Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

How do teachers make judgments about ethical and unethical behaviors?

Toward the development of a code of conduct for teachers
David E. Barrett*, J. Elizabeth Casey, Ryan D. Visser, Kathy N. Headley
Clemson University, Teacher Education, 407-D Tillman Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The authors examined the dimensions that underlie teachers’ judgments about ethical versus unethical
Received 12 July 2011 behaviors. 593 educators and teachers in training were administered a 41 item survey. For each item,
Received in revised form respondents rated the extent to which they believed the behavior (a) occurred frequently and (b) rep-
10 February 2012
resented a serious violation of professional standards. Four factors were identified: Personal Harm, Grade
Accepted 5 April 2012
Inflation, Carelessness and Public/Private boundary violation. Personal Harm violations were rated as
most serious and Carelessness violations most frequent. Professional educators viewed Carelessness
Keywords:
violations as less serious than did teachers in training. Implications for a code of ethics for teachers were
Teaching ethics
Code of conduct for teachers
addressed.
Professional standards Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Teachers’ judgments about ethical violations

Over the last ten years there have been highly publicized reports understanding of the larger educational system and ramifications”
of teachers being disciplined by school districts, and in some cases (Larson, Miller, & Ribble, 2010, p.13). A particular concern is that
punished by courts, for inappropriate social behaviors. In the early social networking can easily result in boundary-crossing, intimate
2000s, the major focus of the popular media, with respect to teacherestudent relationships (Preston, 2011). Concerns about this
teacher misbehavior, was sexual harassment of students by problem seem particularly warranted given that nearly half of all
teachers and intimate relationships between teachers and students persons in the United States have a Facebook account (Grossman,
(Archibald, 2004; Hennessey, 2004). 2010). Professional associations, school districts and professional
While such reports continue (Crawford, 2009), the attention of training institutions are beginning to address this problem. The
the media has largely shifted to the issue of teachers’ use of social International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has pub-
networking sites such as “Facebook.” For example, a Boston tele- lished a document titled National Educational Technology Standards
vision station recently reported that a Massachusetts supervising for Teachers. Standard 4 of this document requires that teachers
teacher had been fired for making derogatory comments about her “promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility” (ISTE,
students on Facebook (WVCB TV, 2010). In Charlotte, North Caro- 2008). North Carolina’s largest school district, Wake County,
lina, one teacher was fired while six others were disciplined for disseminates an employee code of ethics that applies to social
their postings on Facebook (Helms, 2008; Keung Hui, 2010). networking (Keung Hui, 2010).
MySpace postings in Florida, Colorado, Tennessee, and Massachu- Schools of education have also attempted to systematically
setts have resulted in teacher suspensions and firings for miscon- examine the scope of the social networking problem and the means
duct (Shapira, 2008). Social media misuse within school settings is for addressing it. For example, Olson, Clough, and Penning (2009)
not limited to the United States; concerns about teacher and also examined the Facebook postings of elementary education majors
student misuse have been expressed in Canada (Good, 2011; at a large land grant university and found that more than 75% of
Rushowy, 2011), England (Oakes, 2011), India (Verma, 2011), Scot- students who had an unrestricted profile on Facebook posted
land (Unnikrishnan, 2012) and Singapore (Lim, 2011). inappropriate material. Additionally, The Council of the Ontario
It does seem to be the case that “teachers may believe that they College of Teachers (2011, p. 3) published a report on educational
can use technology in the same ways they do at home, without an use of social media, warning that “maintaining professional
boundaries in all forms of communication, technology-related or
not, is vital to maintaining the public trust and appropriate
* Corresponding author.
professional relationships with students.” The authors suggest
E-mail address: bdavid@clemson.edu (D.E. Barrett). a greater emphasis on character education in teacher education

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.003
 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898 891

