Hello Mahmoud - I think that this attached Ethical Understanding learning continuum from Australia (designed to apply progressively to 5-16 year olds) is a pretty good start to addressing the issues that you raised.

Of course, it is rare that one thinks morally and ethically in education without there being a particular issue, situational or disciplinary context. So I think that context is important. Also these qualities don't simply sit there inertly - and we can't simply expect them to happen by some magical process. Ethical thinking needs to be practised and rehearsed (I have a personal bias that history education and citizenship education both provide rich opportunities to undertake ethical thinking. e.g. How justified was the dropping of A-Bombs by the U.S. on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945?

Thanks for launching this strand. Peter

Yes, one can teach integrity to his students. One of the attributes of good teacher is integrity. Teacher must demonstrate this from time to time in his conduct and in dealing with his students. Teacher must live by good examples

The schools, parents and religious organizations are obliged to teach ethics to the students

Yes integrity can be taught in school. The teachers play a significant role in the life of the students. The students see the teachers as a role model to emulate. So the integrity of a teacher plays an important role in the life of the students.

Peter Brett

Thank you for sharing.

In most schools and universities there is a subject dealing with moral/ethical issues. is this enough? 2 credits in 135 credits. students take many subjects and they might forget them after a few semesters without any problem. can the same be said about integrity?. is integrity a life long learning? can school alone handle this?

Schools alone can not handle integrity, the parents, church and other organizations has a significant role to place

Yes, we can teach integrity. The integrity is a part of code of ethics. It is not just being honest but includes building trust through loyalty ,honesty ,confidentiality and fairness and accepting responsibility for one's own action. It also implies not using own position or status to seek any personal gain.

Abduljaleel Alwali

I agree with you.

Thanks Prof. Mohammed for your support.

If students can be taught to have integrity, to be honest individuals, to be firm in their actions and to act in the right way. Integrity is understood as a basic right of every person and must be guaranteed on a physical, psychological and moral level. The teaching of integrity should be a moral obligation of primary and secondary schools in order to strengthen values in children and young people, a fundamental issue in the development of a country.

of course we can.

أ. م. د. محمد جواد كاظم السلامي

Is the teaching of ethics and morality by schools enough? what about parents? what about society? is reading a book or listening to a few lectures about ethics sufficient?

A further question ... do you think that learning integrity and developing a code of ethics something that is domain specific or general? What I mean by this is that it is like critical thinking for example. There are many theories around the teaching and learning of critical thinking skill and whether these skills can be transferable across different domains of learning. So if you learn about the environment for example and

It can be taught but if its absorbed depends on other factors. Students know the right answer on a test. Seeing hypocrisy will actually have a reverse affect and in my experience has been the most detrimental factor to lessons not embraced. Having students participate in community projects like Food Banks, environmental cleanup may help. Teaching the broader social impact of leaders, government officials, among others that put their own short term gains before the good of the community can help.

A very relevant and pertinent question:

I understand that we are familiar with domins of learning, the cognitive, Affective and psychomotor domains.

"Integity, honesty truthfulness and value system", though very crucial, can't be taught directly. We may preach anything, but unless we practise what we preach, students will not learn. For example a teachet who is not punctual can't teach punctuality.

So the teacher could be a role model and develop learners affective domain through demonstration of relevant values and ethics.

It is said "attitudes are caught and not taught.

I am open for comments and suggestions

Education is the basis for establishing the concept of integrity

Its depends on learner.

Human being may have sincerity , honesty and in our action one should remain punctual . It is this which may create discipline in the student .

For teacher with his performance should notice such qualities among students. It is very unlikely that teachers may observe the same in spirit. It is the behavior of every individual that they should maintain the moral code and ethics and in such cases it is the responsibility of the family that they should observe such code in spirit .

This is my personal opinion

We should exert all efforts in transferring and consolidating all the principles of integrity, moral, and academic and professional ethical values and principles to our students. The importance of this issue runs in parallel and even surpass that of the

scientific information and knowledge that we teach students.

