Shifting Higher Vocational Education Teachers' Response Toward Inward Affec- tive Involvement in Ethical Dilemmas: Perspectives on the Design of Affective Learning Experiences to Inform Students’ Attitude Toward an Ethical Dilemma

kept their distance from the ethical dilemma. Only when their fundamental beliefs were being challenged they seemed to assume some degree of inward affective involvement. This study contributes to theoretical and practical knowledge about stimulating inward affective involvement with ethical dilemmas so that students can develop a conscious value-expressive attitude. ethical dilemma, value-expressive attitude, inward affective involvement, perceptual positions, higher vocational education, design of learning experiences dx.doi.org/10.15460/eder.6.3.1660 den Heijer, P., Zondervan, T., Voogt, J. (2022). Shifting Higher Vocational Education Teachers' Response Toward Inward Affective Involvement in Ethical Dilemmas: Perspectives on the Design of Affective Learning Experiences to Inform Students’ Attitude Toward an Ethical Dilemma. EDeR – Educational Design Research,


Introduction
Every professional is faced with ethical dilemmas in which different values come into conflict and that require a normative choice. Professionalism is therefore never only "technical-instrumental" in nature, but always also "normative" (Jacobs, Mei, Tenwolde, & Zomer, 2008;van Ewijk & Kunneman, 2013).
Students in higher vocational education need to be well prepared for this normative aspect of professional practice. This requires learning experiences that support them in becoming aware of personal values when applying professional, institutional and legal values and norms in a professional context, and in learning to deal with value conflicts.
When someone experiences a conflict between personal and other values, a value-expressive attitude is activated (Katz, 1960). According to Krosnick, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2005), two types of responsive evaluation are possible. In the first type, the person is disinclined to become involved with a value conflict faced in an ethical dilemma and shies away from the dilemma. In the second type, the person does become involved and is willing to investigate what the conflict means for his or her own values (Roche, 1997;Zupan, 2012).
Teachers in higher vocational education often encounter the first type of evaluation in students' responses to a value conflict faced in an ethical dilemma. When normatively charged situations come up in teaching situations, many students try to avoid the ethical complexity by opting for an apparently pragmatic solution. They reason away the complexity of the situation. As a result, they maintain an inner (i.e., psychological) distance from the ethical dilemma. Teachers generally have trouble finding an adequate response to this attitude. They want to challenge it, but often fail to do so because they do not know how to reduce the inner distance and reach inward affective involvement by students in the ethical dilemma (Zondervan, 2013).
In fact, they often sustain the distancing by exploring the students' arguments through cognitive questioning, rather than addressing their 1.0 affective component (Zondervan, 2013). Psychological research (Jordi, 2011;Rogers, 2001;Wilson & Dunn, 1986) has shown that a focus on cognition inhibits inward affective involvement. It is precisely inward affective involvement that plays a major role in learning to deal with value conflicts faced in ethical dilemmas. Values, after all, are associated strongly with feelings and support beliefs and ideals (McLeod, 1991;Rees, 2006). Inward affective involvement therefore prevents the avoidance of value conflicts. Instead, it ensures that the person can make a more balanced and affective assessment when faced with an ethical dilemma (Anderson, 2012;Demuth, 2006).
Thus, teachers are important actors in shifting students from inner distance towards inward affective involvement in an ethical dilemma (Abboud, 2017). To truly encourage students to become involved in value conflicts, their teachers must make the same shift. Only then can they all meaningfully interact in a learning environment based on inward affective involvement. Forthright exchange about personal values is only possible if both sender and receiver openly share their own affective experiences; such an exchange is always a congruent cycle in which both parties must contribute with an equal degree of inward affective involvement. If both the teacher's and the student's input originate only from the cognitive component, creating inner distance, their exchange will never go beyond the level of inner distance (Daly, 2014;Veldman, 2007): the student is simply not persuaded to share his or her inner affective experience. Therefore, the main topic of this study was the inward affective involvement of teachers in an ethical dilemma. The lack of usable language within the affective domain at the student level was the reason for choosing teachers as participants rather than students (Main, 1992;Martin & Reigeluth, 2017;McLeod, 1991;Miller, 2015) and was also the reason why we were not be able to introduce a proper degree of nuance into this study (Main, 1992;McLeod, 1991). This present study is part of a larger design-based research (DBR) project. The aim of our larger DBR study is to contribute to a theoretical and practical basis for the design of affective learning arrangements in higher vocational education to stimulate inward affective involvement in an ethical dilemma so that students can develop a conscious valueexpressive attitude. One aspect of an affective learning arrangement is an affective learning experience. This study focuses on an affective learning experience. An affective learning experience is a subjective experience of an ethical dilemma from an affective perspective in a classroom setting.
In the present study we aim to get input from teachers on the design of affective learning experiences for students by confronting them with an ethical dilemma and reflecting on this experience. The central questions of this study are: (1) How do teachers in higher vocational education respond to an ethical dilemma and (2) how do their reflections upon this experience inform the design of learning experiences to stimulate their own students' inward affective involvement in ethical dilemmas?

Value Conflict in an Ethical Dilemma
The degree to which a person is aware of the values that are important to him or her influences how he or she experiences and deals with an ethical dilemma (Campbell et al., 1996;Rohan, 2000). How important he or she deems his or her values to be when such a conflict arises is related to the interaction between the affective and cognitive components of his or her value-expressive attitude (Kamradt & Kamradt, 1999;Rosenberg, 1960). Experiencing a value conflict activates the affective component, producing an emotional response, and the strength of that component determines the intensity of the attitude (Katz, 1960). But without interaction with the cognitive component, the emotional response remains subconscious, in which case the person concerned observes the conflict with an inner distance and so misses information from the affective component. As a result, he or she is insufficiently aware of his or her own values and how these values clash with others in the context of the ethical dilemma (Kamradt & Kamradt, 1999;Rosenberg, 1960).