programs, with particular attention to the understanding of the professional standards for educators. But it is only a step. What is
appropriate use of technology. Similarly, Carter, Foulger, and missing is an organized set of decision rules that when followed
Ewbank (2008) urge schools of education to formally address the would show that certain dispositions (habits, traits, action-
issue of advantages versus disadvantages of social networking tendencies) are being demonstrated.
when preparing new teachers. We have previously argued (Barrett, Headley, Stovall, & Witte,
But the issue of the regulation of technology use by teachers is 2006) that the profession of education should approach profes-
only one aspect of a much broader problem, the failure of profes- sional ethics in the same way as do licensed professions such as
sional education associations to develop and adopt a principle- psychology, medicine and law. In the licensed professions, codes of
based, prescriptive and enforceable code of conduct for teachers. professional ethics serve three essential purposes: to ensure high
The codes of conduct typically adopted by professional associations standards of practice, to protect the public, and to guide practi-
to guide teacher behavior have been both general and vague, tioners in their decision making. What is needed in education is
providing little guidance to teachers or those responsible for eval- a code of conduct to regulate teacher behavior, both in and outside
uating and disciplining teachers. For example, the home website for of the classroom. Such a code of ethics should be grounded in a set
the National Education Association (NEA) does not include one of underlying principles. It should include both prohibitions against
heading concerning teacher responsibilities or behavior expecta- certain behaviors and a set of decision rules for action when certain
tions (NEA, 2011a). The majority of items on the website feature underlying principles appear to be in conflict (See American
discussions of teacher rights and opportunities but there is virtually Psychological Association, 2010; for an example). Parenthetically,
no attention given to teacher professional standards. we recognize that the American Educational Research Association
The only statement of professional standards that is available (AERA), the largest and most prominent association for educational
from the NEA includes a list of admonitions against improper research, recently drafted a code of ethics to guide researchers in
teacher behavior; for example, not exposing the child to conditions their professional activities (American Educational Research
harmful to learning, and not intentionally embarrassing or dispar- Association, 2011). Still, for practicing teachers, clear-cut guide-
aging a student (NEA, 2011b). Not only are such statements broad lines to inform decision making are absent.
and commonsensical, they do not really address the problem of We have taken the position, following Wueste (1994), that an
ethics. Issues of ethics arise when there are valid and competing initial step in developing a code of ethics for teachers is identifying
professional interests (Ehrich Kimber, Millwater, & Cranston, 2011). the internal norms members of the profession use in judging their
No valid interest could be served by exposing a child to conditions own and colleagues’ behavior. In our initial study (Barrett et al.,
harmful to learning or intentionally embarrassing a child; as 2006) we constructed a 34-item questionnaire in which respon-
a result such pronouncements are more self-serving than helpful. dents were asked to judge the frequency and seriousness of different
Standards developed for educational administrators by the teacher behaviors which might be viewed as unethical or inappro-
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA, priate. Data were collected from a sample of 235 teachers and other
2011) show the same limitations. The National Association of school personnel. Based on a factor analysis of the “seriousness”
Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the largest professional ratings of the 34 variables we identified 3 underlying factors which
association for secondary school principals, does not publish a code could account for the correlations of the ratings. We interpreted one
of ethics. factor as a “boundary violations factor.” Examples of items loading
In the last decade, schools of education have attempted to highly on this factor were “makes a sexually provocative statement
address the issue of teacher ethics indirectly by requiring that pre- to a student” and “behaves inappropriately outside of work.” A
service teachers be trained in the acquisition of “dispositions.” The second factor which emerged was a “carelessness in instruction”
issue of teacher dispositions was brought to the attention of schools factor. Examples of items loading highly on this factor were “begins
of education in 2002 when the National Council for Accreditation of class without being prepared “and “returns student papers without
Teacher Education (NCATE) published the 2000 Professional Stan- identifying or correcting errors.” Finally, we identified a “subjec-
dards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of tivity in grading/instruction” factor. Examples of items loading
Education. As defined by NCATE, dispositions are the “values, highly on this factor were “raises grade due to parental pressure”
commitments and professional ethics that influence behaviors and “rewards or punishes students based on student popularity.”
toward students, families, colleagues and communities and affect Boundary violations were viewed by teachers as the least frequent
student learning, motivation and development as well as the and most serious offenses and carelessness violations were rated as
educator’s own professional growth” (NCATE, 2006, p. 53). The the most frequent and least serious offenses.
notion that teacher training programs should require pre-service The purpose of the present study was to expand on our earlier
teachers to acquire specified dispositions has been the object of investigation of teacher perceptions of ethical standards and obli-
both debate and controversy. Some have criticized the construct gations. This study built on our earlier study in two important ways.
“disposition” as vague and elusive (Murray, 2007; Raths, 2001); First, our original survey did not include items regarding teachers’
others worry that “teaching dispositions” is really tantamount to use of technology. Thus, we could not draw any conclusions about
political indoctrination (Gershman, 2005). But it is important that whether teachers viewed misuse of technology as one facet of
the effort to identify guiding dispositions not be summarily dis- a more general ethical problem (e.g., violation of teacherestudent
missed. As Damon (2007) has noted, the idea of behavioral dispo- boundaries), or whether they viewed the inappropriate use of
sitions has a long and esteemed tradition in the social sciences. technology as a separate type of ethical concern. In the present
Whether they have conceptualized dispositions as habits of study, we added a number of new survey items, six focusing on
thought and action (Thorndike, 1906) or personality traits (Caspi & misuse of technology. Thus we were able to determine whether
Shiner, 2006), behavioral scientists have long recognized that these items would aggregate on a more general factor (e.g.,
people differ in their action tendencies and that these behavioral “boundary violations” or “carelessness”) or whether they would
patterns may predict future behaviors. While we agree that the draw out a separate underlying dimension.
term disposition is not always precisely defined and that the term Second, the original survey included only experienced teachers.
has at times taken on political connotations (See Villegas, 2007), we We wished to see whether in-service teachers differed from pre-
see the attempt to articulate a set of agreed upon behavioral service teachers in their ratings of the seriousness and frequency
dispositions as an important step in the development of of different types of teacher misbehavior. Studies directly
892 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898

comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ attitudes about “other” including speech and deaf education. The sample
ethics are lacking. One international study, conducted in Singapore comprised 91 females and 17 males.
including only pre-service teachers, did indicate that pre-existing
attitudes about technology would influence classroom use (Teo, 1.2.2. Practicing educators
2012); however, this study did not include practicing teachers so Participating educators were employees of a school district in
comparisons between pre-service and in-service teachers were not northwest South Carolina. Questionnaires were e-mailed to
possible. approximately 2,000 school personnel. Four hundred eighty five
However, concerns about pre-service teachers’ preparation to educators responded to the questionnaire. Of the 485 respondents,
deal with ethical problem-solving dilemmas have been expressed. 392 were teachers. The remaining respondents included 41
There is evidence (Cummings, Dyas, Maddux & Kochman, 2001) administrators, 9 support staff, 26 guidance counselors, 11 media
that college students majoring in education tend to score lower on specialists and 6 who described their position as “other.” The entire
measures of moral development than students majoring in other sample comprised 385 female and 100 male employees. Of the
fields. In addition, neuropsychological research on developmental teachers, 180 teachers taught in grades kindergarten through fifth
changes in cognition indicates that “executive functioning” (plan- grade and 200 teachers taught in grades 6e12. Others were in
ning, weighing consequences, control of impulses) is still special education and/or served multiple grade levels. Eight
improving during the period of late adolescence and early adult- teachers (2%) were first year teachers; 72 (18%) had taught 2e5
hood (see Steinberg, 2011), a time at which many are just beginning years; 71 (18%) had taught 6e10 years; 118 (30%) had taught
pre-service teaching. Such considerations suggest the importance 11e20 years and 121 (32%) had taught for more than 20 years.
of examining age and experience differences in judgments about
the ethicality of different teacher behaviors. 1.3. Analyses

