CC BY
39
Перспективы Науки и Образования
Международный электронный научный журнал ISSN 2307-2334 (Онлайн)
Адрес выпуска: https://pnojournal.wordpress.com/2022-2/22-02/ Дата публикации: 30.04.2022 УДК 37.014
А. П. ФАХРЕТДИНОВА
Тенденции развития гражданского образования и формирования гражданской компетентности в России и за рубежом
Введение. Актуальность исследования обусловлена нестабильностью смыслообразующих идеалов, поиском идентичности молодыми людьми (в том числе, гражданской), изменением ценностей в общественном и индивидуальном сознании в условиях постоянных социальных перемен и серьёзных общественно-политических трансформаций. В этой связи основной фокус данного исследования направлен на выявление тенденций и стратегий развития гражданственности, подходов к реализации гражданского образования, а также лучших мировых социальных практик развития гражданской компетентности молодых людей.
Материалы и методы. Методологическую базу исследования составили положения концепций программы «Образования в духе глобальной гражданственности» (ЮНЕСКО) и Федерального проекта «Патриотическое воспитание граждан РФ 2021-2024 годы», а также системно-деятельностного и компетентностного подходов. В качестве ведущего метода исследования был использован метод компаративного анализа современной научной литературы по проблеме формирования гражданственности и реализации гражданского образования.
Результаты исследования. Исследование зарубежного опыта позволило выделить следующие особенности развития гражданской компетентности: переход от готовности к деятельности; поощрение инициативности, индивидуальности и равенства в обществе; содействие молодежи в активном участии в жизни социума не в «обозримом будущем», а сейчас; образование в духе глобальной гражданственности, демократии; изучении и реализации прав и обязанностей человека; межкультурном диалоге и мультикультурализме, социальном действии и ответственности. В отечественном исследовательском дискурсе выделяют: психологические детерминанты становления гражданственности личности; гражданственность как интегральное качество личности; репрезентации в сознании молодых людей гражданско-патриотических установок, ценностных ориентаций и патриотического самоопределения.
Обсуждение и заключение. Представленный обзор посредством компаративного анализа по проблеме формирования гражданственности и реализации гражданского образования позволил уточнить структуру гражданской компетентности, учитывая наиболее эффективные мировые социальные и педагогические практики. Структура гражданской компетентности состоит из следующих взаимосвязанные компонентов, отражающих перспективные направления работы в рамках гражданского образования: правовой, политический, культурно-исторический, социально-коммуникативный, эколого-географический и здоровьесберегающий.
Ключевые слова: гражданское образование, гражданская компетентность, гражданственность
Ссылка для цитирования:
Фахретдинова А. П. Тенденции развития гражданского образования и формирования гражданской компетентности в России и за рубежом // Перспективы науки и образования. 2022. № 2 (56). С. 62-76. 10.32744^.2022.2.4
Perspectives of Science & Education
International Scientific Electronic Journal ISSN 2307-2334 (Online)
Available: https://pnojournal.wordpress.com/2022-2/22-02/ Accepted: 16 December 2021 Published: 30 April 2022
A. P. Fakhretdinova
Citizenship education and citizenship competence formation: development trends in international and Russian educational practice
Introduction. The relevance of the study is due to the instability of meaning-forming ideals, the search for identity by young people (including the citizenship one), the change in values in public and individual consciousness amidst ongoing social challenges and major socio-political transformations. In this regard, the key focus of this study is aimed at identifying trends and strategies for the citizenship development, fresh approaches to the citizenship education implementation, as well as the best social practices for the citizenship competence formation among young people in the international and Russian context.
Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study was formed by the provisions terms of the concepts of the Global citizenship education (UNESCO) program and the Russian Federal project "Patriotic education for the citizens of the Russian Federation 2021-2024", as well as the system-activity and competence-based approaches. As the principal research method, we applied the comparative analysis of recent scientific literature on the problem of the citizenship formation and the citizenship education implementation.
The results of the study. The study of international social and educational practice made it possible to distinguish the following features of the citizenship competence development: the transition from readiness to activity itself; the encouragement of initiative, individuality and equality in a society; the assistance to young people in active participation in the life of a society, not in the "foreseeable future", but now; education for global citizenship and democracy; the study and implementation of human rights and duties; cross-cultural dialogue and multiculturalism, social action and responsibility. In the Russian research and educational discourse, we distinguish the following issues: psychological determinants of the citizenship formation of a personality; citizenship as an integral trait of a person; civic-patriotic attitudes representation in young people's minds, value orientations and patriotic self-determination.
Discussion and conclusion. The presented review through the comparative analysis on the problem of the citizenship formation and the citizenship education implementation enabled us to specify the citizenship competence structure, taking into account the most effective international social and educational practices. The structure of citizenship competence consists of the following interrelated components, reflecting promising avenues in the framework of citizenship education: legal, political, cultural and historical, socio-communicative, environmental-geographical and health-preserving.
Keywords: citizenship education, citizenship competence, citizenship, Russian youth
For Reference:
Fakhretdinova, A. P. (2022). Citizenship education and citizenship competence formation: development trends in international and Russian educational practice. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania - Perspectives of Science and Education, 56 (2), 62-76. doi: 10.32744/pse.2022.2.4
Introduction
t the current stage of strengthening integration and global processes in societies
with cultural diversity, increasing migration flows, the emergence of new forms of
social ties in the era of digitalization, globalization and social and political instability,
we may acknowledge the increase of attention to the young people's citizenship. This process has led to the inception of various international initiatives in the field of education and youth work, in particular the concept of "Global citizenship education", developed in the context of the Education 2030 Framework and presented as one of the core activity of UNESCO to promote Sustainable Development Goals [90].
The relevance of citizenship research as an integral trait of a person is due to the instability of meaning-forming ideals, the constant search for identity by young people (including the citizenship one), changes in values in public and individual consciousness under the constant social changes and severe socio-political transformations [7].
