He is considered the founder of foreign pedology. Examination The emergence and development of pedology. The fate of domestic pedology. See what "pedology" is in other dictionaries

Department of Psychology

Reshedko Elena Nikolaevna

The emergence and development of pedology. The fate of domestic pedology.

Test work on the history of psychology
female students of the 5th year of distance learning
specialty 050706.65 Pedagogy and psychology

Checked: st. teacher
Repnikova A.R.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
2011

Content
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...3
1. The formation of pedology as a science……….………………………………………….4
2. The activities of domestic scientists in the field of pedology and the fate of domestic pedology……………………………………….…………… ….……7
2.1. A.P. Nechaev…………………………………………………………………….….7
2.2. V.M. Bekhterev……………………………………………………………………..8
2.3. L.S. Vygotsky………………………………………………………………….10
2.4. P.P. Blonsky…………………………………………………………………...11
2.5. Decline of Russian pedology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..15
Bibliography…………..…………………………………. ….16

Introduction
Pedology is the science of integrated approach to the study of the physical and mental development of the child in connection with his constitution and behavior. I would not like, following many historians, to look for the roots of this science far in the West, and even more so overseas. After all, pedology did not arise from scratch. Its distribution in Russia was prepared by the ideas and works of K.D. Ushinsky (1824 - 1870) and P.F. Lesgaft (1837 - 1909) on pedagogical anthropology, and the book by K.D. Ushinsky "Man as an object of education. Experience of pedagogical anthropology" absorbed all the main things that were later revealed in pedology. Yes, and the sound of the very name of this science is quite revealing: the word "pedology" is a "truncated" version of the term "pedagogical anthropology".
Pedology included information about the child's constitution, his biological age, behavioral characteristics, and a system of tests that assessed the level of development and professional orientation (profile) of abilities.
Each science has its own cycles of development and does not tolerate voluntaristic shouting or nudges in the back. The official ban on pedology in the USSR had a number of negative consequences in the fate of not only individuals, but also pedagogy, child psychology, as areas of theoretical knowledge in general. If democratic freedoms were granted to pedology, it would undoubtedly find a new path for its development, overcome the difficulties that arose, and join the integrative anthropological sciences.

1. Formation of pedology as a science.
Pedology had a comparatively long prehistory, a swift 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, 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.
We note 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 psychology. childhood, and in those biological sciences that could underlie ideas about the individuality of a person. This applies, first of all, to the state of only the emerging human genetics.
The American psychologist S. Hall, who in 1889 created the 1st pedological laboratory, is recognized as the founder of pedology; the term itself was coined by his student - O. Crisment. But back in 1867, K. D. Ushinsky in his work “Man as an Object of Education” anticipated the emergence of pedology: “If pedagogy wants to educate a person in all respects, then it must first recognize him in all respects.”
In the West, pedology was practiced by S. Hall, J. Baldwin, E. Meiman, V. Preyer, and others.
The founder of Russian pedology was the brilliant scientist and organizer A.P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by V.M. Bekhterev, who in 1907 organized the Pedological Institute in St. Petersburg. The first 15 post-revolutionary years were favorable: there was a normal scientific life with stormy discussions, in which approaches were developed and the growing pains inevitable for young science were overcome.
Subject Pedology., despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments of its leaders (A. B. Zalkind, P. P. Blonsky, M. I . Basov, L.S. Vygotsky, S.S. Molozhaviy, etc.), was not clearly defined, and attempts to find the specifics of pedology, not reducible to the content of related sciences, were not successful.
Pedology sought to study the child, while studying it comprehensively, in all its manifestations and taking into account all influencing factors. Blonsky defined pedology as the science of the age development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment. The fact that pedology was still far from ideal is explained not by the fallacy of the approach, but by the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science. Of course, there was no absolute unity of views among pedologists. However, there are four main principles:

Child - complete system. It should not be studied only “in parts” (something by physiology, something by psychology, something by neurology).
A child can be understood only by considering that he is in constant development. The genetic principle meant taking into account the dynamics and trends of development. An example is Vygotsky's understanding of a child's egocentric speech as a preparatory phase of an adult's inner speech.
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.
The science of the child should be not only theoretical, but also practical.

