The Effects of Teaching Future Teachers How to Teach Ethics

Susan Pass
School of Education
Clemson University
Clemson , South Carolina, USA

Wendy Willingham

Abstract

Seventy-one American college seniors enrolled in a teacher preparation program were studied to determine the effects of teaching future teachers how to teach ethics to their future students. Three instruments were developed to determine the impact of teaching method upon student knowledge/sense of ethics, student interest/motivation/sense of value in learning to teach, and student ratings of professor/course effectiveness. Two groups were studied: one taught without use of a convergence tool and one taught with such a tool. Students learning by use of a convergence tool had a statistically significantly higher score on all three instruments.

Introduction

"Character consists of more than just a person's moral values and judgments. It also includes outward manifestation of a person's identity and those attributes that affect whether one acts on or disregards the moral judgments one makes…." (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 212) The goals of American higher education are often stated in terms of the development of students' character as well as their intellect (King & Kitchener, 1994). In fact, Dewey (1897) argued that the development of character is the ultimate aim of all schooling. Bok in 1988 stated that "…helping students understand how to lead ethical, reflective, fulfilling lives" (p. 50) is not only a goal but also an obligation of higher education -- and especially those preparing future teachers (considering the impact those graduates can have on their future students).

"Moral education of teachers is necessary for halting the weakening of the present generation's moral fiber" (Campbell, 1997, p. 1). There are increasing concerns about the perceived decline in moral and ethical values in American contemporary life and this concern is promoting renewed interest in moral education (Beck, 1990; Jarrett, 1991; Kelsey, 1993;Wynne & Ryan, 1993). Those being prepared to be teachers should be taught how to teach children to examine their own ethics and how to be ethical (Reiman & Johnson, 2004; Campbell, 2001; Strike, 1996).

Ethics deals with values, with good and bad, for what we do and don't do is always a possible subject of ethical evaluation (Singer 1993). "Ethics is a statement making a claim about how the world is and how the world should be." ( Rutland Center, lecture, August 17, 2003) Ethical standards are: overriding, public, practicable, deal with serous matters, are not changed by the action of authoritative bodies, are impartial, and are associated with feelings of approval or disapproval that are expressed through a specialized vocabulary (e.g., duty or right) (Hart, 2000). As society in the US has less and less time for child rearing, more and more teachers are taking over the role that used to be done by community, church, and family; namely, teaching ethics (Green, lecture on the foundations of education at Clemson University, February 21, 2001).

This article is about how college seniors enrolled in a secondary social studies education program were taught how to teach ethics and the impact that the lessons had upon student perceptions. In a control-experimental study, there were statistically significant impacts by the ethic lessons upon the college seniors' sense of knowing ethics; upon student perception of professor effectiveness; and upon interest in learning education -- and these impacts are reported in the Results section of this article. While done in social studies education, the information in this article should be helpful to those who teach in other disciplines (because the teaching of ethics is not exclusive to social studies) and, indeed, should be helpful to the reader who just wants to explore his/her own sense of ethics.

Despite the importance of teaching ethics in higher education, there is very little investigation on how ethics gets taught or what effect ethics courses actually have on students' knowledge, interest, and sense of value in learning the subject. So, in addition to teaching how to teach ethics to future teachers, the goal was also to improve the college seniors' sense of knowing ethics. American educators are concerned that the students are coming into their classes with unacceptable ethical standards (Martel, 2003). Seventy-one college seniors enrolled in a teacher preparation program were taught how to teach ethics to their future students. The experimental group was taught using a tool developed by the Rutland Center for Ethics at Clemson University that taught those learning ethics to strive for a convergence (i.e., agreement) of three ethical philosophies (Kantian, Utilitarian, and Virtue Ethics) and the control group had the same lesson but without use of this tool.

The results of this study might shed some light on a useful tool with which to teach ethics and thereby give information to others who are contemplating how to teach their own students about ethics.

Rationale

In the Platonic view, knowledge is both having the right answer and being able to explain why it is the right answer (Wueste & Jones, 2003). When you have an ethical discussion, the topic becomes one of opinion and belief. The college students in this research felt that it was important for them to be able to justify those opinions/beliefs and also learn how to teach their future students to do the same.

