The emergence and development of pedology. Pedology and its influence on the development of education Pedology as a complex science of children

Question 37(from Greekπαιδός - child and Greekλόγος - science) - a direction in science that aimed to combine the approaches of various sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, pedagogy) to the development of the child.

The term is obsolete and currently has only historical significance. Most of the productive scientific results of pedological research were assimilated child psychology.

History

In the world

The emergence of Pedology was caused by the penetration of evolutionary ideas into psychology and pedagogy and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. The first works of a pedological nature date back to the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century.

Pedology in Russia and the USSR

Since the beginning of the 20th century in Russia, the ideas of pedology have been accepted and developed V. M. Bekhterev, G. I. Rossolimo, A. P. Nechaev and others, in the USSR pedology was at its peak in the 1920s of the 20th century. Practices were actively introduced in schools psychological testing and the equipment of classes based on it, the organization of the school regime, etc. A number of pedological institutes were created throughout the country, under the auspices of the Russian Psychoanalytic Society, the “House of the Child” was organized in Moscow (with W. Schmidt, S. N. Shpilrein and etc.).

However, a strong bias in the activities of pedological laboratories towards sorting students on the basis of their intellectual qualities and, in general, the reformist ideology of this movement after Stalin's Great break late 1920s were not consistent with the new line of the party to curtail revolutionary experiments and return to more traditional forms. The main blow to the pedological movement in the USSR was actually dealt by the overly formal implementation of pedological methods in the upbringing of children, which showed the vulnerability of the uncritical use of testing students in educational practice in terms of two indicators:

insufficient consideration of the "political moment": according to the results of tests, the defective students more often included representatives of the "socially close" workers, peasants and the proletariat, and the gifted included children of the "rotten intelligentsia", priests, white guards, etc. "socially alien".

overestimation of the consideration of biological factors (natural abilities of students) when interpreting tests and developing proposals based on their results, while underestimating the cultural and historical environment, despite the fact that both of these components, as you know, are absolutely necessary for successful upbringing and education .

The result of disappointment in pedological practice in public education was the decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks " About pedological perversions in the system of Narkompros”(1936), which actually eliminated pedology as an independent scientific discipline and social movement. According to the decree, the test method was banned, and pedologists were recommended to retrain as teachers.

Since the 1950s, a gradual return of some ideas of pedology to pedagogy and psychology began, which was associated with an equally gradual restoration of rights at first cybernetics, especially its technical applications for defense, and then genetics. In the 1970s, active work began on the use tests in pedagogy and the education system.

The main representatives of Soviet pedology: A. B. Zalkind, S. S. Youthful, P. P. Blonsky, M. Ya. Basov, L. S. Vygotsky.

Pedology

Kapterev P.F. One of the prominent trends in modern Russian pedagogy reflects the desire to experimentally investigate various pedagogical issues and phenomena. Experimental pedagogy goes hand in hand with experimental psychology and shares the same fate with it: whoever attaches great importance to the experimental method in the field of the study of mental phenomena will be inclined to seek the solution of pedagogical problems in the same experimental way.

Thus, for all experiments concerning more or less complex phenomena, and especially for pedagogical ones, the observation by the experimenters themselves of their states is an essential factor in the value of the experiment. Consequently, in the experiment, the psychology and pedagogy of self-observation, the old ones, and the psychology and pedagogy of experience, the new ones, meet and act together. Therefore, there can be no question of denying the former psychology and pedagogy, recognizing them as empty scholasticism and replacing them with new ones. The connection of the old psychology and pedagogy with the new ones is preserved, the new ones are a further development of the former ones, mainly from the methodological side. The significance of experimental psychology and pedagogy as new methods of research in science is indisputable and serious. 4. In the very essence of knowledge based on simple observation, even if long-term and thorough, it does not have complete accuracy and distinctness. The mere observation is under great pressure from the prevailing views and habits, observation often confirms the existence of something that is not really there, that is only in the mind of the observer, which causes firm belief in him. Experience is very little subject to such distortion by preconceived ideas and faith, it is colder and stricter, it tests subjective assumptions by measure and weight, by precise instruments that are impassive, that are alien to love and hate. Therefore, experimental research, no matter what it is applied to, dispels fog, uncertainty, it everywhere brings light and clear outlines. The same thing happens when applied to the study of child personality. But such a study is only just beginning, and there are very few independent Russian works in this direction.

The study of personality" the reader can get acquainted with the former and current methods of studying a child's personality, with the history of the emergence of child psychology, with the classification of children's characters, compiling characteristics, etc. about education, about memory, about attention, about the development of the imagination in children, about children's games, about the development of children's speech, about the main periods in the development of the mental life of children. It is only necessary to note that articles on the study of the aforementioned aspects of the mental life of children are not so much independent experimental research as acquaintance with the work in the field of child psychology by foreign experimenters. the sciences of independent research to a thorough acquaintance with foreign works and their critical assimilation. It is therefore clear that the study of the mental manifestations of children continues and through systematic observations, systematic and extensive plans for such observations are published by the figures in the field of experimental psychology themselves (see, for example, the work of A. F. Lazursky "Program for the Study of Personality" and G. I. Rassolimo "Plan for the study of the child's soul in a healthy and diseased state", M., 1909). With the spread of interest in experimental research and in the course of the creation of psychological classrooms in secondary educational institutions, the question naturally arose about the possibility and expediency of practical applications of experimental research in schools in teaching and education. There were heated debates on this issue at congresses on experimental psychology and pedagogy. Some fans of experimental pedagogy assumed that it was already possible to use new psychological data to solve practical pedagogical problems, that with the help of simple psychological cabinets and simple experiments with calculations, it would be possible to penetrate the recesses of mental life, to find out the essence of the individual, the level of his talent, his general orientation and inclinations in the future, etc. Obviously, all this is exaggerated hopes, hot hobbies. Experimental psychology is a new scientific trend that is just beginning to develop its own paths, posing questions to itself, trying to solve all kinds of and sometimes very difficult and intricate problems. It is in the period of searches, experiments, it is groping for both tasks and methods. New and new horizons are opening before him, very vast and very complex. Of course, little has been achieved so far to decide anything firmly, to establish any new truths and provisions of experimental psychology, which is quite natural, and therefore the naive confidence in the possibility of finding practical applications of experimental psychology today does not have sufficient grounds. So far, this scientific direction is the business of scientists, and not of practical workers, and psychological classrooms at gymnasiums, according to the decision of the last congress on experimental pedagogy in Petrograd, should serve to demonstrate new research methods, and by no means to solve practical pedagogical problems. One of the types of research practiced by new psychologists and educators is questionnaires, that is, questionnaires addressed to the masses. You can ask about known objects of individuals, selecting them according to gender, age, education, cultural conditions of life, or without any selection - every acquaintance you meet; you can offer questions at once to the whole audience or class, asking them to prepare answers by a certain date; printed questionnaires can be sent out, distributing them in tens of thousands of copies. The method is simple, but it also requires caution. One must always skillfully and deliberately put questions, briefly, accurately and at the same time accessible. Quite often questionnaires sin against these elementary rules and reduce the value of the questionnaire. Respondents must be selected or answers grouped; to lump together the answers of adults and children, educated and uneducated, men and women, is to deprive the questionnaire of any scientific value. Finally, you need to be sure that the questions posed were understood by the respondents, that when answering they did not receive help from anywhere, for example, children - from adults. Here are two very interesting questionnaires conducted by domestic teachers.

Despite the youth and natural imperfection of experimental psychological and pedagogical research, they managed to have a beneficial effect on the organization of school education in one significant respect - on the desire to single out children who are incapable, backward and poorly developing from ordinary schools. It is known what a burden on the class are the enumerated groups of students; this was known, of course, for a long time, but the natural remedy for evil was considered to be the exclusion of those deprived of nature. With the spread of careful study of the personality of students, it came to the conclusion that all these so-called incompetent and backward children are not so bad that nothing could come of them. The whole trouble is that they cannot successfully study in ordinary schools for normal children; but if we were to create schools adapted to their characteristics, to the level of their abilities, then perhaps there would be success. They made an attempt, it turned out to be successful, and, following the example of the so-called Mannheim system, they began to talk about the need to divide schools: 1) into ordinary schools - for normal children, 2) into auxiliary schools - for backward children, and 3) into repetition schools - for weakly gifted. Moscow already has parallel departments for handicapped children at city schools. The organization of such departments is based on the following principles: a limited number of students (from 15 to 20); strict individualization of education; the pursuit is not so much for the amount of information, but for their high-quality processing; special attention to physical education (good nutrition, staying in the yard for at least an hour, frequent changes in classes due to the rapid fatigue of children, gymnastics, modeling, drawing); development in children with the help of appropriate exercises of observation, attentiveness, etc. There are similar departments for retarded children in Petrograd - at city schools, a private institution of Dr. Malyarevsky, etc. In view of the importance of this issue, a whole a number of reports on the study of personality traits in general and determining the degree of intellectual insufficiency of children in particular, mainly according to foreign samples, and even some private questions were discussed about how best to educate the incapacitated - in a boarding school or coming, in what proportion should there be a message in such schools scientific information and practice in the craft, is it possible to indicate simple and practical ways to recognize such children, etc. e. Finally, the opposite question also arose: should not gifted children be singled out from the general mass of schoolchildren? (Report by V.P. Kashchenko). Gifted children often do almost as badly in schools as poor children, only for slightly different reasons, although in the end the reason is essentially the same - a mismatch between teaching and personal abilities and needs. If it is now considered a duty of justice to single out the incapable from the general mass of schoolchildren, then isn't it an even greater moral obligation to single out gifted children from the crowd of mediocrities? There is already a society in memory of Lomonosov in Moscow, which aims to help gifted children from the peasant class receive a secondary, higher, general and special education. The society has already begun its activities, it has to select children, it uses the method of G. I. Rossolimo. The third technique in the new approach to the study of questions of psychology and pedagogy is based on a combination of experiment and observation. We find it in the study of the question of personality, its properties, which G. I. Rossolimo tried to solve strictly experimentally. To conduct such research, it is very important first of all to understand the methods leading to the solution of the problem, to collect and indicate the most expedient among them and to test them in practice. Such a work was carried out by a group of employees of the laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology in Petrograd, and then processed and presented by one of the members of this circle, Mr. Rumyantsev 12. The circle set out to indicate the simplest methods that do not require the use of complex equipment, and at the same time the most reliable . Noting the main precautions when performing experiments, the circle described the methods for studying sensations, perception, and memorization. For more complex mental phenomena - processes of judgment, imagination, manifestations of feelings and will - it was more difficult to indicate methods than for simple phenomena, since they are less amenable to experimentation, but some indications are given in this area. Of similar methodological significance is the Atlas for the Experimental Psychological Study of Personality compiled by F. E. Rybakov (Moscow, 1910), the purpose of which is to provide opportunities for "teachers, doctors and, in general, persons who have contact with someone else's soul, without the help of any or tools to explore the features of the mental life of the chosen person", and this refers mainly to manifestations of higher processes. The atlas contains many tables (57) for examining the ability to perceive attention, observation, memory, suggestibility, fantasy, etc., comments on research methods, description and explanation of the tables. The actual study of personality in a new way was carried out by a group of people working under the guidance of A.F. Lazursky 13. This study is interesting not so much from the side of the result ...

Seemed very promising Blonsky direction of research associated with an integrated approach to development, which was characteristic of pedology. "Like a living source", he turns to pedology, becoming one of its leading theorists. (The pedological period of his work, according to his autobiography, falls on 1924-1928.)