The formation of a resilient social and civic-political identity of an individual today is considered to be one of the essential components of the society's effective functioning [20]. It determines the forms of sustainable state-social interaction, when a person is engaged, involved, included and participates in the common life space construction (cultural-historical, socio-political, etc.), determines, sets and actively forms the development trajectories of his/her local community, region, country and the global community as a whole, as well as in the digital environment.
Citizenship is a topical research issue that, being in the focus of the Social Sciences for quite some time, has recently been gaining popularity. This is due to the fact that in the context of a constantly changing world (under the pandemic and increased digitalization), young people are reconstructing new factors for the formation of their axiological paradigm. We may notice a transformation of ideas about the country and the world, a crisis of democracy and citizenship. In this regard, understanding the civic-political activity peculiarities of modern youth and identifying the most effective international and Russian educational and social practices for the citizenship competence formation and development is a vital and reasonable task for the academic and educational community worldwide.
The methodological basis of the study was formed by the provisions of the system-activity and competence-based approaches, which determine citizenship competence as the main result of the citizenship education system and civic participation of young people. When analyzing trends and strategies for the citizenship development in Russia and abroad, we relied on the concepts of the Global Citizenship Education program developed in the context of the Education 2030 Framework for Action (as part of UNESCO's activities to implement the Sustainable Development Goals) and Federal project "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation 2021-2024" (in the system of the National project "Education"). As the principal research method, we applied method of comparative analysis of recent scientific and methodical (pedagogical) literature, as well as regulatory documents/ instruments in the field of education on the problem of the citizenship formation and the citizenship education implementation.
Materials and methods
_Literature review
Citizenship Research in Russian socio-educational practice and abroad
Researchers traditionally consider citizenship as an integral trait of a person, showing his/her willingness to live and act vigorously in the modern social environment [34]. Citizenship means "the fact that the person has a system of socially significant moral values that feed belonging feelings to the fate of the Motherland, determining the readiness to take moral responsibility for its past, present, future, commitment on active participation in the country development and public life, meeting moral and legal standards" [34, p. 121].
Some works present the definition of citizenship as a personality trait or ability. So, A. V. Kurshev [22] in his study on the basis of the dynamic functional personality structure, gives the justification of citizenship as a personality trait, and P. A. Gnezdilova points out that this is the ability of a person to show his/her qualities in a socio-cultural context, "one of the general cultural features, common to an individual as a subject of social relations" [12, p. 85]. Yu. M. Reznik sees in citizenship an organic fusion of "higher" generic properties and culturally specific features of a person, taken in the concrete historical embodiment and real life, which manifests itself in such features as creative activity and consciousness, freedom and responsibility, personalism and solidarity, spirituality and amateur performance, as well as national and cultural specificity, etc. [35].
O. E. Artamonova notes that citizenship cannot always be considered in the context of political or legal categories. Primarily citizenship implies the full use of human rights and the presence of a sense of security on the part of a democratic society, but at the same time, it implies the maximum inclusion of citizens in social problems, active engagement within various social institutions and respect for the rights of others [1]. According to A. A. Bodalev, citizenship is closely associated with the morality and conscience of people. If morality is understood as an integral mental entity, represented in a person's self-consciousness, as well as in his/her emotional and volitional spheres, and manifested in him/her as a steady need and constant ability to build his/her behavior in all the aspects of life in accordance with the universal values [6, p. 7].
In Russian research practice, we might note a tendency for the concepts of citizenship and patriotic education to converge. In other words, some researchers put an equal sign between citizenship and law-abiding/patriotism [42]. Within the context of such interpretation, the concept of citizenship embraces cognitive (socio-political and legal competence), emotional (patriotic and cross-national feelings) [24] and moral characteristics as a manifestation of being in a relation to a society [34].
In turn, in contemporary overseas psychological and pedagogical research papers, there is a tendency to understand citizenship as a set of democratic values and promotion to an open democratic society [49]. The citizenship development of young people usually occurs in terms of citizenship education and upbringing, aimed at the development of critical thinking [84], the development of democracy and civil society (at the local [55] and global [65] levels) [93], respect for democratic and human rights [84], openness of all the processes of political life [65] and responsibility for the present and future of a society [93].
Within the framework of Social Sciences, Canadian researcher J. Banks proposed a typology of citizenship, that consists of failed, recognized, participatory and transformative components [54, p. 367]. The categories are useful as conceptual tools for thinking about
citizenship socialization and citizenship education. The first type "failed citizenship" occurs when individuals do not internalize the basic values of a nation-state, feel structurally excluded within it, and often focus on their particularistic goals, cultural identity, rather than the overarching interests of a nation-state. It often occurs that these types of citizens are structurally excluded from the political and cultural state spheres, are being politically inactive of ineffective, having negative image of politicians, do not participate in elections claiming that their votes have no meaning [56, p. 367]. The second type "recognized citizenship" is when a state or nation publicly recognizes an individual or group as a "valuable" element in the state and provides them with the rights and opportunities to participate in the life of a country. The emphasis is placed on the fact that all the rights of citizens are ensured, however, the state does not stimulate the active participation of citizens in political life. The third type, "participatory citizenship", is exercised by individuals and groups who have been granted "recognized citizenship" by the nation-state. This happens when citizens are satisfied with only minimal actions (for example, using only their right to vote, etc.) in order to influence political decisions. This type of citizens is characterized by activity in decision-making, however, there is a superficial interest in the ongoing processes in society, a lack of initiative and personal responsibility in solving social problems, and a low level of self-realization in the political and social sphere. Finally yet importantly, the fourth type is "transformative citizenship", in which citizens take measures to implement national policies, take concrete actions that correspond to such values as: human rights, social justice and equality. Such actions sometimes violate existing local, state and national laws, since many of the "transformative" actions of young active citizens are ahead of the development of a particular society, are innovative for it [54]. The proposed typology of citizenship (see Fig. 1) reflects the stages of development of societies in the context of democratic changes. Researchers consider the "transformative" stage of citizenship as a natural development, as a new trend that should be taken into account in the socialization of young people, in particular in the system of citizenship education.