Ethical Dilemma
An ethical dilemma is a situation in which a person faces two (or more) conflicting ethical requirements none of which overrides the other. The conflict between the ethical requirements proceeds from a collision of underlying values. In an ethical dilemma, a person must make a right choice. However, often there is no right choice to be made, but it is about choosing the best option in those specific circumstances. If a person in an ethical dilemma places a particular personal value at the center of conflicting values, the consequence is that other values take a back seat and therefore have less influence on the attitude that a person adopts towards the ethical dilemma (Anderson, 2012;Schwartz, 1992). Our approach of dealing with ethical dilemmas in this study resembles mostly a virtue ethical approach. Virtue ethics focusses on developing ethical sensitivity by a process of formation of a person's character as the ensemble of his or her attitudes or dispositions (van Tongeren, 2016). Of the various types of dilemmas that exist (philosophical dilemmas, antisocial dilemmas, social dilemmas and prosocial dilemmas; e.g., Myyry, 2003;Wark & Krebs, 1996), it is known from moral psychology research that a person is challenged to the highest level of moral judgement by a prosocial dilemma (Wark & Krebs, 1996). Therefore, we assume that a prosocial dilemma is the one that most invites inward affective involvement.

Viewing an Ethical Dilemma with Inner Distance
Whether or not a person becomes involved with an ethical dilemma depends on the type of internal response to the value conflict that is generated (Krosnick et al., 2005). We can distinguish four types of responses: conscious avoidance, subconscious avoidance, procedural focus or adopting a moral standpoint (Roche, 1997;Zupan, 2012

2.4
a person views an ethical dilemma with inner distance, he or she either does so with a procedural focus or subconsciously avoids it altogether. In other words, he or she tries to hold onto procedures and values in order to stave off inward affective involvement. And later, with hindsight, he thinks about how it made him or her feel or act; that is, he or she retrospectively makes his or her own self an object of self-reflection (Hermans, 2006;Korthagen, 2016).
This form of ex-post-facto introspection can occur from two different perspectives, either as if observing the situation as perceived by another person or seeing it from a detached viewpoint. These perspectives are also called "perceptual positions" (Andreas & Andreas, 2009;Weisfelt, 2012). In the first perceptual position (phenomenologically called "first person" perspective), an individual views the situation very much from his or her personal point of view, in terms of what is happening within him or her. Empathy with another person's point of view is called the second perceptual position (phenomenologically called "second person" perspective) and the third perceptual position involves objective observation (phenomenologically called "third person" perspective). When observing an ethical dilemma with inner distance, a person adopts either the second or the third perceptual position.

Inward Affective Involvement with an Ethical Dilemma
Someone engaging inwardly with an ethical dilemma either consciously avoids it or adopts a moral stance towards it, acting on his or her personal moral principles regardless of the consequences (Zupan, 2012). In his or her approach to the conflict, he or she draws upon his own inner perceptual experience of the situation as well the procedures and values that exist with respect to it. The degree of inward affective involvement is related to the strength of the relationship between the conflict and the values this person considers important (Anderson, 2012;Johnson & Eagly, 1989). A characteristic of someone who becomes inwardly involved with an ethical dilemma is that he or she perceives himself or herself as a subject "in the moment" (Hermans, 2006). Such inner self-perception "in the moment" is also called awareness (Rogers, 2001). For a person to remain aware, he or she must consistently be alert to what is happening within and around him or her from the first perceptual position (Weisfelt, 2012).
With awareness, one can distinguish within oneself between what is considered "pleasant" or "unpleasant". And because of that ability, it is possible to feel an inner emotional experience, which in turn enables a person to elucidate clearly what he or she considers "good" or "bad". What is "good" or "bad" for oneself is also meaningful to others, and hence related to one's values. If a person has the chance to experience what is "bad" for him or her, that allows him or her to experience what is not right for him or her. From this inner emotional experience of what is "pleasant" or "unpleasant", the mind generates an instinctive response (Veldman, 2010). When values conflict, perception of feelings is therefore essential for someone to determine which value is most meaningful to him or her. Perception of feelings is used in this 2.5 paper to indicate that a person first perceives something inwardly, with his or her own feelings within himself or herself, and only then relates it to the value conflict in the ethical dilemma. Only after realizing what he or she has felt a person becomes aware that he or she is experiencing, for example, fear, sadness or joy associated with the ethical dilemma (Duyndam, 2006). Inner perception "in the moment" preceding the realization of what he or she is experiencing inwardly is what characterizes a person's inward affective involvement with a value conflict.
What Do these Theoretical Underpinnings Mean for the Design of Affective Learning Experiences?
The theoretical underpinnings provide starting points for the design of affective learning experiences to inform one's attitude toward an ethical dilemma: -presenting a prosocial dilemma seems to invite inner affective involvement; -creating a situation in which one is invited to perceive oneself from the first perceptual position "in the moment" stimulates inner affective involvement in an ethical dilemma; -stimulating someone to make use of the ability to distinguish what one experiences as "pleasant" or "unpleasant" in the ethical dilemma invites one to feel inner emotional experiences; -questioning someone to give words to a felt inner emotional experience invites one to be aware of one's own feelings and values involved in the ethical dilemma.

Context of Overall DBR Study
The present study is part of a larger DBR study. The context of the overall DBR study is an institute of higher vocational education in the Netherlands. This institute has adopted a new educational vision to prepare students for our rapidly changing society and to emphasize the importance of values when working as professional. An element that is central to this educational vision is to educate students to become value-driven professionals. The problem is that many educational programs within higher vocational education struggle with the question of how to support students in coping with professional, personal, institutional and legal values and norms, without suppressing the student's personal values.
Teachers realize that supporting students in coping with (conflicting) values requires more from them than determining which up-to-date professional knowledge and skills should be offered to students. They need to expand their own pedagogical and didactic repertoire to be able to encourage students to be receptive to a conflict of values in an ethical dilemma: The teachers realize that they need to grow in their 2.6 3.0

3.1
own value-driven professionalism, but find it difficult to cope with that in their own teaching (Zondervan, 2013).