I do agree with dr. Salman Ajlan & dr. Yousif Yaqoob 🌹

I'm not sure you can teach integrity. Ethics classes are taught all the time. I believe ethics can be taught - one can teach the difference between right and wrong. However, it is up to each individual and his or her own conscious if they practice/live those ethics - integrity. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is the easy part. Actually doing what is right, is not - that comes from within.

I fully agree with Dr. Salman Ajlan

Dear Dr Manal Hadi Kanaan, dear Diana. Thank you so much for your kindful agreement with

my comment. Best regards.

Cultivate a Culture of Integrity in Your Classroom

Here are some ideas that I hope will help you cultivate a culture of integrity in your classroom.

1. Model, Model, Model

This goes without saying. Modeling expectations is one of the most effective ways to demonstrate them to students. Sometimes, as a teacher, it is not easy to admit to your students that you, too, are human, but when they see you acting with integrity when no one is looking, it will help them internalize the trait.

2. Do Not Shame Students

If you catch a student lying, cheating, or taking part in some other undesired behavior, You first try to address the cause of the behavior. From there, I explain the current consequences and preview the consequences for future offenses. you finish by telling the student that she or he has an opportunity to learn from the mistake and make better choices in the future.

3. Tread Lightly When Speaking About Behavior

chances are good that at some point you will have a student who has a family member who has had a run-in with law enforcement. For this reason, you should tread lightly when speaking about these topics.

4. Teach Integrity Directly Using Read-Alouds

There are many excellent picture books that can be used to teach integrity. Additionally, many websites offer free integrity-based lesson plans to go with books. A quick Internet search should produce a decent list of books and websites you can try.

5. Integrate Wherever Possible

If your weekly story has a prime example of someone displaying integrity, discuss this with your students. When you are studying history and you come upon someone acting with or without integrity, call students’ attention to the act.

6. Role Plays

Role-playing is a great way to help young people work through what a situation might feel like and how they should respond. If students have already been walked through the steps for correct behavior, they are more likely to use the desired behavior in real-life situations.

7. Catch Your Students in the Act

Never pass up an opportunity to applaud a student for acting with integrity. Positive recognition will reinforce the behavioral expectations for the entire group. If you have students who would be embarrassed by public recognition, take them to the side and tell them that you are proud of them.

8. Make an Integrity Collage

Choose a space in your classroom and dedicate it to displaying examples of integrity. These examples could be pictures of people, quotes, or motivational phrases. This space will serve as a reminder to your students that you expect them to act with integrity, and it could help teach them about the meaning of integrity.

Yes, indeed. Applying core values and ethical principles in real-life situations and professional conduct helps develop that sense of integrity among students.

Integrity is promoted as a core value of many schools in the Caribbean. Integrity can be viewed as: 'Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do and doing it even when no one is looking.' Some schools place Integrity high on their Action Agenda for change especially when schools are troubled by dishonesty. Staff must take the lead and model Integrity for the school community. In teaching honesty, commitment, responsibility, self respect and respect for others we instill and teach the disciplinary foundation on which Integrity thrives.

Yes we try to teach them practically, not only saying, by integrity in all our behaviors.

Yes, of course, especially as we live in a country that is a symbol of integrity.

IMHO, integrity can be incorporated in teaching many subjects. Just like teaching ethics/ values, we can have stimulus materials that contain points of contention, where students can debate of what is right and wrong among themselves with the teacher acting as facilitator. And of course, people around, especially the teachers and parents must be a good models of person with integrity.

Also, there should be certain programmes in the school that encapsulate integrity.

In my view, Rationality is the foundation of integrity. The more irrational we act or think the more incoherent is our identity; by acting irrationally we dis-integrate metaphysically (and sometimes, psychologically). Rationality also dictates that our existence is defined by the consistency of our itersubjective relations: if we treat all humans humanely we are fully human; if we treat some humans humanely and others inhumanely we have already created an inconsistency in our being, a fracture in our human identity. To have integrity is to be consistent in our humanity with respect to other humans.

