Features of the modern pedagogical process of forming the national identity of students

The article discusses current issues of the formation of national identity in higher education. At the same time, the pedagogical problems of national identity in a multi-ethnic social environment will be affected. One of the pedagogical goals is the definition of a multilingual environment, the definition of real historical and sociocultural conditions, places and prospects in society, as well as a description of the various ways of its further development. The analysis of work abroad with the developed multicultural environment is carried out, their possibilities are considered. Also, analyzing the work of teachers-innovators, it turned out that due to the unity of the family and society at the intersection of multinational culture, the development of multicultural education was given an impetus. In this regard, mainly studied the social situation and life of various ethnic groups surrounding students. The results of the work were transferred to higher education institutions, then introduced into the educational process of colleges. In turn, it is said that the student can influence the increase of the concepts of multiculturalism, as well as positively influence the change of existing extremist views.

Introduction

Considering the process of formation of national identity in a multicultural Kazakhstani society, it is necessary to determine the signs according to which we can call a particular society multicultural and distinguish between the specifics of the formation of national identity in a monocultural (or homogeneous) and multicultural (or heterogeneous) environment.

There is an opinion that in order to determine the subjects of education in a multinational society, it is first necessary to take into account ethnicity, since the essence of the pedagogical problem of a multicultural society is to comprehend the cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the environment [1].

However, a number of foreign scholars (Davis H., Hoy A., Fullerton J., Futrell Mary H., Papay J., Shrestha L. B., Westa M.) interpret multiculturalism in relation to a wider range of groups and subcultures, including indigenous people and visitors; women, children, adolescents, the elderly; representatives of different social strata of society, various religious movements and political points of view; participants in military conflicts and war veterans; people with different physical and mental capabilities [2].

This classification is based on regulatory documents adopted in the USA — Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, provisions on age discrimination in the Employment Act of 1967, Act of Persons with Disabilities 1990, and Rehabilitation Act 1973 [3].

The signs of multiculturalism are divided into explicit (race, ethnicity, language, gender) and implicit (for example, health characteristics, religious beliefs) and value (classifying oneself as a group, worldview) [4].

We cannot but agree with the opinion of scientists who believe that the excessive expansion of the signs of multiculturalism takes away from the main pedagogical tasks, and at the same time we believe that the educational process needs to take into account both explicit (ethnicity, language, gender, age), so and implicit personality characteristics (e.g., particulars of health, family upbringing, value orientations, consequences of injuries), because without taking into account these implicit characteristics, it is difficult for a teacher to find a common language with students and include them in a full percentage ess learning.

Main part

On the one hand, due to the presence of various ethno cultural values and ideas of the participants (for example, the synergy of Eastern and Western styles of solving problem situations), their personal life experiences, a multicultural society contains significant educational potential. On the other hand, it presents additional difficulties for the teacher, because on the basis of ethno cultural and sociocultural differences a conflict of identities is possible, the transfer of negative attitudes from one representative to the entire ethnocultural community, disappointment in oneself and others, loss of desire to learn. Since a multicultural society does not in itself serve to form a tolerant attitude towards representatives of other cultures or the ability to participate in intercultural dialogue, it is necessary to build a multicultural educational environment in it.

A multicultural environment is distinguished from an uncontrolled heterogeneous society by the presence of pedagogical goals, in the process of achieving which there is a unification of the subjects of society through the targeted application of the principles, methods and technologies of multicultural education. We believe that the main characteristic of a purposefully created multicultural environment is its ability to transform a heterogeneous society into a resource for achieving academic results and personal development of students.

The pedagogical goals of a multicultural environment are determined depending on the specific historical and sociocultural situation, the state of society and the prospects for its further development.

An analysis of the work on the range of issues of interest allows us to conclude that multicultural pedagogy in the countries of Australia, Canada and the USA in the 21st century has the following educational goals:

  •  providing equal prerequisites for obtaining a quality education by all students regardless of their racial, ethnic, religious affiliation, language, gender, social status, physical and intellectual characteristics;
  •  the formation of a civic identity uniting an ethnically diverse society into a cohesive nation;
  •  education of interest in life, cultures, as well as the problems of other nations; the formation of inter- cultural competence as the ability to successfully live and interact with people in a culturally heterogeneous society.

