Web-based model of multiple criteria ethical decision-making for ethical behaviour of students.
Kaklauskas, Arturas ; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras ; Budzeviciene, Rita 等
1. Introduction
The e-learning Master's degree studies "Real Estate
Management" were introduced at Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University (VGTU) in 1999, Master's degree studies
"Construction Economics" from 2000, and Master's degree
studies "Internet Technologies and Real Estate Business" from
2003 (seehttp://odl.vgtu.lt/). There are currently 226 Master students
from all over Lithuania studying in these three e-learning Master
programs. In order to get the opinion of learners, traditional student
surveys were frequent. The participation in the project EURASIA allowed
to organise e-surveys. A survey of distance learning students on ethical
issues of studies is reviewed in the article as an example.
The VEBER online questionnaire has been used within VGTU distance
learning environment to administer student feedback questionnaires and
surveys (see http://odl.vtu.lt/index.php?lang=lt&menuitem=tr_apklausos). With the success of the VEBER online questionnaire being used in
VGTU, the intention of joining institutional systems in development
process within the EURASIA project is to share the experience and the
technology across all the partners and beyond. The practical application
of VEBER Online Questionnaire (ethical behaviour of distance learning
students at VGTU) within VGTU e-learning environment and proposals for
joining institutional systems in development process within the EURASIA
project are briefly analyzed in the paper on the basis of ethical
questions. How can one determine a truthful, ethical and efficient
decision of students, if it itself influences and is influenced by
different university stakeholders? In addition, here there may be a vast
diversity of ethical alternative variants of the solution when in the
course of altering the solutions and the constituent parts of the
external environment, the truthfulness, ethics and efficiency of the
solution can also change. Moreover, the goals of different university
stakeholders are unequally significant when judging from different
points of view. For example, the most appropriate response to student
cheating depends in large part on the goals of the institution. If the
primary goal is simply to reduce cheating, then there is a variety of
strategies to consider, including increased proctoring, encouraging
faculty to use multiple versions of exams and not to recycle old tests
and exams, aggressively using plagiarism detection software, and
employing stronger sanctions to punish offenders. But while such
strategies are likely to reduce cheating, McCabe and Trevino (1996)
cannot imagine many people would want to learn in such an environment.
As educators, they owe our students more than this, especially when
cheating may reflect cynicism about what they perceive as eroding moral
standards in the academy and in society.
Also, each campus constituency tends to shift the "blame"
for cheating elsewhere. This is a major problem. Many students argue,
with some justification, that campus integrity policies are ill-defined,
outdated, biased against students, and rarely discussed by faculty. They
also fault faculty who look the other way in the face of obvious
cheating. They are even more critical of faculty who, taking "the
law" into their own hands when they suspect cheating, punish
students without affording them their "rights" under the
campus integrity policy. Many faculty members believe that these campus
policies are overly bureaucratic and legalistic and that they often find
"guilty" students innocent. Some faculty argue that they are
paid to be teachers, not police, and that, if students have not learned
the difference between right and wrong by the time they get to college,
it is not their job to teach them--especially in a publish-or-perish
world. Although the evidence suggests otherwise, many also believe it is
too late to change students behaviour at this point (McCabe and Trevino
1996).
Today's students are more concerned about the reaction of
their contemporaries and the university administration to the norms of
honest behaviour promoted by lecturers and administration than about the
norms themselves. Indeed, students expect the Rector's office to
declare how they should become honest, non-cheating and respectful towards teaching and learning. Even when students hear the statements
but watch other students cheating and lecturers being tolerant by
ignoring, students will take cheating as a means to pass an exam with a
better possible mark. Many students ask: "If lecturers are not
concerned about cheating, why should I be?"
The authors have developed the Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria
Ethical Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students and the
Ethical Web-Based Decision Support (E-DS) System, which are briefly
analysed further in the article.
2. Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for
Ethical Behaviour of Students
Corey et al. (1998) noted that because ethical codes cannot be
applied in a rote manner and they are incomplete guidelines that reflect
the values of the majority, practitioners are more likely to respond to
a dilemma based on fundamental principles. The proposed Web-based Model
of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of
Students is based on ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence,
nonmaleficence, justice, and fidelity that are viewed as fundamentals of
the stages that make up ethical decision-making. Also, the proposed
Model is based on decision-making principles (i.e. principle of life
cycle's analysis, principle of the interrelation of various
sciences, principle of multi-variant design and multiple criteria
analysis of ethical alternatives and principle of close interrelation
between the alternative's priority and the interested parties and
their aims). The decision-maker's freedom of choice is stressed in
the principle of autonomy. The stakeholder is encouraged to take
responsibility for his/her actions and assess the effects of these
actions on others. According to the principle of beneficence it is
important to meet the integrated university stakeholders (students,
student community, lecturers, professors, deans, the Rector's
Office, etc.) needs, e.g. physical, economical, social, political,
emotional, spiritual, etc. The principle of nonmaleficence is strongly
linked to the principle of beneficence and means doing no harm to
others.
The principle of justice means the support of equal allocation of
burdens and benefits among all university stakeholders. For example,
universities must be the places where all of the campus, including the
student community, lecturers and the Rector's Office, are actively
cooperating to achieve their goals. Almost two decades ago, this fact
was noted by Boyer (1987), who claimed: "honesty cannot be divided.
If high ethical norms are applicable to students, university staff must
also have a perfect record".
Efforts are made to achieve a truthful, ethical and efficient
solution, i.e. to optimize the life cycle of the ethical alternative
(principle of life cycle's analysis).
The problems of truthfulness, ethics and efficiency of the solution
may be successfully solved only when the achievements of various
sciences, such as philosophy, ethics, Law, psychology, management,
administration, economics, etc. are used. The use of a principle of
multi-variant design and multiple criteria analysis makes it possible to
develop many ethical alternative versions and carry out their ethical
and other kinds of optimization throughout life cycle of the
alternative.
The above principles are landmarks of the proposed Model and act as
support for solving the dilemma of ethical behaviour of students. In
different situations a few ethical principles sometimes oppose each
other, and grading them is difficult.