2. Activities of domestic scientists in the field of pedology and the fate of domestic pedology.
2.1. A.P. Nechaev
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" possible ways of experimental psychological investigation of didactic problems were outlined. A.P. Nechaev and his students studied individual mental functions (memory, attention, judgment, etc.). Under the guidance of Professor 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 educational psychology 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", in which G.I. Rossolimo went further than A.P. Nechaev along the path of splitting the psyche into separate functions: to compile a complete "psychological profile" it is proposed to investigate 38 separate mental functions, up to ten experiments for each psychological function. G.I. Rossolimo quickly took root, was used in the form of a "mass psychological profile". But his works were also limited only to the psyche, without touching upon the biological features of the child's ontogeny. The dominant research method of the Rossolimo school was experiment, which was criticized by contemporaries for the "artificiality of the laboratory environment." The characterization of the child given by G.I. Rossolimo, with differentiation of children only by sex and age, without taking into account their social and class affiliation

2.2. V.M. Bekhterev
V.M. Bekhterev 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 project of the institute was submitted to Russian society 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 existed at first as a private institution (with funds donated by V.T. Zimin). The director of the institute was K.I. Povarnin. The Institute was financially poorly supported, and V.M. Bekhterev had to submit a number of notes and applications to government authorities. On this occasion, he wrote: "The purpose of the institution was so important and tangible that it was not necessary to think about creating it even with modest funds. We were only interested in the tasks underlying this institution."
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 in 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.
The work in the children's institutions listed above was carried out under the guidance of professors A.S. Griboedova, P.G. Belsky, D.V. Felderg. The closest collaborators in the field of pedology were at first K.I. Povarin, and then N.M. Shchelovanov. For 9 years of existence of the first Pedological Institute with a very small number of employees, 48 ​​scientific papers were published.
etc.................

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

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

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

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

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

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

Usually, educational psychology was defined as a branch of applied psychology, which deals with the application of psychology data to the process of education and training. This science, on the one hand, must draw from general psychology results that are of interest to pedagogy, on the other hand, to discuss pedagogical provisions from the point of view of their compliance with 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 Wundt's experimental psychology, which studies mental phenomena methods of experimental physiology. Educational psychology is increasingly calling itself experimental pedagogy, or experimental educational psychology.

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

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

A general picture of a child's life was supposed to be given by another, as they believed, special science - the science of young age 4, which, in addition to psychological data, required research on 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 grew out of child psychology, which, in contrast to educational psychology with its applied nature, grew out of evolutionary concepts and experimental natural science, posing along with questions about phylogenetic development human question about his ontogenetic development. Influenced by discussions in evolutionary theory Genetic psychology begins to emerge, mainly in the USA (especially among psychologists grouped around Stanley Hall), which considered it impossible to study the child's mental development in isolation from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - pedology, which would be devoid of this shortcoming and would give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. "The science of the child or pedology - it is often confused with genetic psychology, while it is only the main part of the latter - arose relatively recently and has made significant progress over the past decade" 6 .

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

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

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

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

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

The second formula defines pedology as "the science of the growth, constitution and behavior of a typical mass child in various childhood epochs". So, if the first formula only points to the child as an object of pedology, then the second says that pedology should study it not from any one side, but from different; at the same time, a limitation is introduced: not every child in general, but a typical mass child, is studied by pedology. Both of these formulas only prepare the third, which gives the final form to the definition: “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 generally 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. Essentially, this should be a synthesis based on an organic bond constituent parts into one whole, and not simply connecting them with each other, during which a number of independently complex issues may arise; those. pedology as a science was supposed to lead to achievements of a higher order, to the solution of new problems, which, of course, are not any final problems of knowledge, but are only part of one problem - the problem of man.

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

The above consideration of the defining apparatus of pedology can be supplemented with two more definitions of pedology that were in use until 1931: 1) Pedology is the science of the factors, patterns, stages and types of the socio-biological formation of the individual, 16 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.

In this way, consensus about pedology did not exist; 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 either.

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

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

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

The tendency of pedologists, who defended the independence of their science, to look for new methodological paths is manifested especially clearly in the heated discussion around the question of the method of psychological tests. Since the use of this method in our country was one of the reasons for the destruction of pedology, we should dwell on it in more detail. Numerous works on the application 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 “fear” of revealing oneself as a result of testing. A variety of tests were developed and applied for the first time in the United States. The first broad review of American tests in Russian to identify the mental giftedness and school success of children was given by N.A. Buchholz and A.M. Schubert in 1926. 19 An analysis of these tests, their tasks and results leads the authors to the conclusion that their application in pedology is undoubtedly promising. Scientific psychological commission, which worked out for 1919-1921. a series of well-known to this day "National Tests", designed for use in all public schools in the United States, defined the task of these studies as follows: 1) to help subdivide children of various school groups into smaller subgroups: children who are mentally stronger and mentally weaker; 2) to help the teacher navigate the individual characteristics of the children of the group with which this teacher begins to work for the first time; 3) to help uncover those individual reasons why individual children cannot adapt to class work and school life; 4) to promote the cause of vocational guidance for 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 contradicts the totalitarian tenets of egalitarian education, the failure of which has been experienced by several generations.

