from Greek paides - children, logos - teaching) is a set of psychological, sociological and other concepts about the development and upbringing of a child, which does not represent a holistic theory.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

PEDOLOGY

from Greek pais, paidos - child and logos - science), a term proposed in 1893 by Amer. psychologist O. Chrisman (student of S. Hall) to designate a comprehensive study of the patterns of age-related development. The idea of ​​the critical importance of studying childhood for solving both theoretical (philosophical, methodological) and practical (primarily pedagogical) problems has in fact always been recognized by leading philosophers and teachers. Based on the principle of knowledge of psychology. and physiol. patterns children. development were based on ped. systems of J. A. Komensky, J. J. Rousseau, I. G. Pestalozzi, J. Locke. In Russian In science, this principle was substantiated in the works of K. D. Ushinsky and N. I. Pirogov. However, systematic scientific The study of childhood began only in the 2nd half. 19th century, when in philosophy (thanks to G. Hegel) and in natural science (primarily thanks to the creation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin), the idea of ​​progressive development became widespread, the possibility of objective knowledge of the child emerged, which inspired the hope of making it goal-oriented, scientifically justified the process of his upbringing, the formation of his personality, and thereby influence the improvement of the life of society as a whole. In the last decade of the 19th century. in the study of children. development included many. scientists of different specialties in various fields. countries of Europe and America. The study of the child went in different directions. Doctors and physiologists (the first to turn to the scientific study of childhood) Ch. attention was paid to psychophysiol. patterns. Hygienists were interested in the conditions that ensure the correct development of psychophysiol. and physiol. functions, development of means to prevent the child from deviating from the norm. The age-related development of mental health was also studied. functions (at first elementary - sensations, and then more and more complex). Sociologists and lawyers were interested in the causes of deviations in societies. behavior of children, specifics of children. offenses. Special subject abnormal children began to be studied, in relation to which the task was set not only of organizing care, but also of their education. In pedagogy they were developed as theoretical. basics of teaching and education process, and practical methods. use of child data for the purposes of education and training.

In con. 19 - beginning 20th centuries Quite a wealth of factual information has been accumulated. material about children development, which made it possible to formulate a number of fundamentally important conclusions: about the originality of psychophysical. organization of the child, about the qualitative, and not just the quantitative, difference between a child and an adult; about the spasmodic nature of children. development, which determines the uniqueness of the department. age periods; about the close dependence of mental and physical development. Theoretical comprehension of these data gave rise to the desire to create a holistic picture of the child in different ways. stages of age development. One of the manifestations of this desire was the invention of the term “P.” to denote a science designed to combine a variety of data about a child. The term gained popularity (scientific institutions, scientific associations, and printed publications were created under this name), but no single content was put into it and, along with it, the terms “childhood psychology,” “youth studies,” “ped. psychology", "experimental" pedagogy”, “hygiene of education”, etc., reflecting the specifics of the chosen area of ​​research.

The desire for a comprehensive study of the child is associated with the names of such scientists as S. Hall, J. Baldwin, A. Chamberlain in the USA, V. Preyer, K. Gros, K. and V. Stern, E. Maimann in Germany, B. Pere , A. Binet, G. Compeyret in France, J. Selley in Great Britain, E. Claparède in Switzerland, J. Demore and O. Decroly in Belgium.

Russia has not remained aloof from the movement for studying the child and building a system of education and training based on knowledge of the patterns of children. development. Rus. science developed in close contact with foreign science. max. significant rubles Research on this issue was translated into Russian. language In the study of problems children. development included I. A. Sikorsky, P. F. Lesgaft, V. M. Bekhterev, G. I. Rossolimo and others. In St. Petersburg (1907), Bekhterev created Pedological. Institute, founded the journal. "Bulletin of psychology, criminal anthropology and pedology." Ardent supporters and organizers of research on the study of children. development of steel A. P. Nechaev, H. E. Rumyantsev, L. E. Obolensky, A. N. Bernshtein, A. F. Lazursky. P. was widely represented at congresses on pedagogy. psychology (1906 and 1909) and experimental. pedagogy (1910, 1913, 1916).

After Oct. revolution, the study of childhood acquired a wide scope. The desire to provide the best conditions for children. development was set by P. in the 20s. in max. favorable conditions. A network of pedological specialists has developed. institutions, extensive literature was published, a conference (1927) and a congress of pedologists (1928) were held, a journal was published. "Pedology" (1928-32).

Characteristics of children's characteristics age periods were given by E. A. Arkin, I. A. Aryamov, P. P. Blonsky, L. S. Vygotsky, M. M. Rubinshtein, N. A. Rybnikov, A. A. Smirnov and others. Important data were obtained during the study higher nervous activity of children (N.I. Krasnogorsky), when studying cognition. processes in a child, when identifying the interests and needs of children, including children. teams, etc. (P. L. Zagorovsky, A. S. Zaluzhny, N. M. Shchelovanov, etc.). Pedological methods research was developed by M. Ya. Basov, A. P. Boltunov and others. Attempts were made theoretically. understanding the data obtained in order to develop a general theory of children. development (Basov, Blonsky, Vygotsky, A. B. Zalkind).

