Home  ›  How Can Worldview Influence Role as Scholar and Researcher

How Can Worldview Influence Role as Scholar and Researcher

Written By quarta-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2022 Add Comment Edit

Introduction

Growing interest in college didactics students' experiences of their learning environment has led to the implementation of diverse forms of quality balls and management systems in higher pedagogy institutions. There is show that students' perspectives of themselves, such equally their approaches to learning, touch on how they experience their teaching-learning environment (Parpala et al. 2010). Information technology has as well been suggested that in educational settings researchers should take the learning context better into account rather than investigating general motivational themes (eastward.g. Volet and Kimmel 2012; Nolen, Ward, and Horn 2012; Volet and Järvelä 2001).

Figure two. Age distribution of the respondents.

Figure 3. Distribution of cumulative credits among the respondents.

Figure four. Students' worldview commitment per category of identification.

Figure 5. Significance of students' personal worldviews in setting goals, per category of identification.

In this study, a novel approach to personal motivation is taken, which builds on the thought of Emmons (1999) and Emmons and Paloutzian (2003) and Hirsto (2001, 2012b), that as religious questions are intertwined with the personal worldviews and values of students, they also affect their motivational constructs. Motivational perspectives, which accept been studied in the learning environments, often include perspectives of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation (e.one thousand. Busse 2013; Brahm, Jenert, and Wagner 2017) or performance vs. mastery orientation (due east.g. Pintrich 2000). It has likewise been suggested that it is important to consider goals and reasons for aiming at goals (such as autonomous or controlled reasons) separately as they accept similar, however not completely overlapping relations to achievement (Sommet and Elliot 2017). In terms of the reasons for studying theology, it seems that students have a scientific, spiritual or a helping oriented motives, or they may experience a stiff spiritual calling (Hirsto and Tirri 2009; Niemelä 1999). The contextualised motivational dimensions underpinning theological studies readily correspond with the personally interested, certificate-oriented, self-examination-oriented, vocation-oriented, and clashing learning orientations defined by Vermunt and Vermetten (2004). Theoretically, motivational constructs build on a persons' strivings and the goals they set for themselves. Thus, a student's commitment to his or her personal worldview and the degree to which they base of operations their goals on that worldview in the learning environment can be considered to reflect the extent to which the student builds their motivations on their personal worldview in finding their mode in their lives more generally.

The goals a person holds are not trivial in the learning surround, as motivational dimensions and goals are also related to well-being. For example, according to Emmons, Cheung, and Tehrani (1998), individual differences in spiritual goals seem to predict well-being more strongly than any other category of striving that has been studied, exceeding those of intimacy and ability, and generativity goals. Additionally, feet related to personal career or educational projects and ideals and idealism have been found to be connected to lower general wellness (Wallenius 2007).

Learning environment has diverse definitions and dimensions and can be approached from various perspectives (e.g. Manninen et al. 2007). The approach taken here refers to the social learning environment, which includes interaction with the environment, fellow students, the kinesthesia and teachers.

To sympathize the interaction between students' perspectives of themselves and the teaching and learning environment, it is important to understand the relationship betwixt students' goals and personal worldview commitment and their experiences of the social learning environment. The aim of this paper is to investigate Finnish theology students' delivery to their personal worldviews and experiences of the learning surroundings in relation to their identification as religious majority, minority or not-religious students.

The functional role of personal worldview in learning

Rauste-von Wright (1986) conceptualised the role of personal worldview in the process of guiding and controlling actions in whatsoever given context (come across Effigy ane). According to that view, we are each embedded in the context of the systemic social and physical reality (cf. Bronfenbrenner 1979). Our situation-specific goals and intentions reverberate the worldview that we have synthetic through our personal history, which includes beliefs related to the physical, the social and the self, as well equally values and high-level goals. Spiritual and religious beliefs are included in the belief organization. The state of affairs-specific goals and intentions are reflected in the personal projects that students pursue during the dissimilar phases of their studies. Thus, students choose between alternative courses of action in their studies in line with their personal goals and intentions.

Figure 1. The role of personal worldview in the procedure of setting goals and taking situated action (Rauste-von Wright 1986; Hirsto 2001).