Thank you Michael, this totally resonated with me as I work in the field of inclusive education which is underpinned by concepts including social justice. However, the argument gets subsumed by ideas around power, freedom, democracy, equity, and equality which are very context dependent and often culturally mediated. This means our understanding and therefore our actions are dependent on what we believe is humane. Therefore, there is a tension between what we believe is 'right' and therefore how we can behave humanely taking us further to explore the idea of 'natural justice'.

become a role model

Michelle Somerton I meant “humane” in a more formal sense, entirely independent of any subjective and non-universal conditions: to relate to other conscious rational beings reflexively. More on this here: Article Ontological-Transcendental Defence of Metanormative Realism

If what is “right” is conditional on culture then there is no overarching normative framework, therefore there is no common “right” or “wrong”, therefore contradiction, and this is also a good example of the importance of rationality for ethics And personhood. Without a universal normative structure there can be no integrity; the concept becomes meaningless. Another way i could put this: from rationality everything follows because it is a constitutive condition of conscious agency: all meaning, including justice (how to consistently manage destructive irrationality?), rational limits of inclusiveness (what is rational to exclude in order to maintain integrity?), ethical exercise of asymmetric power which dovetails with the ontological limits of personal freedom (is there a kind of freedom which damages human agency and therefore the capacity to exercise freedom?), the function of democracy (prevention of bloodshed by creating a dignified way of submitting to the ruling majority?), equity (what kind of equity increases human agency, and what kind damages it?), equality (are some forms of inequality socially constructive of human agency?) etc.

This reminds me of the debate between Foucault and Chomsky on justice versus power. So you would argue that the balance lies in rationality. However, how do we engage with rational thought and action without education which in itself is inherently biased in a way that reproduces ineqality?

This question can be answered by considering the antithesis of integrity. How is the latter taught? Honestly, we teach it either way - consciously or otherwise - through modeling. The same applies to integrity. But teachers alone become overwhelmed by the task, considering that the larger society may be modeling differently. Children look up to us. That's why there ought to be a way of bringing adults to understand their role in this whole business of teaching integrity. Come to think of it, it's a case of the egg and hen puzzle: it's easier to mold children than adults, meaning that we have to teach the young so that they grow up into upright individuals. Yet, the already crooked adults (who are now hard to change) are impressing upon the young ones negatively. Just how far can the teacher go? This is the challenge we are having in my native country. Teachers are trying their best, yet the larger society e.g. the political class are doing their own things. Children ultimately get conflicting messages, ending up believing the lessons from the otherwise vicious 'influencers'. To answer the question, integrity can be taught. But teachers can only do so much.

Michelle Somerton I maintain, rather, that all “right” or “wrong” must be reducible to intrinsic agential rationality or else it is a misnomer, not normative, in which case presenting it as normative is irrational, self-defeating, a fracture in self-constitution, dis–integrity.

By rationality I only mean adherence to the 3 laws of thought: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity.

Though, insofar as it is meagful, is already rational (as defined above), and any inconsistency in our system of meanings amounts to non-sense, an ab-sense of meaning. We cannot even think non-sense directly, but only infer it at the meta level, as a way of making sense about non-sense which in turn is only a relation (incompatibility) between otherwise meaningful elements. In that context, rationality amounts to developing our capacity for thinking (making sense) about non-sense, according to our intrinsic rationality. Edcation about epistemic methodologies, types of non-sense, examples of non-sense, can all help us in developing our natural capacity to consistently regulate mearning, which is the basis of reliably converting intention into effective action.

I agree that education can be and is often used to lead us away from our intrinsic rationality towards more primal/animal tendencies (fight-flight, paring, dependency). Education which helps us transcend our animality is both rare and difficult, perhaps because most educators are themselves trapped in the dynamics of fight-flight, paring and dependency which are then merely re-produced, underming our capacity for maintaining reflexive relations with other rational agents and thus, indirectly, the integrity of our own personhood.The reference to “reproducing inequality” already presupposes a normative standard which is not well grounded in my view and may itself be unwittingly reproducing ‘dependency’ or ‘fight/flight’ dynamics.

The laws of thought are simple to define, intuitively comprehensible, but difficult to apply consistently under conditions of incomplete information, complexity and emotion. This practical aspect is perhaps where constructive development is the most important.