Design of Overall DBR Study
The overall design of the study is presented in Figure 1. In our overall DBR study we use the following definition of DBR (Wang & Hannafin, 2005): "... a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories". The present study is situated in the analysis phase of the overall DBR study and explores the needs and perceptions of higher vocational education teachers on their response toward affective involvement in an ethical dilemma and their perspectives on the design of affective learning experiences for their students. This study is preceded by a literature review (study 1) on the central concept for the overall DBR study. Based on the outcomes of the present study we have designed two iterations following the present study. In study 3, we designed an affective learning experience for teachers and students that focused on interactive affective sharing in a small group. By having this experience, they could reflect and make suggestions for structuring and guidance of affective learning experiences with an ethical dilemma in a small group. In study 4, we designed an intervention on how students can be prepared for creating more inward affective involvement in an ethical dilemma by focusing on affective perceptual awareness.

3.2
Volume 6 | Issue 3 | 2022 | Article 47 8 Figure 1: Overview of the total DBR project The overall DBR study will result in design principles for the design of affective learning arrangements to teaching higher vocational education students for coping with inward affective involvement in ethical dilemmas. Further dissemination is beyond the score of the DBR study and requires future studies.

Research Design of the Present Study
A qualitative research design was used to answer the research questions of our present study. By looking at their perceptual positions, the study examined how teachers became inwardly affectively involved with the value conflict evoked in them by an ethical dilemma they were presented with (see also 3.3, where the ethical dilemma is described). Following this experience, the teachers reflected upon characteristics of the design they deemed necessary to stimulate students to become inwardly affectively involved in a comparable learning experience. Data triangulation was assured by combining observational and interview data (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007).

Context and Participants
The study was conducted at a Dutch university for higher vocational education. Six programs of study were approached to ask about participation in the study. A contact person at each program was asked what teachers could be approached to participate. A group meeting was then organized per program (N = 6), attended by between four to six teachers, all of whom knew each other. A total of 31 teachers took part in the study.

Data Collection Procedure
To answer the research questions, we use an activity in which the teachers in this study were confronted with the following dilemma: Many people think stealing is bad. Suppose a poor vagrant is very hungry and steals a loaf of bread in a bakery. You see him stealing it. The shopkeeper asks you if you saw him do it. Do you admit that you did, or do you keep quiet?
After an introduction to the study as a whole, the group was introduced to and tackled the dilemma. This was followed by a focus-group interview in which the teachers reflected upon the dilemma and the process. The teachers were given a list of values to support them in articulating the values that play a role for them in the ethical dilemma (e.g. "reliability", "credibility" and "transparency"). At each meeting, the lead author had the role of moderator, presenting the dilemma. It was explicitly stated that the moderator would not give her opinion, but was only present to ask questions and lead the discussion. When addressing the dilemma, the moderator asked the prepared questions with the aim to invite the teachers to tackle the dilemma, over a period of 45-60 minutes. The questions aimed to involve the teachers with the dilemma and covered the following topics: experiences of inner feelings (for example: Based upon this emotion, what would be your initial judgement concerning this dilemma?); values (for example: Which values play a role for you in this dilemma and in what order of priority would you put those important to you in this case?); perceptions (for example: What do you need in order to be able to empathize with the values and norms of the other people affected by this dilemma?); dealing with the dilemma (for example: What options do you see for dealing with the dilemma?) The teachers tackled the dilemma by exchanging and discussing their individual responses to the questions posed by the moderator. After all questions about the dilemma were discussed, the teachers were asked how they had felt during their deliberations. Next, a 5-minute explanation of the value-expressive attitude was provided, including the intentions behind making students aware of their own value-expressive attitude. Finally, a focus-group interview lasting 25-40 minutes was conducted with the teachers to review the session and to discuss what would be needed to give students the same learning experience.
Prior to the actual data collection, a pilot was conducted to test the comprehensibility of the questions asked in the activity. As a result of this, the formulations of some questions were adjusted, and it was decided to opt for a dilemma unrelated to the context of education.

Data Analysis
All group meetings were recorded with permission from the participants. The conversations prompted by the dilemma and the focusgroup interview were transcribed by the lead author and then uploaded to QDA Miner 5.0.19. A distinction was made between data collected when the teachers were actually addressing the dilemma and during their conversation afterwards about the experience. The former were coded deductively, the latter inductively. For the deductive coding, a number of guiding concepts from the theoretical framework were used: value conflict, feelings, and perceptions (see Table 2 for examples). These were called categories. For the inductive coding, all the transcripts were first read by the lead author and relevant quotes were identified. These were given their own unique codes, in each case a key word from the quote. The codes were clustered into three categories: reflection at personal level, reflection at group level and reflection at contextual level (see Table 3 for examples). The columns in Tables 2 and 3 show the difference in the analytical path, reading from left to right, starting from categories on the left in Table 2 for the deductive coding and starting from quotes on the left in Table 2 for the inductive coding (see Appendix for more examples of inductive and deductive coding). Each step of the analytical process was thoroughly documented and discussed critically within the research team.

Results
In presenting the results of our study, we have separated the results obtained during the exposure to an ethical dilemma and those obtained through teachers' reflections on their experience with facing the ethical dilemma. The results from the exposure are described in terms of four perspectives. The results from the teachers' reflections after their experience are described through three perspectives on the design of learning experiences to inform students' attitude toward an ethical dilemma.

