Proposal:_Ethics in Teacher Education

The Development of Professional Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . 2

The Problem of Ethics in Teacher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .6

Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 9

Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 9

The Critical Incident Technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Determining the aim of the activity to be studied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . .13

Setting plans, specifications and criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Collecting data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Analyzing the data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 15

The report of findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .17

Population and Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .17

A Categorical Frame for Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Dissemination and Application of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . 24

Budgetary Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Protection of human subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A. Proposed Code of Ethics in Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

B. Draft Survey Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

The director of clinical experiences and pre-professional internships of the teacher education program at Eks University informs a student that, based on the student’s grades, scores on Praxis examinations, and performances in field experiences, the student will not be allowed to advance to the student teaching internship and will not graduate. The student informs her politically-connected father who in turn complains to the president of the university, who is busy building a reputation and currying the favor of legislators for the next round of budgetary deliberations. The director receives a call for an explanation from the vice president for academic affairs, who is busy currying the favor of the president by fulfilling the president’s expectations without error. The director informs the vice president that the student does not meet standards in policies designed to ensure that only qualified people enter the teaching profession and that the faculty has determined that the student is unfit to assume responsibility for the education and care of children, an obligation they have to the profession. The vice president, without directly threatening the director’s job security, orders the director to advance the student to the internship and see to it that she graduates. Subsequently, the cooperating school district where the student is placed withdraws itself from consideration for future placement of student interns.

One interpretation of this incident is that it illustrates a distinctively pernicious miscarriage of duty to principles of right and moral conduct in higher education. Duty is inherent in the director’s responsibility to the profession and an obligation to respect the professional judgment of colleagues who have an identical responsibility to the profession. Duty is inherent in the president’s and vice president’s responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the institution and its programs as well as the professional freedom and integrity of its faculty. Duty also resides in the obligation to act in the best interests of students and constituents, an obligation that was met by the cooperating school district, but not the director, the president or the vice president. The ethical dilemma is in the choice between personal security and self interest on the one hand and the right course of action imposed by the strictures of professionalism and personal values on the other.

In some professions, ethical choices are made relatively clear by the presence of legal standards and codes of professional ethics or statutes that safeguard individual rights to privacy, security and liberty from acts of professional misconduct or malpractice. Ethical codes and legal standards have evolved over decades through changes in what society defines as ethical, brought about by public awareness of an accumulated history of wrongdoing among professionals entrusted with fulfilling primary societal needs. Teacher education as a profession, though, does not have ethical codes or legal standards to guide its members in resolving ethical dilemmas. However, the development of codes and standards in other professions provides an instructive backdrop against which to view the problems of ethics in teacher education.

Philosophers have studied morality since at least the beginnings of recorded history. Over the centuries, a branch of philosophy -the philosophy of ethics- has emerged from the discourse of moral philosophers concerned about respect, justice, moral reasoning, and the rightness of human action in society (Abelson & Nielson, 1967; Fine & Ulrich, 1988). Contemporary ethical and metaethical theories have evolved, such as functionalism, monopolism and utilitarianism, with roots in the thinking of such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Abbott, 1983; Reamer, 1982). But the often abstract conceptualizing that characterizes moral philosophy, while useful in that discipline for sophisticated examination of ethical issues, offers the common academician little of pragmatic value to guide thinking and action in the midst of actual ethical dilemmas. Until recently, applied conceptions of ethical reasoning and decision-making appear to have remained largely confined to theology and philosophy.

Tymchuk (1981) asserts that concern for ethics did not become generalized to ordinary citizens until society began to recognize individual rights. This recognition came about as a result of three modern developments (Erickson, 1990). The first was the trials of Nazi physicians at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity perpetrated by them through medical experimentation on political prisoners and prisoners of war. The trials brought international focus to atrocities upon powerless individuals performed by members of a trusted profession. One result was the Nuremberg Code, which stressed the importance of informed, voluntary consent in human subjects research. The Nuremberg Code has subsequently served as a guide for codes and policies on informed consent in research (Keith-Spiegel, 1983). Public awareness of medical experiments conducted after World War II also served to create broader concern about the ethical treatment of human subjects in research (Tymchuk, 1981) and added to the scope of public policy on individual rights. Some of these included withholding penicillin from prisoners with syphilis, injecting cancer cells into aged patients, infecting mentally retarded children with hepatitis, and sterilizing mentally retarded girls.

The Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's is considered to be the second catalyst for the increased recognition of individual rights in public policy. The Civil Rights Movement ran parallel to Supreme Court cases on individual rights and a climate of revised interpretations of the U. S. Constitution on the rights of individuals relative to the common good, or the welfare of all the people (Tymchuk, 1981). Out of this period came the National Institute of Health procedures for clinical research, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare research guidelines, legislation in the U. S. Congress for the protection of human subjects in research, the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, and a line of court cases that effectively “de-institutionalized” thousands of mentally retarded people (e.g., Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman).

The third impetus for increased concern for individual rights, according to Tymchuk (1981), was technology. Contemporary and recent examples include organ transplants, genetic engineering, potential enhancement of intelligence through drugs (Erickson, 1990) and pharmacological treatment of historically intractable mental disorders. Kessler (1983) adds the consumer movement to the list of forces that focused societal attention on the ethical treatment of persons and influenced changes in what society defines as ethical. Questions of equity and ethical behavior are connected with deeply held societal beliefs about personal freedoms, privacy, and mental and physical well being. Threats to the general welfare and security of persons are often spotlighted by individual activists who publicly express outrage or dismay about wrong doing by agents of private enterprise or government. Well-known contemporary representatives of the consumer movement having a profound, global impact on law and public policy include Ralph Nader (Unsafe at Any Speed) and Rachel Carson (Silent Spring).