I recall the approach of Wilfred Bion who in order not to contribute to the primal tendencies (“basic assumptions”) would enter a group and just sit there, mostly in silence, as if he were one of the students/patients untill the group itself began to interact and organise to facilitate education/work. The idea was to preserve the group’s agential authority, and let it go through various pathological dynamics, frustration, expectations, arguments, complaints, until those tendencies would (hopefully) discharge themselves via failure to produce. Bion would only help the group identify vagueness of expectations or their implicit contradictions while leaving himself exposed to the groups frustration and antipathy. In time, the group could not resist becoming cooperative and productive, at which point Bion’s participation would increase, but never as to remove the authority from the group. I found this approach ingenious but I imagine it would be quite challenging for most educators in typical educational settings. Bion was also a psychiatrist with immense clinical experience, so his skill were both practical and analytical, and no doubt underpinned by a lot of personal introspection.

In part I understand your line of reasoning however, there is much I don't. This is not for any other reason than my own limitations in exposure to these concepts and perhaps my own need for additional time to unpack some of these concepts and contradictions. Despite this, one of the challenges that teacher educators face is how to develop deeper levels of understanding of ontological and epistemological awareness within their students ... pre-service teachers. Many teachers still operate on the basis they they the transmitters of knowledge or the controllers of knowledge, and even those who are critically reflective regarding their practice, do not necessarily have a basic awareness of ontology and epistemology in order to orchestrate learning at this level. In part this is due to university entry levels into pre-service teacher education but at the same time, there must be some responsibility placed within the academy offering limited opportunities to engage in these debates within certain spheres.

You can encourage students to develop a sense of why integrity is important, and practise this character strength through learning activities. This should be approached at pre-adolescence. Also, positive role-models, and examples of how other people have shown integrity, can provide an important part of the learning experience.

see www.amazingpeopleschools.com

for online learning activities linked to integrity

Integrity is best taught through modelling it.

When I ask my students to be punctual and I follow it, When I ask my students to be honest with their replies and admit when I don't know an answer , I model integrity at its best.

In many ways students learn not from what we say, but from what we do and what we say. Mahmoud Moghavvemi

Yes we do and we should.

Michelle Somerton What do you mean by teaching ”ontological awareness”?

M. Mary Jayanthi I agree that modelling of integrity is crucial, but an equally crucial task would be to show students why they Ought to do what a particular model of integrity demands of them, especially when the said demands conflict with their perceived self-interest. This means there must be an objectively demonstrable and reproducible link between self-interest and integrity, otherwise they are only endowed with motivation to perform integrity when seen but also to ignore it when nobody is watching. Without providing this kind of grounding to a model one could arguably be causing the loss of integrity, cognitive dissonance, by compelling students to profess ideological adherence to a model without actually believing in it. This can be extrapolated to Any ideology, which amounts to internalising contradiction (violation of the principle of sufficient reason).

Teaching such aspects is a myth, you can inspire others by living "integrity"...

Yes, you teach integrity through your ACTIONS. As action speak louder than words. Students emulate whom you are through your doing, this is where the issue of mentorship normally sets in. As a teacher our moral, values and characters should be an advocate for integrity.Thanks

It's also a cultural issue. Some cultures encourage integrity in education and others hinder it and point out dissimulation.

Ofcourse! But this now depends on the kind of learners that we have

Integrity is defined as a wholeness of character or probity. In other words do you do what you say you are going to do? Does that mean you might do something that other people do not like and you are going to be honest about the possibility of that happening in your teaching? Not necessarily "yes" but a "maybe." But is that quality of character one that would allow you to be hired as a teacher? A strong "maybe" here. Still, it is a characteristic of some people if it exists, and it must be at least exhibited in order to be learned. So, it is not necessarily a quality I would want in a teacher who must teach the truth of history and science to correctly inform students. But it is a quality that I would need to find in a researcher who is pledged to report not doing some things in order to do what is necessary (maybe not liked) to differentiate the quantity of difference between the experimental group and the control group. A sound "yes" here. That means: not all teachers are prepared to be researchers but all researchers must exhibit and demonstrate their integrity in order to show us what we must teach.

I think it is fundamental to teach integrity in schools above all, since it is a necessary principle to form the basis of honesty in young students, since they will be the future professionals who will exercise high management positions where honest and integrated people are needed, and thus reduce as much as possible the corruption that affects many countries in the world.

