Unpacking the ethics of care and safe learning environments in Indonesian vocational higher education settings: a contested space of power and (teaching) effectiveness

ABSTRACT

Numerous studies have discussed the ethics of care and safe learning environments in relation to educational experiences. Yet, there is a dearth of literature on such aspects in vocational, non-western higher education contexts. This paper examines how students and teachers view entanglements of the ethics of care and safe learning environments in forming notions of teaching effectiveness in Indonesian vocational higher education settings. Utilising interview data from students and teachers in Indonesian higher education vocational institutions, the study draws upon Hofstede et al. Dimensions of National Cultures and Faranda and Clarke’s framework of effective teaching. The findings illuminate balanced power distance, communicative participation and pedagogy of care as fundamentals of the ethics of care that correspond with notions of safe learning environments to inform effective teaching in the Indonesian higher education vocational space. Illustrating social-educational contestations in the vocational classroom, implications suggest the need to minimise the existing large teacher-student power distance and transform the role of teachers as ‘object-givers’ and students as ‘object-takers’ into caring partnerships that promote vocational knowledge and practice. The study holds promise for educators, teacher educators and policymakers seeking to buttress support for ethical caring initiatives to enhance teaching effectiveness in the vocational non-western space.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics of care
• safe learning environments
• effective teaching
• power distance
• vocational education

Introduction

Much research has discussed the complexity of effective teaching (e.g., Soares and Lopes 2020; Stronge 2018; Wood and Su 2017), illuminating the role of safe learning environments in shaping day-to-day experiences in higher education contexts (Sofyan, Barnes, and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2021, 2022; Lizzio, Wilson, and Hadaway 2007). Indeed, the concepts of safety or safe learning in an educational environment may have various meanings, which are fraught with tension. However, several scholars view safe learning environments as a concept that refers not only to the physical dimensions of the classrooms or the facilities which enable students to experience effective teaching, but it also denotes the social, emotional, psychological and disciplinary dispositions that provide opportunities for learners to engage with classroom interactions (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh 2022a; Fisher and Komosa-Hawkins 2013). Ayub’s, Yazdani, and Kanwal (2020), for example, demonstrate how safe social interactions, particularly between educators and students, are vital for enhancing the latter’s learning in Pakistani higher education institutions. The scholars show how creating a sense of safety – namely, making learners believe that they can express themselves physically and emotionally without fearing negative consequences (Lateef 2016) – can inform their perceptions of quality teaching.

Nevertheless, while existing literature sheds light on safe learning environments and teaching in non-western higher education spaces (e.g., Saputra et al. 2020) as well as in western educational contexts (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh and Levinson 2015; Levinson and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2016; Czupryński 2020; Soares and Lopes 2020; Tappeiner et al. 2019; Turner and Harder 2018), there is a dearth of literature on such aspects in vocational non-western education settings. In fact, it is unclear how notions of teaching effectiveness in vocational institutions correspond with ideas of safe learning environments and the ethics of care – a key affective concept where one’s activity of caring emphasises relationships, bound to contextual situations adjoined to social practices, feelings and opinions for good judgement to be realised (Gilligan 2008). To fill this gap, this study seeks to identify and explore how safe learning environments, the ethics of care and their relationship to teaching effectiveness are realised in non-western vocational higher education settings. Specifically, the study asks the following question: How do students and teachers perceive entanglements of the ethics of care and safe learning environments in forming notions of teaching effectiveness in Indonesian vocational higher education settings?

The study acknowledges how Indonesian government policies define Guru (teachers) and Dosen (higher education lecturers) as social actors who model individual and social-professional values of competence; highlighting their ‘effective personal, noble, wise, authoritative and exemplary attributes’ as well as their ‘ability to communicate and interact effectively and meaningfully with students, colleagues, parents and the community’ (Regulations of The Republic of Indonesia 2005, 6). It is based on the premise that such teaching related constructs – as stated in Indonesian policies – seem to be under researched in non-western spaces, thus should be particularly examined in authentic social-cultural contexts (Sofyan, Barnes, and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2021, 2022; Devlin and Samarawickrema 2010). Employing Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s model of six dimensions of national cultures (Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov 2010) – specifically focusing on the ‘Power Distance’ dimension – and supplementing it with Faranda and Clarke’s framework of effective teaching (Faranda and Clarke 2004), the paper dissects how the ethics of care and safe learning environments are realised, problematised and understood in relation to effective teaching by both educators and learners in Indonesian higher education vocational settings. It begins with a brief overview of learning environments in higher education contexts, illuminating issues of safety and effectiveness. Then, it addresses the significant role of the ethics of care in the education space and describes its theoretical foundations, illustrating how Hofstede’s framework can help characterise the Indonesian cultural-social context. The paper then outlines its methodology, findings and discussion, stating its implications, limitations and future research directions.

Learning environments in higher education: how ‘safe’ are they?