Empirical findings among academy students support this line of idea in that personal project appraisals appear to be related to well-being too every bit to academic achievement (e.g. Salmela-Aro and Nurmi 1997; Litmanen, Hirsto, and Lonka 2010). The question of goals is also reflected in theories of cocky-regulated learning (e.thou. Pintrich 2004; Zimmerman 2002; Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006). Setting goals (e.g. setting a career goal) is oft seen as the first stage of the self-regulated learning process, and the ability to do so is considered an essential metacognitive skill for the self-regulated learner.

The extent to which the goals of theology students are set up based on their personal worldviews, and the level of their commitment to those goals in relation to the students' perception of themselves equally part of a religious or ideological majority or minority is investigated in this study.

In terms of the meaning of religious, spiritual or worldview perspectives with regard to theology students' goals and motivational processes, it seems, according to Hirsto and Tirri (2009), that a high proportion of theology students consider religious or spiritual calling to exist a key aspect of their motivation to study theology. Motivational approaches were considered in that study as the groundwork motives for the students choosing theology as their field of report. Notwithstanding, in the Hirsto and Tirri (ibid.) study, the student grouping that had no explicit religious motivation, that was most uncertain virtually theology as a career choice, and whose key motive was merely to secure a study place, seemed to be the well-nigh sensitive towards spiritual problems in their surround compared to all other motivational approach groups.

In this study, the relation between theology students' goals and their personal worldviews is seen as crucial. According to Mayhew and Bryant Rockenbach (2013), worldview commitment seems to differ among students in different disciplines. Low worldview commitment and spiritual struggle seem to be virtually prevalent among psychology students, which may be attributed to the nature of the field with regard to critical thinking and questioning of received wisdom (e.grand. Bryant and Astin 2008). The nature of the learning environment and pupil worldview commitment seem, therefore, to be connected.

The learning environment tin can too shape students' worldviews. For case, Bryant (2011) has suggested that challenging co-curricular experiences and the salience of organized religion and spirituality in bookish encounters tends to provoke an ecumenical worldview. Furthermore, exposure to worldview diversity may as well enhance openness toward and acceptance and tolerance of diversity of worldviews. In career psychology, career selection has been traditionally investigated from the viewpoints of interest and capability. However, as more than contextualised and situated approaches are being suggested for investigating the development of motivation and learning, similarly more holistic approaches are existence suggested for career decision-making or career development. According to a report by Rockenbach, Walker, and Luzader (2012), spiritual struggles are multilayered and manifest in myriad means every bit students navigate complex relationships, experience fear and doubt, lose and find meaning, and negotiate social and personal identities. In terms of negotiating personal identities and finding meaning, spiritual aspects primal to a personal worldview tin be equated with religious and ideological aspects.

Higher pedagogy students' choices, goals and decisions almost their studies tin be approached from narrative perspectives. The narrative approach highlights the social and personal dimensions involved in negotiating and guiding their studies and hereafter career path (e.g. Polkinghorne 1988; Penttinen et al. 2011). According to the narrative perspective, a person's life experiences and their stories nigh them reflect the chief formative communities to which they have belonged. Furthermore, a person makes choices guided by their community's stories, while likewise at the same fourth dimension producing their own stories nearly the community (e.g. Bruner 1986, 1987, 2001; Hänninen 2004). Regarding students' study path, students' finished and unfinished career stories may have an touch on on their course of study and the construction of their careers (cf. Hirsto and Buchert 2016).

Programs in theology in Finnish universities provide the curricular options of a general theological pedagogy, a religious teacher education, and a curriculum for students wishing to become pastors within the Evangelical Lutheran church. Yet, the educational activity at the faculties is non-confessional and students come from various Christian backgrounds. The non-confessional nature of theological studies and theological pedagogy in Finland, despite the spiritual or religious profession that many students of each student accomplice aim at, provides an interesting friction that brings the students' personal worldviews and their office in learning-studying and educational processes to the fore. If nosotros can understand how to consider and successfully tackle with the religious, spiritual and ideological aspects of personal worldviews and their effects on motivational processes as well as experiences in the academy learning and educational activity context of theology, we may be better able to provide students with a fertile and supportive learning environment. These perspectives from one field of study will provide a basis, which tin be compared to negotiated constructions in other fields of report, which will further help us to formulate suggestions for development for wider college instruction contexts.

