Evidence is provided on faculty use of cheating deterrents for in-class exams. The evidence comes from a survey of students who report on their most recent in-class exam in a randomly selected course that they are taking. Three types of cheating are considered: (i) advance knowledge of exam questions; (ii) copying; and (iii) other improper student actions during the exam. The deterrents examined consist of the following: (i) a rate of repeating questions; (ii) multiple versions of the exam and seating (...) arrangements; and (iii) monitoring. The sample size is small but may cover about one-fourth of the faculty at the institution at which the survey was conducted. (shrink)

This paper provides a model for testing the relation between a particular action (cheating) and ethics education. The test is for a difference in the incidence of cheating (answer copying) between two groups: students who have and students who have not taken a course in ethics. The model facilitates testing by obtaining a relation between the unobservable variable (cheating) and an observable variable (a wrong answer on the target question which is the same as the answer of a nearby student). (...) The required sample size is large but roughly comparable to the size that has been used with an answer copying index. Unlike an answer copying index, the model does not rely on extensive copying by individual students. The model is best suited for faculty who use in-class, multiple-choice exams. (shrink)

In this paper I analyze representations of scholarly output for the purpose of identifying corrupt practices. Accordingly, the components of output—price, quantity, and time—are examined. A key part of the analysis is recognizing the unique role that the scholarly community plays in scholarship and the implications this has for the roles of groups other than the scholarly community. Finally, a survey of students indicates that particular representations of scholarly output are viewed by students as unethical.

Search in an environment with an uncertain distribution of resources involves a trade-off between exploitation of past discoveries and further exploration. This extends to information foraging, where a knowledge-seeker shifts between reading in depth and studying new domains. To study this decision-making process, we examine the reading choices made by one of the most celebrated scientists of the modern era: Charles Darwin. From the full-text of books listed in his chronologically-organized reading journals, we generate topic models to quantify his local (...) (text-to-text) and global (text-to-past) reading decisions using Kullback-Liebler Divergence, a cognitively-validated, information-theoretic measure of relative surprise. Rather than a pattern of surprise-minimization, corresponding to a pure exploitation strategy, Darwin’s behavior shifts from early exploitation to later exploration, seeking unusually high levels of cognitive surprise relative to previous eras. These shifts, detected by an unsupervised Bayesian model, correlate with major intellectual epochs of his career as identified both by qualitative scholarship and Darwin’s own self-commentary. Our methods allow us to compare his consumption of texts with their publication order. We find Darwin’s consumption more exploratory than the culture’s production, suggesting that underneath gradual societal changes are the explorations of individual synthesis and discovery. Our quantitative methods advance the study of cognitive search through a framework for testing interactions between individual and collective behavior and between short- and long-term consumption choices. This novel application of topic modeling to characterize individual reading complements widespread studies of collective scientific behavior. (shrink)