Many researchers point out that today it is becoming relevant to study the citizenship manifestation in the framework of various socio-political events in societies (non/interest, non/participation of young people in various political events) [46]. Hence, in the Social sciences (sociology, political science, pedagogy, psychology) there is such a variety of research subjects related to the following citizenship education issues: the political culture among the young people in the studies of A. R. Gavrilov [9] and I. A. Tyutkova [45]; youth political competence [2]; political behavior [36], activity and participation of citizens [41]; political [31] and regional identity [21]; civic identity [42]; civic position [3]. To our opinion, interesting scientific conclusions from the point of view of Russia's entry into the educational environment of a globalized world seem to be the studies of: I. G. Belyakova on the formation of civic identity [5], of L. M. Drobizheva on the theoretical and socio-practical problems of cross-ethnic harmony in the development of state-civic identity [19 ], on the civic position formation of adolescents in Russia [29] and the national-civic identity of Russian youth in the digital age [44]. However, the most capacious concept as the main result of the citizenship formation and the citizenship education and upbringing implementation is citizenship competence.
Citizenship competence as a key outcome of citizenship education
A methodological review of the scientific literature and a comparative analysis of the practices of the citizenship education implementing will make it possible to identify a number of features of the citizenship competence formation and the young people engagement in
the constructive forms of civic and political activities, as well as to trace the main trends that should be taken into account in the young people socialization in the socio-political aspect.
Russian authors V. V. Gavrilyuk [10] and L. A. Presnyakova [33] distinguish citizenship competence as the main educational result of citizenship education and upbringing, as well as the political socialization of youth. Citizenship education is considered by R. A. Dormidontov as a system-oriented pedagogical process of citizens' socialization [18], and by O. V. Litvinova et al. as a basis for the formation of civic culture and democratic values [23]. Such scientists as A. P. Myagkova [30] and D. B. Buyansky [8] and others, who rely mainly on the educational space of the school, also deal with the problems of citizenship competence developing in social pedagogy and psychology. Z. S. Mazyr [25] and E. V. Mitina [27] reveal the possibilities of the basic general education program for the citizenship development (within the framework of classroom and extracurricular activities in the context of Arts and Humanities), V. A. Gladik [11] and I. A Tyutkova [45] single out federal and regional civic-patriotic programs as the main concepts for the education and upbringing of young people.
The problems of mind representation of civic-patriotic attitudes among young people [24], value orientations [16], and patriotic self-determination [39] are actively discussed. Academic papers reflect the discussion about the content of patriotism, its connection with national, state and civic identity. A. V. Belyaev, P. A. Gnezdilova and T. N. Samsonova consider the socio-pedagogical foundations [4] and socio-cultural [12] aspects of the citizenship formation and political socialization [38] based on patriotic attitudes. A. V. Selezneva analyzes patriotism as a political value [80], relying on the overseas studies by T. Sekerdej [81] and R. Schatz [82] of traditional and constructive patriotism. Patriotism is also often considered in the dichotomy of "constructive" - "blind". R. Schatz, E. Staub and H. Lavine describe blind patriotism as a tough and unyielding belonging to a country that is characterized by an unquestioning positive assessment, staunch devotion and intolerance to criticism. At the same time, they regard criticism towards the state as a betrayal. On the contrary, constructive patriotism is considered as belonging to the country, characterized by "critical loyalty" [82, p. 153], in which patriots can criticize the activities of governing structures in order to achieve positive changes in society. A. G. Sanina notes, "if citizenship education and nation-state building to a greater extent allow the realization of the cognitive, normative-value and behavioral components of a state identity, then patriotic education per se, which dominates in Russian program normative documents, is aimed at only one, emotional component. Therefore, it is the most vague in the target and instrumental terms, which leads to the threat of the formation of blind patriotism and the production of national and international conflicts" [39, p. 47].
Some researchers emphasize the need for the youth citizenship formation, since this is due both to the logic of the country's development, the existence of which is largely determined by the presence of responsible patriotic citizens in the country [18], and the regulatory documents adopted for implementation: the State Program "Patriotic Education for Citizens of the Russian Federation on 2016-2020" [14]; State Program of the Russian Federation "Development of Education" for 2018-2025 [13]; Education development strategy for the period up to 2025 [32]; Federal project as part of the National project "Education" "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation 2021-2024" [43].
If we combine the target strategy of all the regulatory programs, projects and instruments for the citizenship development by means of patriotic education, then the goal is to create opportunities for the citizenship formation, moral values, legal and political culture, personal development of young people in the interests of every person, family, society and state.
Tasks to be solved by these Russian regulatory instruments implementation: 1) establish conditions for improving the content, legal, organizational, methodological and resource support of citizenship education; 2) to promote the legal and political culture development of students, active citizenship engagement, civic responsibility, student self-governance and the expansion of constructive participation in decision-making affecting their rights and interests; 3) young people involvement, the children's and adult community in the socially significant initiatives implementation, participation in the volunteer movement.
In the recent studies worldwide, the issues of citizenship education and citizenship competence are directly based on the promotion of democracy in modern societies. The content of citizenship education overseas mainly has the following features: a broad discussion of topical issues at the local and global levels [78], training young people for service [83] and social responsibility [96], involving students in self-governance [73], developing the universal human values [87], consideration of cultural diversity and tolerance [76], development of youth legal [26] and political culture [88], consideration of national [66] and cultural characteristics of a country and a region [75]. However, eventually these features are transformed, in particular, due to the widespread transition to online, the greater "openness" of a modern global society [59], and due to the migration processes intensification [72]. Therefore, it seems relevant to present the outcomes of the analysis on the redesigning the very ideas, values and approaches to the citizenship education implementation in various countries.