The above goals are realized in accordance with general democratic principles, namely:

 orientation to the well-being of all representatives of society, the development of a sense of duty towards members of their social group, responsibility in making decisions, respect for everyone's personality, regardless of their origin, social status or natural data, providing opportunities and conditions for the development of the natural inclinations of the person, equality appeals from those with authority, ensuring freedom of access to information, the right to independent judgment, freedom of speech and press, constructive criticism and making proposals for the betterment of society, respect for minority rights, subject to the rules adopted by the company [5].

We believe that with the purposeful organization of the upbringing of Russian students in a multicultural society, one can focus on the generally accepted ideals of democracy, but they require interpretation in relation to Russian conditions as follows: taking into account the interests of all participants in multicultural education, fostering a sense of duty and responsibility towards one's group (student group, university environment, region of the country, national community), the formation of active interaction with the teacher in the process of multicultural education and willingness to sacrifice psychological comfort for the common good, responsibility for one's words and deeds to the group and teacher, development of ethnocultural, social and personal characteristics of each for the development of the group as a whole, encouraging students' initiatives in the educational process, the right to receive objective information, the right all members of multiculturalgroups for constructive criticism and in making proposals to improve the educational process, following the ideals of honesty, justice, and science. In order to identify how the multicultural education systems of Australia, Canada and the United States respond to global challenges of our time, we will consider them from the point of view of historical retrospective and current status.

For the first time, such innovative teachers as H. Taba, R. Dubois, J. Granrud, L. Covelli started talking about the need to transform society by changing educational policies in the USA in the 1920s [6].

The activity of L. Covelli, an Italian by origin, is one of the striking examples of pedagogical asceticism. In 1934, L. Covelli was appointed director of the B. Franklin School in South Harlem, New York, where mostly immigrant children from low-income and disadvantaged families studied.

In 1920–1940, the population of East Harlem was extremely heterogeneous: Italians, African- Americans, Jews, Irish, British, Slavs, Scandinavians, Greeks and white Americans. More and more new immigrants who did not understand each other's language, were hostile to other ethnic groups, did not speak English well and were not competitive in the local labor market, populated a huge area. They were doomed to low-paying jobs, low social status and minimal inculturation in American society. L. Covelli understood that if the children of these immigrants were not encouraged to adapt to the new society, then soon they would join the ranks of the unemployed or criminal groups.

On the basis of the secondary school, free English language courses and discussion clubs were organized where it was possible to speak both native and English. The multicultural content of the educational program was compiled, which became the prototype of courses and training modules in schools and universities in Australia, Canada, and the USA in the 1970–80s. It included such subjects as «The Contribution of Italian Scientists to Chemistry and Physics», «German Scientists and the Development of Science», «Jew- ish Conductors in American Art», «Poles and Their Contribution to American Agriculture», «Japanese Art of Ikebans». The new content of academic disciplines took into account the ethnocultural heterogeneity of the nation, considering the contribution to its development as a single community of each of the ethnic groups represented. Ahead of the formation of theoretical knowledge about the structure of personality, its cognitive, affective and socio-behavioral components, L. Covelli instructed teachers on the need to educate students at three levels: intellectual, emotional and situational (activity).

The intellectual level of development involved reading and discussion by students of materials about their own and other cultures, their role in world civilization. The emotional level included meetings with invited lecturers — prominent representatives of other cultures, round tables and discussions. At a situational level, meetings were organized in an informal setting with student communities outside the school, and important problems were discussed for them.

For school teachers, courses were organized to study the languages of migrants, their history, culture and traditions for more successful work with children and their families. The school has become the center of a large community, providing students with free lunches, money to travel from home to school, clothes, shoes and other necessary things. L. Covelli and his supporters used the financial support of the government, private sponsors and philanthropists, however, in the 1920–1940s, the ideas of nativism prevailed in the society, replaced by the ideas of assimilation, and multicultural education began to meet resistance from both the city authorities and ordinary citizens.