Microaggression in relation to social aspects of the learning environment

Mayhew and Bryant Rockenbach (2013) suggest that students' delivery to worldviews and the religious, spiritual and ideological climate of the campus are linked and that the relationship between climate and commitment depends upon the student's religious worldview. Thus, theology students' delivery to personal worldviews may similarly vary co-ordinate to their experienced condition of belonging to the religious, spiritual or ideological majority or minority in their learning environment.

In the US college context, according to Rockenbach, Mayhew, and Bowman (2015), it seems that strength of commitment to worldviews is associated with perceiving a positive climate for not-religious individuals on campus. This relationship seems to exist particularly stiff amongst students who place with a majority worldview. However, Rockenbach, Mayhew, and Bowman (2015) also suggest that atheist students as a minority were less inclined than their peers to perceive a positive campus climate for non-religious individuals, and also, committed Christians tended to have more than positive perceptions of a non-religious climate than students of other worldviews. Likewise, according to Harper and Hurtado (2007), minorities accept usually had more than negative experiences of the campus climate than majority students. Thus, it seems that minority students' are sensitive to the tensions between the environment and their own worldview, whereas it may be difficult for bulk students to perceive the means in which their values and perspectives are integrated into everyday practices. This may likewise lead to subtle and unintentional insensitive comments and attitudes towards other worldviews.

Rockenbach and Mayhew (2013) debate that space for spiritual back up and expression, provocative encounters with worldview diversity, and challenging curricular experiences encourage ecumenical orientation. For Rockenbach and Mayhew (2013) an ecumenical orientation includes an interest in learning virtually diverse religious perspectives, a belief that core values underlie and connect diverse religious traditions, and acceptance of people with worldviews that differ from their ain (cf. Bryant 2011).

Microaggression has been examined predominantly from racial or ethnic perspectives (e.g. Nadal 2011; Nadal et al. 2012). However, in this report microaggression is approached from the perspective of Mayhew and Bryant Rockenbach (2013), which includes experienced negative comments towards a person'southward religious, spiritual or ideological worldview. There are few studies that have addressed microaggression from the viewpoint of religious minorities or majorities. According to Pentaris (2018), lack of religious literacy on the part of health care professionals may lead to unintentional microaggression in healthcare. Nadal (2011) defines racial microaggression as often unintentional and unconscious subtle forms of discrimination that send negative and denigrating messages to members of a marginalised racial group. Mayhew and Bryant Rockenbach (2013) define microaggression in a like way to Nadal (2011), merely with respect to religious, spiritual and ideological worldviews. Whereas in the above cases microaggression has been investigated from the perspective of experience in the societal context, the present study is contextualised within the learning environment provided by the faculty.

Personal worldviews and career selection certainty

Based on the theoretical viewpoints laid out above, it is considered here that religious perspectives are intertwined with the personal worldviews (cf. Emmons and Paloutzian 2003; Hirsto 2001) and values of the students, which in turn influences their personal motivational constructs. Earlier research, including the results of longitudinal research on theology students' learning and motivational processes, besides support this theoretical idea (e.g. Rauste-von Wright 1986; Hirsto and Tirri 2009; Hirsto 2012b).

According to Hirsto (2012a), motivational factors better explained career choice dubiety than general strategies and attributions. In the Hirsto written report (ibid.), three motivational factors explained over half of the variance of dubiety of career pick, while two general strategies and attribution variables explained only less than ane-tenth. Amid students of theology, committed students who progressed in their study-related project were capable, and had intrinsic motivation at the showtime of their studies progressed in their studies more rapidly than other student groups (Litmanen, Hirsto, and Lonka 2010). The difference in footstep was considerable, reaching approximately a half-year divergence by the end of tertiary study-year.

Also, according to Hirsto and Buchert (2016), theology students have various motivational reasons for studying theology. Hirsto and Buchert (2016) further contend that theology students experience various kinds of struggles during their studies, varying from reflection on their selection of report programme to deep-level challenges regarding transforming personal worldviews, which change students' career goals.

