Professionals need be concerned about
ethical issues related to their profession. Educators are no
different from other professionals in this regard. What are
such the ethical issues?
Ethical issues in the professions are those that
involve value choices for the professionals and for society. Michael D.
Bayles, Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Inc., 1981. p. ix.
Learning about ethics as it relates
to a profession has its value. The study of professional ethics can:
- Sensitize professionals to the ethical dimensions
of professional practice
- Help professionals to think more clearly about
ethical problems
- Develop some general principles to use in
difficult or unusual cases
- Better understand the role and importance of
professions in contemporary society--Michael D. Bayles,
Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p.
3
Talking about ethics is not the same as doing ethics.
Doing ethics involves careful and critical thinking
involving basic principles of the moral good in a manner that leads to or
defends a position taken on some moral problem or dilemma. Ethical
thinking and resolution of dilemmas involves normative claims. As a
professional educator ethical discourse must be conducted in a manner to
bring about resolutions of moral dilemmas in such a manner that it would
provide guidance for others in similar situations. In this manner the
profession moves forward and establishes criteria and expectations by
which its members can be evaluated as to their performance. It does not
serve the profession of education to accept as being sufficient for an
ethical resolution simply to discourse concerning moral decisions without
some grounding in basic values and principles that are shared by the
members of the profession and that help to define the group. Different
people enter the discourse over the same issue and may arrive at different
conclusions as to the morally correct decision and course of action to
take. Differing discourses can produce not only different but
inconsistent and contradictory conclusions about what is the most morally
proper behavior. How is the profession to maintain that inconsistent and
contradictory conclusions about what is the most morally proper behavior
can provide the guidelines and paradigms for members of the profession?
Accepting ungrounded discourse is to issue the directive that “anything
goes” in resolving moral quandaries as long as one agonizes or at least
deliberates over the matter. To expect that moral discourse be grounded
in common principles and values of the profession is not to indicate that
there is not a consideration of the particular details of each situation
that might figure in a significant way in the critical analysis and
reasoning as to the morally correct course of action. Such considerations
will lead to a variation in conclusions reached but any and all
conclusions reached would be consonant with the basic values and thus not
inconsistent with or contradictory to other conclusions using the same
values. They can vary from the specifics but not from the basics and the
common values.
How are the norms governing the
behavior of professions to be founded or grounded? Are they independent
of or derivative of the norms of the society which is being served by the
profession?
If the norms are independent of the
norms of the more general society then the need some grounding beyond
themselves and they are enfeebled in as much as they would be applicable
only with those activities circumscribed by the profession.
If they were independent
then they would apply only to those within the profession. ..It is
difficult to understand how professional norms independent of ordinary
norms could be justified. -- Michael D. Bayles,
Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p.
5.
Such professional norms would not
provide justification for some conduct of professionals as they relate to
those outside of the professions who are members of society.
The norms and thus the basic ethical principles
that should guide professional practice and serve as the basis for
resolution of moral dilemmas encountered by professionals in the
practice of their profession should be identical with, founded upon, or
derived from the norms of the society within which the profession exists
and which it serves.
The average citizen needs good reasons to accept
the ethical norms that regulate professional practices. These norms
must be justifiable to a reasonable person living in the society in
which the norms operate. A reasonable person is one who is not mentally
ill, who has sufficient intelligence to understand the norms and their
implications for most concrete situations, and who obtains facts,
listens to arguments, and supports his or her views by reasons. It is
assumed here that such people are self-interested with limited
benevolence: that is, they do not care for all others as much as for
themselves. Norms for professional roles are to be justified by their
promoting and preserving the values of liberal society. -- Michael
D. Bayles, Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p. 5.
The chief values relevant to professional ethics
are: governance by law, freedom, protection from injury, equality of
opportunity, privacy and welfare. Norms for professional roles are to be
justified by their promoting and preserving the values of liberal
society. -- Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics
, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p 5.
The role of professions in liberal society must
ultimately be tested against these values. Norms for professional roles
are to be justified by their promoting and preserving the values of
liberal society. -- Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics
, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p 7
Norms for professional roles are to be justified
by their promoting and preserving the values of liberal society. --
Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics , Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p. 19.
Not all would agree with the position
maintained by Bayles. One such alternative was presented by Alan
Goldman.
Are the norms governing professional conduct to be
different from or elevated above those of usual moral importance given in
the general society or in other institutions?
The most fundamental
question for professional ethics is whether those in the professional
roles require special norms and principles to guide their well-intentioned
conduct. This is the most interesting issue from the point of view of
moral theory, since its answer affects the structure of any complete moral
system. .--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of
Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
p. 1.