According to Garfat and Ricks (1995), ethics is no longer about
determining "right answers", but whether and how the decision
maker decides what action to take. Ethical decision-making is a process
governed by ethical principles. Also, when confronted with a complicated
ethical dilemma that is not evidently analyzed in codes of ethics, the
decision-maker should check with an ethical decision-making model.
Based on the analysis of the above ethical decision making models
(Bombara 2002; Cottone and Claus 2000; Doolittle and Herrick 1992;
Griene and Kropf 1993; Robson et al. 2000; Tymchuk 1986; Walden et al.
1990) a Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for
Ethical Behaviour of Students was developed by the authors of this
paper. Some stages of the Model described in the paper (see Stages 1-3,
8, 9) are partly similar to the stages of the models proposed by some
other authors (Bombara 2002; Cottone and Claus 2000; Doolittle and
Herrick 1992; Griene and Kropf 1993; Robson et al. 2000; Tymchuk 1986;
Walden et al. 1990). All other stages differ in principle, since the
methods of multiple criteria analysis created by authors are applied and
also, this Model is meant for the build-up of the Web-based decision
support system.
The proposed Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical
Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students provides a logical
system and gradually guides and helps the stakeholder in the creation of
acting in a way that includes moral behavior. These stages are the main
steps of action and can be shaped into the framework of particular
circumstances (Fig. 1).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The ten stages of Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical
Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students are as follows:
Stage 1. Obtaining as much objective and subjective information
about ethical behaviour of students (historical information,
institutional, administration, legal, societal expectations and
limitations, ethical principles involved, identified conflicts, etc.) as
possible. Further, if possible, the decision-makers have to develop
suitable arguments on diverse aspects of the dilemma so as to have a
high-quality perception of the range of concerns and advantages for each
position.
Stage 2. Analysis of university stakeholders (students, student
community, lecturers, professors, deans, the Rector's Office,
etc.). The university stakeholders are identified as the interested
parties who are directly or indirectly influenced by the decision that
is to be made. For a better understanding of the current situation,
discussions among the various interested parties are often necessary.
Also, some ethical dilemmas can be prevented through dialogue between
university stakeholders. The discussion should engage all those who are
the key university stakeholders, some of whom may be the decision-makers
and some of whom may be influenced by the decision. The reaction that
results from such discussions clears personal values while determining
value conflicts. University stakeholders have to act as a team in an
effort to come to some commonly suitable decisions. All university
stakeholders should accept some responsibility for the existing ethical
behaviour of students and have to be a part of any proposed decision.
The personal values, theoretical orientation, experience and other
stakeholder features play a part in achieving ethical decisions.
University stakeholders have to analyze their own value judgments, moral
codes, experience with similar ethical behaviour of students, and decide
how to avoid injecting personal biases into decisions. Also, the
decision-maker must examine the values of other university stakeholders.
Compromises that may diminish harmful consequences should be analyzed.
On the grounds of the Model offered, decisions may be made from the
viewpoint of one, several or all the interested groups.
Stage 3. Definition of the problem (conflicting ethical principles,
value conflicts) and determination of the nature of the dilemma of
ethical behaviour of students. According to Joseph (1983) an ethical
dilemma is a conflict in which a person must make a choice between
several correct and conflicting decisions, generally with some negative
consequences. Traditionally, dilemma (ethical, legal/moral, etc.)
involves a choice between competing goods with possible harmful
consequences.
Assessment of a dilemma involves the detection of different
conflicting ethical principles. Typically, the ethical dilemmas are
inherently problem ethical behaviour of students that do not lead to
easy decisions and there is no right or wrong one that can be easily
recognized. Therefore, conflict between values of the different
university stakeholders leads to an ethical dilemma where there is no
easy solution and no right or wrong answer to ethical behaviour of
students.
Stage 4. Determination of the philosophy theories (e.g.,
utilitarianism, deontology, justice, etc.) according to which the
ethical alternatives will be evaluated and the decision made.
Determination of the ethical ideal is made in concrete circumstances.
Stage 5. Search for the description of analogous typical situations
of ethical behaviour of students in the available literature and the
development of the best practice database.
Stage 6. Development of comparative tables of ethical behaviour of
students. The aim at this stage is to build options for the decision, in
preparation for making the ethical decision and arguing for the choice.
Results of the generation of all possible courses of action have been
submitted in the table. By submission, such a display of the multiple
criteria comparisons can become more effectively supported. As in any
problematic circumstances, the university stakeholders search for
potential compromises by trying to find one that is most ethical and
with the least negative consequences.
Stage 7. Evaluation of ethical alternatives of ethical behaviour of
students. A decision-maker must examine a large number of ethical
alternatives, each of which is surrounded by a considerable amount of
information. Ethical alternatives are analyzed along with the involved
ethical principles and philosophical theories. The expectations and
obligations of different university stakeholders are then considered.
Ethical alternative solutions are compared in terms of the possible
outcomes and according to the selected philosophical theories. Following
on from gathering this information, the priority and utility degree of
the ethical alternatives is then calculated by using various multiple
criteria methods proposed by different researchers (Brauers and
Zavadskas 2006; Ginevicius 2008; Ginevicius and Krivka 2008; Ginevicius
et al. 2008; Kaklauskas and Pruskus 2005; Kaklauskas et al. 2007a, b,
2003; Mickaityte et al. 2008; Mitkus and Trinkuniene 2008; Shevchenko et
al. 2008; Turskis 2008; Ustinovichius et al. 2007; Viteikiene and
Zavadskas 2007; Zavadskas and Turskis 2008; Zavadskas et al. 2008a, b,
2006). The utility degree is directly proportional to the relative
effect of the values and weights of the criteria and is considered as
the efficiency of the alternative. This helps a decision-maker to decide
what ethical alternative best fits the ethical behaviour of students
that is under evaluation (i.e. the best solution achievable given the
available resources and the circumstances of the dilemma). Several
decisions will have priority and the choice is according to the
preferences of different university stakeholders and philosophy theories
(e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, justice, etc.)
Priority of decisions depends a lot on whether one group or several
interested groups make the decision, because different university
stakeholders bring diverse experiences, beliefs, and moral codes into
the decision-making process. The Ethical Web-Based Decision Support
System (EDSS) developed on the basis of this model enables the analysis
of ethical alternatives from the viewpoint of different interested
groups. However, there is seldom an ideal decision to an ethical
dilemma.
Stage 8. Implementation of a course of action. Implementing the
decision may be the most difficult stage of the decision-making process.
Ethical decisions are individual choices that may not be shared with
other university stakeholders. The decision-maker may be in a solitary situation in implementing some decisions and willing to admit the
consequences of a decision that is not supported by others.
Stage 9. Monitoring of the action and its outcome.
Stage 10. Rehabilitation of the external and ethically advantageous
environment in order to avoid potentially conflicting ethical behaviour
of students or to diminish their negative impact. Truthfulness, ethics
and efficiency of the solution depend on the micro- and macro-levels of
the external environment. Macro-level factors of the external
environment, such as religion, the existing cultural, social, ethical
dimensions of the country, the executed university policy and the
society, influence the arising ethical problems and the ethical
solution-making. The micro-level factors (the university stakeholders,
the applied formal code of ethics, rules, criteria of ethical behaviour,
ethical standards, codes of conduct) stipulate the ethical
solution-making to a significant degree as well. Therefore, on the
grounds of cumulative experience it is suggested that there be changes
under these possibilities of the surrounding environment in order to
decrease the possibility of a conflict situation arising in ethical
behaviour of students or to diminish their negative impact. Developing
an ethical environment also provides a background for ethical
questioning, significant exchange, informed decision-making, and human
consensus, in which all university stakeholders are satisfied. A few
trends of rehabilitation of the external and ethically advantageous
environment in order to avoid potentially conflicting ethical behaviour
of students are following up. McCabe and Trevino (1996) propose to
involve the whole campus community (students, faculty, and
administrators) to effectively educate a student. If university's
only goal is to reduce cheating, there are far simpler strategies
university can employ. But if university has the courage to set our
sights higher, and strives to achieve the goals of a liberal education,
the challenge is much greater. Among other things, it is a challenge to
develop students who accept responsibility for the ethical consequences
of their ideas and actions. University's goal should not simply be
to reduce cheating; rather, university's goal should be to find
innovative and creative ways to use academic integrity as a building
block in university efforts to develop more responsible students and,
ultimately, more responsible citizens. University campuses must become
places where the entire "village"--the community of students,
faculty, and administrators--actively works together to achieve this
goal. As Ernest Boyer observed almost two decades ago--(Boyer 1987),
"integrity cannot be divided. If high standards of conduct are
expected of students, colleges must have impeccable integrity
themselves. Otherwise the lessons of the 'hidden curriculum'
will shape the undergraduate experience. Colleges teach values to
students by the standards they set for themselves".
Many of the USA students surveyed by McCabe and Trevino (1996) were
troubled by the failure of their institution, and often its faculty, to
address the issue of cheating. Because they believed that weak
institutional policies and unobservant or unconcerned faculty were
"allowing" others to cheat and, thereby, to gain an unfair
advantage, students viewed cheating as a way to level the playing field.
This was a particular problem on large campuses and in courses with
large enrollments-environments where, arguably, it is harder to
establish a strong, positive community culture (Corey et al. 1998).
Students claimed that while they see numerous cases of cheating in
higher education institutions and in the society, the role of
disciplinary actions is important striving to reduce the amount of
cheating in university.
McCabe and Trevino (1996) in the fall of 1990 surveyed students at
thirty-one of the US's most competitive colleges and universities.
Fourteen institutions had traditional academic honor codes, and
seventeen did not, having chosen instead to "control" student
dishonesty through such strategies as the careful proctoring of exams.
The existence of a code did not always result in lower levels of
cheating.
The above-described Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical
Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students can provide
decision-makers with quite a secure means of making difficult ethical
decisions. This model can also help university stakeholders to make the
best feasible decision in certain given circumstances. The proposed
Model does not make ethical decisions, but explains the process for
investigating ethical behaviour of students.
Based on the proposed Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical
Decision-making an Ethical Multiple Criteria Decision Support Web-Based
System (http://dss.vtu.lt/ethic/index_eng.htm) was developed by the
authors. In order to demonstrate practical application of the Model,
development of comparative tables of ethical behaviour of students and
evaluation of ethical alternatives of ethical behaviour of students were
carried out (Stages 6 and 7 of the Model; see Chaper 3).
In order to demonstrate practical application of the Model, a
survey was carried out in Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU).
The survey gives a more detailed explanation of Stages 1 and 2 of the
Model (see Chaper 4).
3. Development of comparative tables of ethical behaviour of
students and evaluation of ethical alternatives of ethical behaviour of
students
3.1. Development of comparative tables of ethical behaviour of
students
The determination of the utility degree and value of the
alternative under investigation and establishment of the priority order
for its implementation do not present much difficulty if the criteria
numerical values and weights have been obtained and the multiple
criteria decision-making methods are used.
All criteria are calculated for the whole alternative. The process
of determining the system of criteria, their initial weights and
qualitative criteria numerical values of the alternative under
investigation is based on the use of various expert methods. The
determination of quantitative criteria numerical values is based on the
use of various statistical methods, analysed alternatives,
recommendations, reference books and other documents. For example,
values of qualitative criteria may be obtained as follows by applying
the expert methods:
* the best suitable alternative is chosen according to a specific
criterion;
* the considered criterion of the selected best alternative is set
equal to the magnitude of one point ([x.sub.ger] = 1);
* the ratio ([p.sub.i]) amongst all the rest alternatives of the
corresponding criterion magnitudes and the best criterion magnitude is
determined;
* the criteria are given relative values ([x.sub.i] = [p.sub.i]);
* relative values of all criteria are recalculated so that their
sum makes one.
In a similar way, the initial weights of the criteria may be
determined. The magnitude of weights indicates how many times one
criterion is more/less significant than the other one in a multiple
criteria evaluation of alternatives.
The results of the comparative analysis of the alternatives are
presented as a grouped decision-making matrix where columns contain n
alternatives being considered, while all quantitative and conceptual
information pertaining to them is found in lines (Table 1).
Quantitative and conceptual description of the research object
provides the information about various aspects of alternatives (i.e.
ethical, social, economical, legislative, etc.). Quantitative
information is based on the criteria systems and subsystems, units of
measure, values and initial weights as well as the data on the
alternatives' development.
Conceptual description of alternatives presents textual, graphical
(schemes, graphs, diagrams, drawings), visual (videotapes) information
about the alternatives and the criteria used for their definition, as
well as giving the reason for the choice of this particular system of
criteria, their values and weights. This part also includes information
about the possible ways of multivariant design. Conceptual information
is needed to make more complete and accurate evaluation of the
alternatives considered. It also helps to get more useful information as
well as developing a system and subsystems of criteria and defining
their values and weights. In order to perform a complete study of the
research object a complex evaluation of its ethical, social, economical,
legislative and other aspects is needed. The diversity of aspects being
assessed should follow the diversity of ways of presenting data needed
for decision-making. Therefore, the necessary data may be presented in
numerical, textual, graphical (schemes, graphs, charts), formula,
videotape and other forms.
The grouping of the information in the matrix should be performed
so as to facilitate the calculation process and to express their
physical meaning. In our case the criteria system is formed from the
criteria describing the alternatives which can be expressed in a
quantitative form (quantitative criteria) and the criteria describing
the alternatives which cannot be expressed in a quantitative form
(qualitative criteria).
3.2. A method of multiple criteria complex proportional evaluation
of the alternatives
This method assumes direct and proportional dependence of
significance and priority of investigated versions on a system of
criteria adequately describing the alternatives and on values and weight
of the criteria. The system of criteria is determined and the values and
initial weights of criteria are calculated by experts. All this
information can be corrected by interested parties taking into
consideration their pursued goals and existing capabilities. Hence, the
assessment results of alternatives fully reflect the initial data
jointly submitted by experts and interested parties (Table 2).
The determination of significance and priority of alternatives is
carried out in four stages.
Stage 1. The weighted normalized decision-making matrix D is
formed. The purpose of this stage is to receive dimensionless weighted
values from the comparative indexes. When the dimensionless values of
the indexes are known, all criteria, originally having different
dimensions, can be compared. The following formula is used for this
purpose:
[d.sub.ij] = [x.sub.ij] x [q.sub.i]/[n.summation over (j=1)]
[x.sub.ij], i = [bar.1,m]; j = [bar.1,n], (1)
where [x.sub.ij]--the value of the i-th criterion in the j-th
alternative of a solution; m--the number of criteria; n--the number of
the alternatives compared; [q.sub.i]--significance of i-th criterion.
The sum of dimensionless weighted index values [d.sub.ij] of each
criterion [x.sub.i] is always equal to the significance [q.sub.i] of
this criterion:
[q.sub.i] = [n.summation over (j=1)] [d.sub.ij], i = [bar.1,m]; j =
[bar.1,n]. (2)
In other words, the value of weight [q.sub.i] of the investigated
criterion is proportionally distributed among all alternative versions
[a.sub.j] according to their values [x.sub.ij].
Stage 2. The sums of weighted normalized indexes describing the
j-th version are calculated. The versions are described by minimizing
indexes [S.sub.-j] and maximizing indexes [S.sub.+j]. The lower value of
minimizing indexes is better. The greater value of maximizing indexes is
better. The sums are calculated according to the formula:
[S.sub.+j] = [m.summation over (j=1)] [d.sub.+ij]; [S.sub.-j]
[m.summation over (j=1)] [d.sub.-ij], i = [bar.1,m]; j = [bar.1,n]. (3)
In this case, the values [S.sub.+j] (the greater is this value
(alternative 'pluses'), the more satisfied are the interested
parties) and [S.sub.-j] (the lower is this value (alternative
'minuses'), the better is goal attainment by the interested
parties) express the degree of goals attained by the interested parties
in each alternative. In any case the sums of 'pluses'
[S.sub.+j] and 'minuses' [S.sub.-j] of all alternatives are
always respectively equal to all sums of significance of maximizing and
minimizing criteria:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (4)
In this way, the calculations made may be additionally checked.
Stage 3. The significance (efficiency) of comparative versions is
determined on the basis of describing positive alternatives
('pluses') and negative alternatives ('minuses')
characteristics. Relative significance [Q.sub.j] of each alternative
[a.sub.j] is found according to the formula:
[Q.sub.j] = [S.sub.+j] + [S.sub.-min] x [n.summation over (j=1)]
[S.sub.-j]/[S.sub.-j] x [n.summation over (j=1)]
[S.sub.-min]/[S.sub.-j], j = [bar.1,n]. (5)
Stage 4. Priority determination of alternatives. The greater is the
criterion [Q.sub.j], the higher is the efficiency (priority) of the
alternative.
The analysis of the method presented makes it possible to state
that it may be easily applied to evaluating the alternatives and
selecting most efficient of them, being fully aware of a physical
meaning of the process. Moreover, it allowed to formulate a reduced
criterion [Q.sub.j] which is directly proportional to the relative
effect of the compared criteria values [x.sub.ij] and significances
[q.sub.i] on the end result.
4. Ethical Behaviour of Distance Learning Students at VGTU
The form of a survey was selected for the research of ethical
issues related to behaviour of distance learning students in the Faculty
of Civil Engineering at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. The
VEBER online questionnaire of 24 questions has been used within VGTU
distance learning environment to administer student feedback
questionnaires and surveys
(see--http://odl.vtu.lt/index.php?lang=lt&menuitem=tr_apklausos).
The experience of many analogical surveys (Bowers 1964; Boyer 1987)
carried out in the world shows that when students think that organisers
of surveys will find out the authorship of a questionnaire, then such
surveys give the results which distort the real situation greatly. None
of students wants to reveal his/her confidential information to the
staff of the university.
Therefore, all distance learning students could answer all
questions anonymously by using the VEBER online questionnaire. The
survey consisted of two steps. One step when a student selects the most
appropriate answer to the question. The other step when the student
specifies the theory of ethics on which he/she based the answer.
Theories of ethics were introduced to students before the survey,
i.e. the students were briefed on the main points of different theories
of ethics. The questionnaire included four main theories of ethics:
deontology, utilitarianism, justice and teleology. For example, when
carrying out an analysis of university stakeholders, it is expedient to
apply the utilitarianism theory. In such an analysis the objectives and
needs of university stakeholders can be analyzed, various decision
ethical alternatives worked out and positive and negative consequences
of these ethical alternatives on university stakeholders that are under
consideration can be determined. According to the utilitarianism theory,
a decision whether a certain action is considered bad or good depends on
its consequences and not on intentions. Utilitarianism says that what is
morally right is whatever produces the greatest overall amount of
pleasure, happiness, ideal values (freedom, knowledge, justice, and
beauty) and preference satisfaction to as many university stakeholders
as possible. The criterion of a moral action consists of those rules of
conduct, which give most utility to all the university stakeholders.
Actions that meet the needs of university stakeholders are considered to
be good. However, when conducting such an analysis of the
stakeholders' requirements various problems occur. For example,
what is of the greatest good for the greatest number of university
stakeholders without violating individual rights in different
situations? Is it goodness, efficiency, profitability and/or pleasure?
Which needs of which university stakeholders are to be given priority?
How can one take into consideration the qualitative parameters (health,
security, public benefit)? By using experts and multiple criteria
analysis methods one can solve these problems, to some extent.
The questionnaire was published in the website at the address:
<http://dss.vtu.lt/moodle/mod/questionnaire/view.php?id=12>.
Thirty-nine distance learning students participated in the survey
anonymously: 26 male (67%) and 13 female (33%) respondents of ages from
20 to 60. Most students were from 20 to 30 years old (27 people; 69%), a
smaller number of respondents formed the group of ages between 30 and 40
(8 people; 21%), and the least number of people were of ages from 40 to
50 and from 50 to 60 (2 people in each group; 5% each).
Given the question whether they would cheat during an examination,
12 students (31%) answered that they would if they knew nothing.
Slightly smaller amount of students answered that they would cheat if
they were sure that they would not get caught (9 students; 23%). Two
students (5%) would cheat during an examination. Seven students (18%)
would not cheat during an examination. Six people (15%) would not cheat
even if they knew nothing. Three students (8%) would not cheat even if
they were sure that they would not get caught. Students based their
answers to the question about cheating in an examination on the
following theories of ethics: deontology (6 students; 15%), justice (23
students; 60%), teleology (4 students; 10%) and utilitarianism (6
students; 15%).
Similar results have been obtained in other countries too. For
example, in 1993 McCabe and Travino (1996) surveyed nine medium to large
most USA competitive colleges and universities, which thirty years
earlier had participated in the landmark study of college cheating
conducted by Bowers (Bowers 1964). Bowers's (1964) project surveyed
over five thousand students on ninety-nine campuses across the USA and
provided considerable insight on how often students were cheating and
why. Two outcomes of McCabe and Travino (1996) project are particularly
noteworthy in comparison to Bowers's results. First, there were
substantial increases in self-reported test and exam cheating at these
nine schools. For example, 39 percent of students completing the 1963
survey acknowledged one or more incidents of serious test or exam
cheating; by 1993, this had grown to 64 percent. In 1993, many students
simply did not see cheating as a big deal, so it was easier to
acknowledge--especially in an anonymous survey. Second, there was no
change in the incidence of serious cheating at written work; 65 percent
of students in 1963 acknowledged such behavior, and 66 percent did so in
1993. However, student comments in the 1993 survey suggested that this
younger generation of students was more lenient in defining what
constitutes plagiarism (McCabe and Travino 1996).
Lecturers have the most important role in the exercise of ethical
standards, because students consult both their contemporaries and their
lecturers about their studies process. In order to foster a proper
attitude of a student, lecturers must acknowledge and validate academic
honesty as the most important value. Without such acknowledgement of
values, many students may find cheating meaningful, because they can
revert to the secondary school strategies, i.e. cheating to get a better
mark and blaming excessive loads, lack of time and providing other
similar reasons, i.e. students presume that if lecturers fail to act in
cases of obvious cheating they sort of invite cheating. This stimulates
dissatisfaction of students who learn honestly. They feel deceived
because of lecturer inactivity.
Most students, 28 people (72%), do not consider a peek at notes as
cheating, whereas other 11 (28%) claim that a peek at notes may be equal
to cheating. Students based their answers to the question whether a peek
at notes is equal to cheating on the following theories of ethics:
deontology (7 students; 18%), justice (16 students; 41%), teleology (7
students; 18%) and utilitarianism (9 students; 23%).
Three students (8%) would copy a course project or homework from
another person, 5 people (13%) possibly would copy, 9 people (23%)
possibly would not copy and 22 people (56%) would not copy (Fig. 2
(left)). Students based their answers to the question about copying a
course project or homework from another person on the following theories
of ethics (Fig. 2 (right)): deontology (6 students; 15%), justice (19
students; 49%), teleology (6 students; 15%) and utilitarianism (8
students; 21%).
One (3%) probably would inform against a cheating student, two (5%)
probably would not inform against a cheating student and 36 (92%) would
not inform against a cheating student. Students based their answers to
the question whether they would inform against a cheating student on the
following theories of ethics: deontology (6 students; 15%), justice (13
students; 34%), teleology (9 students; 23%) and utilitarianism (11
students; 28%).
Most students (18 people; 46%) probably would allow another student
to copy from them during an examination, 16 (41%) people would allow to
copy, three people (8%) probably would not allow to copy and two people
(5%) would not allow to copy. Students based their answers to the
question whether they would allow another student to copy from them on
the following theories of ethics: deontology (7 students; 18%), justice
(13 students; 34%), teleology (6 students; 15%) and utilitarianism (13
students; 33%).
Eleven (28%) of the respondents would ask for help from another
student during an examination, 20 (51%) probably would ask for help,
five (13%) probably would not ask for help and three (8%) would not ask
for help. Students based their answers to the question whether they
would ask for help from another student during an examination on the
following theories of ethics: deontology (10 students; 26%), justice (11
students; 28%), teleology (3 students; 8%) and utilitarianism (15
students; 38%).
Among the actions that are considered the least ethical for
students, 24 students (62%) selected informing against another student
for cheating or copying of a course project/homework, 13 respondents
(33%) selected copying of homework or a course project and only two
people (5%) selected cheating during an examination (Fig. 3 (left)).
Analysis of Codes of Ethics of students from other universities
showed that such examples of inappropriate student's behaviour as
denunciation of another student for cheating or copying of course
projects or homework were absent. Thus, according to the Students'
Code of Ethics, such behaviour would be ethical; however, the majority
of students not only would never inform against another cheating student
(97%) but also consider it to be the least ethical student's
behaviour (62%).
Students based their answers to the question about the least
ethical acts of students on the following theories of ethics (Fig. 3
(right)): deontology (4 students; 10%), justice (18 students; 46%),
teleology (8 students; 21%) and utilitarianism (9 students; 23%).
Analysis of Codes of Ethics of students from other universities showed
that such examples of inappropriate student's behaviour as
denunciation of another student for cheating or copying of papers or
homework were absent. Thus, according to the Students' Code of
Ethics, such behaviour would be ethical according to all or the majority
of theories of ethics.
Two (5%) students would bribe a lecturer to pass an examination,
four (10%) probably would bribe, eight (21%) probably would not bribe
and 25 (64%) would not bribe. To summarise, six students (15%) would
bribe a lecturer in certain circumstances and 33 students (85%) would
not bribe.
In December 2003, Group for Social Analysis surveyed students from
Lithuanian higher education institutions on corruption. The sample of
the survey included 14 universities and 25 colleges. 33% of students who
participated in the survey admitted to giving a bribe to a lecturer and
6% bribed staff of higher education establishments. First and second
year students are the most bound to bribe a lecturer (Education against
corruption 2004). Students based their answers to the question about
bribing a lecturer on the following theories of ethics: deontology (8
students; 21%), justice (20 students; 51%), teleology (6 students; 15%)
and utilitarianism (5 students; 13%).
Six distance learning students (15%) would agree to pay for
preparation of homework, a course project or a graduation thesis, 10
(26%) probably would agree, eight (20%) probably would not agree and 15
(39%) would not agree (see Fig. 4 (left)). To summarise, 16 students
(41%) would agree to pay for preparation of homework, a course project
or a graduation thesis in certain circumstances and 23 students (59%)
would not agree.
We see the following inviting offer in the website of the company
"Auksine Plunksna" which offers graduation theses for sale:
"Our country's situation makes students work while studying in
order to earn a living and to pay for education, which becomes more and
more expensive each year. Therefore, the studies suffer, and it becomes
more difficult to find a balance in life. What are the choices? To
postpone the graduation thesis to the next year or to complete the
studies nevertheless?". Without a context, we could think that this
company does not suggest ordering a graduation thesis but offers
consulting services on specific studying issues instead. In fact, a
student who uses services of this or other companies is not a passive
observer. He/she must submit exact information about his/her faculty to
the company and specify the requests and remarks of his lecturer, the
academic adviser, in the course of preparation of the thesis: "The
thesis will be written gradually, its parts will be corrected by your
academic adviser, thus we grant quality and high evaluation.
Practically, the academic adviser is the guarantee of quality: his/her
pieces of advice will determine the contents of the thesis".
These increasingly spreading phenomena cause obvious concerns. Not
because of cheating the lecturers and administrations of higher
education institutions but mostly because such acquisition of diplomas
is based on a peculiar "clear conscience". Advertisements of
such service companies do not hint on the fact that those who use their
services would not be able to get such or even a better diploma with own
efforts. The students who earn their grades through efforts of other
people probably do not encounter any moral dilemma. Hardly ever they
doubt their ability to complete higher education independently, "if
they would study", "if they had time to learn", "if
they were not forced to earn their living". Thus the circumstances,
the general situation of studies and other problems as if not subjected
to the student's conscience are the biggest culprit in this case.
The process of studies becomes a most primitive relationship of product
exchange based on laws of time saving. Graduation theses are written by
those who have time and are acquired by those who can pay for them.
Moral issues are usually disregarded in a market (Daugirdas 2005).
Students based their answers to the question whether they would
agree to pay for homework, a course project or a graduation thesis on
the following theories of ethics (Fig. 4 (right)): deontology (5
students; 13%), justice (19 students; 49%), teleology (6 students; 15%)
and utilitarianism (9 students; 23%).
Among the top penalties for cheating students, one student (2.6%)
selected a lower grade, three students (7.7%) selected increased tuition fees, seven students (17.9%) selected public announcement of names of
cheaters, 14 students (35.9%) selected warning and 14 students (35.9%)
selected elimination from the university (Fig. 5 (left)). Students based
their answers to the question about the top penalties for cheating
students on the following theories of ethics (Fig. 5 (right)):
deontology (7 students; 18%), justice (19 students; 49%), teleology (7
students; 18%) and utilitarianism (6 students; 15%).
Table 3 is prepared in order to analyse the ethical theories on
which students based their answers during the VEBER online questioning.
The number and the average of students who selected a certain
theory have been calculated too. The justice theory of ethics was the
most popular among students as basis for their answers (used 187 times;
44%). The theories of utilitarianism (used 103 times; 24%) and
deontology (used 74 times; 17%) were used less frequently. And the
teleology theory of ethics was the least popular (used 65 times; 15%;
Fig. 6).
5. Conclusions
In order to humanize VGTU distance studies and to strengthen their
ethical nature, the VEBER online questionnaire was implemented and the
Web-based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for Ethical
Behaviour of Students developed within the project EURASIA; the latter
was used as a basis for the development of E-DS System. Besides, the
performed research allows to make different conclusions. For example,
today's students are more concerned about the reaction of their
contemporaries and the university administration to the norms of honest
behaviour promoted by staff and administration than about the norms
themselves. Indeed, students expect the university administrations to
declare how they should become honest, non-cheating and respectful
towards teaching and learning. Even when students hear the statements
but watch other students cheating and lecturers being tolerant by
ignoring, students will take cheating as a means to pass an exam with a
better possible mark. Many students ask: "If lecturers are not
concerned about cheating, why should I be?"
Received 15 May 2007; accepted 6 November 2008
References
Boyer, E. L. 1987. College: The undergraduate experience in
America. New York: Harper & Row.
Bombara, M. J. 2002. Relationships among school counselors'
level of moral reasoning, demographic characteristics, and their use of
ethical decision-making resources, Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences 62(11-A).
Bowers, W. J. 1964. Student dishonesty and its control in college.
New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.
Brauers, W. K. M.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2006. The MOORA and its
application to privatization in a transition economy, Control and
Cybernetics 35(2): 445-469.
Corey, G.; Corey, M. S.; Callanan, P. 1998. Issues and ethics in
the helping professions (5th). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Cottone, R. R.; Claus, R. E. 2000. Ethical decision-making models:
a review of the literature, Journal of Counseling and Development 78(3):
275-283.
Daugirdas, T. 2005. Seseliniai universitetai [Shadow universities].
Available from Internet:
<http://www.lksb.lt/straipsniai/straipsnis-352.htm>.
Doolittle, N. O.; Herrick, C. A. 1992. Ethics in aging: a
decision-making paradigm, Educational Gerontology 18(4): 395-408.
Education against Corruption. The results of the research of
corruption in universities. 2004. Available from Internet:
<http://www.vpu.lt/sdc/antikorupcija/am1.htm>.
Garfat, T.; Ricks, F. 1995. Self-driven ethical decision-making: A
model for child and youth care, Child and Youth Care Forum 24(6):
393-403.
Ginevicius, R. 2008. Normalization of quantities of various
dimensions, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(1): 79-86.
Ginevicius, R.; Krivka, A. 2008. Application of game theory for
duopoly market analysis, Journal of Business Economics and Management
9(3): 207-217.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Bruzge, S. 2008. Evaluating the
effect of state aid to business by multicriteria methods, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 9(3): 167-186.
Griene, R. R.; Kropf, N. P. 1993. Ethical decision-making with the
aged: a teaching model, Gerontology and Geriatrics Education 13(4):
37-52.
Joseph, V. 1983. Ethics of organisations: Shifting values and
ethical dilemmas, Administration in Social Work 7(3/4): 47-57.
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Banaitis, A.; Satkauskas, G.
2007a. Defining the utility and market value of a real estate: a
multiple criteria approach, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 11(2): 107-120.
Kaklauskas, A.; Gulbinas, A.; Krutinis, M.; Naimaviciene, J.;
Satkauskas, G. 2007b. Methods for multivariant analysis of optional
modules used in teaching process, Technological and Economic Development
of Economy 13(3): 253-258.
Kaklauskas, A.; Pruskus, V. 2005. The uses of Internet in the
ethical multiple criteria decision-making, Problemos 68: 109-127.
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskiene, J.; Trinkunas, V.
2003. Ethical multiple criteria decision support web-based system, in
Proceedings of the Human Centered Processes Conference, Luxemburg, May
2003.
McCabe, D. L.; Trevino, L. K. 1996. What we know about cheating in
college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments, Change 28: 28-33.
Mickaityte, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Tumenaite, L.
2008. The concept model of sustainable buildings refurbishment,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 12(1): 53-68.
Mitkus, S.; Trinkuniene, E. 2008. Reasoned decisions in
construction contracts evaluation, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 14(3): 402-416.
Robson, M.; Cook, P.; Hunt, K.; Alred, G., Robson, D. 2000. Towards
ethical decision-making in counseling research, British Journal of
Guidance & Counseling 28(4): 533-547.
Shevchenko, G.; Ustinovicius, L.; Andruskevicius, A. 2008.
Multi-attribute analysis of investments risk alternatives in
construction, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 14(3):
428-443.
Tymchuk, A. J. 1986. Guidelines for ethical decision-making,
Canadian Psychology 27: 36-43.
Turskis, Z. 2008. Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by
applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of
preferability technique, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 14(2): 224-239.
Ustinovichius, L.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Podvezko, V. 2007. Application
of a quantitative multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM-1) approach to
the analysis of investments in construction, Control and Cybernetics
36(4): 251-268.
Viteikiene, M.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2007. Evaluation of the
sustainability of Vilnius city residential areas, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 13(2): 149-155.
Walden, T.; Wolock, I.; Demone, H. J. 1990. Ethical decision-making
in human services: A comparative study, Families in Society 71(2):
67-75.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2008. A new logarithmic normalization
method in game theory, Informatica 19(2): 303-314.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J.
2008a. Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying
attributes values determined in intervals, Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management 14(2): 85-93.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J. 2008b. Contractor
selection of construction in a competitive environment, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 9(3): 181-187.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Zakarevicius, A.; Antucheviciene, J. 2006.
Evaluation of ranking accuracy in multi-criteria decisions, Informatica
17(4): 601-618.
DOI: 10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.71-84
Arturas Kaklauskas (1), Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas (2), Rita
Budzeviciene (3)
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Institute of Internet and
Intelligent Technology, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: (1) arturas.kaklauskas@st.vgtu.lt; (2)
edmundas.zavadskas@adm.vgtu.lt; (3) ritabudzeviciene@gmail.com
Table 1. Grouped decision-making matrix of alternatives multiple
criteria analysis
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Criteria
describing the Measuring
alternatives * Weight units
Quantitative [z.sub.1] [q.sub.1] [m.sub.1]
criteria [z.sub.2] [q.sub.2] [m.sub.2]
... ... ...
[z.sub.i] [q.sub.i] ...
... ... ...
[z.sub.t] [q.sub.t] [m.sub.t]
Qualitative [z.sub.t+1] [q.sub.t+1] [m.sub.t+1]
criteria [z.sub.t+2] [q.sub.t+2] [m.sub.t+2]
... ... ...
[z.sub,i] ... ...
... ... ...
[z.sub.m] [q.sub.m] [m.sub.m]
Conceptual information pertinent to alternatives (i.e. text,
drawings, graphics, video tapes)
[C.sub.f] [C.sub.z] [C.sub.q] [C.sub.m]
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Criteria Compared alternatives
describing the
alternatives [a.sub.1] [a.sub.2] ...
Quantitative [x.sub.11] [x.sub.12]
criteria [x.sub.21] [x.sub.22] ...
... ... ...
... [x.sub.i2] ...
... ... ...
[x.sub,t1] [x.sub.t2] ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Qualitative [x.sub,.t+11] [x.sub.t+12] ...
criteria [x.sub.t+21] [x.sub.t+22] ...
... ... ...
[x.sub.i1] [x.sub.i2] ...
... ... ...
[x.sub.m1] [x.sub.m2] ...
Conceptual information pertinent to alternatives (i.e. text,
drawings, graphics, video tapes)
[C.sub.f] [C.sub.1] [C.sub.2] ...
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Criteria Compared alternatives
describing the
alternatives ... ... [a.sub.n]
Quantitative [x.sub.1j[ ... [x.sub.1n]
criteria x2j ... [x.sub.2n]
... ... ...
[x.sub.ij] ... [x.sub.in]
... ... ...
[x.sub.tj] ... [x.sub.tn]
... ... ...
... ... ...
Qualitative [x.sub.t+1j] ... [x.sub.t+1n]
criteria [x.sub.t+2j] ... [x.sub.t+2n]
... ... ...
[x.sub.ij] ... [x.sub.in]
... ...
[x.sub.mj] ... [x.sub.mn]
Conceptual information pertinent to alternatives (i.e. text,
drawings, graphics, video tapes)
[C.sub.f] [C.sub.j] ... [C.sub.n]
* The sign [z.sub.i] (+ (-)) indicates that a greater (less) criterion
value corresponds to higher significance for interested parties
Table 2. Multiple criteria analysis results
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Criteria describing Measuring
the alternatives * Weight units
[X.sub.1] [z.sub.1] [q.sub.1] [m.sub.1]
[X.sub.2] [z.sub.2] [q.sub.2] [m.sub.2]
[X.sub.3] [z.sub.3] [q.sub.3] [m.sub.3]
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.i] [z.sub.i] [q.sub.i] [m.sub.i]
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.m] [z.sub.m] [q.sub.m] [m.sub.m]
The sums of weighted
normalized maximizing
(alternatives 'pluses
indices of the
alternative
The sums of weighted
normalized minimizing
(alternatives
'minuses')
indices of the
alternative
Significance of the
alternative
Priority of the
alternative
Utility degree of the
alternative (%)
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Compared alternatives
Criteria describing
the alternatives [a.sub.1] [a.sub.2] ...
[X.sub.1] [d.sub.11] [d.sub12] ...
[X.sub.2] [d.sub.21] [d.sub.22] ...
[X.sub.3] [d.sub.31] [d.sub.32] ...
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.i] [d.sub.i1] [d.sub.i2] ...
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.m] [d.sub.m1] [d.sub.m2] ...
The sums of weighted [S.sub.+1] [S.sub.+2] ...
normalized maximizing
(alternatives 'pluses
indices of the
alternative
The sums of weighted [S.sub.-1] ... ...
normalized minimizing
(alternatives
'minuses')
indices of the
alternative
Significance of the [Q.sub.1] [Q.sub.2] ...
alternative
Priority of the [P.sub.1] [P.sub.2] ...
alternative
Utility degree of the [N.sub.1] [N.sub.2] ...
alternative (%)
Quantitative information pertinent to alternatives
Compared alternatives
Criteria describing
the alternatives [a.sub.j] ... [a.sub.n]
[X.sub.1] [d.sub.1j] ... [d.sub.1n]
[X.sub.2] [d.sub.2j] ... [d.sub.2n]
[X.sub.3] [d.sub.3j] ... [d.sub.3n]
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.i] [d.sub.ij] ... [d.sub.in]
... ... ... ...
[X.sub.m] [d.sub.mj] ... [d.sub.mn]
The sums of weighted [S.sub.+j] ... [S.sub.+n]
normalized maximizing
(alternatives 'pluses
indices of the
alternative
The sums of weighted ... [S.sub.-n]
normalized minimizing
(alternatives
'minuses')
indices of the
alternative
Significance of the [Q.sub.j] ... [Q.sub.n]
alternative
Priority of the [P.sub.j] ... [P.sub.n]
alternative
Utility degree of the [N.sub.j] ... [N.sub.n]
alternative (%)
* The sign [z.sub.i] (+ (-)) indicates that a greater (less)
criterion value corresponds to greater significance for
interested parties
Table 3. Theories of ethics selected by the students
Theory of ethics
Deontology Justice Teleology
Question
No. number % number % number %
3 6 15 23 59 4 10
5 7 18 16 41 7 18
7 6 15 19 49 6 15
9 6 15 13 33 9 23
11 7 18 13 33 6 15
13 10 26 11 28 3 8
15 8 21 16 41 3 8
17 4 10 18 46 8 21
19 8 21 20 51 6 15
21 5 13 19 49 6 15
23 7 18 19 49 7 18
Average 7 17 17 44 6 15
Sum: 74 187 65
Theory of ethics
Utilitarianism Total Total, %
Question
No. number % number %
3 6 15 39 100
5 9 23 39 100
7 8 21 39 100
9 11 28 39 100
11 13 33 39 100
13 15 38 39 100
15 12 31 39 100
17 9 23 39 100
19 5 13 39 100
21 9 23 39 100
23 6 15 39 100
Average 9 24 39 100
Sum: 103
Fig. 2. Copying of a course project or homework (on the left)
and theories of ethics selected by the students (on the right)
Yes 3
No 22
Probably yes 5
Probably no 9
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Deontology 15%
Justice 49%
Teleology 15%
Utilitarianism 21%
Note: Table made from pie chart
Fig. 3. The leas t ethical acts of students (on the left) and
theories of ethics selected by the students (on the right)
Cheating during 2
an examination
Copying homework and 13
a term or graduation
papers
Informing against 24
another student who
cheats or copies
papers and homework
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Deontology 10%
Justice 46%
Teleology 21%
Utilitarianism 23%
Note: Table made from pie chart
Fig. 4. Payment for homework, a course project or a graduation
thesis (on the left) and theories of ethics selected
by the students (on the right)
Yes 6
No 15
Probably yes 10
Probably no 8
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Deontology 13%
Justice 49%
Teleology 15%
Utilitarianism 23%
Note: Table made from pie chart
Fig. 5. Penalties for cheating students (on the left) and
theories of ethics selected by the students (on the right)
Lower grade 1
14
Public announcement 7
of names of cheaters
3
Warning 14
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Deontology 18%
Justice 49%
Teleology 18%
Utilitarianism 15%
Note: Table made from pie chart
Fig. 6. Theories of ethics selected by the students
Deontology 17%
Justice 44%
Teleology 15%
Utilitarianism 24%
Note: Table made from pie chart
