Forein Students Education: Tolerance And Mosaicity Structure Of International Groups

Andrey A. Verbitsky ,
Irina F. Berezhnaya ,
Mariam D. Iliazova ,
Ailida R. Ainalieva*

Abstract

The article deals with foreign and Russian approaches to the maintenance of the concept "tolerance", the specific bounds between various components of tolerance. It was in studies revealing the tendencies to change criteria of tolerance which act as various steady Person`s characteristics. Proceeding from specific tolerance structure, the concept "cross-cultural tolerance" is separately considered. Due to the increase in number of foreign students and the problems experienced by them at a university, the idea of providing the additional support to international students is suggested. The article is aimed to find out and study problems of foreign students training at Russian universities in the context of international groups’ mosaicity and tolerance of learning process agents. The statistical data analysis on the number of foreign citizens in the Astrakhan State Technical University allowed defining mosaicity of structure in international groups. We come to a conclusion that at design and introduction of education joint forms of international groups at universities the index of mosaicity has to be considered. Culture, tolerance and the relation are those constituents which are possible for changing and creating in the course of training and education of the personality. Formation of cross-cultural tolerance is one of strategic goals of a higher education institution, teachers and students in particular.

Keywords: Foreign studenteducationtolerancemosaicity

Introduction

Every year the number of foreign students in educational institutions of the Russian Federation increases, in parallel there is an increase in number of the higher educational institutions making enrolment of foreign citizens. Foreign students are considered to be the indicator of attractiveness of an education system in many countries, the prestige value of a higher educational institution directly depends on number of graduates who are foreign citizens and number of trained foreign students. Therefore, making global university ratings, one considers foreign students equity. This factor became a direct referring to Russian universities (especially universities-participants of “top 5-100” program): they are to enlarge the number of foreign student. According to the “5-100” program 5 Russian universities must enter the top 100 world university ranking.

If we try to have a look at this problem not so globally (from the position of the federally political ideas and institutions), but from the point of view of the teacher and /or student's group where close Russian and foreign students interaction happens, then the practical solution of the internationalization of education problem will consist only in stating the tolerant, humane relations between subjects of multicultural education, both as inside the university, and beyond its limits.

The tolerance, thus, is also one of the key categories of vocational pedagogy that causes successful process of different educational clusters unification at the international level with saving their cultural and ethnic integrity and identity. It is remarkable that in international student groups with a high mosaicity rate foreign students’ successful adaptation will claim the tolerant educational environment. In its turn it is defined by the already formed level of learning process agents` cross-cultural tolerance.

Problem Statement

There are a number of problems in the cross-cultural relations sphere at educational organizations of the Russian Federation. University students` cross-cultural tolerance formation gains the special importance recently. It is caused by a number of circumstances.

Firstly, formation of tolerant behaviour, cross-cultural tolerance and students’ cross-cultural dialogue training is required at the present stage of internationalization.

Secondly, one of the main features of students who study at universities is polyethnicity: students of different nationalities and cultures often study as a part of a learning group.

Thirdly, it is incomplete use of the potential of cross-cultural tolerance formation by a university. Educational work with students on cross-cultural tolerance formation represents separate actions having incidental character.

The analysis of the listed circumstances suggests that the relevance of the chosen problem is caused by needs of the state, society and the educational organizations of Russia. Multiculturalism and religious diversity of universities cause interpersonal interaction difficulties among students. Some of them cannot cope with the individual perception of representatives of other cultures, considering them within their own culture. Thus, students` positive cross-cultural interaction does not arise independently; it needs to be learned purposefully. “The postmodern pedagogy affirmed in the postmodern, postindustrial, knowledge society, imposes a new approach of education, as specific study object, with impact on curriculum design” (Soare, 2016, p. 1).

Research Questions

Based on the observations above, the authors have determined the following research questions:

  • carry out the analysis of statistical data on the number of foreign citizens in Russian higher education institutions;

  • define mosaicity structure in international student groups on the example of Astrakhan State Technical University (ASTU).