For Goldman the answer to the question is in the
affirmative for those professions that are strongly differentiated.
A professional role is strongly differentiated if
it requires unique principles, or if it requires its norms to be weighted
more heavily than they would be against other principles in other contexts.
.--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. p. 2.
Goldman’s claims are examined here because he has
included the profession of education as one of those very few in which
there are the strongly differentiated roles.
It is of interest, I
believe, that Goldman finds strong differentiation only among parents,
teachers and judges.).--- Kenneth
Kipnis, "Unethical
Professionalism: Alan Goldman's Foundations of Professional Ethics",
PERSPECTIVES on the Professions, Vol. 3, No. 1/2,
March/June 1983
In this view that Goldman advances professionals have
duties that require them to elevate certain values or goals that are
central to the profession… to the status of overriding considerations in
situations in which they might not appear overriding from the viewpoint of
normal moral perceptions. .--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral
Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1980, p. 3.
Goldman claims that there are professions in which
professionals will put the interests of clients, those to whom they are
obliged to serve above other interests and above the interests of others.
At times this elevation will be in violation of the rights of others and
expressive of the interests of others including that of society..---
Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. pp. 3-4.
It is interesting that Goldman offers the family as a
grounding of the idea of the strongly differentiated roles that provide
for norms that can be set apart form and even against those that otherwise
obtain and are operative outside of the profession. It is inside the
family that Goldman claims that there are roles whose differentiation
derives from the intrinsic value of the relations that define them rather
than from the instrumental benefits of recognizing special obligations.
The “special” authority given to parents and obligations to children
within the family would obtain in education if the paternalistic model for
the provision of ethical responsibilities were operative. But it is not
necessarily the case that the paternalistic model be accepted as the only
model and it is not the case that Goldman’s view need be accepted as to
the existence of professions in which there are strongly differentiated
roles.
Kenneth Kipnis has provided a critique of Goldman’s
claims in which he indicates that the evidence provided to support the
existence of strongly differentiated roles is weak when examined
carefully. -- Kenneth Kipnis,
"Unethical Professionalism: Alan
Goldman's Foundations of Professional Ethics", PERSPECTIVES on
the Professions, Vol. 3, No. 1/2, March/June 1983
Beyond this Michael Bayles has provided an analysis
in which the professions are not possessed of strongly differentiated
roles that result in professionals have norms governing their conduct
different from or at times set against those outside of the profession.
the norms and thus the
basic ethical principles that should guide professional practice and serve
as the basis for resolution of moral dilemmas encountered by professionals
in the practice of their profession should be identical with, founded
upon, or derived from the norms of the society within which the profession
exists and which it serves.
The average citizen
needs good reasons to accept the ethical norms that regulate professional
practices. These norms must be justifiable to a reasonable person living
in the society in which the norms operate. A reasonable person is one who
is not mentally ill, who has sufficient intelligence to understand the
norms and their implications for most concrete situations, and who obtains
facts, listens to arguments, and supports his or her views by reasons. It
is assumed here that such people are self-interested with limited
benevolence: that is, they do not care for all others as much as for
themselves. Norms for professional roles are to be justified by their
promoting and preserving the values of liberal society. -- Michael D.
Bayles, Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Inc., 1981. p. 5.
As to the basis for the norms within a profession
Bayles provides an argument that will locate the norms as derivative from
and supportive of those of the society that creates and is served by the
professions. Bayles will argue for a fiduciary ethical model and reject
paternalism as a basis for ethical decision making except in those
situations wherein:
…some clients are not competent to make
decisions. In this case the paternalistic model becomes appropriate. -Michael
D. Bayles, Professional Ethics , Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Inc., 1981.p. 69.
So the norms governing any profession
are ultimately based on the same norms as are found in general society and
which serve the values of that society. The norms governing any
profession are not set out as resting on a position wherein the values
being served by the profession entitle professionals to advance the
interests and values of their clients above or against the rights and
interests of those outside of the profession. In this manner the
profession of education serves the interests of the society which erects
and maintains the institution of education while serving the interests of
individual students. This dual orientation for the individual
educator will be evidenced in those instances wherein the educator will
provide instruction to and forms of interaction with the learner that
might be resisted by the learner.
Professional norms rest on
the norms of society which in turn rest on any one of a number of or
combination of ethical theories found to be generally acceptable to
society. Society holds professions accountable according to how well
they preserve and represent those values.
