Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

Ethic’s Askew: A Case Study Of Ethics

In An Educational Environment
Susan Shurden, Lander University, USA
Juan Santandreu, Lander University, USA
Mike Shurden, Lander University, USA

ABSTRACT

For a formal definition of ethics, Webster’s New World Dictionary (1995) defines the term as “the
study of standards of conduct and moral judgment”. Ethics is important to individuals because we
are concerned with what leaders do and who they are—their conduct and character. “Conduct” is
a word that implies behavior. Behavior can change under differing circumstances. For instance,
in a “low key”, unstressed situation, most individuals tend to be civil and polite; however, the
introduction of stress factored into a scenario can totally change the dynamics of the situation, as
well as the ability of those involved to “cope”. Stress can cause individuals to become hostile,
rebellious, and oftentimes uncompromising. Stress introduced into a situation can also cause
individuals to become unethical. For example, take natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina in
2005 whereby individuals were under tremendous stress of discomfort from not having a clean
environment in which to live, as well as conditions of hunger and thirst from lack of food and fresh
water. Most of us have witnessed the television footage of the “looting” that occurred from these
conditions. Or take the civil unrest that occurred in the streets of Los Angeles after the verdict of
1992 when police officers were acquitted of the beating of an African American named Rodney
King. Again, anger and stress caused looting and violence to erupt in the streets. While these are
“extreme” situations, the question arises as to how individuals cope with stress in an atmosphere
where civility is taught and encouraged. For instance, consider a classroom situation where an
assignment to produce an outcome is given with few rules, and the members of the group are from
other classes, possibly even in other states. The means of communication for these individuals are
e-mail, a relatively new virtual reality website, similar to face book, or telephone should one
choose to use that method. This type of situation would most likely exist in a graduate program
and in fact, did. This paper is a case study of just that type of situation.

Keywords: Ethics, Education, Case Study

BACKGROUND

A
ccording to Husu (2001), “Previous research on ethical dilemmas in teaching reveals that most
teachers are not always aware of the moral impact of their actions.” He goes on to discuss the fact
that teachers are often not prepared to deal with moral situations that arise in the teaching
environment. Additionally, they should evaluate the consequences of their actions. Husu refers to the decision they
are making in their teaching process as “normative” decisions. This phrase is used because he regards “professional
ethics” as dealing with “norms, values, and principles that should govern the conduct of educational professions”
(Husu, 2001).

Teachers have a variety of obligations within their profession. They must plan curriculum, distribute
assignment, grade those assignments and evaluate the performance of the students. In addition, they must deal with
students who may be “naïve and vulnerable”, and teachers also have to deal with discipline issues, often making
subjective decisions (Husu, 2001). With these obligations in mind, Husu contends that “the normative cores of
professional ethics, therefore, provides various ways to appraise the merits and to judge the significance of
educational practices taking place in schools.”

53
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

The concept of moral appears to be the umbrella of ethical decision making. According to McCadden
(1998), “morality can be defined as an active process by which individuals come to understanding and meanings
relating to social interactions.” Husu (2001) added to this statement that the values that students have learned from
teachers, parents, and peers reinforce a student’s concept of morality and ethical values. However, articles recently
written contend that ethical behavior is beyond being taught in schools, especially graduate programs (Carruth,
et.al., 1991). Carruth goes on to address a recent survey given to undergraduate students in which 71% as opposed to
11% believed ethical decisions could be taught in school (Carruth, et.al., 1991).

While the current authors contend that teaching ethics in the classroom is a “noble” cause. Should not
instructors be aware of the nature of their assignments, combined with some knowledge of the stress related issues
that students are undergoing on a daily basis? Dr. Frederick L. Patry (1935), a psychiatrist at the state education
department of New York recently wrote on the mental hygiene of students by saying:

Since we are interested in the total personality functioning of the individual in his social and environmental setting,
let us observe any one of you in your daily college life and note your objective behavior over a 24-hour period. You
will immediately note that your reactions vary to different situational demands, such as recitations, pleasurable
occasions, disappointment in academic ratings, social rebuffs, sickness, or demands made upon you by home or
social obligations. Consciously or subconsciously you measure your fellow students by the manner in which they
react to these ever-changing environmental demands and opportunities.

Two interesting points from this statement must be accentuated. First, students react to “different
situational demands.” Depending on the stress level of a student and the amount of tolerance, any individual student
will react in various ways. Some may have an outward verbal (in extreme cases, physical) reaction to stress, while
other students will internalize the situation, perhaps even ignoring it.

The following paper analyzes students’ perspective of an actual assignment that was given to one of the
authors in their graduate program. The authors can discern the issues related to the assignment and the stressful
situation it created for the students involved; however, they wanted to obtain a student perception of what would be
stressful to them and determine if the assignment would be appropriate at an undergraduate level. In conclusion,
suggestions are given for teachers in proposing assignments to students, as well ways that students can maintain
healthy “mental hygiene” while under enormous stress their school environment.

