Профессиональный выбор: влияние культурных ресурсов семей российских специалистов
In this issue we present a range of papers about current issues and developments in social work and welfare in Russia. In the Soviet era official state policy did not recognise the existence of social problems so social work was ‘not needed’ in the USSR, a situation which existed to varying degrees in other countries under state socialism (Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2013). The disciplines of sociology and psychology (which could form a basis for critical thinking and professional interventions) were eliminated from university curricula, except in forms which accorded with the dominant political view, and dissent was repressed. There have been major changes in political thinking, societal attitudes and welfare developments since perestroika started in 1985, and particularly since 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia then became open to relationships with western powers and capitalist economic thinking. However, Russia remains a considerable independent power with a distinct history and culture. In this editorial we give a brief overview of the historical and other contextual factors which are informing the particular nature and direction of current developments, some aspects of which are described in the articles.
Modernisation, innovation, économie de la connaissance : des mots d’ordre que les autorités russes ne cessent de marteler sous les présidences successives de Vladimir Poutine et de Dmitri Medvedev. Les universités sont au coeur de cette stratégie d’Etat, qui doit permettre au pays de ne plus dépendre exclusivement de la rente énergétique. L’enjeu est aussi de replacer l’enseignement supérieur russe au sein du marché mondial de l’éducation, en attirant des étudiants étrangers et en revalorisant l’image du pays. Mais ces ambitions nationales et internationales sont-elles encore à la portée des établissements supérieurs russes éprouvés par les années de transition post-communiste, longtemps sous-financées, se partageant des étudiants de moins en moins nombreux ? La réforme profonde, engagée au milieu des années 2000, atteindra-t-elle son objectif de placer quelques universités russes dans le Top-100 des classements internationaux ? A travers six monographies, cet ouvrage propose une analyse de la situation et des perspectives de quelques-unes des meilleures universités nationales (Institut de l’Acier et des Alliages de Moscou, Haut Collège d’Économie, Université technique Bauman, Université du pétrole et du gaz Goubkine, Université fédérale de l’Oural, Nouvelle Université russe et Institut Juridique International). Les auteures, trois chercheuses russes et françaises, se sont appuyées sur des entretiens afin d’appréhender au mieux les transformations en cours au sein des universités russes et leurs perspectives.
Meta-analytic research in psychology of academic performance proved that Big Five Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience predict scholastic achievements of university students (O’Connor, Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009). But we claim that psychological predictiors of academic success depend on educational environment and can be culture-related. We examined 176 2nd and 3rd year economy and computer science university students in Russia with the Big Five – Ipsative version test (Shmelyov, 2010) and discovered that GPA and USE (United State Examination in Russia) scores are significantly correlated with Agreeableness (r = 0.15; p < 0.01 for GPA and r = 0.22 p < 0.01 for USE math) and Neuroticism (r = 0.2, p < 0.01 for GPA and r = -0,17; p < 0,01 for USE math). We suppose that the difference between our result and results provided by the meta-analyses mentioned above can be explained by the differences in educational environment in Russia and other countries. We assume that big number of classes and relatively small amount of individual and analytical assignments create the environment where Agreeableness and Neuroticism are important for the academic success.
This book contains the proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2012) which was organized and sponsored by the Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication (INSTICC) and technically co-sponsored by SPEE (Portuguese Society for Engineering Education), IGIP (International Society for Engineering Education), ROLE (Responsive Open Learning Environments) and IFIP TC3 (International Federation for Information Processing - Technical Committee 3 - ICT and Education).
CSEDU has become an annual meeting place for presenting and discussing learning paradigms, best practices and case studies that concern innovative computer-supported learning strategies, institutional policies on technology-enhanced learning including learning from distance, supported by technology. The Web is currently a preferred medium for distance learning and the learning practice in this context is usually referred to as e-learning or technology-enhanced learning. CSEDU 2012 is expected to give an overview of the state of the art in technology-enhanced learning and to also outline upcoming trends and promote discussions about the education potential of new learning technologies in the academic and corporate world.
This conference brings together researchers and practitioners interested in methodologies and applications related to the education field. It has five main topic areas, covering different aspects of Computer Supported Education, including "Information Technologies Supporting Learning", "Learning/Teaching Methodologies and Assessment", "Social Context and Learning Environments", "Domain Applications and Case Studies" and "Ubiquitous Learning". We believe the proceedings, demonstrate new and innovative solutions, and highlight technical problems in each field that are challenging and worthwhile.
CSEDU 2012 received 243 paper submissions from 58 countries in all continents. A double-blind review process was enforced, with the help of the 297 experts who are members of the conference program committee, all of them internationally recognized in one of the main conference topic areas. Only 29 papers were selected to be published and presented as full papers, i.e. completed work (10 pages in proceedings / 30' oral presentations). 73 papers, describing work-in-progress, were selected as short papers for 20' oral presentation. Furthermore 37 papers were presented as posters. The full-paper acceptance ratio was thus 12%, and the total oral paper acceptance ratio was less than 42%. These ratios denote a high level of quality, which we intend to maintain and reinforce in the next edition of this conference.
The high quality of the CSEDU 2012 programme is enhanced by three keynote lectures, delivered by distinguished guests who are renowned experts in their fields, including (alphabetically): Joseph Trimmer (Ball State University, United States), David Kaufman (Simon Fraser University, Canada) and Hugh Davis (University of Southampton, United Kingdom).
For the fourth edition of the conference we extended and ensured appropriate indexing of the proceedings of CSEDU including DBLP, INSPEC, EI and Thomson Reuters Conference Proceedings Citation Index. Besides the proceedings edited by SciTePress, a short list of papers presented at the conference will be selected for publication of extended and revised versions in the Journal of Education and Information Technologies. Furthermore, all presented papers will soon be available at the SciTePress digital library.
The conference is complemented with two special sessions, focusing on specialized aspects of computer supported education; namely, a Special Session on Enhancing Student Engagement in e-Learning (ESEeL 2012) and a Special Session on Serious Games on Computer Science Learning (SGoCSL 2012).
Building an interesting and successful program for the conference required the dedicated effort of many people. Firstly, we must thank the authors, whose research and development efforts are recorded here. Secondly, we thank the members of the program committee and additional reviewers for their diligence and expert reviewing. We also wish to include here a word of appreciation for the excellent organization provided by the conference secretariat, from INSTICC, who have smoothly and efficiently prepared the most appropriate environment for a productive meeting and scientific networking. Last but not least, we thank the invited speakers for their invaluable contribution and for taking the time to synthesize and deliver their talks.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.