Value-Based Model Of Education - Research Paper Example

Value-Based Model Of Education A value-based design is absent in modern education which is in a state of global crisis. The whole spectrum of human values is affected by education. Creative, experiential, aesthetic, material, instrumental, ethical, social, and spiritual values that are integrated into human life are all influenced by the concepts acquired in education (Sankar, 2004). The student who bothers to incorporate good values would turn out to be “virtuous, integrated personalities” in Aristotle’s words. Education is a moral and academic enterprise which can reach excellence if it is value- based. Enhancement and commitment to “academic tasks, civic duties and the essentials of an ethical culture” are expected if core values are instilled in a student (Sankar, 2004). A moral collapse has been predicted by great thinkers like Erich Fromm: youth and society are progressing towards barbarism. Traditional ethics have no place in our society and especially among the youth (Sankar, 2004). The infrastructure has become different with sophisticated equipment and facilities like computer labs, audio-visual resources, highly educated and trained personnel as teachers, guidance counselors and countless numbers of disciplines. However on the other side, a depletion of morals coupled with an increase of offences is seen. Where indiscipline was hardly seen with only one or two cases in a school fifty years ago, indiscipline with insolence, disobedience and refusal to apply themselves has become the order of the day. Criminal acts include weapon possession and shooting. “Giving instructions in human values and ethics takes second place to giving out condoms and the cultivation of an atmosphere of promiscuity” (Sankar, 2004, p. 130). Ethics seems to take second place and youth violence is rising. Lying, cheating and stealing is easily done with no feeling of remorse. Disrespect for teachers and parents and those in authority is common. Peer cruelty and feelings of hate are practised more. Using poor language and slangs is the level to which the beauty of the English Language has been smothered. No work ethics are to be seen. Civic and personal responsibility has declined. Self destruction through substance abuse may be the outcome of the stress of life at school or home. The Golden Rule of moral knowledge and ethical literacy is a thing of the past. Sankar (2004) has mentioned that children know the prices of all things but the values of none. Truth, caring, love, respect for human dignity and compassion are not in their dictionary. Many of them may be craving for these or may have outcomes like substance abuse due to the deficiency but do not know how to give these to get them in return. Their turning to crime may be giving them some solace. Their priorities may be different. Computer literacy may be more important than moral literacy (Sankar, 2004). Not being aware that their problems could be solved at least partially through sharing them with parents or peers is the issue. It could also be that the peers and parents have no time for them or simply do not know how to solve them or they do not know how to approach their wards with love. If arms could be laid down all around and togetherness cultivated between the children and parents or peers with plenty of moral judgment rules laid in, many problems could be solved or avoided. There is nothing that interpersonal support and caring cannot achieve. However the parties involved must opt for them. “Intelligence plus character is the goal of true Education (King, 1985, p.37). Baba (2000) has said that “character is the most powerful gift of education”. Many of the behavior disorders in children can be traced to a deficiency of moral character. A curriculum based on moral literacy is essential, more than computer literacy (Sankar, 2004). Moral disorder, moral decay and moral devaluation of human beings can result from an education without ethics. What the society needs is the presence of people with nobility, purity of mind, morality and integrity. Worldly success, self-aggrandizement and luxury living have become the aims of society by Baba (2000 ). Terror and unrest is the result. Ethical values in education. A code of ethics is extremely essential in education for students, teachers and educators alike. The major question is what constitutes a good decision (Harrison, 1975 cited in Sankar, 2004). A value-based rational approach for an individual would be the ethical rule or decision. The rules or decisions must be powerful enough to shape a student’s character. Criteria for taking action must influence the student positively and instill in him an ability to compare self to others. The ability to justify his actions would also arise simultaneously. The basis of ethics is not power but trust. Many factors are to be focused upon in education. The integrity of action and the honesty of intention need to be ensured while designing rules. Justice and human rights should not be forgotten in the procedure. Organization rewards must be allocated fairly. The