METHODOLOGY

Business students represented the population of interest. From a small public university in a southeastern
state, a convenience sample of eight business courses was selected. From a captive population of 158 students, 122
questionnaires were collected, none of which was rejected for lack of completion of other concerns. This provided
an effective response rate of 77.2%. Students were informed about the purpose of the study, and the voluntary
nature of their participation. Proper research procedures were applied to assure the students’ anonymity, to maintain
the privacy of the information, and to avoid duplications in participation. Classificatory questions were used to be
able to evaluate potential differences between the participants.

Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Description Gender Classification Emphasis
Male 56%
Female 44%
Freshman 0%
Sophomore 1%
Junior 27%
Senior 72%
Accounting 17%
Economic/Finance 8%
Health Care Management 21%
Management/Marketing 51%
Other 3%

54
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

Table I shows the characteristics of the students who completed the survey. Of the students surveyed, 56
percent were male, and 44 percent were female. There were no freshmen surveyed, while 1 percent were
sophomores; 27 percent were juniors; and 72 percent were seniors. Of the business students surveyed, 17 percent
had an accounting emphasis; 8 percent had an economics/finance emphasis; 21 percent health care management
emphasis; 51 percent management/marketing emphasis; and 3 percent had other majors.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

In Table II, the Project Assignment Perception Evaluation used a Five point Likert Scale ranging from
Strong Agreement to Strong Disagreement to measure the level of student perception related to statements
concerning the case. The following is an analysis of questions regarding the ethical aspects of the case. The
questions pertaining to communication will be evaluated in a subsequent analysis.

Sixty-nine percent of the students surveyed strongly disagreed that the project was planned out carefully by
the instructors. Poor planning can often lead to poor communication, followed by stress which results in students
becoming angry and intolerant of others. Intolerance and apathy can result in poor ethical decisions.

Table II
Project Assignment Perception Evaluation
Levels of Agreement
Statements
SA A N D SD
1. The project was well planned and prepared by the instructors. 2% 3% 6% 20% 69%
2. Project objectives and/or materials were clearly developed by the 1% 9% 7% 34% 49%
instructors.
3. The students received adequate instructions. 0% 7% 13% 33% 47%
4. Instructor using different evaluation methods for the same project 41% 41% 8% 8% 2%
created an ethical dilemma for the students.
5. The students were properly informed about the outcome/evaluation of 0% 12% 12% 43% 33%
the project.
6. The students were aware of their team composition or membership. 3% 16% 11% 48% 22%
7. Groups should be more compatible. 48% 34% 14% 3% 1%
(i.e., same class, similar schedule)
8. Changing the outcome in mid-stream (from a paper to a wiki page) 2% 3% 7% 22% 66%
caused additional problems for students.
9. Organizing and working in a group where members have different 30% 37% 18% 13% 2%
commitments and interests create an ethical dilemma among the
students.
10. There were communications problems among the students. 64% 27% 7% 2% 0%
11. There were coordination/communication problems between the 52% 37% 7% 3% 1%
instructors.
12. Lack of knowledge lead to uncertainty 44% 38% 14% 3% 1%
13. Uncertainty lead to lack of interest 37% 43% 16% 2% 2%
14. Lack of interest lead to lack of participation 44% 41% 12% 3% 0%
15. Overall this project created an ethical dilemma among students. 49% 40% 7% 3% 1%
16. Overall this was an excellent project. 2% 3% 5% 15% 75%

Number 6 asked about the awareness of the student groups, 48 percent of the students disagreed that the
groups were aware of who was in their group, while 22 percent strongly disagreed that the groups were aware of the
actual composition or make up of the classes. Uncertainty was created with the students not having an opportunity to
meet their group members, nor even being aware of individual group member’s commitments to other projects.
Question 7 follows up asking if the groups should be more compatible, with 48 percent of the students strongly
agreeing that they should be and 34 percent having a general agreement that the groups should be more compatible.
Working together toward a common goal with group members and an awareness of their other commitments to
project, personal situations, etc., would make for a less stressful environment. In number 9, students having different

55
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

interests and commitments tend to create an ethical dilemma as indicated by a total of 67 percent of the students.
What might this ethical dilemma be? In the case of Cindy, she had another project due, leaving the remaining
students to either do the work without her or wait on her to finish, which causes less time to do a thorough and
satisfactory job. In this situation, they allowed Cindy to finish her previous project and contribute little to this
project. As many students would say, she basically got a “free ride”, and assuming that her teacher assigned a grade
to the project, that would most likely mean a very good score. Certainly, some preventative measures should be
taken on the part of the teachers to prevent this type of inequality from occurring; however, in the actual case it was
not prevented by the teachers, which created more frustration and hostility for those who actually did the majority of
the work.