Societal beliefs about personal security and well-being are also culturally tied to the various professions and professionals of special status who claim “cognitive exclusiveness,” or unique access to knowledge and skills considered important to the welfare of society (Larson, 1977; Erickson, 1990). Over time, the accumulated record of misconduct and malfeasance among the professions of the most critical importance has engendered new remedies in law and the development of self-governing rules of conduct among some professions to safeguard individual rights. Malpractice in medicine is an example. The allied health professions also answer to standards and codes, but also a public and critics increasingly more inclined to question the cognitive exclusiveness of key professions. Thomas Szaaz, the gadfly of psychiatry, has for nearly 40 years taken the field of psychiatry to task for what he considers to be its fallacious claim to cognitive exclusiveness in mental health. A few titles of more than 30 books authored by the famous psychiatrist illustrate the exposure of a profession to questions of professional conduct and cognitive exclusiveness: The Theology of Medicine : The Political-Philosophical Foundation of Medical Ethics (1988); The Manufacture of Madness : A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1970); The Myth of Mental Illness : Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (1961).

Crimes against humanity, assaults on personal security and civil liberties in the name of science, and public outrage over violations committed by members of professions entrusted with safeguarding individual rights, have led to the proliferation of codes of ethics among the public service professions and occupations in private enterprise. A code of ethics expresses the core values of a profession, establishes expectations for the conduct of its members and offers guidance for decision making when members are faced with an ethical dilemma. A code also provides grounds for safeguarding professional freedom and integrity (Ross, 1984; Van Hoose & Kottler, 1985). Virtually all professions have a code of ethics (Freitas, 1999) including law, medicine, finance and psychology. Of the Fortune 500 companies, 95% have codes (Khalfani, 1996).

Codes of ethics are also common among educators and educational organizations. Freitas (1999) lists these organizations as including the National Educational Association, Council for Exceptional Children, National Association of Secondary School Principals, American Association of School Personnel Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Catholic Educational Association, American School Counselors Association, National Board of Certified Counselors, Association of School Business Officials, National School Board Association and the American Association of School Administrators. Freitas also points to the irony in the fact that those who prepare aspiring educational leaders and future members of these organizations lack their own professional code.

Teacher education is one of the few professions without a code of ethics (Freitas, 1999), although there is some movement in that direction. The Association for Teacher Educators (ATE) has developed a list of standards for teacher educators (ATE, 1996). But these are standards of professional practice addressing the scholarly, pedagogical and professional service responsibilities of teacher educators; they are only marginally related to ethics. Freitas, on the other hand, has authored a proposed code of ethics that directly addresses ethical conduct in the teacher education profession (Freitas, 1999; Appendix A). The Code is framed by three core principles: commitment to students, commitment to aspiring educators, and commitment to the profession. Statements of ethical conduct under each express values for respect, professional integrity, high standards and professional relationships. The Code is offered to stimulate discussion and debate. Apparently, however, no organization or group representing the teacher education profession has adopted the code.

As of the current time, no one has offered a plausible explanation for the failure of the teacher education profession to adopt a code of its own. A comparison of similarities and differences among ethical codes may provide some insight: All ethical codes “subscribe to rules which (1) forbid bodily violence or injury to another person, (2) forbid insults or attacks on honor and reputation, (3) encourage some form of doing good and furthering the well-being of others, and (4) encourage telling the truth and keeping promises” (Erickson, 1990, pg. 12). By contrast, codes differ “due to (1) differences in the moral importance of similar acts in different social situations, (2) changes of knowledge or belief regarding immoral acts and their consequences, (3) change in the importance attached to different virtues, (4) differences in ways of meeting primary needs, and (5) differences in the range and strength of sympathy and moral insight (e.g., through contact with differing views such as those found in other societies)” (Erickson, 1990, pg. 13).

On the one hand, the teacher education profession does not routinely expose its practitioners to the possibility of violence, bodily injury or other forms of significant harm to persons, either as victims or as perpetrators: In this sense, teacher education is unlike many other professions. At the same time, teacher educators are academics working under the umbrella of general ethical principles of academia, such as those enumerated by Cahn (1986), Charnov (1987), and Shils and Grosby (1997), even though there are admittedly few universally accepted principles of ethical conduct (Charnov, p. 3). In that sense, it could be argued that teacher educators are not entirely without an ethical frame of reference, that they are at least constrained from dishonesty in scholarship or engaging in attacks on the reputation and honor of colleagues.

On the other hand, professional behavior that society considers to be morally important –and the consequences of ethical transgressions society finds abhorrent in medicine and mental health-- may go entirely unnoticed or detached from deeply held societal beliefs about concepts of care when similar behaviors or transgressions occur in teacher education. Society knows a great deal about ethical issues in medicine and mental health but has no basis for weighing the relative importance of certain virtues or the relative consequences of ethical transgressions in the context of teacher education.

This probably occurs for at least three reasons: (1) teacher educators are responsible for preparing the teachers who fulfill a primary need important to society, the education and care of children; yet, society does not connect teacher educators with the responsibility for fulfilling a primary need because it is the teachers themselves, not their mentors in preparation programs, who are at the nexus of a primary societal need, (2) the harm done by ethical failures in teacher education to the fulfillment of the primary need (e.g., having competent teachers in the classroom) is neither intuitive nor direct in the minds of the general public or other professionals, and (3) unethical behavior and unprofessional conduct in teacher education is not public knowledge. It is not even professional knowledge because there is no research documenting the extent of ethical problems or their consequences in teacher education comparable to that found in medicine and mental health.

Research on ethics in teacher education is limited entirely to questions about the usefulness of course work or curricula that deliver instruction in professional ethics to students aspiring to become teachers. Consequently, correlations cannot be drawn, either statistically or cognitively, between ethical problems in the conduct of teacher education and fulfillment of a primary societal need. Since the nature and scope of ethical problems in teacher education is unknown, even to members of the profession, it should not be surprising that teacher education is one of the few professions without a code. A corollary is that many politicians have no qualms about endorsing proposals that circumvent requirements for completion of an approved teacher education program for beginning teachers, even as state education agencies and teacher educators nationwide struggle to upgrade the preparation of new teachers through standards of performance aimed directly at the pedagogical competence of beginning teachers.

