AGQTP FINAL REPORT 2011
PROJECT ACTIVITY AREA:
School Name
Pymble Ladies’ College
Project Activity Area
Pedagogy
Project title
Ethics Toolkit
Contact person/s
Maura Manning
Contact number and email
9855 7799 mmanning@pymblelc.nsw.edu.au
There is no restriction on the amount of space used to complete your AGQTP report. Please use as
much space as required to give a detailed overview of your project.
Section 1- For publication on www.aisnsw.edu.au/pd
Project Summary
a) Focus
What was the project focus?
The central focus was to encourage ethical thinking and ethical decision making in Year 9
students. By developing habits of ethical thinking, students will be more likely to adopt an
ethical approach when faced with difficult (and mundane) decisions. Our hope was that by
creating a shared language that can be used across core academic subjects and pastoral
programs in Year 9, students will internalise the process and use it to make decisions outside
of the classroom and school.
We were also looking for a meaningful way to integrate the ethical behaviour general
capability from the Australian Curriculum documents. We saw this mandate as an invitation to
work in a cross-curricular team to devise a unified approach to this requirement.
b) Successes and Impacts
In what ways did your project meet the appropriate outcomes below
All Project Activity Areas

strengthen the currency and depth of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and skills
Our project drew on a wide range of pedagogies and required participants to conduct research and
reading into a number of areas. To some degree each of the following informed our project.
1
-
Harvard/Project Zero Making Thinking Visible
Harvard University’s Project Zero educational research group looks at ways to create
communities of reflective, independent learners; to enhance deep understanding across
disciplines and to encourage critical and creative thinking. As part of our school wide
professional learning plan, individual teachers have been completing online courses offered by
the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Four of the teachers working on this project have
completed the Making Thinking Visible course and another four have completed the Teaching
for Understanding course. Visible Thinking is a research-based approach to integrating the
development of students' thinking with content learning across subject matters through the
use of systematic, generic thinking routines. The thinking routines guide students’ thought
processes and encourage metacognition. We sought to emulate the Visible Thinking routines
with our project by creating a generic routine that students and teachers could apply in
different circumstances. “Thinking routines such as these provide the structures through
which students collectively as well as individual initiate, explore, discuss, document, and
manage their thinking in classrooms.” (Ritchhart, 2002)
The project group experimented with the Visible Thinking routines in our classes and
discussed what it is that makes these routines effective. We agreed that the common goal of
helping student develop thinking dispositions that support thoughtful learning by making the
processes of thinking explicit was key. (Ritchhart, 2006) Similarly, the idea that thinking
routines are grounded in “an enculturative model of dispositional development which views
thinking, and more specifically the disposition toward thinking, as something that must be
nurtured in students over time” (Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1993 cited in Ritchhart, 2006)
was key in the development of the Ethics Toolkit. We wanted to see our project become part
of the fabric of the school.
Throughout our project, we focused on the idea that any classroom routine is a practice
crafted to achieve a specific end in an efficient workable manner. The success of the routine
is dependent on teachers’ recognition of the practice as an effective tool for achieving the
outcomes they desire. (Ritchhart, 2006) This idea guided our refinements of our project.
Our research into what Visible Thinking is, our experimentation with the routines in our
classrooms and our close examination of the routines to replicate the effective characteristics
in our routine strengthened our pedagogical knowledge.
-
Costa’s Habits of Mind
As with Visible Thinking in our early research, Art Costa’s Habits of Mind emerged as model
similar in intent to our project. Costa and Kallick (2000) define a “Habit of Mind” as a
“disposition toward behaving intelligently when confronted with problems,the answers to which
are not immediately known. When humans experience dichotomies, are confused by
dilemmas, or come face to face with uncertainties--our most effective actions require drawing
forth certain patterns of intellectual behaviour. When we draw upon these intellectual
resources, the results that are produced through are more powerful, of higher quality and
greater significance than if we fail to employ those patterns of intellectual behaviours.” This
thinking was in keeping with our intent for the Ethics Toolkit.
2
On further examination of Costa and Kallick’s work we came to see the importance of “cues”
that signal students to undertake a particular type of thinking and the importance of “patterns”
in our project. We also were interested in the idea that the success of our routine would
depend on a certain level of skilfulness that would enable students to employ and carry
through the ethical thinking behaviours effectively over time. (Costa and Kallick, 2000) This
informed our belief that students need to be immersed in the thinking strategy across a range
of subjects and contexts to ensure it became second nature to them.
-
Ethical decision making
After examining the research underpinning thinking routines, we began to look explicitly at
what ethical decision making models exist. Our research led us to the Institute for Global
Ethics, an organisation that works with businesses and schools in the United States. They
have developed an Ethical Literacy approach that looks at building school-wide ethical culture.
