Key Words

Transforming, Sustainability Education, Ethics, Leadership, Community,Engagement, Social Responsibilities.

Introduction

Transformative sustainability education is the college students to take care of their students which are a social responsibility of the teachers, thus in the long run can transform students’ lives. Ethics, leadership, community engagement and social responsibility are expected as well of our college faculties.

Webber (2007) pointed out that ethics subjects should instill company’s moral values especially on making moral decisions. He advocated that managers should be ‚other oriented‛ or selfless. Sims claimed, however (2010), that teaching ethics ‚can be effective in developing students’ moral reasoning skills, ethical sensitivity and ethical behaviours. (Weber and Glyptis, 2000).‛ Research does not ensure that ethical knowledge of students guarantee an ethical practice and disposition among students.

According to Starratt (2004), the essence of ethics characterizes a moral life; thus, ethical teaching and leadership expect the person to act professionally based on this essence.

A sophisticated new study has found that qualified competent and those with longer stay in service produce the greatest student achievement gainers. Obviously, the new teachers have greater rooms for improvement but their senior and experienced teachers share their expertise to the neophyte ones (Jackson and Bruegmann, 2009).

In the past, it was known that occupational norms and organizational structures narrowed the innovative or leadership roles within the teaching profession. Lately, instructional leadership became very prevalent but is still limited to culture as well as strict resistance from administrators. Leadership among teachers can be very problematic in peer evaluation. In Japan, however, joint efforts and critical peer assessment proved to be productive to students. (Fernandez, 2002; Donaldson, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, Marinell, Steele and Szczesiul, 2008/ and Little, 1982).

Community engagement breaks barriers in attaining quality education for all. Community engagements lead to pooling of resources for the benefit of education and of the community. (Rose, 2003).

Kintz (2011) stressed the vital role of community engagement to address education and Education for All . This leads to the sharing of many things about education.

Through educational mandates of higher education institutions (HEIs), they create a societal impact that exhibits a strong insurance for local and global sustainable development (Sedlacek, 2011)

Furthermore, Rammel et al. (2015) delved into the factors for of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), consist of means to develop and get across transformative change.

Moreover, Fadeeva et al., (2014) stated that to be transformative, tertiary education has to transform itself.

As defined by Berman (1990) social responsibility is the concern of the upliftment of others and of the world.

Ranganathananda (2010) stated that the teacher’s role is to shape the minds of the future generation. That shaping will be on positive lines and values. Teachers must instil into the students tolerance of different opinions and viewpoints, and introduce them with the wisdom of philosophers.

The researchers believed that transforming sustainability education has influence on the ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility among college faculties of West Visayas State University-Calinog Campus. Hence, this study.

Statement of the Study

This study aimed to determine the transforming education its influence in ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility among college students of West Visayas State University-Calinog Campus for the school year 2013-2014.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:.

  1. What are the transforming educations; ethics, leadership practices, community engagement, and social responsibility of the respondents?
  2. Are there significant relationships between transformative education, ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility among college faculties of West Visayas State University-Calinog Campus?

Materials and Methods

This descriptive correlational research conducted in October 2013, sought to determine the transforming sustainability education has influence on the ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility among college faculties of West Visayas State University-Calinog Campus in the school year 2013- 2014. The main respondents of the study were the thirty seven (37) out of 47 college faculties of West Visayas State University-Calinog, Campus. The simple random sampling technique was employed in the selection of the sample participants of the study. The 35 items researcher made questionnaires were used to gather data on transformative sustainability education, ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility. A five point scale from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly was adapted to identify variable of transforming sustainability education, ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility. The present study was used a mean and standard deviation for descriptive statistics. Correlation co-efficient analysis was being used to find out the relationship between variables transforming sustainability education, ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social responsibility.

Results and Discussion

The college faculties of West Visayas State University in general practiced transformation sustainability education with the mean of 4.15. When categorized in different domains as to Instruction ‚Highly Practiced‛ (M=4.64, SD=.691) as the highest; Research ‚Highly Practiced‛ (M=4.25, SD=.131) as the second highest; Production ‚Practiced‛ (M=4.00, SD=.599) as the second lowest; and Extension ‚Practiced‛ (M=3.70, SD=.845) as the lowest. This shows that transforming sustainability education it is the practices by the school administrators as a higher education institutions would move to a mainstream of sustainability into their four functions as to, instruction, research, production and extension.

