Question

8) An undergraduate course required for graduation has a reputation for being extremely hard to pass, much harder than similar courses. When posting materials to the class website, the teacher accidentally posts a test with answers indicated at the end. The teacher notices the error immediately and deletes the test, but before she does so a student downloads the test. The website does not allow the teacher to see whether the test was downloaded, and because she deleted the test with the answers so quickly, the teacher later uploaded the same test without the answers and required students to take the test. The Student Code of Ethics prohibits students from taking a test when there is reason for them to believe they have confidential information regarding the answers to a test they are not supposed to have. Violations of the Student Code of Ethics are punishable. What are the issues of integrity, ethics and law posed in the case study? What options do the teacher and the student have? what should they do and why?

Answer 1

The task in the case study is to consider the relevant issues of integrity, ethics and

law. In this case study, what options do the teacher and the student have, and what

should they do and why? Some of the issues raised in this case study include the

teacher’s error in posting the wrong version of the test online. If the teacher was not

100% sure that the test version with the answers was not seen by students, should

she have discarded that test and created a new test, even if that would be more

work? If the teacher makes these kinds of errors, why can’t students take advantage

of them? One reason for the student not to use the test version with the answers is

that there is dishonesty involved. The student implies when taking the test that he or

she does not already have the set of answers; it seems like this is true because if the

student tried to take the test but told the teacher he or she had the test version with

the answers, the student would not be allowed to proceed. Another reason for the

student not to use the test version with the answers is that it would be unfair to other

students if one student had an advantage other students did not have. The test is

based on the assumption that students have the same kind of opportunity to study

and do well, and that the test results will reflect that knowledge and effort. If the test

answers are known to a student in advance, the test is not a fair evaluation of all

students and the results are invalid. Using the test version with the answers is also

prohibited by the Student Code of Ethics, which as a set of written rules of required

behaviour with sanctions can be considered a kind of law. The case study, however

suggests that the student might get away with using the test version with the

answers, assuming that other people do not find out and report the student. If

someone can get away with illegal or unethical behaviour, does that make unethical

behaviour acceptable? Yet another complicating factor raised in the case study is

that the course is much harder to pass than other courses, which seems unfair to

students. Does one bad action justify another? If the course is unfairly hard to pass,

does that justify a student’s dishonest use of the test version with the answers? How

about the use of other unethical means to pass the unfairly difficult test? Finally, if

the student does use the test version with the answers, how might that effect the

student? Will it lead them to be cynical in the future, or value ethical rules less? If the

student is asked whether they ever committed educational misconduct in a future job

application, will they have to lie to cover that up?

The case studies in this Module raise issues of ethics, integrity and law which are

difficult to answer, but a final conceptual shift is still waiting for students, when they

apply the concepts of ethics, integrity and law to themselves and problems that they

or persons they know face. Now instead of telling other, hypothetical people what to

do, students are required to consider issues intertwined with their family and friends,

or their own lives and life goals. Discussion of personal examples raises challenging

issues, because analysis is greatly complicated by values, emotional attachment,

and limited perspectives. This last portion of the Module however has the potential to

be a very satisfying discussion which connects classroom discussion with the reality

of students’ lives. The goal of having students consider more personal examples is

to help students internalize how ethics, integrity and law apply to them, together with

some strategies of how to resolve conflicts among the concepts in their own lives.

The foregoing discussions of integrity, ethics and law raise questions of why people

should be ethical, have integrity or follow the law, but they should also raise

questions about why adhering to these concepts might be difficult in real life.

Cognitive dissonance, a psychological concept developed initially by Leon Festinger

in the 1950s, suggests that people are uncomfortable when they hold two conflicting

thoughts in their mind at the same time, for example, when their ethics and their

behaviour do not align (Festinger, 1957). Dissonance increases if the subject is

important, the conflict is strong, or we cannot explain the conflict to ourselves in

some way.

However cognitive dissonance only means that people are uncomfortable in some

way when they are faced with conflicts within themselves; for example, if their ethics

and behaviour are not consistent. The idea of cognitive dissonance does not suggest

how people will resolve this uncomfortable feeling. People can resolve cognitive

dissonance by making their behaviour conform to standards of integrity and ethics,

but they can also use a very different strategy – change or lower their ethical

standards, or change their perception that they have done something wrong to the

perception that they have not done anything wrong.