Professions are to be assessed according to
their impact on three distinct groups: the professionals, their clients,
and the general public including those close to the clients and the
general society….Professional norms must provide a proper balance
between the effects on the values of professionals, clients and the
public. -- Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics
, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p. 19.
What are the common values of professional educators as
humans and as educators that help to define them as a group and serve as
the basis for making moral decisions and resolving moral dilemmas?
In answer to that question there may be many values and many ways to
illustrate there exemplification in society and in education but or the
present purpose it would suffice to name only a few and one in particular
that will serve to provide the basis for many norms. The one primary
or basic social value is certainly that education should not harm
people. There is the value found in any liberal society that is
particularly relevant here of protection from injury.
The chief values relevant to professional ethics
are: governance by law, freedom, protection from injury, equality of
opportunity, privacy and welfare. Norms for professional roles are to be
justified by their promoting and preserving the values of liberal
society. -- Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics
, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc., 1981. p 5.
There is thus the obligation to cause no harm because
the norms governing the profession of education arise from a specification
within the profession of how the general values of society are to be
evidenced. Within the profession of education the specific
obligation to cause no harm in the case of a professional educator issues
from two sources: the fiduciary relationship of the educator to the
learner and from the relationship of an experimenter to the subjects of
the experiment.
First, Do No Harm -
primo non nocere
There are such principles and such values that do exist
and are operative in human intercourse and social organization. In human
societies harming an innocent and non-threatening person is considered as
a wrongful act. It is a moral breach. It is morally incorrect. There
are reasons for this judgment. There are a variety of basic ethical
principles to support the judgment that harming innocent people is a
violation of the principle of the good. Whether as a utilitarian whereby
it is almost always a violation of the principle of the good to
deliberately harm no less than to do so in a nonchalant fashion or as a
Kantian where it is always a breach of the categorical imperative to treat
people as a means to end and an end that is not in their own interest or
as a Rawlsian where such harms violate the basic notion of justice, such
gratuitous acts of harm are immoral acts. Such an act is one of the few
that will immediately come to mind as a counterexample to the claims of
the post modern moral relativists that there are no universal ethical
principles. In what societies are deliberate acts of harm acceptable
behavior? Where is it thought to be morally correct to harm other members
of one’s own society who are not threatening one’s well being in any way?
From yet another perspective the source of the duty or
moral obligation to cause no harm issues from the basic relationship that
humans have with other humans and the duties consequent thereto that are
recognized the world over in the norms of civilized life and set as a one
of the foundation stones for civil society. And once again it must be
reiterated that the special obligation to cause no harm in the case of
pedagogic experiments issues from two sources: the fiduciary relationship
of the educator to the learner and from the relationship of an
experimenter to the subjects of the experiment.
What harms can an educator bring about with the
learners? There are a whole host of them that become fairly obvious upon
reflection. That the question of “What possible harm is there in
conducting teaching and when attempting to improve upon the effectiveness
of that teaching?” can so often be raised in earnest when the topic of
pedagogic harm is first brought up bespeaks an indifference to the moral
aspect of the relationship of teacher to learner that is so than it is
more than a little disturbing and is an index of the level of moral
development of the community of professional educators.
What are the variety
of harms to which learners are subject? There are the possible
harms, the necessary harms and the unnecessary and the avoidable and
unavoidable harms.
Possible Harms
For some types of learning and for
growth there will be the perception and even the experience of harm. In
the changing of minds there can be distress that results as the learners
may experience a variety of emotional states of discomfort:
Necessary Harms
For some types of learning and for
growth there will be the need to produce situations for learning in
which there is a definite possibility for some results that would be
perceived by the learner as harm but they are necessary experiences for
the growth in knowledge, self reflection, critical thinking and growth.
These “harms” would include:
-
Loss of certainty- the creation of doubts
-
Loss of comfort- anxiety over the
consequences of change and of the unknown
-
Loss of confidence-feelings of
inadequacy
-
Loss of self esteem-feeling ignorant
-
Sense of disloyalty to groups
The single most important necessary
harm is the arresting and divesting of the sense of certainty from the
learner. Knowledge of uncertainty and of one's own ignorance is healthy
and a sign of growth. Knowledge of that not all is known and that
one does not know is needed. It is propaedeutic to and necessary
for learning. Knowledge of ignorance is not the end but the
staring point for learning.
Education is the progressive discovery
of how little we know"- Will Durant
Educators must
facilitate the entry of the learner into a discourse that will
acknowledge and dispel ignorance. Education aims to counter the
Dogmatism of Ignorance.
There will be these
necessary harms as there is the pain associated with growth.
No pain, No Gain.