The purpose of this study is to examine ethical problems and issues among faculty and administrators in the teacher education profession. The study will (1) determine the nature and extent of unethical and unprofessional events experienced by faculty working in the colleges and universities that prepare teachers, (2) document the options for resolving these experiences from the perspective of the course of action actually followed and the suggested best options under ideal circumstances, (3) poll teacher education faculty on the relative priority (or most problematic) of ethical dilemmas they have encountered, and (4) seek the degree of consensus among faculty for deciding how best to resolve the various ethical dilemmas encountered. Judgments from faculty will also be solicited for estimating the consequences of various ethical failures and for minimizing the occurrence of unethical and unprofessional conduct. The adequacy and utility of the proposed code of ethics by Freitas (1999) will be critiqued in light of the findings.

This study seeks to gain a thorough understanding of the current status of ethics in teacher education, specifically, an understanding of conduct between and among key players whose actions intersect with value concepts of right and wrong. This entails gathering relevant information, organizing and interpreting that information, and deriving conclusions.

The study will utilize surveys in three stages, each building on the previous one, to examine incidents of unethical and unprofessional behavior experienced by teacher educators in their work. The participants in the study are teacher educators from the ranks of (1) the faculty working in the schools, colleges, and departments of education in institutions of higher education at the undergraduate teacher preparation level and (2) the collegiate field experience administrators at those same institutions as identified by the Association for Teacher Educators. The survey design is patterned after the critical incident technique developed by Flanagan (1954).

The first stage of inquiry gathers descriptions of actual incidents of unethical conduct to determine the nature and extent of ethical problems in teacher education. Stage I also queries the participants for a characterization of the ethical dilemma inherent in the incident, its final resolution, and an assessment of the consequences. Stage II is a presentation of descriptions of ethical dilemmas derived from Stage I data analysis. In Stage II, participants will be asked to suggest alternative courses of action for dealing with the dilemmas presented. Stage III will present the participants with the dilemmas once again, but this time accompanied by the suggested courses of action for resolving the dilemmas generated from Stage II. In Stage III, participants will be asked to rate the appropriateness of each course of action and to identify the action they would actually follow in resolving the dilemmas. This scheme starts with a qualitative, or inductive, method of data gathering and analysis and concludes with quantitative (deductive or descriptive) methods.

The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) was first introduced in published form by Flanagan in 1954. He originally developed the technique while conducting studies in the Aviation Psychology Program of the United States Army Air Force in World War II to collect and analyze specific incidents of effective and ineffective behavior of aircraft pilots (Ellinger & Watkins, 1998). In early studies, for example, Flanagan asked combat veterans to report incidents that were significantly helpful or harmful to their mission. Other studies sought the specific reasons for the failure of pilots to learn how to fly and for the failure of bombing missions. In one study, pilots were asked “to think of some occasion during combat flying in which you personally experienced disorientation or strong vertigo” and to describe what they “saw, heard of felt that brought on the experience” (p. 329). Flanagan analyzed the descriptions and produced a list of the components of task performance that was then used for selection and training.

After the war, Flanagan formally developed the CIT as a research methodology and applied it in industry (Woolsey, 1986). Flanagan (1954, cited by Woolsey, 1986) reports that the technique was used to develop ethical standards for psychologists, to select and classify personnel, to identify motivation and leadership attitudes, and to identify factors in effective counseling. It has been extensively used in recent times in nursing research (Norman, Redfern, Tomalin, and Oliver, 1992), in management research on managerial behaviors (Yuki, 1994, cited in Ellinger & Watkins, 1998), and in a wide variety of other fields. Erickson (1990) used CIT to study professional ethics among family therapists in the context of clinical training. Ellinger and Watkins (1998) report that the validity and reliability of the technique was reported by Anderson and Nilsson (1964), who concluded that data gathered by this technique were both reliable and valid. Subsequent studies have supported that conclusion (Roman & Latham, 1974; White & Locke, 1981, reported in Bittner, Nyquist & Booms, 1985 as cited by Ellinger & Watkins, 1998). Notable extensions or modifications of CIT include the Behavioral Event Interview developed by Harvard Professor David McClelland (Finch, Gregson, & Faulkner, 1989), and the Critical Incident Stress Debriefing used in medicine and mental health as an intervention and diagnostic tool (Bowles, James, Solursh & Yancey, 2000).

CIT is a procedure for “gathering certain important facts concerning behavior in defined situations” (Flanagan, 1954, p. 335). Norman, et al. (1992) suggest that Flanagan viewed the technique as a flexible set of principles that should be adapted to the requirements of the specific phenomenon under study. The literature consistently describes CIT as being an appropriate method for the inductive derivation and classification (or formulation) of themes, categories or taxonomies for a variety of research purposes (Cheek, 1997). The primary data gathered by CIT are the critical incidents themselves, usually through objective behavioral observations or interviews. Data may also be collected using paper-and-pencil responses to a carefully designed stimulus (Erickson, 1990).

In addition to Flanagan’s (1954) original description of the method, other good descriptions are available as well. Woolsey (1986), in attempting to restore descriptive inquiry to a legitimate place in methods of research in counseling, uses Flanagan’s framework to describe the technique but also describes how to do a CIT study using her own research to illustrate the steps in the method. Ellinger and Watkins (1998) provide a detailed description of the traditional behavioral orientation to CIT but extend it in their research by adding a cognitive-constructivist dimension to capture the “triggers, consequences, and meanings behind the behaviors...” (p. 290).

a systematic and sequential method for collecting observed incidents, or observations previously made which are reported from memory. The CIT outlines procedures for collecting such incidents having special significance and meeting systematically defined criteria. As a method for classification, it can be categorized with other inductive grouping procedures such as factor analysis, cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling... With such grouping procedures, the researcher “lets the data suggest the system” (Hunt, 1999, p. 178), and a classification schema is generated only after the data are analyzed... Unlike the other grouping procedures, the Critical Incident Technique uses content analysis rather than quantitative solutions in the data analysis... it produces stories based upon recall or observed incidents which are then classified. The five major units of analysis in content analysis are words, themes, characters, items, and space-time-measures. (p. 286).

