the system.

Issues of collective pedology were also dealt with by prof. G.A. Fortunatov 43 and G.V. Murashov with employees. They developed a methodology for studying the children's team. E.A. Arkin, mentioned above, also studied the constitutional types of children in a team. His division of the members of the collective according to the tendency to be more extraversion in boys and introversion in girls has attracted sharp criticism.

At a meeting in 1927, it was decided to convene an All-Union Pedological Congress in December of the same year with a broad representation of all areas of pedology. In the preparatory period before the congress there was a change in the balance of forces. In just six months, the number of supporters of the sociological direction in pedology has increased greatly. Perestroika in pedology was in full swing, and the crisis was basically over by the congress. There may be several reasons for this, but they are all interconnected.

1. From the unformed, veiled, the social order became clearly formulated, proclaimed, on the basis of which the methodology of science was built. The maximum "bioplasticity" and the decisive transformative impact of the environment turned from the opinion of individual pedologists into the creed of pedology - "revolutionary optimism". An illustration can serve as a statement by N.I. Bukharin, which was voiced a little later at the pedagogical congress, which is very significant for that period, and which the authors risk quoting in full, despite the cumbersomeness of the quote:

“Supporters of the biogenetic law, without any limitation, or those who are fond of it, suffer from the fact that they transfer biological laws to the phenomena of the social series and consider them identical. This is an undoubted mistake and stands in an absolutely undoubted connection with a number of biological theories (racial theory, the doctrine of historical and non-historical peoples, etc.). We do not at all stand on the point of view of abstract equality, abstract people; it is an absurd theory that cries out to heaven because of its helplessness and contradiction with the facts. But we are heading towards ensuring that there is no division into non-historical and historical peoples ... Silent the theoretical prerequisite for this is what you pedologists call the plasticity of the organism, those. an opportunity to catch up in a short time, make up for what was lost... If we stood on the point of view that racial or national characteristics are such stable values ​​that they need to be changed for thousands of years, then, of course, all our work would be absurd, because it was built would be on the sand. A number of organic racial theorists extend their theoretical construction to the problem of classes. The propertied classes (in their opinion) possess the best traits, the best brains and other magnificent qualities that predetermine and forever perpetuate their domination of a certain group of persons, certain social categories and find for this domination a natural-scientific, primarily biological, justification. No great research has been carried out on this subject, but even if, which I do not rule out, we have received by a circle more perfect brains among the propertied classes, at least among their cadres, than among the proletariat, then in the end does this mean that these theories are correct? It does not mean, because it was so, but it will be otherwise, because such prerequisites are being created that allow the proletariat, under the conditions of plasticity of the organism, to make up for what has been lost and completely redesign itself, or, as Marx put it, to change its own nature ... If it were not for this plasticity of the organism... Then the silent premise would be slow change and comparatively little influence of the social environment; the proportion between pre-social adjustments and social adjustments would be such that the center of gravity would lie in pre-social adjustments, and social adjustments would play a small role, and then there would be no way out, the worker would be biologically attached to the convict wheelbarrow ... Therefore, the question about the social environment and the influence of the social environment must be decided in such a way that the influence of the social environment plays a greater role than is usually supposed.

2. The ideological conjuncture not only opened the “green light” to all sociologists of pedology, turning it from a science that studies the child into a science that describes the facts that confirm ideological premises, and mainly studies the environment and its impact on the child, and not on him, but and disgraced any other scientific dissent: "He who is not with us is against us."

3. The fundamental idea of ​​"unity" in the country, which stood for unitarity, extended to pedology, where the faster development of science required the unification of scientific forces; however, this explanation was allowed by the "tops" and was promoted and carried out among pedologists only under the banner of the primacy of environmental influence on the body.

The first pedological congress was called upon to complete the transformation of pedology, to give a demonstrative battle to dissent, to unite the disparate ranks of pedologists on a single platform. But if only these tasks were set before the congress, it would hardly have been possible to carry it out according to a scenario reminiscent of the scenario of the famous session of VASKhNIL. The congress also faced other tasks, the relevance of which was understood by all pedologists without exception.

The following scientific problems required urgent analysis and solution:

the complete isolation of pedology from pediatrics, and hence the narrow therapeutic and hygienic bias of pediatrics, on the one hand, and the underuse by pedology of the most valuable biological materials available in pediatrics, on the other; lack of connection between pedology and pedagogical practice; lack of practical methods in many areas of research and insufficient implementation of existing ones.

There were also organizational problems: the relationship between pedology and the People's Commissariat of Health and the People's Commissariat of Education was unclear, the boundaries of their functions were not defined; lack of planning on a national scale of research work on pedology, drift and disproportion of various areas of research; the lack of a regular position for pedological practitioners, which was a brake on the creation of their own personnel; lack of funding for pedological research;

ambiguity in the delimitation of the work of pedologists of various scientific and practical training, which led to difficulties in the university training of pedologists and striated work; the need to create a central all-Union pedological journal and a society coordinating and covering the work 45 .

Proceeding from the problems posed before the congress, it can be concluded that the congress envisaged internal and external formalization in pedology. The congress was organized by the scientific and pedagogical section of the Main Academic Council (GUS), Narkompros and Narkomzdrav with the participation of over 2,000 people. More than 40 leading specialists in the field of pedology were elected to the presidium of the congress, N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.K. Krupskaya, N.A. Semashko, I.P. Pavlova and others.

The grand opening and the first day of the congress were scheduled for December 27, 1927 in the classroom building of the 2nd Moscow State University. The tragic death of acad. V.M. Bekhtereva shocked the congress and postponed its beginning. V.M. Bekhterev had just graduated from the psycho-neurological congress and actively participated in the preparation of the pedological congress. The congress was absorbed by the death of the academician, many of its employees withdrew their reports and left for home. The first day of the congress was entirely devoted to the memory of V.M. Bekhterev and his funeral.

The work of the congress took place from December 28, 1927 to January 4, 1928. A.B. Zalkind. He said that the tasks of the congress boiled down to taking into account the work done by Soviet pedologists, identifying directions and groupings among them, linking pedology with pedagogy, and uniting Soviet pedology "into a single team." On December 28, 29, 30 the plenum of the congress worked; from December 30 to January 4, seven sections worked in special areas. Four main sections were defined in the work of the plenary sessions of the congress: political and ideological problems, general questions of pedology, the problem of methodology for studying childhood, and labor pedology.

Political and ideological problems were touched upon in the speeches of N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.K. Krupskaya and the report of A.B. Zalkind Pedology in the USSR. N.I. Bukharin mainly spoke about the relationship between pedology and pedagogy. In addition, he tried to smooth over from his position the differences in the methodological plan of the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlova. A.V. Lunacharsky, like N.I. Bukharin, emphasized the need for an early union of pedagogy and pedology, their interpenetration. On the same occasion, N.K. Krupskaya.

From a historical point of view, it is not without interest to cite excerpts from the speeches at the congress of these historical figures who had a direct and indirect influence on the development of pedology.

N.K. Krupskaya: “Pedology is materialistic in its very essence... Modern pedology has a lot of shades: whoever simplifies the question and underestimates the influence of the social environment is even inclined to see in pedology some kind of antidote against Marxism, which is getting deeper and deeper into the school; who, on the contrary, go too far and underestimate heredity and the influence of the general laws of development.

A serious shortcoming hindering the implementation of the Gus platform was its pedological underdevelopment - the lack of sufficiently clear indications in science about the educational capacity of each age, about its specific features that require age-specific individualization, a program approach.

Even the little done by pedology in the development of methods of teaching and education shows what enormous prospects there are, how much it is possible to facilitate learning by applying the pedological approach, how much can be achieved in terms of education” 46.

A.V. Lunacharsky: “The stronger the bond between pedology and pedagogy, the sooner pedology is admitted to pedagogical work, to contact with the pedagogical process, the sooner it will grow. Our school network can approach a really normal school network in a socialist, Marxist-scientific state building its own culture, when it is thoroughly permeated with a network of sufficiently scientifically trained pedologists. In addition to saturating our school with pedologists, it is also necessary that in every teacher, in the brain of every teacher, there lives, perhaps, a small but strong enough pedologist. And one more thing - to introduce pedology as one of the main subjects in the preparation of a teacher, and introduce it seriously, so that a person who knows pedology teaches” 47 .

N.I. Bukharin: “The relationship between pedology and pedagogy is the relationship between theoretical discipline, on the one hand, and normative discipline, on the other; moreover, this ratio is such that, from a certain point of view, pedology is a servant of pedagogy. But this does not mean that the category of a maid is the category of a cook who has not learned to manage. On the contrary, the position of the maid here is one in which this maid gives directive instructions to the normative scientific discipline she serves. 44

The main profiling report of the congress was the report of A.B. Zalkind “Pedology in the USSR”, devoted to general issues of pedology, which summed up the work done, named the main areas of pedology that existed at that time, institutions involved in pedological research and practice. The report practically summed up the results of all research on childhood over the past decades, and not just pedology. Apparently, this is why the congress itself was already so numerous, because doctors, teachers, psychologists, physiologists, and pedologists were present and spoke at it.

The complex problem of the methodology of childhood was developed in the reports of S.S. Youthful, V.G. Shtefko, A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M.Ya. Basova, K.N. Kornilova, A.S. Zalugny and others.

In the debate on methodological reports, a negative attitude to the exceptional significance of the physiological method was revealed, and a significant dispute arose between representatives of the Bekhterev and Pavlov schools on the understanding of mental phenomena.

Some of the speakers demanded the "destruction" of disagreements between the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov and the "establishment" of practical conclusions, on the basis of which it would be possible to carry out further pedological work.

An in-depth study of general and particular issues of pedology took place in seven sections: research and methodological, preschool, preschool, school age (two sections), a difficult child, organizational and program.

In general, the congress went according to the planned scenario: pedology received official recognition, “united” its disparate forces, demonstrating with its own eyes who the “future” of pedology is, and outlined ways of cooperation with pediatrics and pedagogy as a methodological basis. After the congress, the voluminous journal "Pedology" began to be published under the editorship of prof. A.B. Zalkind, the first issues of which were mainly collected from reports made at the congress. Pedology receives the necessary funding, and practically the period from the beginning of 1928 to 1931 is the heyday of "Soviet" pedology. At this time, pedological methods are being introduced into the practice of pedagogical work, the school is replenished with pedological personnel, the program of the People's Commissariat for Education on pedology is being developed, and cadres of pedologists are being trained in pediatrics. But in the same period, more and more pressure is placed on the biological research of the child, because from here comes the danger for "revolutionary pedological optimism", for the dominant ideology.

The 1930s became the years of dramatic events in pedology. A period of confrontation of currents began, which led to the final sociologization of pedology. The discussion flared up again about what kind of pedology our state needs, whose methodology is more revolutionary and Marxist. Despite the persecution, the representatives of the "biologising" (this included those pedologists who defended Meiman's understanding of pedology and its independence) did not want to give up their positions. If the supporters of the dominant sociologization trend lacked scientific arguments, then other methods were used: the opponent was declared unreliable. So E.A. turned out to be a “militant minority and a Machist”. Arkin, "idealist" - N.M. Shchelovanov, "reactionary" - the school of V.M. Bekhterev.