Over the years, scholars have argued that to attract and retain students in an increasingly competitive and diverse higher education space, more emphasis should be given to creating authentic and engaging learning experiences (Khanna, Jacob, and Chopra 2021; Moulding 2010) that foster a sense of safety (Nieminen and Pesonen 1984). In this regard, safe learning environments are generally seen as spaces that provide students with physical and emotional safety, as well as the autonomy to express their intellectual ideas without fearing negative consequences that might affect their self-image or social status (e.g., Edmondson and Lei 2014). More specifically, such environments seem to feature a co-designed curriculum, utilising co-constructive assessment criteria and student voice as accommodated practices of power that can shape perceptions of teaching and learning (e.g., Bearman and Ajjawi 2021; McCallum and Milner 2021; Tuhkala, Ekonoja and Hämäläinen 2021).

For example, distributing 267 questionnaires among Indian higher education students, Khanna, Jacob, and Chopra’s study (2021) reveals how teachers who had the most personal and professional impact on students were those who displayed caring behaviours. The scholars conclude that higher education institutions can and should market themselves by showcasing their teachers’ caring attitudes. Similarly, Nieminen and Pesonen (1984) contend that perceptions of safe learning environments should challenge systemic discourses of exclusion. Their study unpacks three Finnish higher education disabled students’ narratives, showing how common learning environments often favour able-bodied students – seemingly promoting practices of exclusion rather than inclusion, mitigating notions of safety in the process. In other words, perceptions of safe learning environments illuminate a sense of care and belonging (e.g., MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020) where students feel that they can ask questions, express their ideas and make or admit mistakes without fear of judgement or adverse effects (Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; Soares and Lopes 2020).

Yet, while perceptions of safe learning environments can point to ideas of effective teaching (Danielson 2013; Soares and Lopes 2020; Finefter-Rosenbluh, Ryan, and Barnes 2021; Stronge 2018; Trammel and Aldrich 2016; Wood and Su 2017), there continues to be an increased interest in how they are realised and problematised in different education settings (e.g., Ayub, Yazdani, and Kanwal 2020). Indeed, recent literature illustrates discrepancies in student and teacher views of teaching in non-western higher education contexts. Tran’s study (2022), for example, questions and unpacks the cultural discrepancies in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teaching in Vietnamese higher education settings. Demonstrating students’ intentions to conform to cultural traditions to protect their teachers’ reputations while the latter confront and seek to navigate western pedagogical approaches, the study calls on researchers to provide more contextually nuanced interpretations of (quality) teaching in the higher education space. Still, literature on safe learning environments and related studies of care appear to be mostly conducted in western institutions (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh and Levinson 2015; Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; MacGill 2016; Nieminen and Pesonen 1984; Soares and Lopes 2020). Identifying and understanding how ideas of safe learning environments are realised and correspond to ideas of effective teaching in Indonesian vocational education settings is the focal point of this study.

Ethics of care: an illumination of teacher-student relationships

Teacher-student relationships have a significant impact on student motivation, wellbeing and academic-social outcomes (Hagenauer and Volet 2014). Research shows that the quality of such relationships is a key predictor of student engagement and achievement (e.g., Roorda et al. 2011; Thornberg et al. 2020), stressing the association between various rapport dimensions and teaching (e.g., Faranda and Clarke 2004; Finefter-Rosenbluh, Ryan, and Barnes 2021; Thornberg et al. 2020). Nevertheless, despite the key role of relationships in shaping schooling structures, complexities of teacher care seem to be under researched within higher education contexts (Hagenauer and Volet 2014; Karpouza and Emvalotis 2019). This is curious because educators’ ability to create and maintain caring, supportive and respectful relationships is an essential component of their professional ethics (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh and Levinson 2015; Finefter-Rosenbluh 2022c; Mitra, Frick, and Crawford 2011) and pedagogy of care (MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020; Nieminen and Pesonen 1984). Conversely, professional ethics and a pedagogy of care (e.g., Corbera et al. 2020; Gholami 2011; MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020) can play a key role in the development of teacher-student relationships and improve educational processes in the classroom (MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020). Ideas of care, in this respect, reflect the need to promote learners’ rights to free, safe and active participation in their education journey (Barnes 2019; Finefter-Rosenbluh, Ryan, and Barnes 2021; Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; Soares and Lopes 2020; Thornberg et al. 2020).