However, the study of the problems of Det. development in the 20s. did not escape the influence of mechanistic trends in philosophy and methodology characteristic of the science of this period. In P. they manifested themselves especially clearly in resolving the issue of factors and driving forces of children. development. Neither in the study of natural prerequisites, nor in the study of social factors of development, sufficient scientific knowledge has yet been accumulated. data for an informed solution to this problem. Pedologists considered it possible to make the development of a child directly dependent on one or another factor, and the polemics focused on extreme points of view (biologization and sociologization).

The subject of P. was not defined with sufficient clarity from the very beginning. She was given the task of collecting and systematizing everything that related to the life and development of children. In fact, instead of a holistic picture of the child, a compilation of little interconnected information from different sciences studying the child was compiled. No principle unifying this information was found.

The test method has become widely used as a working tool. Western samples were borrowed uncritically. tests without taking into account the specifics of growing up. reality. The test results were considered sufficient grounds for psychol. diagnosis and prognosis. This approach subsequently led to the discrediting of the test method for many years.

P.’s condition was affected by ideological pressure. press, which sharply increased in the beginning. 30s This gave rise, in particular, to an unhealthy atmosphere in science. environment. Characterizing the situation with the comprehensive study of the child, Blonsky noted in 1934 that “the pedologist proposes to replace pedagogy and psychology with his science, the teacher drowns pedology, and the psychologist claims to replace both pedology and pedagogy with his educational psychology” (Pedagogical Education, 1934, No. 6, p. 42). This state of science prevented normal research. activities. P. was not ready for a wide range of practical activities. use of your results. However, desks and owls. authorities demanded direct practical work from science. assistance in socialists, construction. P. was introduced into practice. work diff. det. institutions, primarily in schools. practice. The selection of children as auxiliaries has become widespread. schools on the basics of test methods. Practical P.'s use required a large number of specialists, but they were not available; poorly trained people were often involved in the work. The material they received was usually of poor quality, they did not know how to understand it, so the conclusions turned out to be erroneous, but claiming to be “scientific.” As a result, there are many pedological studies (more precisely, examinations) of children brought little benefit, and sometimes caused great harm.

On July 4, 1936, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks accepted the post. “On pedological perversions in the system of People's Commissariat of Education,” after which the very concept of P. acquired an odious meaning. The elimination of vicious practices was necessary, but serious theoretical and N.-i. work in the field of child studies was needed. Instead, all studies bearing the title. pedological studies were discontinued, the works of pedologists were withdrawn from use. Not only has the range of studies of children sharply narrowed, but the nature of research has also changed. The idea of ​​integrity has faded. Researchers began, as a rule, to be guided by the specific, limited task of studying one or another aspect of a child’s life. Developmental psychology, developmental physiology, ped. psychology of steel in Means. branches of knowledge that are at least separate from each other.

The task of creating a holistic idea of ​​the child was not fulfilled by P. (and could not be accomplished at that level of development of science and by those means). But the task of a comprehensive, holistic study of the child remains relevant for science.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Pedology is literally the science of children. Her fate is tragic. It arose at the end of the 19th century in the USA and Western Europe. The founder of Russian pedology was the brilliant scientist and organizer A.P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by the wonderful scientist “hero of Russian psychoneurology” V.M. Bekhterev (1857-1927). For 15 years after the revolution, pedology developed: a normal scientific life went on with heated discussions in which approaches were developed and the growing pains inevitable for a young science were overcome.

Pedology sought to study the child comprehensively in all its manifestations and taking into account all influencing factors. P.P. Blonsky (1884-1941) defined pedology as the science of the age-related development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment. “It was connected with everything that concerns the individual differences of children and the specifics of their age”55. Of course, the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science did not ensure unity of views among pedologists. Nevertheless, four basic principles could be distinguished in these views:

1. A child is an integral system. It should not be studied in parts (some by psychology, some by neurology, etc.).

2. A child can only be understood considering that he is in constant development.

3. A child can be studied only taking into account his social environment, which influences not only the psyche, but often also the anthropomorphic parameters of development.

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

Pedologists worked in schools, kindergartens, and various teenage associations. Psychological and pedological counseling was actively carried out, work was carried out with parents, and the theory and practice of psychodiagnostics was developed. In Moscow and Leningrad, there were institutes of pedology, where representatives of various sciences tried to trace the development of a child from birth to adolescence. Pedologists were trained very thoroughly: they studied physiology, child psychiatry, neuropathology, anthropology, sociology, and theoretical studies were combined with everyday practical work. So far we don't have anything like it.

