The Teaching of History in Contemporary Russia: Trends and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching of History in Contemporary Russia: Trends and Perspectives. Edited by Vera Kaplan, Pinchas Agmon, and Liubov Ermolaeva. (The Cummings Center for Russian and East European Studies: Tel-Aviv University, 1999). 270 pp. Introduction. Notes on contributors. This collection, comprising fourteen articles, is result of an international conference that was held in St. Petersburg, in October 1997, and organized by Cummings Center for Russian and East European Studies at Tel-Aviv University in cooperation with Herzen State Pedagogical University of Twelve of contributions are written in Russian. One of them begins with words of historical education in Russia. theme of crisis and of a painful transitional period is sure to accompany reader throughout this collection. Leaving behind outworn slogans, illusions, and doubts, Russian scholars are eager to write and teach history in a way. contributors to collection are passionate about their subject; they share conviction that, by teaching they mould future of In Introduction Very Kaplan elegantly reviews collection's articles. She stresses that common point of departure for authors was role of ideology in teaching of history (p. 1). first article, The Study of History Teaching in Contemporary Russia: Background, Trends, and Challenges by Pinchas Agmon, acquaints reader with recent changes in Russian educational system. He discusses reform of education in conjunction with new popular interest in past, which had been unleashed by perestroika. His article helps one understand how and why teaching of history has become core of Russia's educational reform. Shocking revelations and shattered myths have made old history textbooks superfluous-so much so, in fact, that in 1988 history exams were disqualified (p. 15). New historical narratives were urgently needed. A.P. Shevyrev begins his article Tendencies and Perspectives of Advancement of Historical Educational Literature in Russia with reminiscences of 1988 when he was part of a group seeking to elaborate a concept of history teaching. When project was finished in 1989, group's recommendations --such as the humanization of history, by which was meant emancipation of history from dictatorship of ideology-could not be openly stated. At that stage, concept of competing alternative textbooks seemed so radical that even authors themselves did not believe that their ideas could be implemented. But, in approximately three years, what authors had dreamt about, and more, came true. Looking back on sweeping changes, which did not always exactly follow projects, Shevyrev casts some doubt on their depth and radicalism. Yes, alternative textbooks exist, but not many schools can buy them because of financial difficulties. Yes, Marxist methodology was rejected but many conceptual problems remain. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".