“On the one hand, we are seeing the same old academicism with problems and research methods torn off from today. On the other hand, we are faced with a serene calm that has not yet been outlived by the most acute problems of pedology ... With such indifference to the introduction of the Marxist method into pedology, we are not surprised by the indifference of the same departments and groups to socialist construction: a real "synthesis" of theory and practices, but the synthesis is negative, i.e. deeply hostile to the proletarian revolution.

From January 25 to February 2, 1930, the All-Union Congress for the Study of Man was held in Leningrad, which also became a platform for a lively discussion in pedology and corresponding applause. The congress “went into battle with the authoritarianism of the former philosophical leadership, autogenetism, directly directed against the pace of socialist construction; the congress struck painfully at the idealistic conceptions of personality, which are always an apology for bare individualism; the congress rejected the idealistic and biologizing-mechanical approaches to the collective, revealing its class content and its powerful stimulating role under socialism; The congress demanded a radical restructuring of the methods of studying man on the basis of dialectical-materialist principles and on the basis of the requirements of the practice of social construction” 48 . And if at the First Pedological Congress there were still scientific contradictions in progress, then here everything already acquires a political coloring and scientific opponents turn out to be enemies of the proletarian revolution. The witch hunt has begun. In fact, at this congress, the reactological school (K.N. Kornilova) was crushed, since “the whole theory and practice of reactology cries out about its imperialist general methodological claims” and, along the way, “ultrareflexological distortions of V.M. Bekhterev and his school”, and the entire direction was declared reactionary.

In the journal "Pedology" appeared in 1931 a new column - "Tribune", set aside specifically for exposing the "internal" enemies in pedology. Many swore allegiance to the regime, "realized" their "guilt" and repented. Materials are published with a "radical revision of the pre-Soviet age standards" of childhood from the point of view of their much greater capacity and their qualitatively different content in the children of the working masses in comparison with what our enemies wanted to recognize. There was a revision of the problem of "giftedness" and "difficult childhood" along the lines of "the greatest creative wealth that our new system opens up for the worker-peasant children." The methods of pedological research were attacked, especially the test method, the laboratory experiment. Blows were also dealt to "prostitution" in the field of pedological statistics. A number of most serious attacks were made on the "individualism" of pre-Soviet pedology. Quite eloquently, through the magazine "Pedology" a parade of targets for harassment was held, and everyone (and "targets" too) was invited to participate in the "hunt". However, the editors of the journal did not take credit for the organization of persecution: “The political core of pedological discussions is by no means a special advantage, a “super-merit” of pedology itself: here it reflects only the stubborn pressure of the class pedological order, which in essence is always directly political, acutely party order" 48 . Analyzing further the situation in pedology, A.B. Salkind calls everyone to "repentance"... Differentiation within the pedological camp requires, in the first place, an analysis of my personal perversions... However, this does not relieve us of the need to decipher the perversions in the works of our other leaders in pedological work... and our journal should immediately become the organizer and collector of this material. At the review of the pedagogical and psychological departments of the Academy of Communist Education P.P. Blonsky stated the idealistic and mechanistic roots of his mistakes. Unfortunately, Comrade Blonsky has not yet given a concrete analysis of these errors in their objective roots, in their development and in their real material, and we are urgently awaiting his corresponding speech in our journal. We invite comrades to help P.P. Blonsky articles, requests. "Comrades" were not slow to respond: in the next issue of the magazine an article about the mistakes of A.M. Blonsky is published. Gelmont "For Marxist-Leninist pedology" 49 ,

The journal Pedology demanded "repentance" or, more often, blasphemous denunciations of "insufficiently dedicated scientists." They demanded "help from the comrades" in relation to K.N. Kornilov, S.S. Molozhavy, A.S. Zaluzhny, M.Ya. Basov, I.A. Sokolyansky, N.M. Shchelovanov. They demanded the "disarmament" of the outstanding teacher and psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, as well as A.V. Luria and others

And these "criticism" and "self-criticism" were published not only in the journal "Pedology" itself, but also in social and political journals, especially in the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" 21,50,51.

On the other hand, bullying in the form of "scientific criticism" has become not only a way of one's scientific understanding, but also an opportunity to prove one's loyalty to the regime. That is why so many "devastating" articles appear at this time, in almost all scientific journals, not to mention socio-political ones. What such “criticism” was like can be demonstrated by the example of M.Ya. Basov, whose persecution ended in a tragic denouement. In the journal "Pedology" No. 3 for 1931, an article by M.P. Feofanov "Methodological foundations of the Basov school" 52 , which the author himself summarizes in the following provisions: 1) the considered works of M.Ya. Basov can by no means be regarded as meeting the requirements of Marxist methodology; 2) in their methodological guidelines they are an eclectic tangle of biologism, mechanistic elements and Marxist phraseology; 3) the main work of M.Ya. Basov's "General Foundations of Pedology" is such a work that, as an educational guide for students, can only bring harm, since it gives a completely wrong orientation both to research scientific work on the study of children and adults, and to the education of a person's personality; its harmfulness is further enhanced by the fact that Marxist phraseology obscures the harmful aspects of the book; 4) the concept of the human personality, according to the teachings of M.Ya. Basov, is completely inconsistent with all the meaning, spirit and attitudes towards the understanding of a historical personality, a social class person, which is developed in the works of the founders of Marxism; it is essentially reactionary.

These conclusions are made on the basis of the encyclopedic nature of the work of M.Ya. Basov in the field of pedology and references in this work to the most prominent psychologists and pedologists in the world who had the "misfortune" to be born outside the USSR - and were not spokesmen for the ideology of the victorious proletariat. This and similar criticisms led to a corresponding administrative reaction from the leadership of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen, where M.Ya. bass.

M.Ya. Basov had to write a response article, but it was already published ... posthumously. A few months before the death of M.Ya. Basov leaves the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute (hardly on his own initiative), where he headed the pedological work. He leaves to "realize his mistakes" at the machine, as a simple worker, and absurdly dies from blood poisoning. On October 8, 1931, the corresponding obituary was placed in the newspaper of the institute “For the Bolshevik Pedkadry” and M.Ya. Basov:

“To students, graduate students, professors and teachers of the pedological department and to my Employees. Dear comrades!

An absurd accident, complicated by the difficulties of mastering the production of our brother, pulled me out of your ranks. Of course, I regret this, because I could still work as it is necessary for our great socialist country. Remember that any loss in the ranks is compensated by an increase in the energy of those who remain. Forward to Marxist-Leninist pedology - the science of the laws governing the development of socialist man at our historical stage.

M.Ya. Basov" 53 .

He was 39 years old.

The letter of I.V. Stalin "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism" in the journal "Proletarian Revolution". In response to this message, which called for an end to "rotten liberalism" in science, all scientific institutions underwent an ideological purge of cadres. On the example of LGPI them. A.I. Herzen can be illustrated how it took place: in the newspaper “For the Bolshevik Pedkadry” dated January 19, 1932, in the section “Struggle for the party spirit of science”, it was printed: “Comrade Stalin’s letter mobilized to increase vigilance, to fight against rotten liberalism. In the order of deployment, the works were opened and exposed [there is a listing by department] ... at the pedological department: Bogdanovism, subjective idealism in the works of the psychologist Marlin and eclecticism, Menshevik idealism in the works of the pedologist Shardakov.

The purge also affected the leading pedological cadres. The leadership of the central press organ - the journal "Pedology" - has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor of self-flagellation and flagellation of others, was removed from the post of executive editor: his “mistakes” in the first works on sexual education were too serious, which he subsequently edited many times opportunistically, and later practically abandoned them, switching to purely organizational work. However, he turned out to be unsuitable for the edifice he erected with such stubbornness, although subsequently, right up to the very destruction of pedology, he would still remain at the helm of pedology. Not only the editorial board of the journal is changing, but also the direction of work. Pedology becomes an “applied pedagogical science” and since 1932 has been defined as “a social science that studies the patterns of age development of a child and adolescent based on the leading role of the patterns of the class struggle and socialist construction of the USSR.” However, the practical benefit of pedology to education, where the work of pedologists was professionally and competently set up, was obvious and determined the support of pedology from the People's Commissariat of Education. In 1933, a resolution was issued by the collegium of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR for pedological work, which determined the directions of work and methods. N.K. participated in the development of this resolution. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky 3 .

The result of this decision was the widespread introduction of pedology into the school, the slogan appeared: “A pedologist for every school,” which to some extent resembles the modern trend of psychologization of education. The opening of new schools specialized for certain groups of students was subsidized, including an increase in the number of schools for mentally retarded and handicapped children. The practice of pedological examination, the distribution of children into classes and schools in accordance with their actual and mental age, which often does not coincide with the passport, as well as the not always high-quality work of pedologists-practitioners due to their low qualifications, often caused dissatisfaction with parents and teachers in the field. This dissatisfaction was reinforced by the ideological indoctrination of the population. The differentiation of the school into a regular school and for different categories of children with mental retardation "violated" the ideology of equality and averageness of Soviet people, which often reached the point of absurdity in its premises: assertions that a child of the most advanced and revolutionary class should be worthy of his position, be advanced and revolutionary both in the field of physical and mental development due to the transformative impact of the revolutionary environment and the extreme lability of the organism; the laws of heredity were violated, the negative influence of the environment in a socialist society was rejected. From these provisions it followed that a child cannot be mentally and physically retarded, and therefore pedological examinations and the opening of new schools for mentally retarded and handicapped children were considered inappropriate; moreover, they are a provocation on the part of bourgeois-minded, unreconstructed pedologists and the People's Commissariat for Education who have taken them under their wing.

In this regard, in "Pravda" and other media there are calls to stop such provocations, to protect Soviet children from fanatical pedologists. Within pedology itself, the campaign for the restructuring of pedology into a truly Marxist science continues. To criticism in the media and from some leaders of the People's Commissariat of Education, calling for a ban on pedology or returning it to the bosom of the psychology that gave birth to it, detailed answers are given explaining the goals and results of the work, its necessity. One gets the impression that the devastating decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks came as a complete surprise to many teachers and pedologists. This suggests that the prohibition of pedology should be sought not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the "tops". On the tip of the "bayonet" was N.K. Krupskaya.

A report on the implementation of this resolution was probably submitted to the Central Committee. Thus ended the brief history of pedology in the USSR. The baby is sacrificed to politics. The defeat of good undertakings is a “small” political action directed against N.K. Krupskaya, N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, V.M. Bekhterev, who actively supported Nadezhda Konstantinovna.

There are also purely internal reasons for this. First of all, the lack of unity in understanding the essence of science: not the distribution of ideas to take away, but their eclectic introduction from other areas of knowledge and even from areas of deep ignorance. True synthesis in thought, as illustrated, has not taken place. Pedagogical dominant, later unjustified sociologization concealed the main roots of pedology.

