Ethics of Testing Teacher Preparedness Report (Assessment)

The research proposal on Ethics of Testing Teacher Preparedness is a very well designed research question that is bound to provide true observations and therefore generate reliable data. This research proposal applies a research study design that is referred as single blinding which prevents the two most common types of research studies biases; unconscious and conscious bias (Buros, 2009).

Needless to say, the importance of eliminating all types of bias in any research study is one of the foremost priorities to any researcher; as such the importance to blind the subjects in some forms of research studies cannot be overemphasized and is the only way to arrive at accurate observation at times.

The investigation of the research proposal as designed would generate important knowledge regarding how teachers are likely to react under distracting teaching environments and their efficiency under such circumstances.

Hence, the research is justified since it will enable educators to equip teachers with skills for management of classrooms environments which will enable them to remain effective despite classroom interferences. The fact that this research study attempts to investigate a classroom characteristic that occurs widely in many learning institutions means that the associated risks to the subjects are very minimal if not non-existent.

This is because the scenario of disturbances in a classroom is not exactly a foreign occurrence to any teacher who has been in the profession for even a period of one year, at some institutions this could even be described as a common occurrence.

The institutional Review Board serves two very important functions; it ensures that when human subjects are involved in research studies they are not placed at any unnecessary risks and two, the board serves to ensure that the participating human subjects have consented to their participation to the research study (IRBServices.com, 2010).

Therefore based on this research study, the proposal will be approved on the first instance since no risks are involved in the study but not on the second ground given that consent by subject is not obtained beforehand. But like all effective regulations even the IRB body is aware of the importance of eliminating biases in research studies, as such there are exceptions.

Generally, there are six categories of research areas that IRB allows researchers to conduct investigations and seek consent retrospectively, one such exemption pertains to research studies on “accepted educational settings involving normal educational practices” (IRBServices.com, 2010).

Since the research proposal as outlined fits in this category there should be no problem in having the IRB to approve the research, and I would also approve it in its present design.

According to the IRB, consent by subject goes beyond the mere act of signing a form (IRBServices.com, 2010). Therefore in the occasion where the subject is harmed despite their consent the focus will be shifted to the circumstances under which the consent was obtained.

The process of consent in any research study must show three important stages; explanation of the research study in detail to the subject, comprehension by the subject and finally voluntary consent (IRBServices.com, 2010).

This is for the purposes of enabling the research subjects to arrive at fair and reasonable conclusion pertaining the associated risks of the study, more importantly it must be shown that the “consent process did not increase the likelihood of harm” (IRBServices.com, 2010).

If Morrison can therefore prove through documentation that the consent process was appropriately carried out and the associated risk did not increase after consent no responsibility should be extended to her/him. Based on the same principle a researcher is not allowed to use deception as a way of obtaining the subjects consent to participate in a research study (IRBServices.com, 2010).

Finally, on the last question deception of subjects for whatever reasons is not justified in any circumstances regardless of its positive outcome since a deception is a deception and doesn’t depend on its outcome. Besides such a positive outcome could not have been guaranteed because a research is essentially an investigation that attempts to answer a particular question, so it is impossible to have such an insight of a positive outcome.

References

Buros, J. (2009). Blind Experiments. Retrieved from http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Blind_experiment

IRBServices.com. (2010). IRB Services: An Independent IRB you can Count on. Web.