UDC [378.14:378.22](477)”18”
A.M. Tsapko
PECULIARITIES OF MASTER TRAINING ORGANISATION IN
UKRAINIAN UNIVERSITIES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
The article deals with the problem of Master training in Ukrainian
universities at the beginning of the nineteenth century; main regulations named
“Previous rules of public education” (dated 1803), “Kharkiv university statute”
(dated 1804) and “Regulations of academic degrees’ probation” (dated 1819)
according Master degree receivers’ training are found out; the specificity of
Master training organization within appointed chronology.
Key words: master, Master training, provisions, university statute,
organization, university.
Stating of the problem. Ukraine’s entry into the world educational
community, the intensive character of modern technological processes’
development, the interest of other countries to our’s – all together determine the
necessity of modernization, the renovation of all organizational units of
educational activity, especially of instructional and educational process according
the Bologna declaration ideas. The Bologna process it is the process of structural
reformations in national higher educational systems of European countries, it is the
changes in educational programs and in institutional transformations of higher
educational establishments [2]. Ukraine joined in the Bologna process in May of
2005. As a result, it was charged with the duty of determining the higher
educational reforms’ tendencies and limits.
One of main targets, having faced by Ukraine after the analysis of home
educational system on the background of European one, is the introduction of twodegree higher educational system [2]. The higher school transformation into the
degree educational system provides for renovating the content of professional
specialists’ training of all qualification levels, including masters ensuring dynamic
development of our country in the future. In those conditions, the formation of a
new qualitative system of professional Master training organization acquires great
significance. It needs a substantially new content, methods and forms of training,
the aim of which is the formation of a specialist being able not only to fulfill his/
her duties, but also to think professionally and creatively.
From contemporary points of view, one of the ways solving the stated
problem it is learning and reconsideration not only of the foreign experience
concerning Master training, but also of home higher school experience that wasn’t
just a simple reproduction of foreign practice, but took the lead of it at the
standards’ level.
Research and publication analysis. Many scientists have been dealing with
the problem of Master training at different historical levels, such as: L. Zelenska
enlightened the academic councils’ activity; O. Mykytyuk, O. Martynenko,
N. Puzyryova analyzed the research activity; S. Posohov, G. Schetynina,
E. Chernyak explored Ukraine’s higher educational formation and its development.
Currently, S. Vitvytska, M. Grynyova, V. Manko, L. Klih and others ascertained
the problems of Master training in their scientific and pedagogical works. But in
modern scientific space there is no work revealing the Master training organization
peculiarities in Ukrainian higher educational establishments providing higher
educational development at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The aim of the article is to expose the peculiarities of Master training
organization in Ukrainian universities at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The statement of main information. The beginning of the nineteenth
century became an extremely important stage in the history of higher education in
the Russian Empire and on the Ukrainian lands. It was characterized by the
succession of extensive reforms, particularly by the ministerial and financial
reforms of control authorities.
The educational sphere was also radically changed. The first years of the
new emperor Olexandr I reigning was already marked by the preparation to the
educational system changes that became a component of all the set of reforms that
epoch. In 1802 it was created the Ministry of public education to which Chief
department of colleges, Academy of sciences, universities, schools (excluding the
Empress Mary’s educational establishments and some other departments), printing
houses, libraries, archives, museums, newspaper and journal censorship. The
Ministry was charged with training and carrying out the reorganization of all
educational system elements. The adoption of “Previous rules of public education”
(dated 24th of January in 1803) was related to the formation of the Ministry of
public education. In such a way it was legislatively circumscribed the new
educational system of the Russian Empire with universities as the centers of
educational districts leadingly placed.
“University statute of the Russian Empire” and “Statute of educational
establishments within the universities’ jurisdiction” were signed by the Emperor in
1804. Per these documents it was envisaged the formation of well-organized
administration system following the pattern like “a parochial college – a district
college – high school – university”.
“Previous rules…” became a peculiar base assuring Emperor’s and
government’s intentions to create on the territory of the Ukrainian lands, included
in the Russian Empire, the high educational establishment as a scientific and
educational center of Kharkiv educational district named Kharkiv university
opened in 1805. The called university acted according “Statute” (dated 1804)
having regulated different ways of high school activity, especially of researchers’
attestation procedures and of probation period for an academic degree receiver [6,
p. 172].
