Tính chính trực trong học tập

Tính chính trực trong học tập là:

‘Sự kỳ vọng rằng các giáo viên, sinh viên, nhà nghiên cứu và tất cả các thành viên của cộng đồng học tập hành động với: tính trung thực, sự tin cậy, công bằng, sự tôn trọng và tinh thần trách nhiệm.'

Vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập còn được gọi là "hành vi sai trái trong học tập" hoặc ‘không trung thực trong học tập’.

Tất cả các sinh viên giáo dục đại học của Úc được kỳ vọng sẽ duy trì tính chính trực trong học tập trong suốt quá trình học tập của họ. Một cách quan trọng để duy trì tính chính trực trong học tập của bạn là liên hệ với giáo viên hoặc trường học của bạn nếu bạn đang gặp vấn đề trong học tập và làm việc với họ để tìm ra giải pháp.

Việc nghiên cứu và học tập cung cấp kiến thức mong đợi cho một sinh viên tốt nghiệp khóa học của bạn nhưng bất kỳ hình thức gian lận nào cũng có nghĩa là bạn có thể bỏ lỡ kiến thức chuyên môn quan trọng và thực hành mà bạn cần để thành công trong sự nghiệp tương lai của mình.

Bảo vệ danh tiếng của bạn

Các sinh viên trở thành một phần của cộng đồng học tập khi tham gia học tập. Những hành động làm suy yếu tính chính trực trong học tập của khóa học hoặc cơ sở giáo dục của bạn có thể ảnh hưởng đến danh tiếng của bạn trong tương lai. Ví dụ: nếu bạn bị phát hiện gian lận trong quá trình học, các cơ quan chuyên môn có thể từ chối công nhận bạn.

Tránh tội phạm

Duy trì sự chính trực trong học tập cũng bảo vệ bạn khỏi tội phạm.

Dịch vụ gian lận thương mại là bất hợp pháp ở Úc.

Các sinh viên sử dụng các dịch vụ gian lận bất hợp pháp, để mua một bài luận, các ghi chú học tập hoặc để ai đó mạo danh họ trong một kỳ thi, cũng có nguy cơ bị tống tiền. Những người điều hành các dịch vụ gian lận bất hợp pháp có thể đe dọa thông báo cho trường đại học hoặc nhà tuyển dụng tương lai của sinh viên về hành vi gian lận của họ trừ khi sinh viên trả cho họ một khoản tiền lớn - đôi khi vài năm sau khi việc gian lận diễn ra.

Các hành vi hỗ trợ tính chính trực trong học tập

Bạn có thể hỗ trợ tính chính trực trong học tập bằng cách¹:

• xác nhận thông tin bạn sử dụng đến từ đâu, trích dẫn rõ ràng hoặc ghi nguồn tài liệu tham khảo
• tự làm bài kiểm tra và nộp bài của chính bạn
• báo cáo chính xác các kết quả nghiên cứu và tuân thủ các chính sách nghiên cứu
• sử dụng thông tin một cách thích hợp, theo luật bản quyền và quyền riêng tư
• hành động có đạo đức hoặc làm 'điều đúng đắn', ngay cả khi bạn đang gặp khó khăn.

Nếu bạn đang gặp vấn đề có thể ảnh hưởng đến kết quả học tập của mình, tốt nhất bạn nên nói chuyện với giảng viên hoặc gia sư hoặc điều phối viên khóa học của bạn.

Các hành vi làm suy yếu tính chính trực trong học tập

Nhiều hành vi của sinh viên có thể làm suy yếu tính chính trực trong học tập. Đôi khi, các sinh viên nhầm tưởng rằng những hành vi này là phổ biến hoặc không để lại hậu quả. Điều này sai. Các hình phạt đáng kể có thể áp dụng đối với việc vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập (xem Các hình phạt khi vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập bên dưới để biết thêm thông tin).

Các hành vi làm suy yếu hoặc vi phạm sự chính trực trong học tập bao gồm²:

Đạo văn

Nộp một bài làm không phải của bạn mà không xác nhận, trích dẫn hoặc tham chiếu nguồn gốc của bài làm, được gọi là đạo văn. Bất kể là bạn làm điều này vô tình hay cố ý, bất kể là bạn thay đổi các từ để biến chúng thành của riêng mình hay chỉ đơn thuần sao chép và dán đều không quan trọng. Khi bạn đang sử dụng suy nghĩ và ý tưởng của người khác, bạn phải ghi tài liệu nguồn tham khảo.

