{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019406392694063926, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.176056338028169, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Academic dishonesty, ethical norms and learning

This study is aimed to deduce which ethical norms and considerations are implicitly present in the students’ answers when they are asked to define to what degree the presented actions in a questionnaire are acts of cheating. Data are analysed by factor analysis as well as qualitative analysis. The questions asked are: What characterises the items regarded as cheating? What characterises the items not regarded as cheating? The implicit logic in the students’ attitudes is: The lower the degree of effort and work, the lower degree of learning can be expected; the lower is the degree of learning, the higher will be the degree of academic dishonesty. If the academic dishonesty does promote learning, it can be morally justified by mixed arguments from three ethical theories, consequentialist, deontology and virtue ethics.