PEDAGOGICAL AND PSYHOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORAL EDUCATION

(IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in science, engineering and education
Vol. 1, No.2, 2013.

 

PEDAGOGICAL AND PSYHOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORAL EDUCATION

Dr. Aneta Barakoska, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
E-mail: aneta@fzf.ukim.edu.mk   
MSc Aneta Jovkovska, Orthodox Faculty of Theology, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
E-mail: ajovkovska@yahoo.com

UDK: 37.034; 17.021.1

Abstract: Analyses of pedagogical and psychological literature show that education and upbringing are oriented to nursing moral values. In pedagogy’s historical context, the most important goals are education, development, and self-development of life experience and student’s perception of efforts to build values in their own life.
In different historical periods, different moral values appear in the society. They are united by being directed towards humanism and on the basis of personal experience they represent completeness of general principles and norms of student’s behavior towards other people, nature, society and towards student’s themselves in the name of the common good. The already formed moral values have regulatory function in student’s life.
The research problem is connected with humanization of the educational process.
Keywords: moral, development, values, upbringing, behavior, orientations, student, religion, society.

 

1.  INTRODUCTION

 

The practice of upbringing and education of individual’s personality is deeply rooted in human’s civilization. In the education and development of an individual’s personality, a specific place is taken by the internal spiritual and moral values. Values and ideals are closely connected to historical factors. As the syllabus of the moral contents subjects changed, so did the idea of the values and ideals. However, religion and philosophy support the idea that in people, besides the formation change, many common things, kept thousands of years and handed down from generation to generation, still remain. Those moral norms which have been tested by the time become universal spiritual and moral values.


2. PEDAGOGICAL BASIS OF THE MORAL EDUCATION

 