UNESCO (2011) posited alike idea that the sustainable Education is an approach to teaching and learning ‚that seeks to empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating and enjoying a sustainable future.‛ It ‚prepares people of all walks of life to plan for, cope with, and find solutions for issues that threaten the sustainability of our planet,‛ and encourages ‚changes in behaviour that will create a more sustainable future.‛

Table 1

The Transforming Sustainability Education Practices

Transforming Sustainability Education M Description SD
Instruction 4.64 Highly Practiced .691
Research 4.25 Highly Practiced .131
Extension 3.70 Practiced .845
Production 4.00 Practiced .599
General Mean 4.15 Practiced

Mean Scores Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Highly Practiced
3.41 – 4.20 Practiced
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Practiced
1.81 – 2.60 Barely Practiced
1.00 – 1.80 Not Practiced

The ethics practices in general among college faculties of West Visayas State University is ‚Highly Ethical‛ (M=4.06). When divided in five domains and ranked in descending order as to Service to the Students ‚Highly Ethical‛ (M=4.83, SD=.727), Accountability ‚Highly Ethical‛ (M=4.43, SD=.602), Responsiveness to the Student’s Needs ‚Ethical‛ (M=4.16, SD=.553) and Efficiency and Effectiveness ‚Ethical‛ (M=3.94, SD=.621). The result simply implies that respondents are highly ethical in all aspects.

In line with Webber (2007), he said ethics courses in industry should build ethical awareness and promote the company’s moral values in order to broaden the criteria used by managers when making decisions with moral implications. He advocates stimulating managers to become more ‘other oriented’ by exercises in which all stakeholders are treated as equal in contrast to their level of influence on corporate performance. Webbers’ thought are also true with the teachers in an educational institution as shown in the result.

Table 2

The Ethical Practices of the Respondents

Ethical Practices M Description SD
Service to the Students 4.83 Highly Ethical 0.727
Responsiveness to the Students Needs 4.16 Ethical 0.553
Accountability 4.43 Highly Ethical 0.602
Fairness and Integrity 4.05 Ethical 0.574
Efficiency and Effectiveness 3.94 Ethical 0.621
General Mean 4.37 Highly Ethical

Mean Scores Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Highly Ethical
3.41 – 4.20 Ethical
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Ethical
1.81 – 2.60 Barely Ethical
1.00 – 1.80 Not Ethical

The college faculties of West Visayas State University practice leadership as teachers with the general mean of (M=3.72). When categorized and ranked in descending order as to Continuously Improving their Classroom in Teaching (M=4.65, SD=.587); Giving In-Service Training to Colleagues (M=3.66, SD=.588); Organising and Leading Reviews of School Practice (M=3.59, SD=.497); Participating in the Performance Evaluation of Teachers (M=3.55, SD=.605); Providing Curriculum Development Knowledge (M=3.46, SD=.562); and Participating In In-School Decision Making (M=3.38, SD=.492). The result implies that teachers observe practices in leadership as part of their teaching career and relationship development to the students.

The result agreed with the result on how teachers in West Visayas State University valued their leadership skills because according to the different researches those have repeatedly identified instructional leadership as the most important role of the principal to propel school improvement (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlsttom, 2004). While much of the research indicates that the impact of school leadership on student achievement is indirect, mediated by the work of teachers in classrooms (Smith, Desimone, & Ueno, 2005), principal leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping the school culture and driving organizational changes that ultimately lead to a more effective learning environment (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter, 2007)

Table 3

The Teachers Leadership Practices of the Respondents

Leadership Practices M Description SD
Continuously Improving their Classroom in Teaching 4.65 Highly Practiced 0.587
Giving In-Service Training to Colleagues 3.66 Practiced 0.588
Organising and Leading Reviews of School Practice 3.59 Practiced 0.497
Participating In In-School Decision Making 3.38 Practiced 0.492
Participating in the Performance Evaluation of Teachers 3.55 Practiced 0.605
Providing Curriculum Development Knowledge 3.46 Practiced 0.562
General Mean 3.72 Practice

Mean Scores Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Highly Practiced
3.41 – 4.20 Practiced
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Practiced
1.81 – 2.60 Barely Practiced
1.00 – 1.80 Not Practiced

As to community engagement activities of the respondents were engaged as a whole, and when categorized and ranked as to Collaborate with higher education institutions to infuse parent, family, and community involvement in education into teacher and administrator in preparation programs (M=4.00, SD=.745) as the highest; Develop an outreach program to inform families and the community about school and family involvement opportunities and policies (M=3.78, SD=.629) as the second highest; Improved communication between home and school (M=3.76, SD=434), as the third highest; Develop and pass family-friendly policies (M=3.68, SD=.626) as the fourth highest; Building relationships between teachers and families (M=3.65, SD=.675) as the third lowest; Provide professional development on family and community engagement for school faculties (M=3.54, SD=.360) as the second lowest; and Provide better information on school and school internal policies and procedures (M=3.14, SD=.670) as the lowest.

Stressing the same observation with the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) defines community engagement as including both the processes and the activities that allow members of an affected population to be heard, empower them to be part of decision-making processes, and enable them to take direct action on education issues. It uses symbolic/token participation, consultation, and full participation to identify the different levels (INEE, 2004).

Table 4

The Community Engagement Activities of the Respondents

Community Engagement M Description SD
Building relationships between teachers and families. 3.65 Engaged 0.675
Collaborate with higher education institutions to infuse parent, family, and community involvement in education into teacher and administrator in preparation programs. 4 0.745
Engaged
Develop an outreach program to inform families and the community about school and family involvement opportunities and policies. 3.78 Engaged 0.629
Develop and pass family-friendly policies. 3.68 Engaged 0.626
Improved communication between home and school. 3.76 Engaged 0.434
Provide better information on school and school internal policies and procedures. 3.14 0.67
Moderately Engage
Provide professional development on family and community engagement for school faculties. 3.54 Engaged 0.36
General Mean 3.65 Engaged

Mean Scores Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Highly Engaged
3.41 – 4.20 Engaged
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Engaged
1.81 – 2.60 Barely Engaged
1.00 – 1.80 Not Engaged

The college faculties of West Visayas State University evidently sense the social responsibilities in general with the general mean of 3.44 and when ranked and categorized firstly as to Developed school trust and strengthen linkages (M=3.55, SD=.504); secondly as to Used new technologies in teaching (M=3.50, SD=.507); thirdly as to Nurture students selfsufficient, self-esteem, self-worth, and confident (M=3.42, SD=.500); fourthly as to Developed new teaching strategies and methodologies using technology for producing or delivering quality output or services (M=3.39, SD=.495); and lastly as to Designed new teaching (M=3.32, SD=.471). This implies that teacher evidently observed their social responsibilities in building character of the students.

The results paralleled with the statement cited in the journal written by Sheldon Berman (1990) that today the development of social responsibility is renewed concern of educators, and this has spawned a number of innovations. Different movements addressed different aspects of social responsibility-cooperative learning, conflict resolution, multi-cultural education, moral development, global education, community service, and involvement in political and social issues.

Table 5

The Level of Social Responsibilities of the Respondents

Social Responsibilities M Description SD
Developed school trust and strengthen linkages. 3.55 Evident 0.504
Nurture students self-sufficient, self-esteem, self-worth, and confident 3.42 Evident 0.5
Developed new teaching strategies and methodologies using technology for producing or delivering quality output or services 3.39 Moderately Evident 0.495
Used new technologies in teaching 3.5 Evident 0.507
Designed new teaching models and theories used in classroom instruction 3.32 Moderately Evident 0.471
General Mean 3.44 Evident

Mean Scores Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Most Evident
3.41 – 4.20 Evident
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Evident
1.81 – 2.60 Barely Evident
1.00 – 1.80 Not Evident

Table 6

The Significant Relationships between Transforming Sustainability Education, Ethics, Leadership, Community Engagement, and Social Responsibility among College Faculties

Category N=37 Sustainability Education Ethics Leadership Community Engagement Social Responsibility
Sustainability Education Pearson Correlation 1 .371(*) 0.129 0.149 -0.03
Significance(2-tailed) . 0.024 0.446 0.38 0.861
Ethics Pearson Correlation .371(*) 1 0.174 -0.172 -0.321
Significance(2-tailed) 0.24 . 0.303 0.308 0.053
Leadership Pearson Correlation 0.129 0.174 1 -0.121 -0.106
Significance(2-tailed) 0.446 0.303 . 0.475 0.533
Community Engagement Pearson Correlation 0.149 -0.172 -0.121 1 -0.2
Significance(2-tailed) 0.38 0.308 0.475 . 0.235
Social Responsibility Pearson Correlation -0.03 -0.321 -0.106 -0.2 1
Significance(2-tailed) 0.861 0.053 0.533 0.235 0.674

*Correlation at 0.05(2-tailed)

Conclusion and Recommendation

The college faculty of West Visayas State UniversityCalinog Campus are agents of transforming sustainability education, since it is practiced by the respondents as a higher education institutions would move to a mainstream of sustainability into their four functions as to, instruction, research, production and extension; respondents are highly ethical; college faculty are leaders as part of their teaching career and relationship development to the students; they are engaged in community activities to develop good relationship among teachers, students, parents and stakeholders of the university; college faculty are evidently aware of their social responsibilities and lastly a positive and significant relationships exist between the sustainability educations and ethics; social responsibility, ethics; leadership; and community engagement among college faculties of West Visayas State University-Calinog Campus.

If college teachers are well-trained in sustainability we expect that they will be ethical in their lines of profession. It is recommended to improve further the responsibilities of the variables like sustainability education; ethics; leadership; community engagement; and social responsibility among the subjects of the study. Weak points may be intervened accordingly and art of teaching.