Exploring the students’ perceptions regarding unethical practices in the Romanian educational system

International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Exploring the students’ perceptions regarding unethical practices in the Romanian educational system Roxana Maria Ghiat¸a˘u a,1, Liliana Maˆt¸a˘ b,* a b

‘‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’’ University, Carol I Street, 11, 700506 Ias¸i, Romania ‘‘Vasile Alecsandri’’ University of Baca˘u, Ma˘ra˘s¸es¸ti Street, 157, 600115 Baca˘u, Romania

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 16 August 2014 Received in revised form 19 April 2015 Accepted 19 June 2015

This paper examines the students’ perceptions regarding unethical practices in the Romanian educational system. This research topic is highly sensitive, because it is about teachers’ deviations from norms and malpractices. The aims of our research are: to investigate the perceptions of Romanian students on the weight of unethical practices by comparison with appropriate pedagogical practices; to analyse the perception of students on the hierarchy of unethical practices; to draw comparisons between the respective perceptions regarding unethical practices by taking into account three variables (level of instruction, gender and residential status). The data was collected from a sample of 452 Romanian university and high-school students. The instrument we have used was a questionnaire, designed specifically for this purpose. The concept of unethical practices was operationalized into several categories of indicators: indicators of teaching practices, assessment practices indicators, indicators of relationship management and of teacher public behaviour. The results reveal several findings: (1) Romanian students are quite critical regarding the evaluation of their teachers’ morality. (2) Favouritism and discrimination in assessment are perceived as the most frequent unethical practice. (3) High-school students are more critical than university students, boys are more critical than girls and those from the urban residence are more critical than those from the rural residence in terms of appreciating the morality of their teachers. ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Professional ethics Questionnaire Teaching Unethical practices

1. Theoretical introduction Teaching is a complex process, demanding special human qualities. It is said that teachers should be an example of morality. Working in education implies certain particularities, such as: it is a non-technical, human action, dependent upon others, inaccurate about the results, personalized and unique (Perrenoud, 1996). We often hear about ‘good practices’ related to teaching skills. By contrast, we assume that there also exist ‘bad practices’, which teachers should eliminate from their professional conduct. Unethical practices are considered taboo and discussed about only ‘in a whisper’. Nevertheless, McPherson et al. (2003, p. 76) argue that two thirds of teachers engage in behaviours which demoralize students. The destructive aspects of communication studied by specialists include offensive messages, anger, disappointment, jealousy, embarrassment (Boice, 1996). The aim of our

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40 745157852. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u), [email protected] (L. Maˆt¸a˘). 1 Tel.: +40 731755446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.06.002 0738-0593/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

research is to study the perceptions of Romanian high-school and university students upon several types of bad practices occurring in teacher behaviour. In order to achieve this purpose, we have elaborated our own definition of bad practices, accompanied by a classification of unethical practices related to teacher activity. Making use of the statistics from a survey among Romanian highschool and university students, it intends: to investigate the perception of Romanian students upon the percentage of unethical practices by comparison with proper pedagogical practices; to classify unethical practices according to their frequency and look at the comparison of perceptions of high-school and university students, boys and girls, rural and urban students. A common concept, circulated in both domains, ethics and pedagogy, is ‘‘normativity’’. The theory of the educational process, called didactics, makes use of the notion of ‘‘didactic normativity’’ to describe the system of principles, norms and rules closely connected to the act of teaching, without including administrative and disciplinary regulations (Cerghit, 1992, p. 41). Ca˘lin (1996, pp. 65–66) prefers the expression ‘‘normativity of education’’, operationalizing it into teaching–learning–evaluation norms, as well as norms for the teacher–student relationship in the

2

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

educational activity. Regarding our topic, our study focuses on the educators’ deviations from norms. In order to understand the nature and gravity of the deviations, we shall explain several correlated concepts from the reference literature. Thus, in relation to the deviation from moral norms, we shall analyse the concept of immorality and, in relation to the deviation from pedagogical norms, we shall approach incompetence, didactogenicity, professional mistakes and teacher failure. Immorality refers to wrong, morally ‘‘inappropriate’’ attitudes and behaviours, as well as conducts which contradicts the standards accepted by the community (Fulmer, 2002). Let us circumscribe immorality in the teaching profession. Where is the border between what is allowed and what is forbidden in the educational activity? When can we categorize a person as ‘‘immoral’’? Should we apply the same standards when talking about a teacher? There have been attempts to identify universal standards for defining the educators’ ‘‘immorality’’, irrespective of community norms. For example, the attempts to engage students in intimate situations, inviting students outside school (to dine with the teacher, for example), approaching inappropriate discussion topics, physical contacts with the students, ordering alcoholic drinks and consuming them in front of students, smoking marijuana in front of students (Fulmer, 2002). Punke (1965, p. 53) has also included the legal meaning of immorality. He has argued that ‘‘the moral code for teachers is more rigid than for people in many vocations’’, because society expects teachers to be models. Labelling teacher behaviour as ‘‘immoral’’ does not lack ambiguities. On the one hand, parents and society expand the list of ‘‘immoral’’ situations involving educators, on the other hand, the latter have the right to protect their individual freedom, privacy. Nevertheless, society requires that teachers display certain special qualities, unlike other professional categories. Another concept which caught our attention is incompetence. Incompetence is difficult to define, just like professional competence. The terminology itself is vague, with several terms being used simultaneously: incompetent teacher, teacher with poor achievements, poor-performance teachers, and marginal teacher. Tucker (1997) argues that incompetence is a concept without any precise technical meaning, and Menuey (2005, p. 320) claims that incompetence has an ‘‘extremely complex and multifaceted definition’’. Nevertheless, it is a phenomenon with multiple implications, as 5–15% of teachers are incompetent, but only 1% of them have their employment contracts terminated (Tucker, 1997, p. 104). For Wheeler and Haertel (1993, p. 70), incompetence is ‘‘failure to perform at a minimally acceptable level’’ for whatever reasons. Investigating the teachers’ perception upon professional incompetence, Menuey (2005) has identified the relevance of several factors contributing to the definition of professional incompetence, relating it to widened professionalism, which covers several categories (managerial, didactic, relational internal and external), without insisting too much upon the ethical aspects (only one factor being connected to the ethical aspects). Raths and Lyman (2003) identify several categories, from poor professional practices to best practices: criminality, malpractice, unethical behaviour, lack of basic skills, teaching incompetence, plain teaching and teaching with best practice. Somehow, the level structure of incompetence determines its contextualization. One may be a very good primary-school teacher, but not as good a highschool teacher, one may integrate very well in one type of school, but not as well in another. However, there are several standards based on which we may argue that deep incompetence may be identified, and the person who displays the respective flaws should not teach, irrespective of the educational cycle, type of school etc. One concept which Poenaru (1992), Poenaru and Sava (1998) and Popovici (2000, p. 99) use is ‘‘didactogeny’’, as a negative effect occurring in the educational process, generated by a certain