Chế biến hoặc nộp lại một bài làm

Chế biến bao gồm việc nộp (hoặc nộp lại) một bài làm đã được đánh giá mà không có sự cho phép của giáo viên. Ví dụ: nộp báo cáo mà bạn đã được cho điểm ở năm thứ nhất như một phần công việc của bạn ở năm thứ ba. Nếu bạn muốn phát triển thêm dựa trên công việc trước đây của mình, bạn nên thảo luận điều này trước với giáo viên của mình.

Bịa đặt thông tin

Bịa đặt liên quan đến việc tạo ra thông tin cho các bài đánh giá tập trung vào nghiên cứu, chẳng hạn như dữ liệu thử nghiệm hoặc phỏng vấn. Nó cũng có thể bao gồm việc sáng chế ra các nguồn dữ liệu, bằng chứng hoặc ý tưởng bằng cách trích dẫn các ấn phẩm không chính xác hoặc đơn giản là không tồn tại.

Thông đồng

Thông đồng bao gồm việc tham gia hợp tác bất hợp pháp với một hoặc nhiều sinh viên khác để hoàn thành một bài làm có thể đánh giá được. Điều này khác với việc làm bài tập nhóm do giáo viên của bạn đặt ra. Ví dụ về việc hợp tác bất hợp pháp bao gồm làm việc với một người bạn hoặc một nhóm bạn để viết một bài luận hoặc báo cáo được coi là một bài làm riêng lẻ. Nó cũng có thể bao gồm việc chia sẻ câu hỏi và câu trả lời câu đố hoặc bài kiểm tra với các sinh viên khác, cũng như các bài tập viết như báo cáo và tiểu luận. Việc hợp tác bất hợp pháp có thể mang lại lợi ích không công bằng cho một sinh viên hoặc một nhóm sinh viên so với những người khác. Các sinh viên cũng không nên chia sẻ bài làm của mình với người khác vì có nguy cơ người được bạn chia sẻ nó có thể tải nó lên một dịch vụ gian lận thương mại bất hợp pháp hoặc lưu hành nó cho người khác.

Gian lận trong kỳ thi

Gian lận trong kỳ thi bao gồm:

• viết 'ghi chú gian lận' trên cơ thể của bạn hoặc tài liệu bạn mang vào phòng thi
• tìm cách sao chép từ các sinh viên khác
• giao tiếp với các sinh viên khác hoặc những người bên ngoài địa điểm tổ chức kỳ thi trong khi kỳ thi đang diễn ra
• sử dụng thiết bị điện tử để truy cập thông tin liên quan đến kỳ thi khi kỳ thi đang diễn ra
• mang các món đồ bị cấm, chẳng hạn như máy tính hoặc sách giáo khoa không được chấp thuận vào các kỳ thi.

Gian lận hợp đồng và mạo danh

Gian lận hợp đồng là một loại gian lận thương mại bất hợp pháp. Nó bao gồm việc nhờ người khác hoàn thành một phần hoặc toàn bộ bài làm của bạn và sau đó nộp bài làm đó như thể bạn đã tự mình hoàn thành bài làm đó. Điều này có thể bao gồm việc nhờ người khác làm bài kiểm tra cho bạn hoặc nhờ họ viết một bài luận, báo cáo hoặc một số loại bài tập khác, đôi khi được gọi là 'viết ma'.

Các hành động hỗ trợ các dịch vụ gian lận hợp đồng bất hợp pháp cũng bị coi là vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập. Điều này bao gồm việc sinh viên tải lên các tài liệu giảng dạy chẳng hạn như bài kiểm tra thực hành, các tờ chiếu (slide) trình bày bài giảng và câu hỏi bài tập vào phần 'ghi chú học tập'.

