Teachers’ Judgments about Ethical Violations Survey

Abstract

The Teachers’ Judgments about Ethical Violations Survey (TJEV) is a 41-item instrument designed to assess how educators perceive the frequency and seriousness of various professional ethical violations. This version of the survey, published in 2012 by Barrett, D. E., et al., is an expansion and modification of an original 34-item instrument developed in 2006. The scale specifically aims to provide empirical data to inform the development of comprehensive codes of conduct for teachers. The survey addresses four primary factors of misconduct: Personal Harm, Carelessness, Public/Private Boundary Violation, and Grade Inflation, including several new items focusing on the misuse of technology in educational settings.

Keywords

Teacher ethics, ethical judgment, professional standards, teacher misconduct, boundary violation, grade inflation, educational psychology, teacher conduct, preservice teachers

Authors

D. E. Barrett, et al.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teachers’ Judgments about Ethical Violations Survey is twofold: first, to empirically measure and understand how both practicing and prospective educators perceive the frequency of various unethical behaviors in the profession; and second, to gauge the perceived seriousness of these behaviors. By quantifying these judgments, the instrument provides a necessary foundation for developing, evaluating, and refining professional codes of conduct for teaching staff.

The research utilizing this scale sought to identify specific areas of teacher misconduct and explore demographic differences in ethical perceptions, such as differences between preservice and inservice educators, and between male and female respondents. This comparative analysis is essential for tailoring ethics training and professional development programs effectively.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Teacher Ethical Judgment, which is operationalized across four distinct dimensions of professional misconduct. Respondents provide dual ratings (frequency and seriousness) for each behavior described, allowing for a nuanced understanding of their ethical calculus.

• Personal Harm: This factor specifically relates to behaviors that involve the possibility of physical or emotional harm being inflicted upon a student.
• Carelessness: This dimension addresses unprofessional and careless behavior that detracts from professional standards or instructional quality.
• Public/Private Boundary Violation: This factor captures the failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries between a teacher’s public role and their private life or interactions.
• Grade Inflation: This pertains to the subjective manipulation of grades or academic scores, often driven by external pressures rather than objective student performance.

Validity

Factorial validity of the survey was established through rigorous psychometric testing. Researchers utilized a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) coupled with varimax rotation to determine the underlying structure of the 41 items.

Although the initial analysis extracted five factors, a four-factor solution was ultimately accepted as the most robust and interpretable model. This established structure confirms that the items effectively measure the intended, distinct domains of ethical misconduct relevant to the teaching profession.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Teachers’ Judgments about Ethical Violations Survey was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, demonstrating high reliability across all measured subscales. Because respondents provided separate ratings for both the seriousness and the frequency of each factor, reliability coefficients were calculated for eight distinct scales:

• Personal Harm-Seriousness: 0.94
• Personal Harm-Frequency: 0.89
• Carelessness-Seriousness: 0.84
• Carelessness-Frequency: 0.82
• Public/Private-Seriousness: 0.81
• Public/Private-Frequency: 0.76
• Grade Inflation-Seriousness: 0.87
• Grade Inflation-Frequency: 0.80

These coefficients indicate that the scale exhibits excellent to acceptable internal consistency, confirming that the items within each factor reliably measure the respective dimension of ethical judgment.

Factor Analysis

The factor analysis employed a principal components analysis with varimax rotation to parse the structure of the 41 items. While five factors were initially extracted, the researchers determined that a four-factor solution provided the clearest and most psychologically meaningful interpretation of teachers’ ethical judgments.

The resulting four factors and the corresponding items are defined as follows:

• Personal Harm (6 items): Items 7, 8, 16, 22, 29, and 30. This factor addresses behaviors leading to potential physical or emotional harm to a student.
• Carelessness (6 items): Items 5, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 26. This factor pertains to unprofessional, negligent, or careless behavior in professional duties.
• Public/Private Boundary Violation (7 items): Items 17, 24, 25, 33, 34, 36, and 41. This factor focuses on the blurring of lines between professional and personal conduct, including the misuse of technology.
• Grade Inflation (5 items): Items 1, 10, 14, 27, and 28. This factor concerns subjectivity and undue influence in the academic grading process.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report survey assessing ethical perceptions and professional judgment.