behaviour of the teacher, other than the one imposed by the norms. Another key notion is ‘‘mistake’’. Kearney et al. (1991) have conceptualized mistakes as being ‘‘those behaviours which interfere with education and learning’’. Relying on the perceptions of students upon the way in which teachers annoy, demotivate and distract them from learning, Kearney et al. (1991) have identified 28 categories of mistakes, organized into three dimensions, as follows: dimension I—incompetence; dimension II—offensiveness, dimension III—indolence. Lewis and Riley (2009) establish a wider taxonomy of mistakes, reuniting three criteria: the axis commission–omission intercalated with the axis conscious–unconscious and the axis of legality (legal–illegal). Finally, there result eight categories of behaviours (Lewis and Riley, 2009). For the criterion of legality, all teacher misbehaviour could fall into two categories: the misbehaviour either does or does not break the existing law(s) of the land in which it takes place. For the commission–omission axis, commission refers to what teachers do to students that they ought not to, and omission refers to what teachers should but fail to do. These kinds of misbehaviour can be either consciously or unconsciously motivated. The first category, illegal behaviour, includes physical and sexual abuse, as well as financial cheats. The second category, behaviours which do not violate the law, includes an even wider range of manifestations, highly frequent, which affect a larger number of students than those from the first category. Bridges (1974) proposes the concept of teacher failure, with the following typology: technical failure, bureaucratic failure, ethical failure, productive failure, personal failure. Weitz and Vardi (2007) use the concept of organizational misbehaviour (OMB), making an inventory of the terms related to realities tangent to OMB: noncompliant behaviour, workplace deviance, workplace aggression, antisocial behaviour, counterproductive behaviour, noncompliant behaviour etc. Barnett et al. (2007) argue for gradations in counsellor–client relationship boundaries, distinguishing between boundary crossings and boundary violations. Aultman et al. (2009) establish the following categories of limits in the teacher–student relationship: communication boundaries, cultural boundaries, emotional boundaries, personal boundaries, relational boundaries, temporal boundaries, institutional boundaries etc. This theoretical incursion supports in delineating the scope of our investigation. The classifications presented are distinct by the fact that they explain the concept of bad practices from multiple perspectives: (a) By integrating and relating to the teaching activity in general, in terms of a teacher performance scale ranging from good to excellent teaching (Raths and Lyman, 2003). Such a conception may be useful in the activity of evaluating teachers, in developing tools to support this approach. (b) By referring only to bad practices, but in a very detailed, analytical manner (Kearney et al., 1991) or by including several classification criteria (Lewis and Riley, 2009) (type of teacher motivation, manifest behavior, legal implications of the acts performed). Thus, we discover that teachers may commit errors not only trough certain ways of acting, but also through inaction. The similarities between these classifications are few and they are related to the fact that most authors take into account the implications upon students and the evaluation from the juridical point of view of the respective behaviours (Raths and Lyman, 2003; Lewis and Riley, 2009). We have concluded that the teachers’ bad practices are a nuanced and complex phenomenon that can be approached from an organizational (Weitz and Vardi, 2007), psychological (Kearney et al., 1991; Lewis and Riley, 2009), sociopedagogical (Menuey, 2005; Aultman et al., 2009), juridical (Fulmer, 2002; Punke, 1965) perspective. A rigorous conceptual

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

model of teacher professional misconduct should include all the variables mentioned by the authors above: misconduct motivation, the conduct itself, all types of implications—legal, pedagogical, psychological, organizational. This research focuses on disruptive phenomena in the teaching process, falling into the same ‘‘grey area’’ as the ones mentioned above. The central concept of our study is ‘‘teacher unethical practices’’. ‘‘Unethical practices’’ designate those teacher behaviours that do not comply with moral, pedagogical or legal norms. From the perspective of our study, the ethics of the teaching profession approaches the responsibilities of educators towards children and youth. These responsibilities circumscribe the nature of the teaching profession in a particular way and, by practicing it, educators contribute to building an optimal learning environment. We shall further enumerate the main responsibilities of teachers, from the perspective of professional ethics (Ghiat¸a˘u, 2013):  Technical responsibilities, in relation to the teaching process (with the teaching–learning–evaluation and elements involved: objectives, contents, teaching methods, teaching relations etc.). This group forms the basic responsibilities, as they describe the essence of the profession, being associated with the global professional competence. An educator should, first and foremost, prepare and teach effective lessons, making use of proper teaching methods, building appropriate learning situations and complying with the syllabus.  Relational responsibilities, in terms of relations with students. These are a special category, demanding special attention, compared to technical responsibilities. They refer to the human dimension engaged in the teaching process.  Responsibilities in relation to the school institution—these are the set of duties established by laws, statues and regulations.  Responsibilities in relation to parents, the (local, regional) community. In our investigation, we have given special attention to the first two categories of responsibilities. Teaching professional ethics is approached, in our study, as a domain of configuring responsibilities in close connection to the technical, as well as relational aspects of the profession. Thus, it equally comprises preoccupations with the ethics of the relational dimension of work (how I behave with students) and the technical dimensions (my objectives, the teaching contents and methods I chose). The everyday context provides all types of value judgments on ‘‘how teachers should be like’’ and ‘‘what teachers should do’’. Thus, some high-school and university students claim that: ‘‘if the teacher teaches well, I am not interested in how s/he behaves, whether s/he is strict or deviating from certain norms’’. Others claim the opposite: ‘‘the most important thing is that the teacher should have good relationships with the students’’. What is truly important? Teaching as a technical activity or the educational relationship? Our answer is that they are both relevant, from the perspective of professional ethics. Ethics is closely connected to praxeology, the theory of efficient action (Kotarbinski, 1976). For example, making content accessible – as an element of the teaching technique – is both a teaching requirement as well as a requirement of professional ethics. A teacher who does not render teaching intelligible respects neither didactics, as teaching theory, nor professional ethics. For our study, we have opted for our own classification of unethical practices, because we found no classification equally based on the technical and relational dimensions of a teacher’s work, from the perspective of professional ethics. Hence, we were interested not only in the serious behaviour issues, sanctioned by law (Fulmer, 2002; Punke, 1965) or professional incompetence in general (Menuey, 2005), but in ethical incompetence, as a reverse