Thus, from various perspectives, it seems that theology students' motivational perspectives and, in this sense, goals are related to the choices the students make regarding their learning environment and their career. Co-ordinate to Hirsto and Buchert (2016), theology students' career choice certainty seems to vary between different curricula. Furthermore, Hirsto and Buchert (ibid.) showed that students' certainty regarding their career goals too varies inside curricula groups. Thus, among students aiming at the pastoral profession, there were students who were sure and less certain. Likewise, amongst the students aiming at a general theological caste, there were students who were certain about their career choice, as well as students, whose motivation was characterised past exclusion, who chose the curriculum considering no other options were bachelor to them.

Duffy and Blustein (2005) argue that individuals who take a strong spiritual relationship with a higher ability and intrinsic religious motivation tend to be more than confident in their ability to make career decisions and are more open to exploring a multifariousness of career options. There are empirical indications that spirituality is one of the determinants of career behaviour as it influences career purpose, sense-making and coherence (Lips-Wiersma and Mills 2002). Vocational psychologists have conducted a great deal of inquiry on the issue of contextual variables on career development, just have yet to explore fairly the role of spirituality and religiousness (Duffy and Blustein 2005, 431–432). Thus, this study provides new perspectives on the contextual relation of religious, spiritual or ideological commitment and career certainty between religious majority and minority student groups. Empirical research perspectives take shown that students of theology, in general, have to deal with the key questions of spiritual and religious issues in their learning processes earlier and during their studies, despite the nature of their specific professional orientation (e.m. Hirsto and Tirri 2009; Litmanen, Hirsto, and Lonka 2010; Hirsto 2012a, 2012b, 2013).

Method and materials

This report was conducted among 2nd-year academy students of theology. The students responded to a questionnaire surveying their experiences of their learning surroundings in relation to their own religious or ideological worldview and experienced position in the learning context equally office of the bulk or minority. The information were collected during a lecture grade on a voluntary basis. The questionnaire also included a asking for the students' informed consent to participate in the study. Students responded to the questions on a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree (one) to strongly agree (v)).

An important contextual viewpoint on the faculties of theology in Finnish universities is that they provide 3 unlike curricula: (1) general theological education (A2), (2) teacher education and (B), and (3) qualifications for students who desire to become pastors in the Evangelical Lutheran Church building (A1). Still, the educational activity at these faculties is non-confessional and students come up from various, mainly Christian, backgrounds. In terms of religious minority or bulk in general, it is important to consider national and cultural differences as, co-ordinate to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (2018), approximately 72% of Finland'south population were its members in 2017. Students' identification with either a religious majority, minority or non-religious group was approached from the students' ain experience. Thus, the majority of students more or less represented the Evangelical Lutheran Church. With respect to the investigated context, minority students could belong to minorities within the Evangelical Lutheran Church, such as those with bourgeois conviction regarding the ordination of women, or other smaller Christian revivalist movements or other religious communities.

The measurement scales used in this study were either translated into Finnish from earlier studies, or adult in Finnish in before studies or developed for this report. The scales seemed to piece of work also quite well in Finnish every bit the reliabilities were at a reasonably good level.

The mensurate adult for this study reflected the effects of personal worldview on goals (α = .74). The items in this dimension included:

  • 'Aspects of my religious, spiritual, or ideological worldview normally direct my choices and goals',

  • 'Without my current religious, spiritual or ideological worldview I would accept made dissimilar kinds of choices in my life', and

  • 'My current religious, spiritual, or ideological worldview has inverse my choices and goals'

The items measuring worldview commitment (reliability in this study co-ordinate to Cronbach alpha α = .73) were translated from the Mayhew and Bryant Rockenbach (2013) written report equally well as the scale of microaggression.

The worldview delivery scale included three items:

  • 'My current religious, spiritual, or ideological worldview gives my life significant',

  • 'How committed are you to your electric current religious, spiritual, or ideological worldview?', and

  • 'I have put a lot of idea into why I believe what I do'.

The microaggression scale (reliability in this study α = .86) included the items:

  • 'Been mistreated on campus because of my religious, spiritual, or ideological worldview',

  • 'Felt that someone on campus used his/her religious worldview to justify treating me in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of my gender',

  • 'Felt that someone on campus used his/her religious worldview to justify treating me in a discriminatory manner on the basis of my sexual orientation',

  • (in addition) a scale of experiences of insensitive comments on worldview problems in various contexts.