There were four levels of analyses. First, we examined the

1. Method
frequency distributions for each of the 41 items and identified those
behaviors which were identified by teachers as most frequent and
1.1. Instrument development
most serious. Second, we identified supra-ordinate categories of
teacher ethical violations by conducting a factor analysis of the 41
The instrument used in this study was a modification of that
“seriousness” items. A principal components analysis with varimax
used in our initial study of teacher perceptions of ethical violations
rotation was used. Third, based on the factor analysis, we con-
(Barrett et al., 2006). The original survey was developed following
structed summary variables representing different dimensions of
a series of working meetings with practicing teachers in which we
teacher misconduct. Finally, using a multivariate analysis of vari-
asked teachers to discuss their concerns about ethics in teaching.
ance, we tested for (a) within-subject differences in the seriousness
Following three workshops (see Barrett et al., 2006 for details), we
and frequency ratings for the summary variables, (b) differences
developed a 34-item questionnaire, with each item representing
between pre-service and in-service teachers in their ratings of
a potential teacher misbehavior. Items were constructed using
seriousness and frequency for the summary variables and (c)
a 1e5 Likert scale format. For each behavior in question the
differences between males and females in their seriousness and
respondent was asked to rate the degree to which he or she agreed
frequency ratings of the summary variables. In addition, for prac-
or disagreed with statements that this behavior (a) occurs
ticing teachers only, we examined the influences of age level taught
frequently and (b) represents a serious violation of teacher ethics.
and years of experience on the rated seriousness of the different
For the present study, 7 additional items were added to the original
categories of behavior.
questionnaire. Six of the new items concerned the possible misuse
of technology. These items were developed by the third author, an
2. Results
instructor in the area of educational technology. The seventh
additional item concerned promulgation of religious beliefs in the
2.1. Frequency distributions
classroom. A list of the 41 items appears in the Appendix.
In addition to completing the 41 Likert scale items, participants
Proportions of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with
were asked to provide demographic information and other
seriousness and frequency statements were computed. One cate-
descriptive information. Items differed slightly for the practicing
gory of teacher behavior was judged by more than 50 percent of
educators and the pre-service teachers. Practicing educators were
respondents to occur frequently in the public schools. That
asked to provide information regarding gender, current position,
behavior was “gossips to other teachers about a student” (66.4%).
school grade taught (if applicable), subject area taught (if appli-
Five other behaviors were judged by more than one third of
cable), highest academic degree and number of years teaching (if
respondents to occur frequently. Those behaviors were “uses lesson
applicable). Prospective teachers were asked to provide informa-
from World Wide Web instead of creating an original lesson”
tion on gender and the grade level and subject area they were
(47.9%), “knowingly allows a student to violate a school rule in his
planning to teach.
or her classroom” (41.3%), “makes a derogatory comment about
a colleague to a teacher” (41.3%), “uses materials developed by
1.2. Participants and sampling a colleague without permission” (40.5%) and “spends considerable
class time engaged in activities irrelevant to the subject area”
1.2.1. Pre-service teachers (33.9%). Percentages for all categories are shown in Table 1.
One hundred eight (108) pre-service education majors at Thirty-six out of 41 categories of teacher behavior were judged
a major public university in the Southeast were asked to fill out the by more than 50 percent of respondents to be serious violations of
online questionnaire during their introductory education class. teacher ethics. The categories which most respondents did not see
Responses to demographic/descriptive items indicated that 77 as a violation of teacher ethics were “uses lesson from World Wide
students expected to teach elementary school (43 selected grades Web instead of creating an original lesson” (18.6%), “hires students
third through fifth and 34 selected grades first or second), 7 to do chores” (37.4%), “uses technology that hasn’t been approved
selected high school, 2 selected middle school, and 22 selected by the school administration” (43%), ”behaves unprofessionally
 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898 893

Table 1
Percent of respondents agreeing that behavior (a) Occurs frequently (b) is a serious violation (n ¼ 593).

Items (a) Frequent (b) Serious

1. Raises grade due to parental pressure 29.7% 88.9%
2. Spends class time engaged in irrelevant activities 33.9% 79.5%
3. Allows student to violate school rule 41.3% 80.8%
4. Fails to keep an accurate records of student performance 15.6% 91.7%
5. Makes a statement without being certain that it is correct 24.1% 65.9%
6. A teacher does not follow state curriculum guidelines 18.1% 82.3%
7. Rewards or punishes students based on students’ popularity 20.1% 90.1%
8. Engages in a romantic relationship with a student 6.4% 94.6%
9. Uses classroom to promote religious views 12.8% 82.0%
10. Raises a student’s grade due to pressure from the student 8.4% 90.4%
11. Returns student papers without identifying or correcting errors 26.1% 62.9%
12. Gossips to other teachers about a student 66.4% 70.2%
13. Begins a class without having prepared a lesson 25.6% 72.6%
14. Gives child a high grade because the teacher likes the child 27.8% 91.1%
15. Talks about highly personal subjects with a student 14.4% 80.9%
16. Uses profanity in the classroom 10.8% 88.8%
17. Uses technology that has not been approved for school use 11.6% 43.0%
18. Makes a derogatory statement to a student 22.1% 86.7%
19. Rewards or punishes based on students’ culture/ethnicity 8.2% 89.8%
20. Fails to follow special education guidelines 20.1% 90.9%
21. Makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to a teacher 41.3% 74.9%
22. Makes a sexually provocative statement to a student 5.5% 95.2%
23. Fails to report a colleague’s unethical behavior 22.3% 75.0%
24. Dresses inappropriately at work 25.8% 84.9%
25. Behaves in an unprofessional way while outside of work 26.0% 47.5%
26. Uses other teacher’s materials without giving credit 40.5% 49.6%
27. Raises a child’s grade due to pressure from an administrator 26.0% 84.1%
28. Refuses to fail students, even when they perform poorly 28.5% 74.7%
29. Shares confidential information about student with other student 9.1% 94.6%
30. Allows students to engage in romantic behavior in the classroom 8.3% 93.3%
31. Makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to a student 12.0% 93.2%
32. Copies and distributes published material without giving credit 19.0% 82.3%
33. Communicates socially with students on Facebook or Twitter 29.6% 69.3%
34. Hires students to do chores 10.0% 37.4%
35. Gives students high grades in return for favors 8.1% 94.6%
36. Encourages students to address him or her by first name 9.8% 60.2%
37. Uses physical force to discipline a student 4.0% 85.3%
38. Changes a student’s grade or test score without justification 9.4% 91.4%
39. Fails to report a child’s threat of violence to self or others 12.5% 92.1%
40. Posts opinions about students on Facebook 8.7% 92.4%
41. Downloads and implements a lesson from the World Wide Web 47.9% 18.6%