Integrity is a very individual human trait. Yes. It can be learned, but just to a certain level. Take two siblings living in the same family with a person having traits of antisocial personal disorder (narcissist, sociopath, psychopath).

One sibling will basically become a clone of the parent and hence will carry on all traits going strictly against integrity.

The other one. Will become the exact opposite. He/she will worship behind honest, truthful, and open about his/her actions.

Both got the exact same example in the family, yet the outcomes are completely opposite. Why is it so? Very probably, each of us carries inside of us seeds of our future development into this life. Somehow, it is already there at birth.

It does not mean that those tendencies cannot be changed. Examples are great in this change. Nevertheless, there are tendencies present in each of us.

Actually ... I agree with Dr. Iris April L Ramirez .

How we define integrity as concept ? philosophically ? sociologically? psychologically? etc.

Jiří Kroc

I like to look at it as a universal human trait. You have used a good example. However, it is very difficult to control this experiment and consider that all variables are the same for the two. Predisposition (tendency to suffer from a particular condition, hold a particular attitude, or act in a particular way) ignores the influence of the environment that we live in, types of educations, friends, etc., and assumes that none can change individual behavior. A concept that is proven not to be true.

Christian Jost

"you can inspire others by living "integrity”. Very true if we can do it. The problem is that we are not the only ones in the life of our students. There are many other factors involved that can have the opposite effects.

Abosede Racheal Funmilola Olomola

Fully agreed.

Now that we have some understanding of what Integrity means, there is still the question "Can we teach integrity?" Answer: of course. How many times have students fallen asleep in your courses? Or been so tired that they can do little else except think about what you have added to their mental homework. What is happening when students (and anyone) goes to sleep? They are integrating (integrating and integrity are cognates) the new things that you have asked them to understand in your classes. Everyone is asked to spend 7 to 9 hours sleeping in order to do what you are asking your students to do: reorder their brain cells to adopt and add your new information to their understanding of how the world works and how their bodies are responding to the demands of your new information. All a teacher must do now is discuss why sleep is necessary and how the mind and body adapts to their new information. Many people do not understand this process: creating integrity of their yesterday's mind with their today's mind. Remember the definition of integrity: do what you say you are going to do. Students say they are going to attach the new information you have given them on to their information they got yesterday. That is learning integrity. Perhaps a different meaning than you thought it might be. As a teacher, please explain to your students why they get tired of listing to class discussions and need to go to sleep: they are readjusting their brain cells to the new information they have encountered during their learning. If they think about the new idea connections and resulting new brain cell connections and think about what those new connections give them to more adequately understand the world, they are learning to integrate their previous ideas with their new ideas. The more they work at it through discussion, reading, planing how to operate in their new world, the more integrity they have with their new learning. When that happens, congratulations, your have started your students on the path to mental integrity.

Nick Fenger What happens when the received information is inconsistent, or gives rise to secondary contradictions in the process of attempted integration? If contradictions are internalised how could an individual be deemed integrated? What happens to us psychologically when we are compelled to internalise a contradiction, when we cannot reject it because it is dogmatically “taught” and made into a condition of social or professional acceptance?

Integrity is needed by anyone, not only leaders but also those who are led.

People want assurance that their leader can be trusted if they have to become his followers. They feel confident that the leader cares for the interests of each team member and the leader must trust that the team members are doing their part. Leaders and those being led both want to know that they will keep their promises and never lose track of their commitments.

People who live with integrity will not be willing and able to break the trust of those who put their trust in them. They always choose the right and side with the truth. This is a sign of a person's integrity. Speak the truth responsibly, even when it doesn't feel good to say it.

Integrity is important attitude for human, since they were kids.

Yes, integrity can be taught to students by examples

Dear Mahmoud Moghavvemi, you mentioned the term universal human trait. I will call it past experiences. There is piling up evidence that we are reborn and carry on our past experiences. This is very probably the reason for the different behavior of siblings.

Additionally there exist what we can call 'triggers' -- life-changing situations -- that under certain circumstances can sharply change the course of life.

During our discussion, one event from WW II arose to my mind. At the beginning of the war, during the attack of Polland, Polish farmers were saving Jewish people against nazi killers. Four years forward, they were saving German soldiers against the Russian army.