The only correct way, in our opinion, would be a path based on the creation of a doctrine of human individuality, on the genetic predetermination of individuality, on understanding how, as a result of the wide possibilities of combinatorics of genes, a personality typology is formed in the interaction "genotype - environment". Deep insight into the concept reaction rate genotype could grow deep and solid science of man. Could have already then, in the 20-30s. receive normal scientific development and the practice of pedagogical activity, which to this day remains more of an art.

It is possible that society has not matured to understand the goals of science, as it happened more than once, as it happened in its time with the discovery of G. Mendel. However, this is due to the fact that the level of banal genetic thinking was inaccessible to a wide range of pedologists, psychologists and teachers, as, by the way, at the present time, although there were first contacts. Thus, M.Ya. A.I. Herzen, invited the famous scientist Yu.I. Polyansky to read the corresponding course. Meanwhile, on the one hand, it was a course in general genetics, but a course in human genetics was needed; on the other hand, it was a one-time event. You can take a course in genetics, but not absorb its essence, which happened to M.Ya. Basov. There was no textbook on human genetics at that time. Somewhat earlier (this is the task of a special and very important essay), the science of eugenics went out, and then genetics itself; the dramatic consequences of this in the country are still being felt.

The formula “We cannot expect favors from nature! Taking them is our task!” And they take, take, take ... ignorantly and cruelly, destroying not only nature itself, but also the intellectual potential of the Fatherland. They took it, but did not claim it. And did this potential survive after all the selective processes? We are optimistic - yes! Even with today's outlandish pressure of ecological bungling, it is worth relying on the limitless possibilities of hereditary variability. Having applied various methods of early psychodiagnostics of individual characteristics of a person, which turned out to be well developed in the West, it is worth thinking about how to demand from each person the maximum possible that he can give to society. Only now, perhaps, it is not worth calling these thoughts pedology, this has already been experienced.

Notes

1. Rumyantsev N.E. Pedology. SPb., 1910. P.82.
2. Herbart I. Psychology / Per. A.P. Nechaeva. SPb., 1895. 270 p.
3. Blonsky P.P.
4. Mayman E. Essay on experimental pedagogy. M., 1916. 34 p.
5. Thorndike E. Principles of teaching based on psychology / Per. from English. E.V. Ger'e; intro. Art. L.S. Vygotsky. M., 1926. 235 p.
6. Hall St. Collection of articles on pedology and pedagogy. M., 1912. 10 p.
7. Engineers X. Introduction to psychology. L., 1925. 171 p.
8. Blonsky P.P.
9. Gundobin N.P. Peculiarities of childhood. SPb., 1906. 344 p.
10. Basov M.Ya. General foundations of pedology. M.; L., 1928. 744 p.
11. Youthful S.S. The science of the child in its principles and methods // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. S.27-39.
12. Youthful S.S.. About the program for the study of the child // Education in transport. 1925. No. 11. S.27-30.
13. Shapiro Ya.I. Basic issues of pedology // Vestn. enlightenment. 1927. No. 5. S.82-88; No. 6. S.67-72; No. 7. pp.65-76.
14. Kirkpatrick E. Fundamentals of pedology. M., 1925. 301 p.
15. Gellerstein S.G. Psychotechnical foundations of teaching labor at the first stage school // On the way to a new school. 1926. No. 7-8. pp.84-98.
16. Basov M.Ya. Methods of psychological observation of children. L., 1924. 338 p.
17. Boltunov A.P. Measuring rock of the mind for subclass tests of schoolchildren: From the psychological laboratory of the Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. L., 1928. 79 p.
18. Guryanov E.V. Accounting for school success: School tests and standards. M., 1926. 158 p.
19. Buchholz N.A., Schubert A.M.. Tests of mental giftedness and school success: Massive American tests. M., 1926. 88 p.
20. Zalkind A.B. On the issue of revising pedology // Vestn. enlightenment. 1925. No. 4. S.35-69.
21. Zaluzhny A.S. Children's team and methods of its study. M.; L., 1931. 145 p.
22. Zaluzhny A.S. For the Marxist-Leninist formulation of the problem of the collective // ​​Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.44-51
23. Blonsky P.P. Pedology: A Textbook for Higher Pedagogical Educational Institutions. M., 1934. 338 p.
24. Arkin E.A. Preschool age. 2nd ed. M., 1927. 467 p.
25. Aryamov I.Ya. 10 years of Soviet pedology: Report at the ceremonial meeting of the Research Institute of Scientific Pedagogics at the First Moscow State University, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution // Vestn. enlightenment. 1927. No. 12. pp.68-73.
26. Zalkind A.B. Differentiation on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.7-14.
27. Nechaev A.P. Experimental psychology in its relation to school education. St. Petersburg. 1901. 236 p.
28. Neurology, neuropathology, psychology, psychiatry: Sat., dedicated. 40th anniversary of scientific, medical and pedagogical activity of prof. G.I.Rosselimo. M., 1925.
29. Osipova V.N. School of V.M. Bekhterev and pedology // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. pp.10-26.
30. Bekhterev V.M. On the public education of young children // Revolution and Culture. 1927. No. 1. pp.39-41.
31. Troshin G. Comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children. M., 1915.
32. Lazursky A.F. natural experiment. Pg., 1918.
33. Basov M.Ya. Experience of methods of psychological observations. Pg., 1923. 234 p.
34. Aryamov I.A. Reflexology of childhood: The development of the human body and the characteristics of different ages. M., 1926. 117 p.
35. Blonsky P.P. Pedology. M., 1925. 318 p.
36. Blonsky P.P. Pedology in the mass school of the first stage. M., 1925. 100 p.
37. Youthful S.S. A program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's team. M., 1924. 6 p.
38. Arkin E.A. Brain and soul. M.; L., 1928. 136 p.
39. Zalkind A.B. Revision of the pedology of school age: Report at the III All-Russian Congress on Preschool Education // Worker of Education. 1923. No. 2.
40. Nevertheless, A.B. Zalkind wrote earlier: “Of course, by passing on educated traits by inheritance, since it is impossible to seriously change the properties of an organism in one generation ...”.
41. Shchelovanov N.M. On the issue of raising children in a nursery // Vopr. motherhood and infancy. 1935. No. 2. pp.7-11.
42. Shtefko V.G., Serebrovskaya M.V., Shugaev B.C. Materials on the physical development of children and adolescents. M., 1925. 49 p.
43. Fortunatov G.A. Pedological work in preschool institutions // Education in transport. 1923. No. 9-10. S.5-8.
44. Bukharin N.I. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. S.3-10.
45. Krupskaya N.K. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. S.3-10. It should be noted that these statements by N.K. Krupskaya were not included in the “complete” collections of her works.
46. Lunacharsky A.V. Materials of the I All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.
47. Zalkind A.B. On the position on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 1. S.1-2.
48. Gelmont A.M. For Marxist-Leninist pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63-66.
49. Leventuev P. Political perversions in pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63-66.
50. Stanevich P. Against excessive enthusiasm for the method of variational statistics and its incorrect application in anthropometry and psychometry // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.67-69.
51. Feofanov M.P. Methodological foundations of the Basov school // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.21-34.
52. [Obituary to M.Ya.Basov] // For the Bolshevik pedkadry. 1931. 3 Oct.
53. [Editorial] // True. 1934. 14 Aug.
54. Feofanov M.P. The Theory of Cultural Development in Pedology as an Eclectic Concept with Mainly Idealistic Roots // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. pp.21-34.
55. Babushkin A.P. Eclecticism and reactionary slander on the Soviet child and teenager // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. pp.35-41.

Pedology in Russia began to develop at the beginning of the last century. The founder of Russian pedology is considered to be A.P. Nechaev.

Later, V.M. joined him. Bekhterev and other scientists, and by 1920 this science was at the top of its development. Under pedology, it is customary to understand such a scientific trend that combines different sciences in the study of the development of children - biology, psychology, medicine, etc.

From the history

Pedology is the science of children, this is the literal translation of this name. It consists of several main components, which include the study of the mental and physiological development of the child, taking into account the characteristics of his body (constitution) and age. The founder of pedology was S. Hall. He created the first pedology laboratory in the late 1880s.

It should be noted that a number of scientists connect the beginning of the science we are considering with the works of a doctor from Germany, D. Tiedemann, who studied the development of mental abilities in children. Later, a representative of the same country, the physiologist G. Preyer, also began to investigate the development of spiritual qualities in children. But all the same, the generally recognized pioneer of pedology is Hall, thanks to whose efforts about 30 laboratories were created in America in a few years, comprehensively studying the development of children.

In our country, pedology has come a long way of development - for 15 years pedologists have been fighting for their system to become part of the educational process. Then they began to conduct active testing of children, and based on the results they formed classrooms according to various parameters, primarily in terms of the level of intellectual development.

Several pedological institutes were established in different regions. But after 1920, with the advent of Soviet power, the principles of pedology became objectionable to the policy of the party, which proclaimed a departure from experiments and a return to traditional teaching methods. Among the main reasons why pedology did not suit the ruling elite were the following:

• According to the results of testing, children born in "hostile" families were most often recognized as gifted - the children of priests, White Guards, etc., and peasant children were usually classified as defective students.
• Overestimation of the natural abilities of students and underestimation of the cultural and historical components in the upbringing of children.

As a result, the Soviet government made a categorical conclusion that pedological practice is inappropriate for our public education. Even a special resolution was created, which spoke of the "perversions" of pedology and which completely eliminated this movement. Tests were ordered to be banned, and all pedologists were retrained as teachers.

The works on which pedologists worked for many years were completely withdrawn from use and burned. This academic discipline was excluded from courses in pedagogical colleges and institutes, entire laboratories and even departments were liquidated.

At the same time, the textbooks of such well-known pedologists as Blonsky, Sokolov and others were categorically banned and removed from libraries. But the Soviet government did not stop there: many scientists were repressed or even executed.

However, we note that the party leaders failed to completely exterminate pedology. She had a new trend, which became known as pedagogical anthropology. Later, it was divided into several separate scientific currents: developmental psychology, educational psychology and developmental physiology, which together constitute pedology.

It turns out that it cannot be called a full-fledged science, but it cannot be attributed to the category of “pseudoscience”. At that stage, it was only a certain kind of scientific trend, which was not artificially allowed to develop and form into a full-fledged science with its own subject, object, methods, goals and objectives.

Criticism and reality

Speaking of pedology, one cannot fail to note its close relationship with psychology and pedagogy. This connection can be seen even in the fact that both these sciences use the same methods: experiment, observation, tests and analysis of statistics. There are some scientists who even criticize the science we are considering, arguing that it can only be called a branch of pedagogy or psychology.

After pedology began to develop in America, its appearance also occurred in Europe, where it "went deep" and began to develop methodology for pedagogy. It is noteworthy that the term "pedology" was perceived by many and is currently perceived as a synonym for the hygiene of education, educational psychology, pedagogy and other scientific branches.

Pedology has been criticized on several points.

• Firstly, at one time she did not have highly qualified practitioners who could prove the validity of their views and applied methods.
• Secondly, the goal - to comprehensively study the child - cannot always be achieved.
• Thirdly, mass testing of children with poor adaptation of methods can show unreliable, and sometimes directly opposite, results.

