Conventional Motivation and Practice of Ideological and Political Work Inuniversities Based on Cognitive Ecological Science

Xiaohui Xia, Rong Chen

Ekoloji, 2019, Issue 108, Pages: 427-431

OPEN ACCESS

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

Zemfira M. Bolshakova, Lyudmila A. Bezborodova, Ninel A. Litvinenko, Viktoriya V. Kudryavtseva, Svetlana Yu. Zavarina, Karina O. Medzhidova, Ludmila V. Starykh, Veronika V. Kuznetsova Buslaev published “Mechanisms and Conditions for Ecological Safety Provision in University Educational Environment” on Issue：107, Pages: 517- 524, Article No: e107059, in the article, From the perspective of cognitive ecological science, the study of the psychological needs of university students shows that giving students reasonable autonomy within the permitted category is conducive to the development of ideological and political work in universities, and to promote the innovation and practice of ideological and political work in universities.

References

  • Guo Y (2014) The Philosophy of Science and Technology in China: Political and Ideological Influences. Science & Education 23 (9): 1835-1844.
  • Jiang H, Yang C, Ma J, Silva T, Chen H (2016) A social voting approach for scientific domain vocabularies construction. Scientometrics 108 (2): 803-820.
  • Leshinskaya A, Caramazza A (2016) For a cognitive ecological science of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23 (4): 991-1001.
  • Mu C, Matsuda PK (2016) Replication in L2 Writing Research: Journal of Second Language Writing Authors' Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly 50 (1): 201-219.
  • Savigny H (2013) The (Political) Idea of a University: Political Science and neoliberalism in English Higher Education. European Political Science 12 (4): 432-439.
  • Senior C, Lee N, Butler M (2016) Perspective—organizational cognitive ecological science. Organization Science 22 (3): 804-815.
  • Tu Y, Lu X (2013) How Ethical Leadership Influence Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior: A; Perspective of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Business Ethics 116 (2): 441-455.