In the international academic community, we may declare some attempts to develop evidence for a "pedagogical connection" by selecting causal relationships between procedural and declarative styles of citizenship education and enumerations of civic/ social competencies [64]. These studies are useful in that they highlight the importance of citizenship education in influencing democratic outcomes per se [74], but they fail to consolidate their views into clear or trans-situational models for future research and understand the outcomes of citizenship education programs in a political context, in which these "citizenship competences" can manifest themselves in different ways [93].
A number of researchers all over the world consider the concepts of citizenship education in close connection with multicultural education [87] and cross-cultural communication [47], global competence [63] and global citizenship [79], the impact of studying abroad on the citizenship formation [61], activity bases for the citizenship development [94] and the peculiarities of the media environment influence on young people [69]. Globalization, the spread of ICT [90], education transparency and MOOCs [91], international migration [95], the growth of ethnic diversity in societies [77] - all these factors capture the interest in revising the purely national discourse in the educational policy formation in most countries, making the way for the global trends [48].
The Swiss researcher A. Akkari emphasizes the importance of the transition from the national to the international paradigm in the citizenship education design [48]. Subsequent to the expert and pedagogical community on the UNESCO Global Citizenship Education project implementation, A. Akkari describes the outcomes of this program development: cognitive (students acquire knowledge and understanding of local, national and global challenges; the ability to appreciate interdependence and build cooperation between different countries and peoples; students acquire the skills of critical thinking and social reality analysis); socio-emotional (students acquire a sense of belonging to all of humanity, share values and responsibilities based on human rights and democracy; acquire feelings of compassion, solidarity and respect for differences and diversity in society); behavioral
(students act effectively and responsibly at the local, national and global levels in order to build a more peaceful and sustainable world; demonstrate the motivation and desire to take the necessary actions in that regard) [48]. During the program implementation, students master the following competencies and acquire the characteristics: awareness and ability to think critically; social connections and respect for diversity; ethical responsibility and participation.
Dutch academics M. Sklad et al. underscore the importance of national education systems reconsideration [85], based on the global and local context of social transformations. From a pedagogical point of view, this requires specific "transformative learning" with a focus on attitudes, values, and skills, in addition to existing citizenship knowledge. To implement this approach to education, the researchers developed and implemented the innovative project "Going glocal", the key message of which is to organize cross-cultural dialogue between local and international students to promote the ideas of global citizenship, a critical attitude to the global-local connection, the development of social responsibility. The following components are clearly distinguished in the system of Dutch citizenship education: environmental topics (projects and initiatives aimed at developing environmental awareness, responsibility for preserving the environment within their own country and globally) and the development of socio-communicative strategies (development of teamwork skills, intercultural dialogue competencies in a multicultural society) [58].
In the UK, the academic and educational community has been dealing with the developing citizenship and civic-political engagement issues in the education system for a long time. The full-scale and widespread citizenship education implementation into the national secondary schools curriculum began in 2002 with the report publication "On Education for Citizenship and Teaching of Democracy in Schools" [40], the main goal of which was the political culture transformation, creating conditions for "people perceived themselves as active citizens who want, can and are able to influence social life" [57, p. 7]. In 2007, the resultant Ajegbo report proposes a new strand on "identity and diversity: living together in the UK", be added to the citizenship education framework [47]. The report gives thrust to citizenship development and teaching about diversity in schools, where citizenship education was declared the most important facility in responding to the challenges of declining interest in political and social life on the part of youth [70], and as a measure to combat electoral absenteeism [53]. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the citizenship education system is undergoing changes due to its implementation in a particular country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland [68].
Citizenship education has since undergone significant changes due to the political literacy issues identification: from now on educators gave greater importance to issues of identity, diversity, social cohesion and the promotion of the active involvement of children and young people in various sectors of social life [50]. Many researchers emphasize the special character of changes in the course of citizenship education implementation due to the changes in the political atmosphere in the UK [71]. Accordingly, the main components of the citizenship education content in the UK are the development of political activity and responsibility, awareness and implementation of one's rights and duties, development of social and communication strategies to promote diversity, civic responsibility and a positive impact on society [60], and a lot of attention is paid to cultural and historical pillar in the citizenship education system [26].
In France, the framework of Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences school disciplines has the following content of citizenship education: the study of the legal and political
foundations of the state organization; introduction to the problems of global and local ecology, geography and the strategic positioning of France, Europe and the place of France in the world [51]; the study of life issues (safety at home (domestic aspect), on the street (for example: issues of terrorist attacks, in public transport and actions in the crowd), in the world (wars and conflicts), moral and ethical aspect, communication in society) [62]. The educational program of the discipline "Citizenship education" (Éducation à la citoyennété) of French schools presents the following topics: human rights and political structure, behavior in society, life, health and safety of a person, geography of the country and Europe [26]. In French psychological and pedagogical academic discourse, there is a tendency to develop citizenship competence by means of cross-cultural education [86]. In general, multiculturalism and at the same time the development of the values of the Republic "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality and fraternity) are the pillars in the citizenship development among young people in France [26]. As we may declare, in the French system of citizenship education there are tendencies towards the ecological consciousness development of young people, an realizing of the place of France in Europe and the world, the development of a common European identity, while maintaining the national identity of a consolidated French society, the development of norms of behavior and communication in a multicultural society.
In Australia, citizenship education began its active development in 1997 with the introduction of the "Discovering Democracy" program, the main idea of which was that the best approach for the encouragement of active citizens is to teach schoolchildren the governance arrangements [67]. Educators viewed citizenship through the lens of the citizens' rights and duties. This approach, according to the researchers, seems to be rather constrained and unbalanced, as it limits the ability of educators to present the dynamic concepts of citizenship (empowerment and belonging to a particular community/culture) that are necessary for authentic upbringing of active young citizens [89]. This way of program design generates a 'citizens-in-waiting' identity [67].