Criticism of the scientific inconsistency of pedology by the pedagogical community in the USSR ended with the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of July 4, 1936, “On pedological perversions in the system of People’s Commissars of Education.” Pedology was destroyed, and what was left of it was hidden in a special storage facility. Many scientists were repressed, the fates of others were crippled. A.B. Zalkind, leaving the meeting where the ban on pedology was announced, died on the street from a heart attack. All pedological institutes and laboratories were closed, pedology was erased from the curricula of all universities. Fortunately, many managed to retrain. Thus, the flower of Soviet psychology - Basov, Blonsky, Vygotsky, Kornilov, Kostyuk, Leontyev, Luria, Elkonin, Myasishchev and others, as well as teachers Zankov and Sokolyansky were pedologists.

The resolution and the subsequent landslide “criticism” barbarously but masterfully distorted the essence of pedology, blaming it for adherence to the so-called theory of two factors, which fatally predetermines the fate of a child by a frozen social environment and heredity. In fact, says V.P. Zinchenko, pedologists were ruined by their value system: “Intelligence occupied one of the leading places in it. They valued first of all work, conscience, intelligence, initiative, nobility.” The conversation about pedology is not just a longing for the past, but the experience and bitterness of loss.

Pedology is the science of raising children and a movement in psychology and pedagogy based on the recognition of the dependence of a child’s fate on biological and social factors, the influence of heredity, as well as constant and variable environments. The term “pedology” was first introduced by Oscar Chrisman in 1893.

The emergence of pedology at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. was due to the spread of evolutionary ideas and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy.

The founders of pedology are S. Hall, J.M. Baldwin, E. Kirkpatrick, E. Maiman, W. Preyer, et al.

The content of pedology was a combination of psychological, biological and sociological approaches to child development. The subject of pedology, despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments by its representatives, was not clearly defined. Most often, the subject of study was either the child as such and his development, or the concept age-related symptom complex(a combination of various phases and stages of childhood in their time sequence and in their dependence on various conditions).

Intensive development of the theoretical and methodological foundations of pedology as a science occurred in the 1920s. At the same time, its main directions were identified.

V.M. is considered the founder and creator of pedology in the USSR. Bekhterev, who back in 1903 expressed the idea of ​​​​the need to create a special institution for studying children. Later, to implement his ideas, pedological and research institutes, an institute of moral education, a children's psychiatric clinic, etc. were organized in Moscow.

In 1922-1925 pp. the organization and flourishing of the activities of experimental pedological stations in Kharkov and Kyiv took place. Representatives of the Kyiv scientific pedological school were S. Ananin, K. Lebedintsev, Y. Chepiga, and the Kharkov school - V. Protopopov, I. Sokolyansky, A. Zaluzhny.

Y. Chepiga and I. Sokolyansky are representatives of the classical direction of pedology. J. Chepiga supplemented the evolutionary-biological explanation of the formation, development and formation of personality with a cultural-historical approach (believing that human development is based on two laws - the formation of habits and accommodation). He insisted that children must be raised not only taking into account biogenetic and psychophysical data, but also in a cultural and historical context.

I. Sokolyansky focused on the pedological study of issues of children's organizations, social education, and child discipline. He viewed pedagogy as the science of organizing certain conditioned forms of behavior of a human individual (or group) and had a negative attitude towards the definition of pedagogy as the science of teaching and raising children. He also argued for the need to use Pavlov's methods in teaching (using the example of physically handicapped children). He attached great importance to the children's ideological movement - a pioneer organization with a clearly defined class approach.

Y. Mamontov is a representative of the pedocentric direction of pedology. He put the education of the ability to fully perceive and understand beauty in art and reality at the forefront. He considered the formation of aesthetic culture to be the completion of individual and social development of personality. He also developed a systematic approach to the analysis of pedagogical phenomena. For the first time in Ukrainian and Soviet pedagogy of the 1920s. substantiated the classification of pedagogical movements according to their target setting and theoretical and methodological foundations, focused on the priority of universal human values.

A. Zaluzhny is a representative of the sociogenetic direction of pedology. He believed that pedology has the only objective method of studying child behavior. He was one of the first to deal with the problems of collective (group) development, believing that the object of pedagogy should not be the individual, but the collective.

Zaluzhny developed a program for studying children's groups based on reflexological research, determined the types of social behavior of children, the stages of their acquisition of social skills based on an analysis of communication in early childhood, classification of social interactions and determination of the age-related dynamics of their development. He considered the living environment to be an important factor determining the nature of a children's association, highlighting a specific situation as a means of changing the nature of the group's activities. He also identified the types of teams (one that is formed by itself, and one that is pedagogically organized), explored the problem of the role and importance of the leader, etc.

In general, Soviet pedology set itself the task of studying the social-class environment, the organization and activities of children's collectives, child labor, class discipline, children's and youth movements. This led to a division and a certain confrontation between the biogenetic and sociogenetic directions.