concept of caring must be evident to the student. The means and outcome must have the essence of good in them. The student must understand that compliance with the ethical decision is his duty and social responsibility and that it is necessary for harmony in his institution (Sankar, 2004). Convincing the student that his action if robopathic can alienate others and dehumanize himself is a task. Academic cheating The extent of issues that could occur in an educational institution has been highlighted. I am selecting one issue which can be corrected in any institution and which has undertones of ethics about it: cheating by students. Current studies have indicated that 95% of students cheat at some time in their life (Murdock, 2007). This leads to the unfair assignment of good grades to students who do not deserve them. It also reveals the inability of the professor to decide accurately the academic status of the student. Many studies have investigated the incidences of widespread cheating by college students. Several aspects of the cheating have been focused upon. Higher rates of cheating leads to a bigger justification for the dishonest behavior (Pulvers and Diekhof, 1999 cited in Murdock, 2007). Students have the habit of rationalizing their actions by claiming that their actions were not deviant and did not harm anyone. The attitude of business students towards ethical behavior, the need for desirable ethical behavior, how important it is towards future businesses, the lack of ethics in the business world, the concept of what constitutes ethical behavior and why ethics may not be good practically are some of the topics researched (Lawson, 2004). Rampant cheating by students and the existence of low ethical standards has been found. Lawson investigated whether the attitude of a student in business school towards ethics reflected in any way future behavior in his business. A strong relationship was found in which the student who had the tendency to cheat in an academic situation also believed in an unethical behavior in business Students have been found to have a less ethical behavior than practitioners (Arlow and Ulrich, 1985, in Lawson, 2004). They were more willing to make mistakes than their professional counterparts (Woods et al, 1988 in Lawson, 2004). Another study found that lesser ethical standards were followed by students; their perceptions of managerial values were different and mostly inaccurate (De Salvia and Gemmill, 1971 cited in Lawson, 2004). Though adopting low ethical standards, students considered themselves more ethical than how others gauged them (Tyson, 1990 in Lawson, 2004). In one study, 97% of students believed that good ethics is good business while 71% believed that being ethical may not be useful in business (Magner, 1989 in Lawson, 2004). Glenn (1988 cited in Lawson, 2004) believed being ethical alone may cause conflict in personal issues. The pressure to commit unethical acts is high. Most of the tendency to unethical acts was seen in the lower ranks or in those with lesser grades (Glenn, 1988 cited in Lawson, 2004). Cheating in tests was another unethical act of the students: 37% had cheated in a test in school. A poll showed that 47% of students would cheat on an exam (Nazario, 1990 cited in Lawson, 2004). Students at the Delaware University admitted to having cheated similarly (Collinson, 1990 cited in Lawson, 2004). This problem is believed to be increasing in magnitude (Davis et al, 1992 cited in Lawson, 2004). A student who has cheated on an exam has more chance of cheating on an expense account as suggested by Lawson (2004). Glenn’s (1988 cited in Lawson, 2004) study included students with both views: those who cheated and those who did not. 67% of the students who belonged to the group of cheaters agreed “that a person can be financially successful and uncompromisingly honest” while 76% of the other group also had the same opinion. The difference in the two responses was statistically significant. A maturation process was seen in the different grade levels by David and Welton (1991 cited in Lawson, 2004). The senior students believed in a better perception of proper ethical behavior. Stevens et al (1993 cited in Lawson, 2004) also discovered the same findings in his study in which he commented that the seniors were more ethically oriented. An exactly opposite opinion was provided by Beltramini et al (1984 in Lawson, 2004) where he said that there was no significant difference between the two: seniors and freshmen. The inverse relationship between the student’s grade and his tendency to be more ethically-oriented did not therefore have universal support. Previously some studies had claimed that those with better grade point average cheated less than other students (Zastrow, 1970 cited in Lawson, 2004). Zastrow had taken the results of five studies to make this conclusion. His study had students who had cheated at some time in their life. Crown and Spiller opined that research shows a negative relationship between cheating and grades (1998 cited in Lawson, 2004). Gender differences have been indicated in some