Raising the Bar: Ethics Education for Quality Teachers

Since the 1970s an ‘ethics boom’ has occurred to counter the disappearance of ethics education from tertiary institutions. This ‘boom’ appears to be absent from teacher education programs in Australia and the United States. Given persistent calls to enhance teacher quality this is problematic because quality teaching is inexorably linked to teachers’ beliefs, values and professional ethics. This case study, conducted in a regional Australian university, was designed to document examples of ethical dilemmas faced by preservice and practising teachers, to explore pre-service teachers’ perceptions of ethics education and to examine the BEd course curriculum for ethics subjects across the four-year degree course. Results highlight a need for teacher training courses to include ethical philosophy units. This represents a sustainable way to support professional practice and enhance teacher quality, by preparing and equipping teachers with techniques to explore and teach complex ethical issues in the classroom. Quality teachers are considered to be those individuals whose pedagogy is grounded in values and beliefs that lead to caring, positive teacher-student relationships, embedded in trust and high standards of professional ethics. In a context of focused attention upon professional ethics and values education, this case study was conducted to: a) explore professional ethical dilemmas encountered by pre-service and practising teachers, b) explore pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the ethics education delivered during their bachelor of education course and c) examine the ethics content of a bachelor of education degree at an Australian university. Teacher Quality and Student Attainment Efforts to improve student attainment have given rise to much international research since the 1960s (for example, Coleman Report (1966), Plowden Report (CACE, 1967). While earlier research tended to focus on socioeconomic and intake factors rather than the influence of school to explain student attainment, more recent studies have concentrated on the effects teaching and teacher quality upon student attainment (Carnegie Corporation, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Newmann & Associates, 1996). For Newman (1996) and Darling-Hammond (1996) student attainment is enhanced by effective teachers who are not only technically competent, with good subject and pedagogical knowledge, but also able to form positive relationships and be a positive role model for their students. These two linked but distinct strands of teacher behaviours, constituting what teachers do in the classroom, enhance student attainment and define teacher quality. These propositions were Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 77 also endorsed in Australia. Rowe was emphatic that teacher quality is a key determinant of student outcomes: ...the quality of teaching and learning provision are by far the most salient influences on students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes... ‘what matters most’ is quality teachers and teaching, supported by strategic teacher professional development! (Rowe, 2003, p.15) More recently, Hattie (2009) supported this view, maintaining that teacher quality is an important moderating factor responsible for the differences found in student performance within schools. Hattie (2009) analysed more than 50,000 studies and demonstrated that the differences between schools in terms of student performance were minute compared to the variances within schools, highlighting the importance of the classroom teacher. He concluded that teachers who used particular teaching strategies, such as providing challenging thinking tasks and appropriate feedback, and teachers who had high expectations of all their students and who created positive teacher-student relationships, had above average effects on student achievement and thus could more legitimately be considered quality teachers. It is no surprise then that several initiatives have been proposed to increase the quality of those entering, or in, the teaching profession. One call to ‘raise the bar’ (Hardie, 2009) was based on the belief that performance pay will increase teacher quality. Indeed, a survey on attitudes to teaching as a career indicates that while those who choose teaching as a career are motivated mainly by factors such as wanting to make a difference and working with children, remuneration is the most significant factor influencing others in not choosing teaching as a career or leaving it (DEST, 2006). Yet well qualified, well paid individuals are not necessarily more likely to be quality professionals, as recent global events have shown. The individuals within the finance sector, which precipitated the recent global economic crisis, were both well qualified and well paid. The education sector is also often under scrutiny. Even in the contexts of well funded and prestigious schools, instances of abuse of power appear regularly in the media (for example, Klan & Rout, 2009). Performance pay might be one way of retaining ‘better’ teachers but as a stand-alone strategy it is no guarantee that it will improve the quality of educators. For what constitutes teacher quality and how to enhance it is neither simple nor clear. Connell (2009) proposed that conceptions of a good teacher are constantly evolving and are contestable. Ingvarson and Rowe (2008) argued that the concept of a quality teacher is fraught with difficulties because it is almost impossible to measure directly. They suggested that the measurement of teacher quality for professional accreditation and professional development needs to focus upon what teachers know and should be able to do. They distinguished between