contract cheating and assessment design olt strategic

Contract Cheating and Assessment Design OLT Strategic Priority ProjectXThe qualitative data from staff and student surveys

Professor Rowena Harper, Edith Cowan UniversityFelicity Prentice, La Trobe College and Edith Cowan University Professor Tracey Bretag

OLT Strategic Priority Project (SP16-5383)

Co-led by Tracey Bretag and Rowena HarperTeam: Cath Ellis, Pearl Rozenberg, Karen van Haeringen, Phil Newton,

and Sonia Saddiqui

Contract Cheating and Assessment Design: Exploring the Connection

Contract cheating occurs when a student submits work that has been completed for them by a third

party, irrespective of the third party’s relationship with the student, and whether they are paid or

unpaid (Harper & Bretag et al, 2018).

Third party: friend or family, fellow student or staff member, commercial service


Buying, selling or trading notes

Providing a completed

assignment (for any reason)

Obtaining a completed

assignment (to submit as one’s

own)

Providing exam assistance

Receiving exam assistance

Taking an exam for another

Arranging for another to take

one’s exam

Sharing behaviours Cheating behaviours

Research questions1. How prevalent is contract cheating in Australian higher education?2. What are student and staff attitudes towards and experiences with contract cheating?3. What are the individual, contextual and institutional factors that are correlated with

contract cheating?4. What kinds of assessments are associated with contract cheating?5. Can ‘authentic’ assessment solve the problem of contract cheating?


Research design• Parallel staff and student surveys at 8 universities

• Student respondents = 14,086 • Staff respondents = 1,147

• Large dataset of procurement requests posted to multiple cheat sites, showing the types of assessment commonly contracted out to third parties

• Data from two universities’ longitudinal academic integrity databases, showing the assessment items where contract cheating had been detected


Summary of quantitative findings

Sector• Commercialisation,

marketisation and competition• Internationalisation,

massification and diversification• Ongoing uncertainty about

higher education funding

Institution‘Efficiencies’ in teaching and learning

• Larger class sizes• Less staff/student contact time• Less marking time • Shrinking teaching workloads

Educator‘We make do’ with limited resources for:

• Assessment design• Getting to know students• Identifying and responding to

contract cheating

Student• Language other than English

(LOTE)• Dissatisfaction with teaching

and learning environment• Perception that there are ‘lots

of opportunities to cheat’

Qualitative Findings: Staff

Insert chosen ecosystem diagram

This study: previous quantitative findings

Harper et al, 2018

44% did not follow policy by referring to a decision maker:

• Impossible to prove (57%)• Too time consuming (24%)• Not supported by management (22%)

57%

22%

24%

1,147 staff respondents from 8 universities (7.32% of the academic staff population)

67% had suspected contract cheating, signaled by knowledge of the student’s academic (71%) or linguistic (62%) abilities

This study: qualitative methods

A total of 315 staff (27.5%) responded to an open-text item:

“Is there anything else you want to tell us?”

• A two-phase coding approach, derived from grounded theory (Charmaz 2006) was used

• Respondents’ “telling terms” (Charmaz 2006) were used as much as possible for code labels

• Four main codes were identified• Text in ‘inverted commas’ is quoted directly

from the data

This study: qualitative findings

Four main codes Description Files References

Cheating is aided by university priorities

Universities create an environment in which academic integrity suffers and cheating thrives

122

38.7%

268

Prevention of contract cheating

Strategies for minimising contract cheating, both perceived and personally used

116

36.8%

182

Detecting contract cheating

Strategies for detecting contract cheating, both perceived and personally used

95

30.2%

146

Students cheat because…

Reasons for student cheating related to motivations and opportunities

93

29.5%

160

Code 1Cheating is aided by

university policies

Code 2Prevention

Code 3Detection

Code 4Students cheat because

a) ‘Efficiencies’ in teaching and assessment practices

Code 1: Cheating is aided by university priorities n=122

b) Contradictions between public/policy ‘rhetoric’ and real practices

c) Commercialisation, including the retention of students ‘at all costs’

a) ‘Efficiencies’ in teaching and assessment practices


• ‘reduction’ in resourcing for teaching, e.g. ‘large class sizes’, ‘reduced contact time’, and ‘inadequate’ marking time

• prevention, monitoring and investigation of contract cheating not ‘mentioned’, ‘included’, or ‘recognised’ in workload models

