Morality is interwoven in all aspects of teachings, right from school culture to the curriculum and teachers behaviors. In essence, working with moral values is an inherent part of the teaching profession. Educating students to become responsible persons in the society requires them to learn and appreciate how moral values are embedded in people’s thinking, how they themselves can develop moral-based attitudes, and what different cultural traditions, religious doctrines and philosophical theories say about moral development and education. Inevitably, it is the role of the teacher to educate and impart moral knowledge into students. This way, teachers act as agents of positive moral change (Wentzel, 2002: 289).
Critical to the argument for teachers to be agents of morality among students is the consideration that teachers play a complementary role to that of parents. It is a fact that children from an early age until teenage spend several hours a day, for up to five days a week with teachers. Undoubtedly, teachers do have a great impact on student’s perception of what is right and wrong. This argument is based on the fact that life in school is rich in ethical issues, test of character and that the teacher is a major player in all these matters. Ideally, teachers are the figures of authority who punish or reward children for displaying certain behaviors. Not only do teachers specify how students should behave, but they decide what they should know. In addition, teachers set standards for acceptable behaviors and enforce rules. Overall, teachers are continually dealing with issues of morality by monitoring student behaviors and enforcing discipline (Narvaez, Bock & Endicott, 2003: 18).
The second consideration is the argument that children’s character as adults is largely affected by past schooling experience. The research community agrees that schools have an effect on student’s character, morality and values. For example, a study by Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001: 247-271) provides strong evidence for positive correlation between schooling and character. This is to say that, as children grow up, they are likely to be affected by the moral environment surrounding them. Since they spend most of their time in school, the values professed by teachers do affect their moral views. Therefore, what the teachers should do to have a positive impact in the moral lives of young people has been an issue of great debate among educationists and policymakers (Goodman & Lesnick, 2001: 62).
There are two broad ways of teaching moral education in schools: the minimalist strategy and the maximalist strategy. The minimalist strategy requires moral educators to explain explicitly hidden aspects of morality embedded in education curriculum, and to reveal linkages between moral character outcomes and requisite best practice instructions. In contrast, the maximalist strategy requires pre-service teachers to learn about and master different types of pedagogical strategies, which target moral education directly as part of the school curriculum. To this end, the maximalist model outlines key steps for moral development: ethical skills, supportive climate, self-regulation, apprenticeship instruction and adoption of developmental systems. In simple terms, the maximalist approach emphasizes the need for teachers to refer to moral modeling by way of inevitable moral lessons that are implicitly taught in classroom (Huebner, 1996: 268).
Whether the minimalist or maximalist approach is adopted as the basis for moral education, the school curriculum should be reviewed to reflect morality as part of it. According to Hamre and Pianta (2001: 626), there are certain essential features of a moral curriculum. These include emphasis on moral behavior and high ethical achievement, and the ability to encourage students to seek truth, and willingness to think deeply about alternative arguments. Another important feature of a moral curriculum is the ability to encourage students to acknowledge their moral and intellectual debts, and to judge others on the basis of their moral standing. Other features of moral curriculums and associated commitments may be specific to institutions. However, the task of encouraging critical self-evaluation remains paramount as a gateway to positive behavior change with regard to the issue of morality.
In Lantieri (2002: 59-63) view, there are specific areas of competence that are generally regarded as being necessary if teachers have to effectively deal with their role as moral educators and developers of character. First, the teacher must be a role model of good character and morality. Second, the teacher must regard the development of student’s moral life as a priority and professional responsibility. Third, the teacher must take time to engage the student in meaningful moral discourses. In these discourses, the teacher must be able to articulate a neutral moral viewpoint based on a range of acceptable ethical and value dimensions. Lastly, the teacher must encourage the student to appreciate differences in moral perspectives by empathizing with the moral views of other people. All these competencies will enable the teacher to establish a positive moral aura in classroom and hence be an effective agent of moral change. I addition, the teacher should be kind, understanding, full of sympathy and respectful of divergent views of morality (Campbell, 2003: 26-31).
According to Zins, Weissberg, Wang and Walberg (2004: 64-69), the most effective tool that teachers can use to teach moral education is value transfer. This refers to the process of transferring generally accepted moral values in education. These values can be derived from religious teachings, cultural traditions, legal requirements, and common rules and regulations. As a moral teaching tool, value transfer focuses on virtues and traits that support good behaviors both in school and outside. Indeed, teaching students about good moral practices and being a good role model can go a long way in making moral education effective and productive. This is especially important in today’s world where children are exposed to immoral behaviors and actions right due to popularity of information technology (Noddings, 2002: 41-46).
References
Campbell, E. (2003). The Ethical Teacher. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, McGraw-
Hill.
Goodman, J.F. and H. Lesnick. (2001). The Moral Stake in Education: Contested Premises and
Practices. New York: Longman.
Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.
Huebner, D. (1996). Teaching as a moral activity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(3):
267-275.
Lantieri, L. (2002). Schools with spirit: Nurturing the inner lives of children andtTeachers. New
York: Beacon Press.
Narvaez, D., Bock, T., & Endicott, L. (2003). Who should I become? Citizenship, goodness,
human flourishing, and ethical expertise. In W. Veugelers & F. K. Oser (Eds.), Teaching
in moral and democratic education (pp. 43-63). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang
Publishers.
Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student
adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287-301.
Wilson, D.B., Gottfredson, D.C., & Najaka, S.S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Psychology, 17, 247-271.
Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (2004). Building academic success on
social and emotional learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