In folk pedagogy, moral education takes very important place. Through mediation of oral folk tradition (art), moral ideals, which played a major role in the education of young generations, were transferred. ‘In ancient educational school a student was not brought up only by the lectures he attended, but he gained much more knowledge through the moral atmosphere he absorbed. Not only during the lecturing but constantly, did he absorbed information, attitudes, emotions and habits’, (Ключевский, 1987: 227). Development of moral values was greatly influenced by the environment, customs and living examples. The school for development of spiritual values was the church in which contents with moral and religious character were taught.
The establishment of the pedagogy as a science is closely related to the Czech pedagogue John Amos Comenius. Many of the ideas connected to the moral education are expressed in his work Great Didactic and they haven’t lost their importance and relevance even today. Taking into consideration the philosophical thoughts on the virtues of Plato and Aristotle, Jan Amos Comenius thought of wisdom, restraint, courage, and righteousness as basic virtues. According to these virtues, Comenius advised students to develop modesty, obedience, benevolence towards others, punctuality, courtesy, respect and diligence. As means of moral education, he considered the example of parents, teachers, peers, lessons with moral contents, sermons, practice (tutorials) in children’s moral behavior, the struggle against immorality, laziness, mindlessness, and problems with discipline. In the process of moral upbringing, he pointed out the great importance of the development of positive habits, (Коменский, 1982: 229-237).
John Locke, English philosopher and pedagogue, in his major work Some Thoughts Concerning Education, considering the moral upbringing, gives great significance to emotions, willingness, imagination, as well as the stimulating motives of moral education. Locke considered goodwill, humane behavior towards people, righteousness and mercifulness basic moral values.
French scholars from the XVIII century, Denis Diderot, Paul-Henri d’Holbach, Claude Adrien Helvétius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau fought uncom-promisingly against dogmatism. Rousseau’s teaching is established on the idea of natural perfection of children by which he initiated the appearance of the theory of “natural education” in pedagogy; upbringing of good emotions, good reasoning, and good will.
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in his work Leonard and Gertrude developed ideas for the humane character of education and friendly relationship towards students, instilling in them a sense of empathy and mercifulness as foundation of moral education. Active love towards people and good will towards others are the things that should lead people to moral development. Students develop morality by continual practice in good deeds. Actually, the foundations of children’s moral behavior are created in family. Pestalozzi insisted that students’ moral behavior is not shaped through morali-zation, but it forms thanks to the development of moral emotions and creation of students’ moral affinities (Харламов, 1999: 19).
J. F. Herbart tried to develop a system of pedagogical sciences based on the idealistic philosophy. Herbert’s central thesis of thinking is formation of moral person by means of deterring from the bad, leading to good, moralizing and belief in the abilities to react in a good way. The pedagogical theory of moral education was further developed by Adolph Diesterweg. His theory was based on student’s acquaintance with scientific knowledge and instilling in them high moral qualities.
Epiphanius Slavinetsky and S. Polotsky as a major factor of the moral education, considered the example of parents and teachers who teach children right behavior in the family and at school. A.Prokopovich-Antonovsky calls the high-est value morality, which is achieved through mind enlightenment and upbrin-ging of heart. Alexander Herzen stressed out providing conditions for free development of student’s personality. Nikolay Pirogov in his work Questions of Life formed the major principles of moral upbringing and according to him ‘morality can be improved by means of moral action and with the help of moral measures’ (Сластенин etc., 200: 41-42).
Konstantin Ushinsky developed further Pirogov’s idea of moral upbringing and tried to track the mechanisms that form students’ moral world. He noted: ‘we boldly express the belief that influence on morality is the major mission of education and is much more important than the development of intellectual capabilities, acquaintance of knowledge and clarification of students’ personal interests’ (Ушинс-кий,1953:251). According to Ushinsky, moral upbringing should develop in a student humanism, honesty and righteousness, diligence, discipline and sense of responsibility, self-esteem and self-respect combined with modesty. Ushinky claimed that morality is spiritual and therefore it is a virtue.
Orthodox religious pedagogy takes a special place in the research: A. Radovich, I. Andreevsky, N. Berdjaev, P. Vahterov, V. Zenkovsky, N. Lossky, V. Rozanov, S. Franck etc. held the view that morality is basic and qualitative virtue of education. The most prominent representative of this movement is V. Zenkovsky. His theoretical and methodological work spans from unconventional humanistic pedagogy to orthodox pedagogy, which is spiritually oriented and represents the basis of Christian anthropology. ‘Spiritual tenet in human is the root and source of human’s individuality and a source of his uniqueness’, said Zenkovsky (Зеньковский, 1997: 169). Numerous representatives of religious orthodox pedagogy hold the viewpoint of Christian anthropology (N. Berdjaev, V. Rozanov etc.) and have tried to unite the achievements of culture and humanistic paradigm with Orthodoxy.
Ushinsky’s humanistic views had a huge impact on the development of pedagogical theory and practice in the late XIX century and early XX century.The idea of "natural education" which was advocated by L. Tolstoy, A. Zelenko, K. Wentzel, I. Logunov etc. continued to develop. Wentzelclaimed that the objective of moral education is not the "good idea", but the ability to awaken the unique moral will and moral creativity in a child (Вентцель, 1912: 119).
In accordance with Wentzel’s claim, primary goal of upbringing can be neither religion nor society, not even culture in general, but the student's own way (same 390). ‘Every student must be by himself a measure of justice and truth, because any other measure is false, immoral and not in accordance with the freedom of an individual person’, wrote Wentzel (Вентцель 1908: 13).
In N. Krupskaya’s research for the problematic of morality, the moral is observed from a position of dialectic materialism united with the general collective goals and obligations. She stresses out several times that the contents of the social work should not be solely of social importance, but to be taken into consideration as an ability to get deeply into the emotional sphere of the students in order to ‘unite them in a common experience and emotion’ (Крупская, 1959: 158). In her opinion, unity upbringing has to be connected with upbringing for comprehensive development, so internally disciplined person has to be capable of deep emotions, clear thinking and organized action (same, 159).
Sukhomlynsky’s works have great impact on the formation of students’ moral values. In his opinion, ‘we should strive to identify the understanding and emotion of every single student’s moral ideal which is: my personal dignity is to make good deeds and not to do any harm to other people (Сухомлинский, 1961: 6). Sukhomlynsky’s attitudes that moral values of a person in the adolescence are structured in the span of his ideological components are of great importance for this research: ‘In the years of adolescence the students are introduced to the world of ideas. An adolescent starts to philosophize- to think within wide social and political moral concepts’ (Сергеева, 2000: 220). Sukhomlynsky had proven the ability of practical usage and development of student’s moral values, reveled the contents of high-school student’s moral values and researched discrepancies in moral development; showing the way how they should be surpassed in the upbringing and educational process. In his view, morals values ‘live, develop and sharpen only by an active action. Through the mutual relationships in the class every student is obliged to prove and to confirm that together with the truth his dignity and honor are sharpened’ (Бондаревская, 1979: 58). Nevertheless, moral education until the XX century had a class character. Meaning of life was incorporated into the claim that an individual’s life is not worthy by itself, but just as means to satisfy society’s class interests.
Between the 50s and the 60s of the XX century, pedagogical science tried to reveal theoretical ideas connected to student’s individuality, although the student’s individuality was still in the background. At the same time, reality showed that not everything is smooth in the upbringing and the educational process (M. Danilov, V. Korotov, M. Mahmutov). The period between the 70s and the 80s of the XX century is characterized by rising interest in studying the problems concerning upbringing and education. Some aspects like morality of a student, their individuality and uniqueness are included into the eductional goals (B. Ananyev, E. Bondarevskaya, Z. Vasileva, P. Znakov, T. Konnikova, I. Marenko, K. Radina etc.).
I. Marenko examines the problem of moral education through the category ‘person’s behavior’. He proposes that one should consider the attitude of a student towards learning, work, public domain (society), and community; to himself and to other people. Marenko indicates the major role of subjective behavior in the mechanisms that regulate moral behavior of students. As he points out, in formation and development of student’s personality an important implication has the accumulation of experience in moral behavior, which includes intellect, emotions and will. Experience in moral behavior is a condition for realization of the mode of action and treatment at every stage of upbringing. These relations must be of high moral standards and must contribute to the development of the students’ ideal, (Марьенко,1985:62).
In his research, K. Radina first revealed the link between students’ moral feelings and students’ behavior. He introduced the term “emotional and moral orientation” in the educational theory (according to Бондаревская, 1979: 33). Considering Radina's surveys we believe that it is possible to think of emotional and moral orientation as a mechanism of adolescents ‘moral education, and at the same time this orientation to be viewed as a moral self-regulation of behavior.
In T. Konnikova’s and her students ‘concept, moral upbringing of person is a process of serial adoption of social norms and moral principles accepted in society and objectively presented to students, through proper moral example for formation of moral values. The importance of Konnikova's work is that she investigated the role of the community (collective, class) in the moral formation of student’s personality. In her opinion, it is necessary to build a relationship between students and environment and their communication and activity to be organized in such a way, that the students would continue to live in a system of relations which corresponds to moral values, (Конникова, 1957: 124).
Z. Vasileva developed Konnikova’s idea of person’s moral orientation and emphasized the following practical aspects of manifestation of moral orientation: action (responsible behavior of students to a student) humanity (compassion, wishing well for others, willingness to help, empathy, and joy for others ‘success), unity (collective responsibility in teaching and social action, positive attitude towards cooperation, looking for joint solutions). Vasileva’s research is significant for us because the author presents the concept of morality outside motives, and links it with integrated characteristics of a person such as beliefs, person’s moral position in the community and humaneness, (Валиц-кая, 2011: 3 - 7). Vasileva is one of the first who considers that in the moral education of adolescents a complex pedagogical supports necessary. She proved that upbringing and educational activities appear as a source of moral values.
Furthermore, in most research, moral upbringing is viewed as the most important goal in the process of person’s upbringing (E. Bondarevskaya, Z. Vasileva, I. Marenko, L. Novikova etc.). Theory and practice of moral upbringing discover fundamentally new positions in solving the problem ‘collective and person’ in a sense of raising person’s status, (L. Novikova, B. Likhachev).
The period concerned is characterized with person-oriented approach in upbringing. E. Bondare-vskaya, believes that moral upbringing of a person brings basic character in modern education. Moral education is understood as a creation of the human himself as a cultural creation, as improvement and cultural transformation of society (Бондаре-вская, 2000: 96). In her opinion, recognizing and living in accordance with moral imperatives should represent one continual line from the first to the last grade.
Important aspect of Bondarev-skaya’s research affects moral aware-ness, which she considers a process of reflection and adoption of social norms expressed in moral ideas, concepts, principles, laws and on their basis development of moral attitudes, feelings, behaviors and beliefs that act as criteria for moral evaluation, self-assessment and mechanisms of beha-vior’s self-regulation (Власова, 1999: 61). It is significant person’s moral orientation to be in unity with students’ life, which results in adoption of moral values. In this way, an adolescent becomes open to compassion, helping others, doing good deeds, mercifulness, care for the close people and humanitarian work. Bondarevskaya thinks that moral education doesn’t appear only in the sphere of person’s interests and their own development. Inside the person, the interests of the individual, family, society, and state collide and mutually act with each other. In this sense, the fundamental question is how to teach studentst live by combining their interests with the interests of the family, society and state. However, the author emphasizes that students’ self-development interests should be placed in the foreground. In that way the idea of moral education as a moral imperative, criteria for self-assessment and self-regulation of behaviors revived. Bonda-revskaya defines moral up bringingas moral value that forms through education, development and self-developmen tof life experience and student’s shaped efforts.
Thus, moral education is understood as a deliberate, organized, and pedagogically managed process with the moral development of a person in a community performing a leading role in the formation of the person’s moral consciousness and ensuring his unity with the behavior. Actually, it is a process in which the student develops as a complete person, as a subject of moral relations and moral practice, during which their creative powers and abilities for the benefit of the society are developed and applied. Thereby,his spiritual qualities that are essential for communication and acting in the community are formed, (same15 -16).In connection to the problem of moral education S. Kulnevich supports an interesting position for us. According to him, education is moral when it relates to the humane i.e. the human principle in a student. He considers main moral values those which determine the spiritual basis of a person: subjectivity, consciousness, soul, sensory experie-nces, knowledge, identity structure, person’s functions and personal exp-erience of an individual, (Кульневич С., Лакоценина, 2001: 5).
T. Vlasova developed the idea of Bondarevskaya and paid more attention to the formation of spirituality in a person. She treated moral upbringing as ‘person’s vector orientation‘ and morality as ‘the limit of human’s personal action in various situations’. Vlasova looks at education as a basic moral value of the person in order to acquire knowledge of good, beauty, and truth. The good appears as an indicator of the spiritual and moral development of the student’s individuality for benefit of man and society; the good is presented as a beautiful harmony manifesting person’s individual qualities and abilities; the truth acts like a guarantee for individual and creative self-realization in the overall structure of social righteousness, (Влас-ова, 1999: 98-103).
Ravkin’s study which occurs as a result of constructive and genetic approach is also of great interest to us. He distinguishes four groups of values which have humanistic orientation. The following moral values are included among them: honor and dignity of a student, his right to be subject of pedagogical process, ethical motives for acquiring knowledge, patriotism, respect of others labor, ethics of behavior and learning, mutual support and willingness to cooperate (Равкин, 1995: 88-90).
An important problem in moral education is the issue of discovering mechanisms of moral education and their formation in students. According to V. Nikolina, there are five stages of spiritual and moral upbringing in students. Those interrelated stages in the process of formation of spiritual and moral values simultaneously include cognitive, emotional and willing elements. On the one hand they are part of the cognitive sphere of their own "I" and on the other hand, they are part of meaningful and creative acts for understanding the world and adoption of values (Николина, 2002: 85).
N. Shturkova emphasizes three factors which affect the formation of values in upbringing and educational process, ‘choice-orientation- living’:

  • demonstration of value’s choice when a student has multiple alternatives to choose from; to pick up good, truth and beauty in all manifestations besides the presence of evil, lies and ugliness;
  • value oriented action in every single interaction between the student and the environment;
  • student’s life filled up with values which are expressed when he enters into a mutual relationship with the environment.

   Shturkova singles out the following as top values: freedom, happiness, conscience, equality, right-eousness, bro-therhood, labor, knowledge, commu-nication, play, goodness, truth, beauty, life, nature, society (according to Харламов, 1999: 35).
V. Vorontsova’s, M. Kazakina’s and A. Kiryakova’ s research indicate that values have a regulatory function in people's lives. They have individual meaning and therefore form an eternal layer incultural heritage and determine the characteristics of the view of the world. The values are directly related to moral education and create a separate group of moral values. Based on the analyses of pedagogical literature we can determine the basic characteristics of moral values:
-  focused on the upbringing of the core of a person (Петракова Т.);

  • based on the foundation of personal experience (Бондаревскаја Е., Василева З.);
  • directed towards the complete personality of an individual- his mind, will, emotions;
  • represent totality of general principles of human behavior, in the relationship of an individual to others, with the nature and society ‘in the name of the good, honest, useful, since we are also required to act in this way as human beings, citizens and members of a family’(Дал В.);
  • moral values’meaning increases with the regulation of all complex interpersonal relationships.

V. Andreeev studies the term moral values through the ideal which includes in itself:

  • introduction of the finest positive and attractive models of people for us;
  • normative and desirable models of people in accordance with the notion of personal characteristics and qualities which should be referred to as the ultimate goal of development (self-development) of the person (Андреев, 2009: 132).

 

3. PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORAL EDUCATION

 