outside of work” (47.5%), and “uses materials developed by highest loadings were on such items as makes a statement in class
colleague without permission” (49.6%). The behaviors that teachers without being sure it is correct, returns papers without identifying
were most likely to see as serious violations of teacher ethics were errors, and gossips about colleagues. The third factor was inter-
“makes a sexually provocative statement to a student” (95.2%), pretable as a public/private boundaries factor. The highest loadings
“engages in a romantic relationship with a student” (94.6%), “shares were on such items as uses lessons directly from the Internet,
confidential information about a student with another student” dresses inappropriately at work, communicates with students on
(94.6%), “gives students high grades in return for favors” (94.6%), Facebook, and behaves unprofessionally outside of work. The final
“allows students to engage in romantic behavior in the classroom” factor was interpretable as a grade inflation factor. Items that
(93.3%), “makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to loaded highly on this factor included raises grade due to student
a student” (93.2%) and “posts opinions on Facebook or Twitter” pressure, raises grade due to parental pressure and raises grade due
(92.4%). Percentages for all categories are shown in Table 1. to administrator pressure.

2.2. Grouping of items 2.3. Construction of summary scales

Factor analysis of the 41 seriousness items yielded five factors Items were assigned to summary categories based on the factor
with eigen values greater than 1. Examination of the rotated analysis. Each item was assigned to the category on which it ach-
component matrix (varimax rotation) allowed us to identify four ieved the highest factor loading. However, if an item loaded most
interpretable factors (See Table 2). The largest factor was inter- highly on a category to which it could not be conceptually linked, it
pretable as a personal harm factor. Items loading highly on this was not included in further analyses. Item assignments are shown
factor all involved an inappropriately close relationship with in Table 2.
a student or a situation where a student might be in danger of In constructing scales, Personal Harm was defined as the
physical or emotional harm. The highest loadings were on such average score, separately for frequency and seriousness, on 6 items
items as shares confidential information about a student with (7, 8, 16, 22, 29, and 30). Carelessness was defined as the average
another student, makes a sexually provocative remark to a student score, both for frequency and seriousness, on 6 items (5, 11, 12, 13,
and engages in a romantic relationship with a student. The second 21, and 26). Public/Private was defined as the average score, for
factor was interpretable as an unprofessional, careless factor. The both frequency and seriousness, on seven items (17, 24, 25, 33, 34,
894 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898

Table 2 as within-subjects factors and respondent professional status and

Results of factor analysis. gender as between-subjects factors. Lower bound values for
Factor 1: risks personal or emotional harm to student degrees of freedom were used due to the fact that the assumption
Items with highest loadings of sphericity could not be retained (c25 ¼ 174:52, p < .000). Results
7. Rewards/punishes students based on popularity (.71) are shown in Table 3. There was a within-subjects effect for type of
8. Engages in romantic relationship with student (.86)
16. Uses profanity in classroom (.71)
violation; F1, 589 ¼ 272.36, p ¼ .000. Order of rated serious was
22. Makes sexually provocative comment to student (.89) Personal Harm, Grade Inflation, Carelessness and Public/Private.
29. Shares information about students with students (.86) Mean scale scores were 4.61 (standard deviation ¼ .80) for Personal
30. Allows students to engage in romantic behavior in classroom (.82) Harm, 4.23 (.77) for Grade Inflation, 3.70 (.77) for Carelessness and
Factor 2: careless, unprofessional
3.38 (.78) for Public/Private. Tukey LSD comparisons for differences
Items with highest loadings
5. Makes statements in class without being sure they are correct (.58) between estimated marginal means showed that all pairwise
11. Returns papers without correcting them (.53) comparisons were significant at p < .001. Analyses were conducted
12. Gossips to colleagues about students (.67) for effect sizes for differences between means from dependent
13. Begins class without preparing a lesson (.52) samples (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003). Effect sizes (Cohen’s d)
21. Makes derogatory comments about colleagues (.73)
26. Uses colleague’s material without permission (.55)
were large for Personal Harm vs. Public/Private (d ¼ 1.58), Personal
Factor 3: fails to recognize boundaries between public and private behavior Harm vs. Carelessness (d ¼ 1.23) and Grade Inflation vs. Public/
Items with highest loadings Private (d ¼ 1.20). Effect sizes were moderate for Grade Inflation vs.
17. Uses technology in the classroom that has not been approved (.57) Carelessness (d ¼ .85), Personal Harm vs. Grade Inflation (d ¼ .68),
24. Dresses inappropriately at work (.40)
and Carelessness vs. Public/Private (d ¼ .53).
25. Behaves unprofessionally outside of work (.51)
33. Communicates socially with students on Facebook, Twitter (.66) There were interactions between professional status of respon-
34. Hires students to do chores (.64) dent and the type of violation (F1,589 ¼ 4.87, p < .05), grade level and
36. Encourages students to call by first name (.58) type of violation (F1,589 ¼ 5.30, p < .05), and professional
41. Adopts lessons directly from the World Wide Web (.49) status  grade level  type of violation (F1,589 ¼ 4.08, p < .05). The
Factor 4: subjectivity in grading, inflates students’ grades
Items with highest loadings
interaction with professional status was due in part to the fact that
1. Raises grade due to parental pressure (.46) pre-service teachers rated Carelessness violations as more serious
10. Raises grade due to student pressure (.34) than did in-service teachers. Means were 3.90 (standard
14. Gives higher grade if likes student (.36) deviation ¼ .76) for pre-service teachers and 3.69 (.77) for practicing
27. Raises grade due to administrator pressure (.57)
teachers. Confidence intervals based on estimated marginal means
28. Refuses to fail students when they perform poorly (.62)
showed that this difference was significant at p < .05. The interac-
Note: Factors are listed in order of extraction. Eigenvalues and percent variance tion with professional status was due to the fact that female
accounted for were 19.82, 48.34% for Factor 1; 3.07, 7.49% for Factor 2; 1.26, 3.06%
for Factor 3 and 1.04, .54% for Factor 4. Factor 4 was the fifth factor extracted;
respondents rated violations of Public/Private boundaries as more
a fourth factor was not interpretable. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was serious than did male respondents. Means were 3.43 (standard
.98. Factor loadings are shown in parentheses. deviation ¼ .76) for females and 3.19 (.81) for males. Tukey LSD
comparisons for estimated marginal means showed that this
36, and 41). Grade Inflation was defined as the average score, for difference was significant at p < .05. Finally, the violation
both frequency and seriousness, on five items (1, 10, 14, 27, and 28). type  professional status  gender interaction reflected the finding
Coefficient alpha was computed, as a measure of internal consis- that the difference in mean scores between male and female
tency, for each of the eight resulting scales. The eight coefficient teachers on Public/Private- Seriousness ratings occurred only for
alphas were .94 for Personal Harm-Seriousness; .89 for Personal pre-service teachers. Mean ratings for experienced teachers were
Harm-Frequency; .84 for Carelessness-Seriousness; .82 for 3.21 for men and 3.38 for women; in contrast, the means for pre-
Carelessness-Frequency; .81 for Public/Private-Seriousness; .76 for service teachers were 3.00 for men and 3.64 for women.
Public/Private-Frequency; .87 for Grade Inflation-Seriousness; and In addition, a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance
.80 for Grade Inflation-Frequency. was conducted with Personal Harm-Frequency, Grade Inflation-
Frequency, Public Private-Frequency and Carelessness-Frequency as
2.4. Multivariate analysis within-subjects factors and respondent professional status and gender
as between-subjects factors (See Table 3). Lower bound values for
A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance was degrees of freedom were used due to the fact that the assumption of
conducted with Personal Harm-Seriousness, Grade Inflation- sphericity could not be retained (c25 ¼ 82:12, p < .000). There was
Seriousness, Public Private-Serious and Carelessness-Seriousness a within-subjects effect for type of violation; F1, 589 ¼ 182.80, p ¼ .000.

