Skip to main content Accessibility help

Psychology at High School in Late Imperial Russia (1881–1917)

  • Andy Byford (a1)


Secondary education is one key area in which academic disciplines build their identity and legitimacy in the public realm. The public image of a science is, of course, constructed by a variety of means and on different platforms, including the generalist media and the lively industry of scientific popularization. However, the school occupies a unique role in representations of science because of its greater degree of formal continuity with the academic environment. The successful institutionalization and maintenance of any discipline depends on it taking root, in some form at least, in the system of public instruction. Because education both fosters and depends on disciplinary reproduction, the concrete shape that school subjects take is of great consequence to the long-term development of related sciences.



Hide All

1 The introduction of psychology into Russian secondary education coincided with the rise in psychology's popularity among the broader Russian public in the mid- to late-1900s. However, the general public tended to (con)fuse “psychology” with fashionable trends of this era, such as spiritualism, a fascination with the afterlife, decadent literature and pornography. See Rosinskii, V., “Psikhologiia v Rossii.” Vestnik znaniia no. 4 (1908): 562–66. no. 5 (1908): 676–683. On frustrations that experts were encountering when attempting to popularize psychology among the masses see, for example, Rakhmanov, V., “Lektsii po psikhologii dlia rabochikh.” Svobodnoe vospitanie no. 11 (1909–10): 65–74.

2 For similar tensions between scholarly and pedagogical agendas in a different area—that of literary study—see Byford, Andy, “Between Literary Education and Academic Learning: The Study of Literature at Secondary School in Late Imperial Russia (1860s–1900s).” History of Education 33, no. 6 (2004): 637660. For analogous dilemmas in the area of law and civic education, although in the area of broader popularization and with a more pronounced political resonance, see Michel Tissier, “Le droit pour le peuple: Vulgariser le droit en Russie au tournant du XXe siècle.” Bulletin de l'Institut Pierre Renouvin 18 (2004): 83–103. Jurisprudence (zakonovedenie) was introduced into the secondary curriculum at more or less the same time as psychology and also provoked much debate and controversy. See, for example, Chizhov, N., “O prepodavanii zakonovedeniia v srednikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia.” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (hereafter ZhMNP) no. 10, Sovremennaia letopis’ (1906): 59–75.

3 Joravsky, David, Russian Psychology: A Critical History (Oxford: Blackwell, Basil, 1989); Petrovskii, A. V., Psikhologiia v Rossii. XX vek (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo URAO, 2000); Budilova, E. A., Bor'ba materiatizma i idealizma v russkoi psikhologicheskoi nauke. Vtoraia polovina XIX-nachalo XX v (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSK, 1960).

4 The idea of psychology's relevance to education was used as a major argument for the strengthening of its position at university. See speech by Troitskii, Professor M. M. at the opening of the Moscow Psychological Society in 1885. Troitskii, M. M., “Sovremennoe uchenie o zadachakh i metodakh psikhologii.” Voprosy psikhologii (hereafter VP) no. 4 (1995): 93107, 106. For more detail on psychology's role in the realm of educational theory of this era see especially Nikol'skaia, A. A., Vozrastnaia i pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia dorevoliutsionnoi Rassii (Dubna: Feniks, 1995). On controversies over psychology's role in the educational realm in the early Soviet period (primarily in the context of “pedology” or “child study”) see Alexandre Etkind, “L'essor et l'échec du mouvement ‘paidologique': De la psychanalyse au ‘nouvel homme de masse'.” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 23, no. 4 (1992): 387–418, and Ewing, E. Thomas, “Restoring Teachers to Their flights: Soviet Education and the 1936 Denunciation of Pedology.” History of Education Quarterly 41, no. 4 (2001): 471–493.

5 For some examples of works from different periods in this era that effectively reduced pedagogy to psychology see: Kapterev, P. F., Pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia dlia narodnykh uchitekii, vospitatelei i vospitatel'nits (St Petersburg, 1877). Nechaev, A. P., Sovremennaia eksperimental'naia psikhologiia v ee otnosheniiakh k voprosam shkol'nogo obucheniia (St Petersburg, 1901). Rumiantsev, N. E., Lektsii po pedagogicheskoi psikhologii dlia narodnykh uchitelei (Moscow, 1913).