Teachers turned to religious and public youth organizations with proposals for cooperation and assistance in the social life of migrants. Together, they opposed the influence of fascism, which was gaining popularity in Europe and North America, racism and the activities of racist organizations, which received the tacit approval of the majority of Americans (Ku Klux Klan), and opposed interethnic tension, complicated by political decisions of the country's leadership (e.g., the placement of all Japanese in concentration camps) and the growing disunity of the nation.

Teachers and public figures had to act as psychologists and social workers, visit families, convince parents the need to learn English and American culture, and attend additional classes for their children. They also solved the problems of discipline of adolescents and other important issues. However, not all parents welcomed the intervention of teachers in the social life of families. Stereotypes and prejudices of older generations of migrants were reflected in the upbringing of children and youth. Enlightened work with migrant families was required. To this end, free classes were organized in evening schools, where adults were taught English, labor training (cooking, sewing) the basics of civic education, social disciplines (American history, cultural studies, etc.) [7].

One of the goals of the evening school was to bring together representatives of different ethnic groups in the process of working in joint projects so that they could revise their stereotypes and prejudices. Communication in everyday life between the diasporas of migrants at that time was not accepted and the school served as the only place for people to unite. There weren't enough teachers and especially school teachers had to work from eight in the morning until late in the evening, when evening courses for adults ended.

Gradually, the scope of multicultural education expanded, which was facilitated by the activities of the New York City Intercultural Service Bureau, the City Center for Intercultural Education, and municipal education committees, whose role was to issue educational and educational literature, and to organize seminars and courses for teachers nationwide. The first national seminar on the preparation of «multicultural» teachers was held in 1951, twenty-four colleges and universities from all over the country attended. In the direction of large-scale retraining and training of teachers, R. Benedict, D. Dubois and others worked. The ascetics of multicultural education took tens of years for its mass dissemination, ideological substantiation and methodological support. The experience gained by the school. B. Franklin, laid the foundation for the further development of multicultural education in the form in which it now exists.

Analyzing the innovative work of American educators of the 1920–1950s on uniting a diverse contingent of students and their families into a single society, we can note the key points of multicultural education that served as the foundation for its further development. Fundamentally, the importance of working with the social environment of students of different ethnic groups, primarily the family, was emphasized: studying their native language, and therefore, increasing its status and strengthening the authority of parents; studying the history of the family's origin, its historical and cultural background and the family tree, using family autobiographies as a «living illustration» of history and culture. Subsequently, these methods of work were transferred to higher education: colleges and universities established contacts with public organizations, where young people were involved in order to counter the influence of extremist movements.

In the modern concept of the formation of students' NI, these principles resulted in the fact that all changes in the personality of students that occurred in the educational process are considered as the result of the multicultural environment of the university and all educational and extracurricular activities conducted by the university, including international cooperation programs. The leading direction of education in a multicultural environment has been education in line with the social and personal approach, when the development of a person of any ethnicity is consistent with social and national goals and objectives, which is relevant today [7; 40].

Currently, foreign pedagogy is called upon to form not only cognitive, but also affective and socio- behavioral components in the personality structure, the importance of refracting educational knowledge through the emotional sphere of students and their personality-colored experience. As an analysis of the work of teachers interacting with a heterogeneous student contingent shows, the emotional component is not only not secondary in the formation of NI, but in some cases comes out on top, and its correct accounting can fundamentally change the situation in the lesson, in the group and in general in educational institution. By influencing the emotional component of the personality with the help of interactive technologies, it became possible to separate and level the experienced negative experience of intercultural interaction from the actual personal feeling of students. Subsequently, on this basis of above mentioned actions is formed a positive image of representatives of other cultures, the re-awareness and reappraisal of negative or false stereotypes.

In the 1940s and 1950s, multicultural educators in the United States first talked about the flexibility of the content of education, the need to change it depending on socio-political events in the country and the world, with a mandatory emphasis on humanistic universal values. This principle has found wide application in modern multicultural education in the form of programs and courses, the content of which may vary from year to year, which is officially stated in the university curriculum [8].