  • identify contents and reveal structural components of the concept "cross-cultural tolerance" on the basis of the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to study a problem of foreign students training at Russian universities in the context of mosaicity of international groups and tolerance of educational process objects.

Research Methods

The authors resorted to theoretical (inductive and deductive reasoning, synthesis, generalization and abstraction, comparing and contrasting) as well as empirical (pedagogical experiment, educational observation, questionnaire, interview, expert evaluation, learner testing) methods. Mathematical method of processing statistical data is used.

Findings

Problem of internationalization of Russian higher education and expansion of education export is one of high priority in the Russian federal program "Development of education" during 2013-2020. On the program having been introduced not less than five Russian universities are to enter the world ranking hundreds of leading universities, they are already included in the “5-100 project”. The equity of foreign students studying at Russian universities has to increase from 2.3% in 2011 to 10% by 2020.

We understand “internationalization” as distribution, expansion of a process or activity field expansion of structure of one region / state, for a framework of another; participation of a wide range of participants occur. Students who leave the native state with the purpose to get education are the participants of international educational projects.

Development of the relations with neighboring countries is proclaimed in the Concept of the Russian Federation`s foreign policy as Russian priority. Relationship with them has paramount value in political, economic, military and educational spheres. During the Soviet period (1922- 1991) the most part of the foreigners who graduated was made by natives of socialist countries of Eastern Europe, Asia and Cuba, now the situation considerably changed.

Foreign students in Russia in 2017

Statistical data, collected (Arefyev, 2018) in the 15th release of the collection "Training of Foreign Citizens in Higher Educational Institutions of the Russian Federation" at the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation allowed to show (Figure 01 ) that the greatest share of foreign students is made by citizens of the CIS countries or as it is accepted to call them, foreign citizens of the neighboring countries.

Figure 1: Distribution of foreign students number on groups and regions of the world (for the beginning 2016/2017 academic years), %]
Distribution of foreign students number on groups and regions of the world (for the beginning 2016/2017 academic years), %]
See Full Size >

Total number of the foreign citizens studying at Russian universities increased in 2016/2017 academic year in comparison with 2015/2016 by 28.6 thousand people or for 14.2%. It occurred generally at the expense of the Asian countries (first of all Kazakhstan, China, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and India). The largest body of foreign full-time students in 2016/2017 were (as well as in previous year) representatives of Kazakhstan (39.7 thousand people), on the second place – China (26.8 thousand people), on the third – Turkmenistan (17.3 thousand people).

The most demanded professions at foreign citizens in 2016/2017 academic year are in the sphere of engineering (they were chosen in general by 50.7 thousand people or 22.1%) and medicine (45.8 thousand people or 20.0%). Economy and management (30.2 thousand people or 13.2%) is then.

The number of foreign students studying at universities of the Russian Federation gradually increases from 157.6 thousand people in 2010/11 to 229.32 thousand people in 2017.

The Eckhel`s mosaicity index

Training of foreign students can take place in the groups having as uniform (only Russian or only foreign students) as mixed structures (international groups).

Within our research we carried out the analysis of so-called "mosaicity" of international groups. For this purpose we used a method of calculation of the Eckhel`s mosaicity index (Lagutkin, 2007):

P i = 1 - ∑ i = 1 m η i 2 ,

where Pj is the mosaicity index of international structure j-of group;

m – number of students - representatives of various countries as a part of group j-y;

ni – the specific weight (share) of students - representatives of i-y of international group in the general structure of number of j-y of group.

Mosaicity structure of international groups

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

It can be viewed (Table 01 ) that the highest value of the mosaicity index of student's groups international structure is at Institute of Fishery, Biology and Environmental management – 0.833, further follows Institute of Oil and Gas – 0.554 and then comes Institute of Economy – 0.475. These indicators confirm that technical specializations are the most demanded ones among foreign citizens.