One can argue for a long time about whether the leaders of the party elite, who in our country decided to call pedology a perversion, were right or not, but this, perhaps, is pointless. History cannot be changed.

Yes, to some extent there were excesses, but all this could be solved by constructive methods, which, it seems, the Soviet government did not know about, arranging repressions in all spheres of public life. Most likely, the pedologists would have been able to realize and overcome their mistakes themselves, but this idea never occurred to anyone from the party.

Meanwhile, a number of scientists believe that at the time of the collapse of pedology in Russia, there was no future as such, so the Soviet government only served as an impetus for the inevitable process. Pedologists failed to form an integrated approach to the study of the child.

The reason is simple: pedology was based on those sciences that at the beginning of the last century in Russia did not reach their maturity, or even formation. These are, for example, pedagogy and psychology. And another important science - sociology - did not exist in Russia then at all, therefore there was no opportunity to build good interdisciplinary ties.

New life

It was only in the second half of the last century that pedology was again remembered in Russia. The testing system was again used in education, psychology and pedagogy. The works of P.P. Blonsky, A.B. Zalkind and others.

But in fairness, it should be noted that the subject of pedology then, at the time of its appearance in Russia, was not precisely formulated. Scientists simply sought to comprehensively study children, taking into account all possible factors. If we take the provisions of this science in a broad sense, then all the basic pedological principles are reduced to four main ones:

• Each child is an integral system, and it cannot be considered separately as a psychological or physiological object.
• Children can only be understood by considering the fact that they are constantly in the process of development.
• Any child needs to be studied taking into account the environment in which he grows and is brought up, because it has a huge impact on his psyche.
• The science of children should be not only theoretical, but also have practical methods.

Pedology as a science in our country established itself and in the 1960s began to be widely used in children's institutions: schools, kindergartens, teenage clubs. And in the capitals of Russia - Moscow and Leningrad - even entire institutes of pedology appeared, whose employees were engaged in the study of children from birth to adolescence.

It would be gratifying for every scientist-pedologist that today this repressed science is getting a new life. In particular, the journal “Pedology. New Age”, which publishes the best materials related to this scientific trend. The works of pedologists are reprinted in thousands of copies, on the basis of which new researchers of the children's world build their scientific hypotheses and conduct experiments.

Modern Russian pedology develops primarily within the framework of the so-called children's research. Scientists are considering the anthropology of childhood, taking child psychology and pedagogy as a basis.

There is a special research group that works in Moscow on the basis of the Russian State University for the Humanities. At its core, the main purpose of their research is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the personality of the child. By the way, most of these researchers are not teachers or psychologists, but historians. Author: Elena Ragozina

from the Greek pais - child + logos - word, science) - a trend in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, due to the penetration of evolutionary ideas into pedagogy and psychology, the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy.

Amer. is recognized as the founder of P. psychologist S. Hall, who created the 1st pedological laboratory in 1889; the term was coined by his student. - O. Crisment. But back in 1867, K. D. Ushinsky in his work “Man as an Object of Education” anticipated the appearance of P.: “If pedagogy wants to educate a person in all respects, then it must first recognize him in all respects.”

In the West, P. was engaged in S. Hall, J. Baldwin, E. Meiman, V. Preyer, and others. P. was a brilliant scientist and organizer A. P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by V. M. Bekhterev, who in 1907 organized the Pedological Institute in St. Petersburg. The first 15 post-revolutionary years were favorable: there was a normal scientific life with stormy discussions, in which approaches were developed and the growing pains inevitable for young science were overcome.

The subject of P., despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments of its leaders (A. B. Zalkind, P. P. Blonsky, M. Ya. Basov, L. S. Vygotsky, S. S. Molozhaviy, etc.), is clearly defined was not, and attempts to find the specifics of P., not reducible to the content of the sciences adjacent to it, were not successful.

P. sought to study the child, while studying it comprehensively, in all its manifestations and taking into account all the influencing factors. Blonsky defined child development as the science of the age-related development of a child in a particular sociohistorical environment. The fact that P. was still far from ideal is explained not by the fallacy of the approach, but by the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science. Of course, there was no absolute unity of views among pedologists. However, there are 4 main principles.

1. The child is an integral system. It should not be studied only "in parts" (something by physiology, something by psychology, something by neurology).

2. A child can be understood only by considering that he is in constant development. The genetic principle meant taking into account the dynamics and trends of development. An example is Vygotsky's understanding of a child's egocentric speech as a preparatory phase of an adult's inner speech.

3. A child can be studied only taking into account his social environment, which affects not only the psyche, but often also the morphophysiological parameters of development. Pedologists worked a lot and quite successfully with difficult teenagers, which was especially important in those years of prolonged social upheavals.

4. The science of the child should be not only theoretical, but also practical.

Pedologists worked in schools, kindergartens, various teenage associations. Psychological and pedological counseling was actively carried out; work was carried out with parents; developed the theory and practice of psychodiagnostics. In L. and M. there were in-you P., where representatives of different sciences tried to trace the development of the child from birth to adolescence. Pedologists were trained very thoroughly: they received knowledge in pedagogy, psychology, physiology, child psychiatry, neuropathology, anthropology, sociology, and theoretical classes were combined with everyday practical work.

In the 1930s criticism of many provisions of P. began (problems of the subject of P., bio- and sociogenesis, tests, etc.), 2 resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks were adopted. In 1936, P. was defeated, many scientists were repressed, and the fate of others was crippled. All pedological institutes and laboratories were closed; P. was excluded from the curricula of all universities. Labels were lavishly pasted: Vygotsky was declared an "eclecticist", Basov and Blonsky were declared "propagandists of fascist ideas."

The rulings and the ensuing landslide "criticism" barbarously but skillfully distorted the very essence of P., accusing her of adherence to the biogenetic law, the theory of 2 factors (see Convergence theory), fatally predetermining the fate of the child by a frozen social environment and heredity (this word should have sounded abusively). In fact, V.P. Zinchenko believes, pedologists were ruined by their system of values: "Intellect occupied one of the leading places in it. They valued, first of all, work, conscience, intelligence, initiative, nobility."

A number of works by Blonsky (for example: The development of schoolchildren's thinking. - M., 1935), the works of Vygotsky and his collaborators on child psychology laid the foundation for modern scientific knowledge about the mental development of the child. The works of N. M. Shchelovanov, M. P. Denisova, and N. L. Figurin (see Resuscitation Complex), which were created in pedological institutions by name, contained valuable factual material that was included in the fund of modern knowledge about the child and its development. These works formed the basis of the current system of education in infancy and early childhood, and the psychological research of Blonsky Vygotsky provided opportunities for the development of theoretical and applied problems of developmental and educational psychology in our country. At the same time, the real psychological meaning of the studies and their pedological design did not allow for a long time to separate one from the other and to appreciate their contribution to psychological science. (I. A. Meshcheryakova.)

Addendum: Undoubtedly, Mr. arbitrariness in relation to domestic P. played a decisive role in its tragic end, but attention is drawn to the fact that in other countries P. eventually ceased to exist. The fate of P. as an instructive example of a short-lived project of complex science deserves a deep methodological analysis. (B. M.)

PEDOLOGY

a trend in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, due to the spread of evolutionary ideas and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. It is associated primarily with the name of S. Hall, who in 1889 created the first pedological laboratory. The founders of pedology are S. Hall, J. M. Baldwin, E. Kirkpatrick, E. Meiman, V. Preyer, and others. In Russia, pedology was widely spread even in the pre-October period. By the end of the 20s. a significant corps of psychologists, physiologists, defectologists worked in pedological institutions.

In pedology, the child was considered comprehensively, in all its manifestations, in constant development and in various, including social, conditions; the goal was to help develop all its potentialities. The content of pedology was a combination of psychological, anatomical-physiological, biological and sociological approaches to the development of the child, although these approaches were interconnected purely mechanically.

However, the subject of pedology, despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments, was not defined, and attempts to find the specifics of pedology were unsuccessful, although a large empirical material on the development of children's behavior was accumulated in the studies of domestic pedologists. Valuable in pedology was the desire to study the development of the child in an integrated approach, a practical focus on the diagnosis of mental development.

In 1936, pedology in the USSR was declared a "pseudo-science" and ceased to exist. The result of the defeat of pedology was the inhibition of the development of pedagogical and developmental psychology, the lag in the field of psychodiagnostics, the weakening of attention to the personality of the child in the processes of education and upbringing (the so-called "childlessness" of pedagogy).

Pedology

Word formation. Comes from the Greek. pais - child and logos - word, science.

Specificity. It emerged at the end of the nineteenth century. under the influence of evolutionary ideas. It is associated primarily with the name of S. Hall, who in 1889 created the first pedological laboratory. In pedology, the child was considered comprehensively, in all its manifestations, in constant development and in various, including social, conditions, and the goal was to help develop all its potentialities.

Pedology

from the Greek pais, paidos - child and... logos - teaching, knowledge; letters. science of children), a direction in psychology and pedagogy, which aimed to combine biological, sociological, psychological and other approaches to the development of the child. Arose in con. 19th century The spread of pedology in Russia in the 1920s and 30s. was accompanied by heated discussions about its subject, tasks and methods. Many works carried out in line with pedology contained valuable material on the problems of childhood. Valuable in P. was the desire to study the development of the child in an integrated approach, a practical focus on the diagnosis of mental development. By a decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1936), pedology was declared a "pseudo-science" and ceased to exist. The result of the defeat of pedology was the inhibition of the development of pedagogical and developmental psychology, the lag in the field of psychodiagnostics, the weakening of attention to the personality of the child in the processes of education and upbringing (the so-called "childlessness" of pedagogy).

Pedology

Greek pais (paidos) - child + logos - science, teaching) - a trend in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, due to the spread of evolutionary ideas and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. The founders of P. - S. Hall, J.M. Baldwin, E. Kirkpatrick, E. Meiman, V. Preyer, and others. The content of P. was a combination of psychological, anatomical, physiological, biological, and sociological approaches to the development of the child, but these approaches turned out to be purely mechanically related. In Russia, P. became widespread as early as the beginning of the 20th century. By the end of the 1920s, a significant corps of psychologists, physiologists, defectologists (P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky and others) worked in pedological institutions. The subject of P., despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments of its representatives, was not defined. Attempts to find the specifics of P., not reducible to the content of the sciences adjacent to it, were not successful, although in the studies of scientists working in the field of P., a large amount of empirical material was accumulated on the development of children's behavior. Valuable in P. was the desire to study the development of the child in an integrated approach, a practical focus on the diagnosis of mental development. By a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1936), P. was declared a “pseudo-science” and ceased to exist. The result of the defeat of P. was the inhibition of the development of pedagogical and developmental psychology, the lag in the field of psychodiagnostics, and the weakening of attention to the personality of the child in the processes of education and upbringing (the so-called “childlessness” of pedagogy). A.V. Petrovsky

Pedology

A trend in pedagogy and psychology of the late 19th - early 20th centuries that used the psychological, anatomical, physiological, biological and social characteristics of the child in his education and upbringing. In the USSR, it was banned as a "bourgeois" science, which to a certain extent slowed down the development of pedagogical and psychological sciences.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

In the 21st century, the problem of educating the younger generation under the negative influence of environmental factors on the child, such as:

environmental factors. More and more children are born with congenital ailments, chronic diseases, especially in large cities and in the zone of radiation contamination.

criminal factors. The growth of crime in cities and criminal arbitrariness, kidnapping, etc.

psychological. The rhythm of life in the metropolis, the need to start an independent life early, the variety of television programs with various content, the Internet, etc.