3

of pedagogically ethical behaviour. The classifications of errors (Kearney et al., 1991; Lewis and Riley, 2009) are comprehensive, but much too technical, and the notion of ‘‘didactogeny’’ (Poenaru and Sava, 1998; Popovici, 2000) refers to the effects of errors upon students and not to the errors themselves. A particular aspect is our concern with unethical teacher behaviour towards students of higher ages (high-school and university students). These clients of the teaching profession have an intellectual, emotional and socio-moral profile different from that of younger students. This psychological profile enables the investigation of their perception upon the teachers’ moral conduct. They are already at the stage of formal-operational thought (Piaget, 1965) and at the postconventional level of moral development (Kohlberg and Gilligan, 1971, pp. 1066–1067): ‘‘The postconventional level is first evident in adolescence and is characterized by a major thrust toward autonomous moral principles which have validity and application apart from authority of the groups or persons who hold them and apart from the individual’s identification with those persons or groups’’. We have defined the concept of unethical practices as a set of situations describing the deviations from several types of norms: didactic norms, relational norms and legal norms. The deviations from didactic norms generate didactic incompetence. Didactic incompetence includes ‘‘unethical teaching practices’’ and ‘‘assessment unethical practices’’. The deviations from relational norms generate relational incompetence (with ‘‘unethical practices related to relationship management’’). The deviations from legal norms designate the serious, legally sanctioned behaviours related to immorality, called unethical practices related to teacher public behaviour). Punctually, our classification of unethical practices includes: (1) ‘‘Unethical teaching practices’’: designating behaviours by means of which the teacher neglects and betrays the ‘‘toughnucleus’’ of the teaching profession. In this case, the teacher does not know how to teach or does not teach properly, because he violates important pedagogical principles: he does not make contents available, does not use appropriate teaching methods, does not follow the logic of sending knowledge. (2) ‘‘Assessment unethical practices’’: include behaviours that reveal the teacher’s poor evaluation culture, characterised by subjectivity and arbitrarily favouring students, based on no relevant criteria. (3) ‘‘Unethical practices related to relationship management and public behaviour’’: refer to inappropriate behaviours of relating to the status of student, ranging from elements of teaching communication (verbal, non-verbal and para-verbal) to dimensions that flagrantly violate or defy professional ethics and even civic conduct. It is a vast category, where we may include the teacher’s indecent language, physical punishment applied to students, accepting bribe etc. Ethical incompetence, as reflection of teacher unethical practices covers, in fact, all these types of manifestations. Obviously, the distinction between the three types of bad practices is purely theoretical, in pedagogical practice the three types are combined and result in certain teacher profiles. 2. The ethics of the teaching profession in Romania It has become commonplace to assert that education has an inherent ethical nature. Being placed in a living field of interpersonal relationships and expected to formulate pedagogical objectives, select contents and teaching–learning–evaluation methods, teachers have to make ethical decisions on a daily basis. What transpires outside from the teachers’ teaching performance

4

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

are not mere cognitive aspects, related to the distributing knowledge and building skills, but also ethical elements, real personal moral theories, elements of the teacher ethos. These subjective theories are provided interpretations and justifications of the decisions taken. Work in education is ethical practice (Ra¨sa¨nen, 2000), because teachers operate with different categories of values, the target audience is vulnerable and the influence possibilities are incomparable with those of other professions. The long intervals of time spent by ‘‘clients’’ in the school institution are also a supportive factor. Not all teachers teach about the social phenomenon of moral or its psychological determination – morality – but each teacher may teach moral (in moral ways). An efficient classroom activity also involves teaching with justice, respect, compassion, dedication, honesty. Moral values are reflected in teaching, in the teaching style. In the last 20 years, the ethics of the teaching profession has become a priority of transnational and national educational polices (Meirieu, 2006). In many countries, there were launched ample debates on the ethical values that should inspire teachers in their work. Nevertheless, the issues of professional ethics in Romanian education have long been ignored, there existing few legal initiatives, educational projects and empirical studies related to the ethics of Romanian education. Poenaru (1992) has achieved vast theoretical incursions in the theme of teaching deontology. Ca˘lin (2001), Cucos¸ (1995, 2002), Popovici (2000), Stan (2004) also approach issues intercorrelated with the domain (ethical code, indoctrination, ideologization, types of authority in the school environment, educational norms etc.). Several Romanian researchers have aimed at studying the relevance of the teacher’s personality variables in relation to the efficiency of the educational process. Mitrofan (1988) presents a series of affective traits (kindness, cheerfulness, generosity, passion, enthusiasm), volitional traits (firmness, boldness, perseverance, intransigence, patience, self-control) and moral traits (unity of word and deed, sense of measure, balance between demand and tolerance, honesty, modesty, fairness). Chis¸ (2001, p. 5) defines the teaching profession in relation to the term of ‘‘competence/competences’’, these being of several types: personal competences, including the moral ones (responsibility, the ability to solve problems, the ability to initiate change, creativity, empathy, tolerance), psycho-pedagogical and methodological competences, such as specialty competences. Macavei (2001) enumerates the professional competences related to the educator’s professional deontology (love for others and the profession, responsibility, honesty, exigency and self-exigency, consistency, firmness, verticality), but also the meta-communication competences (positive thought, personal charm, disposition to humour). Poenaru and Sava (1998) have built a useful tool for diagnosing didactogenicity, called the ‘‘Scale for Estimating the Didactogenic Potential’’. It was only in 2005 that there was launched, for the first time in the post-communist era, a vast debate on the theme of ‘‘Ethics in universities’’, that constituted the basis for a law project regarding the establishment of ethical codes in higher educational institutions. In 2014, there was elaborated the Code of ethics for pre-university education. Despite these positive signals, most Romanian teachers start their career with very few systematic knowledge of pedagogical ethics, because an official course on ethics is yet not part of the curricula for the initial training of teachers in Romania. The sociological research at the basis of the project Ethics in universities (Miroiu et al., 2005a, 2005b) revealed the most relevant ethical problems at the level of the entire sample— students, teachers, leading staff, doctoral candidates, secretary staff. The hierarchy of issues is the following: favouritism, sexual harassment on the hierarchical line, erotic relationships between teachers and students, clique-like relationships at the level of

universities (friendship, business, relatives), the politicization of university education, the use of offensive language by teachers, violation of equal chances in employment, failure to inform students in due time. The cluster analysis, conducted for each of the five groups, highlighted three categories of institutional actors: (1) passive actors—persons who answered most of the factual questions by ‘‘I do not know, I do not care’’; (2) satisfied actors— persons who answered most of the questions by highly desirable answers of the type: ‘‘there were never delays in communicating results to students’’, ‘‘we know no case of plagiarism’’, ‘‘there is no teacher outdated in terms of the information transmitted’’, ‘‘there is no case of favouritism’’ etc.; (3) critical actors—persons who mentioned cases of deviations from the ethical code and who are concerned in relation to the ethical normativity in the academic institutions where they conduct their activity. We also highlighted the fact that there is a rich mass-media rhetoric regarding teacher professional conduct. It is often stated that Romanian teachers are very demanding, use outdated teaching methods, apply unjust evaluation, are corrupt etc. 3. Aims The global aim of the present research is to investigate the perceptions of the beneficiaries of the educational action (highschool and university students) upon the bad practices of teachers. Other studies have also focused on the relevance of the beneficiaries’ perceptions. Thus, Braxton et al. (2002) believe that undergraduate college students bear the primary responsibility for detecting teaching misconduct by faculty members, given that they directly observe faculty teaching behaviours. To better understand how students perceive unethical practices of teachers, we have explored the following research questions: 1. What is the perception of Romanian students on the percentage/ weight of unethical practices by comparison with proper pedagogical practices from the teachers’ professional conduct? 2. What is the perception of Romanian students on the hierarchy of unethical practices indicators? Which unethical practices are most frequent, which are average and which are least frequent? 3. What are the differences between perceptions according to a series of variables (the level of education—high-school or faculty, the subjects’ gender and their residential status?). The specific purposes of our research are: 1. To investigate the perceptions of Romanian students on the percentage of unethical practices by comparison with proper pedagogical practices; 2. To analyse the students’ perception upon the hierarchy of unethical practices of teachers; 3. To draw comparisons between the perceptions on unethical practices according to three variables (group, gender and residential status). 4. Methodology 4.1. Participants The participants in this study were 452 Romanian students (272 university students and 180 high-school students). The university students were in the second and third year (21–22 years of age) at two public universities from the North-Eastern region of Romania. One of the universities is among the greatest in Romania, totalling more than 24,000 students. The high-school students involved in the research attend the best high-schools from the two cities, many of the high-school graduates being future students of