We will reflect the data obtained after calculation of the mosaicity index of the first course student groups’ international structure at different institutes affiliated to ASTU (Figure 02 ). For our calculation convenience groups are numbered from 1 to 6.

Figure 2: Calculation of the mosaicity index of international groups` structure of the1st course of ASTU institutes
Calculation of the mosaicity index of international groups` structure of the1st course of ASTU institutes
See Full Size >

Among student groups the Institute of Oil and Gas has the highest value of the mosaicity index (0.638) - representatives of 8 countries: the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Guinea-Bissau, Egypt, Tanzania, Congo, Guinea; Institute of Economy (0.676) – representatives of 6 countries: the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Guinea-Bissau, Azerbaijan, Vietnam and Iran; Institute of Fishery, Biology and Environmental management (0.630) – representatives of 5 countries: the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana and Kazakhstan.

It is remarkable that in international groups of students with a high rate of mosaicity successful adaptation of foreign students will claim the tolerant educational environment which, in turn, is defined by the level of formation of cross-cultural tolerance of subjects of educational process.

Concept of tolerance

We should note that in scientific literature concept of tolerance comes together with intolerance definition which is its conditional antipode. The intolerant relation is when the personality shows the illiberal relation and dares to be beyond a legal deviation. This concept allows more comprehensive study of tolerance, in particular, by consideration of its criteria.

Generalizing results of the essence analysis of the concept "tolerance / intolerance", we will assume it as the active conscious relation of the personality possessing / not possessing a certain level of psycho-emotional stability to those significant objects of social interaction that cause emotions due to differences in a valuable system, habitual forms of behaviour and specific features but promoting /not promoting its adaptations and further integration in the society.

The relation of the personality (Myasishchev, 1982) has four main characteristics: activity, consciousness, integrity and selectivity. Concerning the considered concept "tolerance", the content of these characteristics will look like as follows:

  • tolerance as relation of the personality (if it is about truthful tolerance) does not allow indifference, disinterest and passivity from agents of interaction and therefore it has a certain activity (tolerance is the internal active relation shown in compassion, in action/dialogue (Ishchenko, 1990); "tolerance of the personality assumes the interested attitude towards Another, desire to experience his attitude which induces to work reason already because it is something different, something not similar to own perception of reality" (Valitova, 1996, p. 33);

  • tolerance as the relation, assumes conscious behaviour of tolerating, it is done neither on the basis of instincts nor at the intuitive level, it happens at the level when the person "accurately knows, critically comprehends and he is capable to defend it logically …" (Bondyreva & Kolesov, 2011, p. 238);

  • integrity as a characteristic of tolerance relation, occurs when a person can make tolerant actions, only being included in public relations, interacting with other people, with their distinctions and features ("tolerance is directed to itself and to the people surrounding us whose systems of values, meanings and views, together with our perception of the world, allows us to prove those relations which lie in the plane tolerant …" (Astashova, 2011, p. 18);

  • selectivity is also peculiar to tolerance relation. A personality throughout social life enters the relations with various interaction objects, and these relations are characterized by different extent of selective intension or orientation. In other words, a tolerating person can always have the choice or the right ("tolerance is the right of another for options, the right to the valid multiculturalism, polyculture as a source of the movement in this world" (Asmolov, 1998, p. 7).

Structure of tolerance

In structure of tolerance researchers allocate as simple components (such as patience - humility, love - mercy, pluralism and freedom (Ivanishcheva, 2015); trust, empathy, sympathy and empathy (Vlasova, 2013) as more complex elements and subsystems. Such approaches are presented (Table 02 ).

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

Simple components (for example, the cognitive subsystem can include knowledge, abilities, skills, experience and a valuable element) can enter into structure of a complex element or subsystem, and they, in turn, can be used together with difficult components (the empathy cannot obligatory be a part of an affective or emotional component, it can be an independent subsystem in tolerance structure).