Today, the teacher is regarded as an independent resource of multicultural education, in the power of which to adjust the content of curricula that do not have time to reflect changes in socio-political realities or contain an outdated unipolar point of viewon the events that are happening. The teacher is given the right to choose a strategy and tactics for the formation of a new student identity, as well as methods for assessing students' academic achievements, social and personal changes in their NI which are not always measurable using standardized tests. Special training was required for teachers in managing a heterogeneous class, creating an emotionally favorable climate, conducting discussions on acute social and personal issues, as well as regulating the relationship between students, parents and school administration.

In the 1980–2000s, the pedagogical arsenal of multicultural education was replenished with the so- called «multicultural essays» written by representatives of ethnic and cultural minorities, second and third generation migrants, white and color teachers working in a diversified environment and experienced discrimination on their own experience [9].

The content of these essays was confirmed by the assumptions put forward by the leaders of multicultural education in the 1930–1950s, namely:

  •  successful coexistence of a heterogeneous group on the principles of respect and openness, the ability to discuss any, the most painful and critical personal and social problems, subject to the rules of communication developed by the participants in this group;
  •  the need to take into account and include in the learning process the characteristics of the ethnic culture of students, their family history, origin, their positive and negative experience of intercultural interaction;
  •  transfer of emphasis from ethno-cultural differences to universal; from the concept of «I am a representative of my ethnic group» to the concept of «I am a person and I am in solidarity with the people of my country» for the successful formation of a national identity. Moreover, it is important to highlight the value of the contribution of representatives of different ethnic groups to the general world culture;
  •  strengthening the key role of the teacher in multicultural education, which requires him to recognize his own position in relation to representatives of other ethnic groups and cultures, reevaluate his intercultural experience and stereotypes, regardless of pedagogical experience.

These principles, methods and techniques served as the basis for the development of civic and intercul- tural areas of educational activities in higher education in the United States, Canada and Australia. Civic education. Educational institutions in the concept of multicultural education are a model of society in miniature, so they serve as an ideal place where young people can learn to «be citizens» and influence other social institutions. This is possible provided that the institution respects the principles of respect between representatives of all diverse cultural and social groups, there is equality of opportunity, faith is shown in the success of each student, training methods are used that shape decision-making skills, for example, the project method, situational role-playing games, training teaching methods, self-management methods in extracurricular activities of the university.

According to the concept of social identity of G. Tajfel86 intercultural education is common for an individual to positively evaluate the ethnic group to which he belongs, and this positive cognitive bias in favor of his group is called «ingroup favoritism» [10].

The reverse side of ingroup favoritism is considered to be a phenomenon such as «outgroup hostility» or a negative assessment of other ethnic groups external to their own, which can occur without a pronounced interethnic confrontation or conflict, being a cognitive consequence of the division of humanity into groups, or categorization [11].

The essence of the concept of social identity of G. Tajfel was that people perceive and evaluate other people's customs, traditions and behavior through the prism of their own customs and traditions in which they were brought up and which are closer to them than «strangers». This creates potential tension in interethnic and intercultural relations. Prevention of a negative assessment of representatives of other ethnocultural groups and aggressive behavior towards «others» in the educational multicultural environment is the pedagogical approach, which emphasizes the value and significance of cultures of all participants in the educational environment. To implement this approach, it is necessary to prevent the emergence of negative stereotypes among students from other cultures in the educational process. Therefore, to understand and overcome the causes of ethnic and interethnic stereotypes, the following is necessary:

  •  knowledge of the mechanisms of formation of stereotypes, prejudices and prejudices;
  •  the ability to overcome the impact of socio-psychological phenomena on the formation of the personality of students, their national identity and consciousness;
  •  the ability to convince students that in all cultures of a multi-ethnic nation there are common, national and universal features; the ability to teach them to see and appreciate these traits.

We believe that the relationship between the socio-behavioral level of assessment of behaviors that seem strange, exotic, or even unacceptable, cognitive levels (analysis — what is behind these behaviors, which was specific in the life of this person, in his culture, should be reflexed which caused such behavior) and affective (a more tolerant attitude to behavior that we don't like, the transition from critical evaluation of other people to understanding, and further to empathy, the ability to put oneself in the place of another). Technologies, techniques and methods of forming these qualities, in particular, are presented in the model of intercultural professional communicative competence I.L. Pluzhnik [12].