In the pedological work of Blonsky, a significant place is given to the characteristics of childhood. In the 1920s, he connected age periodization mainly with biological signs (development of teeth, endocrine glands, blood composition, etc.). All the various features of the child's behavior that form the "age-related symptom complex" were explained by the processes of increasing the amount of matter (increase in body mass).

Blonsky soon realized that this was an unproductive path. Subsequently, he stated that "the characteristics of each age stage should be complex: not just one sign, but a peculiar relationship of signs characterizes this or that sign." Blonsky was impressed by the idea of ​​a holistic study of the child, characteristic of pedology.

Unsuccessful attempts to build a unified theoretical basis for pedology (all the more so since most practicing pedologists did not seem to need them) led him to disappointment in this scientific and practical direction, and long before an official ban was imposed on it. Already in 1928, Blonsky's departure from pedology began. “Employment in pedology,” he wrote at that time, “convinces me more and more of the superficiality of ordinary pedological studies. In an effort to deepen them, I delve more and more into psychology.

Pedagogical views of Blonsky

As a result of numerous experiments aimed at clarifying the relationship between perception and thinking in the assimilation of knowledge by schoolchildren of different ages, P.P. Blonsky came to the following conclusions: 1) the older the student, the more broad and detailed his thinking becomes, and under the influence of thinking, perception expands and assimilation improves; 2) the older and more developed the subject, the more purposefully he thinks before starting work. Thinking systematically organizes perception, due to which there is a better assimilation of what is perceived.

The identification of assimilation with memory by P.P. Blonsky opposed the view that assimilation and memory are different concepts. He considered it incorrect to explain the poor academic performance of the child by his poor memory. With age, memory is used less and less during assimilation. And if a younger student often memorizes what he likes, then adults, as P.P. Blonsky, are not disposed to memorization.

The deterioration of memory that occurs in adolescence does not affect, according to P.P. Blonsky, on the assimilation of educational material, since at this age thinking develops intensively, which begins to play an ever greater role in assimilation.

The merit of P.P. Blonsky and in the fact that he showed how the relationship between thinking and memory that changes with age affects the features of the memorization process. Experiments P.P. Blonsky, carried out on children of different ages, indicate that the younger and undeveloped student, due to the fact that his memory is better developed than thinking, is more inclined to remember absolutely everything, willingly uses repetition. A more mature and developed student memorizes selectively and without effort. His thinking is already sufficiently developed to actively participate in memorization, comprehend the material being memorized in every possible way, discover and establish connections in it, and control the correctness of what has been memorized. Memorization in this case is based primarily on logical memory, and only the main, main, i.e. reproduction becomes semantic reproduction.

P.P. Blonsky shows the enormous role of the development of speech in the course of the assimilation of knowledge by schoolchildren. His experiments with second-graders showed that sometimes children do not master the task offered to them simply because they do not speak coherently well. The older student, unlike the younger one, has an intermediate stage between exact memorization, reproduction and complete oblivion - approximate memorization and reproduction, which makes it possible, without remembering exactly what is necessary, to approximately imagine, to point out certain signs of it. This is facilitated by the richness of the vocabulary, which allows, in cases where there is no complete memorization, to remember approximately. It also contributes to a more complete memorization and reproduction of more details. Pupils of the lower grades do not yet have the necessary generalized terms, their vocabulary and stock of higher generic concepts are still poor. Therefore, their reproduction of educational material is sometimes characterized by excessive literalness. As a result of the development of generalizing thinking and the accumulation of a stock of special and general terms, the ability to replace particular ideas and concepts with more general ones appears.

Scientist's contribution

In Blonsky's latest works, memory and thinking do not act as self-contained functions. He closely connected their development with the general development of man. Analyzing in the book "The Development of the Schoolchild's Thinking" the formation of thinking at primary school age, he connects this process with the child's games, and in adolescence - with the learning process.

Blonsky intended to carry out an extensive program of research work to study the complex of mental processes - perception, memory, thinking, speech, will and feelings - in their unity and development. The works of Blonsky in recent years have forever entered the fund of works that laid the foundations of modern scientific psychology.

However, despite the great respect and popularity that Blonsky enjoyed among students and colleagues, he did not create his own scientific school capable of developing his ideas.

Vygodsky... Pedology also belongs to such sciences about natural wholes. Pedology is the science of the child. The subject of its study is the child, this natural whole, which, in addition to being an extremely important object of theoretical knowledge, like the stellar world and our planet, is at the same time an object of influence on him or education, which deals specifically with the child as a whole. That is why pedology is the science of the child as a whole.

Research at every step shows that this psychological development of the child is not independent, but subordinate and conditioned by the general organic development of the child. Thus, even a correct philosophical understanding of the nature of child development does not allow us to confine our study of the child to child psychology alone, but obliges us to understand this development as a single material process in its nature. At the same time, child psychology itself becomes only one branch of pedology, one of the pedological disciplines. The age of the child, i.e. a separate stage of its development, is a real unity, i.e. such a combination of individual aspects, in which the whole represents a whole series of such properties and patterns that cannot be obtained from a simple addition of individual parts and aspects. Age, i.e. the state of the child at each given moment of development is a combination of various traits, reminiscent of a chemical compound. Thus, pedology studies not only the child as a whole, but even more broadly, the child in his interaction with the environment. The main task of pedology is the study of those phases and periods through which child development passes. The establishment of these periods allows pedology to distinguish between the passport and real age of the child. Both of these ages do not match. So, pedologists distinguish the real - anatomical, physiological, psychological and cultural age of the child. In its anatomical development, the child goes through a complex process of morphological changes and formation. Not all children go through separate phases of this process at the same time. An example of the difference in anatomical age is the so-called bone age of children. Some went ahead, others lagged behind. The real process of cartilage ossification did not reach the same point in them. This is exactly the case with real physiological age. If we take a group of children of the same age according to the passport, for example, 7-8 or 12-13 years old, the study will always find that in this group there are children who differ from each other in their real physiological age. Some children, for example, have not yet entered the process of puberty, others are experiencing it, and others have already left it behind. Or some children have not yet begun to change their milk teeth to permanent ones, while others are now undergoing this change, and, finally, still others have already entered the phase of permanent tooth childhood. As you can see, the real physiological age again does not coincide with the passport age. Similarly, the psychological development of a child, passing through certain epochs, does not always coincide with chronological development, and the study of a mass of children homogeneous in age reveals that, psychologically, we also have children whose real intellectual age is far from the same. . Finally, the cultural age of children, which corresponds to one degree or another of mastering the techniques and means of cultural behavior, may also not profoundly coincide with their passport age. That is why it is extremely important for a pedologist to establish each time the real age of a given child and the degree of its discrepancy with his passport age. The second factor that determines the real age of the child is the environment or the conditions in which the development and maturation of the child's hereditary rudiments take place. The environment, exerting its influence on development, slowing down and accelerating it, is also the reason for the greater or lesser discrepancy between chronological and real age. Finally, since both the influence of heredity and the influence of the environment are in this case not on an immobile, at rest organism, but on a moving and developing organism, it is quite natural that these influences depend primarily on the moment of development action. The same hereditary data have different effects in infancy and school age; the same environmental conditions affect uterine development and puberty differently. Therefore, the real age of a child is a function not only of heredity and environment, but also of a third reason, namely time, i.e. chronological age of the child. So, heredity, environment and age - these are the three reasons that in their totality determine the real age of the child. (...)

Education should strive to develop another type of activity to replace the missing or weakened one, which could replace the missing function in behavior. So, for example, in a mentally retarded child, whose verbal thinking is retarded in its development, it is necessary to develop in every possible way motor talent, practical intelligence. Conversely, a child with motor retardation should develop higher forms of verbal or cultural thinking.

Among the desecrated sciences, pedology occupies, perhaps, a special place. Few witnesses of its heyday remained; we habitually judge the death by the well-known resolution 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 invariable 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 coincide with the publication of the works of the great teachers J.J. Rousseau, J.A. "Emil" in 1762 - what is important for an adult to know, not 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 the 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 - 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 the 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 is maintained naturally or artificially throughout the history of science. Such a one-sided understanding of pedology did not satisfy E. Meiman 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: “It must be true: even now pedology courses are actually a vinaigrette from the most diverse branches of knowledge, a simple set of information from various sciences, everything that relates to a child. But is such a vinaigrette a special independent science? Of course , no" 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 it satisfies our understanding, or at least claims to be the work of the author himself - P.P. .

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 different epochs of childhood." 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, even during a psychological study of a child, the researcher is faced with 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 cognition, 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 various 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 characteristics - individual, sexual, social, etc. – also seemed to be 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, development of new increasingly complex mechanisms 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 SS Molozhavy 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. In its development, a prominent place 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. applications in pedology. Scientific psychological commission, which worked out for 1919-1921. a series of "National Tests" known to this day, 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 furious earlier, and now more and more 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 socially closed person 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 given credit for "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:

1) the use of testing was fundamentally rejected 12,20;

2) limited use of tests (in terms of coverage and conditions) was allowed, with the obligatory primacy of other research methods 10,16,22;

3) 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: 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 characteristics of the child given by G.I. Rossolimo were also criticized, with the differentiation of children only by sex and age without taking into account their social and class affiliation (!).

V. M. Bekhterev 29 is also called the founder and creator of pedology in the USSR, 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 founding of the Department of Pedology, V.M. Bekhterev had the idea of ​​creating the Pedological Institute, which at first existed 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 indefatigability 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. Griboedov, P.G. Belsksgo, 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 ages, 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 under which the experiment is carried out, and proposes his own method based on biological principles studying the child, in many respects echoing 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.Basov.

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, a specialist in childhood diseases. His book Peculiarities of Childhood, published in 1906, sums up the results of his and his co-workers' 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 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 AB Zalkind's demagogic call was made for the transformation of pedology into a purely social science, for the creation of "our Soviet pedology".

Shortly after the congress in Orel, a special Pedological Journal began to appear. In the same year, 1993, M.Ya. Basov's monograph "Experience in Methods of Psychological Observations" 33 was published as a result of the work of his school. Being to a large extent the successor of A.F. Lazursky's work with his natural experiment, M.Ya. child personality. 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 collaborators were devoted to the study of early childhood.

In 1925, P.P. Blonsky's work "Pedology" 35 appeared - 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 published 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 S.S. Molozhavy's pamphlet "The Program for the Study of the Behavior of a Child or a Children's Collective" 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 its anatomical and physiological features are taken into account.

By the end of 1925, a significant number of publications had already been accumulated in the USSR that can 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 they try to adhere to that synthetic level, which allows one 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, affecting 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.

VG Shtefko gave his scheme of interaction between the "constitution" of the organism and the environment in a report at a meeting in 1927. 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 team is interesting insofar as he is endogenous irritant of the collective" 22 .

On the basis of the last 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 this 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. Zalkind, prof. AA Zaluzhny also advocated a new "Soviet" pedology. Thus, the pedology and pedagogy that have 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 influence of the environment have turned from the opinion of individual pedologists into the creed of pedology - "revolutionary optimism". An illustration can be N.I. Bukharin’s statement, which was made 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. peoples, etc.). We by no means stand on the point of view of abstract equality, abstract people; this is an absurd theory that cries out to heaven because of its helplessness and contradiction to facts. But we are heading towards ensuring that there is no division into unhistorical and historical... 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 assumed" 44 .

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. Pavlov and others were elected to the honorary presidium.

