Acceptance psychology of ideological and political education in colleges and universities

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Colleges and universities in China attach great importance to the quality of the ideological and political (l&P) education, trying to improve the acceptance efficiency of the l&P education. From the perspective of psychology, this paper carried out a questionnaire survey among college students, the subjects of acceptance, from three colleges and universities in Hangzhou, China, and measured their psychological acceptance of the l&P education from four dimensions, namely, demand acceptance, method acceptance, emotional acceptance and cognitive acceptance. The acceptance subjects were divided by gender, discipline and grade, and evaluated in groups for their acceptance of the l&P education. Finally, an optimization strategy was proposed for the acceptance psychology of the l&P education in colleges and universities from three perspectives, including education subject, education object and educational environment. The results show that male and female students have extremely significant differences in method acceptance, emotional acceptance and cognitive acceptance, and a significant difference in demand acceptance of the l&P education; liberal arts and science students have no significant difference in psychological acceptance, except the cognitive acceptance dimension; the students from different grades have no significant difference in cognitive acceptance, extremely significant difference in demand acceptance, and significant differences in method acceptance, emotional acceptance and total scale. The research findings shed new light on the acceptance psychology in the l&P education and the optimization of teaching effects.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, Z., & Shi, L. (2020). Acceptance psychology of ideological and political education in colleges and universities. Revista Argentina de Clinica Psicologica, 29(2), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.290

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free