Various authors, analyzing structure of the "tolerance" concept, in the majority proceed from the same set of elements, changing logical bindings between them and, partly, their substantial characteristics. So, some authors understand the motivational component as an ability to change emotional state and relation of the personality independently, when others think that it is formation of moral criterion of tolerance. One part of researchers allocates conative element, considering it a skill of conflicts resolution, the others speak of a general strategy of a tolerating person`s behaviour, etc.

Criteria of tolerance

Besides the study of tolerance components there is a problem of tolerance criteria in scientific literature. Criteria or signs of tolerance or intolerance mostly act as a list of personality`s various steady characteristics. As a result of the analysis of different researchers` works on a problem of tolerance criteria, we conditionally allocated two main approaches.

Criteria (signs) of tolerance or intolerance are often considered to be enumeration of personal characteristics of a tolerating. “Performance goals operate when individuals are concerned with gaining favourable judgments of their competence in relation to others; learning goals are salient when individuals are concerned with selfreferenced mastery of tasks and increasing their competence” (Poom-Valickis, Rumma, Francesconi, & Joosu, 2017, p.782).

The researcher (Pogodina, 2002) was the first to consider tolerance criteria as a list of steady personal characteristics and allocated five indicators of tolerance:

  • stability of the individual assuming a certain degree of a maturity and formation of social and moral motives as a consequence of close interaction between the individual and Others;

  • empathy considered as an Individual`s ability to live thoughts and internal processes of another person emotionally;

  • behavioural divergence is opposed to a standardization, rigidity and stereotype actions, it designates ability to solve tasks in atypical ways. It is oriented to a variety of options searching;

  • mobility of behaviour is the criterion that follows from the previous one, it means the ability to manifest flexibility in quickly changing life situations;

  • social activity assumes installation on the active, constructive and interested interaction of the individual with representatives of various cultures.

By the way, theoretical base for the criteria that are marked out by Pogodina (2002) was the work of Asmolov (1998). He allocates in a “tolerance” concept such components as stability of Individual, mobility of behaviour, social activity and empathy. This criteria scheme is often adapted by Russian scientists in the context of various researches and it forms the basis for schemes in many other works.

The list of the criteria, offered by Pogodina (2002), is enlarged (Ivanishcheva, 2015) by such structural indicators as "attraction" and "creativity", thereby she has concretized psychological essence of tolerance criteria:

  • empathy – adequate idea of what occurs in inner world of other person;

  • behavioural divergence – ability to solve usual problems in an unusual way, (orientation to search of several versions of the decision);

  • mobility of behaviour – ability to change the strategy or tactics taking into account the developing circumstances fast;

  • social activity – readiness for interaction in various social interethnic situations with the purpose of goals achievement and building up the constructive relations in society;

  • attraction represents the form of knowledge of other person based on emergence to his/her positive feelings: from sympathy to love;

  • creativity is an ability to generate new or original ideas and the points of view.

The domestic researcher (Yankina, 2006), marked out similar criteria of tolerance with such indicators as flexibility, empathy, not categoricalness of judgments and ability not to judge others.

Criteria tolerance model

Criteria of tolerance are also marked out (on the basis of G. Allport`s parameters) in the form of personal characteristics (Ilyinskaya, 2007), having compared them with behavioural reactions of the tolerant and intolerant Individual (Table 03 ).

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

In scientific literature there are also schemes of criteria which are not turned to characteristics of the tolerating personality. They are based on theoretical principles of tolerance. Thus, researchers V.A. Lectotskii and G.U. Soldatova worked out similar criteria.

Lectotskii (1997) puts forward such criteria as "equality; mutual respect of the personality and society; benevolence and tolerance to various groups…; equal opportunities for all members of society; preservation and development of cultural originality; an opportunity to follow customs and traditions" (p. 49).