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. VM Bekhtereva shocked the congress and postponed its beginning. VM 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. AB Zalkind made an introductory speech. 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’s speeches and the report of A.B. Zalkind "Pedology in the USSR" were devoted to general issues of pedology. N.I. Bukharin mainly spoke about the relationship between pedology and pedagogy. In addition, he tried to smooth out from his position the differences in the methodological plan of the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov. A.V. Lunacharsky, like N.I. Bukharin, emphasized the need for an early union of pedagogy and pedology, their interpenetration. N. K. Krupskaya repeatedly spoke on the same occasion at the congress.

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 many shades: those who simplify the question and underestimate the influence of the social environment are 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, it goes too far and underestimates 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 that pedology has done 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 allowed to work in pedagogy, to come into contact with the pedagogical process, the sooner it will grow. Our school network can approach a truly normal school network in a socialist Marxist - a state that builds its culture scientifically, when it is permeated through and through with a network of sufficiently scientifically trained pedologists.In addition to saturating our school with pedologists, it is also necessary that in each teacher, in the brain of each teacher, there may be a small, but strong enough pedologist. another thing is 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 relationship 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 servant is that of a cook who has not learned to manage. On the contrary, the position of a servant here is one in which this servant 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 summarized the work done, named the main directions of pedology that existed at that time, institutions engaged 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 childhood methodology was developed in the reports of S.S. Molozhavy, V.G. Shtefko, A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M.Ya. Basov, K.N. Kornilov, A.S. Zaluzhny 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 further pedological work could be carried out.

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, "unified" its disparate forces, demonstrating firsthand 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 appropriations, 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 this 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. Thus, E.A. Arkin turned out to be a "militant minority and a Machist", N.M. Shchelovanov - an "idealist", and V.M. Bekhterev's school - "reactionary".

“On the one hand, we observe the same old academicism with problems and methods of research torn off from today. On the other hand, we are faced with a serene calmness that has not yet been outlived by the most acute issues 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 practice, but a negative synthesis, i.e., deeply hostile to the proletarian revolution" 48 .

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 concepts of personality, which are always an apology for naked 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 were uncovered", and the whole direction declared reactionary.

In 1931 the journal "Pedology" published a new heading - "Tribune", set aside specifically for exposing the "internal" enemies in pedology. Many swore allegiance to the regime, "realized" their "guilt" and repented. Materials are being 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 dealt and "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, sharply party order" 48 . Analyzing further the situation in pedology, A.B. Zalkind calls everyone to "repentance"... Differentiation within the pedological camp requires, in one of the first stages, 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 must immediately become the organizer and collector of this material. At a review of the pedagogical and psychological departments of the Academy of Communist Education, P.P. Blonsky spoke about 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 with articles and requests.” The “comrades” were quick to respond: the next issue of the journal publishes an article about Blonsky’s mistakes by A.M. Gelmont “For Marxist-Leninist Pedology” 49

The journal "Pedology" demanded "repentance" or, more often, blasphemous denunciations in relation to "insufficiently devoted scientists." They demanded "help from comrades" in relation to K.N. Kornilov, S.S. Molozhavy, A.S. Zaluzhny, M.Ya. 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 practically 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 is published, which the author himself summarizes in the following provisions: 1) the considered works of M.Ya. 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 "General Foundations of Pedology" is 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, as well as on 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 a human personality, according to the teachings of M.Ya. Basov, is completely inconsistent with the whole meaning, spirit and attitudes towards understanding 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 drawn 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. Basov worked. M.Ya.Basov had to write a response article, but it was already published ... posthumously. A few months before his death, M.Ya. Basov left 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, 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's suicide note was given:

"To students, graduate students, professors and teachers of the pedological department and 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 for 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 "critical" work was even more enlivened by JV Stalin's letter "On Some Questions of the History of Bolshevism" to 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. Using the example of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A.I. to fight rotten liberalism. In the order of expansion, the works were opened and exposed [there is a listing by department] ... in 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 Pedology journal, has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor of self-flagellation and scourging 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 , moving to a 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 the child and adolescent on the basis of the leading role of the patterns of the class struggle and the 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. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky 3 participated in the development of this resolution.

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 the 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, Pravda and other mass media are calling for an end to such provocations and for the protection of 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". At 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. So, 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 listen to a course in genetics, but not absorb its essence, which happened to M.Ya.Basov himself. 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 wait for favors from nature! To take 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. Pedology: A Textbook for Higher Pedagogical Educational Institutions. M., 1934. 338 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. P. 27–39.

12 Youthful S.S.. About the program for the study of the child // Education in transport. 1925. No. 11. pp.27–30.

13 Shapiro Ya.I. Basic issues of pedology // Vestn. enlightenment. 1927. No. 5. pp.82–88; No. 6. pp.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. Nos. 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. P.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, AB Zalkind wrote earlier: "Of course, by passing on educated traits by inheritance, since in one generation it is impossible to seriously change the properties of an organism ...".

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. pp.5–8.

44 Bukharin N.I. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. pp.3–10.

45 Materials of the I All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.

46 Krupskaya N.K. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. pp.3–10. Note that these statements by N.K. Krupskaya were not included in the "complete" collections of her works.

47 Lunacharsky A.V. Materials of the I All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.

48 Zalkind A.B. On the position on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 1. S.1–2.

49 Gelmont A.M. For Marxist-Leninist pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63–66.

50 Leventuev P. Political perversions in pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63–66.

51 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.

52 Feofanov M.P. Methodological foundations of the Basov school // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.21–34.

55 Feofanov M.P. The Theory of Cultural Development in Pedology as an Eclectic Concept with Mainly Idealistic Roots // Pedology. 1932. #1–2. pp.21–34.

56 Babushkin A.P. Eclecticism and reactionary slander on the Soviet child and teenager // Pedology. 1932. #1–2. pp.35–41.

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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Pedology (from Greek rbydt - child and Greek lgpt - science) is a direction in science that aimed to combine the approaches of various sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, pedagogy) to the development of the child.

The term is obsolete, and currently has only historical significance. Most of the productive scientific results of pedological research have been assimilated by childhood psychology.

History.

In the world. The emergence of pedology was caused by the penetration of evolutionary ideas into psychology and pedagogy and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. The first works of a pedological nature date back to the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. - G. S. Hall, J. Baldwin, E. Meyman, W. Preyer and others. The term "pedology" was proposed in 1893 by the American researcher Oscar Chrisman.

Pedology in Russia and the USSR. In Russia, the ideas of pedology were accepted and developed by V.M. Bekhterev, G.I. Rossolimo, A.P. Nechaev and others, while I. Pavlov and his school were very critical.

In the USSR, pedology was at its peak in the 1920s and 1930s, especially after the support of L.D. Trotsky, when pedology was "crossed" with Freudianism. Schools were actively introducing the practices of psychological testing, completing classes, organizing a school regime, etc. In Moscow and Petrograd, institutes of Soviet “psychoanalytic pedology” were created, corresponding to the “House of the Child” (A. Luria, V. Schmidt, E. Adler).

However, the strong bias in the activities of pedological laboratories towards sorting students on the basis of their intellectual qualities was not consistent with the Communist Party line on the equality of all representatives of the working class in obtaining education, and was not consistent with the ideology of universal equality embodied in the practice of "group education". In addition, the illiterate implementation of the “psychoanalytic” bias in the upbringing of children showed the whole inconsistency of the union of pedology and psychoanalysis that had long existed at the expense of the state. A.S. Makarenko and K.I. Chukovsky waged an active struggle against pedology.

The result of this was the defeat and collapse of pedology, which came after the decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On pedological perversions in the system of the People's Commissariat of Education" (1936).

However, along with pedology, the development of some productive branches of psychology as a natural science discipline was frozen for many years.

Since the 1950s a gradual return of some ideas of pedology to pedagogy and psychology begins.

Since the 1970s active work has begun on the use of tests in pedagogy and the education system.

The main representatives of Soviet pedology: P.P. Blonsky, M.Ya. Basov, L.S. Vygotsky.

One of the prominent trends in modern Russian pedagogy reflects the desire to experimentally investigate various pedagogical issues and phenomena. Experimental pedagogy goes hand in hand with experimental psychology and shares the same fate with it: whoever attaches great importance to the experimental method in the field of the study of mental phenomena will be inclined to seek the solution of pedagogical problems in the same experimental way. The fact is that both psychological and pedagogical experiments are related, closely related to each other, although each of these types has its own, somewhat special tasks and its own methodology: psychological experiments are laboratory, divorced from life, very abstract in terms of task, but very accurate; pedagogical - complex, more vital, carried out at school in ordinary school conditions, and therefore less accurate. Anyone who is not a fan of the experiment in psychology will hardly give it a wide place in pedagogy. And about the significance of experimental psychology, about the limits of its application, about the value of the data obtained by it, there is still a dispute, there is still no agreement in opinions; experimental pedagogy is in the same position. The dispute, in fact, can be reduced to such a basic question - is it about new sciences or only about new methods of research in science? Defenders of experiments in the study of psychological and pedagogical phenomena often argue that they are the heralds of a new truth, a new science, that the former psychology and pedagogy are already something obsolete, old, scholastic, all this junk must be forgotten, there is no use from it, but it is necessary start anew, build new, experimental psychology and pedagogy. Such a negatively contemptuous attitude towards the former psychology and pedagogy is completely wrong and is the result of an understandable enthusiasm for a new direction in science. It is impossible to throw overboard the old psychology and pedagogy, because experimental psychology and pedagogy are only new methods of research in science, and not new sciences. In order to investigate something experimentally, one must already be familiar with a given area of ​​phenomena, understand its significance and the need for a more thorough study of it; the very setting of the experiment, i.e., the choice of a known particular phenomenon for study, presupposes an analysis of the complex in which it enters as an element; the derivation of consequences from the experiment and their scientific evaluation also require general considerations and discussions. In a word, each experiment is a small part of the great whole, about which it is necessary to have an idea before starting to experiment with the mind and consciousness. Experimental studies are usually very detailed analytical studies, the understanding of which requires a broad synthesis, and in pedagogy in particular, the concepts of goals and ideals, judgments about good and bad, expedient and inexpedient, their degrees, which are usually not given by simple factual knowledge, are necessary. whether acquired by experiment or otherwise.

In order to judge the value of this or that pedagogical system, it is not enough to know that, according to experimental verification, the educated person began to memorize easier, judge more accurately, his imagination became more alive, etc., you need to know that he generally became the best or the worst person. And for this, a broad sociological verification of all human activity is needed, and not a partial experimental one.

“To speak in favor of some end, any appointment or intention, is to declare that this end is better than another end, that this appointment is more worthy than another, that this intention is more valuable than another. But if there is anything that enters into the concept of science itself, it is the unwavering recognition that in the world of scientific facts nothing is good or bad, valuable or worthless, worthy or unworthy: of a scientific fact, we can only say that he is" 1.

Quite rightly, one of the most prominent representatives of experimental psychology and pedagogy among us argues that “the first merit (and, in our opinion, the most important P.K.) of experimental psychology over didactics is the ideal of accuracy and conclusiveness of the study of questions of school education that it vividly sets forth. . Instead of unfounded assertions and general (not always definite) impressions, it introduces exactly described facts, scientifically verified propositions into didactics. At the same time, what many educators have agreed with for a long time is sometimes brilliantly confirmed, but sometimes the incorrectness of the prevailing didactic premises is revealed.

