Care Ethics: Nel Noddings

INTRODUCTION

In week three of this course, while contemplating Augustine’s notion of love in education, we had a really interesting discussion here about the role of love in the teacher-student relationship: some suggested teachers should not be motivated by a love of children but by a love of teaching and content; others proposed that love (in the non-erotic conception) is an important element of the relational aspect of education. With this week’s reading by Nel Noddings, we are presented with an alternative conception of the relationship: that an ethics of care and caring relations might be a constructive way to conceive of the student-teacher relationship.  

CONTEXT: Care Ethics

First, an understanding of care ethics is required. Understandably, the content of this course has somewhat echoed the historical path of philosophical thought: till now, our readings have been written predominantly by male authors. Important female philosophers certainly existed (e.g. Hypatia of Alexandria in the 4th Century; de Gournay writing at the turn of the 17th Century; Wollstonecraft in the 18th Century - to name just a couple of the more well-known). Yet they have been largely ignored by the canon; perhaps along with them, so too is the female perspective somewhat absent. However, towards the later half of the 20th Century, women’s voices were starting to be heard more, and their perspectives emerged more prominently. Two such influential voices were Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings in the 1980s: through their work, the ethics of care became more precisely articulated. 

Gilligan, an ethicist and psychologist, articulated her ideas on the ethics of care in terms of moral development after observing the different decision-making processes of females and paying attention to their voices (Gilligan, 2003). Much of the previous philosophical thought was concerned with rights, rules and justice, and it could be argued, lacked the feminine perspective. In contrast, an ethics of care presents the idea that we focus more on needs and relationships. Care ethicists claim that responsibilities derive directly from relationships between particular people; that ‘every life starts in relation, and it is through relations that a human being emerges’ (Noddings, 2012, p.771). It is an ethic rooted in interactions and relations, in which the individual is listened to attentively and responded to according to their expressed needs. Thus in care ethics, moral responsibilities are derived directly from relationships in context, rather than from abstract rules or principles; deliberation should be empathy-based rather than based in duty or principle (Collins, 2015, p.5).

RELATING TO EDUCATION

Nel Noddings - feminist, educationalist, and philosopher - grounds her own philosophy of education in care ethics. But before delving into her perspective, it is vital we understand how the words and concepts of ‘care’ and ‘caring’ are understood. We need to conceive of ‘care’ beyond the everyday use of the word, in reference to kindness or concern; we need to see beyond the conception of a ‘caring teacher’ as one who is perhaps nice, friendly, or shows concern for their students (Rabin & Smith, 2013). In terms of care ethics, the teacher as carer is more nuanced: their caring manifests in all domains of classroom practices and experiences: learning goals, classroom management, assessment practices, curriculum planning, moral education, and more. As Noddings (2012) elucidates, it is not merely about an attitude of caring existing within, and displayed by, the teacher: it is situated within the relationship between carer and cared-for. 

When thinking about this in the concept of the teacher-student relationship, it is about centering the people involved, authentically listening, being attentive to the voiced needs of the cared-for (the student), and responding in a way which maintains the caring relationship. Indeed, for Noddings (2012), ‘the teacher as carer is interested in the expressed needs of the cared-for, not simply the needs assumed by the school as an institution and the curriculum as a prescribed course of study’ (p. 772). A crucial further element is that the cared-for needs to feel cared for: without this element, there is no caring relation, but merely an attitude of caring which resides as a virtue within the carer (Nodding, 2012).

NEL NODDINGS: Specific Issues in Education

Noddings raises many highly relatable and thought-provoking educational issues: should teachers stay with classes for multiple years? Do teachers always know what’s ‘best’ for students? Should education be interdisciplinary, and not so siloed into subjects? All of these would be interesting to discuss. However, there are two topics I will  pick up on and relate to recent educational debates: the purpose of assigning grades; and the teacher as a moral educator. 

Before doing so, a quick point must be made about Nodding’s underlying assumption of the goal of education. As seen with many of the readings so far, whether one sees the ultimate goal of education as preparation for future careers, the shaping of democratic citizens, the teaching of morals and virtues, or the installation of a desire for learning, it will impact one’s beliefs about educational practice. In her own words, Noddings (2012) identifies ‘the richest aims of education: full, moral, happy lives; generous concern for the welfare of others; finding out what one is fitted to do occupationally’ (p. 778). If one disagrees with this goal, then the following ideas may understandably be conceived of differently. 

GRADING

In context of creating a climate for caring, Noddings takes up the issue of grading practices and argues that academic achievement ‘should not be evaluated entirely by how much higher one scores than others on a standardised test ot by one’s rank as measured by grade-point average’ (p.778). This opinion is grounded in care ethics as she seeks to move away from global competition, towards ideals of global cooperation. Moreover, moving away from grading facilitates Nodding’s call for an education system which helps students discover what they want to do and achieve, what they’re interested in, and their own aptitude in their chosen areas (p. 799). 

In terms of recent trends in education, many countries and districts are moving away from grading towards competency-based learning: shifting away from assessments of learning, towards assessments as learning. Here in British Columbia, our new curriculum emphasises this shift with many schools eliminating quantitative grades in favour of self-reported assessments and mastery-based reporting (Nixon, 2018). It is a model which seems inline with Noddings’ ethics of care framework, as it is not based on assumed needs, but rather students’ own expressed needs and identified goals.   

Studies have also shown that detailed feedback has a greater impact in increasing internal motivation in students, than simply assigning grades (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Koenka et al., 2019; Lipnevich & Smith, 2009). In my research however, I found many empirical studies which measured the impact of feedback, do so by measuring grade changes: the very premise of this would miss the mark in terms of an ethics of care, as it centers the goal on an assumed desire for higher grades, rather than what the goals of the students (cared-for) may be, or even the facilitation of relationship. Yet still, might we argue that personalised feedback helps build the caring relationship between teacher and student which Noddings emphasizes, increasing the likelihood that the student feels cared-for? 

MORAL EDUCATION

Noddings states: ‘Every teacher is a moral educator’ (p.777). She does so without much explanation; it is assumed. Yet, do we all agree? It certainly seems to be a dominant role in current education practices with Social Emotional Learning (SEL) gaining interest in recent years (a quick Google trends search of the term evidences this). It is not a new concept. As seen in our course content, moral/character education and the teaching of virtues were key themes all the way back in ancient Greece. However, with the work of individuals such as psychiatrist James Comer at Yale in the 1960s, and Goleman’s theory of emotional intelligence in the 90s, it has gained more prominent place in school curricula. The development of traits such as self-awareness, empathy, and interpersonal skills – emphasized in SEL curriculums – seem at home when teaching an ethics of care: As Noddings (2016) notes, ‘the ethic of care requires each of us to recognize our own frailty and to bring out the best in one another. It recognizes that we are dependent on one another (and to some degree on good fortune) for our moral goodness’ (p.229).

Yet, let us consider this notion of the teacher as the educator of such traits, as a moral educator: Are they prepared for it? Do they know it is part of their job? Do they have the capabilities to carry out this role? This was certainly not emphasized in my own training as a teacher. Noddings (2012) argues that it is the ‘capacity to be moved by the affective condition of the other that teachers try to develop in students as part of their moral education’ (p.773); yet what if the teacher does not possess this capability themself? Teacher Social Emotional Competence (SEC) is surely an important piece of the puzzle, yet it is questionable whether or not all teachers possess high SEC, or are even trained to develop it. 

In a study on this issue, Jennings and Greenburg (2009) highlight the importance of teachers’ SEC in the development and maintenance of supportive teacher–student relationships (arguably caring relationships): interestingly, they suggest a relationship between SEC and teacher burnout; that when teachers do not have have high social emotional competence, it can result in challenging classroom management, higher stress levels, conflict, etc. An important aspect of the caring relation in teaching is dependent on the teacher as carer, modeling caring, displaying attentive listening, exercising empathy, etc. Therefore, if we follow an ethics of care, is this something we should emphasise more in training and professional development? 

References: 

Collins, S. (2015). The core of care ethics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilligan, C. (2003). In a different voice : psychological theory and women’s development  (38th print.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Nixon, D. (2018, May 17). B.C. leads the push to eliminate letter grades from school report cards. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-leads-the-push-to-eliminate-letter-grades-from-school-report-cards/article33907027/

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.

Koenka, A., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Moshontz, H., Atkinson, K., Sanchez, C., & Cooper, H. (2019). A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: a case for written feedback. Educational Psychology, 1–22.

Lipnevich, A., & Smith, J. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319–333.

Noddings, N. (2016). Philosophy of education (4th edition.).

Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771–781. 

Rabin, C., & Smith, G. (2013). Teaching care ethics: conceptual understandings and stories for learning. Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 164–176. 

The content above was published on linkr, a platform designed to connect, engage and grow education communities. Learn more