In general, Australian scholars indicate the importance of the idea that young people are often perceived as citizens of the future, and not citizens of the present, which is the reason for the "citizens-in-waiting" model [89]. A static, meaningless interpretation of citizenship suggests that young people are not active participants in public life, but are passively waiting to become citizens upon reaching the age of majority. Since 2018, ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) has been implementing a project in Australia, the goal of which is to "create conditions under which young Australians should become successful, self-confident and creative individuals, active and well-educated citizens who make responsible choices for the public good of their community, country and world" [52]. Thus, the Australian citizenship research community focuses on engaging young people into solving social problems "here and now".
The guiding principles that scholars and educators rely on when revising citizenship education programs in Australia are: citizenship education is, first of all, the collaboration among all the actors of educational process in matters of what should be studied and how it should be studied (individual learning trajectories of students are taken into account; young people may design and implement their own approach to conduct their activity); the point of view and position of each student play a key role in the development of his/ her participatory citizenship position (that is, a young person is an actor/creator of his/ her citizenship engagement, is responsible for it and thereby defends his/her citizenship positioning and attitudes); the program is based on the knowledge/skills sufficiency and
direct citizenship engagement (this concept is based on diversity and addresses personal experience and the value-semantic component of citizenship participation); students are involved in solving the problems of society/community here and now, and not in the "foreseeable" future and "special" past [89].
_Research results
Educators and scholars providing the current educational practice perceive the citizenship education as awareness of someone's rights and duties, moral norms observance, respect and tolerance towards different ethnic groups and cultures, the ability to conduct efficient communication, reflecting attitudes towards the civic behavior formation. In Russian educational context citizenship education takes the form of civic-patriotic education. Civic activity/engagement and identity formation in this regard, manifested by defending the interests of the Motherland and society, takes the first place.
Based on the research findings of the analytical review of trends and strategies for the citizenship development among youth in Russia and internationally, we may identify some peculiarities and approaches to the citizenship education implementation that provide a basis for the citizenship competence structure (Figure 1). The structure of the identified citizenship competence consists of the following interrelated components: legal, political, cultural and historical, socio-communicative, environmental-geographical and health-preserving.
legal
component
political component
citizenship competence
SOCIO-communicative component
health-p reserving component
cultural and historical component
environmental-geographical component
Figure 1 Citizenship competence components
These components fully represent the most effective trends in the citizenship education framework, incorporate the best international social and educational practices of citizenship development among young people all over the world.
_Discussion
The review and analysis of recent publications, as well as educational programs, allowed us to identify the areas of focus for researchers' interest towards the citizenship education. The data obtained is broadly consistent with the other studies, such as with the research results by E. V. Mitina, who identified the following components of citizenship competence: subjective, social, research, moral, cultural-historical, communicative [27]. The structure of citizenship competence that we have identified also complements the studies of A.P. Myagkova, who singles out the political, legal, patriotic and intercultural components of the citizenship competence of young people [30]. From our perspective there is a very promising direction in interdisciplinary studies of citizenship. One of these studies was conducted by D. B. Buyansky, who through the problem analysis on the citizenship formation, draws our attention to the psychological context of the citizenship competence content: in the intellectual, motivational, emotional, volitional, subject-practical, existential spheres and in the sphere of self-regulation [8].
It is necessary to highlight the definite progress in the desire of the academic and pedagogical community to solve the theoretical, strategic and applied tasks of developing young people's citizenship. To achieve that objective there are programs and strategies for the educational development being reformulated, the very approaches to citizenship education are being revised, new models, methods and techniques for developing citizenship competence are being created. In particular, our comparative analysis enabled us to determine that leading international studies omit a patriotic component in citizenship education, which is inconsistent with the theoretical and methodological ideas of many Russian scholars and educators [15], who propose the patriotic education development as a leading component of citizenship education [46].
The presented citizenship competence structure contains the most universal components (or the trends within the citizenship education framework) that can be implemented at all levels and types of the education system (secondary general, vocational, extra-curricular and higher education). Similarly, summarizing the recent events regarding the pandemic, general increased attention and prevention of diseases, healthy lifestyle promotion, we have introduced a health-saving component, which implies ensuring the sustainability and systematic knowledge of healthy lifestyles and the safety basics; ensuring responsibility for the behavior that preserves and enhances public health; demonstrating personal and public hygiene and healthy lifestyle skills.
Conclusion
In our paper, we examined the international and Russian expertise on the citizenship education systems. We paid the particular attention to the common theme of the citizenship education values, which could be noticed in the young people awareness of their rights and duties. That fact allows them to be politically and socially engaged, to express their readiness in solving problems of a society, effectively communicate, and with respect and tolerance relate to different nationalities and cultures.
We have also considered the approaches to the citizenship competence research in an international context. The analysis outcomes has revealed the following features of citizenship
education: the transition from readiness to participatory; encouragement of initiative, individuality and equality in society; assistance to young people in active involvement in the life of a society not in the "foreseeable future", but now. The citizenship competence development of young people in international studies and educational practices is based on the notions of Global Citizenship Education, democracy, the exploration and implementation of human rights and duties, cross-cultural dialogue and multiculturalism, social action and responsibility.
It has been demonstrated that the Russian academic, expert and pedagogical community cover mostly the following substantive topics of citizenship studies: psychological determinants of the citizenship formation of an individual [44]; citizenship as an integral trait of a person [34]. It is also noteworthy that patriotic issues are becoming a frequent discourse of citizenship studies in the Russian research and educational practices [2]. The findings suggest that the Russian scholars discuss mostly the following issues: mind representation and civic-patriotic attitudes issues among young people [28], value orientations [37], and patriotic self-determination [24] as part of the political culture development of youth [45]. This statement is confirmed by a series of implemented projects in the Russian educational context: the state program "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation for 2016-2020" [14]; State Program of the Russian Federation "Development of Education" for 2018-2025 [13]; Education development strategy for the period up to 2025 [43]; the Federal project (as part of the National project "Education") "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation 2021-2024" [32], the goals of which are to ensure the functioning of the patriotic education system for the citizens of Russian Federation.