Hình phạt khi vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập

Các sinh viên có thể phải đối mặt với một loạt hình phạt nếu vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập, thường được gọi là "hành vi sai trái trong học tập" hoặc "không trung thực trong học tập". Người ta thường nghĩ rằng sinh viên hiếm khi bị bắt. Tuy nhiên, nghiên cứu cho thấy các giáo viên và cơ sở giáo dục có thể phát hiện ra những vi phạm về tính chính trực trong học tập, và những sinh viên làm sai sẽ bị bắt³. Và các cách bắt gian lận không ngừng được cải tiến.

Các hình phạt đối với việc vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập có thể bao gồm:

• phải lặp lại bài đánh giá hoặc đơn vị học phần
• không đạt bài đánh giá, đơn vị học phần hoặc khóa học
• bị trục xuất khỏi cơ sở giáo dục của bạn, điều này có thể ảnh hưởng đến thị thực sinh viên của bạn
• đối mặt với cáo buộc hình sự.

Ngoài nguy cơ bị phạt tiền trong học tập hoặc hình sự, việc bị phát hiện vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập có thể ảnh hưởng đến mối quan hệ của bạn với các sinh viên khác, gia đình và bạn bè; ảnh hưởng đến sự nghiệp tương lai của bạn và khiến bạn bị tổn thất tài chính hoặc thậm chí mất thị thực du học.

Tìm sự giúp đỡ

Nếu bạn có thắc mắc về tính chính trực trong học tập, hoặc cần tư vấn và hỗ trợ về kỹ năng học tập, bạn nên nói chuyện với cơ sở giáo dục của bạn. Giáo viên hoặc điều phối viên khóa học của bạn là một nơi tốt để bắt đầu.

Nếu bạn bị cáo buộc đã vi phạm tính chính trực trong học tập, bạn nên xử lý vấn đề này một cách nghiêm túc. Cơ sở giáo dục của bạn phải có các chính sách và thủ tục rõ ràng liên quan đến kỷ luật, khiếu nại và kháng cáo của sinh viên. Bạn nên đọc các chính sách này và bạn cũng có thể tìm kiếm các dịch vụ bênh vực và hỗ trợ từ hiệp hội sinh viên của mình nếu có tại cơ sở giáo dục của bạn.

Ghi chú

1. Các định nghĩa được mô phỏng từ tài liệu do Đại học La Trobe soạn thảo.
2. Các định nghĩa mô phỏng từ tài liệu do Đại học Sydney soạn thảo.
3. Dawson, P. & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2017). Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.

Quay lại trang đích Hiểu biết về Tính Chính trực trong Học tập

Introduction

Academic integrity is integral to preserving the reputation of Australia’s higher education sector and protecting student interests.

In recent years, increasing threats to academic integrity have emerged due to the wide-spread growth of commercial essay services and attempts by criminal actors to entice students into deceptive or fraudulent activity.

To combat these threats, TEQSA commissioned a group of scholars to share research, develop and deliver a suite of workshops and create a toolkit to assist integrity practitioners in promoting academic integrity and addressing commercial academic cheating within their institutions.

This initiative was funded by the Australian Government and the workshop materials and toolkit can be accessed for free.

Academic integrity toolkit

Good practice in academic integrity encountered by the team during the workshops

Tracey Bretag, Guy Curtis, Christine Slade, Margot McNeill

In delivering the workshops around Australia, the team were delighted to see many examples of good practice in academic integrity that already exist in universities and independent higher education providers. Overall, we were impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of professionals across the country who have a keen and abiding interest in ensuring academic integrity. In addition, an overarching theme everywhere was the focus on education as a goal, a value, and a guiding principle. The 'heart of the educator' shone through in workshop participants’ concentration on helping students learn how to make good ethical decisions and in taking an educative, rather than punitive, approach to dealing with academic integrity breaches. 

Within the workshops, we presented a range of good practice examples from various higher education institutions across Australia, including Griffith, Curtin, UniSA, Monash, and UWA. Through presenting the workshops we came to learn of many more specific examples of good practice. These are too numerous to list, however, some highlights included:

1. Organisational structures to promote a sustainable and scalable approach to academic integrity. For example, the University of Newcastle have a tiered structure of academic integrity officers who shared practice between themselves
2. Excellent work being done at UNSW to address the threat of cheating, with real resources allocated to a central unit with trained investigators and decision-makers
3. Charles Darwin University’s (CDU) excellent and informative academic integrity resources that were co-produced with students. Many highlights of good practice have been shared by their creators or custodians in the case studies available in the academic integrity toolkit. 