By the end of the 1920s. A significant body of psychologists, physiologists, and defectologists worked in pedological institutions (P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky, etc.). The research of Soviet scientists working in the field of pedology has accumulated significant empirical material on the development of children's behavior.

Valuable in pedology was the desire to study child development in an integrated approach, with a practical focus on diagnosing mental development.

Pedology is associated with the widespread introduction of testing into the educational process. Since the mid-1920s. tests begin to become widespread, first in scientific research, and by the end of the 20s they are being introduced into the practice of schools and other children's institutions. Based on tests, pedologists determined, for example:

• giftedness and success of children;
• learning predictions;
• specific didactic and educational recommendations for teachers;
• “mental age” of the student, which made it possible to transfer him to the group that best suits his intellectual development and, on the other hand, to form more homogeneous study groups.

Any individualization of education contradicted the totalitarian dogmas of Marxist collectivism. Therefore, in the 1930s, the history of pedology, as well as psychology and pedagogy in the USSR, acquired drama, due to the gross interference of the Soviet party leadership in scientific life.

After theoretical discussions (1931), an internal reorientation of pedology took place, and after the resolutions of 1931-1932 pp. it has actually become an auxiliary science. The work of pedologists was increasingly subjected to “party criticism” and “self-criticism.” As a result, by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On pedological perversions in the system of Narkompros” (1936), pedology was declared a “pseudoscience” and ceased to exist.

The defeat of pedology significantly slowed down the development of psychology and pedagogy in the USSR. The result was a long decline in pedagogical and developmental psychology, a significant lag in the field of psychodiagnostics, and weakening attention to the child’s personality in the processes of teaching and upbringing (the so-called “childlessness” of pedagogy).

In textbooks for pedagogical higher educational institutions of that time, the authors sought to prevent the penetration of “children’s,” “pedagogical,” “school” psychology into the minds of future teachers in order to avoid accusations of trying to “restore” pedology. Students at a pedagogical university received virtually emasculated psychological knowledge. And accusations of pedological errors have hung over psychologists for many years.

Pedology: Utopia and reality Zalkind Aron Borisovich

Ill “SUBJECT” OF PSEDOLOGY PEDOLOGY

“SUBJECT” OF THE PSEDOLOGY PEDOLOGY

Former pedologists paid a lot of attention to this issue. True, this did not help much, and the issue remained controversial. Different authors solved it differently.

Zalkind also paid a lot of attention to this issue.

We left Zalkind at the stage when, in his opinion, he had outlived Freudianism and “over-reflexology” and allegedly became a dialectical materialist.

But did he become one? Has Zalkind, and with him other representatives of the so-called sociobiological movement, who so often referred to dialectics, outlived the biologizing, mechanical attitudes?

We will get the answer to these questions by tracing the entire evolution of Zalkind’s views on the subject and method of pedology and its relationship to pedagogy. At first, Zalkind does not separate pedagogy from pedology.

“There is only a single biological teaching about the child, which organically unites both the theory and practice of education - pedology,” writes Zalkind in the book “Essays on the Culture of Revolutionary Times,” published in 1924.

Here, both theory and practice are synthesized entirely on a biological basis, since “the sphere of the teacher is conditioned reflexes.” Pedagogy turns “to the sociogogy of the organism” (p. 32), which comes down to “causing consistent and deep changes in its entire social-reflexive attitude, that is, “in all its reflexes without exception”... There is no content left for pedagogy here , since “views” and “feelings” are neither theoretically nor practically separable from “organs” and this “fictionology” must be ended as soon as possible” (p. 32). So, in 1924, instead of pedagogy, Zalkind mocked a living child, viewing him as some kind of complex of reflexes and declaring pedagogy a fiction.

In the book “A Question of Soviet Pedagogy,” written a little later, pedagogy already appears along with pedology, the subject of which is also interpreted somewhat differently, but this does not make it any easier.

« Pedology, which systematizes the experience of upbringing and provides a biological and theoretical basis for it, Of course, she was not born suddenly. It existed long before it was called pedology. As soon as pedagogy grew out of the diapers of bushcraft, attempts appeared at its theoretical generalizations, attempts to understand the child not only by the ideals of education imposed on him, but also by his inner, natural essence... Pedology, after all, is a science and a raised person, while Pedagogy is the methodological and methodological practice of education.”

Here Zalkind comes close to the view that Blonsky formulated more briefly: pedagogy deals with how to teach, and pedology deals with how a child learns.

He is trying to substantiate here that most harmful concept that deprives the teacher of the right to study the child, which leads to the destruction of pedagogy as a science, which deprives the teacher of the right to generalize and systematize his experience and monitor the development of the child. In fact, if the systematization of education and training is transferred to another science, which is built on false foundations, if observation of the student and his study in order to find the most correct approach to his teaching and upbringing is divorced from this process itself, then, on the one hand, pedagogy, one of the foundations of its subject is taken away and it turns into naked empirics, because how can one scientifically substantiate this or that method without taking into account the age and individual characteristics of the child, and on the other hand, this “new science” itself turns into pseudoscience, so as it is not based in practice, is not verified by it.