Dialogue is useful for the students exploring their own sense of ethics (Nucci, 2001;Wueste, 2003). Dan Wueste of the Rutland Center for Ethics in 2002 cautioned that it was best to avoid absolutism and relativism. Those two beliefs cut off discussion and discussion is important to exploring ethics. The college seniors were not taught that absolutism or relativism were "wrong." Indeed, many parents raise their children with one or the other of those two beliefs. Wueste (2002) defined absolutism as the belief that there is only one code of morality and relativism as the belief that, if an ethics is right for one group or person, it is correctly moral. When absolutism or relativism was encountered during the lessons for both Group A and Group B, students were asked if anyone knew of another idea in order to encourage dialogue. The class then discussed the correctness of that idea in the light of the previous absolutism or relativism statement. If an answer was given that might not be considered moral, students were asked if anyone had another opinion. This approach seemed to open the dialogue and some students did change their opinions to acknowledge that there might other ways of looking at reality.

Review of the Literature

Teacher preparation and development have become increasingly important in American school reform (Reiman & Peace, 2002). Originally, children were influenced by three parts of American society; namely, the community, the family, and the church (Bob Green, lecture on educational foundations, Clemson University February 21. 2001). In more recent times, the community is a huge city in which children are not the main concern; the family is either single or both parents are working and the children are raised in daycare centers; and not that many citizens either go or are influenced by their church. So, schools seem to be taking over child rearing. Part of child rearing should include ethics. Teachers need to be taught how to do this.

Reflective Judgment
To act ethically requires reflective judgment. Reflective thinking and moral judgment represent different but related domains (King & Kitchener, 1994). Both reflective thinking and some aspects of character development are frequently identified as desired outcomes of education. Reflective thinking appears to be a necessary…precursor of moral judgment (King & Kitchener, 1994). There are structural similarities between reflective and moral judgments:

In a study on reflective judgment, Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer and Wood (1994) state that there are seven stages to determining ethical decisions and not even all adults reach the top stage. Since most college students are at stage four with a few at stage five, it was felt that the topic had to be explained at their level -- thus, the Rutland Center for Ethics convergence idea was used. In addition, the high school students that these future teachers would be teaching are at stage two with a few at stage three (King & Kitchener, 1994).

Ethical development (e.g., knowledge) is not the same as cognitive development (e.g., reflective thinking). Again, most college seniors are at stage 4 with a few at stage 5. Their future high school students are at stage 2 with a few at stage 3 (King & Kitchener, 1994). So the strategy was to teach college seniors (that were going to become teachers) about ethics and, in addition, to teach them how to teach ethics to their future students, who would be at a lower stage of intellectual development.

Teaching Ethics
Having a high quality of teacher preparation is the lynchpin of teacher education reform (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Future teachers need to have a better understanding of how decisions are made in moral situations (Nagel, 1979). This understanding can be best taught by expanding the students' moral imagination, in which they can explore all possibilities before making a judgment (Kekes, 1993).

Moral sensitivity is crucial for making moral decisions (Bebeau, 1994; Rest, 1994). Moral sensitivity is the ability that teaches how our moral decisions affect others (Myyry & Helkama, 2002). Once moral sensitivity is developed, it is possible to make the most ethically correct judgments in ethical situations since judgment involves perception, knowledge and action (Pardales, 2002). Moral sensitivity is directly related to moral motivation and the building of moral character (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thomas, 1999).

Procedure

Both groups A and B were briefed on the definition of ethics and the state of American education today concerning ethics in the classroom. Each group was given the three instruments (see appendix) as a pretest and as a posttest. In the convenience sampling, four classes were randomly selected to participate in either the control group (A) or the experimental (B). Group B was taught the convergence tool and used it with both the teaching scenarios and the real-life case studies. Group A was taught just using the three teaching scenarios and the real-life case studies.

Only three theories of ethics were considered. For example, Nel Nodding's work on Care Theory was not used. We also did not use John Rawl's Theory of Justice or Carol Gilligan's feminist-inspired Ethics of Care upon which Nodding's work is based. We investigated these theories and agreed with Dan Wueste of the Rutland Center for Ethics that they were too complex for high school students and one of the goals was to teach future teachers how to teach ethics to their future high school students.