6 Nikol'skaia, Vozrastnaia i pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia, 151.

7 Joravsky, , Russian Psychology, 109.

8 In what follows, discussion will focus only on psychology, although most debates about the female “pedagogy class” also concerned the identity of pedagogy as a science and the organization of female teacher training more generally. For more detail on these courses see: Rodevich, M. (ed.), Sbornik deistvuiushchikh postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po zhenskim gimnaziiam i progimnaziiam Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (St Petersburg, 1884). El'nitskii, K., “Znachenie pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniia dlia zhenshchm i organizatsiia zaniatii v pedagogicheskom klasse pri Omskoi zhenskoi gimnazii.” Sem'ia i shkola no. 8–9, Otdel, II (1881): 113139; Brailovskii, S., “Zametka ob organizatsii zaniatii v pedagogicheskom (VIII-m) klasse zhenskikh gimnazii.” Russkaia shkola (hereafter RS) no. 2 (1892): 91–102; Golovachev, P., “K voprosu o prepodavanii pedagogiki v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” Vestnik vospitaniia (hereafter VV) no. 8 (1893): 68–76; El'nitskii, K., “Pedagogicheskie temy dlia sochlnenii uchenits VIII-go, pedagogicheskogo, klassa zhenskikh gimnazii.” RS no. 7–8 (1894): 186–203; Brailovskii, S., “Pedagogika, kak predmet obucheniia v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” RS no. 7–8 (1896): 256–270; Nechaev, A. P., “O postanovke prepodavaniia pedagogiki v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” RS no. 1 (1899): 145–163; L. S., “K voprosu o pedagogicheskikh klassakh srednikh zhenskikh uchebnykh zavedenii.” VV no. 9 (1903): 43–52; El'nitskii, K., “Prepodavanie obshchei pedagogiki v zhenskoi gimnazii.” RS no. 3 (1905): 85–108; Anastasiev, A., “Ob uluchshenii uslovii pedagogicheskoi podgotovki okanchivaiushchikh kurs obucheniia v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia.” ZhMNP no. 9, Otdel po narodnomu obrazovaniiu (1907): 85–92; Solov'ev, I., “Pedagogika kak uchebnyi predmet v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” VV no. 4 (1913): 183—88; I.K., “Zametka po povodu stat'i Rubinshteina, M. M. ‘Pedagogi bez pedagogiki'.” VV no. 9 (1913): 195–99; Blonskii, P. P., “K metodike prepodavaniia pedagogild.” VV no. 3 (1915): 1–32; Pavlova, M. A., Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo k izucheniiu lichnosti rebenka pri pomoshchi metodov eksperimental'nogo issledovaniia. Posobie dlia sostavleniia dnevnika ili shkol'noi kharakteristiki primenitel'no k kursu VIII-go pedagogicheskogo klassa zhenskikh gimnazii (Odessa, 1916).

9 For more on women's teacher professionalization at this time and the role of psychology and pedagogy in the wider context of female education see Ruane, Christine, Gender, Class, and the Professionalization of Russian City Teachers, 1860–1914 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994), especially 62–86.

10 On women and higher education see also Johanson, Christine, Women's Struggle for Higher Education in Russia, 1855–1900 (Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987).

11 It was often argued that females made better primary-school teachers than males. See Anastasiev, “Ob uluchshenii uslovii pedagogicheskoi podgotovki,” 85. By the early twentieth century there was a preponderance of female teachers in primary education, while men dominated secondary education.

12 Blonskii, , “K metodike prepodavaniia pedagogiki,” 3.

13 Some standardization at the level of the educational district did, however, take place around 1900. See Uchebnyi plan i programmy uchebnykh predmetov dlia VIII dopolnitel'nogo klassa zhenskikh gimnazii Moskovskogo uchebnogo okruga (Moscow, 1899). Similar plans were carried out in some other districts (e.g. Kazan').

14 Blonskii, , “K metodike prepodavaniia pedagogiki,” 3.

15 Zenchenko, S., “I podniatie polozheniia prepodavatelia srednei shkoly i spetsial'naia ego podgotovka. (Otvet professoru R. Viocera).” VV no. 8 (1898): 83103, 93. For a relativization of the conception of pedagogy as “applied psychology” from the perspective of university professors see Chelpanov, G., “Chto nuzhno znat’ pedagogu iz psikhologii? (Po povodu rezoliutsii s” ezda po eksperimental'noi psikhologii).” Voprosy filosofii ipsikhologii (hereafter VFP) 106 (1911): 38–69, 42–43.