The former psychology, and in connection with it, pedagogy, was based on self-observation and observations on others, the new, experimental one, on experiment. Thus, by their very foundations, the old and the new psychology and pedagogy seemed to be essentially different. The old ones had close ties with philosophy, logic, ethics, and the closest friends of the new ones were physiology, hygiene, anthropology. "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are." And the friends of the old and new psychology and pedagogy are very different. But upon closer examination, the differences are not so great.

If one psychology and pedagogy were based on observation, and the other on experiment, then there is no need to oppose observation and experiment. They are undoubtedly different, but not opposite, there is a natural connection between them. Experiments are made not only by man, but also by nature, when she discovers the same property under different conditions, in varying degrees of strength and with unequal shades, when, in a word, she modifies the property depending on the conditions. People who do not want to experiment and even, perhaps, have not heard anything about experiments, setting other new conditions for activity, encourage them to modify their properties and activity, that is, they experiment without suspecting it themselves, as is often the case in the field of education, when new techniques and methods of education and training are introduced when the pedagogical environment surrounding the educated changes, when a new teacher arrives. From this arises the concept of a natural experiment, i.e., the observation of a phenomenon under various conditions, proposed by some defenders of experimental psychology and pedagogy. Let children and youth indulge in sports, games, gymnastics, manual labor and not suspect that at this time they are subjected to the most careful observation, taking into account all the manifestations of mental life that are planned to be taken into account. Such observation, systematically carried out according to a predetermined plan, of the complex manifestations of the mental life of children in the ordinary conditions of their home or school environment is a natural experiment. According to the results, in terms of accuracy, it is lower than a laboratory study, but higher than a simple non-systematized observation 3.

Of course, this is true, nature (if it is only possible to personify it) produces experiments, but a person cognizes natural experiments by a process denoted in logic by the name of observation, and not experiment. It is true that man himself may experiment quite often without being aware of it, although his unintentional experiments will be very lax and therefore not entirely accurate.

If careful observation (a natural experiment) is of great importance for experimental psychology and pedagogy, self-observation is no less important for them. Even in certain types of psychological experiment, when it comes to the study of elementary sensations, self-observation does not play a significant role, and the experimented subject turns to a certain extent into a simple, as it were, dead instrument of experience, the experience of which during the experiment is of no concern to the experimenter. But the situation is quite different in cases where complex phenomena are studied, and pedagogical experiments concern ordinary complex phenomena. It is impossible to understand the answers to questions about such complex phenomena if one does not pay attention to the experiences that accompany them, to the psychic environment in which they arise and which determines their character. And about the mental experiences corresponding to a given phenomenon, about the mental environment of a known phenomenon, the experimenter can report only by self-observation. The more precise and sharper the latter, the more valuable and fruitful the experiment will be; the narrower and more vague the self-observation, the darker the meaning and significance of the testimony of the experimenter. The meaning of a word can be understood by considering it separately; but we can correctly understand its exact meaning in a certain place in the writer only when we take the given word in the context, i.e., in the whole sentence, in the given period, in the passage. Experiments about the meaning of individual, disparate words are psychological, laboratory experimentation; experiments about the meaning of a word taken in context, in connection with a whole passage, are pedagogical experimentation.

Thus, for all experiments concerning more or less complex phenomena, and especially for pedagogical ones, the observation by the experimenters themselves of their states is an essential factor in the value of the experiment. Consequently, in the experiment, the psychology and pedagogy of self-observation, the old ones, and the psychology and pedagogy of experience, the new ones, meet and act together.

Therefore, there can be no question of denying the former psychology and pedagogy, recognizing them as empty scholasticism and replacing them with new ones. The connection of the old psychology and pedagogy with the new ones is preserved, the new ones are a further development of the former ones, mainly from the methodological side. The significance of experimental psychology and pedagogy as new research methods in science is indisputable and serious.

By the very essence of knowledge based on simple observation, even if it is many years and careful, it does not have complete accuracy and distinctness. The mere observation is under great pressure from the prevailing views and habits, observation often confirms the existence of something that is not really there, that is only in the mind of the observer, which causes firm belief in him. Experience is very little subject to such distortion by preconceived ideas and faith, it is colder and stricter, it tests subjective assumptions by measure and weight, by precise instruments that are impassive, that are alien to love and hate. Therefore, experimental research, no matter what it is applied to, dispels fog, uncertainty, it everywhere brings light and clear outlines. The same thing happens when applied to the study of child personality. But such a study is only just beginning, and there are very few independent Russian works in this direction. To a certain extent, an indicator of the success of experimental studies of children in the preschool period of their life can be the publication of a publication of the Pedagogical Academy under the title "The Spiritual Life of Children." In this issue of two articles, N.E. Rumyantsev “How has the spiritual life of children been studied and is being studied?” and “The character and personality of the child.

The study of personality ”, the reader can get acquainted with the former and current methods of studying a child’s personality, with the history of the emergence of child psychology, with the classification of children’s characters, compiling characteristics, etc. In addition, the following issues are considered in the titled issue: heredity and environment as factors of education ; about memory; about attention; about the development of imagination in children; about children's games; about the development of children's speech; about the main periods in the development of the mental life of children. All these are very important, very essential questions of child psychology, without a detailed solution of which it is impossible to construct a correct theory of family education of children. It is only necessary to note that articles on the study of the above-mentioned aspects of the mental life of children are not so much independent experimental research as they are acquaintance with the work in the field of child psychology by foreign experimenters. But it is also difficult to expect the emergence of independent research in a given field of science before a detailed acquaintance with foreign works and their critical assimilation. It is clear, therefore, that the study of the mental manifestations of children continues and through systematic observations, systematic and extensive plans for such observations are published by the figures in the field of experimental psychology themselves (see, for example, the work of A.F. Lazursky “Program for the Study of Personality” and G.I. Rassolimo "Plan for the study of the child's soul in a healthy and diseased state", M., 1909).

Interest in new research methods in the field of psychology and pedagogy in the Russian educational and pedagogical world is quite large, as evidenced by two congresses on pedagogical-experimental psychology and two on experimental pedagogy, held in recent years in St. Petersburg - all four are very crowded, attracting a lot of participants from all over Russia; psychological and pedagogical experimental rooms created for scientific experimental research in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa and some other cities; psychological classrooms at gymnasiums, designed to demonstrate experiments in teaching psychology; courses in experimental psychology and pedagogy at the Pedagogical Academy in Petrograd; rather rapidly growing literature on these branches of knowledge, however, mainly translated.

With the spread of interest in experimental research and in the course of the creation of psychological classrooms in secondary educational institutions, the question naturally arose about the possibility and expediency of practical applications of experimental research in schools in teaching and education. There were heated debates on this issue at congresses on experimental psychology and pedagogy. Some fans of experimental pedagogy assumed that it was already possible to use new psychological data to solve practical pedagogical problems, that with the help of simple psychological cabinets and simple experiments with calculations, it would be possible to penetrate the recesses of mental life, to find out the essence of the individual, the level of his talent, his general orientation and inclinations in the future, etc. Obviously, all this is exaggerated hopes, hot hobbies. Experimental psychology is a new scientific trend that is just beginning to develop its own paths, posing questions to itself, trying to solve all kinds of and sometimes very difficult and intricate problems. It is in the period of searches, experiments, it is groping for both tasks and methods. New and new horizons are opening before him, very vast and very complex. Of course, little has been achieved so far to decide anything firmly, to establish any new truths and provisions of experimental psychology, which is quite natural, and therefore the naive confidence in the possibility of finding practical applications of experimental psychology today does not have sufficient grounds. So far, this scientific direction is the business of scientists, and not of practical workers, and psychological classrooms at gymnasiums, according to the decision of the last congress on experimental pedagogy in Petrograd, should serve to demonstrate new research methods, and by no means to solve practical pedagogical problems.

One of the types of research practiced by new psychologists and educators is questionnaires, that is, questionnaires addressed to the masses. You can ask about known objects of individuals, selecting them according to gender, age, education, cultural conditions of life, or without any selection - every acquaintance you meet; you can offer questions at once to the whole audience or class, asking them to prepare answers by a certain date; printed questionnaires can be sent out, distributing them in tens of thousands of copies. The method is simple, but it also requires caution. One must always skillfully and deliberately put questions, briefly, accurately and at the same time accessible. Quite often questionnaires sin against these elementary rules and reduce the value of the questionnaire. Respondents must be selected or answers grouped; to lump together the answers of adults and children, educated and uneducated, men and women, is to deprive the questionnaire of any scientific value. Finally, you need to be sure that the questions posed were understood by the respondents, that when answering they did not receive help from anywhere, for example, children - from adults. Here are two very interesting questionnaires conducted by domestic teachers.

One Russian researcher became interested in the issue of the physical and geographical representations of children, for which he sent out the corresponding questionnaires to educational institutions, male and female, in the cities of Kyiv, Vilna, Zhitomir and Glukhov. Pupils and pupils of preparatory classes at the age of 9-11 were interviewed. 500 responses were sent. The questions on the questionnaires were as follows: did the respondent see the rising sun, morning dawn, open horizon, valley, ravine, gully, stream, springs, pond, water meadow, swamp, eared field, field work, loamy soil, chernozem, ice drift, sign whether he is picking mushrooms in the forest, boating on the river, swimming in the river, whether he knows the countries of the world. In addition, it was required to report whether he traveled by rail, on a steamboat, whether he walked outside the city, whether he lived in the countryside and in other cities. It turned out that, on average, only half of the students saw and had an idea about these phenomena; with some words (for example, soil), only a third of the respondents connect real ideas. Knowledge of individual natural phenomena and occupations fluctuates between 25% (ice drift) and 80% (picking mushrooms in the forest). By dividing the proposed questions according to their content into three groups, we get the following percentage of affirmative answers:

1) astronomical representations: horizon, sunrise, dawn, cardinal points - 44.3%;

2) physical and geographical: valley, ravine, ravine, stream, spring, pond, swamp, water meadow, eared field, loamy or chernozem soil - 52%;

3) general acquaintance with nature, including the following activities: picking mushrooms in the forest, field work, boating, swimming in the river - 68.7.

17.6% (88 people out of 500) took country walks on foot, went by steamboat and railroad, 50.8% (254 people) did not take country walks, 38.2% (191 people) did not go by steamboat, 11.4% (57 people) did not travel by rail. From the same questionnaire, it turns out that country walks on foot constitute the main condition for a wide range of physical and geographical representations: the world of physical and geographical representations of children who did not walk outside the city is not only poor quantitatively, but also very peculiar in composition.

From the considered point of view, the article by N.V. Chekhov "On the threshold to school and from school". (With what knowledge and skills do illiterate children come to school? How do they feel about schoolwork and what do they take out of school? See the 10th edition of the collection “Issues and Needs of Teachers”). This article was compiled on the basis of a questionnaire conducted in the summer of 1909 among students of the summer Moscow teacher's courses. All answers concern pupils of rural schools. In total, there were 174 classified and counted answers. There were a lot of questions (49), we will focus on answers only to the main questions.

Do children freely understand the questions of adults (and teachers) in everyday life and can they give sensible answers to them? 144 responses were received, distributed as follows:

Questions are not understood, 44 (31%)

Most do not understand, 23 (15%)

They understand, but cannot answer, 46 (32%)

Understand and give sensible answers, 31 (22%)

Can they coherently tell what happened to them and what they saw?

Can't, 97 (67%);

A minority can, 20 (13%);

They know how, 27 (20%).