There are five steps involved in conducting a critical incident study: (1) Determining the aim of the activity to be studied, (2) setting plans, specifications, and criteria for the data to be gathered, (3) collecting data, (4) analyzing the content of the data, and (5) interpreting and reporting findings.

1. Determining the aim of the activity to be studied. This step refers to activities engaged in by respondents and the purpose or aim of those activities, not the purpose of the study. CIT requires that the activity and the aim be precisely stated. In this study, the overall concern is with the status of professional ethics between and among participants engaged in the processes of teacher education. The activity of interest in this context involves interactions between people in which value concepts of right and wrong surface to present a dilemma to be resolved. Precisely what that activity is remains to be defined. The aim of the activity might be to select a course of action that resolves the dilemma, positively or negatively, thereby allowing normal professional activity to go forward. These descriptions of activity and aim are general and need to be refined into precisely worded statements because respondents will be using the statements to select critical incidents to report. Flanagan (1954) recommends consulting the professional literature and asking experts to aid in the clarification process. Woolsey (1986) found this step to be one of the more difficult in the process. A pilot study may be helpful in this endeavor.

2. Setting plans, specifications and criteria. This step involves deciding (a) which persons will make the observations (provide the data), (b) which individuals, activities or groups will be observed, and (c) which of their behaviors or experiences will be observed. The observers can be anyone who can provide first hand data in the content domain. When people are needed to observe others, training may be required along with a detailed description of the observations to be made. A study of certain classroom interactions might be an example where observers are trained to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. In this study, the observers are the respondents themselves who will report on their ethical experiences (critical incidents).Training is not necessary, but decisions about sampling need to be made. In CIT, sample size is a function of the number of critical incidents to be obtained, not the number of people, and there are no strict rules for sampling (Woolsey, 1986). The purpose is to gain complete coverage of the content domain. Flanagan (1954) suggested that as few as 100 incidents may be sufficient, or 2,000 to 4,000, depending on the complexity of the data. Woolsey (1986) states that “when only two or three new behaviors are added by 100 incidents, data collection can be discontinued” (p. 246). Woolsey, who studied same sex bonding using interviews, reached redundancy after 35 men and 35 women.

The observation plans need to include a description of the individual, activity or group to be observed. Location, time and conditions are also considerations. In this study, the observers are teacher education faculty and field experience administrators reporting on an ethical dilemma they experienced. Since their reports are retrospective and memory fades, some time frame needs to be established for respondents or some condition that assures their clear and detailed recall, such as “an incident that occurred in the past three years or one for which the details are vivid in your memory.” Woolsey (1986) was able to determine through a pilot study that her original condition of one year was too restrictive because respondent recall was detailed beyond one year due to the salience of the incidents reported.

The specific behaviors or experiences to be reported need specific criteria to assure that incidents are important and relevant to the general aim. Helpful parameters might be “most troubling or difficult incident,” or “when something happened which disturbed or distressed your sense of integrity, professional responsibility, or fair and just treatment.”

3. Collecting data in CIT is typically done with interviews. Woolsey (1986) notes that if written responses are used, the guidelines for interviews may apply. In this case, the relevant concern is with the clarity and precision with which stimulus materials are constructed and presented. Guidelines traditionally used in ordinary mail survey construction can be followed, which would be just as relevant to structured interviews. A pilot study should be conducted to refine any stimulus materials drafted by the researchers.

4. Analyzing the data in CIT follows the steps and requirements familiar to most qualitative researchers and will most likely be difficult and frustrating at initial stages. Woolsey (1986) outlines three steps: (a) selecting a frame of reference, (b) forming categories and (c) establishing the level of specificity-generality to be used in reporting findings.

The frame of reference is selected on the basis of the intended use of the results. The categories might be developed differently for a study of leadership behaviors compared with a study of effective counseling techniques. Woolsey (1986) reports that Friesen and Young (1985) used a theoretical model as a frame for developing categories, a decision which can limit or compromise the inductive and heuristic value of the method. In this study, a central purpose is to report the current status of ethics in teacher education, so the frame should be designed to develop categories that accurately and unambiguously convey the nature and type of ethical dilemmas experienced by teacher educators. A taxonomy would provide such a frame where ethical dilemmas are mutually exclusive yet together comprise all the possibilities. But a true taxonomy as an organizing scheme is not possible because categories of ethical principles overlap (Erickson, 1990). A categorical frame in the field of professional ethics that is more flexible than a taxonomy already exists (Erickson, 1990), although it is limited to ethics in the context of relationships between faculty members and students in family therapy training settings. It could prove useful in the present study for classifying ethical problems as long as it is recognized that its scope does not cover the range of content that this study is meant to cover and that the inductive generation of categories is still necessary.

Formulation of the categories proceeds inductively by sorting incidents into groups that cluster together, similar to the Q-sort method of factor analysis before statistical methods were developed and comparable to the “clumping” strategy described by Guba and Lincoln (1989) in qualitative research. This process is aided by transferring incidents to 3X5 cards, perhaps pasting from a photocopy master. These cards should have an identify code, linking them back to the original data from respondents. This enables an audit for validity and reliability estimation but also allows for the inclusion of additional information should the incidents by themselves prove to be inadequate for logical classification.

The level of generality in this study may very well be limited to the simple tabular presentation of the categories themselves or the data may require a more complex presentation, as in the taxonomy of life forms in biology (genus, species, phylum, subphylum). Woolsey (1986) found Flanagan’s original guidelines to be unsatisfactory and turned to the literature in cognitive psychology on natural categories and prototypes, and from there generated three levels of categorization: categories, subcategories and facets. In her study of same-sex bonding, facets were further divided into characteristics of persons, of circumstances and of relationships. The development of categories and levels of generality evolve in iterative fashion and cannot be determined in advance. It should be noted that the present study collects statistical data on resolutions to ethical dilemmas in Stage III and will therefore utilize descriptive statistical procedures for data analysis in the final phase.