• ‘guidelines’, ‘pressure’ or a ‘requirement’ to ‘reduce the number of assessments’ in subjects, and use certain assessment types in order to ‘reduce workload’ or ‘get the work done’ within resourcing constraints


b) Contradictions between public/policy ‘rhetoric’ and real practices

• Atmosphere of ‘hypocrisy’ - cases are regularly ‘swept under the carpet’, ‘dismissed’, or subject to outcomes that are ‘too lenient’, despite policies that are ‘tough on cheating’

Why do we even have these policies in place if they are never actually enforced? (Staff 261)

• Lack of ‘consistency’ and ‘collaborative effort’ among staff, whereby ‘some’ staff, the ‘same staff every semester’, ‘take the issues very seriously’ while others do not ‘hold the line’.


• The drive for ‘market share’, ‘rankings’, ‘income’, ‘profitability’, ‘funds’, ‘KPIs’, and ‘bums on seats’ led universities to ‘turn a blind eye’ to cheating

Language in Code 1 - distance• Grammatical choices distanced staff from their universities referring to ‘the’

university more than 5x as often as ‘my’ university, and described it as a subject taking action:

the university ‘accepted the student’s defence’, ‘does not allow enough time’, ‘sends confused messages’, ‘would blame me’

c) Commercialisation, including the retention of students ‘at all costs’

Perceptions of preventative strategies• 18 in total, with no single strategy mentioned by a significant number • Included ‘assessment design’, academic skills development, and education in

‘ethics’, ‘values’ and ‘integrity’

Preventative strategies in use• 13 in total, most commonly ‘getting to know’ students and ‘in-class

assessment’• No specific discussion of the efficacy or outcomes of these strategies

Code 2: Prevention of contract cheating

Code 2: Prevention of contract cheating

Language in Code 2 - collectiveThe first person pronoun ‘we’ was used to discuss staff as a collective, and indicate that ‘we’ ‘need to’ and ‘should’ : • take action, ‘wake up to new assessment procedures’, ‘look more at

assessments’, ‘be setting new exams every year’, or ‘focussing on the morality of it’.

While staff did not position themselves as responsible for their institutional conditions (in Code 1), they did describe themselves as having a clear role in the prevention of contract cheating.

‘Getting to know students’ (significant overlap with Code 2, Prevention)• Staff look for ‘uncharacteristic’ work, a ‘mismatch’ or ‘disparity’ between:• ‘drafts’ and ‘completed assignments’, • ‘in-class work’ and ‘submitted assessment’, and • faltering oral language’ and ‘perfect flowing written language’.

Underpinning this were models in which only ‘one assessor’ marks a student so they have a ‘mental record’ of all their work

Code 3: Detection of contract cheating


Universities’ processes for detecting and managing cases relied heavily on text-matching tools. Staff describing this as ‘does not make it clear’, ‘does not have the capability’, and ‘is useless’.

The educator’s role to assess students’ abilities to meet learning outcomes did not appear to have value in the context of academic integrity inquiries.

there is not enough recognition of individual tutors as teaching professionals who … spend weeks developing relationships with and becoming aware of the

capabilities of individual students … if alarm bells are raised when a piece of work contrasts significantly with what they know about a student … their concerns

should at least be acknowledged (Staff 75).


Language in Code 3 - disempowermentStaff referred to ‘the’ university 6x as often as ‘my’ university to distance themselves from and express concerns about institutional conditions

Used ‘we’ to discuss actions • ‘we’ are ‘making changes’, ‘using tools’, ‘encouraging students’, ‘missing

some’, and ‘not detecting it’. But also in relation to university actions on them• ‘we are given no training’, ‘we get no specific hours’, ‘we do not get any time’,

and similarly, ‘I would like us to be able to …’.

Factors that ‘enable’ or ‘prompt’ students to engage in contract cheating (n=93)

• 15 factors in total, largely expressed with empathy/understanding for students

• Students are ‘unclear’ about appropriate assignment practices because they are ‘poorly prepared’, ‘lacking’ in academic confidence, don’t have sufficient ‘English competence’, or ‘do not see’ certain practices as cheating.

I very much understand the factors that may influence a student to cheat. Pressure to pass from family and society, poor literacy, being time poor, panicking at the last minute

etc, etc (Staff 219).