With teachers’ professional ethics highlighting their responsibility to support students and attend their needs (Mitra, Frick, and Crawford 2011), several scholars acknowledge the ethics of care in the process (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2022c; Finefter-Rosenbluh and Levinson 2015; Finefter-Rosenbluh and Perrotta 2022; Corbera et al. 2020; Gholami 2011; MacGill 2016); positioning relationships and human responsiveness at the core of educational institutions as social structures. Pointing to relational dimensions and the way they shape one’s moral decision making (Gilligan 2008; Noddings 1984), ethics of care is a concept highlighting practitioners’ responsibility to assume moral actions that enhance interpersonal rapport – intended to ensure the wellbeing of others (Gilligan 2008). The concept refers to personal receptivity and approachability in educational processes, recognising the emotional and the moral costs of social connections. While some studies suggest that an ethics of care is either overly universalistic or relativistic framework (e.g., Vikon, Camino, and Biggio 2005), others view it as both universal (care as a fundamental human characteristic) and situational (care differs depending on the particularities of context) (e.g., McKenzie and Blenkinsop 2006). In so doing, scholars (re)define the concept as a seemingly contextual morality that although varying from culture to culture still captures a universal aspect of human life (Tronto 1993). Positive and reciprocal teacher-student relationships are seen as an inevitable result of teachers’ deliberate use of caring strategies and pedagogies (Moen et al. 2020) that can develop students’ sense of safety, connectedness and belonging within the learning environment (MacGill 2016). Nonetheless, and despite much evidence for students’ desire for reciprocal relationships with teachers (Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; Soares and Lopes 2020) – seeking more freedom to share their insights and shape higher education environments (MacGill 2016) – there appears to be relatively little literature on the ethics of care in non-western higher education contexts. Indeed, some studies touch on the meaning of care in such settings, for example, Tang, Walker-Gleaves, and Rattray (2019) characterise teacher care in Hong Kong higher education settings as a deep sense of trust, responsiveness and mutuality between students and teachers, highlighting the need to extend the caring scope in such contexts by stressing ideas of pedagogical, holistic and sustainable care. However, such conceptualisations are yet in need of further problematisation in vocational higher education non-western spaces. According to Jakimow, Dewi, and Siahaan (2019), it is crucial to define an ethics of care within Indonesian social structures, including among health-care workers and public representatives that seek to promote ideals of social responsiveness. Similarly, a recent project conducted in Indonesian higher education online settings contends that more emphasis is needed on principles of care and reciprocal teacher-student relationships to enhance teaching and learning processes (Cahyadi, Widyastuti, and Mufidah 2021).

With the ethics of care in Indonesian vocational classrooms yet to be extensively explored, this study seeks to identify how students and teachers problematise this concept and (re)imagine its effective enactment.

Theoretical underpinnings: Hofstede’s dimensions of national cultures and Faranda and Clarke’s framework of effective teaching

This study employs Hofstede et al’.s (2010) model of six Dimensions of National Cultures, specifically focusing on the dimension of power distance, to examine teacher and student notions of safe learning environments and the ethics of care in Indonesian vocational higher education settings. With culture being the ‘the collective programming of the mind’ (Hofstede 2011, 3), in the sense of general preferences of certain states of affairs over others (Hofstede 2001), the study acknowledges the former as a social phenomenon consisting of complex layers of unwritten rules (including an array of symbols, heroes, rituals and practises) that can produce different learning experiences and unique social-ethical understandings (Hofstede 2011).

Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov’s (2010) model is based on a large survey database about values and related sentiments of individuals in over 50 nations (Hofstede 1980). This was later (re)shaped by various studies (e.g., Hofstede 1991, 2001; Hofstede and Bond 2005), including data from the World Values Survey allowing the creation of six dimensions of national cultures (Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). This study is based on the premise that the dimensions and their complexity can help dissect educational experiences in the classroom. Acknowledging the existence of different solutions to problems of social inequality, the study focuses on power distance as a dimension capturing the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions (e.g., students in certain contexts) ‘accept and expect that power is distributed unequally’ or ‘a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders’ (9). While all societies and their institutions suffer from inequalities in one way or another, this dimension highlights how some social actors are ‘more unequal’ than others.

In other words, the power distance dimension reflects the extent to which a society or its social institutions dis/agree/s with formal authorities. Societies from large power distance indexes (e.g., Indonesia) are unlikely to have disagreements with authority figures, whereas societies with small power distance indexes seem to have more disagreements with authority figures. While they tend to be higher for East European, Latin, Asian (including Indonesia) and African countries, they are lower for German and English-speaking western countries (Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Illustrating the differences between nations with small power distance and nations with large power distance in social institutions, Hofstede (2011) notes how the former may promote student-centred strategies and eschew notions of hierarchy as entrenched inequality of roles. Nations with large power distance, however, may foreground teacher-centred practices and notions of hierarchy as existential inequality – illuminating power imbalance as a basic and legitimate societal fact.