Table 3
Means and standard deviations of ratings of violations by summary scale and teacher status.

Summary scale Pre-service teachers (n ¼ 108) In-service teachers (n ¼ 485) Total sample (n ¼ 593)
Seriousness
Personal harm 4.62 (.69) 4.61 (.83) 4.61 (.80)
Grade inflation 4.37 (.71) 4.20 (.76) 4.23 (.77)
Carelessness 3.90 (.66)a 3.65 (.79)a 3.70 (.77)
Public/private 3.54 (.76) 3.35 (.78) 3.38 (.78)
Frequency
Personal harm 2.21 (.77) 1.91 (.81) 1.96 (.66)
Grade inflation 2.76 (.73) 2.52 (.82) 2.52 (.81)
Carelessness 3.23 (.71) 2.93 (.78) 2.98 (.81)
Public/private 2.76 (.62) 2.61 (.67) 2.64 (.66)

Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. For Seriousness ratings, total sample within- subjects F1, 589 ¼ 272.36, p < .001; all pair-wise differences between
Summary Scale means are significantly different at p < .001. For Frequency ratings, total sample within-subjects F1, 189 ¼ 182.80, p < .001; all pair-wise differences between
Summary Scale means are significantly different except for Grade Inflation versus Public/Private.
a
Mean for Pre-service teachers exceeds mean for In-service teachers (p < .05).
 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898 895