16 Brailovskii, , “Pedagogika, kak predmet obucheniia v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh,” 259.

17 Rokov, G., “O pedagogicheskoi professii i ee predstaviteliakh.” VV no. 1 (1897): 79118, 94. For more on Russian school doctors in this era see Byford, Andy, “Professional Cross-Dressing: Doctors in Education in Late Imperial Russia (1881—1917).” The Russian Review 65, no. 4 (2006): 586–616.

18 El'nitskii, , “Preppdavanie obshchei pedagogiki v zhenskoi gimnazii,” 85.

19 Brailovskii, , “Pedagogika, kak preamet obucheniia v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh,” 259.

20 El'nitskii, , “Prepodavanie obshchei pedagogiki v zhenskoi gunnazii,” 86. El'nitskii, based in Omsk in Siberia, was a particularly experienced teacher of pedagogy in girls’ schools and the author of a number of popular textbooks used in the “pedagogy class.” El'nitskii, K. V., Obshchaia pedagogika (St Petersburg, 1881; 18th edition in 1916). El'nitskii, K. V., Kurs didaktiki (St Petersburg, 1880; 24th edition in 1915). El'nitskii, K. V., Metodika nachal'nogo obucheniia otechestvennomu iazyku (St Petersburg, 1878; 33rd edition in 1916).

21 Brailovskii, , “Zametka ob organizatsii zaniatii,” 91.

22 See Rouane, , Gender, Class and the Professionalization of Russian City Teachers, 28.

23 Golovachev, , “K voprosu o prepodavanii pedagoguci,” 69. On this see also Rouane, Gender, Class and the Professionalization of Russian City Teachers, 31–32.

24 See editorial footnote in Brailovskii, , “Zametka ob organizatsii zaniatii,” 100–101.

25 Ibid., 100–101.

26 El'nitskii, , “Pedagogicheskie temy dlia sochinenii uchenits VIII-go, pedagogicheskogo, klassa,” 187–90.

27 Brailovskii, , “Pedagogika, kak predmet obucheniia v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh,” 257.

28 Ibid., 266. The professor cited here was N. N. Lange, who taught in Odessa.

29 Ibid., 267–68.

30 On Nechaev see, for example, Romanov, A. A., Opytno-eksperimental'naia pedagogika pervoi treti XX veka (Moscow: Shkola, 1997), 10138, Bol'shakova, V. V., “Eksperimental'noe izuchenie psikhologii shkol'nikov v trudakh Nechaeva, A. P.,” and Nechaev, A. P., “Zapiski psikhologa,” in Istoriia stanovleniia i razvitiia eksperimental'no-psikhlogicheskikh issledovanii v Rossii, eds. Lomov, B. F., Budilova, E. A. and Kol'tsova, V. A. (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), 189–199 and 200–213, respectively.

31 Nechaev, A., “O postanovke prepodavaniia pedagogiki v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” RS no. 1 (1899): 145163.

32 Ibid., 146.

33 Ibad., 148.

34 Ibid., 149 (italics in the original).

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid., 150–51.

39 Ibid., 152–163.

40 Blonskii, , “K metodike prepodavaniia pedagogiki,” 4–5.

41 Ibid., 3.

42 Compare Preobrazhenskii, S., Kratkoe rukovodstvo dlia prakticheskikh zaniatii po pedagogike (Samara, 1904) and Pavlova, , Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo k izucheniiu lichnosti rebenka.

43 Blonskii, , “Kmetodike prepodavaniia pedagogiki,” 3.

44 El'nitskii, , “Prepodavanie obshchei pedagogiki v zhenskoi gimnazii,” 86–87.

45 Solov'ev, , “Pedagogika kak uchebnyi predmet v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh,” 186. Blonskii, , “K metodike prepodavaniia pedagogiki,” 32.

46 A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii.” RS no. 4 (1906): 173180. The author, a teacher of psychology, described the term filosofskaia propedevtika—meaning “a preparatory course in philosophy”—as a “clumsy title” (neukliuzhee naimenovanie).

47 Chelpanov, G. I., “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” in Sbornik statei. Psikholoriia i shkola (Moscow, 1912), 127139, 127.

48 On the radical reforms of secondary education, the discussion of which started in the late 1890s, see Hans, Nicholas, History of Russian Educational Policy (1701–1917) (London: P. S. King & Son, 1931), 176182.

