Job Discussion Forums

[eha]

i]"..we have to take into account that �code of ethics� in the West might be different from the one in the Middle east. ... any teacher who works in a �culture� which is different from his, should be aware about the differences of �ethics� in the new environment. "[/i]

Couldn't agree more.
But what I'm talking about are the universals: I can't think of any culture that finds abusing / undermining / invalidating others acceptable. And yet we have people IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY doing these things every day, and conveying the message to young people that such degrading behaviour is acceptable --- often passing it off under the guise of coarse humour, which they use to bond slimily with their students. What the hell did such people learn in five / six /eight years of higher education? Are they completely incapable of seeing the damage such behaviour does to workplace harmony? And should people who EMPHATICALLY DON'T practise these behaviours have to accept this kind of person as a 'colleague', which means 'equal'?


"Maybe the �code of ethics� does not exist in the majority of these universities!"

I've had an interesting experience in this respect: not receiving the kind of response you'd expect from university officials over an issue of 'colleague' behaviour and attitude that was seriously interfering with my ability to do my job, I went to consult the Legal Officer of the institution where I was working. I had downloaded the policies of various famous universities all over the world on this particular ethical issue, and I took a sheaf of them with me.
In fact, he seemed to have no idea that such issues have been ratified into policy in most universities today. And if he didn�t, it�s highly unlikely that anyone else in the institution is aware of the importance and validity of ethical discussion, not to mention the need for clear policy on such issues --- especially in an institution of higher education.

As for the question of �teacher behaviour�--- surely everyone today is aware of the influence of the �hidden curriculum�?

[lall]

[eha]

'�hidden curriculum�? I'm mystified.'

You ARE being ironic, aren't you? Aren't you?

[veiledsentiments]

I don't think he is. Actually I have no idea what you are talking about either.

VS

[johnslat]

Here's what wiki has to say about it:

"The concept that the hidden curriculum expresses is the idea that schools do more than simply transmit knowledge, as laid down in the official curricula. Behind it lies criticism of the social implications, political underpinnings, and cultural outcomes of modern educative activities. While early examinations were concerned with identifying the anti-democratic nature of schooling, later studies have taken various tones, including those concerned with socialism, capitalism, and anarchism in education.
John Dewey explored the hidden curriculum of education in his early 20th century works, particularly his classic, Democracy and Education. Dewey saw patterns evolving and trends developing in public schools which lent themselves to his pro-democratic perspectives. His work was quickly rebutted by educational theorist George Counts, whose 1929 book, Dare the School Build a New Social Order challenged the presumptive nature of Dewey's works. Where Dewey (and other child development theorists including Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson and Maria Montessori) hypothesized a singular path through which all young people travelled in order to become adults, Counts recognized the reactive, adaptive, and multifaceted nature of learning. This nature caused many educators to slant their perspectives, practices, and assessments of student performance in particular directions which affected their students drastically. Counts' examinations were expanded on by Charles Beard, and later, Myles Horton as he created what became the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.
The phrase "hidden curriculum" was reportedly coined by Philip W. Jackson (Life In Classrooms, 1968). He argued that we need to understand "education" as a socialization process. Shortly after Jackson's coinage, MIT's Benson Snyder published The Hidden Curriculum, which addresses the question of why students�even or especially the most gifted�turn away from education. Snyder advocates the thesis that much of campus conflict and students' personal anxiety is caused by a mass of unstated academic and social norms, which thwart the students' ability to develop independently or think creatively.
The hidden curriculum has been further explored by a number of educators. Starting with Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published in 1972, through the late 1990s, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire explored various effects of presumptive teaching on students, schools, and society as a whole. Freire's explorations were in sync with those of John Holt and Ivan Illich, each of whom were quickly identified as radical educators.
More recent definitions were given by Meighan ("A Sociology of Educating", 1981):
The hidden curriculum is taught by the school, not by any teacher...something is coming across to the pupils which may never be spoken in the English lesson or prayed about in assembly. They are picking-up an approach to living and an attitude to learning.
and Michael Haralambos ("Sociology: Themes and Perspectives", 1991):
The hidden curriculum consists of those things pupils learn through the experience of attending school rather than the stated educational objectives of such institutions.
Recently a variety of scholar/author/researchers, including Neil Postman, Henry Giroux, bell hooks, and Jonathan Kozol have examined the effects of hidden curriculum. One increasingly popular proponent, John Taylor Gatto, radically criticizes compulsory education in his book Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992).