Thus, in half of the schools, all or most of the students, upon entering the school, neither understand the teacher's questions, nor are they able to answer sensibly "due to the inability to master speech." Four-fifths of the students are unable to coherently describe what happened to them or what they saw.

Most, but not all, know their name and the name of their village. In half of the schools, children do not know their patronymic or last name.

Up to how many can they usually count? In most cases, children entering school can count up to 10. Only children in 19 schools can count up to 10, while in others they continue to count, namely: up to 20 - in 21 schools, from 20 to 100 - in 43 schools. 38 schools can count in pairs, 79 do not know how to count; heels - they can at 20 and can't at 97; counting in tens at 27 and not at 70. Thus, in most schools, children can count up to 10 or 20, in a minority - up to 100, and in about 1/3 of schools they can count in pairs, heels and tens. Children entering school have knowledge of measures and coins, for example, in most schools they know coins, they do not know only in 20 schools.

Acquaintance with nature - with animals found in the area, birds, fish, insects, plants, etc. In most cases, the number of animals known to children of one school is very limited, and often they do not know the most common ones. For some orders of animals, many children have only common names. In any case, in any alphabet there will be a much larger number of animal names, and, consequently, a significant part of these names will be unknown to children, although they may know this animal, but under a common name with related ones. According to the number of names mentioned in the answers, the first place belongs to birds, then trees, fish, flowers, insects, wild mammals and, finally, reptiles. In this sequence, apparently, children develop an interest in wildlife. In some places, species names are used instead of generic ones (for example, in the Kuban, children call all trees oaks, in the Kazan province - birches, in Tambov - twigs).

There is no doubt that all the didactics and methods of elementary school should be based on such careful examination of the mental and moral baggage of the children they bring to school. It is ridiculous to start learning to count from one, to stop at a detailed study of the numbers of the first ten, when children can count up to 10, 20, up to 100, they can count in pairs, heels; it is useless to require children to repeat the teacher's story when they do not understand his simple question and cannot, if they did, answer it. Gymnasium pedagogy should have the same basis - a detailed scientific examination of the physical and spiritual personality of children entering the gymnasium.

Regarding the methodological perfection of the above two questionnaires, the following should be noted: in the first, the questions are clearly posed, the answers are selected, but it remains unknown how the questionnaires were filled out, whether there were any conversations, help, etc. at that time. It is impossible not to notice that the children interviewed did not live in one locality, but in four different ones, as a result of which local conditions could influence the answers and thereby reduce the value of the questionnaire. The second questionnaire was conducted among teachers who came from 41 provinces of Russia and Finland, hence, from areas with different nature, language of inhabitants and different cultural backgrounds. Already this circumstance significantly weakens the scientific value of the questionnaire, and the breadth of some questions joins it. For example, what does the question mean: can children talk coherently? What are the criteria for skill and incompetence? One teacher could consider one as such, and another - others. In the same way, the first question is broad and vague: do children freely understand the questions of adults in everyday life and can they give sensible answers to them? The degrees of understanding and sensibility are different, understanding and sensibility can often come into contact with misunderstanding and stupidity, as a result of which the same answer can be attributed to opposite groups - sensible and stupid. At the same time, teachers answered the second questionnaire not at home, but in Moscow, having gathered for courses, therefore, from memory, without proper information and preparation, all this cannot but affect negatively the value of the questionnaire.

The most characteristic method of research by new psychologists and educators is, of course, experiment. In order to clarify the use of experiment for solving psychological and pedagogical problems, we will present two Russian experimental studies aimed at solving two very important problems, namely, about the mental characteristics of the blind and about methods for determining personal characteristics. The first study belongs to A. Krogius, the second - to G.I. Rossolimo.

The work of A. Krogius is only a part of the work devoted to the study of the processes of perception in the blind; the second part will include a study of the blind processes of representation, memory, thinking, and emotional-volitional life. Thus, the entire spiritual world of the blind was supposed to be subjected to experimental examination. The essence of the first half of the work already done can be stated as follows: on the physical side, the blind are characterized by insufficient development of the muscular system, a weakening of the general nutrition, and their entire physical development seems to be weak, delayed; growth is mostly below average, the skeletal system is thin, fragile. Often there are traces of rickets, an abnormally large head, curvature of the lower extremities and spine, thickening of the joints, etc. The activity of the heart, lungs, gastrointestinal and other internal organs is often weakened. Due to the general weakening of the vital activity of the internal organs, the blind are excessively susceptible to various infectious diseases and are unable to fight them. And the morbidity and mortality among them are very high. Of those born blind and blind in childhood, only a few survive to old age. Nervous diseases are also frequent in the blind. In general, the picture of the physical condition of the blind is disappointing. One of the main reasons for the weak physical development of the blind is their lack of mobility. Fearing to run into obstacles, the blind involuntarily limit their movements, which is expressed in the whole figure of the blind: the position of the body of the blind is mostly bent, the head is stretched forward, they move hesitantly, with concentration; the face of the blind man is inactive, there is no facial expression. Sometimes it gives the impression of a marble sculpture. The games of the blind are rarely alive. With little blind people, the game often consists in jumping up on the spot and raising their hands up. But they develop significantly automatic movements: pointing with the head, with the whole body, spinning in one place, various contractions of the muscles of the upper and lower extremities. Especially often they have pressure on the eyeball.

In almost all writings on the psychology of the blind, there is a remark that the blind perceive sound stimuli better than the sighted. According to the author's experimental studies, the blind better determine the direction of the sound than the sighted: with the same experiments, the total number of errors in the blind was 365.5, and in the sighted - 393.5. For the blind, the voice of the speakers has the same meaning as the face has for the sighted: it is a conductor for them of spiritual properties and changes in the mood and consciousness of the speakers; by their gait, by their voice they recognize people whom they have heard for a long time. “If the eyes are the mirror of the soul,” one blind woman remarked, “then the voice is her echo, her breath; the voice reveals the deepest feelings, the most intimate movements. You can artificially create an expression for yourself, but you can’t do it with a voice. Instead of insufficient vision, the blind are gifted, as it were, with a special “sixth sense”. What does it consist of? It consists in the ability to recognize indoors and outdoors, while moving and standing, whether the blind person is in front of any object, whether the latter is large, wide or narrow, separate with a gap or a continuous solid barrier; a blind man can even know, without touching an object, whether there is a wooden fence, a brick wall, or a hedge in front of him; and does not confuse shops with residential buildings, can indicate doors, windows, regardless of whether they are open or closed. One blind man was walking with his sighted friend and, pointing to the palisade separating the road from the field, said: "This fence is somewhat lower than my shoulder." The sighted man replied that he was taller. The fence was measured and found to be three fingers below the shoulder. The height of the fence was determined by a blind man at a distance of four feet. If the lower part of the fence is made of bricks and the upper part of wood, then this can easily be determined by the blind in the same way as the line of division. Irregularities in height, projections and depressions of the walls can also be recognized.

What is the source of the "sixth sense"? Some previous researchers tried to look for it in the surviving remnants of vision, but numerous facts strongly refuted this hypothesis.

In modern times, three assumptions have been put forward on the mentioned issue:

1) the "sixth sense" is due to auditory sensations and has its own source in them;

2) the "sixth sense" is reduced to the tactile sensations of the face, is associated with tactile sensitivity and rests on its sophistication;

3) the "sixth sense" is mainly due to the temperature sensations of the face - the absorption of radiant heat from surrounding objects and its return to these latter. The author of the work under consideration adheres to the third hypothesis, which he created. Her main reasons are as follows:

Weakening of the "sixth sense" when wetting the veil that covered the subject's face during the experiments. In this case, there is a decrease in the thermal transparency of the bedspread, while its gas permeability remains without much change, as with the dryness of the bedspread;

Preservation of the "sixth sense" with a wax paper cover; with a slight change in the thermal transparency of the bedspread and complete blockage of the air flow by it, the function of the "sixth sense" both when walking and at rest decreases only slightly - corresponding to a slight decrease in thermal transparency;

The presence of a "sixth sense" in a calm position, both acting on the subject under test, and the subject himself;

An increase or decrease in the "sixth sense" with an increase or decrease in the temperature of the stimulus;

The dependence of the "sixth sense" on the amount of radiated heat.

Against the theory of auditory sensations as the source of the “sixth sense”, the following facts can be cited:

1) localization of the "sixth sense" in the face (not a single blind person localized it in the ears);

2) the preservation of the "sixth sense" with tightly closed ears;

3) the presence of a "sixth sense" in the deaf;

4) a gradual decrease in the "sixth sense" depending on the thickness of the bedspread;

5) inability to perceive the approach of objects from above and behind.

Based primarily on temperature sensations, the "sixth sense" finds support in auditory and any other sensations received by the blind. A change in, for example, auditory perceptions from approaching objects is sometimes extremely important for a blind person. This change is a signal irritation, already from afar warning the blind of the presence of an obstacle and forcing him to pay special attention to irritations acting on the skin of the face, that is, thermal and tactile.

The tactile and tactile-motor perceptions of the blind are worse than those of the sighted. A variety of experiments carried out in this direction, constantly gave the same result - a greater number of errors in perception in the blind than in the sighted. Vision plays the role of a kind of educator of tactile impressions - in the presence of it, tactile perceptions receive greater accuracy and certainty.

The spatial perceptions of the blind differ to a large extent from the spatial perceptions of the sighted, which is quite understandable. In the discrimination of spatial forms, the most prominent place among the blind is occupied by active touch, which takes place during the movement of the touching finger and during convergent palpation, i.e., by several parts of the body at once. It happens slowly and is accompanied by rather significant inaccuracies. Objects very large and distant are inaccessible to the direct perception of the blind, and the recognition of small familiar forms that appear in a slightly different form is difficult for the blind. If a blind person has become acquainted, for example, with a plaster model of some animal, then he is unable to recognize another model of the same animal depicting it in a different position. He knows physical objects by one or two signs, especially prominent ones, for example, by horns, beak, etc., and therefore he easily confuses: he mixes a bear with a dog, the head of Venus de Milo with the head of a horse. In the perception of the actual space of the blind, the main role is played by the sequential addition of elements, in the perception of the sighted, their simultaneity. Therefore, the space of the blind is more abstract than the space of the sighted, and numerical verbal symbols and reduced schemes play a very prominent role in it. When educating the blind, these methods should be brought to the fore, since they give the blind the opportunity to form a holistic view of spatial relationships at the same time. Large objects and large models greatly interfere with the emergence of blind holistic ideas in the mind.

G.I. Rossolimo deals with mental profiles. A profile is a special warehouse of personality, explored with the help of specially designed tasks. The number of mental processes studied is 11: attention, will, accuracy of perception, memorization of visual impressions, elements of speech, numbers, meaningfulness, combination ability, sharpness, imagination, observation; separate study groups - 38, because mental processes are studied from various angles, for example, attention in relation to stability:

a) simple

b) with a choice

c) with distraction and in relation to volume;

The accuracy of the susceptibility of visual impressions:

a) with sequential recognition,

b) with simultaneous judgment,

c) during subsequent reproduction and recognition of colors, etc.

In each group of studies - 10 experiments, and a total of 380 experiments. The graphic profile is expressed by a curve: a diagram is drawn in the form of 38 equal vertical lines, each divided into 10 equal parts. To determine the height of each process, the principle of positive and negative answers to 10 tasks related to each group was used.

If all 10 problems are solved correctly, then on the vertical line corresponding to this group, a point is placed on the tenth division, if only four out of 10 problems are correctly solved, then the point is placed on the fourth division. At the end of the study, the experimenter connects the points placed on each of the 38 perpendiculars with straight lines, and the psychological profile is ready.