49 See Chelpanov, G. I., “O postanovke prepodavanii filosofskoi propedevtiki v srednei shkole” and “O prepodavanii filosofskoi propedevtiki v Germanii,” in Sbornik statei. Psikhologiia i shkola, (Moscow, 1912), 3344 and 44–56, respectively. The papers were originally delivered in 1904 in Kiev, where Chelpanov was based at that time. The teaching of psychology at secondary school was controversial in these countries as well, especially Germany. The scope of this article does not, however, allow for a more extensive comparative analysis of the situation in different European countries.

50 This apparently created problems in Warsaw, where a number of psychology teachers were removed from their posts because they did not have humanities degrees, while at the same time they could not be accepted as teachers of Russian language and literature on the grounds of their nationality. See R., “O prave prepodavat’ psikhologiiu.” RS no. 11 (1910): 71. This scandal was probably less about psychology and more part of the general bullying of Polish teachers by the Russian authorities, with some officials arguing that it would be much better to invite Russians to teach psychology in Polish cities in lieu of the Poles.

51 Insistence on this may have had to do with the worry (of both philosophy professors and government conservatives who feared pernicious “materialist” ideologies) that some physiologists, neurologists and psychiatrists, who claimed psychology to be a biological science, would be able to co-opt the discipline at secondary-school level. However, as we have already seen in the case of the girls'schools, it was not so much the natural scientists and the medics who were the real threat here, but people like Nechaev, who was himself a post-graduate in philosophy, yet ended up developing a competing (in his terms “experimental”) paradigm of psychology in teacher-training establishments.

52 See Byford, , “Between Literary Education and Academic Learning,” 648–651.

53 A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii.” RS no. 4 (1906): 173180.

54 Ol'denburg, F., “Mysli o postanovke prepodavaniia psikhologii v srednei shkole.” RS no. 10 (1906): 140160. Ol'denburg was one of the chief promoters of the use of literature in secondary-school psychology. For a more wide-ranging study of the Russian psychiatrists’ interest in literature see Irina Sirotkina, Diagnosing Literary Genius: A Cultural History of Psychiatry in Russia, 1880–1930 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).

55 A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii,” 173–75.

56 Konorov, M., “Otkrytie pedologicheskikh kursov.” Pedagogicheskii sbornik no. 12 (1904): 548553; I. M., “Pervoe publichnoe zasedanie Pedologicheskogo otdela imeni K. D. Ushinskogo.” VV no. 4 (1904): 109–115; I. M., “Pedologicheskie kursy.” Voprosy psikhologii, kriminal'noi antropologii i gipnotizma (hereafter VPKAG) 1905, no. 1: 58–62.

57 Petrov, O. V., “Psikhologicheskoe prosveshchenie v Samarskom krae v nachale XX stoletiia.” VP no. 1 (1998): 99107.

58 Solov'ev, I., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 9 (1910): 112.

59 Chelpanov, , “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” 138–39.

60 Trudy s.-peterburgskoi Pedagogicheskoi akademii, Vyp. I. Nachalo dela. Vozniknovenie Pedagogicheskoi akademii, obshchye osnovy ee organizatsii i pervye raboty slushatelei (St Petersburg, 1910). Trudy s.-peterburgskoi Pedagogicheskoi akademii, Vyp. II 1910–11/1911–12 (St Petersburg, 1913). Nechaev, A., “Pervye shagi Pedagogicheskoi Akademii.” Ezhegodnik experimental'noi pedagogiki (hereafter EEP) 3 (1910): 1021; R. G., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 5 (1914): 41–45.

61 A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii,” 175–76.

62 Kapterev, P. F., Pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia (St Petersburg, 1883). This was the 2nd edition; see also the 3rd updated edition, published in 1914.

63 One example would be Gobchanskii, I., Opytnaia psikhologiia v dvukh chastiakh. Sostavlennaia po noveishim istochnikam primenitel'no k programme po psikhologii dlia dukhovnykh seminarii (St Petersburg, 1898). See also critical reviews of this book: I. Zh., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” Pedagogicheskii sbornik no. 8, Chast’ neoffitsial'naia (1899): 153–55; “Nasha uchebnaia literatura.” ZhMNP no. 4, Otdel pedagogii (1900): 17–19; Serebrennikov, V., “Retsenzii i referaty.” VPKAG no. 7 (1904): 505–509.

64 Skvortsov, I. V., Filosoftkaia propedevtika, I, Psikhologiia (St Petersburg, 1906). Adamov, V., Uchebnik elementarnoi psikhologii (St Petersburg, 1906). Voskresenskii, A., Opyt filosofskoi propedevtiki. Ocherki psikhologii (Orel, 1906). Sagaradze, M. I., Filosfikaia propedevtika. Psikhologiia dlia muzhskikh gimnazii (Kutais, 1906). Vereshchagin, Iu., Uchebnik psikhologii dlia gimnazii i samoobrazovaniia (St Petersburg, 1907). Vereshchagin was better known as an author of articles and textbooks in school literary theory (teoriia slovesnosti).