All this requires from the teacher a modern approach to the upbringing and education of the younger generation.

Modern pedagogical educational institutions train specialists who are competent in many areas related to the health, development, and psychology of the child. It is generally recognized that this knowledge is necessary for solving various problems of upbringing and education. More and more new methods of studying the child's psyche, the characteristics of childhood are being created. The developers of modern educational programs largely rely on the research of specialists in various fields.

As a future teacher who already has teaching practice, I also became interested in finding a rational and effective system of education that takes into account the age and individual characteristics of the child, as well as based on the material of sciences related to pedagogy and not only. However, in my research, I turned to the past. The subject of the science of pedology seemed to me extremely interesting for knowledge and application, despite a number of visible shortcomings. The purpose of my work is to try to answer a number of questions:

What did pedology give to world pedagogy and psychology?

What sciences today are based on the experience of pedology?

Are the studies of pedologists used in modern pedagogy?

To do this, I set the following tasks for my research:

trace the path of the emergence of pedology, the prerequisites for the emergence of science;

briefly familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of pedology;

study the fate of science in Russia and the USSR;

understand the reasons for the defeat of pedology and its further oblivion.

Chapter 1.The birth of pedology as a science

In the era of feudalism, pedagogy was guided by the principle:

"Break the will of the child so that his soul can live." A more or less systematic study of the child began only in the era of industrial capitalism.

Industrial capitalism, drawing more and more masses of the population into production as hired labor, demanded from them a certain level of education. In this regard, the question of universal education arose. What was needed was a method of teaching that would work successfully in inexperienced hands. In an effort to make teaching more accessible and understandable, Pestalozzi tried to build it on the laws of psychology. Herbart continued the "psychologization of learning", he introduced psychology into all the main departments of pedagogy. At the time that practical psychology was being created, namely in the middle of the 19th century, general psychology was being greatly restructured, in the era of machine production and the development of technology, it became experimental. Educational psychology also transformed into experimental educational psychology or experimental pedagogy. So the German psychologist and educator MEIMANN in his “lectures on introduction to experimental pedagogy and its psychological foundations” sets out the age-related psychological characteristics of children, their individual characteristics, the technique and economics of memorization and the application of psychology to teaching literacy, counting and drawing. E. Meiman was one of the pioneers of developmental psychology in Germany. He founded a psychological laboratory at the University of Hamburg, which conducted research on the mental development of children. Meiman is also the founder of the first special journal devoted to pedagogical problems, the Journal of Educational Psychology. In his various activities, he paid the main attention to the applied aspect of child psychology and pedology, since he believed that the main task of pedology is to develop methodological foundations for teaching children. In his theoretical approaches, Maiman sought to combine Selley's associationist approach with Hall's theory of recapitulation. Meiman believed that child psychology should not only study the stages and age characteristics of mental development, but also explore individual developmental options, for example, questions of child giftedness and backwardness. Inborn tendencies of children. At the same time, education and upbringing should be based both on knowledge of general patterns and on an understanding of the characteristics of the psyche of this particular child.

However, pedagogy has a number of very important problems that cannot be solved by the means of pedagogical psychology (the goals of education, the content of educational material), therefore pedagogical psychology cannot replace pedagogy. Maiman believed that such a general picture of a child's life should be given by a special science - the science of young age (Jugendlehre), and for this, in addition to psychological data about the child, familiarity with the physical life of the child, knowledge of the dependence of the life of a growing person on external conditions, knowledge of the conditions education. So the development of educational psychology and experimental pedagogy leads to the recognition of the need to create a special science - the science of young age.

Relatively early, at the end of the 19th century, in the circles of the American psychologist, STANLEY HALL began to realize the impossibility of studying the mental development of the child separately from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - PEDOLOGY, which would give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. American psychologist Hall is the founder of pedology - a complex science of the child, which is based on the idea of ​​pedocentrism, that is, the idea that the child is the center of research interests of many professionals - psychologists, educators, biologists, pediatricians, anthropologists, sociologists and other specialists. Of all these areas, pedology includes the part that has to do with children. Thus, this science, as it were, unites all branches of knowledge related to the study of child development.

The idea of ​​the need to study child development was established with the penetration of evolutionary ideas into psychology. The application of these ideas to the study of the psyche meant the recognition of its genesis, development, and also its connection with the process of adaptation of the organism to the environment. One of the first to review the subject and tasks of psychology from this point of view was the English psychologist G. Spencer. However, he was mainly interested in the methodological and general theoretical problems of mental development. Hall, first of all, drew attention to the importance of studying the development of the child's psyche, the study of which can be a genetic method for general psychology.

Hall associated the importance of studying child psychology with his theory of recapitulation. The basis of this theory is Haeckel's biogenetic law, applied by Hall to explain child development.

Naturally, such a rigid and straightforward transfer of biological laws to pedagogy could not but be criticized, and many provisions of Hall's pedological concept were revised quite soon. However, the very science of pedology, created by him, very quickly gained popularity all over the world and existed almost until the middle of the 20th century. Popularity was brought to Hall and the methods of studying children he developed, primarily the questionnaires and questionnaires he published for adolescents, teachers and parents, which also made it possible to compile a comprehensive description of the child, analyze their problems not only from the point of view of adults, but also the children themselves.

Thus, S. Hall expressed the idea of ​​​​creating an experimental child psychology that was in the air, combining the requirements of pedagogical practice with the achievements of biology and psychology that were timely for him.

Chapter 2. First pedolsogical research in Russia

2. 1 Pappearanceeand racallepedology in Russia

Feudal Russia, with its Domostroy pedagogy, was as little interested in the psychology of the child as the feudal West. As well as there, the origin and development of educational psychology in Russia is associated with the democratic movement:

The first to look at the matter of education from a philosophical point of view was N.I. Pirogov. The principle of education put forward by him in a person, first of all a Human, caused the need to pose and discuss many theoretical problems. He took pedagogy to a new plane. It was a requirement of sound pedagogy based on psychology. Having shown that a person is a person, and not a means to achieve other goals, Pirogov raised the question of the need for a comprehensive, primarily psychological study of a person, knowledge of the patterns of his development, identification of the conditions and factors that determine the formation of the mental sphere of a child. With this approach, psychology came to the fore, became the necessary basis for solving pedagogical problems. He considered the task of studying the patterns of child development to be paramount and urgent. Noting the originality of childhood in general, Pirogov recognized the need to take into account the individual differences of children, without this it is impossible to influence the formation of the moral world of the individual, to develop the best human traits.

A new understanding of the tasks of upbringing inevitably entailed a new approach to interpreting the essence of upbringing, a new look at the factors of upbringing and the means of pedagogical influence.

A huge contribution to the development of these problems was made by K.D. Ushinsky. He gave his interpretation of the most complex and always topical questions about the psychological nature of education, about its limits and possibilities, about the relationship between education and development, about the combination of external educational influences and the process of self-education. According to Ushinsky, the subject of education is a person. “The art of education is based on the data of anthropological sciences, on complex knowledge about a person who lives in a family, in society, among the people, among humanity and alone with his conscience.” Ushinsky put two main concepts - "organism" and "development" as the basis of his theory of education. From this he deduced the need for a harmonious combination of mental, moral and physical education. The works of these outstanding teachers of the 19th century helped to look at the problem of education in a new light, to recognize the importance of psychology for education, to pave the way for the further development of educational psychology in Russia.

Passion for experimental pedagogy flared up in the era of 1905. An attempt to create, instead of pedagogical psychology, experimental pedagogy and a special science - pedology, found a response in Russia. Rumyantsev was a particularly ardent propagandist of pedology in pre-revolutionary times.

The early period of Soviet pedology is already characterized by the names of the then largest pedological universities and departments: Medical Pedological Institute, Department of Pedology and Defectology. This influence of doctors on the emerging Soviet pedology was mainly useful: it became easier and easier to connect the doctrine of the growth and physical development of the child with his psychology. It became easier and easier for pedology to take shape as a special independent science, moreover, a materialistic one. Works are beginning to appear that claim to give a general concept of childhood. Of these works, one can note: “Preschool age” by Arkin, “Pedology” by Blonsky, “Reflexology of childhood” by Aryamov.

Relying on natural science, young Soviet pedology waged an energetic struggle against idealism and took the path of materialism more and more resolutely. But the natural-scientific materialism with which pedology was then imbued was not yet dialectical, but mechanistic materialism. He considered the child as a kind of machine, whose activity is entirely determined by the influence of external stimuli. This mechanistic concept manifested itself especially clearly in the works of pedologists who gravitated towards reflexology. Thus, the problem of studying the laws of child development eludes mechanists in pedology.

If in the first years of its existence, Soviet pedology was influenced by natural science and medicine, then in the subsequent time it was decisively influenced by pedagogy. Pedology became more and more decisively a pedagogical science, and the pedologist began to enter children's institutions as a practical worker. Pedology was becoming more and more a social science, biologism was subjected to intense criticism, and the enormous role of the influence of the surrounding social environment and, in particular, education was recognized. Scientific and pedagogical production also grew (the works of Molozhavy, Blonsky, Basov, Vygotsky, Shchelovanov, Aryamov, Arkin).

Pedology turned its face to pedagogy. However, such a strong influence of pedagogy on pedology sometimes grew into an identification of these sciences, hence such incorrect definitions as “pedology is a part of pedagogy” or “pedology is the theory of the pedagogical process”. The problems of pedagogy and pedology are not identical (in pedagogy - how a teacher should teach, in pedology - how a child learns).

The problem of growth is one of the most basic pedological problems. Certainly. It uses the achievements of psychology, but it also uses data from various other sciences.

The problem of development is a philosophical problem. Not only should pedology not be alien to philosophy, but it is precisely philosophy that forms the basis of pedology.

The study of child development is not limited to the present, without knowing the history of mankind, it is impossible to understand the history of child development. Thus, history is one of the most basic sciences for pedology.

Knowledge of the activity of the nervous system is necessary for pedology. In general, it needs knowledge of the characteristics of the child's organism: pedology uses a great deal of biological material in the study of the development of the child.

Pedology is the science of the age development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment.

Representatives of science in the early twentieth century. are Rumyantsev, Nechaev, Rossolimo, Lazursky, Kashchenko. Later, pedological ideas were developed by Abramov, Basov, Bekhterev, Blonsky, Vygotsky, Zalkind, Molozhavy, Fortunatov and others.