5. The report of findings should focus on narrative description and prototypical incidents, utilizing respondent’s own words as appropriate for evocative impact. Categories and their content could simply be presented in table form. The level of descriptive detail should strike a balance between too much and too little discourse with the main goal being to adequately represent all significant aspects of critical incidents reported. The report should also discuss limitations of the method and estimates of reliability and validity.

As was stated in a previous section, the participants in this study are teacher educators from the ranks of (1) the general faculty working in the schools, colleges, and departments of education in institutions of higher education at the undergraduate teacher preparation level and (2) the collegiate field experience administrators at those same institutions as identified by the Association for Teacher Educators. The justification for not limiting the participants to field experience administrators is that their recent experiences would most likely focus on dilemmas centering on concerns about programmatic integrity whereas the ethical experiences of general faculty would more likely be centered on colleague-to-colleague or faculty-student relationships. Since the main goal of CIT is complete coverage of the content domain, sampling rules are not as rigid as they are in traditional behavioral research. However, data will be gathered in three stages with the intent that first round participants remain with the study throughout. Two other considerations are that (1) the data should speak for the teacher education profession about the most preferred solutions to ethical dilemmas, and (2) that this study utilizes mail surveys.

These factors raise the validity issues of generalizability, response rates to surveys, and mortality (attrition due to dropping out of the study). Therefore, a probability sampling strategy would accommodate the validity issues and at the same time assure coverage of the content domain. The population size is approximately 1250 (the number of field experience administrators in the United States and Canada listed in the directory published by the Association for Teacher Educators). An adequate sample size would be 300 (from a power table by Krejke and Morgan, 1970). Assuming a return rate of 50 %, it would be necessary to recruit from 600 field experience administrators to achieve a return of n = 300 (300/.50 = 600). Although there are many more thousands of teacher educators who are not field experience administrators, a comparable sample from that group should be adequate (the upper limit for a population of 10,000 or more is 387). A random sample of field experience administrators can be drawn from the ATE directory. A comparable sample of general teacher education faculty can be purchased in mailing label form from Market Data Retrieval, a company that specializes in this service and which is capable of generating proportional, random samples of any subgroup of educator desired (e. g., k-12 choir directors). A sampling matrix of states will be created for selecting faculty from institutions within those states based on U.S. Census Bureau and National Center for Educational Statistics data where the criteria is placement in high, medium and low categories of urban population concentrations, poverty rates, higher education enrollment rates.

It has been generally prescribed by the guidelines of CIT, and qualitative research methods of data analysis as well, that an a priori scheme for category generation not be imposed on the data. However, there is no sense in entering the process without clues when some inroads have already been made by other researchers into the general territory that is the focus of the study. An ethical dilemma, by definition, has no easy solution. Ethical problems, to be understood and clearly articulated, need to be examined for the underlying principles they represent and the rules by which judgments are, or could be, made. Fine and Ulrich (1988) have developed a system for characterizing the ethical reasoning process which could be used for analyzing ethical dilemmas. In their system, reasoning proceeds through four levels: Level I consists of ethical theories or philosophical perspectives. These provide the underlying justification and the basis for fundamental ethical principles that reside at Level II. Level I is concerned with the morality of human action. From one perspective, certain actions are inherently right as a matter of principle because the action embodies intrinsic rightness (deontology). A contrasting perspective would have it that certain actions should be taken because they are good because of their consequences, not because of their inherent rightness (utilitarianism). From these two points of view, a minister who hears the confession of a serial killer can either do nothing, thereby safeguarding the confidentiality of privileged information because it is inherently right to do so, or he can inform the authorities, justifying his action on the basis of the good that will come from preventing further harm to others. Philosophies or theories are not guidelines and may lead to contrary outcomes.

Level II is comprised of fundamental ethical principles derived from theories at Level I. The principles seek to maximize the ratio of benefits to harm or good over evil, or to assure a just distribution of scarce resources to the most underprivileged. Kitchener (1984) suggest that there are six fundamental principles: autonomy (respecting individual freedom), beneficence (doing good for others), nonmaleficence (inflicting no harm), justice (fairness), fidelity (faithfulness, truthfulness, loyalty) and paternalism (protecting an individual from self-harm). It could be argued that all other principles are subsumed under these global classifications. For example, professionalism or commitment to a profession and its ideals may fit under fidelity.

Level III is comprised of rules derived from principles describing what ought to be done or what ought not be done. Laws and ethical codes are rules.

Level IV is the decision process that leads to action in specific situations. According to Kitchener (1984), most people make ethical judgments at the intuitive level which is rooted in the individual’s moral sensibilities. That is a weak position from which to approach an ethical judgment in a professional situation. Kitchener (1984) advocates for reasoning at the critical-evaluative level because it allows for critical reflection on rules (Level III) and ethical principles (Level II) in light of the circumstances of the dilemma at hand. This allows for systematic, deliberative judgements, weighing the tradeoffs in the ratio of benefits to harm.

Fine and Ulrich’s (1988) ethical reasoning model and Kitchener’s (1984) rendition of ethical principles are reviewed here to illustrate the context in which the analysis and categorization of ethical dilemmas might proceed. It would appear that the most enlightening examination of ethical problems would occur from the vantage point of the considerations at Level II and Level III.

Erickson’s (1990) study of ethics in family therapy training settings provides a classification scheme for the critical incidents in that context that could offer a well-defined but not adequately inclusive frame for this study if it were not allowed to detract from inductive analysis. Erickson focused only on professional relationships and listed the possibilities for relationships occurring between any given individual professional and

Peer relationships include faculty/faculty, student/student, and hierarchical relationships include faculty/student, administrator/faculty, constituent/administrator.