65 On a report about related discussions in France at approximately this same time see E. D., “Novye dannye k voprosu o prepodavanii filosofii v srednikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Frantsii.” RS no. 4, Otdel eksperimental'noi pedagogiki (1909): 122130.

66 This was Russia's first conference in psychology more generally, although the vast majority of the audience was comprised of teachers. For more background on this and subsequent conferences see M. V. Sokolov, “Voprosy psikhologicheskoi teorii na russkikh s”ezdakh po pedagogicheskoi psikhologii. “VP no. 2 (1956): 822 and Sokolov, M. V., “Kritika metoda testov na russkikh s”ezdakh po eksperimental'noi pedogigke (1910–1916).” VP no. 6 (1956): 16–28; K. T., “K voprosu o prepodavanii filosofskoi propedevtiki.” RS no. 7–8 (1907): 226–236.

67 Ol'denburg, , “Mysli o postanovke prepodavaniia psikhologii v srednei shkole,” 140–160.

68 Ibid., 150.

69 For more details on Chelpanov see: Kozulin, Alex, “Georgy Chelpanov and the Establishment of the Moscow Institute of Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 21 (1985): 2332; Bogdanchikov, S. A., “Nauchno-organizatsionnaia deiatel'nost’ G. I. Chelpanova.” VP no. 2 (1998): 126–135; Nikol'skaia, A. A., “Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie vzgliady G. I. Chelpanova.” VP no. 1 (1994): 36–42.

70 Chelpanov, G., Uchebnik psikhologii (dlia gimnazii i samoobrazovaniia) (Kiev, 1906; 12th edition in 1915). See also the official review of this book for the Academic Committee of the Ministry of Education: Radlov, E., “Otzyvy o knigakh.” ZhMNP no. 10, Otdel I (1906): 204211.

71 Miloradovich, K., “Psikhologiia v srednei shkole.” ZhMNP no. 5, Sovremennaia letopis’ (1913): 112.

72 Chelpariov, , Uchebnik psikhologii, viii.

73 Neehaev, A., Uchebnik psikhologii dlia gimnazii (St Petersburg, 1906), 3. Nechaev's course was based on what he had taught at two private St Petersburg high schools, one male and one female, during the academic year 1905–06. This book also saw several editions, though from the second edition, published in 1907, it was renamed Uchebnik psikhologii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i samoobrazovaniia. See also reviews: R-tsev, N., “Kritib i bibliografiia.” RS no. 2 (1907): 16–17, and N. R., “Kritib i bibliografiia.” Pedagogicheskii sbornik no. 3, Chast’ neoffitsial'naia (1907): 259–260.

74 Nechaev, A. P., Ocherk psikhologii dlia vospitatelei i uchitelei (St Petersburg, 1903–08). Note that the 1st edition of Vol. 1 was published in 1903 and the 2nd in 1904, while the 1st edition of vol. 2 came out in 1908.

75 Konorov, M. I. and Nechaev, A. P., “Kollektsiia prosteishikh priborov dlia prepodavatelei psikhologii v srednikh shkolakh.” VPKAG no. 4 (1907): 195203, 195.

76 Rumiantsev, N., “Shkol'nyi psikhologicheskii kabinet.” RS no. 4, Otdel eksperimental'noi pedagogiki (1908): 147173; Dzh.Grin, A., “Eksperimental'noe issledovanie pedagogicheskikh problem v Rossii.” EEP 3 (1910): 1–9, 3–4.

77 Nechaev, A., Kak prepodavat’ psikhologiiu? Metodicheskie ukazaniia dlia uchitelei srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (St Petersburg, 1911).

78 See Rumiantsev, , “Shkol'nyi psikhologicheskii kabinet,” 147–173 and A. Feoktistov, “‘Psikhologicheskii khlam'.” EEP 2 (1909): 163–68.

79 For an example of such (ab)use see A. Feoktistov, “Ob odarennosti.” EEP 2 (1909): 115.

80 Chelpanov, G. I., “‘Nuzhny li psikhologicheskie laboratorii dlia samostoia-tel'nykh issledovanii pri srednikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh?, Neehaevu, Otvet A. P.VFP 100, Otdel II (1909): 811–14.