Such a concept inevitably led to a whole series of harmful perversions. Its pseudoscience lies primarily in the fact that by declaring pedology the universal and only science about the child, a science “designed to guide all aspects of educational work, including pedagogy and teachers,” it artificially broke the unified process of child development, placing this development in dependence on spontaneous forces and completely excluding from this process those educational influences that are the main link that a true science of the child must first of all grasp. Thus, the theory of spontaneity was taken as the basis of pedology by its “theorists”; pedology here completely merges with the anti-Leninist “theory of the withering away of the school.”

But perhaps pedologists later abandoned this harmful view? After all, there was more than one discussion on the pedological “front”.

To answer this question, let us consider the main provisions of Zalkind’s report, read by him during the second pedological discussion at the Academy of Communist Education.

Here he gives the following definition of pedology: “Pedology is a synthesis of psychophysiological sciences about the developing person, a synthesis from a pedagogical point of view.”

Explaining this definition, Salkind puts forward the following five theses:

"1. Pedology should be organically included in pedagogy.

2. Operating with biological methods of study, it goes beyond the boundaries of pedagogy.

3. On behalf of pedagogy, according to its tasks, it invades all the sciences about man.

4. Within the various sciences about man, she rearranges the material of these sciences in their pedagogical refraction.

5. It does not provide a mechanical mixture of these materials, but a synthesis of these sciences in a pedagogical context.”

Dwelling in detail on the relationship of pedology with pedagogy and other sciences, Zalkind writes:

“Pedagogy is in many ways an emissary of pedology, since it implements the obtained patterns and verifies them in practice.” Pedagogy itself, according to Zalkind, is incapable of establishing any patterns; its job is “to determine the principles of education, to determine the main directions of educational processes... Since pedagogy is a social science, the teacher does not have in his hands methods for studying these paths and directions.”

It is easy to understand that here Zalkind only defends in a new form his idea that pedagogy is not actually a science, that it cannot establish any scientific laws, that only pedology can scientifically substantiate pedagogy, since only it is based on biological sciences.

Zalkind comes to this conclusion because here too he remains a consistent biologizer, because he denies the social sciences the right to establish scientific laws. But since directly denying the connection between pedology and pedagogy would then mean going into direct conflict with teachers and with pedagogical practice, Zalkind offers here the following way out: “Pedology in one of its parts, where we are talking about the study of the environment and that part of the “socio “, of which this movement was so proud, is a social discipline (Salkind warns against the “danger” of turning pedology into an independent social discipline - A.Z.), with her “bio” she goes beyond the boundaries of pedagogy. At the same time, in order of influence, pedology carries out the pedagogical process under general responsibility under the supreme leadership of class politics.”

It is not difficult to guess that here we have an attempt to give a “theoretical” justification for precisely the situation in which “pedagogy was disdainfully declared “empirics” and a “scientific discipline”, and not yet established, shaky, not defined its subject and method and full of harmful anti-Marxist tendencies, so-called pedology, was declared a universal science designed to guide all aspects of educational work, including pedagogy and teachers” (resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of July 4, 1936).

This same idea, although in a slightly different form, is also substantiated by Blonsky. Essentially, all areas of the pseudoscience of pedology on the issue of the relationship between pedagogy and pedology converged precisely on this. It couldn’t have been any other way. After all, this position directly follows from the theory of spontaneity, which substantiated the “main law” of modern pedology, the “law” of the fatalistic conditioning of the fate of children by biological and social factors, the influence of heredity and some unchangeable “environment”. Once it was recognized that the development of a child is determined by these external forces, then it was here that “scientific” laws had to be looked for.

The most reactionary theory led to a whole series of the same reactionary conclusions and a number of the most harmful distortions in the practical work of pedologists.

Zalkind, perhaps, most openly and openly smuggled anti-Marxist perversions into the science of children, in the crudest form he “generalized” the “biological-theoretical mixture of Freudianism with reflexology,” creating a “scientific” support for the stupid and harmful anti-Leninist “theory of the withering away of the school,” continuing this harmful business five years after the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of September 5, 1931 on primary and secondary schools.

Abstrusely biting style, external “militantism,” as Zalkind puts it, his writings, words and catchphrases, behind which there was the emptiness of a flowery, ringing phrase - how could we not see behind this that this “leader” of pedology was naked, how could we, former pedologists, endure this wretchedness of thought, this anti-Leninist chatter, and even carry it out in practical work, disorienting the teacher, the school, causing enormous damage to Soviet education!