Important and interesting evidence supporting this problematic is found in Gestalt psychology whose main contribution is the finding that perception is an active function. This feature appears organized, not just as simple registration of external stimuli.
S. Freud’s theory of personality is of particular importance. According to Freud, there is a strong evidence that delicate and difficult work which requires deep and intensive thinking can occur outside the domain of human consciousness, ‘in which self-criticism and conscience remain unaware causing the most important procedures’, (Фројд, 1986: 194). Freud’s idea fundamentally changed the view of humans, themselves. Furthermore, famous scientists A. Adler, K. Jung, K. Horney, G. Sullivan, E. From etc. were able to implement the idea of psychoanalysis in their activities which resulted in the appearance of Neo-Freudainism as a new direction in psychology.
А. Adlerclaimed that in the first five years of child's life a deep sense of inferiority which the child attempts to overcome is expressed. Despite the inferiority complex, the child in the first five years of lifeshows tendency towards creative self-improvement.Under the influence of a given purpose in human life, specific perception of reality develops: images, memory, certain traits of character, inclinations and abilities, moral character, emotions and feelings are formed, (Немов, 1999: 321). Students’ educationis directed towards social values and according to Adler, it is very important for maintaining and strengthening society’s social values.
K.Jung developed another psycho-logical concept called ‘analytical psycho-logy’. According to this concept the psyche is a complex totality made up of relatively independent parts which had originally been separated from each other. In Jung’s view, ‘the psyche is superior compared to consciousness and it’s a prerequisite for consciousness’ (Юнг, 1997, 213). Jung differentiated between three levels of the psyche: consciousness, personal unconsciousness and collective unconsciousness;the latest referred to as not individual,but general human and general life time representing a foundation of an individual psyche (same 219).
The problem of moral education would be incompletely treated if we don’t analyze the psychological ideas of humanistic psychology representatives, aimed at the problem of individual existence in the world and focused on personal orientation and development of an individual.Such views are present in the works of E. From, A. Maslow, V. Franl, C. Rogers and G. Allport who, in their theoretical and practical activities, directly respond to the question about the nature of human development.
Rogers revealed the necessary condi-tions for humanization of any interpersonal relationships providing constructive perso-nality changes, which are fully moral, based on their nature: non-judgmental positive acceptance of others, active listening to others (honestly, completely) and a dose of empathy, which should be expressed in the communication with others. According to Rogers, moral values do not form from the outside, but inside on the grounds of the inner experience of a person. In connection to the humanistic approach of education, Rogers claims that the overall values associated with the personal abilities of an individual (human dignity, freedom of choice and respon-sibility for its consequences) are the foundation of humanistic innovation in education, (Rogers, 1969, 218-226).
A. Maslow is well known as a creator of the self-realization theory. He defines the major ideas about person’s self-realization: person’s development, dis-covering of individual’s personal abilities and capabilities, continual strive towards self-realization, self-expression and mani-festation of existential vales. According to Maslow ‘human’s nature is not as bad as people believe”. He argued that individuals are capable of using their “talents”, abilities and capabilities completely, to their full extent (Maslow, 1964: 132).
Maslow created the hierarchy of needs, which in the psychological science is known as “Maslow’s Pyramid”. He described the structure of the top values including: righteousness, beauty, the good, equality and integrity, acceptance of oneself and others, tendency to problem solving thinking, altruism, tolerance and high objectives in life (Maslow, 1970).
V. Frankl who is considered one of the most famous and consistent repre-sentative of humanistic psychology gave major contribution to the understanding of moral values. Frankl argued that moral values are established based on internal dialogue, the voice of conscience as the organ of emotion, (Столович, 1994: 10).
He identified three groups of values: creative values, experience values, and behavior values. Creative work is something that we create in our lives- the first level; something that we copy from the real world with the help of experience, the second level; while how we behave in our lives, the position that we take is the third level. ‘The world of values is seen from an individual’s perspective, and for every single situation there is only one standpoint. Actually, absolutely true idea about something that exists is not in contrast to the relativity of individual viewpoints, but exists thanks to them’, (Франкл, 1990: 171-172).
Moral education is closely connected to behavior. In psychology, there are three primary tendencies in the understanding of behavior. The representatives of “the activity approach” (S. Rubinstein, А. Leontiev, V. Davidov), study human behavior in context of the activity that transforms the human. Namely, “the activity” is defined as special kind of relationships between humans and the world. In the research of the “systematic approach” representatives (А. Ananaiev, B. Lomov), the emphasis eternally passes from the activity to the psychological phenomena.
According to Myasishchev the content of behavior is determined by the characteristics of the relationship between a subject and an object. Also, the relationship allows the connection between a human and the world, as well as, the human and others to be determined. Next, the relationship is associated with the activity and the expression in it; last, the content of the behavior reveals human’s characteristics. If as an object of the relations, in the context of our research, moral values which mirror humanistic character of relations show up, it is necessary to identify the nature of the valuable relationships which appear as a process and as a result of acquired values. Valuable relationships are considered as relations important for the object regarding the interests of the subject. They define the sense of the spiritual and moral values of a human and become personal values. (Братусь, 1994: 58). It should be highlighted that the valuable relationships together with the activity make an inseparable totality, which exists thanks to the determined mutual relations between the valuable relationships (attitudes) and the valuable findings. Moral relationships are the most valuable human relationships.