How Do Teachers React to an Ethical Dilemma?
Perspective 1: Distance yourself from the conflict. The teachers generally reacted in a rational way, from the first perceptual position, when they experienced an incompatibility of values. Then they argued from the second or third position for what they thought or believed.
Initially, the teachers responded from the first perceptual position when expressing something related to values, judgments, actions, statements or observations. The verbs most commonly used in this position were: find, think, be, become and can. For example, a teacher talked about a proposed response: "I think I'd say what I'd seen and try to present it as factually as possible, without judging". Strikingly, 4.0 4.1 the teachers said very little about what was happening within themselves: "I find it difficult, too. I can say that I'd do what's socially desirable, perhaps show fellow feeling, but I don't know how I'd react in real life.". When they experienced incompatibility of values, the teachers never said "I feel" when speaking from the first perceptual position. They did not perceive, they reflected. Mentally, they viewed the ethical dilemma with inner distance. This meant that there was no actual inward affective involvement with the ethical dilemma.
Teachers responded from the second perceptual position -empathizing with another person's emotional world -when they wanted to know something about that person or visualize a situation or an action, now or in the future. What was striking here, though, was that they directed questions at the other person, but these were rarely questions that enable them to empathize with that person's experiential world. When the teachers were explicitly asked what they needed from the other in order to empathize with the other's values, then questions were asked that were really aimed at empathizing with the other person's world of experience, for example: "Then I would be very curious to know, what are you afraid of?" and "Does that mean for you that, before a conversation like that in a meeting like that, you go through a number of important values with each other?".
Teachers responded from the third perceptual position -taking a detached view -when they wanted to substantiate what they said. The language they spoke here was more abstract and their statements were often not related directly to the dilemma. They talked more in general terms, for example: "Honesty is always context-dependent. Values are never absolute. They always have to yield something". Here, the various interests involved in the ethical dilemma were considered carefully from a distance. By adopting a detached stance, it was possible to ensure that all conflicting interests that existed in the first and second perceptual positions could still be served.
Perspective 2: Affective component. Three response patterns could be distinguished in the ways the teachers responded to questions about their inner emotional experience: naming a specific emotion, mentioning several different ones and not mentioning any. Teachers who described their emotional experience specifically said literally that they were afraid, angry, sad, ashamed or happy, either directly or linked to a reflective thought: "I am, I think, more sad that it is happening". By saying "I think" here, the respondent distanced himself from the emotional experience. Viewed from the outside, that distance made it seem as if they were not actually experiencing any emotion at all. Here, too, the teacher was responding based upon a thought process. It seemed as if the emotional experience was not perceived from within, from how the person himself related to the ethical dilemma.
Those teachers who did not mention any emotional experiences tended to want to solve the dilemma: Afraid, angry, sad or happy? Yes. Well, I have another option, I'll pay the bread for him. And what kind of emotion is that? Is that an emotion? No, not an emotion but a solution. But then I would be happy again.
Or they needed personal experience of the situation: "Not angry. Sad, no. I don't feel any emotion. Not when I read this, no. If I were in the situation myself, though, it would be different. But now I find it difficult". It is clear that these teachers did not find their emotions being addressed by the ethical dilemma presented to them in this exercise. It touched nothing within them that affected their ideals and beliefs. Instead, they mainly reflected after the fact, having apparently not been open to awareness "in the moment".
Perspective 3: Involvement. When we looked more specifically at the characteristics of the ethical dilemma, three stood out: unsolicited involvement, having to choose and anticipating consequences. When involved in the dilemma without being actively asked for participation, the teachers felt they had no choice. They concluded that they were no longer an outside observer of the dilemma: "The moment someone asks you the question, you're involved, you know. But can you also say 'no', I just don't want to answer this because I don't want to be involved.". Another observation was that the situation had consequences for the teacher as a person: "You're involved in something. You're no longer an outsider. No, exactly. That has consequences for you as a person". "Having to choose" also seemed to appeal directly to the inner emotional experience. And if teachers were unable to anticipate the consequences of a potential choice, this too evoked such an experience: "But also fear about what I'm getting involved withwhat happens to the vagrant if I say 'yes', what happens to me if I say 'no'?". Faced with this situation, the teachers seemed barely willing to give the answer they were being asked for; rather than really deal with it, they kept their distance. So, they did not first become aware and then start to reflect, but instead skipped the awareness phase and went straight to reflection.
When asked literally about their inner emotional experience, the teachers usually started with "I think" rather than "I feel". In their responses to questions not explicitly enquiring about feelings, though, they regularly responded by actually using the verb "feel" -especially when it came to values such as responsibility, dignity, justice and humanity: "But yes, I notice then that it feels a little less like justice to me. I don't have such a good feeling about that". This use of "feel" was particularly prominent when referring to another person: "You feel an obligation to the shopkeeper in front of you. You feel a certain duty towards him". From this it was clear that when it came to values that really mattered to the teachers, these were genuinely addressed in a moral sense in an area "which truly means something to them". When and where it actually was important to them, they were affected inwardly: This was where feeling and inner experience of feelings came closest to one another.
Perspective 4: Taking a position. One teacher's response derived from a sense of incompatibility of values: In this case, for me it also has to do with ... I think that's where my anger comes from, too. You just don't rate other people. When I think about it, that really goes against my basic values. You just don't do that.
This reaction, unlike many of the others, reflected a clear standpoint based upon a particular value. This suggested that, if their true ideals and beliefs were at stake, the teachers did feel challenged and this prompted an unconditional willingness to respond to the value conflict. When no clear stance was adopted, on the other hand, they were often aware of the tensions between different values: For me, the tension -I mean I am more on the side of humanity myself -and the side of justice that I have inherited more, and I know I have to take that into account too. But that is where the tension lies.
It was clear here that the respondent was distancing himself from the ethical dilemma: By responding in a rational way, he was precluding awareness. As a result, this teacher was either not in touch with what was happening emotionally within him when confronted with an ethical dilemma or he was not being transparent in expressing his inner emotional experience.
What are Teachers' Perspectives on the Design of Learning Experiences to Inform Students' Attitude Toward an Ethical Dilemma?
Teachers' first perspective on the design of learning experience: personal level. In their reflections upon the experience gained during their facing with the ethical dilemma, the teachers said it is essential that all participants in the discussion about a dilemma dare to show their vulnerability. Part of this, they added, is revealing yourself: Voicing what you stand for and what you really care about without fear that this will be used against you after the conversation. The majority indicated that, at the very least, there must be room to describe one's feelings. It became unclear whether, in addition to describing feelings, there should also be room for expressing them. In order to participate in a conversation about a dilemma, those who took part in our study believed that it is necessary to be rooted in the here and now, paying explicit heed to the feelings you feel.

