Qualitative analysis reveals educational goals and resource allocation impact ideological education, suggesting new governance models.
The core essence of constructing the "Big Ideological-Political Course" lies in advancing ideological and political education from a "closed classroom" to a "social field." Red research-based learning (RRL), as a key bridge linking the "small classroom" with the "large social classroom," finds its educational efficacy constrained by multiple factors, including resource supply, curriculum design, and implementation guarantees. Currently, RRL practices commonly face a "coordination failure" dilemma, characterized by high synergistic barriers between government, universities, and social institutions (museums, memorial halls, research bases, etc.), inconsistent educational goals, and fragmented resource allocation. This often leads to RRL activities becoming "superficial" and "formalistic." Focusing on solving this problem, this article proposes that constructing a "Government-University-Society" (GUS) Red Research-Based Learning Alliance is an effective path to integrating the "Big Ideological-Political Course." Using qualitative analysis and theoretical construction, the study deeply analyzes the internal logic and functional positioning of the alliance's synergistic education, systematically expounding a four-dimensional integrated operational mechanism required for integration: "policy-driven, curriculum-embedded, resource co-construction, and efficacy feedback." On this basis, the article constructs an alliance governance model centered on "Council Co-governance" and supported by a "List of Powers and Responsibilities" and "Multiple Process-based Evaluations." This research aims to provide a theoretical reference and practical strategy for the construction of RRL alliances in the new era, with the goal of truly breaking down subject barriers, activating local red resources, and promoting the in-depth development of the "Big Ideological-Political Course."
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: