DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCE AND DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS OF FUTURE TEACHERS (EDUCATION STUDENTS):...

RESEARCHREPORTSRECOMMENDATIONS

DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCE AND DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS OF FUTURE TEACHERS (EDUCATION STUDENTS):ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS DEFINED BY THE STATE EDUCATION STANDARD OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION

OXANA KOZHEVNIKOVA

OXANA KOZHEVNIKOVA

DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCE AND DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS OF FUTURE TEACHERS (EDUCATION STUDENTS):

ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS DEFINED BY THE STATE EDUCATION STANDARD OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The policy brief Developmenet of civic competences and democratic beliefs of future teachers (education students): analysis of requirements defined by the state education standard of Russian Federation was prepared as a part of the project: “Training program for Russian policy and opinion makers”.

The project was implemented by the Institute of Public Affairs (Warsaw) and the Levada Center (Moscow).

The project was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Author: Oxana Kozhevnikova

Supervisor: dr. Olga Napiontek

Proofreader: Hayden Berry

Wydawca:Instytut Spraw Publicznychul. Szpitalna 5 lok. 2200–031 Warszawatel. (48-22) 556 42 60faks (48-22) 556 42 62e-mail: [email protected]

Skład, druk i oprawa:Ośrodek Wydawniczo-Poligraficzny „SIM”00–669 Warszawa, ul. E. Plater 9/11, tel. (22) 629 80 38, faks (22) 629 80 36e-mail: [email protected]

www.owpsim.pl

The policy brief reflect the views of the author and the Institute of Public

Affairs, the Levada Center and the National Endowment for Democracy cannot

be held responsible for the information contained therein.

a

The purpose of writing this paper is to draw the attention of the officials of the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science responsible for the structure and content of higher education standards to the problem of developing civic competence. This is one of the key competencies of future education professionals who after graduation are destined to become teachers working with a new generation of Russian citizen. At first I will introduce the definition of civic competence, describe the results of several studies devoted to its specifics in Russia and analyze the main obstacles for its development within the Russian Federation education system. Then I will describe the experiences of the EU and Poland in developing civic competence and analyze which of them can be of use in the Russian context. This paper may be of interest not only to officials of the Ministry of Education and Science but also to educators who have an interest in and responsibility for curriculum development.

4Development of civic competence and democratic beliefs of future teachers

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2006 an English-language weekly news and international affairs

magazine, The Economist, published for the first time the so-called “Democracy

Index”, followed by updated lists produced in 2008, 2010 and 2011. The Index

measures the state of democracy in 167 countries based on 60 indicators

grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil

liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political

culture. According to the first three calculations of the Index, Russia’s scores

ranged from 5.02 (2006) to 4.26 (2010) on a scale from zero to ten and Russia

was classified as a “hybrid regime”. In 2011 it was downgraded from a “hybrid

regime” to an “authoritarian regime” and placed at 117th on the list.1 There

are different factors defining that result including the low level of democratic

political culture of the Russian population.

Education is a key policy area for achieving democracy-related goals that

plays a significant role in the political socialization of citizens. Educators are

supposed to be actively involved in cultivating and shaping the educational

experience for students in relation to their present and future attitudes,

behaviors, ideologies and engagement regarding democracy, citizenship

and social justice. But it is commonly believed that progressive, critical democratic education work in classrooms and schools, along with the resultant experience for the students, will be greatly diminished if teachers have a weak or disaffected attachment to democracy themselves.2 Therefore,

they must be ready and able to do that work. This means that they must be

properly prepared for it through the education they get themselves in the

universities and colleges. In present-day Russia, this task is complicated by the

historically-conditioned weakness of the civil society and its institutions and

by some specifics of the educational system itself.

The main goal of this paper is to create a basic set of recommendations

for designing the program and education environment for developing civic

competence of education students during their university studies. This

program can become another step for further democratization of Russian

education and, concomitantly, society, and be conducive to developing not

only competencies, skills and knowledge but also curriculum, pedagogy, policy

and practices that may positively affect the institutional culture of education.

I propose that the development of democratic beliefs and civic

competences of future teachers (education students) will be more successful

1 Democracy Index 2011: Democracy under stress. A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit. URL: http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf

2 Kozhevnikova O., Zyngier D (2013) Democracy and education: global research project "Perm University Bulletin: Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology. 2013. Vol. 1 (13). pp. 58-61."

5 Oxana Kozhevnikova

and purposeful if there are respective requirements as to the education

results regarding curriculum, teaching methods and learning environment

in general expounded in the State Education Standard of Russian Federation

which is one of the main normative acts in the sphere of education. Currently,

Education Standards of even similar professions (teaching, in our case)

differ considerably as they were designed independently by different teams

of experts without a general framework. Some do not even mention civic

competence.


2. Problem description

2.1. Civic competence and civic education

The question of whether it is necessary and possible to develop civic

competence through educational experience intended to prepare students

for informed, engaged participation in civic and democratic life by providing

opportunities to develop civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions is quite

relevant even in the old democracy countries, to say nothing of Russia. As it

is stated in a US public report Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy: A Road Map and Call to Action, “civic learning and democratic

engagement are add-ons rather than essential parts of the core academic

mission in too many schools and on too many college campuses today. Many

elementary and secondary schools are pushing civics and service-learning to

the sidelines, mistakenly treating education for citizenship as a distraction

from preparing students for college-level mathematics, English, and other

core subjects. Many, if not most, institutions of higher education now offer

civic learning as an elective but not as an integral component of preparing

students to compete in a knowledge based, global economy.” But it is believed

that civic learning builds the “twenty-first century competencies” that

employers value.3

European Union Countries have also agreed that civic competence is one

of the eight key competences necessary for economic success and greater

social inclusion in Europe. Civic competence is defined as a combination of the

knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, enabling people to act successfully in civil

society, representative democracy and everyday life based on democratic values.4

As for the Russian Federation, there is no generally accepted list of the

competences that are supposed to be developed in the process of education:

available classifications differ in the length and components. Nevertheless,

civic competence is usually mentioned as one of the essential characteristics

of the contemporary professional and citizen and defined as “an integrative

personal feature, a synthesis of cognitive, functional, motivational and

personal components that reflects subjective experience, willingness

and capability of a person to accomplish socially important civic activity

consciously and efficiently.”5 Moreover, education is seen as the main driver in

3 Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy: A Road Map and Call to Action. http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/road-map-call-to-action.pdf

4 Hoskins D., Deakin Crick R. Learning to Learn and Civic Competences: different currencies or two sides of the same coin? http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/4954/1/reqno_jrc45123_learn-ing%20to%20learn%20and%20civic%20competence%5B2%5D.pdf

5 Mitina E. Developing civic competence of senior high school students (Митина Е. В. Становление граж-данской компетентности старшеклассников в учебном процессе) http://www.dissercat.com/content/


the development of civic competence. It is also stated that this process should

take place along with the establishment of civil society institutions and the

further democratization of Russian society.6

2.2. Civic competence and democratic beliefs of Russia’s citizens

Democracy, both as a word and as an ideology, has become very popular

in Russia since the late 1980s – early 1990s and as a guiding principle for the

state and political system as it evolved from the “liberal democracy” to the

current “sovereign democracy” which is considered a democratic ideal by

the Russian state at the moment. In the 1992 Russian Federal Education Act,

democratization was identified as one of the main priorities of education

policy that should be oriented to “educating individuals who are independent,

show initiative, are ready to make decisions in different life and professional

situations, and responsible for their country’s destiny.”7 A number of studies

conducted by Russian and international researchers in the 1990s-2000s

analyze the efficiency of that policy.

According to the Levada-Center annual reports, in the 1990s not more than

14% of Russia’s population believed that political life in Russia could be coupled

with democracy. This finding may be a result of profound disappointment

with the Yeltsin era when democratization became associated with chaos,

uncertainty, inequality, etc. In 2005-2011 the numbers changed considerably,

starting with 32% in 2005, a high of 54% in 2008 and 37% in 2011; and almost

twice as many people believed that Russia needs democracy8 (in addition,

between 2005 – 2011 39-49% of respondents believed that it must be an

absolutely unique type of democracy that is appropriate to the national

traditions and specifics of Russia). But at the same time Russian citizens have

not demonstrated a corresponding level of civic competence and political

culture. As T. Ivanova’s study showed (2005), none of three orientations to

establishing and functioning of civic society – informational, normative and

behavioral – were developed among the Russians and there was believed to

exist a dissonance between the attitudes and real behaviors of the population.

This tendency was especially strong among the younger generation that

was shifting from traditional Russian values and yet was not inclined to

share important norms and rules of civic society such as respect of law and

tolerance.9 This must be one of the main reasons why Russia was ranked the

stanovlenie-grazhdanskoi-kompetentnosti-starsheklassnikov-v-uchebnom-protsesse

6 Podlesnaya Yu. Civic competence in the modern society: political aspects of formation and development (Подлесная Ю. Е. Гражданская компетентность в современном обществе: политологические аспек-ты формирования и развития) http://www.dissercat.com/content/grazhdanskaya-kompetentnost-v-sovre-mennom-obshchestve-politologicheskie-aspekty-formirovaniy

7 Russian Federal Education Act. http://standart.edu.ru/catalog.aspx?CatalogId=2666

8 Public opinion 2011 (Общественное мнение 2011). http://www.levada.ru/books/obshchestvennoe-mne-nie-2011

9 Ivanova T. Political culture of the population as a condition of civil society existence (Иванова Т.Ю. По-литическая культура населения как условие существования гражданского общества) http://www.


24th out of 28 countries for the Civic Competence Composite Indicator based

on data from an international study on the citizenship of 14-year old children

made in 1999 that tested their knowledge and skills on democracy and asked

them questions about their attitudes and values towards engagement10

(in 2009, according to the results of The International Civic and Citizenship

Education Study, Russia was ranked the 20th out of 38 countries for the civic

knowledge of lower secondary school students11).

In addition, T. Ivanova states that the most probable social basis for civic

society development in Russia is college- and university-educated individuals.

The research conducted by Y. Vishnevsky and his colleagues (2009) is devoted to

studying inconsistencies and new trends in establishing civic competence in

Russian students. The results of this study show that university students take

an interest in politics only occasionally, mainly in response to current political

events. Instead of participating in the activities of formal political institutions

they prefer to be involved in non-formal public associations or to avoid

participation in political life altogether. The main reason for such political

indifference is not the lack of interest or social passiveness, but distrust of

politicians and doubt as to the importance of personal participation.12

The research project I am involved in at the moment13 seeks to identify

how education students experience, understand and perceive democracy,

citizenship, and social justice. As of January 2012, 140 respondents from Russia

completed the survey, which does not define these terms, but rather asks

pravo.vuzlib.org/book_z368_page_4.html

10 Hoskins B. Monitoring Active Citizenship in the European Union: The Process, the Results and initial Explana-tions http://occid.diped.it/attachments/114_Hoskins.pdf

11 ICCS 2009 International Report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower secondary school students in 38 countries. http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICCS_2009_International_Report.pdf

12 Vishnevsy Y. et all. Civic culture of students: trends and problems of development (Вишневский Ю. Р., Тры-нов Д. В., Шапко В. Т. Гражданская культура студентов: тенденции и проблемы формирования) // Со-циологические исследования. – 2009. – #4. – c. 108-116. http://sociol.uspi.ru/socis/2009/04/Wischnevsky.pdf

13 Doing Democracy: Global Doing Democracy Research Project. URL: http://doingdemocracy.ning.com/. The Project began when Dr Paul R. Carr from Canada and Dr David Zyngier from Australia met at the second Doing De-mocracy by Learning Conference held at OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education), University of Toronto, Canada, in October 2008. The focus of the project is on how education supports, cultivates and engages in, and with, democracy. While there are many on-line networks created among academics for the exchange and sharing of ideas, the development of such an on-line activist research group focused on democracy and democratic edu-cation is uncommon. A major focus at this phase of the project involved using a collaboratively developed and lo-cally contextualised on-line survey tool that collected both quantitative and qualitative data from diverse groups of education-students, academic staff, and practising teachers. Each researcher is responsible for the analysis of the data within the shared critical pedagogical framework that was originally developed by Carr (2010). The aim of the research, ultimately, is to compare and contrast these findings and implications across diverse political contexts, including the old democracies (countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada, England), emerging democ-racies (those countries coming out of autocratic, military or other dictatorships and or colonial rule), and what we have termed the new democracies (places and countries that are doing democracy differently as a result of public initiatives), highlighting the following themes:1) The apparent predisposition among education-students (future teachers) and educators to understand de-

mocracy and politics in a thin way;2) The potential for university education teachers and classroom teachers to do transformative or thick democ-

racy in education; 3) The importance of understanding power and difference in relation to democracy; and4) The cultivation of a critically and meaningfully engaged educational experience that links social justice to

education and democracy.Since 2008 the on-line survey has been translated into Portuguese, Spanish, Bhasa Malay, Greek, Turkish, French, Russian and some others and has been already adapted and applied in over 30 international contexts.


the participants to do so. While detailed interpretation of the data requires

collecting data from more respondents, it is possible to assert on the basis

of the available responses that almost all the participants are able to provide

definitions of the abovementioned terms though the level of sophistication

they demonstrate in their responses varies significantly. About 85% of

respondents are ready and able not only to show but also to explain their

opinion about controversial issues. They believe that Russia is not a really

democratic country (the average score is 2.85 with a maximum of 5.0): some

people here have more rights than others; elections are believed to be an

essential part of civic society but only half of the respondents regularly vote;

and in addition they do not feel that they are really encouraged to participate

fully in society as citizens. The participants also believe that the Russian

educational system is not very democratic (2.48). It appears that their school

experience had a low impact on their thinking about democracy as their

teachers had only occasionally raised issues related to democracy. Moreover,

university education promoted an insufficient understanding of democracy

and the respondents are not sure how they would promote education for

democracy if they teach in the future.

As it has been mentioned before, education is seen as one of the major

drivers of civic competence. Why does the Russian system of education –

particularly that of higher education which is believed to contribute the most

to civic society development in the Russian Federation – fail to play this role

effectively?

2.3. The specifics of the system of higher education in Russia

As many researchers state, since the beginning of the 1990s, Russia

itself and the Russian system of education have changed drastically. The

institutional organization inherited from Soviet times clearly did not fit in

with the market economy: the economic recession of the 1990s led to a sharp

decrease in industry demand for employees with up-to-date qualifications. A

growing gap emerged between the educational system and the labor market

as educational institutions were not aligned with the basic mechanisms and

values of the free market economy (competition, initiative, self-management,

choice, responsibility, dynamism, etc.). Bridging the gap between the economic

and educational systems still remains critical for the development of modern-

day Russia.14 The reforms in education started with decentralization, structural

reorganization of educational institutions and development of new curricula.

At present, Russia is participating in the Bologna process of educational

comparability and compatibility and is adopting an Anglo-American model of

14 Kovbasyuk O., Kuznetsova A. The Modernization of Higher Education in Russia: An Interview with Dr. Alla G. Kuznetsova. The International HETL Review. Volume 2, Article 3, http://hetl.org/2012/03/25/modernization-of-higher-education-in-russia


higher education.15 The two-cycle system of higher education has been adopted,

which is relevant in terms of the contemporary social and economic situation

where people have to engage in lifelong learning. It is believed that as a result

students will have real opportunities for choosing individual learning and

development routes. Another important change is the development of outcome-

based higher education standards. The curricula content is supposed to be

developed by universities themselves in compliance with the requirements

of the state standards for higher education. The standards set requirements

for learning outcomes, structure of curricula, and conditions of their

implementation. Based on the standards, a framework curriculum is developed

under the aegis of the Ministry of Education and Science by university/college

associations, which have the character of a recommendation. Educational

institutions are free to abide by the framework curriculum, or develop detailed

curricula on their own.

During the last three years my colleagues and I have worked on various

issues related to the abovementioned challenges and changes: creating new

curricula, developing courses and education modules, implementing new

teaching techniques, systems of knowledge assessment and competence

evaluations, etc. In our view, many of these changes have been made with

a very poor understanding of the process and the expected results. New

standards list the key (general cultural) and professional competences that

must be developed in the training process without providing guidelines on

their implementation. At the same time, the EU countries have developed

a much better understanding, a particular framework and even specific

guidelines for formulating degree profiles, defining key competences and

learning outcomes. These ideas and practices are being spread through various

EU projects such as TEMPUS and Erasmus Mundus. Some of them involve

Russia as an active participant (TUNING Russia, for instance), but not all the

occupational areas are covered, and not all the project outcomes are widely

disseminated within Russia. As a result, the RF State Education Standards of

even similar professions (teaching, in our case) differ considerably as they

were designed independently by different teams of experts who failed to

follow a general framework. Another problem is that some of the pedagogical

standards do not even mention the civic competence, which means that

university instructors designing the programs of the courses they taught to

education students are not required to cover issues related to democracy

and civic activity. The shortcomings of the current state standards present

a major obstacle for developing – intentionally and purposefully – the civic

competence of future teachers.

Another obstacle is the inflexibility of university curricula which was first

noted by M. Deaver more than a decade ago (2001) and remains true today.

15 Luchinskaya D. Russia: Modernising the higher education system // University World News http://www.uni-versityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111007130249809


Russian institutions of higher education “tend to produce specialists rather

than generalists” even though the new, service-oriented economy makes

new demands on education. Instead of moving from a narrow course to

lifelong learning, covering various skills and competences so as to be flexible

in an uncertain job market, when students enroll in Russian universities,

they still enter particular faculties within which they will pursue one of the

specializations offered; there are no undeclared students.16 In addition, the

curriculum is too rigid – students lack freedom for choosing courses and

they are required to be in class for thirty hours each week, taking up to ten

new courses every semester. They are burdened not only with the course

requirements set by the standards, but with additional study plans, imposed

by universities. Thus, students play no active role in the choice of their courses

as even optional classes are often chosen by the instructors. The lack of choice

and freedom do not contribute to development of civic competence.

And the last, but not least, impediment is that a relatively small number of

Russian instructors are seeking to employ active learning techniques to teach

their courses: older professors are often just not ready to change their style

of teaching while younger faculty may have no incentive being underpaid or

lacking the time to develop new types of courses due to the enormous amount

of paperwork caused by the ongoing reforms (and there is no compensation

for the extra paperwork time burden).17 Russian students also lack free time as

they are overburdened with in-class activities and active learning techniques

demand additional effort and time. In addition, there are no regular student

evaluations of instructors and courses so student feedback on the old forms

of instruction is also limited. This leaves no room for meaningful student

participation as foreign professors and exchange students note that students’

typical educational experience in Russian universities sometimes amounts to

stiff lectures on abstract theories. As a result, on completion of their studies

Russian specialists may have a high capacity for learning facts and theories,

but limited ability to apply them or to think critically. Thus, the outdated

instruction techniques that do not facilitate the development of participatory

skills or enhance the ability to take initiative and make independent decisions

is another negative factor for the development of civic competence in the

Russian system of higher education.

One way of seeking the solutions to the abovementioned problems

is analyzing the experiences of Russia’s neighboring countries which

share common historical background and are facing similar issues in the

implementation of new educational models.

16 Deaver M. V. Democratizing Russian Higher Education http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/de-mokratizatsiya%20archive/09-3_Deaver.PDF

17 Kurilla I. Reforming Russia’s Higher Education System http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pepm_153.pdf


3. The EU and Polish experience in developing civic competence

As mentioned before, the EU has identified and defined the core

competences necessary for personal fulfillment, active citizenship, social

cohesion and employability in a changing society. Civic competence is listed

among eight key competences. And as all other skills, the ability to take an

intelligent and responsible part in public life is a skill which needs to be

learned through training or enhanced through practice. That statement

leads us to the problem of civic education.18 According to the approach of the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there are three

forms of civic education:

� Formal education – carried on within the educational system and directed

at children and youth (also at university level), and also as part of the

vocational training for certain employee groups;

� Non-formal education – pursued in an organized manner, but outside the

educational system (for instance by NGOs); may be directed at all ages and

vocational groups;

� Informal education – pursued in a deliberate fashion, but usually outside

any system, and not necessarily as part of the core activities of the specific

entities offering it. It is a not necessarily formalized or planned process by

which individuals gain the knowledge and skills enabling them to maintain

and strengthen their ties to the state and to society. This type of education

may assume the form of one-time happenings or events and be pursued

by institutions for which education is not part of their basic mission (e.g.,

social assistance centers, jobs centers, libraries, cultural centers, private

enterprises).19

3.1. Formal education

The fact that formal education has the greatest influence on political

attitudes and knowledge and is the single most powerful variable for predicting

civic and political engagement is generally acknowledged.20 The research in

that area has shown that education has a significant impact on political and

social attitudes; for instance, it has been proved that civics courses increase

18 CIVICO Fostering Civic Competence Amongst Students: Guide For Teachers On Developing Civic Competences. – EU, 2010.

19 Makowski G. Informal Civic Education or the New-cum-Old Role of the Public Library // The civic inspirer: a guide to informal civic education at (and not only) public libraries. – Warsaw, 2011.

20 Schugurensky D., Myers J.P. A framework to explore lifelong learning: the case of the civic education of civics teachers // International Journal of lifelong education, Vol. 22, no. 4 (July–August 2003), pp. 325–352. http://www.chs.ubc.ca/participatory/docs/%28PB%29Schug._Myers.pdf


both political knowledge and the likeliness of participation in civic activities.21

B. Hoskins, B. d’Hombres and J. Campbell have found that education has a

positive impact on active citizenship behavior. They show that the number of

years in the respondents’ education is positively and significantly correlated

with their engagement in protest and social change activities, political party

membership and voting, with the probability of engaging in these activities

rising with each year of completed schooling.22 Much attention is also given

to the problem of a so-called “hidden curriculum” that strongly affects the

results of formal civic education. Research shows that “students do not learn

citizenship only in the classroom but school structure and relations also

play an important role. They can learn to be active democratic citizens via

participation in decision making about school rules or through hierarchical

teacher-student relations.”23

As M. Dabrowski and J. Wisniewski state, “Polish schools in the second half

of the 20th century were institutions where encyclopaedism, teacher-oriented

classrooms, and a lack of autonomy and democratic procedures prevailed.”24

A new program in civic education was introduced in Poland in 1994 to foster

support for democracy among youth. This program was based on the active

teaching/learning model of education, with frequent student participation

in “democratic games” and “market simulations.”25 However, as G. Makowski

believes, the formal civic education system in Poland is still ineffective as it

fulfils the formal minimum as regards providing youth with the bare facts

about operation of basic democratic institutions, but it does not inspire in

them a desire to participate in them. He notes that graduates leave school

without the attitudes, values, and convictions they could translate into civic

activity in practice and in their daily lives.26

Efforts are made to design both formal and informal curricula in the Polish

universities in such a way as to facilitate the development of civic competence

for university students, and especially education students. The Faculty of

Education of the University of Warsaw offers its students a wide range of

democracy and citizenship-related courses such as Civil Society Institutions,

Community Education, Education and Social Autonomy, Intercultural

21 Niemi R., Junn J. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. Yale University Press, 1998. – 216 p.

22 Hoskins B., d’Hombres B., Campbell J. Does Formal Education Have an Impact on Active Citizenship Behaviour? http://dev.ecs.org/clearinghouse/78/54/7854.pdf

23 Print M., Lange D. (Eds.) Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. – Sense Publishers, 2012 https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1470-schools-curriculum-and-civic-education-for-building.pdf

24 Dąbrowski M., Wiśniewski J. Translating Key Competences into the School Curriculum: lessons from the Polish experience // European Journal of Education. Special Issue: Key Competences in Europe. Volume 46, Issue 3, pages 323–334, September 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01483.x/pdf

25 Slomcyznski K. M., Shabad. G. Can Support for Democracy and the Market Be Learned in School? A Natural Experiment in Post-Communist Poland // Political Psychology Volume 19, Issue 4, pages 749–779, December 1998. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0162-895X.00130/pdf

26 Makowski G. Informal Civic Education or the New-cum-Old Role of the Public Library // The civic inspirer: a guide to informal civic education at (and not only) public libraries. – Warsaw, 2011.


Dialog and others.27 The educational process combines obligatory courses

and optional ones, supporting students’ freedom of choice and providing

them with wider opportunities and greater flexibility in their learning. In

addition, students are able to have an influence on university and faculty

matters through participation in the activities of student unions – Samorząd Studentów Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.28

3.2. Non-formal education

Non-formal education practically encompasses any learning activity that

does not lead to a recognized diploma, certificate or degree (though different

ways of recognition of non-formal learning are being developed29) and does

not take place in an institutionalized environment specially designed for

teaching and training. It may involve workshops, community courses, interest

based classes, short courses, or conference style seminars organized by

different centers, youth organizations and NGOs.

NGOs are believed to be not only contributors to the citizenship education

curricula, but also contexts for citizenship education through their everyday

activity.30 One of the examples of such activity is The Education for Democracy

Foundation (known as FED – Fundacja Edukacja dla Demokracji) which is an

independent, non-profit organization established in 1989 by activists of the

Polish opposition and educators from the American Federation of Teachers.31

Its main objective is to initiate, support and conduct educational activity

aimed at propagating the idea of democracy and preparing people to work for

the benefit of democracy and to participate in democratic institutions. FED

supports local communities in their activities aimed at civil society building

and promotes high ethical and professional standards in the civic sector. It

also contributes to building active and open school communities, which

cooperate with parents and the local community as well as help to activate

students.

Raising the quality of education is achieved by providing teachers

with alternative, activating educational methods. In cooperation with

international partners and trainers, FED organizes workshops for teachers on

active teaching methods, getting students and parents involved in schools’

work, as well as on the project method. The specialists of the Foundation

conduct professional improvement courses for teachers within the Training

27 The University of Warsaw ECTS Course Catalogue http://informatorects.uw.edu.pl/en/courses/search?jed_org_kod=23000000&hits=215&lang=&prg=&name=&scode=05&fac=

28 The University of Warsaw Students’ Union http://samorzad.uw.edu.pl/en/the-university-of-warsaw-students-union/

29 Recognition of non-formal and informal learning (in the field of youth) http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11096_en.htm

30 Ribeiro A.B., Rodrigues M., Caetano A., Pais S., Menezes I. Promoting “Active Citizens”? The Critical Vision of NGOs over Citizenship Education as an Educational Priority across Europe // International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 8 Number 3, 2012 pp. 32-47.

31 Education for Democracy Foundation http://edudemo.org.pl/en/


Center, support international cooperation of schools and prepare teachers for

school exchanges and provide trainings, educational materials and assistance

in initiating contacts with schools from abroad. Though FED mainly works

with employed teachers, education students interested in the activities of the

foundation are also welcome to take part in them.

3.3. Informal education

Informal education is that learning which goes on outside of a formal

learning environment such as a school, a college or a university, therefore it is

learning outside of the classroom/lecture theatre; it can be seen as “learning

that goes on in daily life,” and/or “learning projects that we undertake for

ourselves.”32 It does not need to be intentional learning, and some may well

not be recognized even by the individuals themselves as contributing to their

knowledge and skills. It encompasses a huge variety of activities: it could be

a dance class at a church hall, a book group at a local library, cooking skills

acquired in a community center, a guided visit to a nature reserve or stately

home, researching the National Gallery collection on-line, writing a Wikipedia

entry or taking part in a volunteer project.33 It is believed that volunteering

can provide many opportunities for informal learning. One of the guidebooks

of the European Voluntary Service (EVS) claims that it may happen during the

volunteer’s free time as well as during his/her work, transportation, training

and so on.34 According to the studies, people acquire a variety of skills from

volunteer work: interpersonal skills (62%), communication skills (58%), social

skills (51%), organizing skills (43%), fundraising skills (28%) and other technical

skills (24%).35 In addition, volunteering also encourages pro-social behavior

and citizenship among young people.36

It is reported that since Poland’s accession to the European Union in

2004, awareness of the advantages of being a volunteer has been increasing.

The commonly accepted definition of volunteerism in Poland is “an unpaid

activity, freely given and for the good of others – beyond family and friends.”