4.2
Teachers' second perspective on the design of learning experience: group level. The teachers attached particular value to discussing a dilemma as a group. In their view, the presence of other people is key. They also emphasized the importance of working in small groups when tackling a dilemma, with sufficient time and space to explore one's own values. The teachers thought it to be vital that the group, as a collective, probes the origins of each member's values based upon true curiosity and interest. According to them, the presence of others in a group setting offers an opportunity to develop yourself.
According to the teachers, values reflect a person's deepest beliefs and are therefore all about inner emotions and feelings. With this in mind, they wondered whether they should not focus more upon the emotional level. In order to enter into a dialogue at this level about values, and to display vulnerability about them, it is essential that the group is a safe space.
Willingness to be inwardly emotionally affected requires that everyone truly participates in the conversation and that they talk "from the heart" -that is, from the first perceptual position -rather than talking about something in the abstract. As an example, one teacher put this as follows: But I mean it more as really making contact and connecting with each other. Otherwise, it becomes just a technical, instrumental conversation in which you exchange things. Without me really seeing or feeling what it means to the other person. Because you can also have the same conversation very technically, without revealing anything of yourself in it.
Teachers' third perspective on the design of learning experience: content and didactical level. According to the teachers, it is important to take a number of factors into account to make an ethical dilemma suitable for students. First of all, they believed that the type of dilemma influences the degree of involvement the students experience. It is important to keep the dilemma small, so that the student can look at the dilemma from within himself or herself and not from a meta-position. This can be done by making the dilemma personal, so the student feels that the situation is close at hand.
The teachers also emphasized the difference between proposing a solution and substantiating a choice. They said that students are already adept at the former, but generally need to develop their abilities in the latter area.
Moreover, students are not used to making a connection with their inner feelings and deeply held beliefs. The teachers therefore considered it important that the students encounter repertoires of experience of inner feelings in tackling the dilemma in order to sensitize them to alternative beliefs. Ultimately, they said, it is about whether, with hindsight, you yourself are satisfied with the way you responded to the situation. And to do that, you need to "peel back" the layers of reasoning underlying why you acted in the way you did.
Finally, according to the teachers, your approach should stimulate the students' curiosity. You achieve this by presenting them with a dilemma that delivers an actual "experience". They also considered it necessary to create space for the student's own individuality and personal situation, including scope to discuss them. And if the student is being asked for a display of vulnerability, it is important that the teacher demonstrates this as well. Using the students' own language is essential, too. As one teacher put it: I notice that I have real doubts about whether talking about it in formal terms alone is enough ... I don't believe that works for everyone, to really get what it's actually about ... While what you'd actually like is to find a form with which everyone feels really touched to the core ... I'd find it interesting to see how you can really let students experience something in this way.

