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.Google Scholar

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): 637–660. 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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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): 93–107, 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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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

⁷ Joravsky, , Russian Psychology, 109.Google Scholar

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): 113–139; 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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

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').Google Scholar

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

¹⁵ Zenchenko, S., “I podniatie polozheniia prepodavatelia srednei shkoly i spetsial'naia ego podgotovka. (Otvet professoru R. Viocera).” VV no. 8 (1898): 83–103, 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.Google Scholar

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

¹⁷ Rokov, G., “O pedagogicheskoi professii i ee predstaviteliakh.” VV no. 1 (1897): 79–118, 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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).Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

²⁵ Ibid., 100–101.Google Scholar

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

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

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

²⁹ Ibid., 267–68.Google Scholar

³⁰ On Nechaev see, for example, Romanov, A. A., Opytno-eksperimental'naia pedagogika pervoi treti XX veka (Moscow: Shkola, 1997), 10–138, 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.Google Scholar

³¹ Nechaev, A., “O postanovke prepodavaniia pedagogiki v zhenskikh gimnaziiakh.” RS no. 1 (1899): 145–163.Google Scholar

³² Ibid., 146.Google Scholar

³³ Ibad., 148.Google Scholar

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

³⁵ Ibid.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., 150–51.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 152–163.Google Scholar

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

⁴¹ Ibid., 3.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

⁴⁶ A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii.” RS no. 4 (1906): 173–180. The author, a teacher of psychology, described the term filosofskaia propedevtika—meaning “a preparatory course in philosophy”—as a “clumsy title” (neukliuzhee naimenovanie).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Chelpanov, G. I., “Mesto li psikhologii v srednei shkole?,” in Sbornik statei. Psikholoriia i shkola (Moscow, 1912), 127–139, 127.Google Scholar

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), 176–182.Google Scholar

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), 33–44 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

⁵³ A. K., “K voprosu o prepodavanii psikhologii.” RS no. 4 (1906): 173–180.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ol'denburg, F., “Mysli o postanovke prepodavaniia psikhologii v srednei shkole.” RS no. 10 (1906): 140–160. 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).Google Scholar

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

⁵⁶ Konorov, M., “Otkrytie pedologicheskikh kursov.” Pedagogicheskii sbornik no. 12 (1904): 548–553; 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.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Petrov, O. V., “Psikhologicheskoe prosveshchenie v Samarskom krae v nachale XX stoletiia.” VP no. 1 (1998): 99–107.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Solov'ev, I., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 9 (1910): 1–12.Google Scholar

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

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): 10–21; R. G., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 5 (1914): 41–45.Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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): 122–130.Google Scholar

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): 8–22 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.Google Scholar

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

⁶⁸ Ibid., 150.Google Scholar

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): 23–32; 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.Google Scholar

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): 204–211.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Miloradovich, K., “Psikhologiia v srednei shkole.” ZhMNP no. 5, Sovremennaia letopis’ (1913): 1–12.Google Scholar

⁷² Chelpariov, , Uchebnik psikhologii, viii.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Konorov, M. I. and Nechaev, A. P., “Kollektsiia prosteishikh priborov dlia prepodavatelei psikhologii v srednikh shkolakh.” VPKAG no. 4 (1907): 195–203, 195.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Rumiantsev, N., “Shkol'nyi psikhologicheskii kabinet.” RS no. 4, Otdel eksperimental'noi pedagogiki (1908): 147–173; Dzh.Grin, A., “Eksperimental'noe issledovanie pedagogicheskikh problem v Rossii.” EEP 3 (1910): 1–9, 3–4.Google Scholar

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

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

⁷⁹ For an example of such (ab)use see A. Feoktistov, “Ob odarennosti.” EEP 2 (1909): 1–15.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

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): 30–42, 38–39.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Petrov, T., “Kvoprosu ob izuchenii psikhologii vsrednei shkole.” VV no. 8 (1914): 124–144. 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.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., 126.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ L. S., “Kritika i bibliografiia.” VV no. 4 (1907): 1–8.Google Scholar

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

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): 5–21.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See review of the above book by Kornilov, Rybnikov and Smirnov in RS no. 5–8, Otdel eksperimental'noi pedagogiki (1917): 105–108, signed I. M.Google Scholar

⁹¹ On what follows see Smirnov, N., “O prepodavanii psikhologii.” VV no. 8 (1912): 109–126.Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Zhdan, A. N., “Moskovskoe psikhologicheskoe obshchestvo (1885–1922).” VP no. 4 (1995): 82–92, 87.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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