 |
 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Spotlight on Josephine Hauer Josephine Hauer is a doctoral student in Educational Leadership at the University of Bridgeport, Ct. Dr. Hauer's current research involves the empirical evaluation of innovative character education practices in Russian schools and their impact on sociomoral judgment and meaning-in-life of adolescents. She has also recently finished co-authoring a comprehensive character education book entitled, Cultivating Heart and Character: Educating for Life’s Most Essential Goals, to be published fall 2000 by Character Development Publishing. Hauer’s study examines whether character education influences Russian teachers’ attitudes and character. Particularly, she was interested in examining whether any of the following were positive influences: challenges, personal growth opportunities, relationships with family. During the 1998-1999 school year, these Russian teachers worked with a trainer to improve their understanding and skills in character and moral education. The teachers all used varied methods, but all were utilizing the My World and I training program. The findings from this preliminary investigation indicated that character education had a significant impact on the teacher’s own character development. The teachers also reported that there was personal satisfaction from being a character educator, and that their own lives were positively influenced being a character educator. Specifically, 92% of the teachers rated that there was a strong or very strong impact on personal development, 90% of the teachers rated that there was a strong or very strong positive influence of lesson content on their personal life, and 72% of the teachers rated that there was a strong or very strong character education was important. However, it is also noteworthy that 44% of the teachers rated that there was little or no impact on their hope for society. Based on her findings, Hauer suggested that future research in this area should be continued. I spoke with Hauer about this research: · How did you become interested in character education? As a student at Harvard Divinity School studying Religion and Secondary Education in the latter 1980s, I studied with Carol Gilligan. I had always been interested in the philosophical and psychological sides of morality and the notion that some aspects of moral growth could be measured seemed fascinating. I was also intrigued by the practical application of Kohlberg’s theory to education, especially concerning peer dialogue. Because of my abiding interest in religion and theology I have always been interested in the pursuit and experience of purpose and meaning in life. In my current research study, I have tried to combine both of these interests. · What do you think your research findings say to researchers who are measuring moral development or character education? My results so far suggest a connection between one’s sense of meaning in life and one’s moral maturity. Meaning in life is a composite construct that includes the affective and interpretive domain, which is important for moral education at any level. Some theorists indicate that pursuing meaning leads to a moral conviction about life. Others say that living out good values leads to a greater experience of meaning in life. Clearly, in some way these constructs are reciprocally related and I hope others pursue this dynamic connection with more detailed studies, using different measuring instruments. To my knowledge, there have been no formal empirical studies in the post-Soviet era on Russian adolescents that looked at moral maturity. Russian students demonstrate a robust and rich moral vocabulary, replete with metaphors and sayings from history and literature. They are struggling to balance and reconstruct some “old” Communist values like collectivism, love of Motherland, and labor upbringing, with new democratic values, stressing individuality, free choice and universal human values. In their answers to many questions it is clear that adolescents feel “in between” the old generation and the unclear future. The highly prized family relationships demonstrate a complex relationship to legal justice and make a clear distinction between loving “the Motherland” and supporting injustice in their government. · What do you think your findings suggest to practitioners who are working with college students? I would encourage practitioners to explore the domain of both ultimate and personal meaning when encouraging moral reflection on ethics, rules, moral dilemmas, etc. Encouraging the dimension of meaning is an important avenue to pursue moral growth. Providing opportunities for students to reflect on the meaning of life, specific events or cultural trends in which they find themselves, could provide a rich dimension for encouraging ethical behavior. A rich experience of meaning in life has been linked to positive coping, health, life satisfaction and well-being. Therefore, encouraging students to reflect on their behavior and moral decision-making in an effort to make meaning can be very helpful. · What primary differences do you see between Russian and American approaches to character development? Even though under Communism, moral education was fused with political education, the common understanding that “There is no academic learning (obrazovanie) without moral upbringing (vospitanie)”. This remains a universally held motto, even though Marxist dogmas have been taken out of schools. The structures and collectivist emphasis remains as does the moral authority of the teacher, even though Russian schools are suffering under tremendous economic hardships. The concerns of teachers in Russia are the same concerns of those in America: how to encourage moral norms such as politeness, respect, caring, diligence, etc. in their students? Russian schools (except some in the big cities) are not yet plagued with the extent of drugs and violence that we find in many American schools, but signs are that problems of alcoholism and other problems are growing. The age-old question “Why should I be good?” remains in both of our countries and has to be answered newly in each age. The goal of moral education in the Communist era was of course, to produce “the ideal Soviet citizen,” and that has not been replaced with a clear notion of the responsibilities of the new Russian citizen. The challenges for Russian moral educators are to encourage individual initiative, leadership and the establishment of civic organizations that are voluntary, effective and not mandatory and politically controlled. Toward this end the dialogue between moral educators in America could be very helpful. · What can American educators learn from our international colleagues about this topic? Many Russian teachers I met in schools (I visited 21 in middle Russia all together) impressed me with their passion and interest in finding new methods for encouraging a life of value and meaning in their students. From a young age, they pay close attention to the group dynamics of the peer group and I think that there is much wisdom in this focus. Also, in schools each student has a special moral education teacher, a vospitat, that meets with their parents monthly and acts as a mentor/friend/mediator for up to seven years of their time in school. In their approach to moral education, there is an emphasis on students knowing each other closely and at least on teacher (the vospitat) knowing the students, their family and their personal psychology. This is very impressive and very different than in America. Many Russian teachers are looking for new methods to include a more student-centered focus, to be more humanistic, with a greater emphasis on experiential and social learning. They are extremely creative and diligent in getting through a rigorous curriculum even though their hardships are great and there is a lack of supplies. They feel the importance of promoting character in the midst of nation-building, and they are struggling very sincerely against tremendously difficult odds. Government and social processes are rife with corruption, educational budgets are practically non-existent, parents often have to help repair falling down school buildings, books are old, supplies are low. Russian students and teachers often spoke of finding the “Russian way” for their country – not simply following the example of United States, Europe or China. They are maintaining a strong love of their language, history and culture, even as they are letting go of many negative aspects of social structures from Soviet times. They are searching for universal values that can revitalize the best of Russian traditions but also embrace contemporary ideas. · Where does your work go from here? I am collecting lesson plans, stories of best practices and methodology from Russian teachers and would like to publish this for American educators. And in future empirical psychological research I would like to continue to explore the relationship between moral judgment and meaning, possibly with other constructs as well, like moral identity and emotional intelligence. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