Discussion and Conclusions
The main subject of interest in this qualitative study was teachers' inward affective involvement with an ethical dilemma. The study was a first step in shifting teachers' response toward inward affective involvement in ethical dilemmas and gathering perspectives of teachers on the design of affective learning experiences to inform students' attitude toward an ethical dilemma. In addition, we aimed to introduce more usable language to teaching how to cope with value conflicts within the affective domain. We have introduced new concepts from social psychology and phenomenology, such as perceptual position, inner perception, inward affective involvement and inner emotional experience.
This study aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) How do teachers in higher vocational education respond to an ethical dilemma and (2) how do their reflections upon this experience inform the design of learning experiences to stimulate their own students' inward affective involvement in ethical dilemmas? We answered these questions by placing higher vocational education teachers in teams and presenting them with an ethical dilemma.
Results showed that the teachers in this study responded to an ethical dilemma from an inner distance. Contrary to our expectations, the questions did little to stimulate teachers to become inwardly affectively involved with a value conflict. Rather than gaining awareness of their inner feelings in response to the conflict, they mainly reflected upon the dilemma with inner distance. First, this was apparent from their tendency to respond to the dilemma in a cognitive manner from the first perceptual position. By maintaining their inner distance, they had no incentive to justify their own value-expressive attitude. Second, there was the fact that most teachers did not adopt a clear position with respect to the dilemma. They usually talked about the inner feelings the dilemma evoked only when explicitly asked. On the few occa-sions that an emotion-based response was elicited due to incompatibility of values, the teacher concerned adopted a clear standpoint rooted in his or her adherence to one particular value. From this it was clear that teachers were only willing to respond to the ethical dilemma from a position of inward affective involvement when they felt inwardly challenged because their deepest beliefs were genuinely affected. Only "having to make a choice" without being able to anticipate its consequences evoked some degree of inward affective involvement on the part of the teachers.
From teachers' reflections upon their experience with regard to the design of learning experiences for their own students, we inferred that the ethical dilemma must be realistic, so that the student is drawn in and can relate it to his or her personal situation. The dilemma should also confront the student with practical perplexities, as well as invite the student to make a primary choice to take action. Although the literature suggested that a hypothetical prosocial dilemma seemed the most appropriate way to encourage teachers to adopt a stance, as this would challenge their moral judgement (Myyry, 2003;Wark & Krebs, 1996), the teachers themselves indicated that a realistic dilemma eliciting personal involvement would be more likely to have that effect.
These outcomes suggest certain conclusions. If the teacher's input comes solely from the cognitive component, so will the student's, and their exchange will never progress beyond that level. The teachers in our study also thought it important that students interact with their peers from a position of connection with their own vulnerability in order to discuss the dilemma amongst themselves from the affective component. This requires that teachers create space within their teaching practice in which students are encouraged to express their own feelings, values and thoughts. It therefore requires lecturers to lead the way into, or model, the inner investigation of their feelings, deepest convictions and values in order to be able to invite students to relate to a conflict of values on the affective level. This is not merely pedagogic expertise, but requires an inner examination of the teachers' own values and feelings as well, and thus touches upon their own vulnerability (Kelchtermans, 1996) and professional self-understanding (Kelchtermans, 2009(Kelchtermans, , 2012(Kelchtermans, , 2018. By allowing the teachers to experience their confrontation with an ethical dilemma in this study, they immediately took a step in their professional development. The teachers in our study were challenged to respond to the ethical dilemma from within only when their deepest convictions were touched. This may relate to an issue that was addressed by Korthagen and Vasalos (2009): If feelings are being discussed in higher education at all, the discussion is based on cognition and concerns so-called "felt feelings" rather than actual feelings (Meijers & Mittendorff, 2010). In this theory on core reflection, Korthagen (2016) did include the role of feelings, but how students can actually make contact with their feelings was lacking. The social-psychological and phenomenological concepts used in this study related to the different perceptual positions, inward affective involvement and the affective component, and pro-vide a language for a deeper pedagogical understanding of how attention can be paid to actual feelings through making contact with one's inner feelings instead of reflecting on felt feelings in higher education, and thus builds on the theory of core reflection.
Recently, exploratory research was carried out into the moral ideas and experiences of students in higher education in the Netherlands (van Stekelenburg, de Ruyter, & Sanderse, 2020; van Stekelenburg, Smerecnik, Sanderse, & De Ruyter, 2020). The central concept in their research was the ethical compass. They defined ethical compass as "the intrinsic motivation of professionals to act morally particularly when they are confronted with an ethical dilemma according to moral standards and specifically the standards of their profession (ideals and norms)". The concept of ethical compass is a wider concept than the central concept of our study, value-expressive attitude. The concept value-expressive attitude offers specification because it concentrates on the person's psychological tendency. Their study showed that students associated ethical compass with "gut feeling" or intuition (van Stekelenburg, Smerecnik et al., 2020). Gut feeling and intuition are concepts from the affective domain and are therefore important factors associated with inward affective involvement. As long as students' gut feeling or intuition remains unclear, feelings will be unconsciously decisive in taking a moral stand (Ajzen, 2001;Lavine, Thomsen, Zanne, & Borgida, 1998). In order to take a conscious moral stand, awareness of one's own inner feelings facing an ethical dilemma is important. Viewed from this perspective, our research provides additional insights on how teachers may encourage students to explore their gut feelings, so that they can consciously include their feelings when taking a moral stand in an ethical dilemma.
One strength of this study was that it immersed teachers in the experience of dealing with a dilemma of the kind they might use in the classroom. This enabled them to empathize with the situation their students would find themselves in, before discussing how to design learning experiences for their students. But this strength also had a drawback. When placed in this experiential position, the teachers tended to speak from the student's perspective rather than their own. In part, this was because they knew the purpose of the study and that probably influenced their low level of inward affective involvement with the ethical dilemma, although there were other contributing factors as well.
Finally, we presume that the expected returns from the questions, which should stimulate inward affective involvement with the ethical dilemma, were not seen because the teachers felt that the questions did not consistently appeal to their feelings. In retrospect, they indicated that enquiring about rational arguments prompted a conversation at two distinct levels: the cognitive and the affective. In the discussion about the dilemma itself, they said, rational arguments were elicited. It is precisely herein that the complexity of this study lies. If someone does not interpret what he or she feels, he or she lacks information from the affective component (Davis-Manigaulte, Yorks, & Kasl, 2006;Heron, 1992;Yorks & Kasl, 2002) about the ethical dilemma, and it is less clear to him or her what he or she finds important (Kamradt & Kamradt, 1999). The added value derived from feeling is not utilized consciously if there has been insufficient time for perception of feelings and the interpretation of its input, so that the impact of what is felt subconsciously becomes decisive in the values the person places at the heart of the ethical dilemma.
One aim of the present study was to explicate the problem statement for our overall DBR study. From the present study we gained input from teachers to refine the problem statement. The participating teachers in this study indicated that they think it is important for students to deeply interact with their peers from a position of connection with their own vulnerability in order to discuss the dilemma from the affective component. This requires teachers to create space within their teaching practice in which students are encouraged to express their own feelings, values and thoughts. In the literature, this is called an inter-affective space (de Jaegher, 2013; Di Paolo et al., 2018). The design challenge we face in our overall DBR study is how to create a space in a classroom where students are encouraged to connect at the affective level with an ethical dilemma, with themselves and with others.
From analyzing and exploring the problem of designing learning experiences that could inform students' stimulation of their inward affective involvement in ethical dilemmas we found several perspectives of teachers on the design of affective learning experiences to inform students' attitude toward an ethical dilemma. These perspectives lead to the following initial design considerations: -The ethical dilemma must be realistic and confront the student with practical perplexities, as well as invite him or her to make an intuitive choice to take action.
-Students must work in small groups when tackling a dilemma, with sufficient time and space to explore their own values.
-The experience must encourage students' willingness to be inwardly emotionally affected by the ethical dilemma and by others.
-The experience must encourage students to voice a congruent moral stand and what they really care about without fear that this will be used against them after the conversation.
Teaching affective learning experiences requires a different approach from teachers than cognitive learning experiences do (Davis- Manigaulte et al., 2006;Yorks & Kasl, 2002). We see guidance of a smallgroup affective learning experience as an approach for consideration. Small group affective guidance requires from teachers that they act in a correct, sensitive, appropriate and desirable way in their relationship with students (Laumans, 2015;van Manen & Li, 2002;Veldman, 2010). In our next study we designed an affective learning experience for teachers and students that focused on conversation at the affective level (interactive affective sharing) in a small group. Different characteristics for designing and guiding an individual affective learning experience and interactive affective sharing about an ethical dilemma emerged from that study. Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, D. S. (1986) If you know that stealing is not allowed, I think we all agree, but if someone has nothing, when are you going to slip into that. In principle, you have an agreement and you think it's bad, but in situations of need, it may be permitted or you may think that it's not so bad. Yes, that's it. Yes, maybe compassion on the one hand and honesty on the other. Survival. Towards the shop owners, stealing is not allowed, those are the rules, those are the laws, so honesty. And then on the other hand, the humanity of yes, someone is very hungry ... they have to survive. Maybe that's part of it. Taking no stance I also have a bit of what you say, I think these are terrible too, but I think, here's 2.50 and don't whine like that. I would also rather give that money. To the owner. Yes. Of course, the dilemma with this case is, do you admit that you saw something or do you remain silent? You are sent in two directions before you can choose. You could stand back and say, hello, I don't want to be faced with this choice. So there is actually an underlying appeal to the fact that it is apparently self-evident that you do something in response. At the moment that someone asks you something. And actually, you don't want to be involved or anything. In fact, you have to be sucked into something and say: 'I don't want to see or know what's going on. That's it, you're already in it. Yes, he is in the middle. The moment you are confronted with those cards, you are involved. For me, the tension is, I mean I'm more on the side of humanity and the side of justice, which I've learned more about and I know I have to take into account. But that's where the tension is. Yes, I think I also have that justice and especially justice with regard to the underlying party, so to speak. The one who is the weakest in this context. React from perceptual position I think For me, the tension is, I mean I'm more on the side of humanity and the side of justice, which I've learned more about and I know I have to take into account. But that's where the tension is. Yes, I think I also have that justice and especially justice with regard to the underlying party, so to speak. The one who is the weakest in this context. I find I find that difficult, because I don't think it's good not to be honest, but if justice were to prevail over honesty, I could live with that. It's not good not to be honest, but I do think that justice is important now. Is it good or bad? You tell me. I always find it very difficult to make a qualification, yes, I don't see it that way.

