CC BY
40
Principle of Individual Approach to Pupils in Oeuvre of the Ukrainian Teacher Yakiv Chepiha (1875-1938)
Section 6. History of Education
Berezivska Larysa Dmytrivna, the Head of V. O. Sukhomlynskyi State Scientific and Pedagogical Library of Ukraine, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor E-mail: usip-berezivska@mail.ru
Principle of Individual Approach to Pupils in Oeuvre of the Ukrainian Teacher Yakiv Chepiha (1875-1938)
Abstract: The article deals with the ideas of the famous Ukrainian teacher, psychologist and public figure Y. Chepiha (1875-1938) about the individual approach towards a child in connection with other principles of school education. These ideas are topical in the course of the development of person-oriented educational system in Ukraine.
Keywords: Y. Chepiha, school education, individual approach towards pupils, Ukrainian pedagogical idea.
Proclamation of Ukrainian independence influenced state-building and intensive reform of educational system taking into consideration European standards; that is why Pedagogics pays great attention to searching for new forms of educational process organization which have to take into account various mental abilities, bents and interests of pupils. Taking into account this fact the ideas of famous teachers of the past are popular nowadays. Socio-political changes in Ukraine at the beginning of 1990s gave an opportunity to study the works of those teachers whose life and activities were unknown to people during Soviet period. Yakiv Feofanovych Chepiha (1875-1938) is one of such teachers. The ideas of a prominent teacher, psychologist and public figure influenced greatly the development of pedagogical science of Ukraine. Now his name has been returned to the scientific space. However, he was a famous teacher in Ukraine as well as abroad.
Historiographical review shows that various aspects of Y. Chepiha’s scientific and pedagogical works and his life were studied by contemporary scholars (L. Berezivska, I. Zaichenko, V Marochko,
O. Sukhomlynska etc.). Y. Chepiha’s pedagogical ideas and educational activities are described in some dissertations (L. Nikolenko, 2000; O. Shcherbakova,
2009; N. Bohdanets-Biloskalenko, 2015). The aim of our article is to reveal Y. Chepiha’s ideas concerning individual approach towards a child in connection with other principles of school education.
No doubt, Y. Chepiha’s works are very important and it is necessary to study them more. He prepared more than 150 works. Being a teacher as well as a scientist he studied the problems of Pedology, theory of teaching and education of young learners in particular, methods of teaching some subjects and history of education. He prepared textbooks for primary schools and adult education, teachers’ guides, books for pre-school education, children’s libraries etc.
We shall pay attention to Y. Chepiha’s ideas who had to live and work during the period of different socio-political conditions (the Empire period, the Ukrainian revolution period, the Soviet period). We shall analyse those ideas which are connected with an individual approach towards pupils.
Y. Chepiha, the famous Ukrainian teacher, psychologist and public figure, sharply criticized the Royal school system in his article “Socialization of popular schooling” (1917): “There is coercion, disregard towards natural and legal demands, darkness prevails everywhere. There was no popular schooling as well as public schools. There were just
35
Section 6. History of Education
public houses where formal programs were used and bureaucratic clerks, who were not bothered with child’s feelings and people’s right to education, worked” [4, 146]. He developed this idea in his article “Obsolete school forms and new socialist labour school-commune” (1919); he characterized negatively “the class and imperialist policy” of tsarism, which “turned a school into hell, where people’s soul was boiled in landowner-bourgeois and patriot-oriented kettle; and pupils were not treated as individuals and many-sided personalities, they were treated as if they were of the same appearance and height” [1, 206-207]. Y. Chepiha expressed an opinion that “the Russian-Ukrainian revolution» (let us assume that he meant the October Russian revolution of 1917 and the Ukrainian revolution (March 1917 — April 1918) ruined “the house of cards of scholastic school”, and “equality, brotherhood, public work were introduced into schools and the attention was paid to a child’s life” [1, 208]. According to the teacher’s idea the new school system should not cultivate class principle; it should develop the nature of a child with all his habits and instincts” [1, 207].
The analysis of Y. Chepiha’s works indicates that he considered the individual approach to a child in connection with other principles of school education, without which it was impossible to realize this approach. In general, Y. Chepiha, describing school education as a class one during the period of tsarism (division of education for poor and rich people), argued that all social classes should be educated and education should be compulsory [4, 147]. He was against class differentiation [7, 134].
Y. Chepiha considered free primary and secondary education (studying, textbooks and meals) to be the main principle of school education because the individualization of education depends directly on it. School education should not depend on the parents’ income [4, 148-149]. Arguing for the principle of a secular school education, the teacher assured that “freedom of conscience gives parents the right to bring up their children according to the religion they practice”, i. e. he suggested a differentiation approach for the realization of this principle [4, 151]. Y. Chepiha interpreted the principle of nationalization of school education as
an equal right of all nationalities to be educated in their native language.
Y. Chepiha defined some drawbacks of tsarism scholastic school (“it was inactive and passive, routine and conservative one”); the biggest drawback lies in the fact that such kind of school was “indifferent to the individuality of a child”. That is why the teacher considered the school should be based on labor principle, i. e. “a child should study while working and work while studying” and therefore the school needs new forms, methods and techniques [3, 168-170].