successful teaching, teaching which results in high performance outcomes by students, and good teaching which provides the learner with all the opportunities possible to enhance their competence in a particular curriculum area, and does so in a morally defensible way. Ingvarson and Rowe (2008) concluded that what is needed is a re-focusing of the prevailing economic teacher-quality/studentperformance/merit-pay research and policy agenda to one centred on teaching standards what teachers should know and be able to do. Notwithstanding the above, there is some agreement about what characteristics are indicators of a quality teacher. Wescombe-Down (2009) maintained that the mark of a quality teacher is centred on ‘pedagogical fitness’. A pedagogically fit teacher ‘establishes Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 78 and maintains a positive, inclusive and safe learning environment’ (Wescombe-Down, 2009, p.20) where student beliefs, confidence, skills and values can be fostered and developed. Reporting research, Rowe (2004), Rowe, Stewart and Patterson (2007), Lovat and Toomey (2007) and Hattie (2009) similarly state that in addition to teacher subject knowledge and competence, desirable teacher qualities most often cited by students were a demonstrated sense of care and trust. As Arthur (2010) explains, students perceive in their teachers’ pedagogy dimensions of genuine caring underpinned by their ethical, moral positions. Empirical studies consistent with theses notions suggest that better teacher-pupil relationships may have an impact upon learning, behaviour and attendance (Arthur & Wilson, 2010;Sakiz &Woolfolk-Hoy, 2009; Gorard & See, 2011), whereas poor studentteacher relationships are often characteristic of those students with problems in school (for example, Boon, 2008). Hattie’s (2009) meta-analysis of 50,000 studies, including studies reporting direct student appraisals of their teachers, endorsed the notion that quality teachers had high expectations of their students and demonstrated care for them. Of particular interest in this context is a study reported by Gore, Ladwig, Griffiths and Amosa, (2007), designed to specifically examine the mechanism linking student attainment and teacher-pupil relationships. Gore et al.’s (2007) study involved 3000 school students as they progressed through four years of schooling between 2004 and 2007 in the state of NSW. Their findings suggest that when the pedagogy employed by teachers was paired with high expectations and beliefs that were socially inclusive and morally defensible the most vulnerable students in their classes, those from a lower SES background, Indigenous and ethnic minority students, benefitted most. Gore et al. (2007) argued that it was the approach with which teachers tackled their professional duties that made a difference. An approach based on commitment to their students’ learning, underscored by a commitment to social justice. They surmised that teacher commitment to student learning sprang from an internalised value system, underscored by particular values and beliefs. They argued that teachers’ values and beliefs determine teacher quality, and emphasised the need for teachers to reflect upon their beliefs, and for training to provide the space for this to happen. ...if a [teacher education] program is to promote growth among novices, it must require them to make their pre-existing personal beliefs explicit; it must challenge the adequacy of those beliefs; and it must give novices extended opportunities to examine, elaborate, and integrate new information into their existing belief systems... (Gore et al., 2007, p.7) Gore et al.’s (2007) views are also found overseas (for example, Arthur, 2010; Alexander, 2009; Revell & Arthur, 2007; Nucci, Drill, Larson & Browne, 2005). Teacher Values and Beliefs, Ethics Education and Values Education The idea that teacher quality and quality teaching are linked with teacher values and beliefs is widely held (Arthur, 2010; Clement, 2007; Gore et al., 2007, Lovat , 2007; Lovat & Toomey, 2007; Lovat, Toomey, Clement, Crotty & Nielsen, 2009; Rowe, 2004; Westcombe-Down, 2009). The significance of beliefs for understanding human behaviour is well documented. Cordelia Fine (2006) distilled a number of psychological research studies into a book illustrating the links between beliefs, stereotypes and behaviours. In an earlier review of Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 79 the research on teachers’ beliefs, Pajares catalogued several sources supporting the notion that “beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives” (Pajares, 1992, p. 307), noting the strong links between teachers’ beliefs, their planning, instructional decisions, and classroom practices. He emphasised that beliefs are “far more influential than knowledge in determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behaviour” (Pajares, 1992, p. 311). The social organisation of life in the classroom experienced by learners is critical to their outcomes and depends upon the managing teacher’s commitment. This commitment, characterised by particular and distinct behaviours, is underpinned by, and is a function of, the teacher’s beliefs and professional ethics (Kagan, 1992; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Although it is difficult to empirically assess the impact of belief and values upon pedagogy, several education researchers have identified significant relationships between teacher beliefs, teaching practices, and student learning experiences in the context of science teaching (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Haney, Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996; King, Shumow & Lietz, 2001; Tobin & La Master, 1995). For example, Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, and