Soldatova gives the same basic criteria which are marked out by V.A. Lektorsky, having complemented their content with several more indicators:

  • equality (equal access to social benefits, to administrative, educational and economic opportunities for all people, irrespective of their gender, race, nationality, religion);

  • mutual respect of group or society members, benevolence and tolerance to various groups (to disabled people and refugees, etc.);

  • equal opportunities for participation in political life to all members of society;

  • preservation and development of cultural originality and languages of ethnic minorities;

  • coverage of a large number of people by events of public character or by holidays if it does not contradict their cultural traditions and religious beliefs;

  • an opportunity to follow their own traditions for people of all cultures presented in the society;

  • freedom of worship (if it does not violate the rights of other members of society);

  • cooperation and solidarity in the solution of common problems;

  • positive lexicon in the most vulnerable spheres of the interethnic, interracial relations, in relations between the sexes (Asmolov et al., 2001).

One more author of tolerance criteria model, Palatkina (2003) connected tolerance relation criteria with cultural and ethnic distinctions:

  • respect for languages of Others;

  • notion of an idea that there are no bad people and nations;

  • the attentive and delicate relation between interacting people;

  • aspiration to study their own culture and culture of other nations, desire to take active part in holidays of other nations;

  • absence of any kind of suppression (violence), granting an opportunity to explain the customs and belief without any fear;

  • relation between minority and the majority which is characterized by participation of all interacting people in all affairs.

Today there is no unique view of criteria essence of tolerance, however there were at least two main approaches. The specific classification on types of tolerance is presented in scientific literature not less diverse.

Tolerance types

Ionina (2005) sees the classification of tolerance types more widely and gives not only types, but the bases:

  • manifestation of tolerance as public consciousness;

  • subject to which action of tolerance is directed;

  • level at which the tolerance is shown;

  • internal motivation and valuable contents;

  • result of tolerant behaviour;

  • position of the attitude towards tolerance as to a stability factor.

The researchers (Mchedlov, 2004; Vlasova, 2013; Markova, 2009) divide tolerance forms on the basis of social and socio-demographic indicators. So, Mchedlov (2004) in the order of increase manifested the tolerant relation and degree of their formation. He selects personal, public and state forms of tolerance. According to Vlasova (2013), tolerance can be worldview, religious, political, legal, moral, ethical, theological, psychoemotional, cultural and other. Markova (2009) suggests investigating gender, age, physiological, educational, racial, geographical, political and marginal tolerance.

The cross-cultural tolerance, certainly, is important and necessary for practice of tolerance, but it is "a part of the whole". It is a subtype of communicative tolerance. But if about the last one it is written much in scientific literature, the cross-cultural tolerance is less studied.

It is noted that "cross-cultural tolerance and intolerance are shown in interaction of representatives of different cultures at the level the subject - object and the subject - subject relations. At the same time the cross-cultural tolerance is considered as one of strategic lines of national and cultural education" (Mchedlov, 2004, p. 66).

Cross-cultural tolerance

The term “culture” is the main in a definition of "cross-cultural tolerance". We intend to consider the maintenance of this concept in details.

Culture (from the Latin word cultura meaning "cultivation, education, education") is a very multidimensional concept and not less difficult than tolerance, however it is more studied. Kreber, Klakhon, & Strodtbek (Culture as a Word, n. d.) selected more than fifteen definitions, and there are several hundred different treatments in modern dictionaries. Culture is understood as knowledge received through training; that is created during human activity; a way of adaptation to the environment; set of psychologically caused behaviour models and etc.

In our research we consider culture as historically caused special relation to the world, this relation is formed in the course of psycho-emotional inclusiveness in activity of social and ethnic groups and institutes. During these activities certain templates of behaviour, dialogue and interaction are acquired. “Ethnicity prevails on all ‘social sensings, doings and knowings’ and provides authenticity to the language discourse of a specific ethnic group” (Zafar, 2017, p. 179).