studies. Females appear to be more ethical than males (Arlow, 1991; Sims et al, 1996). Beltramini et al (1984) and Petersen et al (1991) have shown that female students were more concerned about ethical issues than the males (all quoted in Lawson, 2004). Another study showed a contradictory stand that did not support gender differences for ethical issues (Stanga & Turpen, 1991 cited in Lawson, 2004). A study review by Ford and Richardson (1994) showed that females were more likely to behave more ethically than the males in 7 studies while 7 other studies showed no gender difference. There is an opinion that the gender difference is more obvious in the past 20 years (Crown and Spiller, 1998 cited in Lawson, 2004). Academic cheating is a behavior that is found in educators but significant for researchers (West et al, 2004). However cheating makes the course of education distorted. The students who cheat may give a picture of good values not having been instilled. Even though cheating is a condemned behavior, it is still widely engaged in by students (Moore, 1991 cited in West et al, 2004). Studies are not sure about whether cheating is on the increase (Spiller &Crown, 1995 cited in West et al, 2004). However it is still believed to be a significant issue. Faculty members have begun noticing the need to teach about ethics in order that the incidence of cheating is reduced and more students turn out to be good citizens (Sims, 1993 cited in West et al, 2004). College honor codes are associated with reduced rates of cheating. This honor code also ensures a better behavior in the workplace (McCabe et al, 1996 cited in West et al, 2004). College students cannot be expected to adopt better ethical sensitivity unless guided. They can be expected to be aware of ethics only through guidance and instruction (Mai-Dalton, 1987 cited in West et al, 2004). Ethics training was also recommended by a National Commission. College Cheating belongs to the group of unethical behaviors (Crown and Spiller, 1998 cited in West et al, 2004). Studies have shown a relationship between the cheating in college and future professional behavior. More colleges are having the tendency to include ethical instructions in their training so as to provide a greater chance of students turning out to be better and more ethical professionals. The colleges and faculty who instruct on ethics are being questioned by others who are of the view that ethics cannot be taught (Piper et al, 1993 cited in West et al, 2004). It is inbuilt according to them. Success is finally due to behavior change. The behavioral responses cannot be studied in laboratories. Plagiarism Research fraud is rampant in colleges and universities. Plagiarism is a deliberate deception that is widespread in the scientific community. It may be simulated to cheating in examinations (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). Under-reporting may be the reason that plagiarism is still seen. This kind of academic misbehavior is an indication that the community is maligned with ethical erosion. The traditional view of the scientist as a professional with moral superiority is hampered by the knowledge that many scientists have done researches with falsified data (Grayson, 1995 cited in Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). Academic misconduct is a more serious matter in the scientific community than other professions. It is a gross violation of academic standards. Hannabuss describes it as “the mixture of law or rule breaking” and claims that “plagiarism are breaches not just of rules but of norms, values, expectations, assumptions and moral beliefs of whole communities” (2001 cited in Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). DIT Measuring and improving ethical instruction is on the cards. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) is a tool to measure the change in ethical judgment before and after the ethical training (West et al, 2004). A stage theory of moral development was initially behind this tool designed at the University of Minnesota. However now it is considered to be a schema theory. The psychology of morality is decided in the tool. The role of moral judgment in leading to ethical behavior is behind the theme. DIT scores and prosocial behavior have been related. Not all studies show the relationship. Rest et al (1999 cited in West et al, 2004) assessed the validity of the DIT by citing over 60 studies. The scores of DIT indicated a positive relationship with pro-social behavior. Further studies are being done to confirm the relationship. Researchers have found contrasting studies which did not prove the relationship between the DIT score and pro-social behavior (Thomas et al, 1991 cited in West et al, 2004). A changed DIT score after the ethical instructions indicated behavior changes. Researchers find it difficult to nail the students who have cheated at some time. Faculty is reluctant to report the cheaters. The data collected in the DIT concern past cheating, intention to cheat, reasons for cheating and attitudes towards cheating (Spiller & Crown, 1995 cited in West et al, 