From the book Pedagogical systems of training and education of children with developmental disabilities author Boryakova Natalya Yurievna

1.1. Subject, objectives, methods of special pedagogy For many years, issues of studying, teaching and raising children with developmental disabilities have been integrated within the framework of defectology. Deviations in the development of the psyche in defectological studies were studied with

From the book Pedology: Utopia and Reality author Zalkind Aron Borisovich

A. B. ZALKIND MAIN ISSUES OF PEDOLOGY PREFACE TO THE 1ST EDITION Pedology - a complex of sciences about the developing person - is still extremely young, and this explains the lack of elaboration of a significant part of its main general issues. The situation of pedology is complicated by the fact that

From the book Theory and Methods of Music Education. Tutorial author Bezborodova Lyudmila Alexandrovna

FIRST PART MAIN ISSUES OF PEDOLOGY I. About some problems of natural science in the USSR In the USSR, a serious discussion is unfolding on a number of problems of natural science. There is, perhaps, not a single area of ​​the natural sciences where a class revision of the old scientific

From the book Psychology of Human Development [Development of subjective reality in ontogenesis] author Slobodchikov Viktor Ivanovich

Chapter 2 Academic subject “Music”

From the book Games that are very useful for a child's development! 185 simple games every smart child should play author Shulman Tatyana

1.2. Object and subject of study in developmental psychology Distinguishing between an object and a subject of knowledge Formulation of a certain body of knowledge about the surrounding world as an independent scientific discipline at its starting point is based on the idea of ​​a specific

From the book Conflictology author Ovsyannikova Elena Alexandrovna

Subjective reality as a subject of psychological anthropology Historically, the first form of psychology is the doctrine of the soul. What was later designated by the term “psychology” was at first a body of knowledge about the mental powers of man:

From the book Academy of Educational Games. For children from one to 7 years old author Novikovskaya Olga Andreevna

Guess the object One participant in the game thinks of any object. The second participant must guess from the description what kind of object it is. The difficulty lies in the fact that the first player first names the most general characteristics. For example: “This object is usually round in shape. He might be somewhere

From the author's book

Laboratory-practical lesson 1 Topic: “The subject of conflictology and research methods” Degree of conflict Task 1. Before you are ten pairs of statements. Read each statement and mark (with a cross) how many points you have the property noted in

From the author's book

Find out the object You will need five to ten objects or toys and their images in the form of drawings or photographs. Moreover, it is advisable to take images from unusual angles, so that the object is more difficult to recognize. Place objects in front of the child, and then show them

Pedology (from the Greek pais (paidos) - child, logos - teaching) is a movement in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, due to the spread of evolutionary ideas and the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy. The content of pedology was a combination of psychological, anatomical-physiological, biological and sociological approaches to child development, but these approaches turned out to be interconnected purely mechanically. In the research of scientists working in the field of pedology, a large amount of empirical material has been accumulated on the development of children's behavior. Valuable in pedology was the desire to study child development in an integrated approach, with a practical focus on diagnosing mental development. By a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1936), pedology was declared a “pseudoscience” and ceased to exist. The result of the defeat of pedology was the inhibition of the development of pedagogical and developmental psychology, a lag in the field of psychodiagnostics, and a weakening of attention to the child’s personality in the processes of teaching and upbringing (the so-called “childlessness” of pedagogy).

".... The "critical" work was even more revived by J.V. Stalin's letter "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism" in the journal "Proletarian Revolution". In all scientific institutions, in response to this message, calling for an end to "rotten liberalism" in science, an ideological cleansing of personnel took place, using the example of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A.I. Herzen

one can illustrate how it took place: in the newspaper “For the Bolshevik Pedagogical Personnel” dated January 19, 1932, in the section “The Struggle for the Party of Science” it was printed: “Comrade Stalin’s letter mobilized for increased vigilance, for the fight against rotten liberalism. In the order of deployment of work were opened and exposed [listed by department]... in the pedology 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 personnel. The leadership of the central press organ, the journal Pedology, has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor as a flagellant of himself and a flagellant of others, was removed from the post of executive editor: his “mistakes” in the first works on sex 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 unbecoming of the building that he erected with such tenacity, although subsequently, right up to the defeat of pedology, he would still remain at the helm of pedology. Not only the editors of the journal are 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-related development of children and adolescents based on the leading role of the patterns of class struggle and socialist construction of the USSR.” However, the practical benefits of pedology to education where the work of pedologists was carried out professionally and competently was obvious and determined the support of pedology from the People's Commissariat for Education. In 1933, a resolution was issued by the board of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR on pedological work, which determined the directions of work and methods. N.K. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky 3 participated in the development of this resolution.

