Download This Complete Project Topic and Material (Chapter 1-5 With References and Questionnaire) Titled Teachers Moral Standing and Its Effectiveness on Religion in Nation Building. Here on Projectgate. See Below for the Abstract, Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, List of Appendices, List of Abbreviations, and Chapter One. Click the Download Now Button Below to Get the Complete Project Work Instantly.
Project Topic and Material on Teachers Moral Standing and Its Effectiveness on Religion in Nation Building
The Project File Details
- Name: Teachers Moral Standing and Its Effectiveness on Religion in Nation Building
- Type: PDF and Ms Word (Doc)
- Size: [72Kb]
- Length:  Pages
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Ever since the implementation of the CRS programme there have been the question about the moral standing of the teachers that are going to teach it. Teachers in general are seen has role models for the students that they teach. In the case of a teacher of CRS, moral lessons are a key part of the subject and when the teacher is found wanting in that particular aspect then there is a problem of what is being taught.
There is a proverb that goes ‘practice what you preach’ when a teachers moral standing can be questioned then such a teacher is not in the right place to teach CRS.A teacher cannot teach one thing and act another because student tend to forget what they learn in the classroom but remember the actions of the teacher. When a teacher teaches about humility and respectfulness in class but he or she is seen being disrespectful to the head of teachers, this does not show a good example to the students being taught because to the student they will feel if our teacher can do it so we can. And if students graduate with this type of attitude, it affects the future development of the nation. When a child is trained with that type of attitude he or she would have a bad moral value later in life because of the repercussions of what the student learnt in class.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem faced in this particular study of teachers moral standing and its effectiveness on nation building using Amuwo Odofin as a case study. The problem in this Local Government of the moral standing of teachers and how it was affected their students and how it affects the nation at large.
There are numerous cases of malpractise in amuwo odofin local government which was organized by the teachers that are meant to be teaching them to be better citizens of the nation. Some schools in this area have been blacklisted that WAEC/NECO can not be conducted in the premises. The following schools are blacklisted in Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area.
– Hope Bay College, Mazamaza, Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area
– Festac College, Festac-Town Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area
– Junif Pride International private school, festac town, Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area
As a result of the highlighted problems above, this study focuses on the teachers moral standing and fits effectiveness on religion in Nation building .
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The following specific objectives will be achieved in this project:
(a) A survey will be carried out to determine the present moral standing of teachers.
(b) To identify the effect that the teachers have on their students
(c) How to train teachers for positive character reformation
(d) To prefer recommendation which could help in solving the problem
(e) Identifying the integrative ethical education model: five steps of moral character development.
For proper treatment of the delineated problems, the following research questions were raised to guide the study;
(1) To what extent does the teachers moral standing affect the students development?
(2) To what extent does the teachers moral standing affect the nation building?
(3) What is the attitude of students towards the study of moral standing in both junior and secondary school
The following null hypotheses were formulated to provide further guidance in this study:
(1) Teacher’s moral standing great effect on the students development.
(2) Teacher’s moral standing may or may not have any effect on nation building in a whole.
(3) Some students of both the junior and senior school regard the study of moral education has a well needed subject while some see it has a waste of time
SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The study was carried out in Amuwo Odofin Local Government area of Lagos state. The researcher hopes to limit the distribution of questionnaires to (15) fifteen secondary schools because of time factor and financial constraint.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The findings of this study will be of benefit to the teacher, students, parents and the nation at a whole in knowing the effect of the Christian religious knowledge teachers moral standing on nation building. The people in government will be armed with the resources to ensure the moral development of the students graduating from secondary schools. The teachers of CRK will be well scrutinized and carefully selected because of the repercussion of their attitude in the life of the students, thus bringing about the final result of the attitudes that the graduate have on nation building.
DEFINATION OF TERMS
The following terms were operationally defined:
(2) Moral Standing
(3) Nation Building
(4) Religious Education
A teacher or schoolteacher is a person who provides education for pupils (children) and students (adults). The role of teacher is often formal and ongoing, carried out at a school or other place of formal education. In many countries, a person who wishes to become a teacher must first obtain specified professional qualifications or credentials from a university or college. These professional qualifications may include the study of pedagogy, the science of teaching. Teachers, like other professionals, may have to continue their education after they qualify, a process known as continuing professional development. Teachers may use a lesson plan to facilitate student learning, providing a course of study which is called thecurriculum.
A teacher’s role may vary among cultures. Teachers may provide instruction inliteracy and numeracy, craftsmanship or vocational training, the arts, religion,civics, community roles, or life skills. A teacher who facilitates education for an individual may also be described as a personal tutor, or, largely historically, agoverness.
In some countries, formal education can take place through home schooling.Informal learning may be assisted by a teacher occupying a transient or ongoing role, such as a family member, or by anyone with knowledge or skills in the wider community setting.
Religious and spiritual teachers, such as gurus, mullahs, rabbis, pastors/youth pastors and lamas, may teach religious texts such as the Quran, Torah or Bible Acertified teacher is a teacher who has earned credentials from an authoritative source, such as the government, a higher education institution or a private source. This teacher qualification or teacher qualification gives a teacher authorization to teach and grade in pre-schools, primary or secondary education in countries, schools, content areas or curricula where authorization is required. While many authorizing entities require student teaching before earning teacher certification, routes vary from country to country. A teaching qualification is one of a number of academic and professional degrees that enables a person to become a registered teacher. Depending on country, such qualifications may for example include the Postgraduate Certificate in Education
What is moral standing? An individual has moral standing for us if we believe that it makes a difference, morally, how that individual is treated, apart from the effects it has on others. That is, an individual has moral standing for us if, when making moral decisions, we feel we ought to take that individual’s welfare into account for the individual’s own sake and not merely for our benefit or someone else’s benefit.
Take, for example, a doctor who attends to the physical welfare of her patients and believes that it would be morally wrong to mistreat them. Suppose that she believes this, not because of any benefits she will derive from taking good care of them nor because she is afraid of being sued, but only because she has a genuine concern for her patients’ well-being. Her patients have moral standing for her. On the other hand, take a farmer who looks after the welfare of his cows and who also believes that it would be morally wrong to mistreat them. But suppose he believes this only because mistreating them would decrease their milk production and their milk is an essential source of nourishment and income for his family. Although this farmer considers his cows’ welfare, he does so only for the sake of his family and not for the sake of the cows themselves. For the farmer, the cows have no moral standing.
The oldest and most prevalent view of who has more] standing is that belief that only human beings have moral standing; only human beings ultimately count in matters of morality. This anthropocentric or “human centered” conviction is usually linked to the idea the only creatures with the capacity to reason (perhaps as expressed through language) have absolute value and consequently they are the only creatures whose well being ought to be taken into account for their own sakes.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, viewed nature as a hierarchy, believing that less rational creatures are made for the benefit of those that are more rational. He wrote: “Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake of man.” In a similar vein, the seventeenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote: “So far as animals are concerned we have no direct moral duties; animals are not self” conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.” For these thinkers, therefore, only human beings have moral standing, so the welfare of other creatures matters only if they are useful to humans.
The conviction that only human beings ultimately count in morality doesn’t imply that we have no moral obligations whatsoever toward nonhumans. Even anthropocentric views hold that it is immoral to destroy plants or animals needlessly since by doing so we are destroying resources that may provide significant benefits to ourselves or to future human generations. Some anthropocentric positions also hold that all cruelty toward animals is immoral because, as the philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas put it, “through being cruel to animals one becomes cruel to human beings.” Nonhumans count, however, only to the extent that the welfare of human beings is affected.
Although every anthropocentric ethic holds that, morally speaking, only humans can matter, there is wide disagreement about exactly which humans matter. Some anthropocentric views hold that any human creature that has at least the potential to be rational has moral standing. According to this view, a fetus has moral standing. Others hold that only those humans who are already rational count morally. From this perspective a fetus doesn’t count. Other anthropocentric views claim that both present and future generations of humans count, while still others argue that only currently existing humans count.
In the eighteenth century the view that only humans count was challenged by several philosophers, including the utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to these philosophers our only moral duty is to maximize pleasure which, they claimed, is the only fundamental good, and to minimize pain, the only fundamental evil. In making moral decisions, therefore, we have to take into account all creatures, rational or not, that have the capacity to experience pleasure or pain. As Bentham wrote, “The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?”
This early view, which extended moral standing to animals, set the stage for the “animal rights” movement. Following in the footsteps of Bentham and Mill, utilitarians in the 1970s began vigorously defending the view that it is as immoral to inflict pain and suffering on animals as on human beings. For humans to fail to recognize the moral standing of animals, they argued, is discrimination on the basis of species and is as wrong as discrimination on the basis of race or sex.
Some defenders of animal rights, however, argue that the welfare of animals matters morally, not only for utilitarian reasons, i.e., minimizing pain, but also because animals have moral rights that should not be violated. They claim that the rights of animals are based on the idea that animals have interests, and moral rights exist to protect the interests of any creatures, not merely those of human beings. Others have held that animals have a life of their own deserving of respect. Advocates of animal rights have concluded that in addition to freedom from pain, animals have a right also to protection of their interests or to respectful consideration of their independent lives.
During this century an even broader view of what has moral standing has emerged, one which holds that all living things have moral standing. The most well-known proponent of this view is Albert Schweitzer who claimed that all life merits reverence. More recent philosophers have based their stand on the view mentioned above that anything with interests has moral rights. They point out that all living entities, including trees and plants, have interests, exhibiting certain needs and propensities toward growth and self-preservation. All living entities, therefore, have rights to the protection of their interests and we have an obligation to take these interests into account in our moral deliberations.
Perhaps the broadest view about what counts morally is the view that entire natural systems count. This “ecocentric” view was first put forward by the naturalist Aldo Leopold who argued in favor of a “land ethic” that gives all of nature moral standing. He wrote: “The land ethic . . . enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land.” For Leopold and many others, whole ecological systems, such as lakes, forests, or entire continents, have an “integrity” or a “welfare” of their own that should not be harmed or damaged.
DEFINATION: The development of behaviors, values, language, institutions, and physical structures that elucidate history and culture, concretize and protect the present, and insure the future identity and independence of a nation.
Nation building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth
Nation building and development has many dimensions and is dependent on several factors some of which are natural while others are man’s self – imposed problems. The singular enemy the human race has is itself and the greatest danger he faces is his ability through his action or inaction to cause his survival or extermination. The difference lies in the right application of his natural endowment in the form of natural and human resources.
Nation building and development has to be sustainable in practical terms and is dependent as stated above on available resources, the ability to optimize the application of these resources beneficially as well as preserve the physical environment safe, healthy, stable and highly conducive.
Sustainable development can be defined as “a development which permits for economic growth but at the same time demands the protection of the environment.” (Brundtland 1987) defines sustainable development as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futur