The Tool
Students were instructed on three ethical theories. Students were then given three imaginary scenarios by which they were taught how to get a three-way convergence of all three ethical theories. By convergence, it is meant that all three ethical theories would agree that the most ethical decision had been made. Afterwards, students were given some real-life scenarios and asked to further apply their convergence knowledge of all three ethical theories.

UTILITARIAN = The good of the many outweighs the good of a few. The aim is to achieve the greatest benefit possible at the lowest cost. Right actions are actions that create the greatest good for the greatest number.

KANTIAN = You are to treat humanity, wherever you find it (in others or yourself) with respect. Human beings deserve this; they have a right to respectful treatment. Another way of expressing the criterion of right action here is to say that the policy of a right action is universalizable (the policy could be a universal rule of action). So, a mark of wrong action is that its policy cannot be universalized. This is the golden rule idea. Kant’s approach is a non-consequentialist approach. Accordingly, those who embrace it reject the idea that the end justifies the means. Kant, however, acknowledged 3 types of action: good, bad and neutral. A neutral action (like dropping a pencil) is neither good nor bad. Kant, therefore, stated that goals and means need to be either good or neutral.

VIRTUE THEORY = The Platonic approach, like the Aristotelian approach, does not aim at identifying duties (both the utilitarian and the Kantian approaches have this aim). Both Plato and Aristotle advocate what has come to be called an ethics of aspiration. The goal with this approach is to be an excellent human being, that is, a person who has developed habits of action that lead to right action (in a word, good character). Acting rightly comes naturally to a person with good character in much the same way that outstanding performance comes naturally for a virtuoso musician or athlete. Here, one's role demands as a parent supercede one's job role demands.

The Teaching Scenarios
It is important for the students to know that, if one can get all three ethical theories agreeing the most ethical decision was made, the chances of the students making the most ethical decision were very good. Three, imaginary scenarios were used to teach how to get a convergence of Utilitarian, Kantian, and Virtue theories. While a convergence of all three would almost guarantee your decision was ethical, a convergence of any two would probably give some assurance of making the right decision (Dan Wueste, lecture at Rutland Center for Ethics, August 13, 2004).

The Emergency Room *

You are a doctor in a hospital’s emergency room. Six accident victims are brought in. All six are “at death’s door,” but one is much worse off than the other five. You can save that person, if you devote all of your energy, resources, and attention to him. Alternatively, you can save the other five, if you are willing to focus your energy, attention, and resources on them.

What should be done?

Why would that be the right thing to do? What would justify doing it?

*This is a slightly revised version of a case from Gilbert Harman’s The Nature of Morality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977).

The Man in Room 306 *

You have five patients who are dying; each needs an organ transplant. You can save all five, if you take a single healthy patient and harvest his organs for transplantation. The person you need is in room 306. He is in the hospital for a physical—for insurance purposes. You know from the results of the tests that have been run that he is perfectly healthy. You also know that his organs could be transplanted successfully in the needy patients. If you do nothing, he will survive without incident, but the other patients will surely die. They can be saved only if the organs of the man in room 306 are harvested and transplanted.

What should be done?

Why?

*This is a slightly revised version of a case from Gilbert Harman’s The Nature of Morality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977).

A Day at the Beach *

You are a lifeguard at a public beach. Looking to your right you see two people floundering about and in obvious need of assistance. However, as you climb down from your lifeguard tower, you notice that your 16-year-old daughter, who was swimming off to your left, is also in danger of drowning. No one else is in a position to help.

What would you do?

What should you do?

* This is from case studies provided by the Rutland Center for Ethics (2004) at Clemson University

Teaching by Three Scenarios
We looked at the above case studies in groups. After each group presented a majority (and, in some cases, a minority) report, we held a discussion. Our ground rules were that we were working not only with opinions but also beliefs, which are deeper. So, all involved agreed in advance to respect each other's statements -- even if they could not agree with such statements. The students discussed and debated how they would use the three theories to demonstrate that their group made the most ethical decision possible for each scenario. Most were able to do this. Only if the students could not get a convergence of all three ethical theories, did w e teach that the convergence for all three case studies would be as follows:

For the emergency room, Utilitarian ethics would teach save the greatest number. Kantian ethics would argue that there are 3 types of actions (moral, immoral, and neutral). You need to save the five but you did not kill the one - in cases like this, waiting to work on the one until after you save the five is neutral action. Virtue ethics would argue that one aspires to do the greatest good for the greatest number and saving the one would condemn the others to death (one does not aspire to commit manslaughter).