The author suggests that his profiles can be widely used: to develop the question of the types of mental individualities; for comparative study of the same individual; to solve various general pedagogical issues, etc.

It is obvious that the author's method is associated with painstaking and extremely tedious experimental work, with a mass of diagrams and lengthy numerical calculations. How well the author chose 11 processes for the characteristics of the psychological profile is a big question, much and important is left without research, and the same activity in essence is examined several times under different names, for example, meaningfulness, ingenuity, combinational activity. In general, the theoretical foundations of the method and choice of just the listed processes, and not any others, perhaps more characteristic of the individual, are not indicated. For the production of all 380 experiments, the author spends 3 1/2 hours during quick work, distributing this time over 4 days and more; but sometimes he had to hurry and carry out the whole work of research in one day. Not to mention such emergency work in one day, which strongly resembles an ordinary hasty school exam, but even in 4 days it is difficult to correctly and confidently detect a person’s spiritual face; after all, in this short period he can be in a somewhat special state, imperceptible and unknown to the researcher, be slightly excited or depressed, experience an oncoming illness, be under the influence of some event, etc. Therefore, for a real penetration into the human soul and its correct The characteristics of the psychological profile must certainly be compiled several times, especially when moving from one age to another, and compiled slowly, thoughtfully. In any case, the method of G.I. Rossolimo is interesting, largely developed, a lot of work has been put into its improvement. Rossolimo's "profiles" deserve attention also because this method is widely used in practice.

Despite the youth and natural imperfection of experimental psychological and pedagogical research, they managed to have a beneficial effect on the organization of school education in one significant respect - on the desire to single out children who are incapable, backward and poorly developing from ordinary schools. It is known what a burden on the class are the enumerated groups of students; this was known, of course, for a long time, but the natural remedy for evil was considered to be the exclusion of those deprived of nature. With the spread of careful study of the personality of students, it came to the conclusion that all these so-called incompetent and backward children are not so bad that nothing could come of them. The whole trouble is that they cannot successfully study in ordinary schools for normal children; but if we were to create schools adapted to their characteristics, to the level of their abilities, then perhaps there would be success. They made an attempt, it turned out to be successful, and, following the example of the so-called Mannheim system, they began to talk about the need to divide schools:

1) to ordinary schools - for normal children,

2) for auxiliary - for backward

3) for repetition - for the weakly gifted.

Moscow already has parallel departments for handicapped children at city schools. The organization of such departments is based on the following principles: a limited number of students (from 15 to 20); strict individualization of education; the pursuit is not so much for the amount of information, but for their high-quality processing; special attention to physical education (good nutrition, staying in the yard for at least an hour, frequent changes in classes due to the rapid fatigue of children, gymnastics, modeling, drawing); development in children with the help of appropriate exercises of observation, attentiveness, etc. There are similar departments for retarded children in Petrograd - at city schools, a private institution of Dr. Malyarevsky, etc. In view of the importance of this issue, a whole a number of reports on the study of personality traits in general and determining the degree of intellectual insufficiency of children in particular, mainly according to foreign samples, and even some private questions were discussed about how best to educate the incapacitated - in a boarding school or coming, in what proportion should there be a message in such schools scientific information and exercises in the craft, is it possible to indicate simple and practical ways to recognize such children, etc. Finally, the opposite question arose: should not gifted children be singled out from the general mass of schoolchildren? (Report by V.P. Kashchenko). Gifted children often do almost as badly in schools as poor children, only for slightly different reasons, although, in the end, the reason is essentially the same - the inconsistency of teaching with personal abilities and needs. If it is now considered a duty of justice to single out the incapable from the general mass of schoolchildren, then isn't it an even greater moral obligation to single out gifted children from the crowd of mediocrities? There is already a society in memory of Lomonosov in Moscow, which aims to help gifted children from the peasant class receive a secondary, higher, general and special education. The society has already begun its activities, it has to deal with the selection of children, it uses the method of G.I. Rossolimo.

The third technique in the new approach to the study of questions of psychology and pedagogy is based on a combination of experiment and observation. We find it in the study of the question of personality, its properties, which G.I. Rossolimo tried to solve it strictly experimentally.

To conduct such research, it is very important, first of all, to understand the methods leading to the solution of the problem, to collect and indicate the most expedient among them and to test them in practice. Such a work was carried out by a group of employees of the laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology in Petrograd, and then processed and presented by one of the members of this circle, Mr. Rumyantsev. The circle set out to indicate the simplest methods that do not require the use of sophisticated equipment, and at the same time the most reliable. Noting the main precautions when performing experiments, the circle described the methods for studying sensations, perception, and memorization. For more complex mental phenomena - processes of judgment, imagination, manifestations of feelings and will - it was more difficult to indicate methods than for simple phenomena, since they are less amenable to experimentation, but some indications are given in this area.

A similar methodological significance is drawn up by F.E. Rybakov "Atlas for the experimental psychological study of personality" (M., 1910), the purpose of which is to provide an opportunity for "teachers, doctors and in general persons who have contact with someone else's soul, without the help of any tools to explore the features of the mental life of the chosen person", moreover, they mean predominantly manifestations of higher processes. The atlas contains many tables (57) for examining the ability to perceive attention, observation, memory, suggestibility, fantasy, etc., comments on research methods, description and explanation of the tables.

The actual study of personality in a new way was carried out by a group of people working under the guidance of A.F. Lazursky. This study is interesting not so much from the side of results, but from the side of the method. It was carried out in a double way: by careful observation of selected personalities and experiments on them. Observations were carried out on the cadets of the 2nd St. Petersburg Cadet Corps (11 people). Age observed - 12-15 years. Observations were made by the educators of the corps, in front of whom the whole life of the pupils passed. Day after day, a diary was kept about the pupils chosen for observation for about a month and a half, and a certain, pre-developed research program was taken as the basis, and observations were recorded with all possible objectivity and at the same time with all the accompanying circumstances, often of great importance. for the analysis and evaluation of individual manifestations of personality. After a month and a half, keeping a diary was stopped, and only from time to time any outstanding facts were recorded, especially brightly illuminating one or another side of the mental life of the observed person. After some time, additional information about what was already observed from memory was collected and recorded: in accordance with the program, various sections were discussed - about sensations, associations, memory - and the data of the diary were supplemented with recalled facts, the authenticity of which the reporter was sure that his memory did not deceive him. When all the material was collected, a characteristic of this person was compiled.

Many zealous and ardent experimenters are distrustful and even contemptuous not only of self-observation, but also of psychological observations, trusting only experiment, tables, curves, arithmetic mean. The work mentioned above was carried out under the pressure of a different view: the researchers had a high opinion about the characteristics compiled by the described method and about all the material obtained, they were convinced that the collected material "has no less degree of reliability than the results of an experimental study," which is even possible, permissible " test the experiment by observation. The study is cautious, well-founded, its methodology, in general, is absolutely correct, although critical remarks can be made about some particulars about the observations made, not in their favor.

As for the actual experiments, the researchers used the following:

1) setting dots on white paper;

2) counting out loud;

3) choosing a letter from the printed text;

4) memorizing a poem;

5) composing phrases from several given words.

Obviously, the experiments are distinguished by great simplicity and applicability, and do not require special special skills on the part of the testers. At the same time, they touched on very different aspects of mental life: speed and coordination of movements, mental performance, the activity of attention, memory, etc. It turned out that in some cases the results of the experiments largely coincided with observational data, while in others the coincidences did not It was. A more detailed analysis of the data obtained showed that the experiments concern several other aspects of mental activity than those that were meant at the beginning, during the observations. On the other hand, the experiments singled out and emphasized with particular clarity such features of the mental life of the subjects, concerning which educational diaries and additional information could only provide general, more or less summary data. In the end, the researchers came to the conclusion "of the need for both experimental methods and a method of systematic external observation."

By this method - a combination of experiments with observation - many private studies were carried out on certain issues of psychology and pedagogy, such as the development of memory, its types, the susceptibility to suggestion depending on its form and the age of the subject, the tediousness of various educational subjects, mental performance at various times of the day. Between these particular questions, the attention of Russian researchers was attracted by a very interesting and important question about the peculiarities of the mental work of men and women. This problem was studied in relation to elementary school children, adults, students and female students.

Children aged 11-12 who studied in Petrograd city schools were examined. The children under study (no more than 20 per classroom department) were interviewed together, immediately, in the classroom, for which they were selected according to age, the social environment to which they belonged, and generally equalized as far as possible. There were equal numbers of boys and girls in each class department surveyed. Muscular strength, active attention, speed of mental processes, memorization, judgment, associative processes and creativity were tested. Most of the experiments were repeated five times. The results are as follows:

1) in terms of muscular strength (squeezing the dynamometer with the right and left hands), boys, as expected, are superior to girls, as well as

2) in active attention. The last test was to find and cross out one or two badges from eight different ones. A total of 1600 icons were printed on 40 lines. The difference between the icons was only in the direction of a small additional dash. On average, one girl scanned 96.8 lines in 50 minutes and made 37.8 skips. One boy scanned 97 lines in the same time and allowed 25.4 gaps. If we take the average number of skips for a boy as 100, then the girl will have 148 of them. "The speed of work for both (that is, for boys and girls) is the same."

In the speed of mental processes, girls overtake boys without compromising the quality of work. "Characteristically, something of the same phenomenon is noted in the group of younger children, in whom the superiority of the work of girls over the work of boys is also expressed." This conclusion seems to us not entirely consistent with the previous one: in order to quickly and correctly perform additions and subtractions of numbers (57 + 28 \u003d ? or 82-48 \u003d ?, etc.), active attention, strong-willed effort was necessary. And the previous result indicates its relative weakness in girls compared to boys. At the same time, the third result indicates a higher speed of mental processes in girls compared to boys, and the conclusion on the second question states the same speed of work for both. 4) Girls remember better than boys (slightly better: out of 10 two-digit numbers, boys remember an average of 4.45, and girls 5.0) and 6) In the formulation of judgments, in associative processes and creativity, boys overtake girls, with the exception of associations with symbols like letters where girls take precedence over boys. From his research, which, of course, requires verification and testifies to the physical and mental differences between boys and girls, the author drew a conclusion about the benefits and desirability of co-education. This last question requires a broad and detailed study in order to be properly answered.