The pains and harms
associated with education may be thought of as a most important part of
what are commonly referred to as "growing pains".
Unnecessary Harms
For some types of learning and for
growth there will be the need to produce situations for learning in
which there is a definite possibility for some results that would be
perceived by the learner as harm but they are not necessary experiences
for the growth in knowledge, self reflection, critical thinking and
growth. These “harms” would be gratuitous. They include:
-
Feeling hopeless
-
Feeling helpless
-
Feeling ashamed
Professional educators should make
every effort to avoid these outcomes. They are harmful to the learning
process itself. Interactions of educators with learners that are
insulting or demeaning are to be avoided as they are both directly
harmful to the person of the learner and stultifying to the learning
process and poison the relationship of learner to educator.
The feeling of being hopeless or
helpless due to accepting that one is in error or held a false belief is
not based on fact and can be both avoided and remedied if it emerges out
of instruction. Fear is natural in the face of the unknown
and so if there is to be a displacement from what has been held as known
and true but falsely so there should be the notion that there is an
alternative to complete ignorance. There is that which is better
established and closer to the truth than that which is to be or has been
challenged and proven false or inconsistent or contradictory.
Learners can learn that we all learn from our mistakes and that science
learns more from that which does not prove to be so than from that which
was suspected and proven to be the case. They can learn the
process or habit of mind that continually examines what is thought to be
known and to be true and learn that it is self correcting and makes
progress over time. Learners must come to understand that because
not everything is known does not mean that nothing is known. That
mistakes are made does not mean that all is mistaken. That to have
made a mistake is not to be ignorant and bereft of the ability to learn.
"I know this is a stupid question
but..."
"I am so dumb for thinking that..."
"I can't believe that I thought that
was true! What a .. I must be."
The learner must be educated to
understand and accept that to admit ignorance or a mistake is not
grounds for shame but it opens the possibility for learning.
Possible Harms to
Learners as Subjects of Pedagogic Experimentation:
If there is a change in
a pedagogic technique (research-experiment) or a new instructional design utilized by an
educator such changes could result in some learners not doing so well as
they may have had there not been that change made. To not do as well
constitutes a harm to the learner and it can be manifest in a variety of
ways. The following is a partial list and single learners can
experience more than one of these harms from a single change in pedagogy.
Academic
Social
Psychological
--negative impact on
future educational success (cf. Bluestone, 2004 on self-efficacy)
Economic
-
--loss of time
-
--loss of tuition
********************************
How are
educators to go about dealing with moral dilemmas and ethical issues in
education? Are professional codes, moral codes of any help?
What about the law and state regulations, are they a moral guide?
Moral Codes and
Ethical Principles
What is the relation of
moral codes and ethical principles to legal regulations? What is the
relation of the ethical codes that are operative with professional
researchers in some disciplines to ethical principles?
Many researchers appear
to think that as long as the IRB review process has been cleared then all
is as well as can be expected. There is the equating of morality with
compliance with legal regulations.
Law and Morality: the
relationship
Morality- rules of right
conduct concerning matters of greater importance. Violations of such can
bring disturbance to individual conscience and social sanctions.
Law- rules which are
enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in
freedom and possessions.
What is the relation of
law to morality? They are not the same and thus you can not equate the
two. Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just
because something is illegal it does not make it immoral. There are many
examples to support this view as being obviously true.
Things that are
illegal but are thought to be moral (for many)!
·
Drinking
under age.
·
Driving
over the speed limit.
·
Smoking
marijuana.
·
Cheating on
a tax return.
·
Splitting a
cable signal to send it to more than one television.
People do not think of
themselves or of others as being immoral for breaking these laws.
Things that are
immoral (for many) but are not illegal.
·
Cheating on
your spouse.
·
Breaking a
promise to a friend.
·
Using
abortion as a birth control measure.
People can not be
arrested or punished with imprisonment or fines for doing these things.
What is the relation of
morality to law? Well, when enough people think that something is immoral
they will work to have a law that will forbid it and punish those that do
it. When enough people think that something is moral, they will work to
have a law that forbids it and punishes those that do it repealed. So it
is established that: Legal Standards are NOT the same as Moral
Standards
In Education there is,
for example:
·
Deciding who
to educate by what methodologies
·
Deciding how
much to charge for an education
·
Deciding on
methods of compensation for educators
·
Using drugs
with specific learners in classroom environments
·
Use of
screening devices and high stakes tests
These questions involve
moral issues but the law does not specify a particular course of conduct.
Law codifies customs, ideals, beliefs and moral values in society. Law
does not establish moral criteria or standards.
