500

I chose to discuss ethical issues in Beck and Fetherston’s article because after I read it, I couldn’t help but feel very badly for the participating teacher. In the chapter on ethics, Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) give an example of students who reported negative comments about the teaching methods of their math teacher which sounds very similar to the complaints about the writing process from the students in Beck and Fetherston’s study. Gay et al. say that researchers can avoid these awkward situation if they reflect on their values at the beginning of the study. There is no indication of this in Beck and Fetherston’s study. In fact, I hypothesize that the first time the teacher heard about the private comments made about her was probably when she read the study. No where in the article does Beck and Fetherston mention that they discussed the students’ attitudes towards the handwriting program with the teacher. Gay et al. say that “researchers must consider whether participants would have consented to the study had they known about the type of data collected…” (p.23)

Because a small number of students were selected from a split year ¾ class, it would be obvious to other teachers and administrators of the district who the participating teacher was. Therefore, the confidentiality of the teacher was not well protected. Gay et al. say that “Confidentiality is important for protecting research informants from stress, embarrassment, or unwanted publicity…” (p. 23)

I argue that the publication of this article would have caused harm to the participating teacher. Flinders (1992) says researchers need to ensure that their participants are not physically harmed. However, he goes on to elaborate “harm” as including psychological stress and even damage to one’s reputation.

On a side note, the text describes a study done in the 60s when “researchers lied to participants, telling them to apply high levels of electric shock to another (unseen) person who as apparently in agony, although no shock was really applied and the unseen person was simply pretending” (Milgram, 1964 as cited by Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2009, p. 19). Then, in the next paragraph, the text says that this type of study wouldn’t be conducted today due to ethical issues. However, I just watched a documentary on the Passionate Eye (tv show) that did, in fact, replicate this study but in front of a live audience in the form of a game show. The point was to assess how long people would obey authority even if it goes against their values. University researchers participated in the study but I’m not sure how it was funded so perhaps it was able to happen because it didn’t have to seek funding from a peer review board. Here’s the link: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2011/gameofdeath/

Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 139-161. Retrieved from: https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/Module02/module_2/BS0.pdf.

Flinders, David J. (1992). In search of ethical guidance: constructing a basis for dialogue. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(2), 101-115

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.