For the man in room 306, Utilitarian ethics would argue that the long-term result of that action would be for all people seeking insurance not to undergo hospital physicals plus many people would not go to the hospital for other help; so, our medical system, insurance system, and people in general would suffer (you have not done the greatest good, you have done long term harm). The Kantian would argue that one cannot take from another person unless that person consents of his or her own free will - we must respect all people's free will. Virtue ethics tells us not to aspire to steal from people and kill them (I do not aspire to be a murderer).

For the day at the beach, Utilitarian ethics would argue that if all parents did not carry out their primary duty of protecting their children, society in general would suffer (so, save your child and throw out lifesavers to the two adults). Kantian ethics would argue that your responsibility as a parent is higher than your responsibility for your occupation - so, since lifeguards should never work alone, get the others to save the two adults. Virtue ethics requires you to be a good parent before you be a good lifeguard.

The convergence for all three case studies would be as follows:
For the emergency room, Utilitarian ethics would teach save the greatest number. Kantian ethics would argue that there are 3 types of actions (moral, immoral, and neutral). You need to save the five but you did not kill the one - in cases like this, waiting to work on the one until after you save the five is neutral action. Virtue ethics would argue that one aspires to do the greatest good for the greatest number and saving the one would condemn the others to death (one does not aspire to commit manslaughter).

For the man in room 306, Utilitarian ethics would argue that the long-term result of that action would be for all people seeking insurance not to undergo hospital physicals plus many people would not go to the hospital for other help; so, our medical system, insurance system, and people in general would suffer (you have not done the greatest good, you have done long term harm). The Kantian would argue that one couldn't take from another person unless that person consents of his or her own free will - we must respect all people's free will. Virtue ethics tells us not to aspire to steal from people and kill them (I do not aspire to be a murderer).

For the day at the beach, Utilitarian ethics would argue that if all parents did not carry out their primary duty of protecting their children, society in general would suffer (so, save your child and throw out lifesavers to the two adults). Kantian ethics would argue that your responsibility as a parent is higher than your responsibility for your occupation - so, since lifeguards should never work alone, get the others to save the two adults. Virtue ethics requires you to be a good parent before you be a good lifeguard.

The Real-Life Scenarios
The next part of instruction involved real-life ethical case studies. Working in pairs, each pair was given a different case study. They were to explain their case study to the class and tell what the most ethical decision to make would be based on attempting a convergence of the three philosophies stated earlier in this article. Again, after each group’s presentation, the class discussed if a three-way agreement was reached with all three ethical philosophies. Here, the discussions allowed for agreement as well as disagreement with all positions being heard respectfully. All paired groups were able to get a three-way convergence.

1. Lobbying for “Liberation”

Three years ago, King Industries was named by the Department of Defense as the prime contractor for a new generation of battle tank. Though military production amounts to only a small part of King’s business, the contract is enormous in dollar terms and potentially very lucrative. But things have not been going so well otherwise for King. Intense competition in its consumer products division and a national recession, which has reduced the demand for consumer durables, has resulted in huge losses for the company, which has depended on this division for 80% of its revenue in the past decades. Analysts say that the company is in danger of bankruptcy, and if such a bankruptcy occurs, tens of thousands of jobs in factories throughout the United States may be lost.

Ned Ordway is a longtime lobbyist for King Industries, and has spent years gathering support among legislators for legislation favorable to King, encouraging them to resist legislation and other policy decisions which would be unfavorable to King. Recently, there has been much political unrest in the country of Chad, partly due to the efforts of groups opposed to the current regime, and there is some discussion of U.S. military intervention in the country. However, support for this has been weak because opposition groups are seen by many analysts as no better than the current regime, and because the current situation does not pose a clear threat to the interests of the United States, though there is some concern that the political turmoil could spread to neighboring states. Legislation has been proposed that would give $53 million to opposition groups, which will likely lead to military intervention on the part of the United States if the groups are effective at using the money to destabilize the government. Both military intervention in Chad and military aid to a new government in Chad will increase demand for J-1 tanks and will likely hasten the timeline by which the old tanks will be replaced. This would restore the financial health of King Industries as well as provide a future government friendly to the United States with the best in tank technology.

Ned is lobbying for the legislation and coordinating attacks against groups that oppose the legislation and military intervention; however, he has some concerns about whether or not this is lobbying-as-usual, or something very different. You are a trusted friend of Ned and he asks your advice. What do you say?

Convergence: A Utilitarian would say that the greatest good would be for Ned not to lobby as the good of the people (not engaging in a war because people are killed) outweigh the good of his business and the warhawks in politics. A Kantian would argue that you are not treating others with respect if the profit motive is more important to you than human life. Virtue Ethics would say that to aspire to be a good human being, one needs to put the good of others (no war) over the good of one's job.

2. That ‘Ole Time' Religion

The text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. NOTE: The questions below deal only with the part of the amendment that is about religion.

Suppose you were one of the Founding Fathers. Would you have voted for the adoption of this amendment? Why (or why not)? Does this amendment allow people to have no religion at all? Is that a good idea? Why (or why not)?

Convergence: If you were a Utilitarian, you would vote for the First Amendment because it offers the greatest good to the most people of all religions in the country. If you were Kantian, you would vote for it because you should respect other peoples' faiths. Virtue Ethics would require those aspiring to be good Americans in the new democracy to extend freedom to all peoples, regardless of faith.

3. Ethics and the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act increases the government surveillance power in several areas, including: Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third party. (e.g., doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers). Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. For example, the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.  Intelligence searches. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment. Previous exceptions to the fourth amendment had only allowed searches if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence, but the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence.

Isn’t national security our primary concern these days? Don't we all have a patriotic duty to promote homeland security? Where, if anywhere, should and how we draw the line?

Convergence: A Utilitarian would argue against the Patriot Act because it could lead to the loss of freedom for too many Americans and endangers the Constitution. A Kantian would argue that one has to respect the rights of all citizens or risk losing yours. Virtue Ethics states that, if one aspires to be a good contributor to American democracy, one would not endanger that democracy.

4. Right to die

“Skin cancer had riddled the tortured body of Matthew Donnelly. A physicist, he had done research for the past thirty years on the use of X-rays. He had lost part of his jaw, his upper lip, his nose, and his left hand. Growths had been removed from his right arm and two fingers from his right hand. He was left blind, slowly deteriorating, and in agony of body and soul. The pain was constant; at its worst, he could be seen lying in bed with teeth clenched and beads of perspiration standing out on his forehead. Nothing could be done except continued surgery and analgesia. The physicians estimated that he had about a year to live.”

Matthew Donnelly begged his brother to shoot him. He did. Was what Mr. Donnelly’s brother did a criminal offense? Is euthanasia wrong - why or why not?

Convergence: A Utilitarian would argue that despite the patient's condition, the cost is too high (taking a human life) to justify shooting him. Utilitarians would also argue that a person in a lot of pain, might not be in full mental capability of asking for death and, if one did this to all patients asking for death, America could become a nation in favor of euthanasia, which allows for too many costly mistakes. A Kantian would state that one can not take a human life except in self-defense. Virtue Ethics states that, if one wishes to fulfill to the highest one's role as a brother, one does not take another brother's life.

Instruments

Professor/Course Effectiveness
Would this unit on how to teach ethics have an effect on students' perception of course/professor effectiveness? This was measured. The instrument assessing professor/course effectiveness was originally developed by Jack Fraenkel and presented at the national convention of the American Educational Research Association (Fraenkel, 1992). He used it without establishing reliability and validity, but he gave permission for such a study (Fraenkel, phone call to Susan Pass, November 28, 2000). So, in 1993, 180 students took part in a four-week study to establish reliability and validity of this instrument. A factor analysis was done on the results.

Two factors were identified with the teacher effectiveness instrument. Factor 1 dealt with student perception of their teacher’s excellence. Factor 2 dealt with students’ perception of the excellence of the course as created by the teacher. This instrument is reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 for the overall instrument (.97 for Factor 1 and .56 for Factor 2). Validity was established using the Delphi technique with eight teachers and three professors of social studies education. After a series of exchanges over two months, all eleven reported that the instrument was valid in reporting what it was designed to do; namely, student perception of teacher and course effectiveness.

Student Interest/Motivation/Sense of Value in Learning the Subject (Teaching)
Would use of this unit on how to teach ethics increase students' motivation to learn how to teach? This was measured. An instrument was developed to measure student interest/motivation/sense of value in learning the subject from Fraenkel's instrument. By changing the format of Fraenkel’s instrument to reflect interest and motivation, an instrument was developed that could be used to assess progress in motivating the students to learn the lesson.

The instrument was assessed on usefulness and reliability and its items appeared to have strong communalities and acceptable reliability (the standardized item alpha was .5749). However, the data analysis also seemed to indicate some mutuality of factors. While the inter-item reliability ranged from strong to weak, all the components were stable over time. From the data, it was deduced that there were components at work, which clumped the data, and further analysis was done.

Three factors arose from the data analysis; namely, student interest, motivation, and sense of value in learning the subject. Communalities for all items were good and a scree plot showed an acceptable “U” curve. The alpha values on all 3 factors were good. Factor One (interest) had an alpha of .6179; Factor Two (how students valued the good that they would receive from learning the subject) was .6857; and Factor Three (student efficacy or motivation derived from lessons) was a .6023. However, an interesting fact was that item C was included in two factors (two and three). It is believed that this was because students perceived learning the subject was good for them, if they could participate more in class lessons. Validity was established through a Delphi technique done with four college professors and eight teachers in 1994.

Student Achievement or Student Self-Rating Scale on Ethical Knowledge/Sense of Ethics

Would students' sense of their own ethics and their knowledge of ethics increase because of being taught this unit on how to teach ethics? An instrument to measure student achievement was developed by again adapting Dr. Fraenkel's 1992 instrument. There were two factors revealed by a factor analysis search. Factor One (knowledge of ethics) had an alpha of .815. Factor Two (sense of value of ethics) had an alpha of .579. Communalities for all 9 items were acceptable and the instrument had a scree plot that resembled a "U". The Cronbach's alpha for all 9 items was .8565, which is highly reliable. For validity, I did a Delphi technique with two professors of education and four members of the Rutland Center for Ethics Education. After four months and some adjustments on the test items, results indicated that the instrument was effective in measuring what it was supposed to measure; namely, student knowledge of ethics. A factor analysis was done to determine reliability. The instrument (with a standardized item Cronbach's alpha of .8583) was determined to be a reliable instrument to measure student achievement on learning how to teach ethics.

Results

Although both groups increased in their sense of ethics, the ratings on a paired t-test were statistically significantly higher for the experimental group B, which was taught by using the convergence tool.

t=4.549, df = 70, N=71, Correlation = .460, Sig. (2-tailed)= .000

Student ratings of professor effectiveness were also statistically significantly higher on a paired t-test for experimental group B:

t=1.391, df= 70, N=71, Correlation = .559, Sig. (2-tailed) = .000

Finally, the students' sense of value in learning how to teach was statistically significantly higher on a paired t-test for experimental group B:

t= 2.693, df = 70, N=71, Correlation = .308, Sig. (2-tailed)= .009

Conclusions

While both groups increased their sense of ethics; their perceptions of professor effectiveness and their interest/sense of value in learning how to teach, the data suggests that the use of the convergence tool should be used because (with all three instruments) the group that used the tool had a statistically higher increase in their sense of ethics, their interest in learning how to teach, and their perception of professor effectiveness.

The weakness of this study is that it was done with just a small, selected sample with college seniors enrolled in social studies education. Replication of this study should be made in another discipline, with a larger sample, and a different Reflective Judgment stage. Another weakness was that only three theories of ethics were used. However, given the stage of Reflective Judgment that the students were at, it was believed that introducing other ethical theories would be too complicated.

The strength of this study is that it applied a means to discover how to obtain the most ethical decision and the instruments developed were both reliable and valid for further research.