The remarkable thing is that one of important features of a tolerating person is humanity that brings the concept of tolerance closer to a concept of culture: "and Other person in culture acts not as an object of but as inherent value. And other nation, "others" culture is also can be viewed as a sort of Other personality to be understood, but not be demanded to be similar to us". The purpose of Culture is enrichment and instilling to the Individual (Genov, 2018) the value of multidimensional world and interest in this variety.

Cross-cultural tolerance is viewed in scientific literature as the following:

  • "a complex of the character features and abilities allowing him/her to show tolerance, respect and the benevolent attitude towards representatives of other cultural communities" (Slobozhankina, 2006, p. 23);

  • "an integrative quality of the personality which is formed in the course of socialization. The quality is made of the expressed readiness for implementation of interpersonal and cross-cultural communications on the basis of respect, understanding, acceptance and recognition of differences between features of his own personality and the identity of the interlocutor with preservation of self-identity" (Beketova, Kuprina, & Petrikova, 2018, p. 114);

  • "an ability to see in another real Another carrier of different values, logic of thinking, other forms of behaviour, understanding of the right to be different; as the positive attitude towards such dissimilarity as ability to see another person "from within"; as ability to look at the world along with two points of view" (Safina, 2011, p. 286);

  • "an ability of tolerant perception of alien culture as in a common sense so as through its certain representatives, other system of values, other way and a way of life, different behaviour and appearance, unlike traditions, alien opinions and beliefs" (Tomin, 2015), etc.

Thus, the cross-cultural tolerance is the relation of the personality based on successful process of her cultural and ethnic self-identification. It defines the positive nature of cross-cultural interaction with Others, adaptation and further integration into foreign culture environment. The principle of multicultural base of a future specialist’s personality development (Mahiri, 2017) means that professional culture is a component of general culture, a very complex phenomenon including many elements.

Culture, tolerance and the relation are those constituents which are possible for changing and creating in the course of training and education of the personality. This work proved that the level of cross-cultural tolerance development is important in socialization, education and professional activity of the person.

Conclusion

High level of mosaicity of group is shown in the variety of behavioural ways, standards of communication acquired by foreign citizens in the homeland. In other words, in behavioural stereotypes and in communication there is much that promotes emergence of barriers between foreign and Russian students. In order to avoid misunderstanding and different conflicts between students or with teachers in international group it is necessary to know accurate specifics of national and psychological features of all presented ethnic groups. Actual application of the mosaicity index of international group structure would be quite adequate in another research to estimate tension of relations, objective conditions of cross-cultural interaction in them will be absolutely various. This research emphasizes problems of educational group "mosaicity" the students` inner relations point of view, problems of sociocultural adaptation to conditions of the international academic environment. We come to the conclusion that at design and introduction of joint education forms of international groups in higher education institutions the index of mosaicity has to be considered.

The cross-cultural tolerance is the relation of the personality based on successful process of the cultural and ethnic self-identification and defining the positive nature of cross-cultural interaction with Others, adaptation and further integration on foreign culture environment.

The level of development of cross-cultural tolerance is important in socialization, education and professional activity of the person and formation of cross-cultural tolerance is one of strategic aims of a higher education institution, teachers and students in particular.