_Acknowledgments
The reported study was funded by RFBR and EISR, project number 21-011-32260
REFERENCES
1. Artamonova O.E. Formation of ideas about citizenship in the youth environment. Vestnik Novgor. branch of RANEPA, 2017, vol. 6, no. 1-1 (7), pp. 222-226. (in Russ.)
2. Batanina I.A., Lavrikova A.A. Influence of the agenda on the strategies of political participation: opportunities and limitations. Bulletin of the Tula State University. Humanitarian sciences, 2021, pp. 3-9. DOI: 10.24412/2071-61412021-2-3-9. (in Russ.)
3. Basyuk S.V. Education of the civic-legal position of high school students by means of humanitarian knowledge: Abstract Diss. PhD Ped. Sci., Moscow, 2010. 22 p. (in Russ.)
4. Belyaev A.V. Socio-pedagogical foundations for the citizenship formation of student youth: Abstract Diss. Dr Ped. Sci. Yekaterinburg, 1997. 41 p. (in Russ.)
5. Belyakova I.G. Formation of civic identity in the educational environment of a globalizing space. Bulletin of culture and arts, 2017, no. 2 (50), pp. 98-105. (in Russ.)
6. Bodalev A.A. Morality and citizenship of a person - an invaluable capital of society. Human capital, 2014, no. 5 (65), pp. 4-7. (in Russ.)
7. Brodovskaya E.V., Huang T. Digital generation: civic mobilization and political protest of Russian youth. Monitoring of public opinion: Economic and social changes, 2019, no. 5, pp. 3-18. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.5.01. (in Russ.)
8. Buyansky D.B. Individualization of the process of citizenship competence formation in secondary school students: Diss. PhD Ped. Sci.. Kaliningrad, 2013. 220 p. (in Russ.)
9. Gavrilov A.R. The role of political media influences in the formation of the political culture of youth. Political sciences, 2016, no. 4, pp. 125-128. DOI: 10.18454/IRJ.2016.52.092. (in Russ.)
10. Gavrilyuk V.V., Malenkov V.V., Gavrilyuk T.V. Modern models of Russian citizenship. Sotsis. Sociological research, 2016, no. 11, pp. 97-106. (in Russ.)
11. Gladik V. A. The development of civic competence of high school students in the conditions of state-public school
management: Diss. PhD Ped. Sci. Moscow, 2010. 320 p. (in Russ.)
12. Gnezdilova P.A. Sociocultural aspects of the citizenship formation of students in Russian society: monograph. Ryazan, Publishing house "Concept", 2016. 112 p. (in Russ.)
13. The state program "Development of education" for 2018-2025. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/5561 83093?marker=6560I0 (accessed 24 September 2021). (in Russ.)
14. The state program "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation for 2016-2020". Available at: http:// gov.garant.ru/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm (accessed 24 September 2021). (in Russ.)
15. Citizenship education. Handbook for teachers and educators. Collection of materials under the auspices of the Council of Europe. 2nd ed. / Ed. N. Resurrection, I. Frumina, 2000. (in Russ.)
16. Gulyaeva L.V., Efimova G.Z. Comparative study of patriotic orientations of youth: regional specificity. Siberian Socium, 2018, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 53-73. (in Russ.)
17. Demyanenko N.V. The use of manipulative technologies in the media as a real problem. Russian academic journal, 2012, vol. 19 (1), pp, 20-27. (in Russ.)
18. Dormidontov R.A., Dolmatova V.N. Citizenship formation of pedagogical university students. Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2019, no. 6 (139), pp. 25-29. (in Russ.)
19. Drobizheva L.M. State-civic identity and interethnic accord: theoretical and socio-practical problems. Power, 2014, no. 11, pp. 12-16. (in Russ.)
20. Zubok Yu.A. Youth: life strategies in the new reality. Public opinion monitoring: economic and social changes, 2020, no. 3, pp. 4-12. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.3.1688. (in Russ.)
21. Korepanov G.S. Regional identity as an object of sociological research. Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity, 2009, no. 1, pp. 16-23. (in Russ.)
22. Kurshev A.V. Citizenship of a person as a personality trait. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 2015, no. 3, pp. 26-32.
23. Litvinova O.V., Shenberger I.A., Fomicheva I.B. Models of civic education aimed at the formation of civic culture and democratic values. Young scientist, 2014, no. 4, pp. 1014-1016. (in Russ.)
24. Malenkov V.V., Maltseva N.V. Civic-patriotic orientations of the post-soviet generation. Power, 2019, no. 27(5), pp. 124-131. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i5.6730. (in Russ.)
25. Mazyr Z.S. Citizenship competence formation of students in the process of studying at school: Diss. PhD Ped. Sci. Samara, 2005. 176 p. (in Russ.)
26. Malkova I.Yu., Fakhretdinova A.P. Features of citizenship education in Europe. Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2016, no. 4, pp. 126-130. (in Russ.)
27. Mitina E.V. Citizenship competence formation of high school students in the educational process: on the material of the humanities: Diss. PhD Ped. Sci. Tula, 2011. 277 p. (in Russ.)
28. Molchanova O.A. Political socialization in the modern Russian school (political and psychological analysis): Diss. PhD Polit. Sci.. Moscow, 2007. (in Russ.)
29. Molodtsova I. V. Civic position formation of the older adolescents: Abstract Diss. PhD Ped. Sci.. Krasnoyarsk, 2007. 22 p. (in Russ.)
30. Myagkova A.P. Citizenship competence formation among high school students in the educational space of a modern secondary school: Abstract Diss. PhD Ped. Sci. Moscow, 2014. 26 p. (in Russ.)