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

5

Table 1 Percentage averages of unethical practices in the teachers’ professional conduct. Levels of moral behaviour

For the whole group

For university students

For high-school students

For students with urban residence

For students with rural residence

For female students

For the males students

Models of moral behaviour Appropriate morality Questionable morality

36.73 39.02 24.32

40.10 38.04 21.96

31.51 40.54 27.97

35.32 39.75 24.89

40.13 37.25 22.93

38.46 38.43 23.36

32.15 40.37 27.32

the two universities. This aspect enables the comparison between the two groups of students. The high-school students were in their final high-school year, at theoretical or vocational educational institutions and were 17–18 years of age. There were 318 subjects with urban residence and 134 subjects with rural residence, 125 subjects belonging to the masculine gender and 327 subjects to the feminine gender. 4.2. Instruments and measures We have applied the method of the questionnaire-based inquiry. The questionnaire was particularly designed so as to meet the aims of our research. Questionnaires were administered in paper-and-pencil format, with instructions given in writing. Approximately 500 instruments were applied during the investigation, but those missing relevant biographic information or containing incomplete data were excluded from further analysis. Participation in the research project was entirely voluntary and guaranteed anonymity. Due to the special deontological issues raised by the research, we have eliminated the variables which pointed to a very exact localization of the respondents, so that the questionnaires did not ask for information of the type ‘‘the school you are attending’’ (the questionnaires for the high-school students). Informed consent has been obtained from students volunteering to provide the requested information, and anonymity of their answers has been guaranteed by the researcher. The questionnaire is composed of two sections. The first section contains demographic questions. Section two includes 14 items for evaluating perceptions of unethical practices in teaching. In the first part of the questionnaire, we formulated one open question regarding the overall appreciation of the weight of unethical practices in the teachers’ professional behaviour: ‘‘Among all the teachers I have met throughout my education, from the first grade until now, how many could be considered: (1) Models of moral behaviour (2) With appropriate morality? (3) Of questionable morality? (for each category, provide an evaluation in percentages, so that the total sum may be 100%)’’. In order to evaluate several dimensions of unethical practices, the subjects were supposed to rank 13 behaviours on a Likert Scale 1–7, according to frequency (1 very rarely–7 very frequently). The concept of unethical practices was operationalized into several categories of indicators: indicators of teaching practices, assessment practices indicators, indicators of relationship management and teacher public behaviour. Each indicator was particularized by means of several behaviours. We shall further present the list of behaviours that students were asked to evaluate. For indicators of relationship management, there were seven behaviours: use of offensive, humiliating language; acceptance of different favours and bribery; implicit and explicit threats against students; maintaining an atmosphere of conflict with students; resort to physical force by teachers; indecent proposals and sexual harassment; activities under the influence of alcohol. For indicators of teaching practices, there were five behaviours: excessive severity in formulating requirements; use of inappropriate teaching methods; incorrect transmission of scientific information; teaching outdated knowledge; political propaganda activities in class. For indicators of evaluation practices, we have described one behaviour: favouritism, discrimination in assessment.

The operationalization of the indicators of unethical practices responds to several exigencies of our research: 1. The indicators correspond to our frame of understanding the educators’ professional ethics, as a description of technical and relational responsibilities. 2. The indicators reflect the Romanian context of analysing the work of educators. 3. The indicators may be easily understood by the respondents of our research (high-school and university students). 4.3. Statistical analyses All the statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 for Windows. The open question was calculated with frequencies of occurrence per relevant category. We calculated descriptive statistics for all the close-ended questions. Friedman non-parametric test was used to compare ranks within dependent variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare mean differences among the 13 indicators of unethical practices. 5. Results 5.1. Appreciation of the percentage of unethical practices in the teachers’ professional conduct As shown in Table 1, the percentage average for teacher questionable morality is between 21.96 (for university students) and 27.97 (for high-school students). Table 1 shows the percentages also in relation to other variables: residential status and gender (Table 2). 5.2. Analysis of the perception of the students upon the unethical practices of teachers We have applied the non-parametric Friedman test, first globally (for both high-school students and university students) and then for each separate group. The results for the whole group

Table 2 Friedman test results for comparing the frequency of the situations highlighted by the whole group. Unethical practices

Ranks average

Friedman test results

Favouritism, discrimination in assessment Excessive severity in formulating requirements Use of inappropriate teaching methods Incorrect transmission of scientific information Teaching outdated knowledge Use of offensive humiliating language Acceptance of different favours and bribery Explicit and implicit threats against students Maintaining an atmosphere of conflict with students Political propaganda activities in class Activities under the influence of alcohol Indecent proposals and sexual harassment Resort to physical force

10.78 9.23 8.66 8.26 8.16 8.06 7.23 6.94 5.85

x2 (12) = 1913.682 p = 0.000

5.30 4.23 4.17 4.13

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

6

Table 3 Friedman test results for comparing the frequency of the situations highlighted by the high-school students.

Table 4 Friedman test results for comparing the frequency of the situations highlighted by the university students.

Unethical practices

Ranks average

Friedman test results

Situations

Ranks average

Friedman test results

Favouritism, discrimination in assessment Use of offensive, humiliating language Use of inappropriate teaching methods Excessive severity in formulating requirements Incorrect transmission of scientific information Teaching outdated knowledge Formulation of explicit and implicit threats Acceptance of different favours and bribery Creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict Political propaganda activities Resort to physical force Activities under the influence of alcohol Indecent proposals and sexual harassment of students

10.70 9.29 8.71 8.70 7.91 7.82 7.59 7.34 6.11 4.80 4.17 3.96 3.80

x2 (12) = 785.979 p = 0.000

Favouritism, discrimination in assessment Excessive severity in formulating requirements Use of inappropriate teaching methods Incorrect transmission of scientific information Teaching outdated knowledge Use of offensive, humiliating language Acceptance of different favours and bribery Explicit and implicit threats Creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict Political propaganda activities Indecent proposals and sexual harassment Activities under the influence of alcohol Resort to physical force

10.83 9.57 8.62 8.48 8.38 7.18 7.16 6.52 5.68 5.63 4.42 4.41 4.09

x2 (12) =

have shown significant differences between the situations enumerated in terms of the frequency of their occurrence [x2(12) = 1913.682 p < 0.05], meaning that favouritisms and discriminations in assessment are appreciated as the most frequent compared to the other ones. The results for high-school students have revealed relevant differences among the enumerated situations in terms of their frequency of occurrence [x2(12) = 785.979 p < 0.05], meaning that favouritisms and discriminations in assessment are appreciated as the most frequent compared to the others (Table 3). The results for university students revealed relevant differences among the enumerated situations in terms of their frequency of occurrence [x2(12) = 1204.239 p < 0.05], meaning that favouritisms and discriminations in assessment are appreciated as the most frequent compared to the others (Table 4). 5.3. Comparison between the perceptions of high-school and undergraduate students regarding unethical practices In order to compare the perceptions of the two groups of students upon unethical practices, a MANOVA test was applied to examine the differences in the 13 indicators of unethical behaviours between high-school and undergraduate students. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (Wilk’s Lambda) 0.76, h2 = 0.24, F = 10.11, p < 0.001). The