Oaths and Codes
Educators and researchers belong to professional organizations. They
take oaths at graduation ceremonies and at inductions into professional
societies. Are these effective in providing guidance for educators
confronted with moral dilemmas and problems? Apparently not.
Educators and researchers have codes of conduct issued by professional
societies and organizations and even by state authorities. Are these not
effective in resolving moral dilemmas and providing a moral guide?
Apparently not.
New York State Code of Ethics for Educators. 2004.
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/resteachers/codeofethics.htm
Oaths and codes are
products of a pre- technological age. They hearken back towards the
medieval guilds. They focus on the welfare of the guild and its members
above all else and then on the accomplishment of that for which members of
the guild are trained to do.
In Education the problems
with such codes are numerous:
1. There is
a marked emphasis on obtaining data within legal limits concerning the
efficacy of pedagogy and no attention to other aims of educators. In this
they are out of date in not considering let alone providing guidance for
providing education while conducting pedagogic research and exercising
social responsibility.
2. They are
issued in language which is quite general. The generality is associated
with both ambiguity and vagueness and in need of interpretation in order
to determine a meaning precise enough and relevant to particular
situations.
3. They do
not anticipate changes in practice and organizational patterns and leave
the problem of how to resolve conflicts unanswered.
4. They do
not acknowledge the underlying values upon which they rest. They give no
insight into the basic ethical principles from which moral rules and
guidance can be derived.
In examining the codes
for various groups of researchers involved in education it is fairly easy
to realize a number of problems exist with them:
1. Conflict
with one another and even internally
2. The
professional code often conflicts with the individual professionals own
moral beliefs with no guidance for resolving the conflict
3. The
codes do not cover all situations and dilemmas
4. The
professional codes do not contain moral principles at all
Purpose of Oaths and
Codes
As the "moral" codes or "ethical" codes of conduct for professional
groups are not really ethical codes at all just what are they? They appear
to be codes of conduct intended to produce a particular set of results.
·
They are intended to bind
social groups together. They bring the professionals into a close knit
group.
·
They express aims and
aspirations of the group.
·
They promote integrity,
dedication and principled behavior in accord with the goals and aims of
the group.
The earliest of the codes are thus more oriented towards the group and
not towards anyone served by the group. It is no surprise then that
members of these groups feel a greater allegiance towards one another than
to those whose interests they ostensibly are to serve.
As modern science and technology have drastically changed the nature of
health care in the last one hundred years there has been a great need to
reexamine the very nature and value of such codes.
In a number of ways the impact of technology has been to cause people
to question the basic values involved with education. This questioning
naturally leads to an examination of basic ethical principles.
Professional Codes of Conduct and Common Sense are insufficient to
handle the problems that arise.
There are the problems
of:
-
Application of the Codes to actual
situations
-
Variety of codes from various professional
organizations that have no order of priority
-
Vagueness of codes making it difficult to
determine the precise meaning
-
Inconsistency, conflicting guidance in and
between codes
-
Questionable morality of the codes , e.g.,
on privacy, exposure to risk, denial of autonomy
The Professional codes have more to do with etiquette, social and
economic niceties and maintaining a monopoly than with morality.
Codes are not normative; they are anachronistic and are thus
objectionable. Codes and oaths establish a special relationship amongst
those who take it that sets them apart from the general public. It
establishes a relationship of debt and obligation amongst the
professionals. Towards the recipients of their care the oath establishes
a relationship of largess. There is the need for moral principles grounded
in ethical theory and not in some form of social etiquette or set of
voluntary arrangements.
Oaths and codes cannot take the place of ethical theory and principle as
providing a foundation for moral decision making and action.
Therefore, there is the definite and pronounced need for ethical theory
and guidance in applying ethical theory to specific moral dilemmas and
problems. Such applications would reflect the most common and basic
values of the society served by the institution of education.
What are some of the moral problems that arise for
educators? Many are listed immediately below and then are dealt with
in subsequent chapters.
I. Ethical Concerns related to the Professions
There are the most general ethical or moral problems
found in nearly every profession. These include:
-
Serving the requests of clients
-
Appropriate scope of service
-
Types of fees
-
Conflicts of interest
-
Conflicts between clients
-
Obligations to inform clients
-
Obligations to others beyond the client and to
society
-
Ethics of research
-
Informing on the ethics or behavior of colleagues
II. Ethical Concerns related to Education
The most significant ethical issues with regard to
education arise from the very nature of the act of educating someone.
Beyond that the most significant issues arise from the social role that
the institution of education is to serve. These matters will be the topic of chapter seven
which will deal with the ethics of education and matters associated with
changing Habits of Mind.
Serving the requests of clients :Tolerance
While tolerance is promoted as a value in a
pluralistic society to what degree, if any, should educators be tolerant
of sets of beliefs and habits of mind that establish those beliefs?
All students as learners, beginning with the very young, hold beliefs that
are in conflict with one another and with empirical evidence. Is
education to remediate that situation? If students object claiming
that they have a right to their beliefs is such a claim to be recognized
and accepted by educators?
Obligations to others beyond the client and to
society :Whose benefit?
There are times when dealing with
learners that questions arise as to the appropriateness or acceptability
of a program of instruction or a lesson or a mode of instruction and
those questions result from there not being a clear indication of what
benefit there is to the learner. Whose benefit is being produced?
Is it that of the individual learner, that of society itself, or both at once? How is it
that the educator handles the conflict between serving the interests of
society in having education support the increase in human intellectual
capital to be shared by all in society and serving the interests of the
individual learner in increasing the individual's abilities to grow and
to occupy a certain desirable position in the social order, principally
through some vocation?
Obligations to inform clients
: Paternalism
To what
extent are educators to act out of paternalism with those whom they serve?
Potential for Harm
How are
educators to avoid causing harm when they need to cause some pain as
education involves growth and the changing of the contents of minds?
See the chapter on the Ethical Issues involving Changing Habits of Mind
for a response to this issue.
Privacy for both students and faculty
The teacher student relationship is a relationship of
persons and often that is in and of itself sufficient to generate concerns
for and obligations for providing for and preserving privacy. The
relationship is also a fiduciary relationship and as such the teacher is
obliged to safeguard the student and that is the basis to protect the
student from potentially harmful observations and from information
concerning the student becoming available to those not involved in the
relationship by necessity.
Confidentiality
As with other fiduciary relationships teachers often
need to have information from the students concerning their backgrounds
and life situations. This information would not be as forthcoming if the
students did not expect that the information would be kept in confidence
and held and used in a manner that would not harm or jeopardize them. For
the same reasons that doctors and lawyers must be able to pledge
confidentiality and to protect and insure confidentiality so too are
educators obliged to provide for the same safeguarding of information
obtained from those whom they must benefit and protect. Information
obtained from students by request or by their volunteering it must be kept
confidential if it is such that it offers any reasonable chance to harm
the student in any manner. Educators as professionals and as licensed
professionals are to be bound by the same laws as govern professions with
regard to confidentiality. Where law requires reporting of information
otherwise to be kept confidential educators may provide it. Students
reporting incidences of abuse or neglect from their guardians are examples
of cases where confidentiality may be breached and even there is it in the
interest of serving the students as fiduciary and holder of their trust.
Privacy and the Classroom
Not only should there be privacy in the dealings of the
teacher with the student on an individual basis but also with groups of
students, classes. Why should there be an expectation of privacy in the
classroom? Why should there be a right to privacy in a classroom that
often is occupied by many people? The answer that provides the basis for
both the right and expectation of privacy is located the basic teaching
and learning that is expected to go in the classroom.
There are at least three types of privacy: physical,
social and psychological. While the teaching and learning process involves
all three of these, physical privacy, however, is active as a concern only
in the physical classroom and not the virtual classroom. Physical
privacy relates to our bodies and not just to our "private parts". It is
of great value in relation to self image and self esteem and to the basic
sense of self. As we age few of us are prepared to have others see us as
we first arise from our beds in the morning. We need to prepare to go out
into the public sphere and for that we put on our public face and at times
our 'game face". Social privacy relates to the ways in which we interact
with others and that involves the various forms of being with others. We
have reasons why we do not want others to observe our communications with
certain others be they in written form or facial expressions or oral
expression or electronic data transfers. The observations of others
intrudes upon and alters the nature of the private relationship with the
particular other and can even on occasion destroy not only the intended
communication or transmission of feeling but even the relationship.
Psychological privacy involves the very thoughts and feelings of the
human. Such privacy is needed for the development and preservation of the
individual self. Some particularly cruel forms of torture aim at
destroying resistance by destroying the individual sense of self through
violations of all forms of privacy but in particular the psychological
realm.
What has this to do with teaching and learning? It is
not an accident that in all the classrooms the door is usually closed.
From my kindergarten class to the university class or graduate seminar the
classroom is for the teacher and the students with the door usually kept
closed and others in by invitation or with permission. The door is closed
to prevent distractions and as a provision for establishing a space where
teacher and students alike feel safe with one another in “their” class, in
“their” space.