This is the pinnacle of being honest and having integrity which very few people are capable to express. Those people become a great example to many of us.

I like our discussion, hopefully, we can learn from each other.

All the best to all :-)

Michael Kowalik has cited situations that give rise to nightmares and sleepless nights. They have been experienced by students as well and that is how they process negative integrity. Unfortunately, teaching and learning is not one continuous joy ride. Occasionally a Hitler and a psychiatrist could be added to the title of teacher here. But students who have been taught with positive integrity will be able to recognize them eventually. However if the messages passed on to learners are consistently similar but not with positive integrity, the occasional assassination, revolt, or war may come about. I believe they cause sleepless nights and nightmares as well.

Yes, being a teacher we also need to teach students integrity and must follow the same for self. Generally people learn this behaviour from society and by self.

all of them: teachers, parents, religious institutions, society, ... every one has to teach integrity and to act with integrity.

I think that teacher modelling of integrity is very important here as is a culture in which good behaviour is rewarded rather than the more questionable behaviours which some systems value...

Again, it takes us back to the question of values. Msny here have spoken of the importance of modelling. So then of the teacher? We cannot assume thst every teacher has ‘integrity’ what does mean anyway and under what context?

Integrity in humans is a born feature, however there is a need to nurture. Parents should add value, knowledge, morals and ethics to their children. This could develop based on an intrinsic factors within a child. It could be moulded but mostly it is based on honesty. How one view life and is influenced by family upbringing. I think that it is built up on self motivation of an individual. The pride of a person, for example: I respect and expect to be respected.

I Gede Suputra Widharma

" Integrity is needed by everyone, not only leaders but also those who are led"

This is true. students are not the only one. so the process must start somewhere.

home, school, society, university ?

Integrity is partly internally motivated, but it is largely socially constructed. Like other social constructs it can be learned and it can be un-learned. It can therefore be taught beginning from childhood (a parents role) through schooling (a teacher & peers role) to adulthood (a societal role).

Yes, it is possíble thro' examplary living & behaviour.

Yes and you should. How are students supposed to know what is expected if you do not tell them? You must also lead by example in this area.

Yes,of course,by examplary behaviour we can teach intergrity to students.

Thannks for the recommendations

Joseph Kipkorir Cheruiyot

A process that involves parents, schools and peers and society. Everyone plays a role. Each stage with different degrees of effectiveness.

Yes, by credible actions & good behaviour

Thanks,you are welcome

Dear All

thank you for your interesting comments which cover the entire spectrum of this topic. generally, it is agreed that integrity must be taught and it is not inherited at birth. parents, schools, and society are most influential in the formation of the character of an individual. which one has the greatest influence?

Parent has the greatest influence on the education of a child, Society starts from home.

I think in the first instance parents do have the greatest influence, but it would be wrong to think this is then a set trait. Human behavior is surely context specific and a clear indication of values, expectations and the benefits of integrity versus the potential damage, both personal and societal, through lack of integrity, would modify behavior. The culture of organisations has been shown to have a strong influence on the behavior of employees and so the current context will provide a strong indication of individuals' behavior. As a person develops from a child to an adult their peers become more influential than parents in influencing behavior, so potentially it depends on the time and stage of life.

Thanks you are welcome

I agree with @ shahin mardani, it starts from home, parents, family. However, I strongly believe it a professional responsibility of a teacher.

I agree with@ Irfan Adin Majid. It is a great responsability of a teacher.

I agree with shahin mardani

INTEGRITY BY ITSELF IS A SYSTEM GENERATED BY PERSONALISED FACTORS AND SELF DECISION MAKINGS. ON THEIR PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES IN THEIR DAY TO DAY LIFE..IT LEADS TO AN ADOPTIVE NATURE FROM EXPERIENCE AND WANTINGS OF LIFE EXPERIENCE AND REALISATION ON GOOD AND BAD DEEDS IN ONES OWN LIFE PATTERN

Yes, always... Integrity it is the most important value in our profession.