The measure out of certainty of career choice (α = .81) (Hirsto and Tirri 2009; Hirsto 2012a; Ketonen et al. 2016) included three items:

  • 'Some other career pick might exist more satisfying and closer to my goals',

  • 'At the moment, I call back that my career choice is right for me', and

  • 'If I could take chosen my field of study freely, I would not have wanted to get-go studying at the Faculty of theology.'

Results

The respondents and their characteristics

A total of fourscore theology students responded to the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 57.3% were female and 42.vii% were male, and 62.7% were aged 20–25 years (Effigy 2). The distribution is closely representative of 2d-twelvemonth students of theology in general. There were besides some older respondents, which is feature of the field of theology, which is often entered every bit a second career or in response to a spiritual calling to study theology afterward in life. The students' previous educational groundwork included matriculation examination (84%), and some had earlier Masters' degrees (6.7%) or other educational backgrounds (9.3%).

All respondents had acquired at to the lowest degree 30 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) credits (Effigy three). In full, 26% of the respondents had completed less than the suggested minimum requirement of credits for first-year studies (lx credits), and 25% had completed simply over the minimum requirement (lx–69 credits). Thus, well-nigh 50% of the respondents had completed more 70 ECTS credits.

The students were asked to categorise themselves according to four religious or non-religious groups (Table 1). The majority (55%) of respondents identified themselves with the religious majority group; the non-religious grouping was the second largest, bookkeeping for 21.three% of respondents; and xv% identified themselves with the religious minority group. Seven respondents classed themselves as 'other'.

Table 1. Distribution of students in religious majority, religious minority and non-religious groups.

The bulk of the students in the religious bulk grouping explained their positioning in terms of their membership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. However, the majority of students tended to describe themselves as either quite liberal and not very active in the church building, or quite conservative and quite agile in the church building. Similarly, the religious minority students, despite beingness members of Evangelical Lutheran Church, considered themselves to be either more liberal or more than conservative than the majority of students.

Near students who classed themselves as non-religious explained that they had no personal faith or did not vest to a certain religious community. Those who classed themselves as 'other' did so on the grounds that they were doubter or that they could non ascertain themselves according to the other three categories.

As was expected, the students' cocky-identification as belonging to the religious majority, minority or every bit non-religious were significantly related to the curriculum or career that they were aiming for (χ2 (df = half-dozen) = 15.50, p = 0.017). Of the students aiming for the A1 curriculum, which prepares students to be pastors or clergymen, 77% considered themselves to exist part of the religious majority, and 13% as part of the religious minority. None of the students aiming at the ministry identified as not-religious, although 10% categorised themselves as 'other'.

Of the students aiming for the A2 curriculum, providing general theological teaching, 44% considered themselves part of the religious bulk, which was somewhat less than theoretically expected, and 12% considered themselves office of the religious minority. The corporeality of students identifying as non-religious was 32%, and 12% categorised themselves equally 'other'.

Of the students aiming for the instructor education curriculum (B), 39% identified with the religious majority group, 22% with the religious minority group, and 33% identified as non-religious.

Personal worldview commitment in relation to student characteristics

The level of personal worldview delivery in relation to student characteristics was investigated using the Kruskall–Wallis method, equally the corporeality of respondents was moderate.

Co-ordinate to the results, theology students who identified themselves with the religious majority or religious minority groups well-nigh frequently reported a higher general delivery to their personal worldview (H(3) = 31,112, p < .001, d = 1.532, big outcome) (meet Figure 4). Pairwise comparisons made as post hoc analyses (Isle of man–Whitney) showed highly pregnant differences between the religious majority group and non-religious group (U = 32,194, p < .001, d = 1.982, big consequence) and between the religious minority group and non-religious group (U = 34,717, p < .001, d = 1.328, large effect). The difference was as well meaning between the majority group and the 'other' grouping (U = 25,555 p < .05, d = 1.131, big effect). The 'other' grouping and the non-religious group were substantially level in terms of personal worldview commitment with hateful values close to 3, signifying no item commitment to personal worldview.

