The incidence and causes of cheating were investigated using a questionnaire, consisting of 21 cheating behaviors, which was distributed to students at an English university. Respondents were asked to indicate, confidentially, which of the behaviors they had engaged in. Reported cheating was widespread and some types of cheating (e.g., on coursework) were more common than others. Reported cheating was more common in men than women; more common with less able students than more able ones; more common in younger students than mature ones; and more common in science and technology students than those in other disciplines. It is suggested that students' motivation, in particular whether they are studying to learn rather than simply to obtain good grades, is a major factor in explaining these differences. The results also indicate that cheating consists of a number of different types of behavior rather than being a unitary concept.

A questionnaire measuring nine different aspects of teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education was distributed to teachers at four institutions in the United Kingdom, yielding 638 complete sets of responses. There was a high degree of overlap between the participants' scores on the subscales measuring beliefs and intentions, and analyses of both sets of scores yielded two factors reflecting an orientation towards learning facilitation and an orientation towards knowledge transmission. However, teachers' intentions were more orientated towards knowledge transmission than were their beliefs, and problem solving was associated with beliefs based on learning facilitation but with intentions based on knowledge transmission. Differences in teachers' intentions across different disciplines and between men and women seemed to result from different conceptions of teaching, whereas differences in teachers' intentions across different institutions and between teachers with different levels of teaching experience seemed to result from contextual factors. Teaching intentions thus reflect a compromise between teachers' conceptions of teaching and their academic and social contexts.

No abstract

No abstract

According to dual-process accounts of thinking, belief-based responses on reasoning tasks are generated as default but can be intervened upon in favor of logical responding, given sufficient time, effort, or cognitive resource. In this article, we present the results of 5 experiments in which participants were instructed to evaluate the conclusions of logical arguments on the basis of either their logical validity or their believability. Contrary to the predictions arising from these accounts, the logical status of the presented conclusion had a greater impact on judgments concerning its believability than did the believability of the conclusion on judgments about whether it followed logically. This finding was observed when instructional set was presented as a between-participants factor (Experiment 1), when instruction was indicated prior to problem presentation by a cue (Experiment 2), and when the cue appeared simultaneously with conclusion presentation (Experiments 3 and 4). The finding also extended to a range of simple and more complex argument forms (Experiment 5). In these latter experiments, belief-based judgments took significantly longer than those made under logical instructions. We discuss the implications of these findings for default interventionist accounts of belief bias.