In the present study, the possibilities for ethical problems occurring are not limited to professional relationships but also include circumstances or the contextual facets of a situation which connote inherent ethical implications. This was illustrated in the incident described at the beginning of this proposal where the more global idea of duty to safeguard the integrity or reputation of an institution was present. It appears that adequate comprehension of an ethical dilemma would in some cases be difficult without taking into account the contextual dimension.

In light of the possibilities for relationships, the reasoning model from Fine and Ulrich, and the ethical principles enumerated by Kitchener, Erickson arrived at the following categories for classifying the ethical dilemmas in her study:

Careerism/Respect. Professionals should respect each other as equals, despite differences in power and authority. Unethical behavior in the form of careerism results when professionals fail to respect one another as equals. Careerism is “anti-professionalism” when authority is seized rather than earned.

Supervision. Supervisors have administratively sanctioned authority and may possess more knowledge and competence than supervisees, although not inevitably so. Supervisors may also have access to, or demand, sensitive information about the supervisee. There is room for abuse of power, manipulation and misuse of information by the supervisor to achieve unethical strategic ends without reciprocal risks.

Hierarchy/Power. Confusion of hierarchical levels may lead to problematic relationships as can the cooperative/competitive nature of hierarchy in a professional context. Power differences can impede communication and collaboration to engender competition. In a competitive environment, individuals may believe they can achieve their goals only to the extent that others fail to achieve theirs. Those having higher power may feel threatened and become defensive toward those with less power and promote themselves through maligning others or forming alliances that preserve their status.

Dual Relationships involve a conflict of interest, primarily exemplified by sexual contact with students or clients. It represents a failure to place the interests and needs of students or clients first on the part of faculty or supervisors in higher authority. A conflict of interest can also occur of a non-sexual nature where students work under the supervision of a faculty member on a research project where the intent is the creation of teaching/learning opportunities but the outcome is promotion of the faculty member’s goals at the expense of the student’s creative endeavors.

Conflicts/Disagreements, when not managed productively, may foster aggression, interruption or cessation of work, or alienation and withdrawal. Dysfunctional conflict may entail a failure to act with consideration for the interests and reputation of others through a lack of restraint in disagreements, or denial that a conflict exists. Conflicts occur in both peer and hierarchical relationships. A common example is the denigration of, or failure to respect and acknowledge the value of, differing theoretical perspectives when there is no compelling evidence to support the superiority or valuelessness of one or the other.

Evaluation and Feedback entails fairness, consideration, consistency and equitable balance when evaluating the performance of a colleague and providing feedback. Evaluations relying on subjective opinion at the expense of objective criteria introduce bias, distortion, and inaccuracy. Judgments having long-term negative consequences may ensue.

Confidentiality is unethically violated through failure to respect private information, opinions and confidences. On the other hand, there may be limits to confidentiality; a colleague who privately reveals unethical or unprofessional conduct may lose the right to confidentiality. Confidentiality may also be limited in the case of a seriously impaired or distressed professional or student.

Deception may involve providing false information or gathering information deceptively, or providing information selectively. Deception in scholarship may include falsifying data, taking credit for the work of others, or presenting scholarly work without the knowledge or consent of colleagues who helped create it.

Competence. The competence of students in training is an important ethical concern. Faculty have an obligation to the profession to ensure that graduates are competent. Faculty have an obligation to the student to provide adequate opportunity for the student to achieve competence. Faculty have an obligation to design training programs with evaluation criteria for judging a student as satisfactory for continuation in training. Faculty have a responsibility for maintaining their own competence and for regulating the assignment and retention of colleagues who are not competent (from Erickson, 1990, pp. 41-61).

Draft instruments may be found in Appendix B. These are patterned after Erickson, 1990. The first stage instrument needs considerable thought by a team of researchers working on precision in the wording of stimulus statements, content, and format. A small-scale local pilot study would provide valuable feedback for that purpose. The instruments for round two and round three would roughly follow the design in the prototypes (Appendix B) but content would be tailored by the results of previous stages of data gathering. Other matters to be decided include the logistical details of packaging and mailing and a system for tracking participant responses and non-response follow-up.

An immediate application of the results of this study is it provides a basis for designing additional studies in ethics where no major, systematic studies have been conducted. These would include replications applied to graduate preparation program faculty in educational leadership and practicing administrators in public elementary and secondary education.

It was argued earlier that one of the reasons the teacher education profession has not adopted a code of ethics is that there is no documentation that there are significant ethical issues in teacher education that need to be addressed. Should the study reveal that there are significant issues to be addressed, then one of the more obvious applications is in the support this study could provide for the adoption of a code of ethics for the teacher education profession. That could be accomplished in part through paper presentations and colloquia at scholarly forums and before professional organizations such as the American Educational Research Association, the Association for Teacher Educators, and the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Other mechanisms include the publication of journal articles that reach these same audiences (e.g., Phi Delta Kappan).

The study could also provide a basis for organizing and convening a symposium on ethics. There are numerous teacher educators, faculty who work in the domain of character education, and experts in the field of ethics who could be brought together to deliberate such questions as (1). Why do we need a Code of Ethics for teacher educators? (2) What ethical principles should a code address? (3). What process should or could be used to adopt a code? (4). How should a code of ethics be implemented once it is adopted?

This is a labor intensive project with an estimated time to completion of eight to nine months. Cost items include graduate assistant support, faculty release time and summer salary, and minimal clerical support. Needed personnel include two part-time graduate assistants and an estimated four to five faculty whose combined time would amount to approximately one-half FTE. Operating expenses include telephone charges, postage and photocopying, travel for conference presentations. Once it is decided that this project should go forward, a detailed budget with justifications will be prepared.

The rights to privacy and protection from risk of harm to subjects in this study will be ensured by adequate safeguards on confidentiality of personally identifiable information. The procedures used in conducting the study will conform to the ethical guideline in policies for the protection of human subjects in research. A protocol in compliance with those requirements will be submitted for approval to the Arkansas State University Institutional Review Board which has oversight responsibility for research involving human subjects.