References

  1. Arefyev, A. L. (2018). Obuchenie inostrannyh grazhdan v vysshih uchebnyh zavedenijah Rossijskoj Federacii [Training of foreign citizens in higher educational institutions of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Center of sociological researches. [in Rus.].
  2. Asmolov, A. G. (1998). Tolerantnost': razlichnye paradigmy analiza [Tolerance: various paradigms of the analysis]. Moscow: Smysl. [in Rus.].
  3. Asmolov, A. G., Soldatova, G. U., & Shaygerova, L. A. (2001). O smyslah ponjatija «tolerantnost' [About meanings of the concept "tolerance"]. Moscow: The Century of tolerance MSU. [in Rus.]
  4. Astashova, N. A. (2011). Tolerantnost' kak uslovie samorealizacii lichnosti [Tolerance as condition of self-realization of the personality]. Vestnik of the Bryansk State University. General pedagogics, 1, 18-21. [in Rus.].
  5. Bardier, G. L. (2005). Social'naja psihologija tolerantnosti [Social psychology of tolerance]. Publishing St. Petersburg university. [in Rus.].
  6. Beketova, A. P., Kuprina, T. V., & Petrikova, A. (2018). Razvitie mezhkul'turnoj kommunikativnoj tolerantnosti studentov v polijazychnoj obrazovatel'noj srede vuza [Development of cross-cultural communicative tolerance of students in the polylingual educational environment of higher education institution]. Science and education, 20(2), 108-124. [in Rus.].
  7. Bondyreva, S. K., & Kolesov, D. V. (2011). Tolerantnost' (vvedenie v problemu) [Tolerance (introduction to a problem)]. Moscow: MPSI. [in Rus.].
  8. Culture as a word and as a term, A. Kreber, F. Klakhon & F. Strodtbek about culture. (n. d.). Retrieved from: https://students-library.com/library/read/41726-kultura-kak-slovo-i-kak-naucnoe-ponatie-f-kreber-h-klakhon-i-le-uajt-o-kulture
  9. Genov, N. (2018). Futures of Individualization. Challenges of Individualization, 8, 209–251.
  10. Grinshpun, I. B. (1994). Vvedenie v psihologiju [Introduction to psychology]. Moscow: International pedagogical academy. [in Rus.].
  11. Ishchenko, Y. A. (1990). Tolerantnost' kak filosofsko-mirovozzrencheskaja problema [Tolerance as philosophical and world outlook problem]. Philosophical and sociological thought. Kiev, 4, 48 - 60. [in Rus.].
  12. Ivanishcheva, O. N. (2015). Tolerantnyj diskurs v sovremennom obshhestve [Tolerant discourse in modern society]. Moscow; Berlin: Direkt-media. [in Rus.].
  13. Ilyinskaya, S. G. (2007). Tolerantnost' kak princip politicheskogo dejstvija: istorija, teorija, praktika [Tolerantnost as principle of political action: history, theory, practice]. Moscow: Praksis. [in Rus.]
  14. Ionina, O. S. (2005). Formirovanie tolerantnosti kak sredstvo ustranenija vnutrilichnostnyh konfliktov podrostkov [Formation of tolerance as means of elimination of the intra personal conflicts of teenagers]. (Doctoral dissertation). Kazan: Shchadrinsky State Pedagogical University. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/formirovanie-tolerantnosti-kak-sredstvo-ustraneniya-vnutrilichnostnykh-konfliktov-podrostkov
  15. Krivtsova, E. V. (2015). Problemy tolerantnosti v social'nyh otnoshenijah [Tolerance problems in the social relations]. Berlin: Direkt-media. [in Rus.].
  16. Lagutkin, O. Y. (2007). Analiz specifiki jetnonacional'nogo sostava g. Astrahani i Astrahanskoj oblasti: «pejzazh» vzaimodejstvija i vektory ego izmenenija [Analysis of specifics of ethnonational structure of city Astrakhan and the Astrakhan region: "landscape" of interaction and vectors of its change]. Astrakhan: LLC KPTs Poligrafk. [in Rus.].
  17. Lectotskii, V. A. (1997). O tolerantnosti, pljuralizme i kriticizme [About tolerance, pluralism and criticism]. Philosophy Questions, 11, 46-54. [in Rus.].
  18. Mahiri, J. (2017). Introduction: multicultural education 2.0. Multicultural Education Review, 9(3), 143– 144.
  19. Markova, N. G. (2009). Formation at youth of tolerance as indicator of culture of the international relations. Siberian psychological journal, 31, 53-58.
  20. Mchedlov, M. (2004). Tolerantnost [Tolerance]. Moscow, Republic. [in Rus.].