2. 2 Development of pedology with the USSR

A distinctive feature of the Soviet period in the history of culture and pedagogy is the enormous role played by the party and the state in its development. The state took over the financing of all branches of culture: education, logistics, all kinds of art, establishing the strictest censorship of literature, theater, cinema, educational institutions, etc. A coherent system of indoctrination of the population was created. The mass media, being under the most severe control of the party and the state, along with reliable information, used the method of manipulating the consciousness of the population. The idea was instilled in the people that the country was a besieged fortress, and only those who defended it had the right to be in this fortress. The constant search for enemies became a distinctive feature of the activities of the party and the state.

In line with the class struggle, bourgeois culture was constantly opposed to the new, proletarian culture. In contrast to bourgeois culture, the new, socialist culture, in the opinion of the Communists, must express the interests of the working people and serve the tasks of the class struggle of the proletariat for socialism. From these positions, the communists also determined their attitude to the cultural heritage of the past. Many values ​​were excluded from the cultural process. The special storages contained the works of writers, artists and other representatives of culture that were not pleasing to the communists. Noble estates were destroyed, temples, churches and monasteries were destroyed, the connection of times was destroyed.

20-30s 20th century were the heyday of extracurricular activities. It was then that interesting pedagogical initiatives were introduced into life, original forms of organizing children's life appeared, the scientific and methodological base of extracurricular and out-of-school work was intensively developing, serious scientific research and observations were carried out on the development of children's amateur performances, creative abilities of the individual, his interests and needs. Collective and group forms of work were studied. Among the most famous teachers who have made a huge contribution to the formation and development of out-of-school education in our country, we will name E.N. Medynsky, P.P. Blonsky, S.T. Shatsky and V.P. Shatskaya, A.S. Makarenko, V.N. Tersky. It should also be noted that N.K. Krupskaya and A.V. Lunacharsky "not only enriched pedagogy with their work on this problem, but also helped to solve it at the state level, influencing the education policy of the USSR."

School and out-of-school areas of education began to receive a certain design and concretization. Moreover, out-of-school education then played an even more prominent role, since it was in the practice of out-of-school work that ideas were born related to the upbringing of children in new socio-cultural conditions.

In 1918, the first out-of-school institution was opened - the Biological Station for Young Nature Lovers under the guidance of a talented teacher and scientist B.V. Vsesvyatsky. Soon the number of various extracurricular institutions increased dramatically.

In the mid 30s. children's sports schools and stadiums were created. Later there were motorways for children, clubs for young sailors with their own fleets and shipping companies. The country entered a period of rapid industrialization, and the development of children's technical creativity became one of the main tasks of out-of-school education in the 1930s. Particular attention was paid to the development of a network of various technical stations for children in connection with the need to train a large number of qualified specialists for all branches of the national economy, technically competent workers for new buildings.

In 1925, the Artek All-Union Pioneer Camp was opened. Later, especially in the post-war years, pioneer camps were massively developed. They solved the problems not only of improving the health of children, but also of socio-political and labor education.

Attention was also paid to the development of the general culture of the younger generation, the formation of the artistic interests of children of different ages. For this purpose, such important cultural and educational institutions as children's libraries, theaters, cinemas, and galleries were created. Music, art, choreographic schools appeared, thanks to which conditions were created for the education of young talents.

The increase in the number and variety of out-of-school institutions is a clear sign of the prewar years. At that time, teachers began to theoretically comprehend the accumulated experience, which helped to determine the basic principles of extracurricular work: the mass character and general accessibility of classes based on the voluntary association of children according to their interests; development of their initiative and initiative; socially useful orientation of activity; a variety of forms of extracurricular work; taking into account the age and individual characteristics of children.

Distinctive features of the club (out-of-school) work of A.S. Makarenko, as well as S.T. Shatsky, considered, first of all, creativity and self-organization. Makarenko considered it necessary to make the leisure and recreation of the Communards meaningful and interesting. The work of the circle, emphasized A.S. Makarenko, should have a real socially useful orientation, be built on the basis of self-organization. The lever of the entire club system of the Communards was the principle of acquiring a variety of knowledge and skills that they could use in socially useful activities.

All club work of A.S. Makarenko and S.T. Shatsky was built on the basis of children's self-government Makarenko emphasized that it is necessary to involve all the pupils without exception, including the younger ones, in the performance of various organizational functions.

The conclusions of these teachers destroyed the prevailing idea of ​​the child only as an object of pedagogical influence. They showed that a child in an out-of-school institution is an active subject of the educational process. This position, and its scientific and methodological justification, was very bold for that time.

The aspiration of youth leaders for centralized management of amateur movements subordinated the youth movement and the technical creativity of the children to the pioneer organization. And then the pioneer organization itself was included in the system of school activities. Out-of-school institutions for the most part began to be called pioneer houses, which, of course, influenced the content and organization of work in them.

Chapter 3. Fundamentals of pedology

3.1 What is pedology

Pedology (from the Greek pais - child and logos - word, science) is a direction in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the end of the 19th century. under the influence of evolutionary ideas, associated primarily with the name of S. Hall, who in 1889 created the first pedological laboratory. In pedology, the child was considered comprehensively, in all its manifestations, in constant development and in various, including social, conditions, and the goal was to help develop all its potentialities.

This is the science of children, the doctrine of the development of the child, which attaches decisive importance to biological, physiological and psychological characteristics in the formation of his character and abilities.

Among all the variety of definitions of its subject, the definition of it as the science of the integral development of the child seems to be the most meaningful. In this definition, according to L. S. Vygotsky, two essential features of pedology as an independent scientific discipline are singled out - integrity and development (understood as a single process). These signs, in essence, are distinguished as leading by many prominent psychologists and educators of the 20-30s, including P.P. Blonsky, N.K. Krupskaya, although in their specific content they differ from each other. The concept of integrity is central here. L.S. Vygotsky understood a holistic approach to the study of a child as a special orientation towards revealing those new qualities and specific features that arise from the combination of individual aspects of his development - social, psychological and physiological - into a holistic process. “The study of these new qualities and the new patterns corresponding to them, which are presented in the synthesis of individual aspects and processes of development, it seems to me, is the first sign of pedology as a whole and of each individual pedological research.”

To reveal such regularities and qualities, not reducible to one of the aspects of a child's development, actually meant to substantiate the right to exist in pedology as an independent scientific discipline. The solution of this problem in relation to the 20-30s. in many ways turned out to be impossible, due to which doubts arose about the objective existence of the very subject of pedology, which later ended with its complete denial as a science. In fact, in the first half of the 30s. pedology "takes the form of a kind of pedagogical anthropology, carrying out a synthesis, largely mechanical, of scientific data about the child from the point of view of their pedagogical applications." The upbringing and education of students are revealed from the positions of a multi-level organization of human development, which involves the consideration of social, psychological and biological properties in unity. Indicative in this regard for the 30s. is "Pedology" P.P. Blonsky, published in 1934.

3. 2 Research work

Research work in pedology should be developed in close connection with the tasks of practical pedological work at school. Its content should be determined by the most pressing practical issues of the school and the interests of the methodological and theoretical service of pedological practice.

Research work should be built to a large extent on the study and generalization of the experience accumulated by the practical workers of the school.

In the field of pedological study of the content, methods and forms of organization of educational work, the following problems seem to be the most relevant:

bringing curricula in the main disciplines of schooling in line with age characteristics: mathematics, native language, history, natural science and polytechnic work;

pedological foundations for constructing methods and forms of current and final accounting of school success and organization of transfer and graduation tests;

specific program and methodological features in the work of preschool institutions and preparatory classes of the school in connection with the age characteristics of children;

pedological bases of dosage of students' training loads;

In the field of educational work, the most significant issues should include the following:

issues of forming the worldview of students;

pedological prerequisites for the formation of conscious discipline of students;

the work of children's organizations and the social work of children in terms of its compliance with the interests and age capabilities of children and its educational significance;

pedological foundations of sex education in public schools;

pedological foundations of physical education of children;

study of the children's asset and its role in certain specific areas of the school;

typology of "difficult" childhood in connection with the individualization of pedagogical work with various categories of "difficult" children and the typification of a network of special institutions for "difficult" children;

in relation to career guidance work at school, research work should be deployed on the following main issues:

studying the inclinations, interests and abilities of students of a general education school in connection with the tasks of career guidance work;

methods of studying special talents for the purpose of career guidance;

principles and methods of professional consulting conclusions;

The most important theoretical problems to be developed are, first of all:

study of the patterns underlying the age division;

development of the main methods of pedological study of children of different ages in relation to the specific tasks of pedological practice at school.

The main methods of pedology are observation and experiment. The study of child development should begin with the observation of specific factors of this development. Scientific observation differs from simple contemplation in that it is expedient and planned: scientific observation always has as its goal the solution of some scientific problem and is carried out according to a certain plan and in a certain sequence.

Questionnaire: very popular due to the fact that with the help of it relatively quickly you can get a lot of material. In cases where we need to know more deeply the experiences of the subject under study, we ask him about them, using introspection. A peculiar form of using self-observation in pedology and child psychology is the use of adults' memories of their childhood (retrospection). At the same time, questionnaires and self-observation in pedology must be used very carefully.

The best way to analyze the relationship of a given phenomenon with another is if we see a change in the phenomenon under study. That is why the researcher strives in the process of studying to evoke, at least artificially, these phenomena. Such an observation of the phenomenon under study under artificially created conditions for its change is called experimental observation, or experiment. Pedology willingly uses experiment, continuing in this respect the traditions of experimental pedagogy.

Statistics gives a quantitative description of mass phenomena. The significance of statistics in pedology should not be overestimated: statistics for pedology does not provide everything; it gives only a quantitative, only a description of only a mass phenomenon. But do not underestimate it: it helps a lot to clarify and streamline the material being studied.

3. 3 Basic concepts of pedology

Development. The basic concept of pedology, the only correct one is the dialectical concept of development.

Growth: A child is qualitatively different from an adult. Growth is not only a quantitative addition of matter: quantity turns into quality.

Constitution and character: growth causes a number of qualitative changes in a growing organism. The totality of qualitative peculiarities of an organism forms its constitution. The constitution is usually called the physique of the body.

Wednesday. “If we consider all human behavior as its relationship with the environment, we can assume in advance that in this correlative activity there can be three main typical moments. The first is the moment of relative equilibrium created between the organism and the environment.

Children's divisions. Blonsky divides all school childhood into 3 stages: early prepubertal childhood (7-10 years old); late prepubertal childhood (10-12; 13 years); age of puberty (13-16 years).

Transitional ages. The so-called "Critical ages" - birth, 3 years, 7 years, puberty. They are characterized by extreme impressionability, nervousness, imbalance, unmotivated strange actions, etc.

Pedological and chronological age. Problems of acceleration, inhibition of development, physical and mental. Each of the age stages has its own peculiarity, but not every child experiences this stage at the same time.

Chapter 4. Pedology and its significance for pedagogy of the twentieth century

4. 1 Stages of development of science

After the October Socialist Revolution of 1917, a network of pedological institutions developed, extensive literature was published, a conference (1927) and a congress of pedologists (1928) were held, and the journal Pedology (1928-32) was published. By the end of the 20s. P. began to lay claim to the role of the "Marxist science of children," monopolizing the right to study the child, pushing aside pedagogy, and absorbing the psychology, anatomy, and physiology of childhood.