It is not easy to teach integrity. It can be explained that being upright requires honest, responsible and consistent conduct with principles and values. However, it will be the real examples that teachers, fathers, mothers, community, public persons can give regarding integrity that will serve as reinforcement to students. I can teach a whole class on integrity, but I'm sure my direct behavior will have better effects. Now, the environment of social networks, the wide range of potential experiences to which students are exposed makes it difficult to show how important a value such as integrity is. But those of us in the classroom know that we cannot give up trying.

An educationist or rather a teacher with proper knowledge and know-how experience on subject, say, INTEGRITY, CAN VERY WELL ELOBERATELY , FOR HOURS, CAN EXPLAIN ON INTEGRITY. First and foremost one should be taught about DISCIPLINE AND ITS ESSENTIALITIES.

Hello Bill, I am working practically (but not yet researching) in a number of different contexts on a related idea. In schools and some other organisations we have been using refugee stories to prompt the sharing of 'values stories' (the personal narratives telling those beliefs we most treasure came from and how we sustain them). Recognition of the diversity of experience and the near miracle of empathic communication beneath the barriers of culture are common results from this process. Subsequent 'values discussions' where individuals listen carefully to another's story and are asked to repeat it to colleagues with all the emotion and passion of the story's 'owner' . We then move on to thinking how such sensitivity to each others' autobiographical narratives might affect policy decisions, conversations and relationships Anecdotal feedback, so far suggests that creating shared meanings in this way positively affects the integrity of thought, action and relationship.

You can certainly model and demonstrate integrity, and you can teach about integrity. If by teaching you also include assessment then that becomes a tricky discussion.

As a medicine professor, integrity is an always present matter with students, residents, and fellows. It is the cornerstone of medical teaching. i do not know how efficient and how much impact have the messages and experiences, but certainly, integrity it is always in my mind in every aspect of dealing with diagnosis and treatment of sick human beings.

Yes, I do!!!

Because the teacher is spcifically a model to students,the behavioural pattern of the teacher during the teaching/learning process teaches intergrity.

Some may think that the teacher’s duty is to teach the subject assigned to it only, but this matter is not true at all. The student in these age groups is more flexible in correcting some concepts, principles and habits, and this is the teacher's task, which is to guide and correct some ideas and behaviors Wrong .. This is our moral duty towards our students

Can we and indeed should we, as teachers, seek to teach ‘integrity’ to our pupils is an interesting question in many ways. Firstly we might consider how it becomes a ‘question’ at all. In pre-industrial Europe and in many cultures around the world even now the teaching of morality and ethical principles would have been a core purpose of education. Arguably the rise of scientific rationalism and industrialization led to the ascendancy of objective knowledge over virtue but ‘moral education’ is still present in the shadows and at the edges of the ‘modern’ and ‘instrumental’ curriculum where disciplinary knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding are foregrounded in a bid by national governments to grow ‘human capital’ in their citizenry. This might be evidenced by the high profile given to the achievement of scores in international comparison tables especially in science and mathematics. Where a ‘moral and ethical’ element remains in the school curriculum, in the west at least, it is likely to be consigned to a particular lesson or to school ‘assemblies’ rather than as a vital and highly visible theme which is part of the founding principles of the curriculum and is present in all parts of it. A further challenge schools and teachers have come to face in relation to this ethical objective of education is the ‘crisis of confidence’ which has gripped the west with almost all certainties and ethical positions being subject to scrutiny. It has been argued that this lack of a clear canon of ethical positions has led to the rise of moral relativism with teachers and schools wary of being seen to promote one moral position over another. This reluctance to engage with ethical and moral issues, in England particularly, is reinforced by a curriculum which is claimed to be ‘fact based’ with respect to content is of an economic instrumentalist nature in purpose and aim. In many national jurisdictions the state mandated curriculum for the training of teachers is dominated by the twin core themes of ‘subject knowledge’ and ‘pedagogic technique’ with little or no reference to an ethical or moral direction. This might be illustrated by the Teachers’ Standards for England which states that teachers must “not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs “ . Importantly, we note that the teacher is not required to promote these principles but must not ‘undermine them’. In this example the vast majority of English teachers struggle with the notions of ‘democracy’ or ‘tolerance’ as being particularly ‘British’ and this element of the curriculum is offered as part of the ‘professional code’ teachers must abide by rather than part of a curriculum they should teach. Above we find ourselves struggling to find a place in the aims of schooling and the curriculum for an ethical and moral dimension in a curriculum which is dominated by the acquisition of functional knowledge. Regardless of the above, being a teacher is seen by many, still, to have a moral and ethical dimension and despite ongoing friction between teachers and government, national surveys show the highest level of trust in the former and amongst the lowest level of trust in the later. Likewise the Mcber (2000) study of the views of pupils on what constitutes a ‘good teacher’ emphasises human and moral qualities above those of subject knowledge or teaching technique. This might be seen to suggest that the ‘teaching’ of ethical and moral principles is best done tacitly as teachers demonstrate and foster the qualities they wish to promote in their pupils by setting an example in the way they deal with matters in the classroom and the views they express on wider issues. Whilst ‘teaching by example’ has advantages it has limitations in relation to developing more sophisticated aspects of critical ethical reasoning and the development of deontological and/or consequentialist approaches suggests the necessity of a specific home in the curriculum and the mastery by teachers of specific ethical pedagogies. To sum up I would suggest that teaching ‘integrity’ as ethical and moral perspectives to pupils is both possible and necessary for a fully rounded education. Further that such curriculum elements require a multifaceted approach of teaching by example and direct teaching of particular approaches to dealing with ethical questions rather than the promotion of particular sets of immutable rules.