Plato wrote in his Apology that the unexamined life is not worth living. There is a need for future teachers to be taught how to teach ethics to their future students (Campbell, 1997 & 2001). I believe that use of this tool is universal to all cultures and societies. Ancient Greek metaphysics teaches that there are universal ethical standards that are in all cultures, societies, religious, countries and ethnic groups. For example, all of the world's major religions have The Golden Rule. Attempting a three-way agreement of Utilitarianism, Kantian, and Virtue Ethics is, therefore, not specific to American culture and, from the data reported, seems to be effective in teaching ethics, increasing interest, and increasing perception of teacher effectiveness.

In their final comments, students in both groups (A and B) said that teacher education programs should be concerned with preparing future teachers to be proficient in moral education. Professors might want to concentrate on bringing the teaching of ethics "alive" (Campbell, 1997, p. 259).

References

Bebeau, M.J. (1994) Influencing the moral dimensions of dental practice, In: J.R. Rest and D. Narvaez (Eds) Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics, pp.121-146 (Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Beck, C. (1990). Better schools: A values perspective. London: Palmer.

Berkowitz, M. (1998). Obstacles to teacher training in character education. Action in Teacher Education.20,1-10

Bok, D.(May-June, 1988). Ethics, the university, and society. Harvard Magazine. 39-50.

Campbell, E. (September-October, 1997). Connecting the ethics of teaching and moral education. Journal of Teacher Education. 48, 255-259.

Campbell, E. (2001). Moral lessons: examining the ethical role of teachers in two diverse elementary classrooms. Education Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice. 14,1-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy and practice for democratic education. Educational Research. 25, 5-17.

Darling-Hammond, L.; Ancess, J. & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Derry , J.O. (1979). Can students’ ratings of instruction serve rival purposes? Journal of Higher Education - Elementary School Journal. 96, 551-564.

Dewey, J. (1897). Ethical principles underlying education. In Third yearbook of the National Herbart Society. Chicago: National Herbart Society.

Frankel, J. (1992). A portrait of four social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 50, 67-97.

Fraenkel, J. (April, 1992). A portrait of four social studies teachers (with special attention paid to the identification of teaching techniques and behaviors that contribute to student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hart, H.L.A. (1967). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kekes, J. (1993) The Morality of pluralism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kelsey, I. (1993). Universal character education. Edinburgh: Pentland.

King, G. P. (January/February 1992). How do we know? Why do we believe? Liberal Education78, 2-8.

Kitchener, K; Lynch, C; Fischer, K; & Wood, P. (1993). Developmental range of reflective judgment: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology.29, 893-906.

Martel, E. (2003). Letter to colleagues. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago.

Myyry, L. & Helkama, K. (2002). The role of value priorities and professional ethics training in moral sensitivity. Journal of Moral Education. 31, 35-50.

Nagel, T.S. (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Obiakor, F. ( October 26, 2000). Transforming teaching-learning to improve student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning. Milwaukee, WI.

Pardales, M. (2002). So, how did you arrive at that decision? Connecting moral imagination and moral judgment. Journal of Moral Education. 31, 423-437.

Reiman, A. & Johnson, S. (2004). Promoting teacher professional judgment. Journal of Research in Education.13, 1-11.

Reiman, A. & Peace, S. (2002). Promoting teachers' moral reasoning and collaborative inquiry performance: a developmental role-taking and guided inquiry study. Journal of Moral Education. 31, 51-66.

Rest, J.R. (1994) Background: theory and research, In: J.R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds). Moral Development in the Professions: psychology and applied ethics. (1-2) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rest, J.R.; Narvaez, D.; Bebeau, M; & Thomas, S. (1999). Postconvential moral thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiman, A. & Peace, S. (2001). Promoting teachers' moral reasoning and collaborative inquiry performance: A developmental role-taking and guided inquiry study. Journal of Moral Education.31, 51-66.

Strike, K. (1996). The moral responsibilities of educators. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (195-211). New York: Macmillan.

Wueste, D. & Jones, D. (2003). Teaching on ethics. CD available: Clemson, SC: Rutland Center for Ethics, Clemson University.

Wynne, E & Ryan, K. (1993). Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching character, academics and discipline. New York: Macmillan.

Back to Top