Order of rated frequency was Carelessness, Public/Private, Grade this gender difference emerged only for pre-service teachers.
Inflation and Personal Harm. Mean scale scores were 2.98 (standard Finally, individuals who taught or planned to teach secondary
deviation ¼ .81) for Carelessness, 2.64 (.66) for Public/Private, 2.57 school viewed Public/Private violations as less serious than did
(.81) for Grade Inflation and 1.96 (.66) for Personal Harm. Tukey LSD individuals who taught or planned to teach elementary school.
comparisons for differences between estimated marginal means
showed that all pairwise comparisons except for the comparison 3. Discussion
between Grade Inflation- Frequency and Public/Private- Frequency
were significant at p < .001. Analyses were conducted for effect sizes 3.1. Interpretation of findings
for differences between means from dependent samples. Effect sizes
were large for Carelessness vs. Personal Harm (d ¼ 1.49), Public/Private The results of the present study are consistent with and also extend
vs. Personal Harm (d ¼ 1.08), and Grade Inflation vs. Personal Harm the findings of our initial study on teachers’ judgments about ethical
(d ¼ 1.03). Effect sizes were moderate for Carelessness vs. Grade and unethical behavior. As in our earlier study, we find that teachers’
Inflation (d ¼ .66) and Carelessness vs. Public/Private (d ¼ .64). There judgments about the seriousness of specific misdeeds can be explained
were no interactions between type of violation and any of the in terms of a small number of underlying factors. Also, as previously
between-subject factors. reported, teachers distinguish misbehaviors that involve violations of
student-teacher boundaries from those that involve carelessness in the
2.5. Supplementary analyses: teacher grade level and experience implementation of instruction and those that involve a failure to
remain objective in evaluating students. However, in addition, results
Because, there were very few pre-service teachers who indi- of the present study suggest another basis for teachers’ decision-
cated an interest in teaching the middle grades, we examined the making about the ethicality of their behaviors. Specifically, when we
role of teacher grade level by dividing the sample into two groups, added additional items related to technology use, the new items did
those that taught or planned to teach elementary school (n ¼ 254) not “load” on the broad factor that we described earlier as a “boundary
and those who taught or planned to teach high school (n ¼ 187). We violations” factor; rather, the inclusion of additional items drew out
then conducted a repeated measures multivariate analysis, a separate factor. That is, the original “boundary violations” factor
including the four seriousness ratings as the repeated measure and appears to comprise two more specific factors. One reflects behaviors
grade level taught as a between subjects factor. Results showed that which pose a direct threat to a student’s physical or emotional well-
respondents who taught high school or planned to teach high being; an example would be a teacher engaging in a romantic rela-
school viewed violations in the Public/Private domain as less tionship with a student. The other factor involves behaviors which
serious than those who planned to teach elementary school; appear to violate an understood boundary between private behavior
F1,439 ¼ 7.32, p < .05 for the interaction between type of violation and public (community) standards. An example of this type of
and grade level. Mean scores on Public/Private-Seriousness for behavior would be posting personal opinions about students on
elementary and secondary respectively were 3.49 (standard Facebook or dressing inappropriately at work. Three of the 7 items
deviation ¼ .75) for elementary and 3.26 (.78) for secondary; Tukey which loaded highly on this factor concerned the misuse of technology.
LSD comparisons for estimated marginal means showed that this The four factors we have identified in this study which we have
difference was significant at p < .05. labeled Personal Harm, Public/Private, Carelessness and Grade
To examine the role of teacher experience, we divided teachers Inflation help us in better understanding some of the critical
into those that had taught 5 years or fewer (n ¼ 86) and those that dilemmas teachers face in their day to day decision making, as well
had taught 6 years or more (n ¼ 393). We then conducted as the importance that different groups of people attach to these
a repeated measures multivariate analysis, including the four problems. Consider, first, the issue of personal harm. Teachers are
seriousness ratings as the repeated measure and years of teaching consistently encouraged in their training to demonstrate “caring” in
experience as a between subjects factor. There were no interactions their relationships with students (See NCATE, 2006; also Noddings,
between type of violation and teacher experience, indicating that 2008). However, the desire to develop close and caring relation-
teachers’ ratings of relative seriousness by type of violation did not ships with those with whom we work has to be balanced by an
depend on teaching experience. awareness of the dangers inherent in “dual relationships,” situa-
tions in which a professional maintains a social or personal rela-
2.6. Summary of findings tionship with a client in addition to a professional one. Such
relationships are particularly dangerous when the caring provider
Factor analysis of the 41 items with respect to rated seriousness is an adult and the person being cared for is a child.
yielded 4 interpretable factors. These factors were interpretable as A similar conflict involves the issues of public versus private
a Personal Harm factor, a Grade Inflation factor, a Carelessness behaviors and subjectivity in grading. Beginning teachers are
factor and a Public/Private boundary factor. Summary scales were encouraged to be as responsive as possible to students and their
constructed based on the four factors. Each scale included the items families. For example, at Clemson University, the “Conceptual
which loaded most highly on that factor; however, items that could Framework” of the School of Education states that teachers must be
not be conceptually linked to the factor on which they loaded most “connected” to the communities they serve (Clemson University,
highly were not included in further analyses. Coefficient alpha was 2011). But what happens when the desire to “connect” with
computed for each of the eight resulting scales. Coefficient alphas students results in over-stepping the boundaries between private
ranged from .76 to .94, with a median value of .83. Repeated citizen behavior and public employee responsibilities; for example,
measures multivariate analyses of variance showed that Personal when teachers begin to communicate with their own students on
Harm violations were rated as most serious, followed by Grade social networking sites? And what happens when in attempting to
Inflation, Carelessness and Public/Private, respectively. Careless- be responsive to parental feelings and wishes, the teacher
ness violations were rated as most frequent and Personal Harm compromises his or her own professional objectivity; for example,
least with Grade Inflation and Public/Private violations in the by inflating grades when pressured to do so?
middle position. Professional educators viewed Carelessness And even the issue of “careless” behavior among teachers raises the
violations as less serious than did teachers in training. Females question of competing interests. For example, one of the items that
rated Public/Private violations as more serious than did males but loaded highly on the carelessness factor involved teachers allowing
896 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898