Code 4: Students cheat because…

Staff experience contract cheating as a systemic problem: a symptom of an increasingly commercialised higher education sectorPressure to admit and retain more students with economically driven managerial interventions in curriculum and assessment Institutional approaches to managing academic integrity are inconsistent and do not acknowledge teacher expertise in the investigation and breach decision-making processStaff who drew on perceptions rather than experience tended to advocate for ‘assessment design’Staff who drew on their own experience advocated for ‘getting to know’ students, often through ‘in-class assessment’: the strategy linked to the detection of contract cheating in this study’s quantitative data (Harper & Bretag at al. 2018).

Findings

Indicative Quote

In my discipline we have the largest numbers of students, the greatest numbers of international students, and staff who are overworked and not supported by the faculty

and institution to design appropriate assessment or stamp out this behaviour.

It would be a dream to be able to individualise assessment tasks or have an innovative approach where students can be assessed in class doing individual oral presentations.

We make do...

But the most frustrating thing is that when we do identify third party cheating … the follow up takes a minimalist approach to penalties. Despite collecting copious amounts

of evidence, and the enormous emotional and time drain to prepare these reports, management usually let students off - or find they have no case to answer. I would like to see more action on changing the culture by starting at the top - they need to be more

accountable ... totally over the 'talk fest' and lack of commitment (Staff 273)

Qualitative Findings: Students

Insert chosen ecosystem diagram

A total of 4,915 students from 8 universities (34.9%) responded to an open-text item:

Is there anything else you want to tell us about cheating in higher education?

A two-phase coding approach was used:

1. All responses were thematically coded and four descriptive themes emerged:

• Sharing and collaboration behaviours• Assessment design• University responses to cheating• International students

All responses in these themes were collated, duplicates removed, then a random sample of 33% (1160 comments) exported to Nvivo for coding.

2. An in vivo approach informed by grounded theory (Charmaz 2006) was used to code these in detail

Method

In total, only 17 students (0.01%) mentioned some variation of ‘contract cheating’. A further 3 mentioned ‘essay’ or ‘paper’ ‘mills’. Here is one reference that includes both:

I have never heard of contract cheating, but am aware of students using paper mills, is that the same?

"contract cheating" … is unheard of

Nobody I know actually pays people to do stuff

What did students say?I am very confused by the questions on this survey

I'm not sure your survey was asking the right questions

some of the questions in this survey make it seem like it happens all the time

the majority of cheating … does not fall into the categories outlined in this survey

the way you've conducted this survey is indicative that you don't understand the students and their methods of 'cheating'

The silence in the data: contract cheating

Coding Schema

Code 1‘We’ share and work together

Code 1: ‘We’ share and work together

Descriptions of students’ study and assessment preparation behaviours

‘We’ share and work together (2,131 references)• On these tasks (847 references)• In these ways (548 references)• In order to achieve these outcomes (736 references)

In addition, we identified judgements on reported behaviours in 625 responses:• Yes, it’s cheating• No, it’s not cheating• It’s ambiguous• It’s unfair

Code 1 illustrated the behavioural and ethical ‘norms’ of university learning cultures, as seen by students

‘We’ share and work together on these tasks (847 references)


Assignments‘assignments’ ‘assessments’

‘reports’‘essays’

‘practicals’‘tests’‘labs’

‘papers’

Quizzes (esp. online)‘online’

‘quizzes’‘tests’

‘in-class’‘weekly’‘regular’‘small’

Notes‘lecture notes’‘course notes’‘exam notes’‘tutorial notes’‘study notes’

‘just like a textbook but more compact’

‘kind of like a student-written textbook’

‘We’ share and work together in these ways (548 references)Sharing information (vertically)

This is when ‘older students’, ‘older peers’, ‘previous students’, and ‘students

from past years’ provide ‘complete assignments’, ‘old assignments’, ‘marked

assignments’, ‘assignments with feedback’, ‘examples of assignments that got a

good mark’, ‘exam papers’, and ‘exam questions and answers’ to students

‘expecting to take the unit at a later date’, ‘students with a lot of connections’,

‘new students’, and to students ‘a year lower’.