1204.23 p = 0.000

follow-up comparison of each indicator of unethical behaviour between the two groups of students is shown in Table 5. According to Table 5, the perceptions upon the indicators were significantly different for the ‘‘incorrect transmission of scientific information’’ (F = 12.74, p < 0.001), ‘‘teaching outdated knowledge’’ (F = 18.43, p < 0.001), ‘‘favouritism, discrimination in assessment’’ (F = 24.26, p < 0.001), ‘‘use of offensive, humiliating language’’ (F = 111.70, p < 0.001), ‘‘explicit and implicit threats’’ (F = 35.50, p < 0.001), ‘‘resort to physical force’’ (F = 32.17, p < 0.001), ‘‘use of inappropriate teaching methods’’ (F = 33.82, p < 0.001), ‘‘creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict’’ (F = 41.30, p < 0.001), ‘‘political propaganda activities’’ (F = 6.19, p < 0.05), ‘‘acceptance of different favours and bribery’’ (F = 24.41, p < 0.001), ‘‘excessive severity in formulating requirements’’ (F = 4.55, p < 0.001), ‘‘activities under the influence of alcohol’’ (F = 16.07, p < 0.001) and ‘‘indecent proposals and sexual harassment’’ (F = 11.34, p < 0.01). Among the abovementioned dimensions, the high-school students outperformed the undergraduate students. In other words, highschool students were more likely to believe that unethical practices were more frequent, compared to undergraduate students. 5.4. Comparison between the perceptions of male and female students regarding unethical practices In order to compare the perceptions of the two groups of students upon unethical practices, a MANOVA test was applied to

Table 5 Follow-up ANOVA analyses of the MANOVA test on each indicator of unethical practices between students’ groups. UP indicator

High school (n = 174) (mean, S.D.)

University (n = 265) (mean, S.D.)

F (ANOVA)

h2

Results

IT OK FD HL TH PF IM CO PO FB SE AI PH

3.09 3.18 4.64 3.84 3.05 1.75 3.45 2.45 1.99 3.03 3.50 1.70 1.61

2.59 2.54 3.77 2.19 2.02 1.22 2.62 1.69 1.69 2.22 3.15 1.31 1.29

12.74*** 18.43*** 24.26*** 111.70*** 35.50*** 32.17*** 33.82*** 41.30*** 6.19* 24.41*** 4.55*** 16.07*** 11.34**

0.028 0.040 0.053 0.204 0.075 0.069 0.072 0.086 0.014 0.053 0.010 0.035 0.025

High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-scool students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students High-school students > undergraduate students

(1.47) (1.70) (1.84) (1.82) (1.70) (1.25) (1.60) (1.44) (1.36) (1.88) (1.72) (1.25) (1.25)

(1.40) (1.41) (1.79) (1.44) (1.82) (0.70) (1.37) (1.04) (1.11) (1.57) (1.68) (0.77) (0.77)

Note: UP, unethical practice; IT, incorrect transmission of scientific information; OK teaching outdated knowledge; FD, favouritism, discrimination in assessment; HL, use of offensive, humiliating language; TH, explicit and implicit threats; PF, resort to physical force; IM, use of inappropriate teaching methods; CO, creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict; PO, political propaganda activities; FB, acceptance of different favours and bribery; SE, excessive severity in formulating requirements; AI, activities under the influence of alcohol; PH, indecent proposals and sexual harassment. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

7

Table 6 Follow-up ANOVA analyses of MANOVA test on each indicator of unethical practices between gender groups. UP indicator

Male (n = 121) (mean, S.D.)

Female (n = 318) (mean, S.D.)

F (ANOVA)

h2

Results

IT OK FD HL TH PF IM CO PO FB SE AI PH

3.05 3.24 4.19 3.55 3.12 1.74 3.31 2.50 2.07 2.80 3.38 1.83 1.74

2.69 2.62 4.09 2.58 2.16 1.31 2.81 1.80 1.71 2.44 3.25 1.32 1.30

5.60* 14.21*** 0.25 26.80*** 25.05*** 16.74*** 9.97** 28.67*** 7.42** 3.78 0.50 24.21*** 18.35***

0.013 0.031 0.001 0.058 0.054 0.037 0.022 0.062 0.017 0.009 0.001 0.052 0.040

Masculine gender > feminine gender M>F

(1.49) (1.79) (1.95) (1.96) (1.87) (1.35) (1.63) (1.60) (1.49) (1.98) (1.71) (1.40) (1.36)

(1.42) (1.44) (1.82) (1.65) (1.77) (0.78) (1.45) (1.05) (1.09) (1.64) (1.70) (0.76) (0.79)

M>F M>F M>F M>F M>F M>F

M>F M>F

Note: UP, unethical practice; IT, incorrect transmission of scientific information; OK teaching outdated knowledge; FD, favouritism, discrimination in assessment; HL, use of offensive, humiliating language; TH, explicit and implicit threats; PF, resort to physical force; IM, use of inappropriate teaching methods; CO, creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict; PO, political propaganda activities; FB, acceptance of different favours and bribery; SE, excessive severity in formulating requirements; AI, activities under the influence of alcohol; PH, indecent proposals and sexual harassment. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

examine the differences in the 13 indicators of unethical behaviours between male and female students. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (Wilk’s Lambda) 0.87, h2 = 0.13, F = 4.87, p < 0.001). The follow-up comparison of each indicator of unethical behaviour between the two groups of students are shown in Table 6. According to Table 6, the perceptions upon the indicators were significantly different for the ‘‘incorrect transmission of scientific information’’ (F = 5.60, p < 0.05), ‘‘teaching outdated knowledge’’ (F = 14.21, p < 0.001), ‘‘use of offensive, humiliating language’’ (F = 26.80, p < 0.001), ‘‘explicit and implicit threats’’ (F = 25.05, p < 0.001), ‘‘resort to physical force’’ (F = 16.74, p < 0.001), ‘‘use of inappropriate teaching methods’’ (F = 9.97, p < 0.01), ‘‘creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict’’ (F = 28.67, p < 0.001), ‘‘political propaganda activities’’ (F = 7.42, p < 0.05), ‘‘activities under the influence of alcohol’’ (F = 24.21, p < 0.001) and ‘‘indecent proposals and sexual harassment’’ (F = 18.35, p < 0.01). Among the abovementioned dimensions, the male students outperformed the female students. In other words, male students were more likely to believe that unethical practices were more frequent, compared to female students.

5.5. Comparison between the perceptions of urban and rural students regarding unethical practices In order to compare the perceptions of the two groups of students upon unethical practices, a MANOVA test was applied to examine the differences in the 13 indicators of unethical behaviours between urban and rural students. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (Wilk’s Lambda) 0.94, h2 = 0.06, F = 1.98, p < 0.05). The follow-up comparisons of each indicator of unethical behaviour between the two groups of students are shown in Table 7. According to Table 7, the perceptions upon the indicators were significantly different for ‘‘teaching outdated knowledge’’ (F = 5.83, p < 0.05), ‘‘favouritism, discrimination in assessment’’ (F = 5.19, p < 0.05), ‘‘use of offensive, humiliating language’’ (F = 19.64, p < 0.001), ‘‘explicit and implicit threats’’ (F = 14.21, p < 0.001), ‘‘item 6 resort to physical force’’ (F = 8.43, p < 0.01), ‘‘item 7 use of inappropriate teaching methods’’ (F = 7.25, p < 0.01), ‘‘item 8 creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict’’ (F = 10.48, p < 0.01), ‘‘item 12 activities under the influence of alcohol’’ (F = 5.04, p < 0.05) and ‘‘item

Table 7 Follow-up ANOVA analyses of MANOVA test on each indicator of unethical practices between places of residence groups. UP indicator

Urban (n = 313) (mean, S.D.)