Judging by the nature of the values, Rubinstein notes that ‘values- are not the thing that we pay for, but the thing that we live for’, (Рубинштейн, 1973: 381). P. Blonsky and L. Vygotski matured the idea of child’s moral development through the theory of higher psychological functions which have certain history. Regarding the higher psychological functions one can distinguish consciousness, mental organi-zation and arbitrariness. They appear during the process when a person enters in the world of ethic culture (Петровский, Ярошевский, 1996: 220-221).
Central to the problem of orientation of students’ moral values is the question about the nature and the structure of the moral choice because choices in human life are the main content of moral experience. It is in our best interest for the research to clarify the question what composes the complexity of moral situation, moral choice and moral action of human.
According to I. Kon the peculiarity of a moral situation is in the fact that it puts a person before a choice which is made voluntarily, according to their own will, oriented not only towards the pragmatic self-useful reasons, but to some " more important tasks" whose practical feasibility is not guaranteed in advance by anyone. Thus, he called the moral situation, a situation of uncertainty and risk, (Кон, 1984: 47).The actual conditions can be obstacles to the realization of moral patterns in actions and behavior. Moral choice involves overcoming of these obstacles.
The concept of A. Titarenkois of great scientific interest. He discusses the moral and psychological process from a position of interests and needs, motivation and moral orientation, moral motives and objectives, resolving of moral situations, forming intentions, moral action (personal actions), means of moral action and degree of willful strain of a subject, aim of proceedings, and also changes caused in the state of choice, self-evaluation and evaluation procedures.These components appear as successive stages in the process of moral choice. Titarenko separates two groups of needs: material (food, rest, etc.) and social (needs at work, communication, cognition, aesthetic pleasure and moral satisfaction).
The psychologists (L. Bozovic, A. Lavrinenko) view the problem of morality in the choice of moral values during the process of exchanging values. Behavior becomes stable when is converted into person’s quality and as their quality it represents synthesis of their motives and certain ways of behavior (according to L. Bozovic).
In Bozhovic’s research stable manifestation of qualities in different conditions and different kinds of activity means that a certain quality is already established, i.e. the person is able to emancipate by the influence of the environment, which acts in contradiction with system of subjective moral values. In Bozhovic’s opinion, value orientations determine the position of morality while motives attach to behavior social significance and stability (Божович, 1979: 23-31).
An important step in identifying mechanisms of moral education has been made by researchers who studied orientations of a person (K. Platonov). In accordance with this concept, education of a person is subsequent adoption of social norms and principles of moral rules which are socially accepted. The task of a teacher is not only teaching students how to adopt particular moral habits and skills, but also how to contribute to the development of strong and long lastingmotivation of students in moral behavior. In the formation of value orientations among students, Platonov places great importance to communication and involvement of value orientations in its structure, because he considers it an important factor in the communication process which leads to unification of cognitive and emotional components as well as moral abilities of a person.
There is a certain correlation between value orientation and person's position. B. Ananev finds the logic of this view by determining the position of a person as a complex system of personal relationships (to the society as a whole and the community to which the person belongs, to work, to people and to the person, himself), attitudes and motives by which he is guided in his actions, objectives and values towards which he is oriented when actiing (Анисимов, 1988: 12).
In the last two decades a new view in the psychology, which examines the person from a position of methodological pluralism emerged. The idea of determining person’s personal development through resolution of internal and external contradictions, rooted in the psychology of natural and scientific paradigm, is replaced with the idea of self-determination, self-development, and self-actualization. This contributed to the introduction of permanent conception of development, which is associated with humanistic sciences (Власова, 1999: 108).
These surveys returned in the psychology the terms "conscience", "honor", "spirituality", "morality", "psyche" (S. Bratus, A. Petrovsky, V. Slobodchikov, V. Zinchenko, V. Koles-nykov etc.)
S. Bratus unfolded the values and the cognitive conceptions of humans and defined the essence of human nature through his behavior with others as a value itself, which is a symbol of infinite potential of the human race.As criteria of normal development of a person, he recognizes the following: ability of decentralization, devotion and love as a way of behavior, creative nature of actions in life, need of positive freedom, ability of free expression of will, self-projection of future, belief in the possibility of planning, internal responsibility to ourselves and others, to past and future generations and aspiration to achieve full meaningfulness of life, (Котова, 1994: 125).
The opinion of V. Shadrikov, who believes that upbringing is a process aimed at the adoption of moral values as an integral part of the culture, is important for our research (Шадриков, 1995: 57). According to Shadrikov, awareness of the good and evil, presence of taboos, of moral prohibitions and approvals, are all important in the development of humanity and influence the safety, the ability to live, and the self-sustainability of a person (Шадриков, 2001: 254). Relying on Plato’sworks, Shadrikov notes that morality has a complex nature: it is the product of genetic, psychological, pedagogical and social conditions and processes of human action.

