BUILDING RUSSIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ NATIONAL IDENTITY IN MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY (ANALYSIS OF MULTICULTURAL NATIONS’ EXPERIENCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Development of the pedagogical toolkit for building national identity of young generation has a special significance in terms of modern globalization processes that weaken the national unity and national identity of many countries. Present-day Russian multicultural society is in the search of a meaningful content of the new Russian identity, which is supposed to serve as the basis of the country. In this regard, it is of vital importance to consider the effective experience of national identity development in countries characterized by an extended multicultural structure. The aim of the article is to study, put together and critically assess productive international approaches, methods and technologies for building of university students’ national identity acceptable in the Russian higher education system. Methodology and research methods. The methodology is based on the personal identity theory, the concept of national identity, the theory of ethno-cultural and national stereotypes and the theory of intercultural interaction. To conduct an empirical study, a survey method (questionnaire) and the methodology of content analysis were applied. The research methods used in the study include comparative, historical, and contrastive methods. Results and scientific novelty. The concept «national identity» has no common interpretation because of complexity of the term and rather short history of its use in the Russian pedagogical studies; thus, the authors have clarified the definition. Structural and content-related components of the national identity of students have been stated: cognitive, emotional and behavioral, which correlate with national consciousness, national feelings and nationally-based behavior. Practical methods and technologies that ensure a balanced development of ethnocultural and national components of university students’ national identity have been revealed, systematized and structured: inclusive and activity-oriented approach (USA), inclusive-mosaic approach (Canada), inclusive and value-oriented approach (Australia). Both positive and negative elements are specified in the characteristics of these approaches. Essentially different axiological mental and spiritual values of Russia and West countries are emphasized. It is stated that the best positive foreign experience (e. g. education of an active citizenship, polycultural tolerance, abilities to protect own rights, to interact with representatives of various cultures avoiding conflicts, etc.) appears to be non-contradictory to the specifics of the Russian national system of values, and can become the material for the development of programmes and means selection for building of national identity of young people in the Russian higher education institutions. Practical significance. An integrated pedagogical complex mechanism for building the national identity of students in a multicultural society is revealed. It consists of appealing to the national consciousness, national feelings and the nationally-based behavioral components of national identity through the application of interactive and reflexive multicultural technologies. Interactive and reflexive multicultural technologies contain technologies aimed at transforming the content of education; technologies aimed at multicultural transformation of students’ personalities; technologies for modeling a multicultural environment. An illustrative list of indicators of national identity building as qualities of future experts is provided.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".