A similar finding to personal worldview delivery was also plant among the different groups of students with regard to the significance of worldview in setting goals (H(3) = 22,603, p < .001,d = 1.179, large effect) (Meet Effigy 5). According to the post hoc tests (Mann–Whitney), the difference between the religious majority group and non-religious group was significant (U = 25,192, p < .05, d = 2.065, large effect), and the divergence between the minority grouping and not-religious group was also highly significant in this respect (U = 36,198, p.<001, d = 1.289, large effect).

Negative experiences and experienced bulk-minority group memberships

The full general level of experienced microaggression in the form of negative comments nearly personal worldviews was very depression with hateful values of between 1.17 and two.12 (min one-max 5), and at that place were no meaning differences between bulk and minority groups. Nevertheless, there were significant relations betwixt experienced negative comments and gender. Female students reported experiencing negative comments regarding their worldview (mean = 1.seven) somewhat more frequently than male students (mean ane.3) (U = 392,v, p < .05, d = .785, intermediate outcome). In terms of means, theology education seems to be quite a tolerant environment for different student groups, although female students did feel some negative comments regarding their worldviews in the wider learning environment in which they were embedded.

Majority-minority group memberships and dubiety of career choice

A statistically significant human relationship was found between majority, minority and not-religious group membership and uncertainty of career choice (Kruskall–Wallis H(iii) = 16,838, p < .01, d = .944, large effect) (Figure 6). Co-ordinate to pairwise comparisons equally postal service hoc tests (Mann–Whitney), the not-religious group of students was the most uncertain about their career selection compared to both the religious majority (U = 23,320, p < .01, d = two.089, large effect) and the religious minority group (U = 26,142, p < .05, d = one.596, large event). Religious minority students seemed to exist the least uncertain about their career choice. The 'other' grouping did not differ significantly from the other three student groups.

Effigy 6. Students' career choice uncertainty per category of identification.

Conclusions

As expected, students with a religious identity were more committed to their personal worldview. These theology students also reported that their personal worldview strongly afflicted their choices and goals. In line with the personal worldview model and narrative approach, people are considered to choose and focus their goals in dynamic interplay with their environs and personal worldview. In accord with earlier studies, religious orientation seems to be related to certainty of career choice also in this context; interestingly, though, the certainty seems to be slightly stronger among the religious minority grouping than the religious majority group. However, this trend in the data may echo the perspectives suggested past Rockenbach, Mayhew, and Bowman (2015) and Harper and Hurtado (2007) that minority students seem less inclined than their peers to perceive a positive campus climate for minority students. That finding, nonetheless, varied between minorities, and experiences of campus climate differed, for example, between non-religious and religious minorities. Every bit we consider the context of theology instruction in Republic of finland, it may be that the religious minority students' encounter tensions between their ain worldview and majority/hegemonic worldviews, which requires them to ponder more than explicitly their own worldview and how information technology affects their goals and decisions in the learning surround. This may lead to stronger and more explicit commitment.

Students experienced, in general, very few incidents of microaggression. There were also no differences in experienced microaggression among the unlike majority and minority groups. Thus, the faculty of theology seems to be a tolerant surroundings for different student groups. However, female person students reported slightly more than experiences of microaggression on average than male students, which may exist partly related to the discussions and religious groups' diverse views regarding the part and ordination of women in the church building.

This study has shown that higher pedagogy students of theology experienced aspects of their personal worldview every bit important in their goal setting, and that this importance varies according to their experience of belonging to a majority, minority or not-religious grouping. Studying these motivational themes in ane report field context is important in society to understand the contextual nature of sense-making and motivation (cf. Volet and Kimmel 2012). In the hereafter, it would exist important to investigate these kinds of personal worldview processes in other disciplinary and professional contexts. This would provide perspectives as to how unique the identified relations betwixt personal worldviews and goal setting amidst majority, minority and non-religious groups in the theological field are compared to other fields of higher pedagogy. This could provide a ground for developing means for supporting higher education students' cocky-regulation processes and facilitating better guidance for students during their studies regarding personal worldview, as well equally developing meliorate disciplinary pedagogy for college instruction.

peeblessoogniny1973.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2019.1619153

0 Response to "How Can Worldview Influence Role as Scholar and Researcher"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel