Download view

DRAFT VERSION Paper Presented at the 1st Symposium on Moral and Democratic Education, 24 ‐ 27 August 2008, Florina, Greece.
Draft version, should not be cited without the explicit permission of the author. COMPLEXITY OF THE TEACHERS' DECISION MAKING PROCESS WHEN DEALING WITH MORAL DILEMMAS* Nava Maslovaty and Dorit Alt Bar‐Ilan University, Israel [email protected]
Abstract: The study analyzes the process that educators adopt when faced with moral dilemmas. The dilemmas discussed occurred in the educational context, the school and the classroom, and were reported by teachers in a paper they wrote in a graduate course on "The Teacher's Moral Role." Dilemmas can be analyzed from several aspects: causes, contents, coping strategies and participants. The current study examines the complexity of the process. The main objectives were to identify and map teachers' ways of coping with social and moral dilemmas that arise in the school and the classroom. The dilemmas of 48 of the 120 teachers who took in the course during the years 2002‐
2006 were analyzed using qualitative methods (content analysis). Analysis of the dilemmas revealed eight content categories: values, empathy, violence, honesty and sincerity, equality and tolerance towards the group, equality and tolerance towards the individual, protecting privacy, professionalism. Overall, the most common dilemmas in the different educational sectors related to honesty and sincerity (primarily with respect to cheating on tests and stealing) and to violence. When analyzing the set of considerations employed by teachers with respect to the question, "Whose good should I seek in solving the dilemma?," the study found that teachers from the national religious system considered the pupil's good more than teachers from other sectors. All teachers underscored considerations involving the good of the class, the teacher, the school, the pupil population and the parents. The analysis revealed additional content aspects pointing to the complexity of the decision process: process stages, strategy selection and the meta‐cognitive process in weighing the considerations. Key words: Moral dilemmas, Teachers, contents, strategies, considerations, decision making BACKGROUND The current study discusses the analysis of the complexity of teachers' decision-making process when
dealing with moral dilemmas. The purpose of morality is to solve human conflict. (Kasher ,2007), Morality
insists that the duty of human beings is to respect human dignity, fairness, equality, and human rights in a
democratic society. We can analyze dilemmas at school in relation to several factors: dilemma causes, dilemma content, coping strategies, and participants in dilemma resolution. Although previous research has
studied these factors individually, this study takes the full complexity of the process into account.
*
The study was partly conducted with the support of the Eliezer Stern Institute for Research and Advancement in Religious Education. 1
Dilemma causes: Mass & Klassen (2007) conceptualized moral and social dilemmas as critical moral
situations encountered by teachers with respect to their pupils: situations when pupils said or did things
that conflicted with moral values. Their findings distinguished three types of critical situations: (1) pupils
target an individual: pupil or teacher; (2) pupils express opinions on a moral issue without referring to
anyone in particular; (3) pupils violate the school or teacher's rules or regulations.
Dilemma contents: Sabar et al.,(2007) focused on teachers' ethical dilemmas regarding the question:"
Who am I to decide their fate?" . Dilemma contents were found, for example: pupil evaluation, behavior
rules, the good of the individual versus the good of the class.
Teaching strategies: Oser (1992) and Oser & Althof (1993) identified five differentiated decision-making
models for dealing with interpersonal conflicts. The models described the structure dimension of the
teachers' decision-making process, focusing on responsibility for both the process and action (discourse
models). The models are:
Model 1 – Avoidance: The teacher avoids making a decision or taking responsibility for solving the
problem.
Model 2 - Delegation: The teacher shifts responsibility for decision-making to another hierarchical level.
Model 3 - Unilateral decision-making: The teacher acts automatically and spontaneously assuming that
he knows what to do. He acts as a professional educator in analyzing the problem and proposing
immediate solutions.
Model 4 - Incomplete discourse: The teacher employs a discursive problem-solving strategy, allowing all
parties to present a fair share of solutions to the problem. Different standpoints and the legitimate
individual needs of students are represented. The teacher is responsible for finding a moral solution.
Model 5 - Complete discourse: The teacher is willing to involve the students in deciding how to behave,
and allows everyone an opportunity to express a standpoint and share responsibility for decision-making.
In partnership with the teacher, they are actively responsible for reaching decisions and carrying them out.
Maslovaty (2000, 2004, 2007) expanded these five models and developed four additional teachers' decisionmaking models. The four models are:
Transferring problem to pupils’ parents
Resolving the conflict through discussion with the pupil involved (dialog). This idea is subdivided
into three models paralleling the discourse models above:
Unilateral dialog – informing the pupil what is right.