Over the years, studies have portrayed the intricacies of large power-distanced approaches in educational settings. For example, Ahmadi’s study (2021) finds that Iranian higher education teachers project their dominance while their students consider themselves as dependent thinkers, illustrating how fixed, culturally suppressing agendas shape notions of teaching and learning. Highlighting student-limited autonomy in processes of decision-making, despite calls for more learner involvement, the study questions educators’ practices of communication that seem to promote superficial views of democratic initiatives. Similarly, Wu’s study (2006) has suggests that higher education students in Taiwan experience a power distance gap in the classroom, although they are seeking to reduce it. Acknowledging the complexity of cross-cultural differences in learning contexts (Cheah, Diong, and Yap 2018) and recognising that Asian education settings are yet to be extensively explored in this regard, the current study aims to explore teacher and student notions of safe learning environments in Indonesian vocational settings. Recognising how classroom environments have been associated with teaching effectiveness (highlighting the need to make students feel safe, respected and valued to enhance educational experiences (Danielson 2013; Soares and Lopes 2020; Sofyan, Barnes, and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2021; Stronge 2018; Trammel and Aldrich 2016; Wood and Su 2017)) the current study is supplemented with Faranda and Clarke’s framework of teaching effectiveness (Faranda and Clarke 2004), seeking to portray the complex affective-effective educational processes in the Indonesian vocational space.

Faranda and Clarke’s framework, which suggests components of effective teaching in the higher education context, is based on students’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective university teachers. It has been used to identify effective teacher characteristics in numerous studies (e.g., Meksophawannagul 2015; Meng and Onwuegbuzie 2015). This study draws on this framework to identify teachers’ and students’ views of safe learning environments and an ethics of care in relation to effective teaching in vocational higher education settings. It acknowledges how a pivotal construct of effective teaching is teacher-student rapport, highlighting the significance of teacher care (e.g., approachability, accessibility, empathy). Indeed, the framework was chosen, not only for its focus on higher education settings and its detailed conceptual model, but also for its alignment with Danielson’s (2013) and Stronge’s (2007, 2018) school-based frameworks which have been validated over several years. This article does not resolve the currently held and contested conceptions of teaching effectiveness, rather it both examines how context might shape conceptions of teacher care and safe learning and elaborates on the cultural aspects of teaching and learning as an archetypal concept, as suggested by Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov’s (2010).

Methods

Context

This qualitative study draws from a larger project that investigated teaching effectiveness in Indonesian vocational higher education settings (Sofyan, Barnes, and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2021, 2022). The larger project sought to describe both teachers’ and students’ ethical understanding of care and its association with teaching effectiveness in a non-western educational space. Since 2004, Indonesian vocational institutions (polytechnics) – educational-practical settings designed to produce skilful labour in a range of fields (Sukoco 2019) – have been employing a competence-based curriculum, initiated by the Education Law Policy (The Education Law 2003). This policy highlights that students should have strong connections to professional practice and be provided with opportunities to build more connections with industry. In practice, vocational education studies appear to consist of about 30% theory and 70% practice within an applied undergraduate program intending to effectively prepare students for labour markets; ultimately providing a diploma that highlights students’ skills, attitudes and knowledge in a particular space (The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education 2019). Relatedly, vocational students’ competence is acknowledged through formal practical examinations that cover a synthesis of theory and practice, initiated by units of professional certification. The units are required to hold an authorised licence from the central government and issue a certificate of competence to successful students (Pasyah, Nurdin, and Purnomo 2021). Conversely, students who have been awarded the certificate of competence are nationally recognised as competent practitioners.

In April 2020, the national program of Merdeka Belajar-Kampus Merdeka (Study Free-Campus) was launched by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The policy sought to provide a Masters program that included both rich theoretical knowledge as well as crucial practical skills for future practitioners, illuminating the government’s intention to transform this higher education space into an environment that provides safe and broad learning opportunities for all. Simply put, the vocational education and training space has recently become the focus of education policies, highlighting the invention of key social actors like the Directorate General of Vocational Education (a sub-branch of the Ministry of Education and Culture) to extend the visibility of and the engagement with such settings (The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education 2019).

Indeed, it was recently noted that the number of vocational institutions (polytechnics) had reached 278 of 4,700 higher institutions (private and public institutions) in Indonesia, having about 416,000 students; marking 5.2% of the total number of students (eight million) in higher education settings (The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education 2019). These and such numbers reflect the central government’s intention to include more students in vocational programs (Indrawati and Kuncoro 2021). This study portrays both teachers’ and students’ experiences in these growing settings.

Participants

This study took place from 2020 to 2021, focusing on students and teachers in Indonesian higher vocational programs (see Tables 1 and 2). Ethical permission was obtained from the institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee (project number: 26145) to conduct this study online due to pandemic restrictions and limitations. There were 15 student participants (five identified as males and ten identified as females) studying across two state vocational institutions in Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Seven students were in their second year of study, six were in their third year, one student was in their fourth year and another student was in their sixth year. First year students were not part of the study due to their recent entry into the vocational learning environment. Similarly, the teacher participant group involved 13 polytechnic experienced educators (seven identified as males and six identified as females) who had been teaching across the same two state vocational institutions in Indonesia. The teachers’ years of experience ranged from six to 22 years, with all holding professional teacher certificates. All the participants were assigned pseudonyms and the name of their institutions was kept confidential.

Table 1. Student Profile.