[eha]

Thanks, John. Words failed me. I thought of suggesting 'google it', but was afraid I'd be accused of arrogance, as I have been before when I referred to something another poster didn't know about.

Just one thing: the Wiki definition (I assume) says:

'The hidden curriculum is taught by the school, not by any teacher...something is coming across to the pupils which may never be spoken in the English lesson or prayed about in assembly. They are picking up an approach to living and an attitude to learning.'

My own stance on this is that young people are absorbing 'an approach to living' from individual teachers as well as from the school. So if there are a number of teachers who condone certain approaches or attitudes, their students will inevitably be influenced by teacher behaviour. I see it every day.

[Dedicated]

For John, Eha and others who may be interested, there is a very interesting book by Bill Johnston " Values in English Language Teaching", which focuses on central questions of morality/values in the EFL classroom. He is pretty convincing in his argument that moral values are an extremely important part of teaching even when we are not necessarily aware that we are acting on them.

Johnston does not tell readers what to think but only suggests what to think about.

A great read about the " hidden curriculum".

[veiledsentiments]

Thanks...

I still never heard of it... certainly wasn't mentioned in my MA program. But, I've always been the practical sort and am bored to tears by this theoretical stuff. I taught essay writing... accounting... nuts and bolts...

I leave this stuff to the white tower crowd.

VS

[eha]

Thanks for that, Dedicated; I'll certainly look into getting the Bill Johnson book. It's about time Tefling became professional and began to take itself seriously. Personally, I can't see why anyone would need to read a book in order to understand the importance of teacher behaviour--- of course I know that the hidden curriculum means a lot more than merely teacher behaviour. Values development is an important aspect of all that young people learn in the course of their education--- and I don't want the culture police jumping in here to tell me that 'their culture takes care of that'. If it did, these questions wouldn't arise. Again, I repeat: these are NOT cultural questions, but universals. No culture condones or accepts bad manners, and it's very patronising to assume that certain things are acceptable in other cultures, while they wouldn't be in one's own. We aren't here talking about which fork to use or whether it's ok to eat with your fingers. We're talking about behaviour to others, and if that isn't part of everyone's education--- well, then something's wrong with education today.

[Dedicated]

VS,

" Values in English Language Teaching" by Bill Johnston (of Indiana University) was only published in 2003.

It is not dull or dry, but packed full of examples taken from real-life teaching situations in Brazil, Thailand, Poland, Japan, Central African Republic, Turkey, Taiwan, USA.

It is now on all MA and PhD booklists as required reading in the UK.

[veiledsentiments]

Thanks, but at this point, I don't need a textbook to have good manners and respect other cultures. And the reality is that those in our field that need it would either not read the book or not learn anything from it.

VS

[bje]

[eha]

'those prone to undermining colleagues in various ways, for whatever reasons...'

eg: speaking dismissively of vast areas of knowledge because one hasn't experienced them oneself?

And no, I don't agree that those who need to develop self-awareness wouldn't benefit from reading this--- or other --- books. If people can't benefit from reading or hearing from others about things they have no experience of , why bother with education at all?

[bje]

[johnslat]

Dear eha,

"If people can't benefit from reading or hearing from others about things they have no experience of , why bother with education at all?"

Many can, some can't - that's been my experience, anyway. If you've never run into any of the some who can't, then you've had a more fortunate life than I have, so far.

Regards,
John