In the relationship between the instructor and the
learner there needs to be a degree of trust on the part of each for the
other. Often instructors are attempting to lead from (educate) the
student the enunciation of their opinions, views and beliefs and induce in
them a critical thinking process and so at times those closely held
thoughts are going to be subjected to a critical review and promptings to
reflect upon them for possible reconsideration. The student is expected
to do this in the classroom (physical or virtual) with fellow students who
are sharing in the experience and are being encouraged to do likewise.
There is the expectation that there will be honest communications
occurring. Now insert into this the possibility that at any time parties
unknown may be viewing or listening in on what is going on without the
foreknowledge or forewarning. It is not only reasonable to think but well
warranted to conclude, based on observing students during classes when
"outsiders" are present in the room, that the students will be more
guarded and reserved and perhaps less honest. The presence of the one not
involved in the exchanges and not having a stake in the enterprise is not
usually a presence that is contributing in a positive manner to the actual
exchanges. They are distractions at best and interference at worst even
an inhibiting factor.
Privacy and Students
Beyond the concern for the impact on the effectiveness
of the pedagogic program there is the concern for the impact on the
student. If students are revealing personal information during some
classroom exchanges expecting only those present to share in it then the
availability and dissemination of this information to other parties beyond
that classroom may violate federal statutes and regulations with regard to
their privacy.
Some students are quite sensitive and anxious about
appearing before others and in particular to speaking before or with
others in the classroom. Some take quite a while to open up in class.
There are many reasons for the reticence including personal appearance,
language skills and self esteem issues. What does the possibility that
someone is observing such a student who is not known to that student do to
comfort level and the willingness to participate in the instructional
program? Instructors are responsible to create and maintain an
environment conducive to learning. Having strangers in the classroom and
unannounced visitors and, worse still, official observers, is not likely
to be supportive to that effort. So, students have a concern for their
physical, social and psychological privacy within the classroom space.
Privacy and Faculty
Faculty may want the classroom to be a private place
restricted to teacher and learners for a number of reasons related to
instruction. Any or all of these reasons can be overridden on occasion or
for entire semesters. Faculty want to develop a set of relationships to
the learners and the class as a whole and intrusions of strangers or
outsiders into the class space threaten a disruption of those
relationships. It takes a teacher a while to develop those relationships
with learners to the point where the teacher has gained or earned the
trust of the student and a feeling that the teacher will serve and protect
the student.
Faculty understand that as they receive their initial
appointment they will be subject to evaluation of their performance in a
number of spheres and not the least of which is their teaching. They need
to know that such observations that are part of that process will be done
fairly and in a manner intended to assist them in the development of their
teaching effectiveness. Faculty need to know when they will be observed
and how they will be observed so as not to feel threatened by surprise
visits and surreptitious observations that might not obtain the whole
picture of what is going on in that class lacking the appropriate
understanding of context.
In time faculty develop a sense of accomplishment and
satisfaction and a sense of comfort along with the continuing sense of
being challenged and needing to do more with and for their students. The
seasoned veterans care little about surprise visits except for their
student's sakes and may even invite others into the class for
presentations and participation in exchanges. The tenured faculty has
little to fear in opening their doors except for the potential
distractions and disruptions to the presentation of instruction and the
learning exercises.
Faculty as well as students have a concern for their
physical, social and psychological privacy while engaged in the activities
of instruction, advising and counseling. There are varying degrees of
concern given the basic personality types of faculty and the subject
matters taught and the groups of students and their physical learning
spaces. At times some care greatly and others at times some care not at
all. The degree of concern may relate most directly with the years of
experience and with achievement of tenure.
So, there is often a need for the various forms of
privacy in the classroom whether it is a physical or virtual space and
this is the case because of what should be going on in that space.
III. Ethical Concerns
related to Pedagogic Research
Educators have a professional responsibility to improve on the efficacy of
their instruction. This in turn leads to the obligations to conduct
research. That research will necessarily involve experimentation
with human subjects, at least their own students. There are ethical
issues related to the performance of such experiments. Many of those matters will be the topic of chapter eight which will deal with the ethics
of pedagogic experimentation with human subjects.
From Hutchings--
Is
it necessary to have permission to use excerpts from student papers, or
data from their exams, in my scholarship of teaching and learning?
If
so, what kind of permission is appropriate, and how should it be secured?
Should I (must I?) submit my project design to the campus Institutional
Review Board (IRB), which monitors work with human subjects?
Do
I need their informed consent to begin my work? To publish it?