2004). The scores may depend on how credible the tool is and the doubt about its anonymity. If the students do not believe that the tool is anonymous, the tendency to adjust answers may occur. Actual behavior is more indicative of validity than self-reports. Researchers may feel challenged if faculty members make it obvious that they do not encourage cheating. The participants may have a tendency to adjust their answers so that they are not found having many instances of cheating, especially if their faculty is strict about cheating. Two studies related ethical judgments to actual behavior. Efforts were made to teach accounting ethics of 4-weeks duration to students in the first year and a 10-week duration in the next year with the same students (Ponemon, 1993 cited in West et al, 2004). Effectiveness of the accounting ethics instructions was checked after the intervention was over. Ponemon measured DIT scores prior to and after the instructions and compared findings to a control group. He requested the participants to contribute voluntarily and anonymously to the Department which had run out of funds. Though the students felt that the amounts were anonymous, they actually had instructions from their tutors about the amount. The ethics intervention had no effect on the scores. A parabola type of relationship was seen between behavior and DIT score (West et al, 2004). Student’s judgment about cheating Students resort to situational ethics to talk their way out of cheating. Mastery and performance goals are the targets of a classroom environment. Effort and individual improvement are the main objectives of academically-oriented children when rewards are offered (Murdock, 2007). Classrooms are seeing plenty of cheating and attitudes to justify cheating (Anderman, 2007). Students who are moving from a performance-oriented environment to a mastery-oriented one have the tendency to cheat so that they get better results (Anderman & Midgley, 2004 cited in Murdock, 2007). Studies have correlated the neutralizing attitude of undergraduate students to many aspects of the instructor including the interest level, organization, clarity and engagement (Pulvers and Diekhof, 1999). With the decrease in the quality of instruction, there was a greater likelihood of students resorting to dishonest behavior. Murdock et al (2001, cited in Murdock, 2007) also found a relationship between classroom cheating and the teacher’s competence and commitment. Many people try to justify dishonest actions by reflecting on the external factor that could have caused the dishonest act and they are convinced that the incumbent is not responsible. The chances of students shifting the blame to teachers is high, making cheating look acceptable (Murdock, 2001 cited in Murdock, 2007). The decrease in the perceived quality of instruction seems to be related to the increase in academic dishonesty in the classroom and the self-reporting of the dishonesty. The teacher’s competence and commitment to teaching is a predictor of middle school students’ behaviors of cheating (Murdock et al, 2001, cited in Murdock, 2007). The interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes of the cheating behavior depends on the attribution that people make for that behavior (Murdock, 2004). If the reason for cheating is within the control of the person, he will not be excused for such behavior. However if things were beyond his control, he would be excused for the dishonest behavior. Things might appear acceptable. This is exactly the same outcome as when a teacher is blamed for a student’s dishonesty. Again the responsibility of the student seems smaller. Murdock’s (2004) study with high school students gave similar findings. The situations in which the performance was good or poor and when the environment shifted from a performance-orientation to one in mastery-orientation were studied. The teachers were blamed when cheating occurred and when the performance was poor or the goal structure was performance –oriented (Murdock et al, 2004). Mediation could increase the responsibility of the participants and the acceptability of the morality of cheating. The students’ perceptions could not predict the cheating behaviors. If the teacher’s instructional pedagogy was poor, the students felt that they had been given a raw deal. The practices in performance-oriented classrooms were considered unjust and unfair (Covington and Omelich, 1984 cited in Murdock, 2007). If not instructed well, the students felt that they had not been provided a good opportunity to learn things that would be assessed later on. Students who admitted that they had cheated usually also blamed the teacher for poor instructional pedagogy (Pulvers and Diekhof, 1999, cited in Murdock, 2007). However teachers had a tendency to blame other factors when students cheated in class (Evans and Craig, 1990). Undergraduates, graduate students and high school students appeared to have similar feelings on cheating in the classroom. The impression was that decisions taken on cheating had no relationship to principles of morality. Students had clear views