During this period, several directions in pedagogy were developed. In particular, special attention was paid to pedology.

The very setting of the task of creating a unified concept of the development of the child, and considering the problems of upbringing and teaching students from its standpoint, are an undoubted merit of psychological and pedagogical science. In the 20-30s. the peculiarities of its solution were determined by the narrow amount of scientific knowledge about the essential connections between the individual aspects of the child's development. The methodological problems of the multilevel organization of human development were poorly developed, especially in the field of the correlation of the properties of different hierarchical levels, the removal of lower levels of development by higher ones. Their insufficient development, in particular, was clearly manifested in the biogenetic, reflexological and sociogenetic concepts of the development of the child.

Features of the development of pedology as a science, the concept prevailing in it, had a direct impact on the formation of psychological service at school. First, by virtue of the very understanding of the subject of pedology, it essentially takes on a complex character, combining the features of psychological, sociological, and biomedical services at the same time. Child and educational psychology is considered as an integral part of pedology, therefore its scientific data come into pedagogical practice indirectly - through this science of the child, where they are synthesized with data from other human sciences.

Moreover, the significance of these data for pedagogical practice, as well as the very role of psychology in ensuring the educational process, was far from the same throughout the entire period under consideration. In this regard, two main periods in the development of psychological service at school are quite clearly traced, the first of which falls on the beginning - the end of the 20s, and the second - on the beginning - the middle of the 30s. At the first stage in pedology, the biogenetic and reflexological concepts of child development played a leading role, exaggerating the role of biological data in the study of its nature. It was at this time that the “anti-psychologism” that is customarily spoken of in critical articles on pedology manifested itself to the greatest extent. "Anti-psychologism" not in the sense that the significance of psychological data for pedagogy was denied. In general, and in relation to this period, it can be said that pedology and its service in the school derived their main content from child and educational psychology. The point is rather that the significance of these data for the education and upbringing of students was undermined by a simplified interpretation of higher mental functions, primarily consciousness, by a mechanistic understanding of the influence of biological factors and the environment on the development of the child, his upbringing and education.

The low level of pedological service of the educational process was also determined at that time by the peculiarities of the organizational and staffing of the pedological service. In the 20s. systematic pedological work to assist the school was mainly carried out through the health authorities (with the exception of Moscow and Leningrad, where pedological institutions were run by the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR). Most often, psychological service in these conditions arose and was carried out in the following form: as pedological work unfolded, the school doctor was charged with studying other aspects of the child's development. He was supposed to conduct sociological surveys of his environment, to investigate mental properties and processes. To carry out such work in the system of short-term courses or permanent seminars, they received additional psychological and pedagogical training. The main attention in this training was paid to mastering the methodology of studying the child and mastering the main factors of his development and behavior. Much less often this work on the psychological support of the educational process in the 20s. conducted by teachers who also received additional qualifications in these courses and seminars.

Of course, these measures to organize a psychological service can only be considered as preparatory, they could not be effective enough. Due to the specifics of the basic education of doctors, the general focus of the activities of health authorities on solving problems related to protecting the health of children and medical and sanitary work, the pedological service at school naturally took on a biological bias. In the school practice of experimental institutions, where, of all institutions, pedological work became most widespread in the 1920s, this bias was expressed in the fact that school pedologists, being carried away by all kinds of anthropometric measurements when examining students, dissolved their qualitative mental characteristics and properties in biological characteristic.

The pedagogical significance of such characteristics was largely undermined by the fact that they were obtained, as a rule, "in the silence of classrooms, in isolation from the live practice of teaching and educating students." Diagnostic work of the pedological service in the 20s. was practically not connected with the formative one, the latter was completely shifted to the shoulders of teachers. Numerous documents of this time indicate that the work of a school pedologist acts as an examination, registration, ascertainment, but not an active participation in the formation of the child's personality. As a result, the data themselves were very poorly introduced into the educational process. Often, indeed, it turned out the way A.S. figuratively wrote about it. Makarenko: “When a person has been studied, found out and recorded that he has a will - A, emotion - B, instinct - C, then no one knows what to do with these values ​​further.”

The real participation of the pedologist in the organization of the educational process was most often expressed in the work of recruiting study groups and selecting children for auxiliary schools. Tests were the main method of diagnostic examination of students. The first series of tests for the school in our country was published in 1926, but by the end of the 20s: there is literally a craze for them. The first pedological congress (late 1927 - early 1928) was forced to adopt a special decision on this issue, which limited their use in pedagogical practice. It especially emphasized that for practical conclusions about one or another child, in addition, the whole complex of conditions in which the child lives and his full psychophysiological characteristics should be taken into account.

4. 2 New stage

At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, in essence, a new stage began in the development of the pedological service at school, due to a number of theoretical and practical prerequisites. Among the first should, first of all, include the increased needs of public education and the new conditions for the work of the Soviet school, in the most complete form in relation to this period, indicated in the party resolutions on the school of 1931-1933. Among the main directions of the restructuring of the Soviet school, determined by these documents, bringing all types of educational work into full compliance with the age characteristics of children was called, in essence, fundamental.

At the same time, new theoretical prerequisites for the development of the school pedological service are emerging. By this time, behavioral and biological attitudes in the study of the child were being overcome in pedology, new concepts of its development were being developed, built on the ideas of the socio-historical conditioning of higher mental functions, the connection between learning and development. P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky and other major theoreticians of pedology directly address the problems of child and educational psychology, they do a lot of research on higher mental processes, seeing in this an important reserve for improving the quality of pedological research. P.P. Blonsky, for example, wrote in this connection: “Employment in pedology more and more convinces me of the superficiality of ordinary pedological research. In an effort to deepen them, I delve more and more into psychology. The psychologization of pedology directly affected the method of studying the child: observations of the development of students in the process of their education and upbringing came to the fore; the attitude towards tests is changing, their role in pedagogical practice, in diagnosing the mental development of schoolchildren, is more soberly assessed.

All this, of course, significantly expanded the possibilities of psychological support for the educational process by the pedological service at school. In order to realize these opportunities in practice, it was necessary to develop a new, more advanced mechanism for its legal and personnel support. The last task in the period under review was solved in stages. In 1928, the first official regulation "On conducting mass practical work on a comprehensive study of childhood" was published, developed jointly by the People's Commissariat for Education and the People's Commissariat for Health of the RSFSR. Its main goal was to differentiate the medical-pedological and pedological-pedagogical services, to single out the latter as an independent service in the school. To solve this problem, it was planned to deploy a network of pedological and pedagogical cells with a special composition of pedagogical educators at methodological rooms, educational organizations, EDs, central institutions, educational institutions, etc. depending on the material capabilities of each individual of these institutions.

However, this provision proved ineffective. In particular, this was expressed in the fact that part of the pedagogical institutions were still located in the system of public health authorities. These shortcomings were called upon to eliminate a special decree of March 7, 1931 "On the organization of pedological work carried out by various departments", which clearly delineated the functions and content of pedological-pedagogical and medical-pedological work, laid a clearer legal and organizational basis for its implementation in school. In accordance with this resolution, on May 6, 1931, the order of the People's Commissar of Education "On the organization of pedological work through the organs of public education" was issued, the addition and development of which was the resolution of the collegium of the People's Commissariat for Education "On the state and tasks of pedological work" dated May 7, 1933.

These documents reflect a new understanding of the purpose of the school pedological service: they act as scientific support for the entire process of teaching and educating students and certain types of educational work, taking into account psychological and physiological data about their individual and age characteristics.

4. 3 Aims of pedology and the structure of pedologicaleskoy service

When implementing a new understanding of the purpose of the pedagogical service, special attention was paid to the organic connection of diagnostic work with the practical participation of the pedologist in the organization of the educational process. Thus, the first direction of work was aimed at solving the following practical problems of upbringing and teaching students: completing school classes on the basis of studying the educational readiness and level of mental development of schoolchildren; development of practical measures to rationalize classes, the general regime of the school and internal regulations; identifying the reasons for the failure of individual students and developing measures to combat them; analysis of educational work, its individual segments (topic, lesson) in terms of their compliance with the age capabilities of children; planning and distribution of public work, educational activities, taking into account the individual characteristics of students, etc. At the same time, the tasks and functions of the pedological service related to its scientific, methodological and practical work on studying students and the pedagogical process were quite clearly differentiated.

Adequate to these functions and tasks, the structure of the pedological service was created, which includes several stages:

1) the head center in the form of an interdepartmental pedological commission and a pedological group of an educational and methodological center under the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR;

2) pedological laboratories and classrooms as methodological centers at regional and district public education bodies;

3) pedological rooms directly at the school.

These forms of pedological work were links of one structure and complemented each other. In fact, they were formed even before the adoption of the above documents.

4. 4 Practical work

Pedological laboratories and district offices carried out mainly methodological functions in the organization of the school pedological service. Their distinctive feature was the organic combination of practical work with research activities, achieved, in particular, by creating flexible organizational structures. The latter should primarily include temporary research and working groups, staffed from among the staff of regional laboratories and district pedological offices. At the Moscow Central Pedological Laboratory, for example, in 1931 there were groups on the methodology of recruiting study groups, standardizing the complex characteristics of the child, studying the socio-political ideas of children, on the psychophysiology of labor education and polytechnic education of students, etc. As a rule, these groups were created according to the main directions of pedological work at school and had as their goal the development of specific methodological recommendations for its implementation. School pedologists and teachers were involved in this scientific and methodological work, who, under the guidance of specialists from regional and district institutions, performed individual tasks to examine various aspects of a child’s development in close connection with his upbringing and education (intellectual development of students, their polytechnic outlook, vocabulary, etc.). .).

The interaction of methodological centers with employees of the school pedological service was also carried out through correspondence, personal meetings, individual consultations, within the framework of permanent seminars and courses for the training and retraining of pedological personnel. Regional pedological laboratories and district offices also provided direct practical assistance to the school, but it was still episodic in nature and often amounted to examining difficult children at the request of schools. They simply did not have the opportunity to carry out such work on a large scale, and it was not part of their functions.

Practical work on the study of the child and the psychological support of the educational process was carried out mainly by school pedologists, whose staff increased significantly in the early 1930s. They were staffed by many advanced schools, most of the experimental and exemplary schools. In the mass school of the first stage, this work was more often carried out by teachers in combination with their main work in this period. By order of the People's Commissar of Education of May 6, 1931, it was envisaged to have among the teachers one worker with pedological training. Along with pedagogical work on assignments and under the guidance of a district pedologist, he was supposed to carry out pedological work.

Pedological classrooms at the school and their employees were directly connected with the pedagogical process and paid much more attention to it than regional and district pedological institutions. This was facilitated by the organizational measures carried out by the People's Commissariat for Education and the flexible organizational structures created at the school itself. In this regard, attempts to give collective forms to pedological work at school, to consider it as a school-wide affair, the affair of the entire pedagogical team, are of particular interest. With such an organization of the pedological service, the main factor in its conduct was pedological commissions (cells, brigades), which, along with pedologists, included teachers, a school doctor, a representative of the school administration and student organizations. The pedologist in this commission acted only as a more qualified specialist: it was his job to explain, organize, teach teachers to correctly pose and solve pedological issues, but they had to be solved jointly. With such an organization of the pedological service, the author notes, the teachers saw in the pedologist a real assistant in the difficulties of school life, but earlier there was such a situation: the pedologists were on their own, and the teachers were on their own.