students to violate school rules; for example, allowing students to eat communicating with the public, interactions with students) and,
food in class. Yet some teachers might argue that allowing students to importantly, would explain how ethical conflicts should be
eat in class is necessary because some students are hungry and cannot addressed. Due to the current and increasingly prevalent use of
concentrate. In sum, we believe we have identified a set of constructs technology in schools, this code of ethics should include language
which represent fundamental principles upon which a code of ethics specifically governing the appropriate use of technology.
could be built. These principles are concern for students’ personal There would, of course, be unique challenges in formulating
welfare (versus personal harm), respect for community standards a code of conduct for teachers, challenges that might not be faced
(versus violating public/private boundaries), objectivity in teaching by other helping professions. Professional educators are account-
and evaluating students (versus subjectivity), and integrity in the able to multiple constituencies, including quasi-political units such
delivery of instruction (versus engaging in behaviors which compro- as school administrations and school boards as well as state boards
mise professional standards of service). of education and state departments of education. While psychol-
As indicated previously, a second goal of this study was to ogists, physicians and lawyers are subject to state statutes and
examine differences between pre-service and in-service teachers’ regulations, their professional actions are generally not evaluated
views of the seriousness and frequency of specific teacher misbe- or scrutinized by more local agencies. In addition, because profes-
haviors. In some ways the results were surprising. Pre-service sional educators’ immediate clients are minors, there exists the
teachers appeared to be more demanding than in-service possibility for apparent conflict between the educational needs of
teachers when it came to standards of practice. Specifically, on the child (for example, sex education) and legitimate parental
the factor representing careless behavior in the classroom, pre- concerns (the right to privacy, parental autonomy, religious belief).
service teachers rated such violations as more serious than did Still, these are not insurmountable obstacles and the potential
practicing teachers. One interpretation of this finding is that prac- benefits of a well-developed code of conduct would be substantial.
ticing teachers believe that behaviors such as allowing students to A formal code of conduct would help to guide teachers in their
break school rules, not correcting papers or coming to class decision making and improve the overall delivery of services to the
unprepared are sometimes justified when the teacher is dealing public. A formal code of conduct would help local and state boards
with other legitimate concerns (e. g, wanting students to feel of education in regulating the practice of teaching in their juris-
comfortable in the classroom, wanting to spend time on other dictions. And a formal code of conduct would increase the public’s
professional responsibilities, wanting to resolve personal issues). confidence in teachers and in public education.
Research on teacher time demands, and, in particular, teacher What is the role of schools and colleges of education? First, we
frustrations resulting from competing professional and institu- agree with Boon (2011) that schools of education can play a critical role.
tional demands (Lindqvist & Nordanger, 2006) provides support for First, pre-service education for teachers should include an ethics
this interpretation. curriculum, one in which instruction in decision-making and profes-
But another interpretation is that pre-service teacher attitudes are sional standards is incorporated into all facets of the curriculum. For
more optimistic and altruistic than those of in-service teachers. example, in the United States, students in the field of special education
Examination of Table 2 shows that two of the items loading highly on are familiarized in their content area coursework with the No Child Left
the Carelessness factor involved disrespect for colleagues (items 21 and Behind Act (2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
26). When we examine those items individually, it appears that pre- (2004). What students need to understand is that these important
service teachers view respect for colleagues as more important than laws bring both opportunities and challenges to educators, particularly
do practicing teachers (mean seriousness ratings for items 21 and 26, with respect to issues such as grading, retention and promotion, and
respectively, were 4.20 and 3.79 for pre-service teachers but only 3.86 student discipline. Pre-service teachers need to understand that
and 3.23 for practicing teachers). It may be that pre-service teachers teaching is invariably about decision-making. Recognition of the
view teaching as a more collegial activity than do in-service teachers. competing interests e a professional, institutional, personal e that
This interpretation is consistent with the research of Chong, Low, and teachers face is a crucial part of the education of the future teacher.
Goh (2011), who describe pre-service teachers in Singapore as more Second, we urge continued research on the topic of teacher attitudes
likely to describe teaching as a “noble” and “caring” profession than one about ethical and unethical behavior. It is our responsibility as teacher
which leads to frustration and disillusionment. educators to examine and fully understand the internal norms that
Interestingly, while there was no relationship between teacher members of the teaching profession use to guide their own behavior.
experience and the ratings of seriousness given to specific types of Standards of practice evolve with the profession; it the task of teachers
violations, there were sex and grade level differences. As might be and teacher educators to take responsibility for the difficult tasks of
expected, women rated violations of public/private boundaries (for identifying the norms and mores of the profession, articulating stan-
example, with respect to use of technology) as more serious than dards and expectations for practitioners, and communicating these
did men. This may be due to the fact that most of the highly expectations to the public.
publicized cases involving the disciplining of teachers, both with
respect to personal relationships with students and with respect to Appendix
misuse of technology, have involved female teachers. The finding
that in-service and pre-service teachers who teach or plan to teach Items
at the elementary school level viewed such violations as particu- 1. A teacher raises a child’s grade due to parental pressure.
larly serious is noteworthy. 2. A teacher spends considerable class time engaged in activities
irrelevant to the subject area.
3.2. Implications for policy 3. A teacher knowingly allows a student to violate a school rule in
his or her classroom.
It seems reasonable at this time that professional education 4. A teacher fails to keep an accurate record of his or her students’
associations and schools of education begin to consider the academic performance.
formulation of a formal code of conduct for teachers. Such a code of 5. A teacher makes a statement about subject matter without
conduct would begin with a statement of general principles, would being certain that it is correct.
identify the standards which teachers must adhere to (e.g., stan- 6. A teacher teaches a course without attempting to follow state
dards regarding delivery of instruction, record keeping, curriculum guidelines.
 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898 897

7. A teacher gives rewards or punishments to students based on aera.net/uploadedFiles/About_AERA/Research_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics/Draft