Yes, i do

В обществе нет абсолютной, вечной и неизменной морали. Нравственность - это социальное явление, исторически меняющееся и имеющее относительную независимость. Эти качества проявляются и в профессиональной этике, которая является одной из составляющих общей морали. Когда кто-либо выполняет свою работу честно и качественно, он или она заслуживают уважение людей, независимо от того, кто они и к какой отрасли промышленности. Мы говорим, что человек может работать и достигать совершенства. Его совершенство связано с полной реализацией его внутреннего потенциала. Разносторонний человек - это разносторонний человек, воплощающий в жизни все человеческие качества.

Lalihon Mukhamedjanova

agreed.

" There is no absolute, eternal and unchanging morality in society. Morality is a social phenomenon that changes historically and has relative independence. These qualities are also manifested in professional ethics, which is one of the components of general morality. When someone does a job with integrity and quality, he or she deserves the respect of people, no matter who they are or what industry. We say that a person can work and achieve perfection. His perfection is associated with the full realization of his inner potential. A versatile person is a versatile person who embodies all human qualities in life".

Mahmoud Moghavvemi another excellent inquiry. So there are three questions posed, and to clear the board, I think the answer to all three is yes. Of course, the parallel construct here is ethics but that does not change the responses. This is not a zero sum situation where one institution defers to another.

I am assuming that Adrian Mee is referring to such pedagogies as presented in the Trivium and quadrivium which arguably assumed both ethics and integrity if for no other reason than logical consistency. The greater question here is not "can we" but "should we". Many teachers have claimed the moral high ground of teaching a more open-mindedness and by extension more virtuous philosophy, shifting students thinking away from family and religious thinking. Of course, there is G. K. Chesterson's admonition of being so open-minded that your brains fall out. So the real question is should teachers be the moral purveyors of integrity and again I think the answer has to be yes under the majority of pedagogical systems.

Stripping away the moral trappings and looking at it from a vocationally pragmatic view, how can we teach our best if we can not trust the interactions with our students? One of my students delightfully declared "of course I lie, but at least I am honest about it" which I guess at the extreme could be seen as a position of integrity but only at the extreme. Fundamentally that student has made the teaching, for which they are paying, more difficult because now I have to build surveillance systems on top of the content and pedagogical structures needed to successfully complete the task of teaching. Of course, one could always take a lessor integrous position of "they are paying it is their loss" and rule out any responsibility whatsoever. Which in the end is not so far afield from the previous student's statement except for in the teacher's case it would be "of course I don't care if you learn, but at least I am honest about it". -jd

Yes parents, teachers, media, etc. have the responsibility to teach children about the significance of integrity.

Muhammad Faheem

great!.

Appreciate if you can share your method of teaching ethics to your students.