In those schools where the pedological service was organized in similar forms, the opinion of the school pedologist was discussed and adopted collectively. True, this position was far from certain. It raised objections from many practical pedologists, who believed that a pedological opinion for the school collective should be mandatory, and just as the opinion of a doctor can only be challenged and canceled by a more competent doctor, so the opinion of a specialist pedologist can be changed by a pedologist. In the meantime, the author points out, the special conclusions of pedologists are put to the vote of the school council, changed for practical purposes. This question remains debatable in our time. It is clear that his decision in the above-mentioned deliberative form was intended to prevent pedagogically unreasonable interference in the teaching and upbringing process, to more fully coordinate pedological work in the school, to make it more open to the entire teaching staff, including students.

An essential prerequisite for the real participation of a pedologist in solving specific issues of upbringing and education of schoolchildren was his work as a full member in the pedagogical council, methodological commissions, production meetings, where he represented a special branch of activity - the pedological service at school. This participation became more effective where pedologists worked as teachers or released class teachers. All this, of course, ensured a fairly rapid and widespread introduction of psychological data into the daily practice of the school.

The great influence of scientific concepts of child development on pedagogical practice, the prominent role of the pedologist in organizing the educational process, are also noted in the party resolution of 1936. But the results of this influence and pedological work as a whole are critically evaluated. So, in a purely negative way, the participation of a pedologist in the study of poor progress and mental abilities of students, the acquisition of study groups, and the selection of children in special classes in auxiliary schools is revealed. Since this line of work was the leading one for the psychological service in the 1920s and 1930s, let us dwell on it in some detail.

Great attention to this range of problems in pedological work was determined by the general policy of the People's Commissariat of Education for the differentiation of education and training of students. It was considered as a necessary condition for the development of the individual abilities of each child, as an important means of rationalizing the educational process. The psychological justification for differentiated learning in relation to the practice of pedological work at that time was given by P.P. Blonsky. According to his theory, each child has an individual development formula, his own pedological age, which may not coincide with the age of the average child. In terms of learning ability and mental development, they are quite clearly distinguished among students, according to P.P. Blonsky, three more or less stable groups: talented children, children with an average level of development and slowly developing, who, due to their mental abilities, can advance in learning at different rates.

With the usual forms of organization of education, ignoring these differences, by the end of primary education, the school, according to P.P. Blonsky, becomes the school of the average student. Plus-variants (i.e., gifted children) are subjected to especially intensive leveling in it. P.P. Blonsky sharply opposes the ingrained idea that talent will always show itself, showing that of all categories of children, just talented children are especially sensitive to all adverse conditions. It is no coincidence that many of them in such conditions of learning soon become "lazy and empty flowers." The distribution of students into homogeneous study groups allows, according to P.P. Blonsky, not only to create conditions for the development of their mental abilities. It is of great importance for the correct formation of their personal properties. On the one hand, the arrogance of gifted children, associated with their position as the first students in the class, as a rule, disappears when they enter the environment of their peers. On the other hand, children with an average level of development and weaker ones in the conditions of such training become more lively, talkative and active.

...

Similar Documents

Psychology of childhood. Development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. Pedology as a discipline and mass movement in pedagogy. The main representatives of Soviet pedology. The first works of a pedological nature.

presentation, added 06/15/2014


The main stages of the formation and development of pedagogical views S. Frenet. Essence and analysis of the content of pedagogical ideas S. Frenet. The role and significance of S. Frenet's ideas for the modern school and pedagogy. Implementation of the ideas of S. Frenet in school education in Russia.

term paper, added 07/29/2010


History of Pedagogy. Modern content of scientific principles of school organization and pedagogy. The main directions of development of pedagogical science and its relationship with practice. Methodological foundations of pedagogical science. Methodology of pedagogy.

term paper, added 02/14/2007


The history of the development of psychological knowledge. Interpretation of the theory of behaviorism in the works of Watson, Huld and Skinner. Consideration of pedagogy as a science of education. The concept and properties of sensations, their classification and interaction. Stages of the pedagogical process.

test, added 05/07/2012


Basic concepts of pedagogical science, stages and directions of its development. Pedagogical theories of the era of the New Age and the Enlightenment, their content and significance in history, approaches to the upbringing and education of children. Ushinsky as the founder of scientific pedagogy.

control work, added 12/10/2013


Definition of the concept of personality in domestic and foreign psychology, personality structure. Ways of inclusion and the degree of participation of the individual in various types of social relations. The value of education as a subject of pedagogy. System of concepts and theories of pedagogy.

test, added 01/25/2010


Out-of-school education in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The first kindergartens in Russia. Direction of educational work and selection of personnel. Paid kindergarten A.S. Simonovich for children of the intelligentsia. The importance of the preschool period in the development of the child's personality.

test, added 07/28/2010


School and pedagogical thought in the countries of Western Europe in the Middle Ages, as well as in the period of the XVII-XIX centuries. The development of the theory and practice of education in Western Europe and the USA in the second half of the 20th century. Education and school in Kievan Rus and the Russian state.

test, added 01/05/2015


Independent work. The formation of pedagogy as a science. Education and upbringing as processes of social inheritance. The relationship of pedagogical science and practice. Methods of pedagogical research. pedagogical experiment. Experienced work.

cheat sheet, added 10/12/2008


Human Motivation by Abraham Harold Maslow. Self-actualization as a mechanism and process of personality development. Pragmatic Pedagogy by John Dewey. Methods of pedology as a theory. Grenville Stanley Hall's principle of recapitulation. Formation of the child's psyche.

It is known that pedology as a science about children took shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The child has been studied before. But this study was carried out then by different sciences in the aspect inherent in each of them. Each of the sciences used its own methods. Anatomists studied the anatomical development of the child - height, weight depending on age, genetic psychology - the development of the child's psyche, physiology - the development of the physiological functions of the child's body, pedagogy - the effectiveness of various methods of raising and educating the child, hygiene - the influence of various external factors on the physical and mental condition of the child, etc.

Pedology saw in such a multifaceted study of the child a great flaw - the lack of coordination of all the above-mentioned aspects of the study of the child, the isolation from each other of all the data obtained as a result of the study of the child. Pedologists set as their goal to overcome this vice and study the child as a whole, in the interconnection and interaction of all the mental and physical manifestations of the child under the influence of biological and social factors.

It is interesting to note that pedologists themselves understood the complexity of these tasks and therefore experienced great difficulties in defining the subject of their science.

Thus, the founder of Soviet pedology, Professor P.P. Blonsky, gives different interpretations of the subject of pedology:

• 1. Pedology is the science of the characteristics of childhood.
• 2. Pedology is the science "about the growth, constitution and behavior of a typical mass child in various eras and phases of childhood."
• 3. "Pedology studies the symptom complexes of various eras, phases and stages of childhood in their temporal sequence and in their dependence on various conditions."

Pedology is a science that combines the approaches of medicine, biology, pedagogy and psychotechnics to the development of a child. And although as a term it has become outdated and acquired the format of child psychology, universal pedological methods attract the attention of not only scientists, but also people outside the scientific world.

The history of pedology begins in the West at the end of the 19th century. Its emergence was largely facilitated by the intensive development of applied branches of experimental pedagogy and psychology. The unification of their approaches with anatomical-physiological and biological ones in pedology happened mechanically. More precisely, it was dictated by a comprehensive, comprehensive study of the mental development of children, their behavior. The term "pedology" was introduced by the American research scientist Oscar Crisman in 1853. Translated from Greek, the definition sounds like "the science of children" (pedos - child, logos - science, study).

The first works on pedology were written by American psychologists G.S. Hall, J. Baldwin and physiologist W. Preyer.

It was they who stood at the origins of developmental psychology and collected a huge amount of empirical material on the development and behavior of children. Their work became revolutionary in many ways and formed the basis of child and developmental psychology.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a new scientific trend penetrated Russia (then the USSR) and received a worthy continuation in the works of the psychiatrist and reflexologist V.M. Bekhterev, psychologist A.P. Nechaev, physiologist E. Meyman and defectologist G.I. Rossolimo. Each of them, by virtue of his specialty, tried to explain and formulate the laws of child development and methods for its correction. Pedology in Russia gained practical scope: pedological institutes and the "House of the Child" (Moscow) were opened, a number of specialized courses were held. Psychological tests were conducted in schools, the results of which were used to complete classes. Leading psychologists, physiologists, doctors and teachers of the country were involved in the study of child psychology. All this was done with the aim of a comprehensive study of child development. However, such a simple task did not quite justify the means. By the 1920s, pedology in Russia was an extensive scientific movement, but not a complex science. The main obstacle to the synthesis of knowledge about the child was the lack of a preliminary analysis of the methods of the sciences that make up this complex.

The main mistakes of Soviet pedologists were considered to be the underestimation of the role of hereditary factors in the development of children and the influence of the social environment on the formation of their personalities. In a practical aspect, scientific miscalculations include the flaw and application of tests for intellectual development. In the 1930s, all the shortcomings were gradually corrected, and Soviet pedology began a more confident and meaningful path. However, already in 1936 it became "pseudo-science", objectionable to the political system of the country. Revolutionary experiments were curtailed, pedological laboratories were closed. Testing, as the main pedological method, has become vulnerable in educational practice. Since, according to the results, the most often gifted were the children of priests, the White Guards and the "rotten" intelligentsia, and not the proletariat. And this went against the ideology of the party. So the upbringing of children returned to traditional forms, which caused stagnation in the educational system.

Principles of pedology

The development of pedology in Russia has brought certain results, it has formed the basic scientific principles: Pedology is a holistic knowledge about the child. From this position, it is considered not “in parts”, but as a whole, as a creation simultaneously biological, social, psychological, etc. All aspects of its study are interconnected and intertwined. But this is not just a random collection of data, but a clear compilation of theoretical settings and methods. The second reference point of pedologists was the genetic principle. It was actively studied by psychologist L.S. Vygotsky. Using the example of a child’s egocentric speech (“speech minus sound”), he proved that baby talk or “mumbling under his breath” is the first stage of a person’s inner speech or thinking. The genetic principle demonstrates the prevalence of this phenomenon.

The third principle - the study of childhood - proved that the social environment and life significantly affect the psychological and anthropomorphic development of the child. So, neglect or rigidity of upbringing, malnutrition affect the mental and physiological health of the child. The fourth principle lies in the practical significance of pedology - the transition from knowing the child's world to changing it. In this regard, pedological counseling, conversations with parents, and psychological diagnostics of children were created.

Pedology is a complex science, therefore its principles are based on a comprehensive study of the child. Psychology and pedology have long been identified with each other, the second concept came out of the first. Therefore, the psychological aspect is still dominant in pedology. Since the 1950s, the ideas of pedology began to partially return to pedagogy and psychology. And 20 years later, active educational work began using tests for the intellectual development of children.