They remarked that the formation of the academic degrees’ conferment laws
in the universities of the Russian Empire dated 1802 when the Emperor Olexandr I
signed “Act of establishing the Emperor university in Derpt” according to which “a
university on the model of a foreign one endows economic degrees or virtues but
conferred doctors enroll at the eighth form and masters do at ninth”. Further, in
university statutes it was formulated the general principles of academic attestation
in accordance with the legislative order [5, p. 200].
In Kharkiv university statute (dated 1804) it was particularly exposed the
Chapter IX named “Probation and introduction of university virtues” where the
requirements to scientific degree receivers were formulated [8]. Thus, the Master
degree conferment consisted of a few successive stages. Firstly, a receiver had to
present the petition and the certificate of a Candidate to the dean of a proper
department whereupon one who wished to become a Master was allowed to pass
required exams.
Hereupon the dean of the department, having the same academic grade as a
candidate intend to receive, tested people pretending to obtain a Master degree.
Master degree receivers had to be previously interviewed by the dean and by two
professors of assistance sciences. Public exams occurred in such a way: there was a
definite list of arranged questions on each science that had to be taught during
studying at the department. By casting of lots, a Master was asked two questions
that “had to be solved thoroughly and give an expanded response”. After that it
pursued the oral exam of other disciplines determined by examiners. Practice and
experience were added to that list. For example, receivers of academic degree on
the chemical department had to define a fraction of substance; receivers of the
medical department had to diagnose a sick and prescribe him her a treatment etc.
[8, p. 99-101].
Consequently, Master degree receivers had to know perfectly not only
disciplines thanks to which they intended to obtain a Master degree, but also socalled “assistance sciences”. They needed special pedagogical practice and
experience that were necessary for being a lecturer/ an instructor.
They noticed that the results of each exam were put into the journal with the
department targets, “which excerpts were transmitted to the University Council
that fixed the time of public thesis defense after having discussed the submitted
information. That thesis had to be written in Latin or in Russian in some individual
cases”.
Accomplished the called probation, a “Master virtue” receiver had to give
one public lecture after having been recommended by the department and
presented the thesis to be defended in the Department Council [8, p. 102].
A communiqué of the thesis defense in the Province journal and its sending
out to a great deal of addresses were obligatory.
They underlined that in accordance with general rules, a Master defense had
to occur in Latin. The defense might occur in Russian with the department’s
permission just in some cases, argued by science peculiarities. The procedure of
public thesis defense required speeches of three department professors as
opponents, except general consideration. Just after the called procedure the defense
results were presented to the University Counsel which conferred a Master degree.
If the thesis didn’t deserve an attention in accordance with the majority of
the department council’s members or a receiver didn’t show superficial knowledge
during the probation, he/ she was given an opportunity to be renewed in a year
[8, p. 103-107].
However, some statutes, regulating the procedure of an academic degree’s
conferment including a Master one, needed more qualification that caused to
approve “Regulations of academic degrees’ probation” in 1819 [7] consisting of
four sections and forty eight paragraphs. Thus, the second section of
“Regulations …” was devoted to the procedure of academic degrees’ conferment.
There was a list of sciences giving an opportunity to receive an academic degree
and the common order of their obtaining was established. They indicated that in
“Regulations …” it was consolidated the law of conferring another academic
degree called the degree of a full student. Further, universities could confer four
academic degrees as: a full student, a candidate, a master, a doctor.
The third section of “Regulations …” was concerned to the order of
probation realization which was substantially expanded and acquired an open
character. The terms of allowing to take the academic degree probation were
particularly determined too. Then, a claimant for a Master degree was allowed to
pass exams only in two years after having got the certificate of a Candidate.
They paid attention to the fact that all who wished to pass the academic
degree probation were allowed to do so, notwithstanding where they studied. But
this probation was obligatory for everybody.
They remarked that passing exams was an enough difficult stage in receiving
a Master degree. Thus, during the oral exam an academic degree’s receiver had to
give responses to a great deal of questions. A Master degree receiver had to defend
a thesis on the University Council. The defense was called the “consideration”.
Such a defense endured from 5 to 7 hours. The defense accomplished, the secret
voting held where all the department personnel took place during the defense. The
decision of a Master degree conferment to a receiver was done by the majority of
votes.
The excerpts of the special journal were transmitted to the University
Council. The last trough the defensor notified the probation results, the conclusion
with the valuation of receiver’s knowledge and the decree to the Minister of inner
affaires and of public education. In case of approving the University Council
resolution of a Master degree’s conferment to a receiver it was issued an
appropriate certificate.