Abelson, R. Nielsen, K. (1967). History of ethics. In P. Edwards (Ed.) The encyclopedia of ethics. (Vol. 3). New York: McMillan.

Abbott, A. (1983). Professional ethics. American Journal of Sociology. 88(5), 855-885

Bittner, M. J., Nyquist, J. D., & Booms, B. H. (1985). The critical incident technique as a technique for analyzing the service encounter. In T. M. Bloch, G. D. Upah, & V. A. Zeithaml (Eds.), Services marketing in a changing environment. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Bowles, S. V., James, L. C., Solursh, D. S. & Yancey, M. K. (2000). Acute and post-traumatic stress disorder after spontaneous abortion. American Family Physician. March 15.

Cahn, S. M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Trotowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Charnov, B. H. (1987). The academician as good citizen. In Stephen L. Payne and Bruce H. Charnov (Eds), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Ellinger, A. D., & Watkins, K. E. (1998). Updating the critical incident technique after forty-four years. In, Advances in Qualitative Research. Eric Document ED428234.

Erickson, C-A. (1990). Professional ethics among family therapists in the context of clinical training: A multi-wave critical incident study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Finch, C. R., Gregson, J. A. & Faulkner, S. L. (1989). Assessing leadership behavior: Beyond task analysis. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Annual Convention.

Fine, M. A., & Ulrich, L. P. (1988). Integrating psychology and philosophy in teaching a graduate course in ethics. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(5), 542-546.

Khalfani, L. (1996) Ethics initiatives for various reasons are being adopted by everyone. Minneapolis Star Tribune, 15 August, p. 01D.

Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethics principles. The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 21(3), 43-55.

Reamer, F. G. (1982). Ethical dilemmas in social service. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ross, A. O. (1984). Integrity in the science and profession of clinical psychology. The Clinical Psychologist. 4, 270-276.

Szaaz, T. S. (1988). The theology of medicine : The political-philosophical foundation of medical ethics. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Szaaz, T.S. (1970). The manufacture of madness : A comparative study of the inquisition and the mental health movement. New York: Harper and Row.

Szaaz, T. S. (1961). The myth of mental illness : Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. New York: Hoeber-Harbor Books.

Van Hoose, W. H. & Kottler, J. A. (1985). Ethical and legal issues in counseling and psychotherapy (2^nd ed.). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Teacher education is one of the few professions without a professional code of ethics. The author proposes a code specifically designed for teacher educators. The proposal is intended to stimulate discussion with the eventual goal of adoption by teacher educators throughout the nation.

One of the cornerstones of a true profession is a code of ethics. The code publicly articulates and affirms the profession's core values, beliefs and responsibilities. None, however, exists in teacher education.

Virtually all professions, including law, medicine, and finance, have adopted codes of ethics. While some codes were adopted decades ago, a recent proliferation is evident in the business community. Companies with codes jumped from 13% to 73% since 1994 (Los Angeles Times, 1997). Of the Fortune 500 companies, 95% have codes (Khalfani, 1996) to clearly communicate their philosophy and expectations.

Codes of ethics are also common among other educators and educational organizations. These include the National Educational Association, Council for Exceptional Children, National Association of Secondary School Principals, American Association of School Personnel Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Catholic Educational Association, American School Counselors Association, National Board of Certified Counselors, Association of School Business Officials, National School Board Association and the American Association of School Administrators. Ironically, those who prepare aspiring educational leaders and future members of these organizations lack their own professional code.

The proposed Professional Code of Ethics for Teacher Educators is intended to stimulate broad-based consideration, evolutionary revisions, and ultimately, an adopted code. The proposal consists of a preamble and three principles with accompanying commitments and responsibilities.

As with all well-established professional codes, it offers broadly applicable guidance. Yet, it includes substantively specific rubrics for ethical decision-making. Those seeking mindless prescriptions of exactly what to do in all cases will be disappointed. The Code provides a conceptual framework to assess contemplated action, not the definitive answer. Thus, applying the code to specific situations essentially rests with each individual. However, the foundation for all decisions is consistent throughout the profession.

This Code serves as the foundation for all educators who prepare aspiring teachers, school administrators and educational support personnel. It publicly affirms the profession's core values, commitments and responsibilities.

At the heart of the Code is the fundamental commitment to pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students. Their education and well being are paramount in all professional decisions and actions.

Teacher educators unequivocally agree to adhere to this Code and the highest professional standards.

Teacher educators permit only qualified aspiring educators to begin and complete student teaching, internships and other field experiences with students.

Teacher educators recommend for licensure only those aspiring educators who are committed to pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students and who are qualified in respect to character, education and other relevant attributes.

Teacher educators constructively criticize and aggressively seek elimination of public policies that allow unqualified and underqualified individuals to serve as teachers, school administrators and educational support personnel.

Teacher educators offer, support, and promote rigorous teacher education standards and programs to ensure qualified educational personnel for America's schools.

Teacher educators offer aspiring educators rigorous academic programs based on relevant research and best practice.

Teacher educators do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, national origin, political affiliations, religious beliefs and family, social and cultural backgrounds.

Teacher educators model responsiveness to diverse learners, life-long reflection and professionalism.

Teacher educators recruit individuals who have the potential of becoming exemplary teacher educators.

Teacher educators contribute to the profession through exemplary research, teaching and service.

Teacher educators maintain a high level of professional competence through intellectual vitality and life-long learning.

Teacher educators agree to support and promote this Code and the highest professional standards.

While this Code is modeled after numerous existing codes and revised based on initial reviews, building consensus among all teacher educators is essential. Over the next year, multiple opportunities to discuss the Code will be made available. You can join the interactive discussion - [Code of Ethics for Teacher Educators] Comments may also be forwarded to the author by e-mail at dfre@wheeling1.nl.edu and you can join us at the panel discussion by the Commission on Character Education at the ATE Conference in Chicago in February, 1999.