Argumentation
And if I have seen something, I find it very difficult to say I haven't seen anything. On the other hand, I don't like the value of stealing. That is not something I have heard. There is also a value in helping others. Yes, that you grant it to others. Yes. Justice. Yes, one of the values is also justice. That some people have everything and others don't. For me, that's also a value. Of course, our society has become very complicated in this respect. Feelings and emotions Naming an emotion

Sad
Most saddened actually, me. And can you explain that? Well, the fact that someone is so desperate that he has to steal a loaf of bread, that alone I find very sad.

Scared
If I had to choose from these four categories, I would be scared. I would be sad and scared. Especially because you don't know what situation you will be in. Happy Glad, finally I can stand for something. Ashamed I come more to ashamed. Of which you don't know if that is an emotion. Naming mixed emotions Doubt I am in doubt a bit or so. I find it very difficult to place it in one of those four because it also runs on. I think I would feel very insecure at that moment because oh, what should I do. Pity Perhaps also something of pity? Pity is a form of? Of sor-row too, I think.
Yes, I think that would apply to me as well.

Curious
If I am the person here in the case or if I am the one who gets the dilemma on his plate in a different way? You are asked did he steal it or not? My first reaction would be why do you want to know? What do you feel? Curiosity.
But that was not one of the four. Curiosity is happy, isn't it! Rebellious It would make me a little triumphant.
That's between worrying, angry and happy. And now I can show that owner. Kind of rebellious. So it's not angry with me either. Feeling uncertain It tends to be fear. I'm not so much afraid of the situation as I am of not knowing what to do. Or like that. It's more like I don't know what to say. The whole time sitting like that, fighting stupidly. If you can't take action yet ... then uncertainty is the feeling. Different emotions I could get angry about it too, but I think sad is closer. Naming no emotions

Solution
Afraid, angry, sad or happy? Yes. Well, I have another option -I'll pay for the bread. And what kind of emotion is that? Is that an emotion? No, that's not an emotion but a solution, but then I would be happy again. No emotion Yes, I think to myself, why has someone become a tramp? Because then I can decide whether I am sad or not. Only then can I say I am sad or not. I have no emotion here. No. Not angry or sad, no. I don't feel any emotion with it. When I read, no. But if I were in the situation, even so it would be different, but I find it difficult to now when I read it, so yes, well. Being in the situation Not angry or sad, no, I don't feel any emotion with it. When I read, no. But if I were in the situation, even so it would be different. That you can stand up and show something. Whatever choice you make. This is a social problem that is revealing itself so that you can do something about it. Not being able to choose No, that is not an emotion but a solution, but then I would be happy again. I have another option, which is, what's the big deal, I'll pay for the bread and I think we'll all be happy. Yes. And before you decide that, which primary emotion is expressed? A little sad that this has to happen. That this is happening. That it's necessary for someone to steal. Not being able to refuse Suppose the owner has already asked three times and wants to know from you too. You can probably refuse to testify. Choosing instinctively What I then immediately wonder is do we have a choice in choosing what we do or is it instinctively the fly, what is called fight, fright ... yes, not fly. Understanding consequences Becoming confused But also that you are afraid of the fact, what will happen to me if I say yes, what will happen to me if I say no. For me, fear is number one.

Consequences
What I only now notice is that it actually has nothing to do with your orders; what is that the owner asks, if you saw him steal a loaf of bread. But it does not say anywhere that there is a consequence.

Intimidated
You can also say, I said I saw it, but I didn't want to say it because I felt intimidated. So actually what it is is true, but it is not. Admitting The only thing you admit is that you saw him steal, but that does not mean that the owner ... so we also assume that the owner will then report the tramp to the police. Realizing later That is, of course, the way education is. We throw all kinds of experience rings around it. I think there is a chance, speaking for myself in the situation, that despite my very big words here, when it really comes across, because of the adrenaline, I first say I've seen it and only then, oh, but I want to say more about it. Getting into trouble And thereby get someone into trouble, who you did not want to get into trouble. That is also my problem. Influence of distance and proximity

Friend
If the baker asked me and no one saw it, I would want to share your joy. But now that a conflict has arisen, that joy is gone for me. He is a good friend of yours, the baker, he got up at 4 o'clock this morning to bake the bread, then you won't be happy. But if he is a good friend of mine, he will also think that he should take the bread with him. Otherwise, he would not be a friend of mine. A little further away Well, I don't know, I agree with my colleague that maybe not so with reading, if you were in such a situation that would be a bit like what my colleague also has, ok, and now ... yes. What are you going to do? When I read it like that it's a bit further away. Not personal When I look at the dilemma again, this is really the main case for me. Maybe I was thinking that he is also a bit short or something. Maybe if you had some more information about the shopkeeper or the vagrant, it would evoke more emotion in me. You don't feel personally addressed when you read it. Touching That affects me more than the owner who lost his bread. Surely you give someone who is already in a certain position certain information that makes that position even more powerful in comparison to someone who is a potential victim, less powerful or has fewer possibilities.

Generalities
Honesty is always context-specific. Values are never absolute. Students who shout 'I'm here for myself'. This period, a lot of attention is paid to values and moral dilemmas. I started with a trust walk. One has to lead the other. The other must walk with his eyes closed. To give something to each other, to let them get something from each other. So there is the above personal piece. I have to remember that there are also a lot of students who are not so strong verbally, so that's why I used different working methods. That way, people who are not so strong in that area can also be triggered in one way or another. Safety for vulnerability

Confidentiality
And that you know we're not going to ridicule each other. Or we're not going to pick on each other out here or anything. It just stays between us. Vulnerability And you can make yourself vulnerable and then the question is what happens to it. I think that is also what you mean. I think you need a certain amount of security for that as well.