Y. Chepiha developed the idea of free school (i. e. “combination of education and nature of a child”) in the Teachers’ brochure called “Free school, its ideas and their practical realization” (1918). He argued for “taking into consideration the individual intellectual bents of a child” for the benefit of his moral development, because “childhood is the most productive period for specific ideas and for the preparation of assimilations using given facts” [2, 156-157]. He was convinced favourable conditions for the realization of “children’s bents and desires” should be created at schools, and that is why pupils “should choose those subjects they like best of all among those they are offered by teachers” [2, 158]. This fact affirms that the teacher grounded pupils should be educated taking into account their individual abilities and interests.
It is significant that the teacher studied foreign experience thoroughly. Thus, analysing teaching experience of Western Europe and America, school in Bierges A. Faria (Belgium) in particular, Y. Chepiha pointed out positive aspects of school activities. The school programme was based on “the mental development of a child”, its “needs, desires and interests” [5, 189]. One of the interesting forms of realization of an individual approach to a child was moving class, i. e. division of pupils according to their abilities and knowledge. One and the same pupil was able to attend different forms depending on the subjects. For example, he was able to attend the French lessons in the 6th form, the English lessons in the 5th form, arithmetic in the 4th form. It is important that the school programme was not fixed and could be changed. The pupils studied according to trimester system, i. e. they studied definite subjects during appropriate season. For
36
Principle of Individual Approach to Pupils in Oeuvre of the Ukrainian Teacher Yakiv Chepiha (1875-1938)
example, pupils were taught Zoology and Botany in spring and summer.
As Y. Chepiha wrote, general education at school was adapted to individual abilities and needs of a child, and they were taught professional specialization from a certain age. Pupils and subjects were divided into four categories: preparatory group (children aged 7-10 years), general group (children aged 11-14 years), senior group (pupils aged 1517 years), special group (pupils aged 17-19 years). It is interesting that the age criterion was relative and was changed depending on the abilities [5, 190]. Lectures differed from the traditional ones: they were given in different places and had to demonstrate the result of individual efforts of pupils and collective work with a teacher (joint plan; collection of factual
material by means of observation, experiments,
verification etc.; a written presentation of material). Teachers used active training methods (preparing and reading essays by pupils for other pupils and parents, the organization of excursions by responsible pupils). Grade system was also built on an individual approach: academic achievements of pupils and their participation in public life were assessed every three months by teachers, the pupil himself and his schoolmates; point assessment was used in order to compare the pupil’s results with his own previous results. Y. Chepiha noted, that a class register contained points and “numerous psychophysical observations concerning child’s abilities, handwork, moral and mental qualities, subjects, the causes of backwardness or great success etc.” [5, 191]. Taking into consideration this, the teacher paid attention to the necessity of “fair assessment of child’s abilities” while comparing assessment system in Imperial Russian and Belgian schools.
On the basis of analysis of A. Faria school activities Y. Chepiha pointed out ideas popular for school education of those days: connection between school and environment, coeducation, free and creative training of children at school without force, creative activities of teachers, interests of a child are of primary importance in the cause of educational process [6, 199]. In our opinion, this fact indicates that this is Y. Chepiha who showed many teachers the experience of educational process on the basis of 1) external (within a school) differentiation according to the following criteria: ability to study (arranging of students into classes according to abilities), planning of profession orientation in adult life (professional specialization according to groups at the fourth stage of studying) and 2) internal (within a class) differentiation according to the level of learning (doing tasks of different complexity individually or collectively, a particular teacher’s help etc.).
Thus, the analysis ofY. Chepiha’s works showed that he started working at the new humanistic model of school education at the beginning of the 20th century; according to which the individual approach to a child should be a central one among other principles. The individual approach helped to study and discover bents, abilities and interests of each child in the process of different activities. The teacher considered this approach to be an integral basis of educational process at school. Y. Chepiha’s ideas are important nowadays in the cause of the development of person-oriented educational system in Ukraine. We have not presented all aspects of the mentioned problem in our article; therefore the comparison of Ukrainian teachers’ ideas of that period concerning individualization of teaching should be made. We shall write about it in our further publications.
References:
1. Чешга Я. Ф. Bfa^uAi форми старо!' школи й нова трудова сощалйстична школа-комуна/Чешга (Зе-ленкевич) Я. Ф. Вибраш педагопчш твори: навч. поаб./упоряд., наук. ред. Л. Д. Березiвська//Iн-т педагопки АПН Украши. -Х.: ОВС, 2006. -328 с. -С. 206-208.
2. Чешга Я. Ф. ВАьна школа, i! Це! й здшснення ix у практищ//Там само. -С. 156-158.
3. Чешга Я. Ф. До трудово! вАьно! школи!//Там само. -С. 167-172.
4. Чешга Я. Ф. Сощамзащя народно! освгги//Там само. -С. 146-155.
5. Четга Я. Школа в Зах1днш бврот й Америщ. Нова школа в Б’ерж А. Фарiя. (Бельпя)/Четга Я.//В1лъна укра!нська школа (ВУШ). -1918-1919. -№ 1-3. -С. 184-191.
37
Section 6. History of Education
6. 4enira Я. Школа в Зах1днш бврош й Америцк Нова школа в Б ерж А. Фарiя. (Бельпя)/Чешга Я.//ВУШ. -1918-1919. - № 4-5. - С. 191-199.
7. Чешга Я. Школа й освгга на Вкра!ш/Я. Чeпiгa//ВУШ. - 1918-1919. - № 8-9.- С. 132-143.
38