  21. Myasishchev, V. N. (1982). Struktura lichnosti i otnoshenie cheloveka k dejstvitel'nosti [Structure of the personality and attitude of the person towards reality]. Moscow. Moscow university Publishing. [in Rus.].
  22. Palatkina, G. V. (2003). Formirovanie jetnotolerantnosti u mladshih shkol'nikov [Formation of ethnotolerance at younger school students]. Elementary school, 11, 65-72. [in Rus.].
  23. Pogodina, A. A. (2002). Tolerantnost [Tolerance]. History, 11, 4-5. [in Rus.].
  24. Poom-Valickis, K., Rumma, K., Francesconi, D., & Joosu, K. (2017) Relations Between Student Teachers' Basic Needs Fulfillment, Study Motivation, And Ability Beliefs. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 74, 779-789.
  25. Safina, M. S. (2011). Aktualizacija formirovanija mezhkul'turnoj tolerantnosti v polikul'turnom prostranstve mira [Updating of formation of cross-cultural tolerance in multicultural space of the world]. TGGPU Bulletin, 2(24), 286-291. [in Rus.].
  26. Sirotyuk, A. S. (2014). Formirovanie tolerantnosti u detej doshkol'nogo vozrasta v uslovijah inkljuzivnoj razvivajushhej sredy [Formation of tolerance at preschool age children in inclusion conditions]. Moscow: Direct-Media. [in Rus.].
  27. Slobozhankina, L. R. (2006). Formation of cross-cultural tolerance of future experts in the course of foreign-language preparation. (Doctoral dissertation). Magnitogorsk State University. Retrieved from: http://www.dslib.net/prof-obrazovanie/formirovanie-mezhkulturnoj-tolerantnosti-buduwih-specialistov-v-processe.html
  28. Soare, E. (2016). Integrative Learning Pathways In Competence Based Curriculum. Edu World, 1, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.05.02.1
  29. Streltsova, E. A. (2003). Dialogue interpretation of knowledge as a tolerance educational tool at students. (Doctoral dissertation), Lipetsk, Russia: VSPU. Retrieved from: http://www.dslib.net/prof-obrazovanie/dialogovaja-interpretacija-znanija-kak-sredstvo-vospitanija-tolerantnosti-u-studentov.html
  30. Tomin, V. V. (2015). Formirovanie mezhkul'turnoj tolerantnosti studentov kak faktor produktivnogo krosskul'turnogo vzaimodejstvija [Formation of cross-cultural tolerance of students as factor of productive cross-cultural interaction]. Modern problems of science and education: online journal, 1(1).
  31. Valitova, R. R. (1996). Tolerantnost': porok ili dobrodete [Tolerance: defect or virtue?] Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Philosophy. 1, 33-37. [in Rus.].
  32. Vlasova, I. V. (2013). Tolerance in philosophy: genesis, types, forms. Vestnik sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta gps mchs rossii, 4, 147-151.
  33. Yankina, N. V. (2006). Formation of cross-cultural competence of the university student. Orenburg, (Doctoral dissertation), Orenburg, Russia: Orenburg State University. Retrieved from: http://www.dslib.net/prof-obrazovanie/formirovanie-mezhkulturnoj-kompetentnosti-studenta-universiteta.html
  34. Zafar, A. (2017). Globalization versus ethnicity: the basis of language identity and change. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 74, 177-184,

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

02 December 2019

Article Doi

https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.53

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-072-3

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

73

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-986

Subjects

Communication, education, educational equipment, educational technology, computer-aided learning (CAL), Study skills, learning skills, ICT

Cite this article as:

Verbitsky, A. A., Berezhnaya, I. F., Iliazova, M. D., & Ainalieva*, A. R. (2019). Forein Students Education: Tolerance And Mosaicity Structure Of International Groups. In N. I. Almazova, A. V. Rubtsova, & D. S. Bylieva (Eds.), Professional Сulture of the Specialist of the Future, vol 73. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 0-0). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.53

Copy citation text