A comprehensive code of ethics is crucial in all attempts to achieve professional status, recognition (Smith, 1990) and respect. Teacher educators must be willing now to develop, adopt, embrace and enforce a professional code of ethics. It must be embedded in the culture and serve teacher educators throughout their career.

Khalfani, L. (1996) Ethics initiatives for various reasons are being adopted by everyone. Star Tribune, 15 August, pp. 01D.

Los Angeles Times (1997) Nearly half of employees engaged in unethical and/or illegal acts in the workplace in the last year survey finds. 5 April, pp.D2.

Smith, A.E., Travers, P.D. & Yard, G.J. (1990) Code of ethics for selected fields of professional education. ERIC ED318736. Microfiche.

Professional Standards, Rights and Responsibilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

David Freitas is Associate Dean of the National College of Education at National-Louis University. He is also a member of the Illinois Teacher Certification Board, Chair of ATE's Legislative and Governmental Relations Committee and President of the Illinois Association of Teacher Educators.

In our work as teacher educators, we sometimes experience ethical dilemmas or moral conflicts involving such principles as respect, confidentiality, justice and integrity of persons or programs, to name a few. These situations can be stressful or anxiety provoking, having no clear and easy solutions. While the problem of ethics in professions like medicine and psychology is well researched, there have been no published studies of ethics in the teacher education profession. Moreover, teacher education is virtually the only profession that does not have a code of professional ethics. We are asking for your help with a study that examines issues of ethical concern among teacher educators.

This study consists of surveys administered three times over the next several months. We are asking that you participate in each part. Part I asks that you describe an ethical problem or dilemma that you experienced with a faculty member, a student, a superior, or a constituent. Part II asks you to provide your suggestions about the best ways to resolve several of the ethical dilemmas described by our participants from Part I. Part III asks you to choose the best option from those you and the other participants suggested in Part II and to rate the appropriateness of each. It is important that each participant complete each part of the survey. We estimate that about one hour of your time would be involved in responding to all three phases of the study.

Your responses to the surveys are confidential. We are using an identification numbering system so that we may determine which participants have completed which parts of the survey. This is to allow non-redundant follow up. The co-principal investigators on this project are the only ones who have access to personal identifiers, so your name and institution will never be linked to your responses.

Enclosed is Part I of the survey. Please read the directions carefully since they identify the specific information needed. The information may be sensitive or controversial. Since it is the nature of your experience that is important, do not include names, dates, places or other identifying information.

In appreciation for your time and effort, we will offer you an executive summary of the findings. Please indicate your desire to receive a copy in the location on the survey provided and return the survey even if you are unable to participate.

With your help, this study should contribute to an understanding of the nature and extent of ethical issues in the teacher education profession. This, in turn, could provide an empirical basis for the development of a code of professional ethics for teacher educators. We will be sending you Part II of the survey in about three months. We look forward to receiving this one back from you in about two weeks.

If you have any questions, please call one of us at 870-972-3943 or our Office of Organized Research at 870-972-3820.

Please READ the following directions CAREFULLY. Remember NOT to include names, dates, or places, but rather the nature and quality of your experience. If you need more space, use the back side of this sheet. For the purposes of this study, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR is defined as behavior which represents a violation (or potential violation) of an ethical principle(s) or behavior which represents immoral or unprofessional treatment of one professional toward another colleague, superior, student or constituent.

1.Reflect for a moment on your recent experiences as a teacher education faculty member (teaching, advising, clinical supervision, administration)

2.Describe in a paragraph the MOST TROUBLING ETHICAL PROBLEM or dilemma you have experienced (or are experiencing) with another faculty member, student, administrator, constituent or institutional policy. Include the REASONS why you experienced this dilemma to be so difficult.

1 Gender

□ Male

□ Female

2. Age

□ 30-40

□ 41-50

□ 51-60

□ >61

□ Collegiate field experience administrator (director- teacher education programs)

4. If your primary teacher education assignment is in one of the content area disciplines, please indicate which; otherwise leave blank

5. Which description best fits the teacher education program governance arrangement on your campus?

□ Education is an undergraduate major with the preparation core and field experiences assigned to the school, college, or department of education faculty

□ The undergraduate teacher preparation core is delivered by the school, college, or department of education faculty, but internship supervision and special methods are provided by faculty from the content area disciplines (math, fine arts...)

□ If the options above do not accurately describe your arrangements, please provide elaboration here

Please READ the following directions CAREFULLY. Each of the following dilemmas represents a faculty member’s difficult ethical experience with a fellow professional. These dilemmas are based upon actual experiences identified in Part 1, but have been disguised.

2.Place yourself in the position of the person EXPERIENCING THE DILEMMA (highlighted in capital letters). If you don’t fit the role in your present capacity as a faculty member, respond AS IF you did fit the role.

3.At the end of each vignette, consider how you might resolve or deal with this dilemma and LIST in a sentence or brief paragraph ALL THE OPTIONS you might consider.

A student approaches a FACULTY supervisor to reveal that she is being sexually harassed by another faculty member in the program. She requests that the information be kept confidential and stated that she is unwilling to take action because she is afraid of repercussions from the faculty member.

A FACULTY member overhears in an off-campus setting of his colleagues discussing their concerns about a student in the program. He is concerned that others might overhear the content of the discussion as he did.

Please READ the following directions CAREFULLY. Each of the following dilemmas represented a difficult ethical experience with a fellow professional. The choices presented after each dilemma represent 7 options for resolving dealing with the dilemma.

2.Place yourself in the position of the person experiencing the dilemma (highlighted in capital letters). If you don’t fit the role in your present capacity as a student or faculty member, respond AS IF you did fit this role.

3.At the end of each vignette, consider the appropriateness of each of the options for dealing with or resolving the dilemma and rate each option according to this 5-point scale:

4.Identify which one action you would most likely take by placing a checkmark just before the item.

A FACULTY member overhears in an off-campus setting several of his colleagues discussing their concerns about a student in the program. He is concerned that others might overhear the content of the discussion as he did.