No	Name (Pseudonym)	Gender	Year of Study	Major
1	Afdalri	Male	3	Engineering
2	Ahrandi	Male	2	Architecture
3	Angiera	Female	3	Engineering
4	Arinati	Female	3	Electrical Engineering
5	Devian	Female	4	Manufacture
6	Firmanan	Male	3	Travel and Tourism Management
7	Handrika	Male	6	Engineering
8	Hestina	Female	2	Electrical Engineering
9	Januari	Male	3	Travel and Tourism Management
10	Nisana	Female	2	Electrical Engineering
11	Nurulti	Female	2	Electrical Engineering
12	Putriya	Female	2	Electrical Engineering
13	Sriya	Female	2	Electrical Engineering
14	Windari	Female	2	Business Administration
15	Zalmawatika	Female	3	Computer Engineering

Table 2. Teacher Profile.

No.	Name (Pseudonym)	Gender	Year of Experience	Major
1	Anasta	Male	11 Years	Business Administration
2	Andika	Male	20 Years	Accounting
3	Annati	Female	11 Years	Accounting
3	Buntuna	Male	15 Years	Travel and Tourism Management
5	Darmana	Female	15 Years	Electrical Engineering
6	Eddika	Male	10 Years	Computer Engineering
7	Islari	Male	15 Years	Hospitality
8	Irmata	Female	12 Years	Accounting
9	Iwanra	Male	22 Years	Electrical Engineering
10	Nasirun	Male	5 Years	Business Administration
11	Rahmina	Female	7 Years	Business Administration
12	Sarmaya	Female	6 Years	Electrical Engineering
13	Sugiro	Male	14 Years	Civil Engineering

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews were utilised to obtain in-depth teacher and student data on their perceptions of the ethics of care and safe learning environments and the way they correspond with effective teaching in the Indonesian vocational higher education space. The process of developing an interview protocol involved several steps: Firstly, literature on the framework of effective teaching was critically reviewed (e.g., Danielson 2013; Faranda and Clarke 2004; Stronge 2018; Witcher et al. 2003). Given its focus on higher education settings and that it had involved students in determining the components of effective teaching, strengthened by robust methodological processes of data analysis, Faranda and Clarke’s (2004) framework of effective teaching was selected as one of this study’s analytical tools. Secondly, the main and sub-categories of teaching effectiveness, as well as the research questions were both identified. The interview questions were then drafted and reviewed collectively and carefully based on the previous steps (Dörnyei 2007). Finally, the interview protocol was piloted with three vocational students and three teachers. Ambiguous questions were rephrased to ensure clarity.

Once institutional ethical approval had been received, an invitation to participate in this study was posted on social media outlets (e.g., Twitter, Facebook and teacher and student WhatsApp groups). Individuals who responded to the invitation were contacted and received consent forms. Snowballing techniques were later used to recruit more participants through personal connections. Due to the pandemic and related travel restrictions, the interviews were conducted virtually using the online video conference platform Zoom. During the semi-structured interviews, which lasted 45 to 60 minutes and were conducted in Indonesian (the interviewees’ native language) to ensure clarity and ethical data collection processes, Author one asked various questions, including about the students’ and the teachers’ perceptions of care and safety, as well as their experiences with and understanding of rapport and student-teacher relationships in the vocational space.

All the interviews were recorded and transcribed, with transcripts translated into English and verified by a professional translator who was familiar with the research context and both languages (Indonesian and English). Transcripts were then analysed using inductive analysis methods as outlined by Hatch (2002), focusing on teachers’ and students’ positioning of safe learning environments and the ethics of care in relation to effective teaching in Indonesian vocational higher education settings. Specifically, the translated interview transcripts were read multiple times by the researchers to enhance their familiarisation with the data. The process also included reading the interview notes to help identify pertinent information to be added and coded. The themes generated were grouped into salient categories and subthemes, cross-referenced by the research team to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Findings: fundamentals of the ethics of care – entangled notions of safe learning environments and effective teaching

The analysis of the teachers’ and the students’ interview responses suggests the fundamentals of the ethics of care – specifically, balanced power distance, communicative participation and pedagogy of care – correspond with notions of safe learning environments to inform effective teaching in the Indonesian higher education vocational space. Highlighting such fundamentals of care, the participants lamented the current cultural-educational roles of teachers as ‘object-givers’ and students as ‘object-takers’, capturing social contestations of power and pedagogy. Students felt that teacher-student relationships should be transformed into caring partnerships to promote knowledge and practice for effective teaching. Below is a detailed description of the fundamentals of care, elaborating on their intricate entanglements with notions of safe learning environments for effective teaching.

Balanced power distance

Contemplating the meaning of safe learning environments and the ethics of care in relation to teaching effectiveness in the Indonesian vocational higher education space, the student participants called for a more balanced power distance with teachers, lamenting their current experiences which were characterised by fear of asking complex questions and initiating intellectually challenging class discussions. As Nurulti, Firmanan and Windari illustrated:

We want our teachers to invite us to ask questions, not to make us feel like we’re interrupting or disrespect them. I’m afraid to ask questions or challenge teachers … .

Teachers showing more care could definitely help us feel more motivated, more relaxed in the classroom. We want that kind of learning environment … it could improve our learning.

Teachers should be friendly … it will make us more enthusiastic, relaxed, and not afraid to talk. When they’re so distant, it makes us nervous, we can’t really focus and we’re too scared of sharing ideas. Students won’t say anything unless they’re specifically asked by their teachers … we’re just too scared.

Indeed, making a conscious effort to avoid practices that might make their teachers feel disrespected, the students acknowledged prevailing cultural-social norms of teacher superiority in the vocational classroom that seem to challenge notions of safe learning experiences, highlighting the importance of care and the need for a more balanced power distance with teachers to improve teaching. As Sriya stated, ‘Friendly teachers are welcomed … we don’t want to keep feeling awkward to ask questions’. Illuminating the need for a more caring learning environment to enable safe learning experiences, the students called for a minimisation of the power distance in their classrooms to improve teaching.

From their perspective, the teacher participants noted the current imbalanced power distance with their students and the way it shaped the educational processes in their classrooms. Such an imbalance, they argued, was entrenched in Indonesian social norms where one is expected to follow authority figures (e.g., teachers). This is reflected in ‘one way’ pedagogical actions where educators are positioned as authoritative ‘object-givers’ and students are positioned as ‘object-takers’, highlighting strict disciplinary rules and fixed, non-negotiable assessment procedures in the vocational classroom. In this contested space, affective-caring fundamentals were eclipsed by power distance-invested practices, seemingly alleviating teaching and learning experiences in the process. As Sugiro explained:

As teachers, we need to get rid of ideas like ‘the teachers are in a higher social position than students’ … it doesn’t mean that teachers’ social status is lower than of students, it’s just that we’re trying to get a more balanced position in the sense that we function as educators who become more of facilitators that work to improve learning. I really want my students to see me as a learning partner.

Challenging existing power dimensions to enhance teaching and learning in the Indonesian vocational education space, Sugiro argued for the need to minimise the large distance with students, for the latter to be seen as partners, knowledge contributors and colleague practitioners rather than seemingly socially unequal future practitioners. Taking a similar stand, Eddika, Buntuna and Darmana positioned the large teacher-student power distance as a social obstacle for establishing a safe learning environment, stressing prevalent cultural-educational Indonesian views of teachers as knowledge transmitters and powerful social actors. Such views seem to challenge the ethical role of educator care in providing effective teaching experiences in the Indonesian vocational space. As they explained:

Having a good relationship with students is very important … I remember when I was in college a decade ago, my teachers often kept their distance from us, but it was understandable because that was the social expectation … Teachers taught and didn’t really care whether students get it or not … but times have changed and if we let our students experience what we’ve experienced, they might also feel lost and unsafe … having no proper learning direction.

It’s time that there be more focus on establishing good relationships with students in our schools … it can help us better transfer our knowledge … identify our students’ interests, support them, show we care to help them learn.

Good teachers are ones who seek to establish positive relationships with students. We shouldn’t just deliver materials, we should also aim to have a more extensive definition of effective teaching … not only focusing on particular observable materials, but also looking into having better relationships … we’re not just teachers, we’re educators, and as such, we shouldn’t distance ourselves that much from students … we should provide more nuanced, caring learning experiences that go beyond plain materials …

Indeed, the teachers reflected on their own experiences, which were characterised by large teacher-student power distance relationships that appeared to challenge ethical ideals of care and safe learning and shape existing notions of effective teaching. Acknowledging how educators were being positioned as socially ‘dominant’ actors in the Indonesian education space, the teacher participants called for a more balanced power distance so they could provide a more nuanced and caring education space to enhance teaching. In fact, Darmana added that being an effective teacher was not only a matter of how one delivers content, but also about seeking to establish strong caring relationships based on a more balanced power distance in a socially contested space that views teachers as gurus or exemplars and highly regarded social role models. As the teachers challenged such views and attempted to redefine power in their own classrooms, attempting to create safe learning classrooms where students feel comfortable and empowered, they acknowledged that they were ‘pushing’ somewhat unsuccessfully against enduring social-cultural norms of inequality.

Communicative participation

The student participants remarked on the need for communicative participation where they can maintain an open, ongoing and active dialogue with their teachers in the vocational class, positioning it as a key care practice of effective teaching. Conversely, describing emotional states of anxiety, disengagement and discouragement due to teacher-student miscommunication in the vocational classroom, several students lamented their reluctance to approach their teachers with questions, noting entrenched cultural-educational attitudes as unwelcoming forms of communication that discourage participation and can cloud teaching and learning processes. As Arinaty, Windari and Hestina illustrated:

If teachers would’ve kept an open communication channel and encouraged an ongoing dialogue, we would’ve participated more in class. But there’s not really such a thing at the moment and we don’t have the courage to ask questions, which really affects us.

Teachers should provide us with more opportunities to communicate … when teachers don’t really communicate, just lecture, they make us nervous … we’re too scared of expressing ideas …

It’s really important to have good communication between teachers and students … it can make us feel more comfortable, emotionally balanced, encourage us to participate, understand and accept course materials and ask questions inside and outside of class. It will improve our learning.

Positioning communicative participation as a way to establish a safe learning environment in the vocational classroom, the students illuminated a dimension of care that can provide a sense of comfort and approachability to enhance teaching and learning.

From their perspective, the teacher participants admitted that some of their students appeared hesitant to participate in class activities, an issue they recognised needed to be addressed. While this corroborated the students’ views, some teachers explicated the former attitudes as a result of their students’ own previous socio-cultural, tokenistic educational experiences where teachers were seen as authoritative ‘object-givers’ and students were seen as ‘object-takers’. The teachers noted, however, that putting more emphasis on developing open communication skills and providing more opportunities for participation might improve the teaching and learning journey in the vocational class. As Rahmina and Eddika described:

I know that my students have experienced some complex educational attitudes before, so I try to communicate better … encourage them to ask questions, participate … it’s an ongoing process, they should be able to say something if I make a mistake or share misinformation, it’s ok to be criticised … but it’s not the norm … It’s important for students to feel comfortable with teachers inside and outside of class. It’s great when some of them feel that they can consult about their tasks.

We need to be more open, establish active communication pathways so students feel like they can talk about things and participate, share problems, issues, ideas … it can help them learn, be more enthusiastic about learning, motivated to learn and ultimately grow professionally.

Both the teachers and the students noted communicative participation as an important practice of care to correspond with a safe learning environment that may enhance teaching. Indeed, the participants remarked on the need to provide for more communication opportunities, alluding to the latter’s absence due to cultural-social institutional authoritative norms. As Rahmina (teacher) concluded that students should be encouraged to share their opinions and criticise educational processes. The word she used, in Indonesian, was ‘dikritik’, namely, to be criticised; acknowledging the need for a more reciprocal communicative partnership that highlights student participation to improve teaching.

Pedagogy of care

The student participants highlighted the importance of pedagogical care in shaping safe learning experiences. Such a caring pedagogical approach would mean that teachers were genuinely compassionate about students’ authentic educational needs, strengths and weaknesses, actively crafting opportunities to enable safe learning experiences in the classroom. Such a pedagogy of care, the students noted, could assist in developing the positive sense of confidence that enhances learning. As Ahrandi and Sriya said:

My favourite teacher really cares about us. We feel close to him because he always considers our needs and shares valuable and authentic knowledge that helps us learn … he really considers our personal messages …

Good teachers genuinely care about our personal success, so they give us authentic advice, such that relates to our own particular needs … they discuss how our study and practice plans should be … thinking about our needs … they keep us motivated.

Similarly, shining light on the way one of her teachers supported her during a difficult time of illness, considering her complex needs at that time and place, Zalmawatika illustrated how her teacher’s pedagogy of care motivated her, not only in her personal battle but also in her studies. In doing so, the teacher highlighted her moral responsibility to promote educational processes continuously and persistently exhibiting caring attitudes that enhanced Zalmawatika’s learning.

Similarly, the teacher participants illustrated how a pedagogy of care can establish a safe learning environment to correspond with effective teaching. Specifically, acknowledging the need to allow themselves and their students to be vulnerable by actively showing their own struggles and needs, the teachers called for incorporating more caring behaviours inside and outside of class. Seeking to provide more authentic opportunities for students to engage with the complex teaching and learning processes in the vocational classroom, the teachers expounded the role of pedagogical care in the ethics of care. As Eddika, Sugiro and Irmana illustrated:

The first word that comes to my mind when thinking about an effective teacher is being a caring teacher … if a teacher doesn’t have this caring quality, like showing their care in their pedagogical approach, it might be hard for them to help students improve their learning … Teachers should have a real sense of care … it shows sincerity and real quality practice.

It’s important that teachers show their care for their students, it can not only promote students to engage but it can also make them feel more respected and learn better. I let my students drink water in class to make them feel comfortable.

As educators, we should make our students know that they are cared for … we need to talk to them before and after class to show that teaching is so much more than just content.

The teachers indicated care as a key pedagogical component to be realised in one’s course planning and approach and intended to help students engage with and improve their learning. According to Eddika, a pedagogy of care implies a sincere action that not only derives from one’s sense of professional obligation to teach but also reflects a recognition of complex emotions in shaping educational processes. In this respect, Sugiro stressed how, while some teachers resist students who eat or drink in their class and feel disrespected by such acts, he sought to accommodate his own students by allowing them to drink water. While not a seemingly generous act of care, Sugiro highlighted the need to account for ‘simple’ student physical needs as pedagogical essentials of care to enhance teaching.

Discussion

This study was set to explore Indonesian vocational higher education teachers’ and students’ views of what constitutes an ethics of care and safe learning environments in effective teaching. Portraying fundamentals of the ethics of care, the study illustrates how dimensions of balanced power distance, communicative participation and pedagogy of care correspond with notions of safe learning environments to inform teachers’ and students’ understanding of effective teaching in Indonesian higher education vocational institutions. The findings align with existing literature noting how students with experiences of autonomy and positive rapport feel safer to engage with learning processes (Barnes 2019; Hagenauer and Volet 2014; Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; Roorda et al. 2011; Sofyan, Barnes, and Finefter-Rosenbluh 2021; Thornberg et al. 2020 compare Finefter-Rosenbluh 2022b). Specifically, the findings lend support to the understanding of the affective nature of education (see also Ergas and Hadar 2021), the way affective relationality in pedagogic processes can entangle complex ethical notions of care (Healy and Mulcahy 2021) and particularly, the increasing role that a teacher-student sense of mutuality and pedagogical care play in non-western higher education settings (Tang, Walker-Gleaves, and Rattray 2019).

It is well-documented that the role of teachers’ caring behaviours (Khanna, Jacob, and Chopra 2021) and their ability to create inclusive and safe environments which encourage student participation (Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020; Nieminen and Pesonen 1984; Soares and Lopes 2020) contribute to notions of teaching effectiveness (Danielson 2013; Faranda and Clarke 2004; Stronge 2018). However, to date, there has been only limited discussion of how learning environments and teachers’ ethics of care are shaped by social-educational norms, such as large teacher-student power distance. In this study, the social-educational roles of teachers as ‘object-givers’ and students as ‘object-takers’ were challenged by both students and teachers leading to calls to transform such complex teacher-student relationships into caring partnerships. There was also agreement that the existing large teacher-student power distance gap in their institutions – foregrounded by a social hierarchy in which teachers are seen as ‘superior’ agents and students are considered ‘inferior’ actors (Hofstede 2011) – was problematic, highlighting students’ call for more opportunities to be active and empowered agents.

Conversely, in societies characterised by large power distances (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005), a fixed teacher-centred approach captures teacher care as a formal and distant ethical enterprise where educators are expected to authoritatively steer the educational ship. While the participants in this study appeared to aspire to safe learning environments that foreground ethical fundamentals of care which positionstudents as active and empower agents in the vocational classroom, they highlighted the need to push back against entrenched norms of inequality in an ongoing, longitudinal process of social change (Hofstede, Jan Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). While the participants acknowledged the need to account for students’ needs, viewing this as a pedagogical essential of care that can improve educational experiences, they lamented the social toll involved in the process. Whereas they positioned fundamentals of care, associated with safe environments as key characteristics of effective teaching (Faranda and Clarke 2004), these characteristics were often not realised in the teachers’ practices due to socially accepted large power distance-oriented practices and limited communicative participation and pedagogy of care.

These findings shed light on polarised approaches to effective teaching in non-western contexts, adding to literature such as Tran’s (2022) and Ahmadi’s (2021) studies showing how students’ and teachers’ educational intentions encompass contextually nuanced, seemingly contested, interpretations of teaching that stem from their past culture-embedded experiences. Research conducted in contexts with small teacher-student power distance shows how such spaces can offer students rich opportunities for cognitive, physical and mental growth (e.g., Hendricks, Smith, and Stanuch 2014; Khanna, Jacob, and Chopra 2021; MacGill 2016; Moen et al. 2020; Nieminen and Pesonen 1984; Soares and Lopes 2020). Complementing such literature, the current study demonstrates how existing social norms of inequality may become an obstacle in establishing safe learning environments and ensuring fundamentals of the ethics of care that foreground a balanced power distance, student communicative participation and pedagogy of care in non-western vocational higher education institutions.

Concluding remarks

This study contributes to literature on the ethics of care, safe learning environments and effective teaching by capturing teacher and student perspectives on these complex aspects in Indonesian vocational higher education institutions. The paper extends the understanding of the ethical fundamentals of care and the way they correspond with notions of safe learning environments to inform effective teaching in a non-western social-educational space where teachers have traditionally acted as knowledge transmitters rather than knowledgeable partners. While the study is limited in both scale and context, its findings have transferability to other vocational higher education institutions. Data analysis suggests that there are opportunities to improve educational experiences by shedding light on the ethical fundamentals of care and creating learning environments where students can actively and freely participate without fear or judgement, but with a sense of agency. These findings have implications both for teachers’ practices as well as for vocational education policies. More specifically, they illuminate a need to (re)consider how policies stress the practical aspects of teaching while also seeking to provide safe opportunities, based on ethical fundamentals of care, to improve educators’ and learners’ experiences in vocational higher education institutions.

Given that this study has only incorporated the perspectives of teachers and students in vocational settings, there is a need to further build on and interrogate these perspectives by examining them in relation to policy documents and policymakers’ points of view. It may provide an opportunity to address potential policy-practice gaps in regard to how transformative processes of affect, safety and care can (re)shape teaching approaches and learning experiences in non-western educational settings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).