Rural (n = 126) (mean, S.D.)

F (ANOVA)

h2

IT OK FD HL TH PF IM CO PO FB SE AI PH

2.86 2.90 4.25 3.08 2.64 1.51 3.07 2.12 1.88 2.64 3.34 1.53 1.50

2.60 2.51 3.80 2.26 1.91 1.21 2.64 1.69 1.64 2.29 3.15 1.29 1.22

2.83 5.83* 5.19* 19.64*** 14.21*** 8.43** 7.25** 10.48** 3.38 3.77 1.13 5.04* 6.96**

0.006 0.013 0.012 0.043 0.031 0.019 0.016 0.023 0.008 0.009 0.003 0.011 0.016

(1.48) (1.60) (1.90) (1.88) (2.01) (1.07) (1.53) (1.32) (1.27) (1.82) (1.70) (1.09) (1.10)

(1.35) (1.44) (1.70) (1.42) (1.20) (0.70) (1.45) (1.06) (1.06) (1.53) (1.69) (0.72) (0.64)

Results

Urban residence > rural residence U>R U>R U>R U>R U>R U>R

U>R U>R

Note: UP, unethical practice; IT, incorrect transmission of scientific information; OK teaching outdated knowledge; FD, favouritism, discrimination in assessment; HL, use of offensive, humiliating language; TH, explicit and implicit threats; PF, resort to physical force; IM, use of inappropriate teaching methods; CO, creating and maintaining an atmosphere of conflict; PO, political propaganda activities; FB, acceptance of different favours and bribery; SE, excessive severity in formulating requirements; AI, activities under the influence of alcohol; PH, indecent proposals and sexual harassment. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

8

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

13 indecent proposals and sexual harassment’’ (F = 6.96, p < 0.05). Among the abovementioned dimensions, the rural students outperformed the rural students. In other words, urban students were more likely to believe that unethical practices were more frequent, compared to rural students. 6. Discussions and conclusions Obviously, the evaluation of the teachers’ ethical behaviour is very complex. We cannot issue value judgments in relation to the teachers’ behaviour based on the evaluation of the learners’ perceptions. It is known that ‘‘the map is not the territory, the image does not lap over the reality’’. Any analysis of perceptions should be interpreted with precaution and avoid hasty generalizations, particularly due to the fact that it is an analysis applied through beneficiaries. In a research on duplicity, Iosifescu (2004) highlighted the fact that most high-school students had not understood correctly the relation between duplicity and moral norms. However, this study supports in generating several conclusions: The first conclusion is that the Romanian respondents’ perception regarding the evaluation of their teachers’ morality is quite critical. The table with the percentage averages shows the fact that 21–28% of Romanian teachers are appreciated as having a questionable morality, which is a relevant percentage. These results are in line with the findings of Jiga˘u et al. (2006). Their research, also conducted in Romania, revealed the fact that the percentage of middle-school students indicating the presence of inappropriate teacher behaviour was also above 20%. This is quite a high percentage, also supported by other studies (McPherson et al., 2003; Boice, 1996). How should we interpret and understand these results? A contextual analysis of the status of the Romanian teacher is revealing. Historically, during the inter-war and communist era, teachers enjoyed the respect of the community. Traditionally, in the rural communities, only priests and teachers would be cultivated. During the post-communist era, the teacher’s social image suffered essential transformations. Gradually, wages decreased and many dedicated teachers left teaching for other occupations. It is estimated that in the last 15 years, the number of persons leaving public education is approximated at more than 65,000. Neculau and Boncu (1998, p. 255) claimed that: ‘‘The teacher’s social status in contemporary society seems to be the status of the middle class. The occupation of teacher is neither among the most demanding nor among the most avoided ones. Intellectual, respected profession, it grants the performer neither power, nor influence or higher income’’. The deterioration of the status of teachers continues nowadays, and the causes are multiple: economic, cultural, and pedagogical. The OECD Teaching and Learning International Study TALIS (2013) shows that the demand for qualified teachers in Romania is 58.1%, compared to the international average of 38.4%, the weight of poor or inappropriate teaching materials is 77.1% in Romania, compared to the international average of 26.3%, the weight of poor or inappropriate library resources is 66.6%, compared to the international average of 29.3%. The media has circulated a wide casuistry of pre-university of university teachers who have violated professional norms. Cases of corruption, trafficking baccalaureate and graduation diplomas, plagiarism, teachers physically and verbally abusing students, teachers accepting bribe are constantly in the public eye. All these have triggered no consequences. Today, parents and students no longer trust the Romanian educational system. Despite the existing ethical infrastructure (university ethical codes, the Teachers’ Code of Ethics in Pre-university Education, the establishment of the National Ethical Committee for Pre-university Teachers and of several regional ethics committees as of 2015), the situation has not improved.

The second conclusion is that irrespective of the variable (group, gender, residential status), the hierarchy established through the Friedman test is accurate enough: the subjects’ perception is that the most frequently violated norms are the pedagogical ones (assessment and teaching), followed by the relational and then by serious legal norms. The order of the indicators is: (1) indicators of assessment practices; (2) indicators of teaching practices; (3) indicators of relationship management and public behaviour. Briefly, the Romanian learners question, first and foremost, the way of assessing knowledge, feeling overwhelmed by the volume of work and the teachers’ severity. The first positions are occupied by the technical aspects of the process (favouritism in assessment, severity and inappropriate teaching methods). These results are in line with the findings of Friedman et al. (2005), who have also highlighted the fact that the most important factor in determining whether or not a professor is ethical is ‘‘fairness in grading’’. In contrast, highlighted as less frequent, are the issues related to immoral behaviour (sexual harassment, drinking alcohol) and a relational parameter (the use of physical force). It is a positive aspect the fact that the violation of legal norms, which falls within criminal law, is perceived as less frequent. Except the answers from the group of students, the item ‘‘use of physical force by teachers in their relationships with students’’ is the last in the hierarchy for all the categories, the item related to sexual harassment also occupying the final positions. For high-school students, the ‘‘use of offensive, humiliating language’’ is ranked second in the hierarchy of teachers’ unethical practices. These results are similar with a conclusion of the study Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for Romania (Martin et al., 2000), in which students indicated the fact that intimidation or verbal abuse is one of the serious issues with which they are faced at school. According to other studies, students have pointed out behaviours indicative of deviations from pedagogical norms. Based on the gravity of the displayed behaviour, these norms have been categorized as admonitory norms and inviolable norms (Braxton and Bayer, 1999). Serious misbehaviour implies the violation of inviolable norms and severe sanctions, whereas admonitory norms apply to disapproved, but less severe misbehaviour. The inviolable normative behaviours include the following: condescending negativism, inattentive planning, moral turpitude, particularistic grading, personal disregard, uncommunicated course detail and uncooperative cynicism. The admonitory normative behaviours include the following: advisement negligence, authoritarian classroom, inadequate communication, inadequate course design, inconvenience avoidance, instructional narrowness, insufficient syllabus, teaching secrecy, and undermining colleagues (Braxton and Bayer, 1999). Irrespective of the variable (group, gender, environment), the first indicator highlighted by all the respondents is that of assessment practices (favouritism, discrimination). Evaluation is the blind spot for all the respondents. Why this focus on evaluation? Let us take a look at the Romanian evaluation system. Compared to the curriculum changes (curricula, discipline syllabi) occurring once in 10–12 years, evaluation has been a much too often adjusted element. Teachers and students live a continuous reform of evaluation, every years brings new modifications. For example, the Baccalaureate methodology has changed at least 6 times in the last 10 years, there were introduced simulations/ piloting for the relevant exams, certain local evaluations have been turned into national exams, the students’ initial evaluation (from the beginning of the school year) is compulsory and has a standard format. The Education law (2011) also stipulates transdisciplinary evaluations for students, once every two years. A Minister’s project from 2008 proposed that teachers should be paid according to the