The result of this resolution was the widespread introduction of pedology into schools; the slogan appeared: “Every school has a pedologist,” which to some extent resembles the modern trend of psychologizing education. The opening of new schools specialized for certain groups of students was subsidized, including an increasing number of schools for mentally retarded and defective 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 age, as well as the not always high-quality work of practicing pedologists due to their low qualifications, often caused dissatisfaction with parents and teachers in the local areas. This dissatisfaction was reinforced by the ideological indoctrination of the population. The differentiation of school into regular school and for different categories of children with mental retardation “violated” the ideology of equality and averageness of the Soviet people, which often reached the point of absurdity in its premises: statements 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 body; 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 could not be mentally and physically retarded, and therefore pedological examinations and the opening of new schools for mentally retarded and defective children were considered inappropriate; Moreover, they are a provocation on the part of bourgeois-minded, unreconstructed pedologists and the People's Commissariat for Education, who have taken them under their wing.

In this regard, in Pravda and other media there are calls to stop such provocations and to protect Soviet children from fanatic pedologists. Within pedology itself, the campaign continues to rebuild pedology into a truly Marxist science 55,56 But neither in the pedological press itself, nor in the pedagogical press, nor in the corridors of the People's Commissariat for Education is there any sense that the end is approaching. To criticism in the media and from some figures of the People's Commissariat for Education, who call for a ban on pedology or its return 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. It seems that the devastating resolution 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 we need to look for the prohibition of pedology not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the “top”. N.K. Krupskaya was at the tip of the “bayonet”.

A report on the implementation of this resolution was probably submitted to the Central Committee. Thus ended the brief history of pedology in the USSR. The baby is sacrificed to politics. The defeat of good undertakings is a “minor” 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, there is a 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 thinking, as illustrated, has not occurred. Pedagogical dominance and later unjustified sociologization hid the main roots of pedology.

The only correct way, in our opinion, would be a path based on the creation of a doctrine about human individuality, about the genetic predetermination of individuality, on an understanding of how, as a result of the wide possibilities of gene combinatorics, a typology of personality is formed in the interaction “genotype - environment”. On deep penetration into the concept reaction norm genotype could develop a deep and lasting science of man. It could have been already then, in the 20-30s. to receive normal scientific development and practice of pedagogical activity, which to this day remains rather an art.

Perhaps society has not matured enough to understand the goals of science, as happened more than once, as happened in its time with the discovery of G. Mendel. However, the reason for this is 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. Basov, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, is a man of high humanitarian culture, directing “pedological perversions” at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after. A.I. Herzen, invited the famous scientist Yu.I. Polyansky to teach the relevant course. Meanwhile, on the one hand, this was a course in general genetics, but what was needed was a course in human genetics; on the other hand, it was a one-time event. You can take a course in genetics, but not absorb its essence, which is what happened with M.Ya. Basov himself. There was no textbook on human genetics at that time. Somewhat earlier (this is the task of a special and very important essay), the science of eugenics went out, and then genetics itself; the dramatic consequences of this in the country are still felt....