Allspaw, (2006), found that when teaching ethically sensitive science topics, teachers “typically felt ill prepared to engage classes in controversial discussions, and they also cited a lack of appropriate resources to help structure these experiences” (Sadler et al., 2006, p.357). They concluded that to address the gap in teacher expertise to debate ethical dilemmas when teaching sensitive issues, pre-service teacher training programs must include a focus on ethics which elaborates the connections between ethics and science to help teachers deal with the challenges they meet in the classroom. Only in this way can they hope to enhance the quality of their teaching approach and their students’ engagement. Given that teachers’ behaviour is substantially influenced and even determined by their thought processes (Clark & Peterson, 1986), and that values, beliefs, and ways of thinking influence practice (Nespor, 1987), an emphasis needs to be placed upon ethics education in the training of pre-service teachers. The historical development and current applications of ethical philosophy need to be explored in depth and in context in pre-service teacher education programs (Mergler, 2008). Burant, Chubbuck and Whipp, (2007) argued for an urgent re-focusing on morals through teacher training programs: ...we are convinced that our attention in teacher education must shift considerably to the formation not only of knowledge and skills but also of the moral sensibility that underlies them. The moral nature of teaching cannot be conflated with the knowledge and skills important for teaching; neither can it be neatly separated from them. As we have known throughout the ages yet also frequently ignore, the moral is always in play in classrooms in teachers' actions, whether intentionally or not, and the complexity of the classroom environment--its immediacy and ever-changing activities--makes demands on teachers that reveal their orientation to their work in a myriad of daily acts. Because of that seamless connection, explicit attention to the moral formation of pre-service teachers is crucial. (Burant et al., 2007, p. 408) Support for this viewpoint is found in Campbell (2008). She lamented that “teacher education neglects the teaching of ethics” (Campbell, 2008, p.372) and urged that more emphasis must be placed on moral and ethical education because teacher training programs are “the initial place to acquaint new teachers with the moral dimensions of their chosen profession” (Campbell, 2008, p.373). Moreover, as Snook (2003) pointed out, because education aims to change people in particular ways, and uses methods which involve close, personal, hierarchical relationships, teaching is an occupation where ethical issues are central and therefore the provision of ethics education to support the code of professional conduct of teachers is crucial. Snook (2003) and Campbell (2008) echo the views of others Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 80 (for example, Carr, 2003;2006) who have appealed for ethics, that is moral philosophy, to take a more central role in pre-service teacher training programs. Another important reason for urging that pre-service teachers engage with ethics education in teacher training programs (Alexander, 2009; Curtis, 2010) is that teachers are now required to guide their students through issues of human rights, conflict resolution and social justice, matters included under the auspices of values education. The inclusion of values education in the formal curriculum in Australia (Australian Government, 2005) means Australian schools must now comply with the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools (NFV-EAS) Framework (Jones, 2009). Values education describes a globally endorsed move that charges teachers and schools with the role of inculcating values to their students, abandoning prior beliefs that these are only in the domain of families and religious institutions. Known internationally by various names, including moral education, character education and ethics education (Lovat &Toomey, 2007), and despite some slight differences in emphasis, this move recognises that teachers are expected to play a key role in the moral education of their students (Lovat et al., 2009). Although this teacher role was described and advocated as early as 1909 (Mackenzie, 1909), it places an increasing emphasis on teacher training courses to prepare pre-service teachers to educate diverse students about values and morals (Curtis, 2010; Jones, 2009; Lovat et al., 2009). Without training to develop appropriate skills to teach values in schools, studies have shown that teachers pursue values education with students mostly on the basis of behaviour management; this tends to be unreflective and operating at the level of the hidden curriculum (Fiero Evans, 2005; Thornberg, 2008). They discuss values and norms in relation to behaviour and character development but “they do not make explicit reference to any moral philosophical, moral psychological or moral educational theories” (Curtis, 2010, p.114). For Snook (2003) values education cannot be disentangled from the philosophical discussion of ethics, or moral philosophy. An ethics curriculum will not only support preservice teachers in teaching a diverse range of students about morals and values, but also assist them to analyse critically their own personal views and practices. Such engagement in reflective practice is also a mark of a quality teacher (Delpit, 2006). It is through reflective practice that teachers are able to moderate and refine their pedagogy to meet the needs of their learners. Bibby (1999) argued an ethics curriculum is essential for teachers to “scan their professional environments for emerging issues ...also to exercise public leadership” (p.3). Curtis (2010) also advocated for pre-service teacher training programs to explicitly teach values education and related topics for similar reasons. Further, an ethics curriculum highlights the foundational ethical underpinnings to professional codes of conduct in undergraduate teacher education (see review by Campbell, 2008). In sum, an ethics curriculum in pre-service teacher programs assists teachers to tackle values education in the classroom and to reflect in their own practice so that they are better able to respond to their students’ needs. Background and Study Rationale During the 1970s, an ‘ethics boom’ occurred to counter the disappearance of ethics education and the marginalisation of moral education from higher education (Glanzer & Ream, 2007). The ‘boom’, witnessed in most professional undergraduate programs, is notable for its apparent absence from teacher education programs in the United States (Glanzer & Ream, 2007; Milson, 2003; Revell & Arthur, 2007) and in Australia (Lovat & Toomey, 2007; Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 81 While it is not known precisely how many tertiary institutions in Australia specifically teach ethics through their teacher training programs, in relation to early childhood educators, Newman and Pollnitz (2005) reported that their investigation of early childhood practitioners' knowledge of the Early Childhood Association (ECA) code of ethics revealed that only about half of the early childhood personnel surveyed were aware of the existence of the code. Such a result might indicate that these practitioners’ knowledge was obtained from sources other than teacher training institutions. With a view to addressing these concerns, higher education curriculum reform moved to include more ethics courses for undergraduates in Australia (Slattery, 2009). This decision followed similar trends overseas to remedy the past century’s marginalization of moral education from college and university curricula (Glanzer & Ream, 2007). Are universities responding to the profession’s needs? Are they including moral themes, values education and ethics curricula in their programs to prepare pre-service teachers for the range of moral nuances of teaching? The research literature reporting ethics education in pre-service training programs is limited. Some sources outline pre-service and practising teachers’ ethical dilemmas (e.g., Bibby, 1999; Campbell, 2003; Bergmark & Alerby, 2006). Overall, pre-service teachers’ views about ethical dilemmas and ethics’ training, or the extent of such training across Australian universities, are not well known (Lovat & Toomey, 2007). In addition, Anderson et al. (2007) maintain that it is difficult to know exactly what attempts universities are making to teach values (and ethics), because institutions are loath to specify what values they are targeting for fear of appearing to ‘indoctrinate’ pre-service teachers and because research in this area is difficult. Political and ideological reasons have been proposed for the difficulties faced by those trying to introduce ethics curricula into teacher training degrees (Freakley, 2007). These include espoused relativism, precluding many undergraduates from engaging with ethics, and complacency in society and the schools in which pre-service teachers spend considerable time honing their teaching skills. They are thought to create a culture and a hidden curriculum that preclude trainee and newly qualified teachers from taking strong ethical stances (Freakley, 2007). Yet there is an expectation by Teacher Registration Boards nationally that professional codes of conduct, derived from ethics, have been internalised by newly-qualified teachers ready to use in the classroom. Problems arise when codes of professional conduct have been merely memorised, and not analysed, debated or examined thoroughly from an ethical perspective. Empirical studies (for example, Cummings, Harlow & Maddux, 2007) have shown that pre-service teachers score poorly on moral reasoning compared with other undergraduates. This follows them into the work place where qualified teachers say they lack effective strategies and resources to teach students to explore ethical issues (Verrinder, 2007). One way to address difficulties with moral reasoning is to provide learning experiences and training for pre-service teachers. Some empirical evidence suggests that interventions and training can raise the ability of pre-service teachers to deliberate moral reasoning issues (Cummings, Maddux, Maples, & Torres-Rivera, 2004) and their self-efficacy to teach values (Nucci, et al., 2005). Therefore courses in ethics or moral philosophy might be useful in preparing pre-service teachers for teaching, ethical decision making in the workplace and for the reflective practice required to improve the quality of their teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 7, July 2011 82 Study Aims The considerations outlined above were the impetus for a case study centred in a regional Australian university. The study was designed in response to a workplace-integrated learning initiative to improve the quality of graduating students. Within a world-wide climate of focused attention on ethics education, the aims of this study were to: 1. document examples of a range of ethical dilemmas faced by teachers in the workplace and pre-service teachers during, or in preparation for, practicum; 2. examine the Bachelor of Education course curriculum for specific ethics modules/subjects across the four-year course at one School of Education in a regional university; and 3. explore pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their training in ethics as a foundation for meeting the demands of teaching in a school.