‘We’ share and work together in these ways (548 references)Sharing information (horizontally)

Students in the same class ‘swap assignments’, ‘give’ assignments, ‘share

notes’, ‘show each other our assignments’, and ‘discuss possible answers’

‘before submission’. Students do this ‘to share ideas’, ‘knowledge’, ‘others’

perspectives’, ‘tips’, and ‘feedback’. Others’ assignments provide a ‘guide’,

‘scaffold’ and ‘reference’, to ‘compare’, to see ‘I’m on the right track’, ‘that my

work agrees with theirs’, to see how they ‘laid it out’ or ‘approached it’, or to ‘give

someone a small nudge’ and ‘teach them’.


‘We’ share and work together in these ways (548 references)Working together (co-creation)‘Online quizzes’

‘A lot of students’, ‘literally everyone I know’ will ‘do online quizzes together’. In ‘a group’ we ‘complete parts’, ‘swap answers to one question for answers to another’, and‘co-operate and collaborate on answers’. It ‘almost seems "normal" to cheat’.

‘Individual assignments’Students will ‘get together’ to ‘hash out’ answers and ‘feed off other people's ideas’. This ‘varies between completely legitimate discussion to outright copying’. The ‘scope of collaboration’ is ‘very blurred’, with a ‘grey area’ or ‘fine line’ between ‘collaboration and cheating’. Submissions are ‘mixtures of cheating and own attempt’, or ‘a reflection of them and their closest three class mates’.


‘We’ share and work together in order to (736 references)


Help each other‘assist other students’

‘help people’‘help out friends’

‘everyone improves’‘turn to each other for

support’‘group interaction is

needed’‘peer assisted

studying’

Learn‘learning aid’

‘learning tool’

‘collaborative learning’

‘collectively learn’

‘co-operative learning’

‘use as a resource’

‘understanding’

‘learning experience’

‘widening our thoughts’

Cheat‘in online quizzes’

‘quizzes due weekly’‘small weekly quizzes’

‘students collude’‘for in-class tests’

‘obtain the old tests and cheat’‘on exams’

‘assisted others in exams’

Clarify‘clarify expectations’

‘what is required’

‘how to structure’

‘instructions are so unclear’

‘not explained’

‘woefully inadequate at communicating’

‘no exemplar assignments’

With the exception of quizzes online or in class, students share and work together with the intention to learn, not to cheat

[we have a] culture of helping each other be the best we can all be. Sharing notes mean

not everyone has to go to the trouble of making their own notes and can focus their time on

learning the content instead (if they don't find making notes helps them learn the content).

Sharing assignments helps other people (especially younger students) understand the

requirements, structure etc of the assignments better - often assignment descriptions are

unhelpful, and when someone has done well or even gotten decent constructive feedback

(rare) it's very helpful to get a better understanding of what they're looking for.

Code 1: Summary

These behaviours are social, not a digital transaction. There were only 6 references to sharing sites in the entire sample coded (n=1,160).

Working with groups and recognising the importance of building relationships

The student body is SO close knit, we exchange so much

I build an extensive database with learning material and old assignments for the whole of my study and it is provided to all students within my circle and often beyond

Most times you don't even have to ask people for their stuff, they'll just offer it to you for free. Transferred from USB to USB, or backpack to backpack.

via Dropbox or Facebook

binders…transferred from student to student

Code 1: Summary

These behaviours are social, but not everyone is included and that’s ‘unfair’.

as someone who is somewhat socially reclusive at uni, I am disgruntled by it and feel myself sometimes at a disadvantage

it's unfair that specific groups of friends or cliques within the university can actually gainaccess [to past papers] just by having friends that have previously completed the unit

I think this is a form of cheating, as it provides them with an unfair advantage over students who don't have a group to work with.

Code 1: Summary

There is a fine line between collaboration and cheating. That line is variously perceived to be:

UnclearThe only form of cheating I have engaged in was not listed - this is the cheating where you have an out-of-class study group but *gradually*, discussion of the content shades from abstract discussion of issues into swapping specific tips to get a specific question done, or specific solutions to tricky problems … That's way more "fuzzy" and subtle than having a special exam earpiece, and also, IMO, way more likely.

Unreasonablewhy spend several hours trying to understand a question when you can approach a friend who's already done it, see their answer, and derive yours off theirs in a fraction of the time

as long as you don't give 0 effort and submit 100% of it as your own then it's fine

learning by tinkering with a completed work is more engaging than starting from scratch

Code 1: Summary

There is a fine line between collaboration and cheating. That line is variously perceived to be:

Clearly crossed sometimesThe majority of cheating occurs from students sharing completed assignments among friends so they can compare and adjust or copy certain sections whilst changing small parts to avoid detection from markers

What does occur is getting a lot of different assignments … and re-wording for your own chosen topic … not direct plagiarism … but using several to structure your own report

Many people do only 2 assignments in four years because assignments are traded so often

Code 1: Summary

Code 1: Judgements on reported behaviours

Students judged certain behaviours as cheating, but this was commonly determined by the type of task, and/or the students’ intentions.

Yes it's cheating No it's not cheating It's ambiguous It's unfair

‘We' share and work together 35% 45% 16% 4%


Sharing and collaboration behaviours were more likely judged as cheating in the context of quizzes than in assignments or notes.



- On: Assignments 27% 51% 17% 5%

- On: Notes 9% 74% 13% 4%

- On: Quizzes, esp. online 61% 15% 19% 5%


Sharing and collaboration behaviours were not, in and of themselves, associated with a particular kind of judgement




- On: Notes 9% 74% 13% 4%


- By: Sharing our own work 18% 1% 41% 40%

- By: Sharing past years' work 33% 36% 23% 8%

- By: Working together 36% 30% 32% 2%


Where the intention was to help, learn or clarify a task, students overwhelmingly judged any associated behaviours as ‘not cheating’




- On: Notes 9% 74% 13% 4%


- By: Sharing our own work 18% 1% 41% 40%

- By: Sharing past years' work 33% 36% 23% 8%

- By: Working together 36% 30% 32% 2%

- In order to: Clarify the task 8% 74% 18% 0%

- In order to: Help each other 16% 65% 17% 3%

- In order to: Learn 5% 72% 18% 4%

Code 2Universities influence our behaviours

University practices identified as contributing to students’ study and assessment preparation behaviours

Universities influence our behaviours with… (605 references)• Assessment practices (253 references)

• Recycling assessment• Assessment Design

• Inadequate responses to academic misconduct (144 references)• Lecturers• Universities• Invigilators

• A range of other things (198 references)

Code 2 illustrated the influence of assessment practices on student behaviour, as seen by students

Code 2: Universities influence our behaviours

Assessment practices (263 references)‘Recycling’ assessment

Assessment tasks are ‘reissued’, ‘rehashed’, and ‘hardly change from year to

year’, so ‘floating around’ are the same ‘assignments’, ‘exams’, ‘questions’ and

‘deferred exam papers’. ‘Just changing a couple of words doesn't change

anything’. We are being ‘practical’ and ‘resourceful’, ‘without having to figure it

out ourselves’. But this ‘makes it possible’, or ‘very easy to cheat’. The

‘temptation is too strong’ so ‘cheating is expected’, ‘commonplace’: we ‘can’t

avoid cheating’.


Assessment practices (263 references)Assessment design

Exams: ‘Get rid of exams’. They don’t ‘reflect the real world’, ‘have nothing to do with

learning’, and are ‘useless in determining students’ capabilities’ beyond ‘encyclopedic

knowledge which everyone can google’.

Assignments: Assignments are designed to be ‘easy to grade’, but are ‘vague’ and ‘poorly

worded’ with ‘cryptic assignment criteria’ and ‘absurdly complicated methods of citation’.

Lecturers then ‘refuse’ to provide ‘exemplars’ or ‘guidance’ and prohibit ‘consultation

between students’.


Assessment practices (263 references)Assessment design

Group assessment: ‘Group assignments are the biggest threat to cheating’. ‘One or two

students do all the work’ and the ‘free loaders’ ‘cruise through’ and ‘get the same mark’.

‘No matter how many meeting we’ve hold, how much we’ve discussed … the majority of

teammate still contributed nothing’, ‘but have their name on the final hand in’. ‘This is the

same as cheating, but is condoned by the institution’: ‘awarding of marks to those who

haven't done the work’.


Inadequate responses to academic misconduct (144 refs)Everyone cheats at uni because there is no punishment.


Lecturers‘Lecturers’, ‘markers’,

‘tutors’, and ‘supervisors’ ‘don’t care’ and ‘don’t do

anything’. They ‘feign concern’ but either ‘turn a blind eye’, ‘take no action’,

‘secretly forgive’ or ‘allow it’. They should ‘be more

vigilant’ and ‘take greater measures’ to detect’, ‘monitor’ and ‘punish’

Invigilators‘Most cheating I've seen …

is during exams where there are not enough invigilators’. Exams are ‘monitored under

very lax conditions’: ‘ID cards aren’t always

checked’, and ‘invigilators are busy talking with each

other or just moving around without watching’

Universities‘The tutors and lecturers at my university don't get paid

enough to care about cheating’. If concerns are raised, ‘the University’ ‘will

do nothing’. ‘If it affects [university x] as a

business... well we'll reconsider that plagiarism claim’. ‘Standards are a

disgrace’.

University practices affect us. Assessment that is recycled, unclear, unfair or inauthentic encourages cheating. And it’s disappointing when universities fail to respond to obvious cheating.My university has a lot of online quizzes now, and it is easy for students to get together in a group and pool their answers … Also many courses nowadays try to save money on tutors by putting students into groups of say six students to complete projects that can be worth more than 50% of the course marks. Usually there is only one student who does most/all of the work, and yet all students receive the same group mark … it totally devalues the completion of the course concerned, as there will be 80% of students who complete with high marks … and yet know almost nothing … I feel sorry for future employers, and it will mean that the university loses its reputation pretty quickly … There are many professional essay writing/"editing" services that openly advertise on or near campus … The universities turn a blind eye.

Code 2: Summary

Code 3‘They’ cheat

Code 3: ‘They’ cheat

The international students really need to be monitored. They'll do whatever it takes to get those grades. It is extremely unfair to the domestic students as we

work our backsides off. We work extremely hard.


Assertions that cheating is a particular problem among international students

‘They’ cheat (437 references)• Due to these factors (129 references)• In these ways (116 references)• In order to achieve these outcomes (113 references)

The balance in the number of references across these child nodes reflects that the patterning of statements was very similar across responses.

Due to these factors (129 references)Inadequate English I have a very high proportion of international students in my classes who, in class appear to have language difficulties.... I wonder how they do so well on written assignments

We have a lot of international students, many of which can barely speak English. For them to complete our assignments, which are given in English … many of them are DEFINITELY cheating. It's infuriating.

There are numerous international students who I am pretty sure cannot do many of the assignments set in my courses, because their English is very poor. Someone must be doing them for them.

I do not understand why international students are not tested for appropriate fluency before commencing … My bet would be that Unis are too eager for money.


Due to these factors (129 references)Cultural norms

A big problem with international students due to cultural norms

factors such as the competitiveness inherent in their culture, the shame bad marks might bring … all play a large role

cultures which prioritise high grades and rote learning over individual learning

overseas students may not necessarily have the same respect of rules, regulations or cultures of ethics which we have in our country

Maybe it's a cultural thing - some cultures don't see it as a big deal to cheat as long asyou don't get caught


In these ways (116 references)OutsourcingI have heard about people writing their essays and completing exams for them

I believe that many international students utilize services online to cheat

If a unit costs $5000, paying $4800 to pass is a bargain compared to repeating the unit... this especially for international students

I suspect that those who pay others to complete assignments for them come from an international background

I have seen some of the international students in my class 'buying' assignments

I think International students are more likely to engage in buying papers


In these ways (116 references)Relying on othersthere seems to be a higher proportion of 'help' required for international students

not contributing to group assignments and relying entirely on the work of local students is extremely common

looking over at people's work, asking to look at others essays

I am a domestic student and I have had to do group work with international students who wanted to submit a report that was word-for-word the same as one of their friends

International students regularly submit plagiarized work directly from Wikipedia as their portion of group assignments … we avoid having them in our groups since we end up having to do their part of the assignment as well as our own


In order to achieve these outcomes (113 references)Cheat[They] create groups with other international students where papers are bought/sold/traded.

[Students from X country] work collaboratively

Online tests can increase the amount of students cheating. Many international students … take photos of the questions and answers and share it if the person got a good mark

there's a lot of online databases that are in foreign language where people upload answer sheets and work

Time and time again I see students from overseas comparing and sharing information on how they can cheat




‘We’ share and work together 35.04% 45.33% 15.91% 3.73%

- By: Sharing our own work 17.94% 1.09% 40.96% 40.01%

- By: Sharing past years' work 33.15% 36.06% 22.72% 8.07%

- By: Working together 36.45% 29.64% 31.68% 2.23%

- In order to: Clarify the task 8.51% 73.7% 17.8% 0%

- In order to: Help each other 16.03% 64.6% 16.54% 2.84%

- In order to: Learn 5.37% 72.14% 18.2% 4.29%

'They' cheat 91.37% 0.00% 2.88% 5.76%

- Due to: Cultural norms 88.46% 0.00% 0.00% 11.54%

- Due to: Inadequate English 82.35% 0.00% 7.84% 9.80%

- By: Outsourcing work 96.15% 0.00% 1.92% 1.92%

- By: Relying on others 70.00% 0.00% 5.00% 25.00%

There is a perception among students that international students are most likely to cheat. The consequences of this

perception - true or not - are worrying.

Code 3: Summary

‘We’Students

‘They’International

Students

‘You’The University

We share information and work together … and cheat if it’s an online quiz

To help each other, to learn (and sometimes to cheat)

It is social, not commercial, with recognized sharing norms

But the line between collaborating and cheating is not clear

Your practices affect us…

You encourage us to cross a line when your assessment is recycled, unclear, unfair or

inauthentic.

We’re disappointed when you don’t penalisewhat we believe IS cheating.

International Students are held outside our social constructs

We do not share with them and believe they are more likely to outsource their

work

We understand they have pressures such as ESL, but Universities set them up for

this

‘We’Students


Students

contractcontract

‘We’Students


Students

contractcontractsocialcheating

Conclusions: The desire path metaphor

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath

Desire path: a path created by regular use

Contrary to popular belief, they don’t tend to represent the shortest route between two points

They are the result of certain opposing human forces, including the tendency to take the shortest path, the tendency to take the most comfortable path, and the tendency to avoid a risky or unsafe path.

A metaphor for the qualitative data.


https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments



Students willingly and happily collaborate to learn, but they do not report positively about the group work we design for them.

Students build their own resource databases and sharing processes, because universities resist the provision of exemplar assignments and past exam papers.

Students told us loudly that they help each other to learn, but current rhetoric about students suggests that their learning behaviours are transactional and driven by competition, self-interest, and the desire to get a job.

Students tell us that cheating is social not commercial or digital, but the sector focus remains on contract cheating, file sharing sites and technological solutions.

Students’ reports dehumanized international students. Were we aware of that sentiment?



What’s driving our curriculum and assessment design if it’s not what students say they want and need in order to learn?

Recommendations: what the students might say

A personalised, strengths-based program structure that has social learning at its core, and focusses on growth and self-development rather than employment outcomes

Recommendations: what the students might say

SectorThe problem stems from the fact that our economy and education system do not encourage personal growth, the pursuit of knowledge or the development of real-world skills.

InstitutionEnsure students can cope ... with the course before taking their money.

EducatorUse assessment that is:• personal and job related• a window reflecting innate talents

and understanding• broken down into smaller chunks

where students have a better ability to receive and respond to feedback

Formalise co-operation into a peer feedback task, where students assess the work of other students … in a controlled setting

StudentExtend ‘helping each other’ to all students.

[Design programs that are] custom made for individuals to gradually enhance their interest to develop within themselves to see where their academic and work interests lie

Recommendations: what the staff might say

SectorEconomic strains on universities created by the de-funding of higher education provide strong disincentives to fail or punish any students, especially full fee-paying students.Casualisation of the workforce impacts academic integrity.

InstitutionClear and consistently applied policies and procedures around breaches of academic integrity.Workload models do not reflect the time and effort associated with preventing, detecting and reporting contract cheating.

Educator‘Efficiencies’ in teaching and assessment impact personal, professional and pedagogical practices.Professional expertise and judgement needs to be included, and valued, as evidence.

StudentWe understand, and to a certain extent empathise, that there are pressures, including a lack of language proficiency, low academic confidence and assessment design, influencing cheating behaviours.

Bretag, T., & Harper, R. (2018). Addressing contract cheating: local and global responses. Project Contract Cheat Assess Design https://cheatingandassessment. edu. au/publications-presentations/. Assessed, 18.

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Rundle, K., Newton, P. M., Ellis, C., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating in Australian higher education: a comparison of non-university higher education providers and universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., ... & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837-1856.

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., ... & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676-691.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE

Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., ... & Saddiqui, S. (2020). Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 454-469.

Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263-278.

Harper, R., Bretag, T., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university staff. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1857-1873.

With thanks to Edward McAndrew edwardfelix.com for graphic design.

References

contract cheating and assessment design olt strategic

Documents