One of the technologies in the concept of multicultural education in the countries of Australia, Canada and the USA is the creation of «maps of opposite perspectives», which cross-analyze the opinions on the problem under discussion and perception of each other's behavior within this problem by representatives of different cultures (this technology is presented in more detail in the second chapter of this work).

The application of the principles of multicultural education requires the teacher to take a balanced approach to the use of ethnopsychological and ethnocultural knowledge, to improve his own intercultural competence. So, in the process of working with multicultural students at universities in the USA and Australia, situations arose where the passivity of students from the Asian region was attributed to their cultural characteristics (respect for elders, the habit of not interrupting, politeness, avoiding visual contact when talking with elders). In fact, the inadequate knowledge of these students in English and the teacher's incomprehensible emphasis were an obstacle to the active participation of these students in the learning process.

Conclusion

According to the traditional humanistic guidelines for the development of personality, the result of the formation of NI students involves the following changes:

  •  at the level of national consciousness — students' self-awareness as citizens of a multi-ethnic and multicultural country, maintaining and increasing interest in the cultural and historical heritage of their country and all its people, increasing interest in the history of their family and their region, strengthening civic solidarity, collective responsibility, re-awareness of ethnic stereotypes;
  •  at the level of national feelings — increasing feelings of emotional attachment to the country and its citizens, feelings of national pride, patriotic feelings of love for their region, republic, country, a more positive assessment of fellow citizens, the nation as a whole and its leader, respect for other languages and cultures, the formation of dialogue, tolerance, empathy for others;
  •  at the level of national behavioral strategies — the observance and implementation of national cultural norms and humanistic traditions, the desire and desire to interact with fellow citizens for the good of the country, willingness to participate in common activities, support the right of your country to independent decisions, focus on improving social relations, including intercultural interaction within the country and beyond, in compliance with human, national and racial dignity and universal norms of behavior [12; 171].

To measure changes in the socio-personal characteristics of students abroad, quality assessment methods are widely used, including interviews with individual students and groups, writing essays by students and teachers that reflect their ideas about themselves and their multicultural country, keeping diaries in which the process of change is recorded sociocultural attitudes, as well as analysis of situations of interaction with representatives of other cultures, a description of internships, participation in academic and cultural exchange programs between the countries with the subsequent conclusions of the personality changes.

 

References

  1. Banks, Cherry A. (2005). McGee Improving Multicultural education. Teachers College Press. Amsterdam avenue, New York.
  2. Papay, J. West, M., Fullerton, J., & Kane, T. (2012). Does an Urban Teacher Residency increase student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, No. 34, 413–434.
  3. Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill / Prentice Hall.
  4. Silverman, S. (2010). What is diversity? An inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Education research Journal, Vol. 47, 2, 292–329.
  5. Covello, L. (1958). The heart is in the teacher. New York: McGraw Hill.
  6. Covello, L. (1942). Unpublished report on BF school. (MSS 40, Covello 34, p.11).
  7. Banks, Cherry A. (2005). McGee Improving Multicultural education. Teachers College Press. Amsterdam Avenue, New York.
  8. Gorski P. Multicultural Philosophy Serie. Part 1: A brief history of Multicultural Education. mhhe.com. Retrieved from http//www.mhhe.com/socscience/edu/multi.
  9. Legarea Evelyn, I. (1995). Canadian multiculturalism and aboriginal people: Negotiating a place in the nation. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Vol. 1, Issue 4, 347–36.
  10. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (European Studies in Social Psychology). Cambridge University Press, New York.
  11. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7–24.
  12. Pluzhnik, I.L. (2003). Formirovanie mezhkulturnoi kommunikativnoi kompetentsii studentov v protsesse professionalnoi podhotovki [Formation of intercultural communicative competence of students in the process of professional training]. Extended abstract of Doctor's thesis. Tyumen [in Russian].
Year: 2020
City: Karaganda
Category: Pedagogy