EthicsCode.pdf.
students’ popularity.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and
8. A teacher engages in a romantic relationship with a student. code of conduct. Retrieved from. http://www.apa.org/code.html.
9. A teacher uses the classroom to promote his or her religious Archibald, G. (2004, July 1). Millions of students see sex misconduct: teachers, aides
views. most likely offenders. The Washington Times, A03, 563.
Barrett, D. E., Headley, K. N., Stovall, B., & Witte, J. C. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of
10. A teacher raises a student’s grade due to pressure from the the frequency and seriousness of violations of ethical standards. The Journal of
student. Psychology, 140, 421e433.
11. A teacher returns student papers without identifying or cor- Boon, H. J. (2011). Raising the bar: ethics education for quality teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 76e93.
recting errors. Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. (2006). Personality development. In W. Damon, & R. Lerner (Eds.),
12. A teacher gossips to other teachers about a student. Handbook of child psycholology (6th ed). (pp. 300e365). New York: John Wiley.
13. A teacher begins a class without having prepared a lesson. Carter, H. L., Foulger, T. S., & Ewbank, A. D. (2008). Have you googled your teacher
lately? Teachers’ use of social networking sites. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 681e685.
14. A teacher gives a child a higher grade than the child deserves Chong, S., Low, E. L., & Goh, K. C. (2011). Emerging professional identity of pre-
because the teacher likes the child. service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 50e64.
15. A teacher talks about highly personal subjects with a student. Clemson University. (2011). Eugene T. Moore School of education conceptual frame-
work. Retrieved from. http://www.clemson.edu/hehd/departments/education/
16. A teacher uses profanity in the classroom.
about/framework.html.
17. A teacher uses technology in the classroom that has not been The Council of the Ontario College of Teachers. (2011). Professional advisory: Use of
approved by the school’s technology administrators. electronic communication and social media. Retrieved from. http://www.oct.ca.
Crawford, A. (2009, October 20). Several area educators disciplined. Tribune-Review
18. A teacher makes a derogatory statement to a student.
(Greensburg, Pennsylvania), Retrieved from. http://www.lexisnexis.com/
19. A teacher gives rewards or punishments to students based on hottopics/lnacademic/.
students’ ethnic or cultural characteristics. Cumming, R., Dyas, L., Maddux, C. D., & Kochman, A. (2001). Principled moral
20. A teacher fails to follow special education guidelines. reasoning and behavior of preservuce teacher education students. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 143e158.
21. A teacher makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: the need for a more
another teacher. rigorous definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 365e369.
22. A teacher makes a sexually provocative statement to a student. Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas:
a model to understand to teacher practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
23. A teacher fails to report a colleague’s unethical behavior. Practice, 17, 173e185.
24. A teacher dresses inappropriately at work. Gershman, J. (2005, May 31). “Disposition” emerges as issue at Brooklyn College.
25. A teacher behaves in an unprofessional way while outside of New York Sun, 1.
Good, K. (2011, December 09). Facebook bone of contention for parents and students,
work. survey says. Wimbledon: Your Local Guardian. Retrieved from. http://www.
26. A teacher uses a lesson or materials developed by another cottagecountrynow.ca.
teacher without giving credit to the teacher who developed the Grossman, L. (2010, December 15). Person of the year 2010: Mark Zuckerberg. Time,
Retrieved from. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0, 28804,
material.
2036683_2037183_20371 85,00.html.
27. A teacher raises a child’s grade due to pressure from an Helms, A. D. (2008, November 12). 5 teachers disciplined for Facebook postings.
administrator. Charlotte Observer, Retrieved from. www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/11/12/
320138/5-teachers-disciplined-for-facebook.html.
28. A teacher refuses to fail students, even when they perform
Hennessey, K. (2004, July 1). Study cites adult sexual offenses in schools. The Los
poorly. Angeles Times, A19.
29. A teacher shares confidential information about a student with Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral
another student. sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
ducation Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. x 1400 et seq. (2004), (reauthorization
30. A teacher allows students to engage in romantic behavior in the of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
classroom. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education
31. A teacher makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to technology standards for teachers (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Author.
Keung Hui, T. (2010, February 16). Religious conflict leads to teacher’s suspension.
a student. Newsobserver.com, Retrieved from. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/02/16/
32. A teacher copies material from a published text and distributes 341361/on-facebook-out-of-class.html.
it to a class as though it is the teacher’s original material. Larson, L., Miller, T., & Ribble, M. (2010). 5 considerations for digital age leaders:
what principals and district administrators need to know about tech integration
33. A teacher communicates with students about non-professional today. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37, 12e15.
matters through Facebook, Twitter or a similar social media Lim, L. (2011, December 05). Careful, teacher: what you do might get posted on the
site. web. The Straits Times, Retrieved from. http://www.straitstimes.com.
Lindqvist, P., & Nordanger, U. K. (2006). Who dares to disconnect in the age of
34. A teacher hires students to do chores.
uncertainty? Teachers’ recesses and “off the clock work.” Teachers and Teaching:
35. A teacher gives students high grades in return for favors. Theory and Practice, 12, 623e637.
36. A teacher encourages students to address him or her by first Murray, F. B. (2007). Disposition: a superfluous construct in teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 381e387.
name.
National Education Association. (2011a). NEA home. Retrieved from. http://www.
37. A teacher uses physical force to discipline a student. nea.org/.
38. A teacher changes a student’s grade or test score without National Education Association. (2011b). Code of ethics of the education profession.
justification. Retrieved from. http://www.nea.org/home/30442.html.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2006). Professional standards for
39. A teacher fails to report a child’s threat of violence to self or the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Retrieved from.
others. http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/unit_stnds_2006.pdf.
40. A teacher posts personal opinions about students on a public or National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2011). Standards for
advanced programs in educational leadership. Retrieved from. http://faculty.
semi-private site such as Facebook. winthrop.edu/martinmb/ELCC_Standards.pdf.
41. A teacher downloads and implements a lesson found on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 Section 6301 et seq.
World Wide Web instead of creating an original lesson. Noddings, N. (2008). The aims of education. In D. J. Flinders, & S. J. Thornton (Eds.),
The curriculum studies reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oakes, O. (2011, December 16). Struck off Raynes Park High School teacher’s support
from pupils. Wimbledon: Your Local Guardian. Retrieved from. http://www.
yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/wimbledonnews.
References Olson, J., Clough, M., & Penning, K. (2009). Prospective elementary teachers gone
wild? An analysis of Facebook self-portrayals and expected dispositions of
American Educational Research Association. (2011). Draft (July 2010), code of ethics preservice elementary teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
(in preparation for adoption by AERA in 2011). Retrieved from. http://www. Education, 9, 443e475.
898 D.E. Barrett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 890e898

Preston, J. (2011, December 17). Rules to stop pupil and teacher from getting too Unnikrishnan, B. S. (2012, January 02). Facebook and Twitter ‘can Ruin teachers’
social online. The New York Times, Retrieved from. http://www.nytimes.com/. Career’. International Business Times, Retrieved from. http://www.ibtimes.com.
Raths, J. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research and Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology. New York:
Practice, 3, 385e391. Seiler.
Rushowy, K. (2011, April 11). Teachers cautioned against having student ‘friends’: Verma, J. (2011, December 10). Teachers taunted by cyberbaiting pupils. The Asian
college of teachers says social media the wrong way for teachers to commu- Age, Retrieved from. http://www.asianage.com.
nicate. The Hamilton Spectator, Retrieved from. http://www.thespec.com. Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: a look at social justice.
Shapira, I. (2008). When young teachers go wild on the web. Retrieved from. The Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 370e380.
Washington Post, . http://imc.mbhs.edu/cap/court/postarticle.pdf. Wueste, D. E. (1994). Introduction. In D. E. Wueste (Ed.), Professional ethics
Steinberg, L. (2011). Adolescence (9th ed).. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. and social responsibility (pp. 1e35). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and
Teo, T. (2012). Understanding the intention to use technology by preservice Littlefield.
teachers: an empirical test of competing theoretical models. International WVCB TV. (2010). High school teacher loses job over Facebook posting. Retrieved
Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 28, 178e188. from. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/24670937/detail.html.