Similar Documents

Analysis, generalization of the most significant trends, principles, ways, results of the development of psychological science in Russia in the twentieth century. The state of psychological knowledge of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The development of Soviet pedology. Development of psychoanalysis. Results of development.

term paper, added 10/26/2008


The science of the general mental patterns of human interaction with the environment. Place of psychology among other sciences. Classification of branches of psychology. The idea of ​​organization (systemic) of Anaxagoras, the causality of Democritus and the laws of Heraclitus.

abstract, added 01/27/2010


Historical aspects of the formation of child psychology as a science in the works of foreign psychologists. Methods for assessing the volitional capabilities of the child. Formation and development of child psychology and pedology in Russia. Brief review of theories of mental development of the child.

term paper, added 08/01/2011


Areas of psychological knowledge: scientific and everyday (ordinary) psychology. The relationship of psychology and scientific and technological progress. The closest relationship between psychology and pedagogy. The structure and branches of modern psychology, its in the system of sciences.

abstract, added 07/18/2011


Characteristics of personality in the works of domestic and foreign scientists. Freudianism as a widespread theory that influences the psychology of personality. The main aspects of personality: social, individual and biological characteristics, personal experience.

term paper, added 04/18/2011


Definition of psychology as a scientific study of behavior and internal mental processes and the practical application of the knowledge gained. Psychology as a science. The subject of psychology. Communication of psychology with other sciences. Methods of research in psychology.

control work, added 11/21/2008


Political psychology as an interdisciplinary science at the intersection of political science and social psychology. The emergence of the main stages in the development of political psychology. Analysis of interdisciplinary connections of political psychology. Psychology of small groups in politics.

term paper, added 11/24/2014


The place of psychology in the system of sciences. Methods of obtaining knowledge in everyday and scientific psychology: observation, reflection, experiment. Branches of psychology: children's, age, pedagogical, social, neuropsychology, pathopsychology, engineering, labor.

abstract, added 02/12/2012


Scientific activity of V.M. Bekhterev, his contribution to Russian psychology. Development of the idea of ​​a comprehensive study of man and the doctrine of the collective. G.I. Chelpanov as a representative of experimental psychology, his epistemological and philosophical research.

abstract, added 08/01/2010


The subject and current state of social psychology, its theoretical and applied tasks. The emergence and stages of its formation in the West. Features of the development of domestic socio-psychological ideas. Social psychology and related disciplines.

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

history of EDUCATION

UDC 37.015(470+571) B01: 10.15507/1p1ea.076.018.201403.140

pedology IN RUSSIA: ESSENCE AND HISTORICAL FATE

S. L. Shalaeva (Mari State University, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia)

The origins of the interest in the scientific and complex study of childhood, the history of the emergence and development of pedology in Russia are considered. The article highlights the basic principles on which she built her activities. The author describes the work of the First Pedological Congress (1927), which played an important role in the external and internal formalization of pedology as a scientific and practical direction. However, the logic of the development of pedology against the background of the logic of the country's social development led to an increase in contradictions within science itself. Analyzing them, the author identifies five main reasons that led to the official prohibition of science. Pedology arose as a response to the growing interest of social and humanitarian knowledge in the individual and the spread of the ideas of humanism that came to Russia from the West, but in the current social and political conditions it was crushed by the ideological pressure of the Soviet era, and therefore the interdisciplinary study of childhood was suspended for a long time. .

Keywords: pedology; comprehensive study of the child; development of pedology in Russia; childhood; child development; pedological movement.

PEDOLOGY IN RUSSIA: THE ESSENCE AND HISTORICAL DESTINY

S. L. Shalaeva (Mari State University, Yoshkar Ola, Russia)

The article discusses the origins of interest to the scientific and comprehensive study of childhood, history of evolution of pedology in Russia. The article highlights the main principles on which the latter runs its activities. The author describes the work of the First Congress on pedology (1927), which played a major role in foreign and national formalization of pedology as a scientific and practical discipline. However, the logic of the development of pedology on the background of social development logic of the country led to the growth of contradictions within the science itself. Analyzing them, the author identifies five major reasons that led to the formal prohibition of the science. Pedagogy emerged as a response to the growing interest in social sciences and humanities and spread the ideas of humanism, which came to Russia from the West , but in the prevailing social and political conditions it was crushed by ideological pressure of the Soviet era, in connection with which the interdisciplinary study of childhood has been suspended for a long time.

Keywords: pedology; a comprehensive study of a child; pedology development in Russia; he childhood; children's development; pedological movement.

The most important significance of the study of childhood for solving both theoretical (philosophical, methodological) and practical (primarily pedagogical) problems has in fact always been recognized by philosophers, psychologists, and educators. The pedagogical systems of Ya. A. Komensky and J. J. Rousseau were based on the principle of knowledge of the psychological and physiological laws of child development. I. G. Pestalozzi, J. Locke. In Russian science, this principle was substantiated in the works of K. D. Ushinsky, N. I. Pirogov. However, systematic scientific study

childhood began only in the second half of the 19th century, when in philosophy (thanks to G. Hegel) and in natural science (primarily thanks to the creation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin) the idea of ​​progressive development became widespread, the possibility of objective knowledge of the child was identified, which gave hope to make purposeful, scientifically substantiated process of his upbringing, the formation of his personality, and thereby affect the improvement of the life of society as a whole. In the last decade of the XIX century. included in the study of child development

© Shalaeva S. L., 2014

many scientists of different specialties in various countries of Europe and America. The study of the child went in different directions: doctors and physiologists, who were the first to turn to the scientific study of childhood, paid their main attention to psychophysiological patterns. Hygienists were interested in the conditions that ensured the correct development of psychophysiological and physiological functions, the development of means that prevent the child from deviating from the norm. They also studied the age-related development of mental functions (at first, elementary sensations, and then more and more complex). Sociologists and lawyers were interested in the causes of deviations in the social behavior of children, the specifics of child delinquency. Abnormal children were the subject of a special study, for whom the task was not only to organize care, but also to educate them. Pedagogy developed both the theoretical foundations of the teaching and upbringing process and methods for the practical use of data about the child for the purposes of education and training.

At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. rather rich factual material on child development was accumulated, which made it possible to formulate a number of fundamentally important conclusions. Theoretical understanding of these data caused the desire to create a holistic view of the child at various stages of age development. Pedology (from the Greek pais "child" + logos "word, science") is a direction in science that aimed to combine the approaches of various sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, pedagogy) to the development of the child.

A number of researchers associate the beginning of pedology with the name of the German physician I. Tiedemann, who in 1787 published an essay "observation of the development of mental abilities in children." However, the work of the German physiologist G. Preyer "The Soul of a Child" (1882) is considered the beginning of a systematic study of children. If this researcher is considered an ideological inspirer, then the creator of this

board, the founder of pedology is considered the American psychologist S. Hall, who in his writings made the first attempts at an integrated (using a more modern term - interdisciplinary) approach to the problems of age development. In 1889, S. Hall created the first pedological laboratory, which grew into the Institute of Child Psychology. Thanks to this scientist, already in 1894 in America there were 27 laboratories for the study of children, four specialized journals were published. He organized annual summer courses for teachers and parents. The very term "pedology" was proposed by a student of S. Hall

O. Khrizman in 1893 to designate a science designed to combine diverse knowledge about the child.

Having spread in America, the pedological movement penetrated into Europe, setting itself the task of creating the scientific foundations of pedagogy, developing methods for studying children's nature. Along with the term "pedology", equivalent definitions were used - the psychology of childhood, pedagogical psychology, experimental pedagogy, hygiene of education, and others. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. the term "pedology" has become widespread. The desire for a comprehensive study of the child during this period is also associated with the names of such scientists as J. Baldwin, A. Chamberlain (USA), V. Preyer, K. Gros, K. and V. Stern,

E. Meyman (Germany), B. Pere, A. Binet, G. Compeire (France), J. Sully (Great Britain), E. Claparede (Switzerland), J. Demor and O. Decroly (Belgium).

Russian science developed in close contact with foreign science, the most significant foreign studies on this issue were translated into Russian. The appearance of pedology in Russia was already prepared by the ideas of K. D. Ushinsky on the need for a comprehensive study of the educated person, which he expressed and seriously substantiated in his multi-volume work “Man as an Object of Education. Experience of Pedagogical Anthropology.

Professor A.P. Nechaev is considered the founder of Russian pedology. In 1901, in St. Petersburg, he created the first experimental educational psychology laboratory in Russia, where the characteristics of the psyche of children of different ages were studied. In 1904, pedagogical courses were opened at this laboratory. Similar courses were organized in Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara. In 1907 A.P. Nechaev transformed the permanent pedological courses into the Pedagogical Academy. I. A. Sikorsky, P. F. Lesgaft, V. M. Bekhterev, G. I. Rossolimo and others joined the study of the problems of child development. the journal "Bulletin of Psychology, Criminal Anthropology and Pedology" was founded.

N. E. Rumyantsev, L. E. Obolensky, A. N. Bernshtein, and A. F. Lazursky became ardent supporters and organizers of research into the study of child development. Pedology was widely represented at the All-Russian Congresses on Educational Psychology and Experimental Pedagogy, the main merit in organizing which belonged to A.P. Nechaev. All this testified to the acceptance by the public consciousness of the ideas of pedagogical anthropology of K. D. Ushinsky about the importance of knowledge of the basic patterns of formation and development of the child's body and his psyche for successful pedagogical activity, as well as the need for holistic ideas about a person for education and training.

In Russia, pedology was at the peak of its development in the 1920s. 20th century Most of the representatives of the first generation of pedologists in Russia were doctors. They were attracted primarily by "exceptional children" - gifted, defective, difficult in educational terms. Focusing on the rapidly developing natural sciences at that time, pedology initially turned its attention to the issues of research on the psychophysiological characteristics of the development of a growing personality, with

This pays little attention to the social and socio-cultural problems of a person as a subject of education. However, over time, it was the psychological side of research that began to come to the fore, and gradually pedology began to acquire a pronounced psychological orientation. Pedologists worked in kindergartens, schools, various teenage associations. Psychological and pedological counseling was actively carried out, work was carried out with parents, the theory and practice of psychodiagnostics were developed. Institutes of pedology functioned in Leningrad and Moscow, where representatives of various 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. A network of pedological institutions developed, extensive literature was published, a conference (1927) and a congress of pedologists (1928) were held, the journal "Pedology" was published (1928-1932), and since 1923 "Pedological magazine” edited by M. Ya. Basov.

E. A. Arkin, I. A. Aryamov, P. P. Blonsky, L. S. Vygotsky, M. M. Rubinshtein, N. A. Rybnikov, A. A. Smirnov and others Important data were obtained in the study of the higher nervous activity of children (N. I. Krasnogorsky), the study of cognitive processes in the child, the identification of the interests and needs of children, including in children's groups, etc. (P. L. Zagorovsky, A. S. . Zaluzhny,

N. M. Shchelovanov and others). Methods of pedological research were developed by M. Ya. Basov, A. P. Boltunov and others. , A. B. Zalkind).

The First Pedological Congress played an important role in the external and internal formalization of pedology as a scientific and practical direction. More than 2,000 people took part in its work. 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. Pavlov and others were included in the honorary presidium. The grand opening of the congress, scheduled for December 27, 1927, was postponed to the next day in connection with the tragic death of V. M. Bekhterev. From December 28 to December 30, the plenum of the congress worked, from December 30 to January 4, 7 sections functioned in different directions.

Speaking at the congress, A. V. Lunacharsky in his report said that "in the head of every teacher there should be a small but strong enough pedologist" . He believed that a teacher needs pedological knowledge to make children's lives happier, more interesting, to develop their social instincts and abilities, and pedology should become the scientific basis of the educational and educational processes.

N. K. Krupskaya in her speech drew attention to how important it is to put the child at the center of the pedagogical process. She emphasized that pedology should give teachers deep knowledge about the child, his desires, moods, motives and interests, and the principle “coming from the child” should become the main principle of working with children, and here pedology can play a huge role.

The main informative report of the congress was the report of the famous Soviet psychiatrist, psychoneurologist and pedologist A. B. Zalkind “Pedology in the USSR”, devoted to general issues of pedology, which summarized the results of the work done, listed the main areas of pedology that existed at that time, and also identified institutions engaged in pedological research and practice. The report summarized the results of almost all (and not only

pedological) studies of childhood over the past decades.

The complex problem of the methodology of childhood was developed in the reports of S. S. Molozhavy, V. G. Shtefko, A. G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M. Ya. Basov, K. N. Kornilov, A. S. Zaluzhny and others.