on what constituted appropriate and fair behavior for the teacher. When the teacher’s behavior was inconsistent with their expectations, the students did not accept it (Murdock, 2007). Mastery goal structures had a social relational component which could vouch for the findings (Patrick, 2004 ). In the mastery goal structure, the students expected to be treated fairly and respectfully. Students who did not admit to cheating surprisingly saw cheating as likely to occur in the future whereas those who had admitted to cheating did not see as much possibility of it occurring again. There were no differences between teachers and non teachers in the assessments of the acceptability of cheating, morality of cheating or assignment of blame (Murdock, 2007). The views on the causes of cheating differed in students and teachers (Evans and Craig, 1990). Cheaters had more neutralizing attitudes than non cheaters. Limitations and Recommendations for future studies Whether teaching practices in different classes change the cheating behavior is yet to be studied. The relationship of cheating attitudes to actual cheating behavior is another focus to be investigated (Murdock, 2007). The definition of cheating has not been made uniform and consistent and needs to be done early. The role of emotional processes is yet to be studied. The attribution theory states that “engaging in behaviors that are socially unacceptable like cheating” creates less guilt if blame is shifted to another’s shoulders. More guilt is felt by the cheater who blames it on himself (Weiner, 1995).The person who cheats may get a good grade after which he has a positive emotion. This may induce him to go in for more cheating in order to secure a good grade the next time too. A word on the teacher’s role. Human basic values which provide meaning to our life must be imparted through education. Our judgments regarding our options in all fields of life would be based on the education received. The motivation to learn would be instilled in the process. The integrated personality that is the outcome of sound education would be a person who is not prone to being dishonest and would acquire the professional attitude. Professional behavior includes “honesty and ethical decision making, regular attendance and punctuality, professional dress and appearance, participation in professional meetings and organizations and appropriate behavior during meetings” (Hall, 2006). College faculty considered interpersonal skills, ethical values and responsibility as the most important of personal and technical skills in a professional behavior. Teaching moral values in life may lead to the sculpting of good citizens. References: Anderman, E.M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom and school goal structures on academic cheating In E.M.Anderman and T.B. Murdock (Eds.) Psychology of academic cheating, Burlington, M.A:Elsevier Academic Press. Baba, S.S.S. (2000). Education and transformation, Puttaparthi, India: Sanathana sarathi Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). Ethical misconduct in the Business school: A case of plagiarism that turned bitter. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, p. 75-89. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Evans , E.D. and Craig, D. (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools. Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 84, p. 44-52 Ford, R. and Richardson, W. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the Empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 3, p.205-221 Hall, A. & Berardino, L. (2006). Teaching professional behaviors: Differences in the perceptions of faculty, students and employers. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 63, p. 407-415 Springer Lawson, R.A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ Propensity to cheat in the “Real World”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, p. 189-199. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers King, M.L. (1985) The strength to love, New York: Harper and Row Murdock, T.B., Miller, A. and Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating, Journal of Edducational Psychology, Vol. 96, p. 765-777 Murdoch, T.B. et al, (2007). Effects of classroom context on University student’s judgment about cheating: mediating and moderating process. Social Psychology Education, Vol.10, P. 141-169, DOI 10.1007/s11218-007-9015-1, Springer, 2007. Patrick, H. (2004). Reexamining mastery goal structures In P.R.Pintrich and M.L.Maehr (Eds), Motivating students and improving schools: Essays in honor of Carol Midley (Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 13) New York: JAI Press. Sankar, Y. (2004). Education in Crisis: A Value-Based Model of Education Provides Some Guidance, Interchange, Vol. 35/1, 127-151, 2004. Printed in the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Weiner, B. et al. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press West, T. et al, (2004). Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, p. 173-183, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Read More