No abstract

No abstract

This study is aimed to deduce which ethical norms and considerations are implicitly present in the students answers when they are asked to define to what degree the presented actions in a questionnaire are acts of cheating. Data are analysed by factor analysis as well as qualitative analysis. The questions asked are: What characterises the items regarded as cheating? What characterises the items not regarded as cheating? The implicit logic in the students attitudes is: The lower the degree of effort and work, the lower degree of learning can be expected; the lower is the degree of learning, the higher will be the degree of academic dishonesty. If the academic dishonesty does promote learning, it can be morally justified by mixed arguments from three ethical theories, consequentialist, deontology and virtue ethics.This is an electronic version of an article published in:Gunnel Colnerud and Michael Rosander, Academic dishonesty, ethical norms and learning, 2009, ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, (34), 5, 505-517.ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION is available online at informaworldTM: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930802155263Copyright: Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.as

The purpose of this article is to study whether moral stress is a phenomenon relevant to teaching practice and which may make a significant contribution to understanding why teachers repeatedly reported feeling burdened by work. Moral stress can be caused by acting in conflict with one's own conscience, e.g. when one knows the right thing to do but institutional constraints make it difficult to act in a way that is consistent with one's morals.The method used in this study is critical incident technique focusing ethical dilemmas in teaching. The findings add a phenomenon to previous research of moral stress in other professions; moral stress can be caused not only by external regulations, but also by internal moral imperatives in conflict with one another.

No abstract