Much attention at the congress was also paid to pedological tools - all kinds of tests, questionnaires, questionnaires, statistical methods aimed at measuring intelligence, emotional and behavioral reactions, physical development of the child, his memory, imagination, attention, perception, attitude to the world. Particular opinion was expressed about the use of tests. The first series of tests for a school in our country was published in 1926, but by the end of the 20s. there is literally a craze for them. In this regard, the First Pedological Congress was forced to make a decision that limited the use of tests in pedagogical practice. It specifically emphasized that "for practical conclusions about a particular child, in addition to these test methods, the whole range of conditions in which the child lives and his full psychophysiological characteristics should be taken into account" .

At this congress, pedology received official recognition, joined forces, and outlined the ways of cooperation with pediatrics and pedagogy as a methodological basis. After the congress, the voluminous journal "Pedology" began to appear under the editorship of Professor A. B. Zalkind, the first issues of which were mainly collected from the reports made at the congress. Pedology receives the necessary appropriations, and practically the period from the beginning of 1928 to 1931. is the heyday of Soviet pedology.

This direction sought to study the child comprehensively, in all its manifestations and taking into account all influencing factors. L. S. Vygotsky defined pedology as the science of the integral development of the child. The fact that pedology was still far from ideal is not due to the fallacy of the approach,

but the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science, especially in the conditions of that era. Of course, there was no absolute unity of views among pedologists. Nevertheless, four main principles can be distinguished on the basis of which pedological work was built:

1. A 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 L. S. 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.

By the end of the 20s. 20th century pedology began to claim the role of a "Marxist science of children", monopolizing the right to study the child, pushing aside pedagogy and absorbing the psychology, anatomy and physiology of childhood. P. P. Blonsky wrote that “the pedologist proposes to replace pedagogy and psychology with his science, the teacher drowns pedology, and the psychologist claims to replace both pedology and pedagogy with his pedagogical psychology.” Contradictions within science grew. In our opinion, these include the following:

1. The subject of pedology was not defined with sufficient clarity from the very beginning. Science was tasked with collecting and systematizing everything related to the life and development of children. In fact, instead of a holistic view of the child, a compilation of little interconnected information from various sciences that study the child was compiled, and these contradictions

were actually supported by the ideological sphere, taking on political overtones. The problem of the "bio-socio" correlation in the research methodology has not been clearly and objectively resolved. At the first stage in pedology, the biogenetic and reflexological concepts of child development played a leading role. Then, as a result of the pressure of the ideological press, which sharply intensified in the early 30s. In the 20th century, when the party and Soviet authorities demanded direct practical assistance from science in socialist construction, the sociogenetic concept, which promoted the primacy of the environment in the development of the child (A. B. Zalkind), received a priority role. Despite the persecution, representatives of the biologists' direction did not want to give up their positions. If the supporters of the dominant sociological direction lacked scientific arguments, then other methods were used - the opponent was declared unreliable.

In the journal "Pedology" in 1931, the heading "Tribune" appears, specially reserved for exposing the "internal" enemies in pedology. “There was a revision of the problem of giftedness, methods of pedological research were attacked, especially the method of tests, laboratory experiment. Blows were also dealt to "prostitution" in the field of pedological statistics, a series of most serious attacks were made on the "individualism" of pre-Soviet pedology.

All this has created an unhealthy atmosphere in the scientific community. This state of science hindered normal research activities.

2. The method of tests has acquired the widest distribution as a working tool of pedology. Samples of Western tests were uncritically borrowed without taking into account the specifics of Russian reality, or their own tests were hastily and frivolously created according to Western models. The test results were considered sufficient grounds for psychological diagnosis and prognosis. This approach subsequently led to the discrediting of the test method for many years.

3. The practical application of pedology required a large number of specialists, but there were none; often untrained people were involved in the work. If their skills were sufficient to conduct test procedures, then more extensive knowledge was required to interpret the results in depth. Based on the test results, superficial and overly categorical conclusions were made. As a result of this, numerous pedological studies (more precisely, examinations) of children brought little benefit, and sometimes caused great harm. Pedology was not ready for the practical use of its results.

4. The selection of children into auxiliary classes and schools on the basis of test methods has become widespread. In the first half of the 30s. 20th century the number of these schools in large cities has increased to several dozen. In Leningrad, for example, in 1936 there were 57 of them. However, they were not equipped with personnel and material, since the domestic defectological service was just beginning to take shape, and therefore turned out to be essentially neglected.

5. Abuse of tests led to social consequences that were unacceptable for the authorities, not taking into account the political moment: according to the results of tests, as they said, defective students more often included representatives of workers, peasants and the proletariat, and gifted students included children from socially alien strata - children of the intelligentsia , priests, White Guards, etc.

P. Ya. Shvartsman and I. V. Kuznetsova, studying the formation and development of pedology as a science, suggest that the reason for the ban on pedology should be sought not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the "top" and they wanted to strike at N K. Krupskaya.

On July 4, 1936, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (6) issues a decree “On pedological perversions in the system of the People's Commissariat of Education”, which actually banned pedology. All studies that bore the name of pedological were discontinued, the works

pedologists were withdrawn from use. The textbooks of P. P. Blonsky “Pedology for Pedagogical Universities”, A. A. Fortunatov, I. I. Sokolov “Pedology for Pedagogical Schools”, etc. were banned. Pedology was destroyed, many scientists were repressed, the fate of others was crippled. All pedological institutes and laboratories were closed; pedology was excluded from the curricula of pedagogical institutes and pedagogical technical schools, the departments of pedology, pedological classrooms and laboratories were liquidated.

These events for many years sharply narrowed the range of problems in the study of the child in domestic psychological and pedagogical knowledge, and the very nature of research has changed. The idea of ​​integrity in the study of personality was weakened. Researchers set themselves a specific, limited task of studying one or another aspect of a child's life. Developmental psychology, developmental physiology, pedagogical psychology have become to a large extent separate branches of knowledge from each other. Pedological science, born from the general course of the ideological and practical development of the phenomenon of personality, which captured the attention of Western and domestic social and humanitarian knowledge of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has become a fundamental trend in the science of man in modern society. Pedology began to actively, but chaotically and emotionally develop the phenomenon of personality and its development, failing to systematically comprehend this problem, organize its systematic study and implementation in the pedagogical sphere in the context of global sociocultural transformations of the early 20th century. in the world and in Russia. Having received a unique chance to institutionalize as a science in revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia, which widely experimented in the field of sociocultural practices of educating a new person, pedology could not stand the "vicissitudes" of the tests of the new time and was crushed by the ideological press of the Soviet era, which demanded real and convincing results, ideologically loyal to the Soviet Union. time.

It is precisely these two aspects of assessing the phenomenon of pedological science in Soviet Russia that are important here. On the one hand, pedology is an undoubted phenomenon of the pan-European response of social science and the humanities to the ideas of the individual, the development of the individual, the relationship between the individual and society, the individual and social institutions, including the individual and the state, that are actively gaining strength. These ideas gained momentum in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. and were reinforced by the events of the Second World War and its social consequences. Along with pedology, such scientific and ideological movements as Western existentialism, postmodernism, Russian religious philosophy, N. Berdyaev’s personalism, Waldorf pedagogy, etc. activities. The second point is that this original answer, given by Russian pedology, fell on a turning point in the development of Russian society and the state with the ideological and political rigidity inherent in Soviet times.

The task of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, holistic study of the child is not

only remains relevant for scientific knowledge, but its role even increases in the conditions of a modern, dynamically developing society in the next era of its global transformations.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Baranov, V. F. Pedological service in the Soviet school in the 20-30s. / VF Baranov // Questions of psychology. - 1991. - No. 4. - S. 100-112.

2. Kodzhaspirova, G. M. Pedagogical anthropology / G. M. Kodzhaspirova. - Moscow: GARDA-RIKI, 2005. - 287 p.

3. Kuzin, V. V. On the 60th anniversary of the tragic events and their consequences (requiem of pedology) /

B. V. Kuzin // Physical culture. - 1996. - N ° 3. -

4. Meshcheryakova, I. A. Pedology / I. A. Meshcheryakova // Big psychological dictionary; ed. B. G. Meshcheryakova, V. P. Zinchenko. - Moscow: Prime-EVROZNAK, 2003. - S. 381-383.

5. Nikolskaya, A. A. Pedology / A. A. Nikolskaya // Russian Pedagogical Encyclopedia: in 2 volumes - Moscow: Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 1999. - T. 2. - P. 132-134.

6. Shvartsman, P. Ya. Pedology / P. Ya. Shvartsman, I. V. Kuznetsova // Repressed science; under total ed. M. G. Yaroshevsky. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994. - Issue. 2. - S. 121-139.

Shalaeva Svetlana Leonidovna, Associate Professor of the Department of Preschool and Social Pedagogy, Mari State University (Russia, Yoshkar-Ola, Lenin Square, 1), Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, [email protected]

For citation: Shalaeva, S. L. Pedology in Russia: essence and historical destiny / S. L. Shalaeva // Educational Integration. - 2014. - No. ° 3 (76). - S. 140-147. BO!: 10.15507/Inted.076.018.201403.140

1. Baranov V. F. Pedologicheskaya sluzhba v sovetskoy shkole 20-30-h gg. . Voprosyipsihologii. 1991, no 4. pp. 100-112.

2. Kodzhaspirova G. M. Pedagogicheskaya antropologiya. Moscow, GARDARI-KI Publ., 2005, 287 p.

3. Kuzin V. V. K 60-letiyu tragicheskih sobyitiy i ih posledstviyam (rekviem pedologii) . Physical culture. 1996, no 3, pp. 18-21.

4. Mescheryakova I. A. Pedologiya. Bolshoypsihologicheskiy slovar. Ed.by B. G. Mescheryakova, V. P. Zinchenko. Moscow, Praym-EVROZNAK Publ., 2003, pp. 381-383.

5. Nikolskaya A. A. Pedologiya. Russian pedagogical entsiklopediya. Moscow, Bolshaya rossiyskaya entsiklopediya Publ., 1999, vol. 2, pp. 132-134.

6. Shvartsman P. Ya. Pedologia. Repressirovannaya science. Ed. by prof. M. G. Yaroshevsky. Saint Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1994, issue 2, pp. 121-139.

Shalaeva Svetlana Leonidovna, assistant research professor, Chair of Preschool and Social Pedagogy, Mari State University (1, ploshad Lenina, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia), Candidat nauk degree holder (PhD) in philosophical sciences, [email protected]

For citation: Shalaeva S. L. Pedologija v Rossii: sushhnost "i istoricheskaja sud" ba . Integracija obrazovanija. 2014, no. 3 (76), pp. 140-147. DOI: 10.15507/Inted.076.018.201403.140

Editor Yu. N. Nikonova.

Computer layout A. S. Polutina.

Information support of R. V. Karasev.

Translation by S. I. Yanin, O. Yu. Malyshev.

The journal is registered with the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications. Registration certificate PI No. FS 77-54865 dated July 26, 2013.

Distribution area - Russian Federation, foreign countries. Signed for publication on 30.09.14. Format 70 x 108 1/16. Conv. oven l. 14.13.

Circulation 500 copies. Order No. 2352. Free price.

Editorial board of the journal "Integration of Education". 430005, Saransk, st. Bolshevik, 68.

http://edumag.mrsu.ru

Printed in the State Unitary Enterprise of the Republic of Moldova "Republican Printing House" Red October "".

430005, Saransk, st. Soviet, 55a.

http://edumag.mrsu.ru/index.php/ru/