Questions, 12-15, basically summarize the issues that result that can create an unethical dilemma for
students. Question 12 shows that 44 percent of the students strongly agree and 38 percent agree that a lack of
knowledge leads to uncertainty. This statement is followed with “uncertainty leads to a lack of interest”, whereby 37
percent strongly agree and 43 percent agree. Question 14 indicates that a lack of interest leads to a lack of
participation, with 44 percent strongly agreeing and 41 percent agreeing. Obviously the student with the other
project felt that this particular project was not of significant enough interest (or relevance) for her to participate.

An overall ethical dilemma was indicated by the students in question 15. Overwhelmingly 49 percent
strongly agreed with 40 percent agreeing to this statement. What would be interesting as a follow up would be to
conduct a qualitative questionnaire to determine exactly what type of ethical dilemma the students believed
occurred. Obviously, the authors have “filled in the gaps” with their assumption of Cindy receiving a grade which
she did not earn.

What is interesting in the analysis is question number 8 which asked if changing the outcome in mid-stream
to a wiki page was appropriate for the students? Sixty six percent of the students indicated a strong disagreement
that this was a problem, whereby 22 percent indicated disagreement that this was a problem. The authors contend
that perhaps the students did not fully understand this question. As all three authors are instructors and realize that
changing the requirements of a course at the “eleventh” hour, would clearly indicate a confusing, problematic
situation. For example, in this case, the group had already produced a 50 page paper with a tremendous amount of
time and work effort going into the output. Now, the students had to learn a new program and how to use it within a
week of the project being due. Had this been the assignment in the beginning, it appears, it would have been less
stressful than producing a paper. Also, what about the paper? Did the teachers still want it? Although that question
was not answered in the case, in truth some teachers still wanted it, while the paper was irrelevant to others.

CONCLUSION

The final question is a catalyst for the conclusion of the project. Overall was this an excellent project. Only
5 percent of the students believed it to be, with 90 percent either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Obviously, the
project had significant flaws, possibly from the learning curve that the teachers experienced. Another possibility for
the project being presented in such a manner was that the instructors were themselves gathering data for a paper
presentation. Perhaps the project was designed to be vague and confusing to determine the behavior that would
result from the students. However, this type of project would definitely not be suitable in an undergraduate setting.

So, what are some suggestions for instructors in assigning projects to students in a group setting?
Obviously communication is a must for both instructors and students. Communication is actually three-way in this
situation: instructor to instructor, instructor to student, and student to student. A subsequent paper by the authors will
analyze this aspect in further detail.

Secondly, conflict arose within the group that the instructors handled in various ways. Sally’s instructor
preferred to ignore the conflict and allow the students to handle it. This measure works up to a point and allows
others to learn conflict management. Coombs (1998) addresses the fact that the “nature of the conflict at hand”
should be considered. He contends that if it is a “dispute between individuals rather than a collision between two
large cultural groups, liberalism may be the best theory to adopt.” However, Sally appeared to have reached a point
where students were finally joining the group after the assignment was completed. This created a dilemma of
56
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

unfairness and inequity. The instructor actually moved one student to another group that could accommodate her.
However, three students who had not contributed to the project remained with the original group. They were actually
in another class and could not be easily moved, so they were given a minimal amount of work to contribute. Yet,
Cindy’s contribution was so minimal that it constituted virtually no contribution, much to the dismay of the other
members. While not mentioned within the case, further conflict arose between Sally and her instructor because of
the issue of Cindy’s lack of contribution. Unfortunately, Sally did not choose the best forum for this confrontation,
which happened within the regular classroom setting, which ironically was an ethic’s class. This poor judgment on
her part led to the instructor becoming defensive and asking the question, “Well, what does it matter to you?” The
response he received from Sally was two-fold. She first indicated that the group was assigned to produce a product,
a paper, and not all parties contributed to that product, yet received credit for the group’s work, thus creating an
ethical dilemma for the group. The instructor responded that it was not a product they were producing but a process
of learning. Sally concurred that “yes, this learning is important, yet as an instructor herself, she would not put her
students in such an unethical dilemma.” With a shrug, the subject was dismissed by the instructor, yet Sally and her
group ultimately received an “A” on the project. In retrospect, a word of caution to students is that they should speak
with their instructors privately about such matters as “putting them on the spot” in front of other students will not
build a good rapport with their professors. Subsequently, Sally has experienced further difficulty with this instructor
in other courses, possibly because of her poor choice of venues for discussion of the project.