Context
I think that's with me, too. More context. More explanation. Yes. Real contact in the here and now So that's a good thing, and to ask further questions. Yes, and it's also very nice that it helps if you mention the emotion involved. So I was immediately thinking of those emotional touch points again. Those points bring you to the core. Shared responsibility That is a very funny question. The moment the word 'together' is mentioned, the hairs on my neck stand up. You do not determine that for me, I determine that for myself whether I like something or not. I disapprove of the word together. I think it's very nice to be together, but then you can't impose anything. I find that very difficult. What would you need from her so that you can empathize with the fact that togetherness is so important to her? Because you get that reaction just by using the word. I think it's much more a society, I think it's a shared responsibility. That's very much where it's at. We have to do it together. Reflection at environmental level Suitability dilemma Making it personal I'm imagining that I would use this in my professionalism class and the freshmen. And then I think, yes, I would be a bit scared, that we would be a bit daunted by the amount. I would compress it. Or bring it more to the point. Do you have a tip for that? For example, to make it more personal, as you indicated earlier, so to take it more out of the meta-level and make it less abstract. Type of dilemma That is a dilemma in which you are involuntarily involved. Yes. I would stick to the practical side. It is a practical problem so it needs a practical solution. The question is what are the different sides to it. You can think about it morally in a very complicated way. A moral side. Moral or ethical? But you said a dilemma. We have a subject in the educational program called ethical dilemma. So it is actually an ethical dilemma. Type of problem You are already being judged, because many people think it is bad, so you must also think it is bad. So that makes it not only an individual problem but also socially critical, or something like that, so that you obviously have to take that into account. Action options If I try to narrow it down, I think if a student were to work this out in their ethical dilemma, I would say you have more action options than the two that are given to us now at the end. So give some more options for action. Here it is said either you admit that he stole bread or you keep quiet. Well, I think there are many more action options around that that could also be worked out in an ethical dilemma. Involvement I think it might also be very interesting to work with dilemmas that are very close to the students themselves. This is a rather general example. I do notice that when it comes to the students themselves, the involvement is often greater. Do I spend my money this month on shoes or a new phone or do I put it aside for my college? Applicability in educational programs Time I think of very small groups where there is confidentiality and the time and space to discuss and explore things. And I grant that to those firstyear students too. While I understand that this is not affordable either. I would still like to have room for that in some way. Work format And that is especially when it comes to first-year students. I am thinking, for example, of the pictures you can use that symbolize something metaphorical. What I notice is that when I sit down and ask myself something, I pay less attention to the values on the paper. Then everyone is there immediately. And I can imagine that for first-and perhaps second-year students, curiosity is stimulated much more. Can you also cast this in a game form?
Experiencing something I notice that I am very hesitant about whether talking about it in the language alone is enough, because I think you actually want people to experience something, to become very aware of it, and by only putting it in a conversation, so to speak, in that context. I believe that that doesn't work for everyone in order to get to what it's really about or to be able to express yourself in that or put it into words. Or to be able to make yourself vulnerable in whatever way. Or to be able to stay away from it. While you would actually like to find a form in which everyone feels really touched at the core, just like that: What is really happening to me in this situation, and why, and where does it come from? I would find it interesting to look at how you can let students really experience something in that. Space for slow questions You have to make room for the slow questions that don't come up that easily. Students are very much inclined to look at what competence requirements they have to fulfil. Yes. And how they can get their diploma. And that means appropriating those dominant values of the profession. Some are convinced that there are other values as well. And there's something sleeping underneath that. And so that's at odds with what's here. This is about flexibility and personalized learning routes and so on. Those slow questions are also anarchistic. You can't put them in a box and say and these are in week one and these are in week six. Personal tailormade So if you really want to be personally tailored, it is of course very difficult and eventually you have to organize it in such a way that you can also offer a lot of space to the individuality of students and the personal situation of students, precisely when it comes to this and how do you do that with each other. Awareness of vulnerability by teacher So, actually, it's a kind of agreement that you make in advance about the situation and the circumstances that are created. Or perhaps the working method that creates it more than the agreements that are made. You can say everyone is equal, but it doesn't feel that way. What I felt was the case, so actually I wanted to ask more questions, but now you get a lot of questions while it was actually not the intention, so just what you say, you can already establish that everyone is in agreement, but that if you dare to make yourself vulnerable by saying thank you. I get sad about it. The moment you say that, you perhaps also create a certain openness that makes it easier for students to dare.

Points of attention
Language on student level I would look for ways to express it more in the language of the students. The internal framework, for example, is a concept that students are not very familiar with, at least not first-year students. I think it only starts from the third year onwards. Yes, it's very much connecting in the terminology. What are terms that are familiar? Yes, it is a model that you can further crystallize by using it more often. By adjusting it and then also involving students in the development of such an instrument. Who knows better which language is appropriate than the students themselves? I think that can also be very valuable to involve your students.

Personal
But one of the points that always comes up is that students are taught all kinds of didactic language. The student is central and that kind of nonsense. But then comes the actual implementation. When you are in front of the class, you have to choose. So then you choose all kinds of practical excuses. In the conversations we have with them, there is always the question of what is generally expected and how you personally deal with it on the basis of your professionalism. Choosing emotionally Well, I think if you look at such a dilemma in your question to students, for example, if you see this, what is the thing that you would instinctively choose? And then you change words or add something to the situation. For example, owner is no longer owner but is managing the jumbo. Or is head cashier. Is it different then? These are things that I think if you look at this dilemma in a different and concrete way, you will investigate with students. I think the way to do that is to find out where the feeling is and what is important to me.

Appropriating
To teach a student, to make clear to a student, to point out to a student the difference between personal values and social value, shall we say. Well, I think the question is meant to, it's about valuable professionalism actually, so I think the question is really about how can you sort of sift through generally accepted values for yourself and appropriate what you want to appropriate and push away what you don't want to appropriate.