31. Musaev I.M., Gadzhieva A.A. Fundamentals of political identity formation. Socio-political sciences, no. 1, pp. 7-10.
32. Passport of the Federal project "Patriotic education for citizens of the Russian Federation" for 2021-2024. Available at: https://www.yarregion.ru/depts/dobr/Documents/Nats-project/Patr_Vospit/Pasport_Feder_Patr_Vospit-EB-2021_009-04-07-2021.pdf (accessed 30 August 2021). (in Russ.)
33. Presnyakova L.A. Political socialization in the modern Russian family. Political socialization of Russian citizens in the period of transformation / Ed. E.B. Shestopal. Moscow, New Chronograph Publ., 2008, pp. 91-157. (in Russ.)
34. Privodnova E.V. Citizenship as an integrative quality of personality in education. Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser, 20: Teacher education, 2015, no. 2, pp. 117-122. (in Russ.)
35. Reznik Yu.M. Civil Society in Modern Russia: Projects and Their Implementation. Administrative Consulting, 2006, no. 1, pp. 55-72. (in Russ.)
36. Russkikh L.V., Sumina A.A. Absenteeism as a model of political behavior. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social and Humanitarian Sciences, 2018, no. 18 (4), pp. 90-93. (in Russ.)
37. Samarkina I.V. Children and parents: attitude to power and the trajectory of changes in the political picture of the world. Politeks, 2008, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 170-184. (in Russ.)
38. Samsonova T.N. Political socialization of Russian schoolchildren: achievements, problems, prospects. Social and humanitarian knowledge, 2001, no. 2, pp. 176-189. (in Russ.)
39. Sanina A.G. Patriotism and patriotic education in modern Russia. Sociological Studies, 2016, no. 5, pp. 44-53. (in Russ.)
40. Sviridova E.A. Citizenship education in the UK. Siberian Trade and Economic Journal, 2011, no. 13, pp. 75-82. (in Russ.)
41. Severukhina D.D. Political behavior and participation. Forms and factors of participation and non-participation in politics. Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2017, vol. 27, issue. 1, pp. 96-104. (in Russ.)
42. Solovieva E.E., Popova S.I. Model of social construction of students' civic identity in conditions of multicultural education. Perspectives of science and education, 2020, no. 1 (43), pp. 105-118. DOI: 10.32744/pse.2020.1.8. (in Russ.)
43. Strategy for the education development in the Russian Federation until 2025. Available at: http://rcro.tomsk.ru/ wp-content/uploads/2020/10/3-Strategiya-razvitiya-vospitaniya-v-RF-na-period-do-2025-goda.pdf (accessed 23 September 2021). (in Russ.)
44. Titov V.V. On the issue of constructing the national-civic identity of Russian youth in the digital era. Bulletin of the
Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science, 2020, no. 57, pp. 257-264. (in Russ.)
45. Tyutkova I.A. Political culture of students (historical and pedagogical aspect). Vestnik RUDN University, 2003, no. 1, pp. 224-233. (in Russ.)
46. Shestopal E.B. Political socialization and resocialization in modern Russia. Politiya, 2005, no. 4, pp. 48-69.
47. Ajegbo K., Kiwan, D., Sharma, S. Curriculum review: Diversity and citizenship. London: Department for Education and Skills. (2007).
48. Akkari A., Maleq K. Global citizenship: Buzzword or new instrument for educational change?. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2019, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 176-182.
49. Andreotti V., Biesta, G., Ahenake, C. Between the nation and the globe: Education for global mindedness in Finland. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2015. 13(2), pp. 246-259.
50. Andrews R., Mycock A. Citizenship Education in the UK: Divergence Within a MultiNational State. The UK: Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2007, pp. 77-88.
51. Audigier F. Du concept de situation dans les didactiques de l'histoire, de la géographie et de l'éducation a la citoyenneté. Recherches en Education, 2011, vol. 12, pp. 68-81.
52. Australian Curriculum, Assessment And Reporting Authority 2018 The Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship. Available at: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/rationale/.
53. Bamber P., Bullivant A., Clark A., Lundie D. Educating Global Britain: perils and possibilities promoting 'national' values through critical global citizenship education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 2018, 66(4), pp. 433-453.
54. Banks J. Failed Citizenship and Transformative Civic Education. Educational Researcher, 2017, vol. 46 (7), pp. 366377. DOI:10.3102/0013189X17726741.
55. Boland J. Orientations to civic engagement: Insights into the sustainability of a challenging pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 2014, vol. 39 (1), pp.180-195.
56. Cohen C. J. Democracy remixed: Black youth and the future of American politics. Oxford University Press, 2010.
57. Crick B. The English Citizenship Order 1999: Context Content and Presuppositions. In Education for Democratic Citizenship: Issues of Theory and Practice, edited by A. Lockyer, B. Crick, J. Annette, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, pp. 15-29.
58. Dam ten G., Geijsel F. P., Reumerman R., Ledoux G. Measuring citizenship competences of young people. European Journal of Education, 2011. 46(3). p. 354-372.
59. Davies I., Evans M. Ried A. Globalising citizenship education? A critique of 'global education' and 'citizenship education'. British Journal of Educational Studies, 2005, vol. 53(1), pp. 66-89.
60. Davies I., Chong E. K. Current challenges for citizenship education in England. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2016, vol. 5(1), pp, 20-36.
61. Doer N. M. Do 'global citizens' need the parochial cultural other? Discourse of immersion in study abroad and learning-by-doing. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2013, vol. 43(2), pp. 224-243.
62. Feyfant A. L'éducation a la citoyenneté. Dossier d'actualité de la VST, 2010, no. 57, pp. 212-227.
63. Goren H., Yemini M. Global citizenship education redefined - A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 2017, no. 82, pp. 170-183.
64. Gutierrez M.P., Lozano J.A. La formacion de ciudadanos: Conceptualizacion y desarrollo de la competencia social y cívica. Educacion XXI, 2015, vol. 18(1), pp. 259-281.
65. Haapakoski J., K. Pashby. Implications for Equity and Diversity of Increasing International Student Numbers in European Universities: Policies and Practice in Four National Contexts. Policy Futures in Education, 2017, vol. 15 (3), pp. 360-379.