In American schools, the individualization of learning underlies the formation of class groups to this day. Our violent 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 person who is socially closed in a team, apparently, is a consequence of the unitarity of the state, the dominance of authoritarianism, the closeness of the individual, our thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same 1922, the book by E.A. Arkin “ preschool age 24 , which very fully and seriously covers the issues of the biology and hygiene of the child and (again, there is no synthesis!) very few issues of the psyche and behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the spring of 1927, a pedological conference was convened in Moscow at the People's Commissariat of 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 that all evolution is moving towards an increase in this plasticity. At the same time, there are types of the nervous system that are constitutionally determined. For the practice of education, it is important "the presence of this plasticity, so that heredity is not given the place that conservative-minded teachers give it, and at the same time, taking into account the type of work of the nervous system for the individualization of education and for taking into account the constitutional features of the nervous system in terms of education of nervous hygiene" 40.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following scientific problems required urgent analysis and solution:

the complete isolation of pedology from pediatrics, and hence the narrow therapeutic and hygienic bias of pediatrics, on the one hand, and the underuse by pedology of the most valuable biological materials available in pediatrics, on the other; lack of connection between pedology and pedagogical practice; absence practices 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 demarcation of the work of pedologists of various scientific and practical training, which led to difficulties in the university training of pedologists and striated work; the need to create a central all-Union pedological journal and a society coordinating and covering the work 45 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.Ya. Basov" 53 .

He was 39 years old.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Started in 1907 This stage is associated with the development of psychodiagnostics, testology, and the emergence of pedology. This stage is characterized by the development of various diagnostic tools: tests, questionnaires, questionnaires. Under the law of the Ministry of Education of France, in the suburbs of Paris, a laboratory was created for the mass examination of children. Binet and Simon (Great Britain) proposed the concept of intellectual age and the concept biological age. Based on these 2 concepts, the IQ was introduced. Iq=M age (intellectual age)/Ch age (biological). This is a fairly simple method that teachers could use. The use of these tests became a tool of social selection, since children from wealthy families could prepare for testing. In the classes for mentally retarded children were children from dysfunctional families. Binet and Simon believed that Iq is a constant, unchanging value. Their tests were quite popular.

At the same time, there pedology - a complex science of the child, including elements of pedagogy, psychology, pediatrics, psychiatry, anatomy, physiology, hygiene and others. At the end of the 19th century, this complex science arose as a result of the work of Maiman, Stanley, Baldwin. Their ideas found support in Russia (Kashchenko, Nechaev, Vygotsky). In 1901, the first laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology was opened in Petrograd. The First All-Union Congress of Pedologists was welcomed by Nikolai Bukharin (Lenin's colleague). He believed that pedologists should supplant pedagogy. The main methods of pedology: testing, questioning, surveys, moreover, it was believed that school teachers could make tests. In 26 - 27 years. all schoolchildren of the USSR completed the tested tasks in all subjects (achievement tests). The main idea of ​​pedology: children are different, each of them requires different methods, methods, means (and this contradicted the ideology of the party).

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

However, there are 4 main principles:

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

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

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

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

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

In 1936 pedology was crushed. Textbooks, research results were burned. The pedologists were destroyed. The Iq of the children of the intelligentsia was higher (and according to the ideology of the party, the workers should have). In 1936, the word test was banned altogether. The coming to power of the Nazi regimes in a number of European countries led to the fact that the authorities were not interested in pedological research. Aryans are above all and individuality is not needed. Testology, psychodiagnostics began to develop in line with experimental psychology, and pedology ceased to exist.

Science) is a trend in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, due to the penetration of evolutionary ideas into pedagogy and psychology, the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy.

Amer. psychologist S. Hall, who created in 1889. 1st pedological laboratory; the term itself was coined by his student - O. Crisment. But back in 1867. K.D. Ushinsky in his work “Man as an Object of Education” anticipated the emergence of pedology: “If pedagogy wants to educate a person in all respects, then it must first recognize him in all respects.” In the West, P. was engaged in S. Hall, J. Baldwin, E. Meiman, V. Preyer, and others. Pedology was a brilliant scientist and organizer A.P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by V.M. Bekhterev, who organized in 1907. Pedological Institute in St. Petersburg. The first 15 post-revolutionary years were favorable: there was a normal scientific life with stormy discussions, in which approaches were developed and the growing pains inevitable for young science were overcome.

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

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

1. The child is an integral system. It should not be studied only “in parts” (something by physiology, something by psychology, something by neurology).
2. A child can be understood only by considering that he is in constant development. The genetic principle meant taking into account the dynamics and trends of development. An example is Vygotsky's understanding of a child's egocentric speech as a preparatory phase of an adult's inner speech.
3. A child can be studied only taking into account his social environment, which affects not only the psyche, but often also the morphophysiological parameters of development. Pedologists worked a lot and quite successfully with difficult teenagers, which was especially important in those years of prolonged social upheavals.
4. The science of the child should be not only theoretical, but also practical.

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

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

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

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

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

Psychological dictionary. A.V. Petrovsky M.G. Yaroshevsky

Dictionary of psychiatric terms. V.M. Bleikher, I.V. Crook

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Neurology. Complete explanatory dictionary. Nikiforov A.S.

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Oxford Dictionary of Psychology

Pedology- infantile speech.

subject area of ​​the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Principles of pedology

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

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

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