Alexey A. Yakuta

The aim of the article is to carry out the analysis of the three unpublished critical reviews by A. K. Timiryazev professor of MSU Faculty of Physics. The above-mentioned reviews were discovered by the author of the article and are being introduced to the scientific discourse. The Course of Physics by professor V. A. Mikhelson, revised by a group of the leading physicists from the Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Science, and the textbook “Mechanics” by S. A. Khaykin professor of MSU Faculty of Physics is the subject matter of all the three reviews. The author of the articles gives a brief overview of each review. A close study of those critical reviews enabled the author to conclude that A. K. Timiryazev claimed that those scientists promoted and popularized idealism in Physics. Professor A. K. Timiryazev announced that the course of General Physics should be presented from the point of view of dialectical materialism, though he himself inclined to Mechanism. The author of the article attempted to answer the question why these reviews had never been published in the long run. To find an answer to this question the author suggests that it is necessary to treat A. K. Timiryazev criticism as an instance of rivalry between “university” and “academic” groups of physicists in 1930‑s – 1950‑s of XX century which strived for dominance. This rivalry took place not only at a purely scientific level, but also manifested itself in the issue of the contents of textbooks in General Physics..

Background. A comprehensive study of the nature and results of the pedagogical activity of Professor of Physics N.A. Umov at the Imperial Moscow University (IMU) in 1893–1911 is necessary to ensure the possibility of recreating a holistic picture of the history of development of physics teaching at Moscow University.

Objective. The goal is to characterize various aspects and to identify the main results of N.A. Umov's pedagogical activity during his service at the IMU.

Methods. General theoretical methods (analysis and synthesis, generalization and systematization) and historical methods (studying diverse historical and pedagogical sources, historical-genetic and biographical) were used to conduct the research.

Results. Three main aspects of N.A. Umov's pedagogical activity at IMU have been identified. 1) Teaching an experimental (general) physics course. 2) Management of the design, arrangement and equipment of educational devices for the new building of the IMU Physics Institute. 3) Participation in the processes of modernization and reform of the physical education system in Russian secondary school, including the education of future teachers and researchers. For the first time, the educational and methodological materials used by N.A. Umov to support teaching experimental physics at the IMU was analyzed. The relevance of conducting research on the influence of N.A. Umov's pedagogical ideas on the initial stage of the formation of the national scientific school of physics teaching methods in secondary school was noted. A number of previously unpublished photographic documents have been introduced into scientific circulation.

Conclusions. N.A. Umov was a follower of the pedagogical traditions founded by A.G. Stoletov. Guided by the programme he proposed, N.A. Umov created an original richly illustrated textbook on experimental physics. In the process of lecturing, he developed a visual method of teaching physics at IMU, for which he actively used demonstration experiments, a number of which he himself developed and implemented into pedagogical practice. N.A. Umov played a leading role in the creation of the physical Institute at IMU and in its establishment as the largest center of Russian physical education of that period. The activity of N.A. Umov, aimed at improving school physical education, had a significant impact on the formation of methods of teaching physics in secondary schools in our country as an independent branch of pedagogical science.