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE AUCP(b) RESOLUTION OF JULY 4, 1936 ON PEDOLOGICAL PERVERTATIONS IN THE NARCOPROSS SYSTEM The Central Committee of the CPSU(b) establishes that the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR and the People's Commissariat of Education of other union republics allowed perversions in school management, expressed in the mass installation of so-called "pedologists" in schools. and entrusting them with the most important functions of managing the school and educating students. By orders of the People's Commissariat of Education, pedologists were entrusted with the responsibilities of staffing classes, organizing the school regime, directing the entire educational process “from the point of view of pedologization of the school and the teacher,” determining the causes of school failure, monitoring political views, determining the profession of those graduating from school, removing unsuccessful students from schools, etc. d. The creation at school, along with the teaching staff, of an organization of pedologists, independent of teachers, which has its own leadership centers in the form of various pedological offices, regional laboratories and research institutes, the fragmentation of educational and educational work between teachers and pedologists, provided that there was authority over the teachers control was exercised by the pedologists - all this could not but reduce the role and responsibility of the teacher for the organization of educational work, could not but create a virtual lack of control in school management, and could not but harm the entire cause of the Soviet school. This harm was aggravated by the nature and methodology of pedological work in the school. The practice of pedologists, which took place in complete isolation from the teacher and school activities, was reduced mainly to false scientific experiments and conducting countless examinations among schoolchildren and their parents in the form of meaningless and harmful questionnaires, tests, etc., long condemned by the party. These supposedly scientific “surveys”, conducted among a large number of students and their parents, were directed primarily against students who were unsuccessful or did not fit into the framework of the school regime and were intended to prove, supposedly, from the “scientific” “biosocial” point of view of the modern pedology, hereditary and social conditionality of a student’s underachievement or individual defects in his behavior, to find the maximum of negative influences and pathological perversions of the student himself, his family, relatives, ancestors, the social environment, and thereby find a reason for removing schoolchildren from the normal school community. For the same purposes, there was an extensive system of examinations of mental development and giftedness of schoolchildren, uncritically transferred to Soviet soil from bourgeois class pedology and representing a form of mockery of students, contrary to the tasks of the Soviet school and common sense. A 6-7 year old child was asked standard casuistic questions, after which his so-called “pedological” age and the degree of his mental giftedness were determined. All this led to the fact that more and more children were included in the categories of mentally retarded, defective and “difficult”. Based on the classification of schoolchildren who had undergone pedological “study” into one of the specified categories, pedologists determined children to be removed from normal schools to “special” schools and classes for children with “difficult” children, mentally retarded children, psychoneurotics, etc. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) establishes that as a result of the harmful activities of pedologists, the recruitment of “special” schools was carried out on a wide and ever-increasing scale. Contrary to the direct instructions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the creation of two or three schools for schoolchildren who are defective and disorganizing their studies, the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR created a large number of "special" schools of various names, where the vast majority of students are completely normal children who are subject to transfer back to normal schools. In these schools, along with defective children, talented and gifted children are taught, who are indiscriminately classified by pedologists as “difficult” on the basis of false scientific theories. As for the situation in these “special” schools, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks recognizes the situation with educational work in them as completely intolerable, bordering on criminal irresponsibility. “Special” schools are essentially unsupervised; the organization of academic work, the educational regime and education in these schools are left in the hands of the least qualified educators and teachers. No serious correctional work has been organized in these schools. As a result, a large number of children who, in a normal school, are easily correctable and become active, conscientious and disciplined schoolchildren, in a “special” school acquire bad skills and inclinations and become increasingly difficult to correct. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks believes that such distortions of the party’s educational policy in the practice of the People’s Commissariat for Education could have developed as a result of the fact that the People’s Commissariat for Education are still aloof from the fundamental and vital tasks of school management and the development of Soviet pedagogical science. Only the People's Commissariat for Education's disdain for the management of pedagogical science and practice can explain the fact that the anti-scientific and ignorant theory of the withering away of the school, condemned by the party, continued to enjoy recognition in the People's Commissariat for Education until recently, and its adherents in the form of half-educated pedologists were propagated on an increasingly wider scale. Only the blatant inattention of the People's Commissariat of Education to the tasks of properly organizing the education of the younger generation and the ignorance of a number of their leaders can explain the fact that in the system of the People's Commissariat of Education pedagogy was disparagingly declared "empirics" and a "scientific discipline", and not yet established, floundering, undefined of its subject and method and so-called pedology, full of harmful anti-Marxist tendencies, was declared a universal science designed to guide all aspects of educational work, including pedagogy and teachers. Only a bungling disregard for the development of Soviet pedagogical science can explain the fact that the wide, varied experience of a large army of school workers is not developed and generalized, and Soviet pedagogy is on the margins of the People's Commissariat for Education, while representatives of the current so-called pedology are given ample opportunity to preach harmful pseudoscientific views and the production of mass, more than dubious, experiments on children. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks condemns the theory and practice of modern so-called pedology. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks believes that both the theory and practice of so-called pedology are based on false scientific, anti-Marxist principles. These provisions include, first of all, the main “law” of modern pedology - the “law” of the fatalistic conditioning of the fate of children by biological and social factors, the influence of heredity and some unchangeable environment. This deeply reactionary “law” is in blatant contradiction with Marxism and with the entire practice of socialist construction, which successfully re-educates people in the spirit of socialism and eliminates the remnants of capitalism in the economy and people’s consciousness. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks establishes that such a theory could only appear as a result of the uncritical transfer into Soviet pedagogy of the views and principles of anti-scientific bourgeois pedology, which set as its task, in order to maintain the dominance of the exploiting classes, to prove the special talent and special rights to existence of the exploiting classes and “superior races” “and, on the other hand, the physical and spiritual doom of the working classes and “lower races.” This transfer of anti-scientific principles of bourgeois pedology into Soviet science is all the more harmful because it is hidden behind “Marxist” phraseology. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks believes that the creation of a Marxist science of children is possible only on the basis of overcoming the above-mentioned anti-scientific principles of modern so-called pedology and severe criticism of its ideologists and practitioners on the basis of the complete restoration of pedagogy as a science and teachers as its bearers and guides. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decides: 1. To restore full rights to pedagogy and teachers. 2. Eliminate the pedologist section in schools and confiscate pedological textbooks. 3. To propose to the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR and the People's Commissariat of Education of other union republics to review schools for difficult-to-educate children, transferring the bulk of children to normal schools. 4. Recognize as incorrect the resolutions of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR on the organization of pedological work and the Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated March 7, 1931 "On the organization of pedological work in the republic." 5. Abolish the teaching of pedology as a special science in pedagogical institutes and technical schools. 6. Criticize in the press all theoretical books published so far by current pedologists. 7. Those who wish to convert practicing pedologists to teachers. 8. Oblige the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR to submit a report on the progress of implementation of this Resolution to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in a month. Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks