ERIC EJ1104491: "Can I Have a Grade Bump?" the Contextual Variables and Ethical Ideologies That Inform Everyday Dilemmas in Teaching

2016·0.46 MB·English

by  ERIC

“Can I have a grade bump?” The
Contextual Variables and Ethical 2016 CELT Vol IX
celt.uwindsor.ca
www.stlhe.ca
Ideologies that Inform Everyday
Dilemmas in Teaching

Kristie R. Dukewich, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Suzanne Wood, University of Toronto

Educators are regularly confronted with moral dilemmas for which there are no easy solutions.
Increasing course sizes and program enrolments, coupled with a new consumerist attitude towards
education, have only further exacerbated the quantity and quality of students’ requests for special
academic consideration (Macfarlane, 2004). Extensions, late submissions, and grade bumps—once
rare—are now commonplace. However, there is very little in the pedagogical literature that addresses
these everyday dilemmas. In a culture of transparency, unspoken policies that address these requests
are the form of learner consideration that is the least transparent to students and educators alike.
Here we explore some of the variables that contribute to the complexity of these dilemmas, and the
ethical ideologies that can inform their resolution. Our goal is not to provide best practices, but
rather to facilitate reflection about how individuals make these decisions. The idiosyncratic nature
of these decisions can be framed as a reflection of different ethical ideologies, and we describe one
approach to framing individual ethical ideologies from the business literature. Finally, we consider
whether faculty should be making these decisions at all, using the centralization of academic integrity
(cf. Neufeld & Dianda, 2007) as a model, and explore its parallels with issues around ethical
dilemmas in teaching.

Introduction them, the penalties seem unfair. Students ask me to
be excused from in-class assignments because they

have tickets to a concert. I have always been most
W hen I started teaching as a graduate student, I
incredulous about students who ask me to increase
was amazed at the number of students
their final grade for reasons that are unrelated to the
requesting exceptions to the course policies. Since
quality of their work.
then, both the number of requests for special
Despite my early career amazement, I am
treatment and the kinds of requests that I receive from
regularly conflicted about how to respond to these
students have only increased. Students regularly ask
requests. Some requests are clearly unreasonable, and
me for extensions on assignments because they are
those requests are easy to answer. However, some
busy. Students ask me to accept homework after the
requests really are ethical dilemmas because they pit
deadline has passed because they forgot to submit.
two or more of my ethical values against each other
Students contest the application of late penalties
(Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011). Often I have to weigh
described in the syllabus because once it is applied to
an individual’s well-being against the well-being of
97
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
the community or class. Or I have to weigh justice talking to colleagues about my dilemmas only further
against mercy. These situations are dilemmas because exacerbated my anxiety about how to respond. I
they come down to a right versus a right. Which found many of my colleagues assumed that there was
course of action is more right? an obvious answer to these dilemmas, but where one
Macfarlane (2004) describes a number of colleague might advise, “Obviously you should grant
factors that have led to an increase in students’ the request,” another colleague might advise,
requests for special academic consideration. The first “Obviously you shouldn’t grant the request.” I was
is a shift in power, from absolute power in the hands confused: why wasn’t anyone telling me how to deal
of the faculty, to a wider distribution of power shared with these dilemmas? Why didn’t the university give
between administrators, faculty, and students. The me rules or guidelines for these decisions?
shift has not been entirely unwarranted. In the past, To try to answer some of these questions, my
academia was an elite pursuit, and faculty could make colleague, Dr. Suzanne Wood, and I decided to
arbitrary decisions with impunity, creating a very real engage in pedagogical inquiry on this topic. The
possibility for the abuse of power (Macfarlane, 2004). results of our inquiry were developed into a session
However, recent trends in higher education have for the 2015 Society for Teaching and Learning in
made this status quo untenable. More students have Higher Education in Vancouver, British Columbia.
access to higher education, and our student body is
more diverse than ever in terms of previous education,
ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic status Is it Possible to Develop a Set of
(Fenwick, 2005). Worldwide, there has been an
Best Practices for Responding to
increase in course sizes and program enrolments
(Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2009). Students now these Everyday Ethical
have more choice than ever regarding the school they
Dilemmas?
attend or the program they select. Some
administrators have embraced the student-as-
consumer model, suggesting that it is precisely this In our session at the 2015 Society for Teaching and
marketization of higher education that is responsible Learning in Higher Education, we asked participants
for increasing the diversity and quality of the student to consider several vignettes that described everyday
experience (Scott, 1999). But we are also at a point ethical dilemmas in teaching along with different
where we have a better understanding of the diversity possible courses of action (see Appendix A for a full
of students’ needs, from the impact of gender and reproduction of these vignettes and choices). This
minority status on the student experience (Brown, approach was motivated by Bruce Macfarlane’s
2004), to students’ individual differences in learning (2002, 2004) work. Macfarlane has been breaking
styles, approaches to studying, and intellectual new ground on thoughtful discussions around
development (Felder & Brent, 2005). professional ethics in higher education, considering
My struggle with these dilemmas revolves perspectives that have largely been ignored. Inspired
around three facts. First, there is not much of a by Macfarlane’s (2002) description of outcomes from
conversation around how these decisions are made. a focus group of lecturers considering a fictional case
Despite seriously investing in my professional study of multiple teaching dilemmas, we asked our
development around teaching, I found that the participants to anonymously vote on these vignettes
workshops and conferences I attended did not speak using iClickers, choosing a course of action for each
to these dilemmas. Second, there is only a sparse before engaging in discussion with their peers about
literature around these sorts of ethical dilemmas the variables they considered in making their
(Barnett, 2004). If an instructor takes an evidence- selection. We discuss the voting results later in this
based approach to teaching, pedagogical research does paper.
not provide much guidance on this topic. And third,
98
Contextual Variables We also identified two contextual variables
that may play a role in these decisions, but which
instructors may be reluctant to admit—racial and
Once we finished polling on the vignettes, we asked
participants in our session to consider what factors gender biases, and seniority. Research has shown that
external to their own values they used to inform their people are subject to implicit biases (Greenwald,
decisions. Many of those identified were also variables McGhee & Schwartz, 1998), showing evidence of the
implicit expression of prejudices that they would not
we recognized as possibly influencing these decisions,
listed in Table 1. verbally admit to possessing. While it is
uncomfortable to think so, the gender and race of the
We further identified several variables that
were not discussed by participants, but which might student who is is requesting the exception may
influence instructors more than they care to admit.
play a role in these kinds of decisions for other
instructors, including the size of the university and While most of the research on implicit biases uses
undergraduates as participants, demonstrating
the size of the class. In particular, these factors impact
possible biases in their interaction with faculty, recent
how well we are able to know our students. Rigid
research demonstrates that faculty are not immune to
rules and a one-size-fits-all approach to course policies
bias. Milkman, Akinola and Chugh (2015)
are more likely when class enrolments are so large that
investigated the influence of gender and race on the
instructors are only able to be familiar with a handful
likelihood that a faculty member would reply to a
of students (Macfarlane, 2004).

Table 1

Contextual variables and their possible values

Variable Possible Value1
Explicit
Weight of the assignment Low-stakes vs. high-stakes
Level of consideration Small exception vs. big exception
Reason for asking Emergency vs. non-emergency
Student’s personal circumstances Experiencing difficulty vs. no difficulties
Documentation Has vs. doesn’t have
Prior interactions with the student Habitual requests vs. first request
Student’s standing Strong vs. weak
Amount of work it generates Some vs. none
Size of the university or class Small vs. large
Implicit
Race and gender of the student Male vs. female, Caucasian vs. minority
Instructor’s seniority Pre-promotion vs. post-promotion

1 All of these possible values have been treated as discrete, however many of them are actually continuous
variables that include a great number of possible values for the variable (ex. weight of the assignment).
99
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
(fictional) student interested in pursuing graduate Ethical ideologies
studies with him/her. The large sample of faculty
members who received the emails were selected from
Reasonable people can disagree. Two faculty
259 institutes and across a wide variety of disciplines members faced with the same request from the same
and departments. The researchers found a consistent
student may choose two completely different courses
and substantial advantage in getting a reply for of action. Individual differences in ethical reasoning
students with names readily identified as belonging to
can be framed using Forsyth’s (1980) ethical
someone Caucasian and male. For most disciplines, ideologies framework (see also Macfarlane, 2002).
students with names readily identified as belonging to
Ethical ideologies describe how an individual
minorities or females were far less likely to hear back. organizes his or her values and beliefs around ethical
The results strongly suggest that many instructors
behavior.
have implicit racial and gender biases that inform Forsyth’s (1980) framework is a matrix with
their decisions about requests for special treatment.
two axes: idealism and relativism. Idealism reflects a
However, ignoring these biases or denying they exist
person’s belief about harm to others. People who rate
is the best way to guarantee that they continue to
high on idealism tend to endorse the idea that a
negatively impact students (Sleeter, 2015).
course of action is always available in which no one is
Acknowledging these biases, while uncomfortable, is
harmed, while people low on idealism are more likely
the first step in ensuring that instructors are equitable
to concede that sometimes the most appropriate
and reflective in their approach to the diversity among
course of action will have innocent casualties.
their students.
Relativism reflects a person’s belief about the role of
We also discussed the impact of seniority on
context. People who rate high on relativism believe
how these decisions are made. New faculty members
moral actions depend on the nature of the situation
are often under incredible pressure to produce
and the people involved, while people who rate low
favorable student evaluations of teaching (SETs;
on relativism are more likely to endorse the notion of
Eiszler, 2002). While many universities see SETs as a
moral rules as naturally emerging in the world.
kind of formative feedback to instructors, SETs are
According to Forsyth’s (1980) model, these
still widely used in summative assessments of job
axes combine to produce four separate ethical
performance (Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf,
ideologies (see Figure 1). Absolutists are individuals
2008), playing an important role in decisions about
who believe there are universal moral truths and that
merit pay and promotion (Beran, Violato & Kline,
in applying the same rules to everyone, the best
2007). The power that SETs gives students is part of
outcome will always be achieved; bending the rules
the evolution of higher education to be more
doesn’t help anyone. Exceptionists are individuals
accountable for delivering measurable learning
who believe that while there are universal moral
outcomes (Nasser & Fresko, 2002). However, the
truths, sometimes exceptions are warranted under
unintended consequence is that it feeds into the
extraordinary circumstances. Situationists believe that
student-as-consumer model, with the corollary
consideration of the context and specific situation will
instructor-as-service-provider (Scott, 1999). If
produce the best outcome for everyone involved.
teaching evaluations still figure prominently in an
Subjectivists are the most idiosyncratic, and represent
instructor’s career success, they may be more inclined
individuals who reject universal moral rules, and are
to acquiesce to students’ requests for exceptions to
not particularly hopeful that a positive outcome for
course policies, even to the detriment of the student.
everyone involved is possible. For subjectivists, calling
While participants acknowledged the
a course of action moral is just another way to say it
consideration of external contextual variables as
is subjectively acceptable to the decision-maker.
contributing to their decision process, we have to ask
The vignettes we presented to participants at
the question: should they?
our STLHE conference workshop included four

possible courses of action, each of which
100
corresponded to a particular ethical ideology (see voted before our discussion of ethical ideologies, after
Appendix A). All of the vignettes were constructed so our explanation of Forsyth's framework, we probed
as to pit two or more ethical values against each other, participants and they confirmed as much. Most
and to include a variety of contextual variables. Figure (approximately 70%) self-identified as situationists.
2 illustrates the outcome of anonymous iClicker As most participants did not select the situationist
polling. What immediately became apparent to us course of action in each vignette, perhaps this self-
was that participants varied considerably in their identification reflects the participants’ willingness to
choices. While we found that no specific ethical switch ideologies in response to the contextual
ideology was endorsed more than any other, we noted variables.
that the least popular response tended to be that Given the idiosyncratic nature of ethical
which aligned most closely to the subjectivist ideologies, and the variety of contextual variables that
viewpoint. may or may not influence how an instructor responds
This pattern of response has an important to such a request, the bigger question might be,
implication: context mattered to many of the should faculty be making these decisions at all? With
participants. The very fact that people’s decisions the participants in our session, we explored some of
changed as a function of the specific situation the pros and cons to centralizing the decisions (see
suggested that most participants were relativistic in Table 2 for a summary).
their approach to each situation. While participants

Figure 1
Forsyth’s four ethical ideologies plotted as a function of idealism and relativism
101
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX

Figure 2
Results from participants’ anonymous iClicker polling for each of the vignettes presented (see Appendix A).

Centralizing Decisions: Parallels with decisions is rationalized as a way to reduce the burden
of time and stress on faculty. Centralization of
the Centralization of Academic
academic integrity has not been primarily focused on
Integrity
modifying student behaviour, per se. This also

parallels the idea behind centralizing special requests,
In order to address this question, we discussed the
in that the end goal would not necessarily be a
parallels between how we make decisions regarding
reduction in the number of student requests for
special requests and how we handle another form of
special consideration, but a reduction in the time
ethics: academic integrity. In the past, individual
necessary to consider these requests by the instructor,
faculty members, department chairs, or programs
and make decision-making for these requests clearer
have directly handled academic integrity offenses.
and less arbitrary. Perhaps in examining this history,
Currently, however, academic integrity is typically
we could shed some light on whether or not
handled through central offices at institutions
centralizing special requests would be the best plan.
throughout North America, with some academics
We looked to a nearby university currently
even calling for the standardization of penalties
pondering the centralization procedure. Western
province-wide (Neufeld and Dianda, 2007). The
University in London, Ontario, currently trains
push behind centralization of these types of ethical
students about academic integrity through its libraries
102
Can I Have a Grade Bump?
Table 2.
Pros & cons identified in the session associated with centralizing decisions for requests for special
academic consideration
PROS CONS
• Necessitate (potentially) extra instructor time
• Maintain consistency across instructors,
courses, departments
• Identify and help students experiencing • Focus on “what not to do”, discourages
academic or personal difficulties learners for internalizing values
• Track students abusing the system • Suggest that faculty cannot be trusted to make
best decision
• Adapt to large class sizes often necessary in • Discourage reflection on part of instructor
today’s universities
• Lessen concern of impact on teaching • Institute a system of questionable efficacy
evaluations
• Relieve instructor for having sole
responsibility for difficult decisions
• Remove concern for additional work by
instructor when making decisions
and online modules (Meister, 2015). If offenses goal for any policy is to boost academic integrity, and
occur, the instructor, departmental chair, and the decrease the number of offenses. If centralizing
dean of the faculty decide upon the penalty. With this academic integrity has been successful, we might
system in place, and without an office devoted expect to see decreases in academic integrity
entirely to academic integrity, the ombudsperson has violations over the years. Self-report data from 11
seen an increase in the number of students using her Canadian institutions of higher education
office for guidance and support through this stressful throughout five provinces indicate that both
process (Devlin, 2015). The increase in number of undergraduate and graduate students continue to
student visits has become a substantial burden that engage in dishonest behaviours at high rates (Hughes
could potentially be alleviated with the formation of and McCabe, 2006). Almost one quarter (24%) of
an academic integrity office. In addition, the graduate students in the study admit to having copied
ombudsperson expressed concern regarding sentences from a written source without citing it,
inconsistencies among the different campus Faculties while 37% of undergraduates say they have
in applying penalties (Devlin, 2015). Hypothetically, committed this offense. The numbers are similar for
a student in Engineering could receive a 5% undergraduates obtaining test questions from
reduction in grade for an offense which earns a failing someone who has already completed an exam (38%).
grade for a student in Social Sciences. Studies like these point to a serious problem with
The above two factors cited by the Western academic integrity in North America, regardless of
ombudsperson, time burden and inconsistency of recent trends of centralization.
enforcement, are compelling reasons to centralize. These numbers clearly need to improve.
However, in considering whether this trend has been However, if the goal of centralization is about
effective, it is important to remember that the overall changing the behavior of the faculty rather than the
103
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
students, then the success of centralizing academic Drinan, 2006). Academic affairs administrators were
integrity might be assessed more effectively by selected by just 8.0% of respondents, while faculty
examining faculty outcomes related to academic was the most popular response (51.3%).
integrity post-centralization, rather than student In sum, administrators see lack of faculty
outcomes. When faculty members were asked what enforcement as a significant obstacle to centralization,
institutional factors contributed to academic but simultaneously look to faculty to enhance
dishonesty, a pattern emerged. Faculty members from academic integrity on campus. If faculty are the key
17 universities in 10 Canadian provinces dismissed members of the academic community to bring about
large class sizes and unqualified students as playing real change regarding academic integrity, perhaps it
major roles (9.9% of respondents selected each of follows that they should also be in charge of handling
these), while policies being too time-consuming was academic integrity within their own classes. One way
the factor most selected by participants (30.3%) or another, centralized or not, a significant burden of
(MacLeod, 2014). Faculty say they simply do not time falls on the shoulders of faculty. Without
have the time to become familiar and follow through centralization, it is up to faculty to report and
with lengthy, bureaucratic procedures. In addition, prosecute violations, and potentially train students.
when asked what course of action they would take if With centralization, administrators believe faculty do
faced with a minor case of academic dishonesty, 42% not sufficiently enforce the set guidelines, and that it
of faculty in this study said they would deal with the is up to the faculty to create an atmosphere of strong
matter informally. Comments from the faculty point integrity.
to a variety of reasons for this, one of which is fear Despite the motivations for centralizing
that the evidence for the offense would not withstand academic integrity, centralization has not
full legal scrutiny. We wonder if, along these lines, significantly changed faculty outcomes in the ways
faculty are also concerned that penalties applied at the originally intended. First of all, the process has not
administrative level could be too harsh for a minor reduced the burden on faculty. In fact, faculty tend to
offense. If the university-wide policies are too see the new processes as onerous, making many less
prescriptive, faculty may be concerned that likely to address potential violations of academic
contextual variables will not be sufficiently weighed integrity (e.g., MacLeod, 2014). As a result,
(Shapira-Lischinsky, 2011). centralization has not necessarily reduced the
On the other hand, administrators arbitrary nature of the consequences for violations of
throughout U.S. undergraduate and post-secondary academic integrity. In the current climate, a student
institutions were also asked what they thought could who engages in a violation of integrity might be
be changed to bolster academic integrity (Gallant and referred to the office of academic integrity by one
Drinan, 2006). Specifically, they were asked what instructor—leading to expulsion of the student after
they perceived to be the obstacles to the centralization a long and arduous process—or the violation might
of academic integrity. In stark contrast to the be completely ignored by another instructor. While
responses by faculty, administrators uniformly cited centralized academic integrity does not precisely
the gap between policy and practice being a problem mirror the potential reality of centralized evaluation
(95.9%), and specifically a lack of enforcement by of special requests, we see it as a way to think through
faculty (86.2%). One of the less selected responses in the different results this process may have.
this group was “cumbersome policies and procedures” Specifically, the comparison highlights the possibility
(36.6%). These same administrators were asked who that centralizing the evaluation of requests for special
on campus could be the catalyst for change and most consideration may not have the desired consequences.
effectively strengthen academic integrity (Gallant and
104
Can I Have a Grade Bump?
Conclusions of the diversity of our students’ needs. In examining
the centralization of academic integrity, we also want

to keep the power to make decisions about requests
We started this journey with several questions in
for special consideration to avoid an overly
mind: Why isn’t the university providing us with
bureaucratic process that is time-consuming for
more guidance on these ethical dilemmas? Why isn’t
faculty, but ultimately fails to consider their opinions.
there a larger conversation happening around these
Educators struggle with ethical dilemmas
dilemmas? What are the best practices for responding
because they have no moral vocabulary with which to
to requests for special academic consideration?
understand their moral judgments (Shapira-
Should these decisions even be made by individual
Lischinsky, 2011). There is no best practice for how
faculty?
to respond to these dilemmas. Every instructor needs
The massification of universities has led to a
to consider his or her own ethical ideology, and which
greater involvement of administrators (Macfarlane,
contextual variables may or may not play a role in his
2002; Macfarlane, 2004). However, decisions about
or her decisions about these dilemmas. However,
exceptions to course policies—requests for academic
there is one best practice that we advocate: instructors
consideration, requests for special treatment,
should take the time to reflect on these decisions and
everyday ethical dilemmas, whatever label you want
their outcomes. With no clear path to what is morally
to give them—still largely belongs in the hands of
right, the outcomes of past decisions are the only real
individual instructors.
insight into how we should be making these
Centralizing these requests for special
decisions. In this way, instructors are able to develop
treatment would certainly make things simpler for
consistency within their own decision-making
individual instructors. However, the centralization of
process, leading to greater transparency to their
academic integrity has not delivered on the promise.
students. As with so much of pedagogy, careful
Academic integrity is still a problem, but faculty feel
reflection is the key to improving our practice.
less like it is their problem (MacLeod, 2014).

Arbitrary decisions have been replaced by overly rigid

decisions, and “genuine individual needs and
References
differences can be overlooked in well-meaning
attempts to maintain fairness to the majority”
(Macfarlane, 2004, p. 17). But fairness and Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E.
equitability does not mean treating all students the (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking
same. Individual circumstances and issues of diversity an academic revolution. United Nations
should matter. Educational, Scientific and Cultural
At the same time, taking these decisions out Organization.
of the hands of instructors further erodes autonomy
and academic freedom, and implies an institution’s Barnett, R. (2004). Foreword. In Macfarlane, B.
lack of trust in faculty to make these decisions (Ed.), Teaching with integrity: The ethics of higher
(Macfarlane, 2004). Moreover, allowing instructors education practice (v-vii). New York, NY:
to opt out of these decisions moves faculty further Routledge.
away from a reflective practice. The danger is a system
that devolves into one in which no one is thinking Beran, T., Violato, C., & Kline, D. (2007). What’s
critically about these issues; everyone is simply the “use” of student ratings of instruction for
following a prescribed set of imperfect rules. As administrators? One university’s experience.
reluctant as we are to admit it, faculty should want to Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 27-
keep the power to make these decisions to ensure that 43.
we are self-critical, flexible, reflective, and considerate
105
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
Brown, L. I. (2004). Diversity: The challenge for Macfarlane, B. (2004). Teaching with integrity: The
higher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, ethics of higher education practice. New York, NY:
7(1), 21-34. Routledge.

Devlin, M. (2015). Ombudsperson calls for Macfarlane, B. (2002). Dealing with Dave's
centralized academic integrity office on campus. dilemmas: Exploring the ethics of pedagogic
The Gazette, 108(94), 3. practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2), 167-
178.
Eiszler, C. F. (2002). College students' evaluations of
teaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher MacLeod, P. D. (2014). An exploration of faculty
Education, 43(4), 483-501. attitudes toward student academic dishonesty in
selected Canadian universities (unpublished
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary,
student differences. Journal of Engineering Alberta.
Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Meister, J. (2015) Office of the Ombudsperson annual
Fenwick, T. (2005). Ethical dilemmas of critical report 2013/14, Western University. London, ON.
management education within classrooms and
beyond. Management Learning, 36(1), 31-48. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., Chugh, D. (2015).
What happens before? A field experiment
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical exploring how pay and representation
ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social differentially shape bias on the pathway into
psychology, 39(1), 175. organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100(6), 1678-1712.
Gallant, T. B., & Drinan, P. (2006) Institutionalizing
academic integrity: Administrator perceptions and Nasser, F., & Fresko, B. (2002). Faculty views of
institutional actions. NASPA Journal 43, 61-81. student evaluation of college teaching. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(2), 187-
Gravestock, P., & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). 198.
Student course evaluations: Research, models and
trends. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Neufeld, J., & Dianda, J. (2007). Academic dishonesty:
Council of Ontario. A survey of policies and procedures at Ontario
Universities. Council of Ontario Universities.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L.
(1998). Measuring individual differences in Scott, S. V. (1999). The academic as service provider:
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. is the customer ‘always right'?. Journal of Higher
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), Education Policy and Management, 21(2), 193-
1464-1480. 202.

Hughes, J. M. C., & McCabe, D. L. (2006) Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical
Academic misconduct within higher education in incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice.
Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 36, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648-656.
1-21.

Sleeter, C. E. (2015). Equity and race-visible urban
school reform. In M. Khalifa, C. Grant, M. W.
106