 

4. CONCLUSON

 

The analyses of pedagogical and psychological literature on moral education indicate that moral values act as a base in upbringing and education of each student individually. Moral education founded on humanism is the core of recognition person’s absolute value and priority of his right of full realization of abilities and interests. The basics of moral values is in cultural and historical experience of the previous generations, for the sake of one's own "I", the others, the society and the nature.
Among religious people, religious values contribute significantly to building the moral character.The ground of moral values is oriented towards life, humans, traditions and principles of the humanism. At the end of the education, students build up perception of life with values and shape their moral values and orientations.

 

REFERENCES

 

    1. Maslow A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York.
    2. Maslow A., Religions (1964). Values and Peak-experiences, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
    3. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merill, 358.
    4. Андреев В. И. (2009). Педагогическая этика: Инновационный Курс Для Нравственного Саморазвития. Казань,Центр Инновационных Технологий, 272.
    5. Анисимов С. Ф. (1988). Духовные ценности: производство и по­требление. Мысль, 15-45.
    6. Божович Л. И. (1979). Этапы формирования личности в онтогенезе, Вопросы психологии. №4. ,23-31
    7. Бондаревская Е. В. (2000). Теория и практика личностно-ориентированного образования. Ростов-на-Дону: РГПУ, 352.
    8. Бондаревская Е. В. (2000). Формирование нравс-твенного сознания старших школьников. Диссер. докт. пед. наук. Ростов-на-Дону.
    9. Братусь Б. С. (1994). Психология. Нравст-венность. Культура. МГУ, 145.
    10. Валицкая А. П. (2001). Модернизация и своб-одное развитие, Педагогика. №7. 3-7.
    11. Вентцель К. Н. (1908). Нравственное воспи-тание, Свободное вос­питание. №4., 14-38.
    12. Вентцель К. Н. (1912). Этика и педагогика творческой личности, 667.
    13. Власова Т. И. (1999). Теоретико-методо-логические основы и прак­тика воспитания духовности современных школьников. Дис. докт. пед. наук. Ростов-на-Дону, 366.
    14. Зеньковский В. В. (1997). Русская педагогика в ХХв, Педагогика. №2. 73-89.
    15. Ключевский В. О. (1987). Сочинения. В 9 т., Уредник: В. Л. Янина. Мысль, 430.
    16. Коменский Я. А. (1982). Материнскаяшкола. Translation from German,  Избр. пед. соч. - В 2-х т. - Т. 1., стр. 229 - 237.
    17. Кон И. С. (1984). В поисках себя: личность и самознание. Просвещение, 335.
    18. Конникова Т. Е. (1957). Организация коллек-тива учащихся в шко­ле. АПН РСФСР, 400.
    19. Котова И. Б. (1994). Психология личности. Столетие раз­вития. Ростов-на-Дону: РГПУ, 213.
    20. Крупская Н. К. (1959). Педагогика сочинений. АПМ РСФСР, 160.
    21. Кульневич С. В., Лакоценина Т. П. (2001). Воспитательная работа в средней школе. От коллективизма к взаимодействию. ТЦ «Учитель», 287.
    22. Марьенко И. С. (1985). Нравственное станов-ление личности школьника. Педагогика, 102.
    23. Немов Р. С. (1999). Психология: Учеб. пособие для студ. высш. пед. заведений в 3-х кн. К.1. Общие основы психологии. Владос, 641.
    24. Николина В. В. (2002). Духовные ценности и воспитание лично­сти: психолого-педаго-гический аспект. Н.Новгород, 85.
    25. Петровский А. В., Ярошевский М. Г. (1996). История и теория психологии. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс, 416.
    26. Равкин З. И. (1995). Развитие образования: новые ценно­стные ориентиры, Педагогика. 5.87-90.
    27. Рубинштейн С. Л. (1973). Человек и мир: Проблемы общей психо­логии, Уредник: Е. В. Шорохова. Педагогика, 423.
    28. Сергеева В. П. (2000). Классный руководитель в современной школе. Московское городское педагогическое общество, 192.
    29. Сластенин В. А., Исаев И. Ф., А. И. Миценко, Е. Н. Шиянов. (2000). Педагогика. Учеб. пособие для студ. пед. учебн. заведений - 3-е изд. перераб. и дополн. Школа-Пресс, 512.
    30. Столович Л. Н. Красота. (1994). Добро. Истина: Очерк истории эс­тетической аксиологии. Республика, 464.
    31. Сухомлинский В. А. (1961). Духовный мир школьника (Подрост­кового и юношеского возраста). Учпедиздат, 223.
    32. Ушинский К. Д. (1953). Избранные педаго-гические сочиненияв 2-х т. Учпедизд, 638.
    33. Франкл В. (1990). Человек в поисках смысла, Уредници: Л. Я. Гозмана и Д. А. Леонтьева. Прогресс, 368.
    34. Фрейд З. (1986). Сознание и бессознательное, Хрестоматия по истории психологии. 194.
    35. Харламов И. Ф. (1999). Педагогика: Учебн. пособ. - 4-е изд. Гардарики, 519.
    36. Шадриков В. Д. (1995). Качество образования и образовательный стандарт. Новгород: НГУ, 225.
    37. Шадриков В. Д. (2001). Происхождение человечности. Логос, 296.

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2016 Aneta Barakoska, Aneta Jovkovska

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

PRchecker.info

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0

ISSN 2334-847X (Printed)

ISSN 2334-8496 (Online)