66. Hanson L. Global citizenship, global health, and the internationalization of curriculum: A study of transformative potential. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2010, vol. 14, pp. 70-88.
67. Henderson D., Tudball L. More than national education: possibilities for critical participatory learning in the Australian curriculum through Civics and Citizenship. Curriculum Perspectives, 2017, vol. 37 (1), pp. 51-61.
68. Jerome L. England's Citizenship Education Experiment: State, School and Student Perspectives. London: Continuum, 2012.
69. Jorba L., Bimber B. The Impact of Digital Media on Citizenship from a Global Perspective. Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study (Communication, Society and Politics) (ed. by E. Anduiza, M. Jensen, L. Jorba). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 16-38.
70. Keating A., Kerr D., Benton T., et al. Citizenship Education in England 2001-2010: Young People's Practices and Prospects for the Future: The Eighth and Final Report from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS) (DFE-RR059), 2010. London: Department of Education.
71. Lilley K., Barker M., Harris N. The global citizen conceptualized: Accommodating ambiguity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2017, vol. 21(1), pp. 6-21.
72. Maurissen L., Claes E., Barber C. Deliberation in citizenship education: how the school context contributes to the development of an open classroom climate. Social Psychology of Education, 2018, vol. 21, pp. 951-972. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-018-9449-7.
73. Miedema S., Bertram-Troost G. The Challenges of Global Citizenship for Worldview Education. The Perspective of Social Sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 2015, vol. 17(2), pp. 44-52.
74. Morais D.B., Ogden, A.C. Initial development and validation of the Global Citizenship Scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2011, vol. 15(5), pp. 445-466.
75. Mossberger K., Wu Y., Crawford J. Connecting Citizens and Local Governments? Social Media and Interactivity in Major U.S. - Cities Government Information Quarterly, 2013, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 351-358.
76. Pais A. An ideology critique of global citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education, 2020, vol. 61(1), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2017.1318772.
77. Pashby K., da Costa M., Stein S., Andreotti V. A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative education, 2020, vol. 56 (2), pp. 144-164. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352.
78. Parker W. Towards a Powerful Human Rights Curriculum in Schools. Citizenship Education and Global Migration, edited by J. Banks, 2017, pp. 457-481. Washington, DC: AERA.
79. Reysen S., Katzarska-Miller I., Plante C. N. et al. Perceived impact of globalization and global citizenship identification. Journal of Globalization Studies, 2020, vol. 11(1), p. 16-32. DOI: 10.30884/jogs/2020.01.02.
80. Selezneva A.V. Patriotism as a Political Value: Political-Psychological Analysis. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 2017, no. 38. pp, 200-208.
81. Sekerdej M., Roccas S. Love versus loving criticism: Disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism. Social psychology, 2016, vol. 55 (3), pp. 499-521. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12142.
82. Schatz R.T., Staub E., Lavine H. On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 1999, no. 20, pp. 151-175.
83. Schulz W., Ainley J. et al, 2018. Becoming Citizens in a Changing World / IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International Report. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-73963-2.
84. Shultz L., Abdi A., Richardson G. Global citizenship education and the role of the academy: A critical introduction. In L. Shultz, A. Abdi, G. Richardson (Eds.), 2011. Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: theories, practices, policies: New York: Peter Lang, pp. 1-13.
85. Sklad M., Friedman J., Park E., Oomen B. 'Going Glocal': a qualitative and quantitative analysis of global citizenship education at a Dutch liberal arts and sciences college. Higher Education, 2016, vol. 72(3), pp. 323-340.
86. Sloam J. Diversity and Voice: The Political Participation of Young People in the European Union. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2016, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 521-537.
87. Tarrant M.A., Rubin D.L., Stoner L. The added value of study abroad: Fostering a global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2014, vol. 18, pp. 141-161.
88. Tarozzi M., Inguaggiato C. Implementing global citizenship education in EU primary schools: The role of government ministries. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2018, vol. 10 (1). pp. 21-38. DOI: 10.18546/IJDEGL.10.1.03.
89. Tudball E., Henderson D. Contested Notions of Civics and Citizenship Education as National Education in the Australian Curriculum. Curriculum and Teaching, 2014, vol. 29 (2), pp. 5-24.
90. UNESCO (2019). Global citizenship education. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/ themes/gced.
91. VanderDussen Toukan E. Educating citizens of 'the global': Mapping textual constructs of UNESCO's global citizenship education 2012-2015. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2018, vol. 13(1), pp. 51-64. DOI: 10.1177/1746197917700909.
92. Veugelers W. How globalisation influences perspectives on citizenship education: from the social and political to the cultural and moral. Compare: a journal of comparative and international education, 2021, vol. 51 (8), pp. 1174-1189. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1716307.
93. Weinberg J., Flinders M. Learning for democracy: The politics and practice of citizenship education. British Educational Research Journal, 2018, vol. 44 (4), pp. 573-592. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3446.
94. Yemini M., Tibbitts F., Goren H. Trends and caveats: Review of literature on global citizenship education in teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2019, vol. 77, pp. 77-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.014.
95. Yemini M., Goren H. The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students' socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2017, vol. 67, pp. 9-22.
96. Zembylas M., Charalambous P., Charalambous C., Lesta S. Toward a critical hermeneutical approach of human rights education: Universal ideals, contextual realities and teachers' difficulties. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2017, vol. 49 (4), pp. 497-517. DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2016.1188156.
Информация об авторе
Information about the author
Aleksandra P. Fakhretdinova
(Russia, Tomsk) Associate Professor, PhD in Pedagogical Sciences National Research Tomsk State University ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6837-4760 Researcher ID: AAZ-6346-2020
Фахретдинова Александра Павловна
(Россия, Томск)
Доцент, кандидат педагогических наук Национальный исследовательский Томский
государственный университет ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6837-4760 ResearcherlD: AAZ-6346-2020