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

students’ class performances. The initiative was immediately abandoned, because it generated huge protest waves. The appreciations of the performances of Romanian students above the age of eleven is materialized in grades from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. Primary-school students are given marks. As of very young ages, students are assaulted by summative assessments and non-formal competitions of mathematics or maternal language. In the urban residence, many good public schools apply a selection of 11-year-old students, which is a rarity in Europe and in the world. The grades obtained in middle school have crucial relevance in the admission to the following educational cycle (high-school, college). This is why the pressure on students and teachers is huge. It is not difficult to understand the students’ attitude, who turn into ‘‘grade hunters’’, to the detriment of authentic learning. A higher grade is the ‘passport’ to the aimed school or university. To achieve this goal, some students resort to dishonest methods: plagiarism when doing homework, copying at classroom tests and whenever possible. There often occur behaviours of contesting the teacher’s evaluative judgment: ‘‘This is my grade? It is too low!’’. The focalization of the perception of the respondents from our study on favouritism and discrimination in assessment reveals two aspects: one aspect reflects their contesting logic, within the described general context; another aspect signals a real serious problem of the Romanian educational system that struggles in vain to build its legitimacy. On paper, the evaluation reform is complete: the evaluation of knowledge has been turned into the evaluation of competences, the evaluation methods and techniques have been diversified, there exist new types of evaluation—integrated, transdisciplinary evaluation. In reality, teachers and students do not experience the benefits of the adopted educational policies. The third conclusion, resulted from the MANOVA tests, highlights the fact that high-school students are more critical than university students, boys are more critical than girls and those with urban residence are more critical than those with rural residence, in terms of appreciating the morality of their teachers. The possible explanations of the more critical attitude of highschool students could be the following: 1. Students feel overwhelmed by large amounts of homework and overloaded curriculum, without formative finality; In a report of TIMSS (1999), Romanian students declared that they are assigned the largest amounts of homework in the world at Mathematics. 2. Students feel constantly ‘‘threatened’’ by national exams, which have turned into ‘no. 1 scarecrow’ for them. In the last three years, due to anti-fraud measures, the marks from the baccalaureate exam have dropped significantly, whereas revolt among the students has increased. Unlike high-school students, university students do not experience the same pressure, as exams are rarer and learner autonomy is enhanced. Although there are no similar studies in Romania, the results related to the gender variable are similar to the results obtained by Friedman et al. (2005), who also found relevant statistical differences between the perceptions of male and female students regarding the teachers’ lack of ethics. The results of our research do not apply to all school systems and teachers. They cannot be generalized, being valid only for the North-Eastern region of Romania. A national survey, involving a larger sample, would be timely as a continuation of our study. A useful question is whether the students’ judgments may fuel the building of educational policies. Detert et al. (2001) present a series of arguments revealing the importance of the school’s culture in implementing the process of enhancing

9

school quality. School reformers should take into consideration not only the set of values of the decision factors related to a certain culture, but also the way in which the students’ individual values align with the dominant values of the school community. The purpose of this paper was to investigate the perceptions of beneficiaries, high-school and university students, on some of the undesirable teacher behaviours and practices. It is probably unrealistic to think that these bad behaviours could be totally avoided. Teaching is a complicated and demanding activity that requires attention in terms of several aspects: relationships, objectives, contents, evaluation. Any teacher may experience moments of dissipation, of sliding towards questionable areas. Nevertheless, ethical conduct may be improved, shaped if proper measures are taken. In Romania, educational policymakers should urge the compulsory introduction of modules on pedagogical ethics in the teachers’ initial training, since previous studies (Nash, 1991) show that the teachers’ personal morality is not enough to approach professional ethics issues. Sherman (2013) also believes that teacher preparation is an inspirational practice. Finally, we may say that the profile of a good educator comprises a set of skills and attitudes interwoven with strong moral and pedagogical qualities. Unethical practices designate several categories of behaviours: technical behaviours, related to the teacher’s manner of teaching and evaluating, behaviours related to the relational dimension. Both didactic and relational incompetence have ethical implications. We agree with Clark (1991), who has stated that ‘‘good teaching is morally good and bad teaching is morally bad’’. Didactic excellence demands from teachers a profound moral conception, which is in relation to their methods and styles (Osguthorpe, 2008). Didactic professionalism involves interconnecting contents and methods in a moral manner of transmission.

References Aultman, L.P., Williams-Johnson, M.R., Schutz, P.A., 2009. Boundary dilemmas in teacher–student relationships: struggling with ‘‘the line’’. Teach. Teach. Edu. 25, 636–646. Balica, M., Fartus¸nic, C., Liiceanu, A., Ma˘rut¸escu, A., Sa˘ucan, D., Voinea, L., 2006. In: Jiga˘u, M. (Ed.), Prevenirea s¸i combaterea violent¸ei ˆın s¸coala˘. Ghid practic pentru directori s¸i cadre didactice. (Preventing and Controlling Violence in School. A Practical Guide for Managers and Teachers). Alpha MDN, Buza˘u. Barnett, J.E., Lazarus, A.A., Vasquez, M.T., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., Johnson, W.B., 2007. Focus on ethics. Prof. Psychol.: Res. Pract. 38 (4), 401–410. Boice, B., 1996. Classroom incivilities. Res. High. Educ. 37 (4), 453–485. Braxton, J.M., Bayer, A.E., 1999. Faculty Misconduct in Collegiate Teaching Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Braxton, J.M., Bayer, A.E., Noseworthy, J.A., 2002. Students as tenuous agents of social control of professorial misconduct. Peabody J. Educ. 77 (3), 101–124. Bridges, E.M., 1974. Faculty evaluation: a critique and a proposal. Admin. Noteb. 22 (6), 1–4. Bulai, A., Cutas¸, D., Andreescu, I., Ion, D., 2005b. In: Miroiu, M. (Ed.), Etica ˆın universita˘t¸i—Cum este s¸i cum ar trebui sa˘ fie: Cercetare s¸i Cod. (Ethics in Universities—How it is and How it Should be: Research and Code). The Minister of Education and Research, Retrieved from hhttp://www. edu. ro/ index. Phpi Ca˘lin, M., 1996. Teoria educat¸iei (Education Theory). ALL, Bucharest. Ca˘lin, M., 2001. Filosofia educat¸iei (Education Philosophy). Aramis, Bucures¸ti. Cerghit, I., 1992. In: Cerghit, I., Radu, I.T., Popescu, E., Vla˘sceanu, L. (Eds.), Principiile procesului de ˆınva˘t¸a˘maˆnt (didactice). (The Principles of the Educational Process, Didactica[[nl]]Didactics). E.D.P., Bucures¸ti. Chis¸, V., 2001. Activitatea profesorului ˆıntre curriculum s¸i evaluare (Teacher Activity between Curriculum and Assessment). Cluj University Press, ClujNapoca. Clark, C.M., 1991. Educating the good teacher. In: Keynote Address Presented at The Fifth Conference of the International Study Association on Teacher Thinking, 23–27 September 1991, Guildford. Cucos¸, C., 1995. Pedagogie s¸i axiologie (Pedagogy and Axiology). E.D.P., R.A., Bucures¸ti. Cucos¸, C., 2002. Pedagogie (Pedagogy). Polirom, Ias¸i. Detert, J.R., Louis, K.S., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. A culture framework for education: defining quality values and their impact in U.S. high schools. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 12, 183–212.