Unfortunately, it appears obvious that the instructor did not have proper training to deal with the ethical
dilemma he and the other teachers created. Training to become a college professor does not include proper
pedagogical education. According to Coombs 1998 article “Educational ethics: Are we on the right track?”,
suggestions that would have been beneficial to the instructor would be:

1) Identify alternative responses and their consequences

2) Determine information crucial to the ethical response needed
3) Apply principles such as a) what bears on the problem, b) is an intuitive judgment needed, c) identify
options and determine consequences, d) interpret and adapt to the problem
4) Develop principles specific to the case
5) Identify the ethical issues
6) Build ethical arguments that support responses to the situation
7) Determine what course of action is justified

It is the opinion of the author that using these guidelines prior to the case being assigned would have
modified the assignment to make it less stressful and less of an ethical dilemma for the students.

Suggestions for students in maintaining their mental health while dealing with stressful situations are as
follows:

1) Talk over any problems concerning health, social adjustment, or emotional stability with a counselor,
physician, friend, or in this case, instructor.
2) Identify causes of stress: a) physical health issues, b) school related scheduling such as inadequate study
times, c) excessive social activities and commitments
3) Practice controlling emotions and avoid seeking immediate gratification.
4) Develop a sense of humor
5) Keep ambitions and actual performance in balance
6) Realize that minor conflicts during those initial months of being away from family may cause resentments
and periods of disloyalty.
7) Seek approval from those whose opinions you value, friends, teachers.
8) Choose a vocation that is of interest to you and “fits” your nature. (Patry, 1935)

In conclusion, it appears that the solutions to ethical issues that arise from times of stress are both physical
and mental. From an instructor’s standpoint, careful communication and planning of group assignments and
weighing the consequences of those assignments on a social and ethical scale are essential. From the student’s
standpoint, caring for one’s physical condition is paramount in being able to complete an assignment. Obviously,
57
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – May 2010 Volume 3, Number 5

proper rest and nutrition, with a healthy balance of social time will reduce stress and conflict that may arise from
school related assignments. Time management strategies, while not previously addressed, will help in reducing
stress caused by multiple assignments being due at one time. A calendar or planner would be essential for time
management. Finally, being diplomatic in handling communication issues between students and with instructors is
paramount. Proper timing of responses and tone of dialogue will reduce friction between individuals. Additionally, it
is the author’s belief that ethics and morality can be better taught by proper modeling by instructors. Part of this
modeling is an understanding of the student’s environment and demands being placed on them. As Lacina (2001)
stressed, “Moral education is a growing concern in the field of education. The right of schools to decide what to
stress must be decided by the entire schools community. This should include the school board, administrators,
teachers, and parents.”

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Susan Shurden is an Administrative Specialist in the College of Business and Public Affairs at Lander University
in Greenwood, SC. She has previous teaching experience both at Lander University and Erskine College in Due
West, SC. Mrs. Shurden received her undergraduate Accounting degree and Masters in Professional Accountancy
(MPA) from Louisiana Tech University in Ruston. She is a CPA through the state of Louisiana (status inactive) and
is currently working on her Ph.D in Educational Leadership at Clemson University. She has eighteen years of
teaching experience at the college level. Mrs. Shurden has primarily taught in financial accounting. Her research
focus is on ethics in higher education.

Juan Santandreu is a Professor of Marketing at Lander University in Greenwood, SC. He has a B.S. in Business
Administration from The University of Carabobo, in Valencia, Carabobo, Venezuela; a M.A. in Marketing and a
Ph.D. in Business Administration from The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. As a faculty member of the
School of Business Administration in the College of Business and Public Affairs for twenty years, he has served on
the Faculty Senate and numerous university and departmental committees. His interests in the nonprofit sector,
education and technology, ethics, and in the international arena, have produced publications in The Journal of
Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Journal of Legal Ethical and
Regulatory Issues, The Business Educational Digest, and the Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences in
addition to numerous proceedings at academic conferences.

Mike Shurden is a Professor of Management at Lander University in Greenwood, SC. He has previous teaching
experience at the University of North Alabama in Florence, and at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston. Dr.
Shurden received both his undergraduate business degree and MBA from Delta State University in Cleveland, MS.
He received his DBA from Louisiana Tech University. He has over twenty seven years of teaching experience at
the college level. He has numerous academic publications over his career. His work can be found in journals such
as Business Horizons and the Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. Dr. Shurden primarily teaches
quantitative management, and his research focus is on educational leadership.

REFERENCES

1. Carruth, P.J. & Carruth, A.K. (1991). Education in ethics: The role of higher education. Journal of
Education for Business, 66(3), 168-171.
2. Coombs, J. R. (1998). Educational ethics: Are we on the right track? Educational Theory, 48(4), 15p.
3. Husu, Jukka. (2001). Teachers at cross-purposes: A case-report approach to the study of ethical dilemma in
teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(1), 67-89.
4. Lacina, L. J. (1982). Three perspectives on the ethical considerations of moral education. Education,
102(3), 258-260.
5. Patry, F. L. (1935) What the college student should know about present day mental hygiene. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30(1), 4-16.

58