Incomplete dialog - listening to the pupil, but providing the conclusion.
Complete dialog - mutual decision-making and conclusions.
Relationship between content and strategy: Maslovaty (2007) compared teaching strategies used by
Jewish and Arab teachers to solve moral dilemmas in their schools. The findings showed ethnic and gender
differences in teachers’ choice of strategies. In addition, in dilemmas involving violence, the teachers used
several parallel strategies, contrasting with integrity dilemmas when teachers mainly chose one strategy.
Study objectives
The two main objectives of the study were:
2
To identify and map teachers' modes of coping with social and moral dilemmas in the school and
classroom.
To examine variances between teachers according to their education sector, relating to processes dealing
with social and moral dilemmas.
METHOD Participants Participants were students in a graduate workshop called, ‘The Moral Role of the Teacher’. The students
were experienced, practicing teachers. The final assignment required the students to describe an actual
dilemma, analyze it theoretically, and select practical ways of coping with it, using meta-cognitive reflection.
The study analyzes the dilemmas provided by 48 of the 120 teachers in the master's degree course during
the years 2002-2006. The participants were all teachers from the state religious school and Arab state
school systems in this course, plus 25% of the course participants from the state school system. The study
population comprised 19.1% men and 80.9% women. Table 1 presents the distribution of teachers by
education sector.
Table 1: Distribution of Teachers by Education Sector
No. of Dilemmas Examined by Sector
(n=48) 20 State 5 Arab State 23 State religious Sector (%)
41.7 State non‐religious 10.4 State Arab 47.9 State religious
RESEARCH METHOD A qualitative research method was used. Content analysis was used to process the events.
FINDINGS Dilemma Content Analysis of the dilemmas revealed eight content categories. Table 2 presents the frequency of the dilemma
contents. Table 2 shows that dilemmas concerning honesty and sincerity generally related to stealing and
cheating in exams (31.3%) and dilemmas concerning violence (25%) were more common than other
content dilemmas.
Table 2: Distribution of Dilemma Content
Dilemma Content Empathy Equality and tolerance towards group
Equality and tolerance towards individual
Honesty and sincerity Professionalism Protect privacy Values Violence All (n=48)
Frequency
4 8.3%
5 10.4%
5 10.4%
15 31.3%
1 2.1%
3 6.25%
3 6.25%
12 25%
Rank
4
3
3
1
6
5
5
2
The dilemmas relating to the decision-making process were divided into two stages: the pre-decision
making stage and the decision making stage:
3
First stage findings: Pre­decision stage Table 3 presents the teachers’ considerations at the pre-decision stage regarding the question: "Whose
good should I seek when solving the dilemma?",
Differences were evident from the rank order of teachers' considerations. The top three considerations
favored by state school teachers were: the teacher, the student, the class. The top three considerations
preferred by the state religious teachers were: the student, the parents, followed by the teacher .The top
three considerations preferred by the teachers from Arab state schools were: the values, the student, the
school, and the parents. In all sectors, teachers favored the student’s good. The parents’ good was favored
in the more conservative educational systems (i.e., religious and Arab).
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ Considerations by Sector (n=47).
Subject Student
Class Teacher School Student Population Parents Local Community Values State (N=19) SD
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.49
0.23
M
0.37
0.37
0.42
0.21
0.05
State Arab (N=5) SD M
0.55
0.40
0.45
0.20
0.44
0.20
0.55
0.40
0.00
0.00
State Religious (N=23) SD M
0.29
0.91
0.51
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.47
0.35
0.45
0.26
0.42
0.23
0.21
0.05
0.56
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.47
0.21
0.70
0.04
0.37
0.16
0.54
0.60
0.47
0.30
Second stage findings: Models describing the decision­making process Table 4 presents the frequencies of the models and sub-models used by the three sectors:
Table 4: Frequencies of Model and Sub-Model Use for Different Sectors.
Models
Sub‐Models
State (n=15) Avoidance 6.7% Authority Transfer 13.3% Unilateral Spontaneous unilateral discourse 6.7% Decision‐ Making Reflective unilateral discourse 0 Incomplete Incomplete class discourse 13.3% Discourse Incomplete dialog 20% Professional interaction 20% Complete Complete discourse 0 Discourse Complete dialog 6.7% Inclusive complete discourse 6.7% Inclusive complete dialog 6.7% State Arab State (n=5) Religious
(n=20)
20% 0 40% 5% 0 0 0 10% 0 0 0 20% 0 30% 0 10% 20% 5% 0 10% 20% 10% Table 4 reveals that although all sectors used Model 1: Avoidence and Model 2: Authority Transfer, these
models were relatively less used by teachers from religious state schools.