Their model was much more comprehensive than what we were trying to do. In speaking to
them, we determined that what we were proposing might sit inside their work, but would by no
means replace it. Two of our team members participated in the training offered on Building
Ethical School Culture.
Similarly, we looked at The Values Exchange developed by David Seedhouse. This website
provides a forum and a framework for students to debate social issues. It presents a
sophisticated process through which students work to come to a well-informed stance on a
particular issue. It steps out the metacognitive process of making an ethical decision, but it is
dependent on a series of complex prompts. This system is very effective at broadening
students’ thinking and encouraging logical reasoning, but it is much too complex to be second
nature to the students as we had hoped the Ethics Toolkit would be. Teachers on the project
team used the Values Exchange in Science, English and Commerce lessons and determined
that the Values Exchange has a very important place in our programs, but did not replace the
need for a simple and clear ethical thinking routine.
Further to the research into Ethical Literacy and the Values Exchange, a team member
attended a one-day seminar hosted by the St James Ethics Centre on ethical decision making.
The workshop was pitched at adults who work in industries that face ethical dilemmas on a
daily basis. The course attendees included doctors, lawyers, town planners and others. This
day was a breakthrough for the work conducted by the Ethics Toolkit team because the
workshop affirmed much of the work that we had already done. It was very heartening to hear
experts from the St James Ethics Centre referring to resources such as Rushworth Kidder’s
Moral Courage and How Good People Make Tough Choices which had become central to the
development of our project. It was also good to see the model developed by St James for
ethical decision making. In principle, it shares the steps of our model, but ours is far more
simple to suit Year 9 students.
As with our research into thinking routines, teachers on the project team broadened their
pedagogical knowledge of teaching ethics through our experimentation with different models,
formal professional development and extensive reading and discussions of different
3
approaches.
-
Problem Solving
As we have worked on this project, we have drawn on research into problem solving. The
spine of our model comes from the amalgamation of the five step risk assessment model
already in use in Science classrooms and the problem solving model already in use in the
PDHPE classrooms. In terms of enculturation, it was very useful to build on models with
which the students were already familiar. When the project members from Science and
PDHPE introduced these models, it proved to be a rich pedagogical discussion of how these
models could be useful in other subject areas.
Serendipitously, our Mathematics department has been working with Charles Lovitt, an
education consultant whose area of expertise is problem solving in Mathematics. He
presented a staff workshop that explored opportunities for cross-curricular problem solving
and made explicit links between Mathematics and ethical concerns such as nuclear power and
gambling. This proved an excellent stimulus for the teachers who had questioned the
relevance of the Ethics Toolkit for subjects like Mathematics and reinforced the importance of
a shared language and approach to encourage ethical behaviour.
We have kept Harold Barrows (1996) six principles of for problem-based learning at the heart
of the model:
-
Learning is student centred;
-
Learning occurs in small groups;
-
Teachers are facilitators or guides to learning;
-
Problems are the original focus or stimulus for learning;
-
Problems are the vehicle for the development of clinical problem solving skills; and
-
New information is directed through self-directed learning.
-
Cross-curricular Collaboration
Our project has brought together a cross-curricular team that would not normally collaborate
on academic matters. It has provided opportunities for better understanding of the skills
taught in our Year 9 programs and has made apparent areas of overlap and opportunities for
us to work together in the future. The outcomes of this type of collaboration means we are
able to provide a greater sense of connections for our students. We are able to lift our
thinking out of our subjects and give students a sense of the big picture which helps to foster
engagement and motivation. (Perkins, 2010)
-
Academic care
Our school currently has the “dichotomous approach” to the pastoral and academic domains.
However, this project provided an opportunity to merge the two domains. The project team
consisted of teachers who represented different Year 9 subjects, but were also Year 9
pastoral care teachers. It meant that the project saw a genuine link between what was
happening in pastoral care and the academic classrooms. This was a significant step in the
right direction towards Academic Care for our school.
4
-
Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain
The project team has also used Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain to guide our
work. While we could see that our five step process fit neatly within Bloom’s Taxonomy of the
Cognitive Domain by working its way into the highest order of thinking, the affective domain is
more difficult to measure. However, we are certain that our model helps guide students from
the lowest level of “receiving” to the second highest level of “organisation”. It is not possible to
measure the highest level of “characterisation by a value set” in the short time of this grant.
This will only be seen in the students’ later lives, but we have provided them a tool to work
their way up through the taxonomy and at least understand what steps they take to make a
difficult decision.
