Peer Response – Article Example

Running Head: Determination of Cheating in Exams; A response Paper. Department In his paper DeMarcus does a very impressive job on the assigned job. He begins by introducing the topic which is that the instructor might become concerned of cheating in a test in this case because of clustering of the results of six students. he goes ahead to suggest that in order to for the instructor to ascertain any foul play he may perform an analysis based on descriptive statistics to determine parameters such as the mean, median, mode and standard deviation. The analysis combined with determination of whether the students sat in close proximity during the test should aid the instructor in ruling on whether there was cheating.
He brings up the important question of class size as a factor that must be considered when deliberating. James Lang (2013) advanced that cheating is most possible in classes that are large in number of students. But since this was a graduate psychology course the class must have been smaller in size. Nevertheless, a similar score by six students suggests possibility of dishonesty and as such a statistical analysis is necessary in deliberating on the issue. He also discusses problems associated with statistical techniques in detecting cheating. For instance their usefulness and applicability appear to diverge from real societal perception of evidence as well as current and future practices. Statistical methods are more relevant for classes with many students.
In conclusion therefore, DeMarcus took a broader look at the topic, and addressed the techniques that could be used in determining foul play adequately. He looked at the pros and cons of the application of statistical techniques and cited the ideas advance adequately. My only problem with his work is the lack of citing for the book Gregory Cizek (1999) as well as the same book is quite date as much as very valid points.