Focus groups held in 2006-2007 in six public colleges and in two private colleges (63 teachers): assessment represents 25% of the category «relations with students» ethical concerns
+
An on-line survey answered by 1340 tenured teachers in 2008 : fairness in evaluation (89.1 %) was the first object of ethical concern
In a collaborative research conducted with two groups of college teachers from Montréal (n=13) and Québec (n=12) in 2012 and in 2013, we saw that :
- Similar cases are reported in the first meeting of each group;
- Such a case is retained as main subject in one of the five subsequent discussion meeting in each group;
- The subject of students assessment occupy the first rank in the category of «professional practices» where ethical concerns can be found by participants.
For example, the paper’s position in the pile of work to mark, the halo effect, the contrast effect, expectations and criteria that change while marking, the corrector’s personality and standpoint (severity, indulgence), the use of assessment to regulate student behavior (their attention or getting them to focus), the evaluation of elements not specifically taught in the course. Academic achievement only, regardless of their behavior (effort, participation, respect of the class rules, etc.).
Phase I :
What is the context? Who are the people involved? What are the possible positive and negative effects on individuals, groups, institutions? What rules, laws and other standards could be applied? What exactly is the dilemma (do this or do not do)? What spontaneous solutions come to mind? To what extent are tinted with emotion?
Phase II:
What are the values involved in the situation? In the name of what good (values) could we decide to do this or not to do it (ethical dilemma)? Where lies the main conflict of values (value X vs Y value)?
Phase III:
What value has precedence in the situation? Why? What arguments seem determinants? Which is the main argument? To what solution does it lead? How to ensure that the secondary value (that which is opposed to the value that prevails in the situation) is not denied, but rather considered in terms of the solution?
Phase IV:
How to present all the arguments supporting the decision? Successful arguments should resist the rational critical test: would they have a good chance to convince an impartial jury? Could the most disadvantaged party by the decision find reasonable this decision? Would the arguments stand in all similar cases? In short, is the justification for the decision the best in the circumstances?