In case of refusing to confer a Master degree, a receiver had the right to be
probated twice in a year and followed new probations. After a thrice repeated
refusal, the one who wished to receive an academic degree wouldn’t be more
allowed to pass exams. All the universities of the Russian Empire were informed
about that [7].
Conclusions. Thus, the made research provides the evidence for confirming
the fact that the question of Master training in Ukrainian universities at the first
quarter of the nineteenth century were regulated by such documents as: “Previous
rules of public education” (dated 1803), “Kharkiv university statute” (dated 1804)
and “Regulations of academic degrees’ probation” (dated 1819). The analysis of
normative and legislative acts allowed to distinguish the requirements to a Master
degree receiver like: a receiver had to present the petition and the certificate of a
Candidate to the dean of a proper department; to be previously interviewed by the
dean and two professors of assistance sciences; to pass exams and give a public
lecture; to defend a thesis.
Among the perspective thematics, the learning of normative and legislative
documents of the higher educational questions regulating the procedure of a Master
degree conferment in the second middle of the nineteenth century needs further
scientific and pedagogical research of the problem in the given tendency.
REFERENCES TRANSLATED AND TRANSLATERATED
1.
Bagalej D.I. Kratkij ocherk istorii Kharkovskogo universiteta za
pervye sto let ego suschestvovaniya (1805-1905), sostavlennyj professorami
D.I. Bagaleem, N.F. Sumtsovym, V.P. Buzeskulom [Brief historical profile of
Kharkov university for the first one hundred years of its existence (1805-1905),
composed by D.I. Bagalej, N.F. Sumtsov, V.P. Buzeskul.] / D.I. Bagalej,
N.F. Sumtsov, V.P. Buzeskul. – Kh.: Tip. A. Darre, 1996. – 329 p.
2.
Batechko N.G., Luzan P.G. Perspektyvy vprovadzhennya kredytnomodulnoi systemy navchannya [Perspectives of introduction of credit and module
educational system] / N.G. Batechko, P.G. Luzan // Teoriya ta metodyka
navchannya fundamentalnyh dystsyplin u vyschij shkoli: zb. nauk. pr. – Kryvyj
Rig: Vydav. viddil NMetAU. – 2004. – P. 26-31.
3.
Vitvytska S.S. Systemno-istorychnyj analiz stanovlennya magistratury
v Ukraini ta Rosii [System and historical analysis of magistracy introduction in
Ukraine and Russia] / S.S. Vitvytska. – Visnyk Zhytomyrskogo derzh. un-tu imeni
Ivana Franka. – 2005. – № 25. – P. 249-250.
4.
Vorobyov V.A. K istorii nashyh universitetskih Ustavov [To the
history of our university Statutes] / V.A. Vorobyov // Russkaya mysl. – 1905. – №
12. – P.1-10.
5.
Zelenska L.D. Uchena rada universytetu: istoriya, teoriya, dosvid:
monographiya [Academic council of the university: history, theory, experience:
monograph] / L.D. Zelenska; Khark. nats. ped. un-t imeni G. S. Skovorody. – Kh.:
KhNADU, 2011. – 480 p.
6.
Mykytyuk O.M. Stanovlennya ta rozvytok naukovo-doslidnoi roboty
u vyschyh pedagogichnyh zakladah Ukrainy (istoryko-pedagogichnyj aspekt)
[Introduction and development of scientific and research work in Ukrainian higher
pedagogical establishments (historical and pedagogical aspect)] / O.M. Mykytyuk,
Khark. derzh. ped. un-t imeni G. S. Skovorody. – 2-e vyd., vypr. i dop. – Kharkiv:
“OVS”, 2003. – 272 p.
7.
O proizvodstve v uchenye stepeni na osnovanii polozheniya o semyi,
12 yanvarya 1819 g. [About production of scientific degrees based on family,
dated 12th January 1819] // Sbornik postanovlenij po Ministerstvu narodnogo
prosvescheniya. – SPb, 1875. – T. 1: (1802-1825). – P. 1247-1258.
8.
Ustav Kharkovskogo Imperatorskogo universiteta 1804 [Statute of
Kharkov Imperial university dated 1804] // Periodicheskie sochineniya ob uspehah
narodnogo prosvescheniya. – 1805. – № 10. – P. 225-285.