The
scholarship of teaching and learning calls on us to “make teaching
community property” (Lee Shulman’s phrase), but what are the appropriate
boundaries between public and private?
Who own what goes on in the classroom?
Who
benefits, and who is at risk, when the complex dynamics of teaching and
learning are documented and publicly represented?
Potential for Harm
How is to be resolved
that any new pedagogy might result in harm to some of the learners
involved with it or subject to it?
How is it justifiable to
subject learners to potential harm by requiring that they get involved
with sets of experiences with which they have no prior experiences?
How is it possible to
arrange for research subjects to withdraw from participation in a
pedagogic experiment when doing so constitutes harm or exposes them to
further harm such as a loss of credits or progress towards the next level
or grade?
How is it justified to
continue to use pedagogies that are indicated to be less effective, if not
harmful, than others that have been shown to be more effective?
If there is a control
group involved in pedagogic research and the experimental group is
performing better and learning more should the control group continue on
using what becomes more and more apparent as a lees effective pedagogic
technique?
Experimental
Design and Methodology
How are conflicts
between the role of educator-teacher and that of educator-researcher to be
resolved? Must the experiment be done? Must it continue the full course
of the original plan?
How does being a
participant in a pedagogic experiment influence what the learner does?
Does it work against establishing claims that the results are replicable
under similar circumstances of the learners without consideration of their
status as self conscious research subjects?
Informed Consent
How is it possible to
obtain an informed consent or its equivalent when there are no other
options available to the learner? There is only the one class?
How informed can
informed consent be with learners who are very young or unfamiliar with
all the implications of the work?
How consensual can
informed consent be when the educator-researcher holds so much influence
and power over the learner-subject?
How is it possible to
obtain an informed consent or its equivalent when the context is one of a
total institution wherein choices are severely limited and exercising an
option out of the research exposes the learner to loss of some benefit or
to some harm? Is it proper to require students to participate in the
research or to conduct research on themselves and their peers as part of a
course requirement?
How does informing
learners that they are part of an experiment influence their work and skew
the results that are meant to be generalized to all similar cases of
learners and not just to experimental subjects?
How much time and how
many resources should be devoted to research with a group of learners when
compared to continuing with the proven effective pedagogy already in
place? Does such research necessarily degrade or put at risk the quality
of the pedagogy already in place?
“The class is a
class first and a research laboratory second; the students are students
first and research subjects second. Under this view, and change in course
design or content to promote a research should be subject to the condition
that it at least not detract from the educational value of the course.
Peter Markie, quoted in ibid, p. 29
Privacy and
Confidentiality
How is the need to make
public the research balanced against the need to keep private the sources
of information?
How are the identities
of the learners to be safeguarded when the pedagogic technique being
tested has learners producing work that when the research is made public
can identify them?
How is a test site to be
kept confidential when the details of the testing site are relevant to a
careful and critical consideration of the finings and for any attempt to
apply the tested pedagogy in a similar setting? The details need to be
reported and yet doing so presents a possible exposure of the test
subjects.
How are reports of the
failures of learners or their initial starting points beset with
difficulties to be reported so as to not subject the learners to the
psychological harm caused by possible exposure and consequent
embarrassment?
To what extent should
the learner-subjects be acknowledged for their contributions to the
research?
To what extent must the
learner-subjects be acknowledged for their contributions to the research?
Under what circumstances is privacy to be protected while still
acknowledging the contributions made by the learner –subjects? How is it
possible to do both?
“Are the
transactions among students and faculty members, and the work that
students do in the classroom, a form of privileged communication,
analogous to the work of a therapist or lawyer? Or are they, in Shulman’s
phrase, ‘community property’”
Hutchings 2003, p. 31
Research Obligations
To
what extent are educators morally bound to conduct research into the
literature of pedagogy before attempting their own pedagogic experiments?
To
what extent are educators morally bound to conduct research themselves
involving experimental projects?
To
what extent are educators morally bound to publish their experiences and
findings with regard to pedagogic developments and research efforts?
“The
‘pedagogical imperative’ includes the obligation to inquire into the
consequences of one’s work with students. This is an obligation that
devolves on individual faculty member, on programs, on institutions, and
even on disciplinary communities.
Shulman 1992, p.
vii
Research
Strategies and Techniques
How is informed consent
to be obtained in research involving surveys where the consent procedure
would not influence the responses of those surveyed?
Paternalism
To what
extent can an educator exercise paternalism in the design, management and
conducting of pedagogic experiments with minors and the incapacitated.
************************************************
@copyright 2004 by S. Kincaid and P. Pecorino