-
Action Research
Using the Action Research framework of the AGQTP has been a good source of professional
development as well. For some on the project team, it was the first time they had undertaken
a formal action research project. For others, it proved a good opportunity for mentoring less
experienced staff members. It provided us the opportunity to research, plan and reflect in a
way that strengthened the finished product. It also has provided us with a framework through
which to approach subsequent program development and evaluation.
Pedagogy

strengthen the currency and depth of teachers’ learning area knowledge and understanding?
-
Pedagogies viewed through subject lens
Teachers on the project team were afforded the opportunity to reflect on the pedagogies listed
above through their subject lens. The team meetings provided rich discussion of how the
pedagogies were applied across the different subjects which was enlightening for all.
-
Programming
Through the programming and planning that happened to find opportunities to implement the
routine, all team members were able to review the work done in their learning area and look
for areas of improvement and refinement. Because the team included heads of department
and classroom teachers it provided a formal opportunity for mentoring in the area of program
development. It was a good opportunity to look at the Stage 5 syllabus outcomes for each of
the subjects involved in the project. It was particularly useful for the Science and PDHPE
departments to look at the overlap between their programs. The project catalysed for these
two departments a much wider mapping exercise that will be undertaken at a later time.
-
Familiarity with Australian Curriculum
When this project was initially conceived the Australian Curriculum documents were in
consultation and each subject area was looking for meaningful ways to implement the general
capabilities. The project time afforded Mathematics, Science, History and English to
familiarise themselves with the new documents and consider how existing teaching programs
could be adapted to suit the new requirements and enriched to include the new general
capabilities. This has been a very valuable exercise despite the delay in the implementation
of the new documents.
5
-
Leading Implementation
Another key component of this project was the sharing of the resource by the project team
with their individual departments. This was an opportunity for the classroom teachers involved
in the project to pioneer something in their faculties with the support of their heads of
department. In each case, it was the classroom teacher, not the head of department, who
drove the implementation of the project in their faculty.
c) Sustainability
How will the school overcome the effects of changes, such as personnel and funding, to see the
project initiatives sustained?
The sustainability of this project is guaranteed by the forthcoming implementation of the Australian
Curriculum. The documents mandate “ethical behaviour” in the general capabilities. This will be
the responsibility of every faculty. Each faculty will be required to show how it is addressing this
requirement. The Ethics Toolkit is a simple way for teachers to quickly and effectively address the
outcome. The fact that the toolkit can be used as a one-off lesson makes it very easy to
implement. Similarly, because the kids are familiar with the language and the routine, it can be
quickly implemented when the opportunity arises in a lesson. The generic nature of the routine
means it works in any subject.
Historically, affective outcomes are difficult to measure, but this simple thinking routine enables
teachers to scaffold ethical behaviour for their students. While the true test of ethical behaviour
will likely occur beyond the classroom walls, teachers can guarantee that the students are
equipped with the steps to make a measured decision.
The toolkit is embedded in programs for English, PDHPE, Science and Pastoral Care for 2012 for
both Year 9 and Year 10. While our initial intent was to roll-out the approach more widely in 2012,
we have decided to continue to refine its use in Year 9 where it is introduced and to build on the
knowledge of the Year 10 students who began using the model in 2011. There is also a possibility
it will be incorporated in an existing Year 11 pastoral care unit on ethics in 2012.
The school has recently employed a graphic designer who is looking at the design of our posters.
Throughout 2011, we have not been entirely happy with the design of our resources, so she will
look at making our materials a bit more polished and dynamic. Similarly, further development of
an online tool is in progress. This may take the form of a smart phone application enabling
students to take the routine with them outside the school walls.
The project has been very well received by the school and it has been well publicised by the
teachers participating in the project. The project marries nicely with the school’s five core values –
care, courage, responsibility, respect and integrity. A formal presentation will be made to all staff
at a K-12 staff meeting early in 2012 which further raise the profile of the project and potentially
encourage other faculties and staff members who were not involved in the initial project to use the
toolkit.
6
d) Resources
Please list and describe the resources/products developed eg learning resource, unit/s of work,
audio files, worksheets, teaching designs.
How can they be accessed? Please provide contact details for resources that are not made
available for the AIS website.
Ethics Toolkit Thinking Routine (A4 flyer)
Ethics Toolkit Thinking Routine Teacher resource
Ethics Toolkit Thinking Routine Prompt Cards for Students
Project implementation plan
Link to online resource
Powerpoint for Project Launch
Ethical Dilemmas used at the launch
Teaching programs for English, Science, PDHPE
Teacher lesson reflections for Science, English and PDHPE
Pastoral Care program for Year 9
Student work samples
Ethics pre-test/post-test
Analysis of data from pre/post texts
Bibliography
7