Model 3: Unilateral Decision Making – appeared in all sectors to some extent, apart from the state Arab
sector, but this may be due to sample size. Religious teachers seemed to engage in internal deliberation
before responding.
4
Model 4: Incomplete Discourse — present in almost equal degrees in the state system and religious state
system . The Professional Interaction Sub-Model was used more frequently by religious state schools than
in schools from the other sectors.
Model 5: the Complete Model was found in schools of all sectors,
Dilemma content of models Figure 1 presents the dilemma content distribution for the three models: Discourse, Dialog, and
Professional Interaction
Figure 1: Dilemma Content Distribution for the Discourse, Dialog, and
Professional Interaction Models
Dilemma Content
Values
Empathy
Violence
Honesty and Sincerity
Equality and tolerance towards group
Equality and tolerance towards individuals
Protect privacy
Discourse
Dialog
Profession
al
Interaction
Figure 1 show that the most common behaviors in the three models were: honesty and violence - in the
discourse and dialog strategies; equality and tolerance towards the group, and honesty - in professional
interactions. Equity and tolerance towards individuals -were relatively high in the dialog strategy.
Table 5 shows the development of the strategies summary model and its origins. The table shows the
development and expansion of Oser and Althof’s (1993) five strategies model in several empirical studies (
Maslovaty, 2000,2004,2007 ; Maslovaty & Alt 2008).
Table 5: Model Summary with Previous and Present Study Contributions to the Subject
5
Contributions of Previous Research Contribution of Present Study Avoidance model Authority transfer model Transfer of responsibility to parents Unilateral decision model Internal negotiation process: Teacher acts immediately, reflects (internal negotiation: meta‐cognitive and affective) prior to reacting Incomplete model Dialog Professional interaction model: Discourse includes consultation with entities able to help resolve the dilemma (excluding pupils) Class discourse Complete model Dialog Inclusive complete discourse: In addition to involving pupils in the dilemma, the discourse involves other entities such as: parents, educational staff, class, school management, etc. Class discourse DISCUSSION The debate between scholars regarding the term we should use to describe important moral situations,
ethical or socio-moral dilemmas, may be resolved with reference to the role of the participants in the
situation. Students involved in dilemma situations face socio-moral dilemmas, while teachers, who assume
the role of educator, face ethical dilemmas.
The two main objectives of the study were: First to identify and map teachers' modes of coping with social
and moral dilemmas in the school and classroom.
While, Oser & Althof (1993) defined five differentiated decision-making models for dealing with
interpersonal conflict: (a) Avoidance; (b) Authority Transfer ; (c) Unilateral Decision-Making; (d)
Incomplete Discourse; (e) Complete Discourse, this study suggests an expansion of models B, C, D, and
E. Regarding Model B - Authority Transfer, parental involvement was added. Regarding Model C Unilateral Decision Making, the sub-models are proposed: Spontaneous Unilateral Discourse, Reflective
Unilateral . The sub-models proposed for Model D - Incomplete Discourse are: Incomplete Class
Discourse, Incomplete Dialog and Professional Interaction. Four sub-model were proposed for Model E Complete Discourse: Complete Discourse, Complete Dialog, Inclusive Complete Discourse and Inclusive
Complete Dialog. The findings show differences relating to sector ethnicity and conservative tendencies.
Second objective was to examine the variance among teachers according to education sector: state, stateArab and state-religious. According to the contents and considerations teachers use when considering the
question: "Whose good should I seek when solving the dilemma?" In all sectors, teachers favored the
student’s good. The parents’ good was favored in the more conservative educational systems. Regarding
the relationship between contents and strategies, honesty and violence – were found in the discourse and
dialog strategies; and equality and tolerance towards the group, and honesty - in professional interactions.
Equity and tolerance towards individuals -were relatively high in the dialog strategy.
6
This study makes both a theoretical and a pedagogical contribution to the subject of decision-making in
situations involving moral dilemmas by differentiating between the sub-models described here, and making
it possible to apply them in different sectors of the education system according to the ethnic composition
of the sector’s population, and its religious orientation.
Making these distinctions increases the spectrum of decision-making options available to teachers facing
ethical quandaries stemming from social and moral dilemmas, who wish to guide their students in choosing
and behaving consistently with moral and democratic standards. The options offered by models of ethical
behavior and social-moral and democratic processes may develop in teachers and students the decision
making teachers facing moral and ethical dilemmas.
7