Purpose: Given the increasing role of the principal in the administrative and supervision of special education programs and services, this research examines how elementary principals interpret their experience of leadership decision making as a moral activity in relation to the Ethic of the Profession and Model for Students’ Best Interests. Method: A phenomenological-like research method was used to capture administrators’ perspectives involving moral practice and ethical decision making as it relates to students with disabilities. The primary data collection strategy was participant interviews by means of purposeful sampling. Findings: Findings challenge the Ethic of the Profession’s injunction, “the best interests of the student,” as a central guiding moral principle in decision making. Evidence exists that the expression does hold some insight as a maxim to guide behavior, especially when principals decide for one student against all or most students within special education contexts. Theoretical Implications: Participants indicated a distinction and clear difference between the best interests of one student and the best interests of students as a group. Participants viewed the work of deciding and acting in the best interests of the student body as being qualitatively different than working and acting in the best interests of individual students. Practical Value: Dynamic ethical thinking expressed by most school leaders in this study involved a thick and rich combination of rule referencing; maximizing benefit and promoting nonmoral good; assessing one’s character, motivation, and disposition and responding with empathy and personal investment; being reflective; and maintaining an open posture. Classification: This is a work of empirical research.

Social computing software and online tools are gaining credence in teaching and learning spaces, including higher education contexts. However, the adoption of social computing software does not automatically translate into effective teaching and learning if students’ views and needs are not considered along with course learning outcomes. Thus, this study was conducted to explore students’ perspectives and preferences for social computing software and online tools in a university elective course. We employed quantitative and qualitative approaches to understand students’ shared and nuanced thoughts about social computing applications in the study. A questionnaire with quantitative and open-ended qualitative questions was used to collect data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an inductive thematic analysis approach. Our findings indicated mixed students’ viewpoints, with some tools reported as highly beneficial while others were less beneficial. For instance, students valued asynchronous sessions, assignment feedback, online discussion, videos, and gamification but reported less interest in phones, journals, icons, and blogs. Students’ specializations also appeared to influence their choice of tools. Those from Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences expressed a slightly different preference than their comparts from Medicine and Health Sciences. Drawing on the findings, we discuss the implications for effective teaching and learning using social computing software, focusing on essential stakeholders. For instance, instructors must regularly conduct diagnostic feedback to determine appropriate tools that can effectively customize students’ learning.

This article examines a critical and timely issue in higher education: university students’ attitudes toward the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in learning. Addressing a notable gap in quantitative research, the study investigates how students perceive the ethical dimensions of GenAI use through a survey of 760 students across three universities in two European countries. Analyses were conducted across national and institutional contexts, as well as by demographic and academic variables, including gender, age, mode of study, type of program, and field of study. The investigation aimed to assess how various student groups evaluate the ethical considerations of GenAI use in their academic work. To this end, it employed a combination of descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Findings were interpreted through the frameworks of virtue ethics and constructivist learning theory. Results indicate that students, on average, assign only moderate importance to the ethical aspects of GenAI use a concerning outcome given the increasing relevance of ethics in technology-enhanced learning. Furthermore, students’ ethical assessments were significantly lower than those of their instructors at the same institutions. The study concludes that students tend to undervalue ethical concerns related to GenAI, and that this tendency is shaped less by external or demographic factors than by internal institutional factors, including university culture and norms.

This article contains a response to three manuscripts that are part of the JRLE special issue entitled Developing and Empowering Teacher Leaders for Collective Leadership. Discussion of the articles, lessons learned, and implications for teacher leadership development are discussed.