81 Megorskii, P. P., Pervyi Vserossiiskii s”ezd po pedagogicheskoi psikhologii (Petrozavodsk, 1906), 9.

82 Afanas'ev, P. O., “Vopros o psikhologii v srednei shkole na tret'em vserossiiskom s”ezde po eksperimental'noi pedagogike.” Pedagogicheskii vestnik Moskovskogo uchebnogo okruga no. 3–4 (1916): 3042, 38–39.

83 In 1910, around 33 schools had purchased the kits, although they were by no means all male high schools. See Grin, , “Eksperimental'noe issledovanie pedagogicheskikh problem v Rossii,” 3–5. For quibbles about which schools were actually using these kits and for what purpose, see Chelpanov, “Nuzhny li psikhologicheskie laboratorii?” 813.

84 Petrov, T., “Kvoprosu ob izuchenii psikhologii vsrednei shkole.” VV no. 8 (1914): 124144. Petrov taught at a female ecclesiastical school with the program specified by the Holy Synod rather than the Ministry of Education, but by this time they too used Chelpanov's and Nechaev's textbooks.

85 Ibid., 126.

86 See esp. Gorodenskii, I., Psikhologicheskaia khrestomatiia. Posobie pri izuchenii psikhologii v srednikh nchebnykh zavedeniiakh i dlia samoobrazovaniia (Tiflis, 1909). This was a huge publication of one thousand pages in four volumes. It contained extracts from Russian works on psychology and, especially, existing translations of foreign psychologists.

87 L. S., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 4 (1907): 18.

88 Kornilov, K. N., Rybnikov, N. A. and Smirnov, V. E., Prosteishie shkol'nye psikhologicheskie opyly dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (Moscow, 1916).

89 On this institute see Kozulin, , “Georgy Chelpanov and the Establishment of the Moscow Institute of Psychology” and Nikol'slsaia, A. A., “Osnovnye etapy razvitiia nauchnoi deiatel'nosti psikhologicheskogo instituta.” VP no. 2 (1994): 521.

90 See review of the above book by Kornilov, Rybnikov and Smirnov in RS no. 5–8, Otdel eksperimental'noi pedagogiki (1917): 105108, signed I. M.

91 On what follows see Smirnov, N., “O prepodavanii psikhologii.” VV no. 8 (1912): 109126.

92 Solov'ev, , “Kritika i bibliografiia,” 4. Chelpanov, “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” 127.

93 Chelpanov, , “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” 131.

94 Solov'ev, , “Kritika i bibliografiia,” 7. Selikhanovich, A., Filosofskaia propedevtika v srednei shkole. (Mysli i vpechatleniia uchitelia) (Kiev, 1913). Selikhanovich was a privatdotsent at Kiev University, although he simultaneously taught psychology in schools.

95 Zhdan, A. N., “Moskovskoe psikhologicheskoe obshchestvo (1885–1922).” VP no. 4 (1995): 8292, 87.

96 Blonskii, P. P., Rezul'taty ankety po voprosu o postanovke prepodavaniia psikhologii v srednei shkole (Moscow, 1910).

97 See Feoktistov, , “Psikhologicheskii khlam',” 163.

98 Miloradovich, , “Psikhologiia v srednei shkole,” 1–3.

99 Solov'ev, , “Kritib i bibliografiia,” 5.

100 Kvoprosu postanovki prepodavaniia filosofskoi propedevtiki v srednei skhole (Otchety po revizii gimnazii Rizhskogo Uchebnogo Okruga) (Iur'ev, 1911). See also Chelpanov, , “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” 131 and Miloradovich, “Psikhologiia v srednei shkole,” 1–12.

101 On what follows see Afanas'ev, , “Vopros o psikhologii v srednei shkole,” 30–42.

He is the author of Literary Scholarship in Late Imperial Russia: Rituals of Academic Institutionalization (Oxford: Legenda, 2007). He has published widely on Russian professions, academia and education, and has co-edited Making Education Soviet, 1917–1953 (special issue of History of Education 35/4–5). His more recent research has been on the “child study” (pedology) movement in late Imperial Russia (1881–1917). Research for this article was carried out under the auspices of the project “Childhood in Russia (1891–1991): A Social and Cultural History,” directed by Professor Catriona Kelly (New College, Oxford) and funded by The Leverhulme Trust (F/87306/A).

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Psychology at High School in Late Imperial Russia (1881–1917)

  • Andy Byford (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.