Format: 41 statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale, requiring dual ratings for each statement.

Language Available: English.

Population Group: Educators (both preservice and practicing teachers).

Age Group: Adult (college students and working professionals).

Population Details: The validation sample consisted of 108 preservice teachers attending a public university and 485 practicing educators from a school district, both located in the Southeastern United States.

Test Methodology: Data analysis included calculating frequency distributions to identify the most common and serious behaviors. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to test for differences in seriousness and frequency scores based on factor scores, career stage (preservice vs. inservice), and gender.

Keywords

Ethical conduct, teacher standards, professional ethics, educational measurement, psychometrics, factor analysis, professional judgment, teacher training

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2012 (for the 41-item modified version).

Permissions and Fee: Permissions are typically required from the primary author (D. E. Barrett) or the journal publisher (Teaching and Teacher Education) for commercial or widespread use. Users should refer to the 2012 publication for specific licensing details.

Reference’s

Barrett, D. E., et al. (2012). How do teachers make judgments about ethical and unethical behaviors? Toward the development of a code of conduct for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 28:890–98.

Barrett, D. E., et al. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the frequency and seriousness of violations of ethical standards. Journal of Psychology 140:421–33.

Boon, H. J. (2011). Raising the bar: Ethics education for quality teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35(7):76–93.

Cummings, R., et al. (2001). Principled moral reasoning and behavior of preservice teacher education students. American Educational Research Journal 38:143–58.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education technology standards for teachers (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Author.

Items of the Teachers’ Judgments about Ethical Violations Survey

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. A teacher raises a child’s grade due to parental pressure.
2. A teacher spends considerable class time engaged in activities irrelevant to the subject area.
3. A teacher knowingly allows a student to violate a school rule in his or her classroom.
4. A teacher fails to keep an accurate record of his or her students’ academic performance.
5. A teacher makes a statement about subject matter without being certain that it is correct.
6. A teacher teaches a course without attempting to follow state curriculum guidelines.
7. A teacher gives rewards or punishments to students based on students’ popularity.
8. A teacher engages in a romantic relationship with a student.
9. A teacher uses the classroom to promote his or her religious views.
10. A teacher raises a student’s grade due to pressure from the student.
11. A teacher returns student papers without identifying or correcting errors.
12. A teacher gossips to other teachers about a student.
13. A teacher begins a class without having prepared a lesson.
14. A teacher gives a child a higher grade than the child deserves because the teacher likes the child.
15. A teacher talks about highly personal subjects with a student.
16. A teacher uses profanity in the classroom.
17. A teacher uses technology in the classroom that has not been approved by the school’s technology administrators.
18. A teacher makes a derogatory statement to a student.
19. A teacher gives rewards or punishments to students based on students’ ethnic or cultural characteristics.
20. A teacher fails to follow special education guidelines.
21. A teacher makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to another teacher.
22. A teacher makes a sexually provocative statement to a student.
23. A teacher fails to report a colleague’s unethical behavior.
24. A teacher dresses inappropriately at work.
25. A teacher behaves in an unprofessional way while outside of work.
26. A teacher uses a lesson or materials developed by another teacher without giving credit to the teacher who developed the material.
27. A teacher raises a child’s grade due to pressure from an administrator.
28. A teacher refuses to fail students, even when they perform poorly.
29. A teacher shares confidential information about a student with another student.
30. A teacher allows students to engage in romantic behavior in the classroom.
31. A teacher makes a derogatory comment about a colleague to a student.
32. A teacher copies material from a published text and distributes it to a class as though it is the teacher’s original material.
33. A teacher communicates with students about nonprofessional matters through Facebook, Twitter, or a similar social media site.
34. A teacher hires students to do chores.
35. A teacher gives students high grades in return for favors.
36. A teacher encourages students to address him or her by first name.
37. A teacher uses physical force to discipline a student.
38. A teacher changes a student’s grade or test score without justification.
39. A teacher fails to report a child’s threat of violence to self or others.
40. A teacher posts personal opinions about students on a public or semiprivate site such as Facebook.
41. A teacher downloads and implements a lesson found on the World Wide Web instead of creating an original lesson.