10

R.M. Ghiat¸a˘u, L. Maˆt¸a˘ / International Journal of Educational Development 44 (2015) 1–10

Friedman, H.H., Fogel, J., Friedman, L.W., 2005. Student perceptions of the ethics of professors. EJBO Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 10 (2), 10–15. Fulmer, J.R., 2002. Dismissing the ‘‘immoral’’ teacher for conduct outside the workplace—do current laws protect the interests of both school authorities and teachers? J. Law Educ. 31 (3), 271–278. Ghiat¸a˘u, R., 2013. Etica profesiei didactice (Ethics for the Teaching Profession). ‘‘Al. I. Cuza’’ University Publishing House, Ias¸i. Kohlberg, L., Gilligan, C., 1971. The adolescent as a philosopher: the discovery of the self in a postconventional world. Daedalus 100 (4), 1051–1086. Kotarbinski, T., 1976. Tratat despre lucrul bine fa˘cut (Treatise on Well Done Work). Politics Publisher, Bucures¸ti. Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., Hays, E.R., Ivey, M.J., 1991. College teacher misbehaviors: what students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Commun. Q. 39, 309–324. Lewis, R., Riley, P., 2009. Teacher misbehaviour. In: Saha, L.J., Dworkin, A.G. (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, New York, pp. 417–431. Iosifescu, V., 2004. Duplicitate s¸i educat¸ie morala˘ (Duplicity and Moral Education). Aramis, Bucures¸ti. Macavei, E., 2001. Pedagogie: teoria educat¸iei (Pedagogy: Education Theory). Aramis Print, Bucures¸ti. Martin, M.O., Gregory, K.D., Stemler, S.E., 2000. TIMSS 1999 Technical Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Boston College, Chestnut Hill. McPherson, Mary, B., Kearney, Patricia, Plax, Timothy, G., 2003. The dark side of instruction: teacher anger as classroom norm violations. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 31 (1), 76–90. Meirieu, Ph., 2006. L’e´ducation et le roˆle des enseignants a` l’horizon 2020: quels de´fis et quelles conse´quences pour les politiques de l’UNESCO? Retrieved from hhttp://www.barbier-rd.nom.fr/educroleenseig.1.PDFi Menuey, B.P., 2005. Teachers’ perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. J. Pers. Eval. Educ. 18, 309–325. Miroiu, M., Cutas¸, D., Andreescu, L., 2005a. Cod etic pentru universita˘t¸i: proiect (Code of Ethics for Universities: Project). Retrieved from hhttp:// www.politice.ro/proiecte/eticauniv.pdfi Mitrofan, N., 1988. Aptitudinea pedagogic (Pedagogical Skill). The Academy Publishing House, Bucures¸ti. Nash, R.J., 1991. Three conceptions of ethics for teacher educators. J. Teach. Educ. 42 (3), 163–172. Neculau, A., Boncu, S¸t., 1998. Dimensiuni psihosociale ale activita˘t¸ii profesorului.(Psychosocial dimensions of teacher activity). In: Cosmovici, A.,

Iacob, L. (Eds.), Psihologie s¸colara˘. (School Psychology). Polirom, Ias¸i, pp. 255–271. Osguthorpe, R.D., 2008. On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and moral character. J. Teach. Educ. 59 (4), 288–299. Perrenoud, P., 1996. L’e´valuation des enseignants: entre une impossible obligation de re´sultats et une ste´rile obligation de procedure. E´ducateur 10, 24–30. Piaget, J., 1965. Psihologia inteligent¸ei (Intelligence Psychology). Scientific Publishing House, Bucures¸ti. Poenaru, R., Sava, F., 1998. Didactogenia ˆın s¸coala˘. Aspecte deontologice, psihologice s¸i pedagogice. (Didactogenicity in School. Deontological, Psychological and Pedagogical Issues). Danubius, Bucures¸ti. Poenaru, R., 1992. Deontologie generala˘. Substant¸a ideii. (General Deontology. Idea Essence). Erasm, Timis¸oara. Popovici, D., 2000. Didactica—solut¸ii noi la probleme controversate (Didactics— New Solutions to Controversial Issues). Aramis, Bucures¸ti. Raths, J., Lyman, F., 2003. Summative evaluation of student teachers: an enduring problem. J. Teach. Educ. 54 (3), 206–216. Punke, H., 1965. Immorality as ground for teacher dismissal. NASSP Bull. 49, 53– 69. Ra¨sa¨nen, R., 2000. Ethics, education and teacher education. In: Kumpulainen, K. (Ed.), In Search of Powerful Learning Environments for Teachers Education in the 21st Century. Oulu University Press, Oulu, Retrieved from hhttp:// herkules. oulu.fi/isbn9514256212/isbn9514256212.pdfi Sherman, S., 2013. Teacher Preparation as an Inspirational Practice: Building Capacities for Responsiveness. Routledge, New York. Stan, L., 2004. Etica˘ s¸i deontologie (Ethics and deontology). In: Pedagogie– psihologie(Pedagogy–psychology). ‘‘Al. I. Cuza’’ University Publishing House, Ias¸i. TALIS, 2013. Results, An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning Retrieved from hhttp://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2013results_9789264196261-eni Tucker, P.D., 1997. Lake Wobegon: where all teachers are competent (Or, have we come to terms with the problem of incompetent teachers?). J. Pers. Eval. Educ. 11, 103–126. Weitz, E., Vardi, Y., 2007. Understanding and managing misbehavior in organizations. In: Wankel, Ch. (Ed.), 21st Century Management: A Reference Handbook. Sage Publication, Los Angeles, pp. 220–230. Wheeler, P., Haertel, G.D., 1993. Resource Handbook on Performance Assessment and Measurement: A Tool for Students, Practitioners, and Policymakers. Owl Press, Berkeley, CA.