There are about 30,000 non-profit organizations active in Poland and about

87% of them work with volunteers, with some 60% not employing any staff,

depending entirely on the efforts of volunteers.37

32 Le Roy E., Woodcock P. Informal Education and Human Rights. London, UK: 2010/ http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/cice/pubs/professional/professional-04.pdf

33 Department for innovation, Universities & Skills. The Learning Revolution. – UK, 2009. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/L/learning_revolution

34 Youthpass in the EVS training cycle https://www.youthpass.eu/downloads/13-62-57/Publication_YP_EVS.pdf

35 Schugurensky D. The Informal Learning of Volunteer Workers http://www.wallnetwork.ca/research/schugu-rensky5pager.pdf

36 Eley D., Kirk D. Developing Citizenship through Sport: The Impact of a Sport-Based Volunteer Programme on Young Sport Leaders, Sport, Education and Society, 2002, 7(2), pp. 151-166.

37 Country report on the legal status of volunteers in Poland http://www.volontiram.ba/download/Volon-teri%20u%20zakonu%20Poljska.pdf


Polish universities play an active role in encouraging their faculty and

students to take part in volunteering programs. According to the Poland

National Report on the EU project VALUE (Volunteering and Lifelong Learning

in Universities in Europe), most Polish universities provide volunteer

opportunities. University staff are involved in a wide variety of voluntary

activities through various groups outside the University and on a personal

level: assisting with presentations and lecturers for local societies; assisting

with organizing different fairs and events; promoting the university program

for volunteers at different meetings. One example of good practice is the

co-operation between The Volunteer Centre (Centrum Wolontariatu) and

the University of Warsaw. The Volunteer Centre acts as a co-ordinating

organization for the network of 16 regional centers and organizations

working with the European Voluntary Service that provides students with

the opportunity to volunteer in other European countries. This helps the

participants to know new cultures and people, improve foreign languages and

their chances of a better job in the future.38

38 Kolodziejczyk M., Grabski W. J. VALUE: Poland National Report. http://www.valuenetwork.org.uk/Docu-ments%20for%20Website/Resources%20and%20reports/Final%20versions/Polish%20report%20-%20final.pdf


4. Conclusions and recommendations

Thus, we can see that despite its common post-Communist heritage,

contemporary Poland and Russia differ considerably regarding the basic

principles of organization of higher education. Based on the analysis of the

specifics of the Russian higher education system and the main approaches

to the development of civic competence in the context of higher education in

Poland, several recommendations can be formulated for developing the civic

competence and democratic beliefs of future teachers in Russia.

4.1. In the sphere of formal education

The current legal norm (the State Education Standard of the Russian

Federation) is not adequate as it does not contain a list of key (general)

competences essential for the professional development and employability

of future professionals common for at least similar occupations (teachers in

our case) and of learning outcomes for each competence. Providing such a list

would enable educators responsible for designing the curriculum to develop

more compatible and consistent modules and courses.

While drafting the new Standard, special attention should be paid to

the requirements for designing degree plans which should be more flexible,

promoting students’ creativity and choice and facilitating the more active

involvement of students in the learning process. The Standard should list

instruction methods, placing an emphasis on active learning techniques.

Such techniques as the Socratic discussion or participatory lecture

methods; presentations, role-play, debates, roundtables, public deliberation,

simulations, etc. would help promote a deeper and more long-lasting

absorption of knowledge. Moreover, they would teach skills necessary for

democratic citizenship such as tolerant and independent thinking, building

students’ confidence in their ability to participate.

4.2. In the sphere of non-formal and informal education

The new Standard should also contain recommendations for combining

formal education activities with non-formal and informal learning. This

involves the cooperation of universities and non-profit educational

organizations, community centers, libraries, NGOs and others through

a variety of forms such as in-service teacher training, workshops, interest

based courses, conference style seminars, etc. Students should be also

encouraged to increase their community involvement and volunteering.

DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCE AND DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS OF FUTURE TEACHERS (EDUCATION STUDENTS):...

Documents

Transcript of DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCE AND DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS OF FUTURE TEACHERS (EDUCATION STUDENTS):...