The materials developed for, and included in, the toolkit were also informed by the expressed needs of workshop participants. Many of the participants in the workshops told members of the team that the following resources would be particularly valuable: summary guidance on how to detect contract cheating, the option to re-watch the workshop, access to workshop slides to use in their own in-house training, more examples of good practice and benchmarking resources to ensure HESF compliance regarding academic integrity. 

As well as the good practice that we encountered, we also undertook an analysis of the learning that workshop participants gained. In short, participants significantly increased their awareness of academic integrity issues and information as a result of attending the workshops. We prepared a detailed report of this analysis for submission to Higher Education Research and Development. Download the report: Developing and evaluating nationwide expert-delivered academic integrity workshops for the higher education sector in Australia

Acknowledgements

Project team

Professor Tracey Bretag University of South Australia

Dr Guy Curtis The University of Western Australia

Dr Margot McNeill International College of Management Sydney

Dr Christine Slade The University of Queensland

Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Webinars

• Academic integrity - urgent and emerging topics, Dr Sarah Elaine Eaton
• Contract cheating in the context of COVID, Dr Thomas Lancaster  
• Detecting and addressing contract cheating, Associate Professor Phill Dawson  
• Online exam integrity, Dr Sarah Eaton
• Reducing contract cheating, Dr Thomas Lancaster and Dr Irene Glendinning  
• Strategies to enhance academic integrity policies, Dr James Orr

 

Detection

Detection is possible!

Despite common misperceptions and uncertainty around detection, it is possible to detect work which has not been completed by the student. This can be done by markers and other staff trained in the area, additionally, software may be able to help detect cases.

Key things to look for may include metadata in the assignment which is unusual (for example the author name is different to the student name); the template is unusual (for example, the proof language is Indian English, rather than Australian English, or it does not follow the provided template given by the University); the subject matter discussed does not respond to the question posed and seems to be responding to a different question. Items within the work may also indicate outsourcing, such as strange or hidden textboxes; reflections given by students don’t relate to the workshop or practical session held in the class.

Staff and software can help detect cases of contract cheating

In addition to these general indicators, where possible, additional indicators which may alert markers to a suspicion of contract cheating is different in language style or expertise when compared to the student’s prior work. It is acknowledged that in large cohorts this is not something which is always possible to be detected, particularly where there may be a large pool of tutors or makers managing a subject.

A study by Dawson and Sutherland-Smith (2017) found that markers detected contract cheating 62 per cent of time accurately, when knew that they should be looking for it. Any evidence collected should be referred to the student to allow them to respond, so any indicators found should be collated and summarised. For in-depth detail on detection indicators, refer to the substantiating contract cheating guide. 

• Clare, Walker, and Hobson 2017
  Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue
• Dawson, Sutherland-Smith, and Ricksen 2020
  Can software improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A pilot study of the Turnitin authorship investigate alpha
• Dawson and Sutherland-Smith 2017
  Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study
• Rogerson 2017
  Detecting contract cheating in essay and report submissions: process, patterns, clues, and conversations
• TEQSA 2020
  Guide to substantiating cases of contract cheating, with list of indicators to help with detection

Local area experts

Local area experts can not only help in the determination of cases or evidence gathering in relation to the detection of potential outsourcing, but may also be able to train other staff in the key signs to look out for. It is recommended that all providers have staff who have undertaken some training or development in this area.

• Dawson and Sutherland-Smith 2019
  Can training improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A multi-disciplinary pre-post study
• Detecting and addressing contract cheating in online assessment
• Substantiating contract cheating guide

Evidence and processes

Gathering and determining suitable evidence

There are different methods to detect contract cheating. Various indicators present in student assignments can raise suspicion that the work has been outsourced. Essential to the process is gathering evidence in a clear way that allows decision-makers to come to a determination of whether a case is substantiated or not; and for students (and any support person or advocate) to be able to appropriately respond to the allegation.

Gathering evidence in a clear way is essential

Evidence might include a variety of objects, such as screenshots, edited files, summary reports, images, or statements from persons with evidence of the outsourcing, or emails. Often the evidence will include a report from a marker, or local area expert who determined the original suspicion based on some of the indicator factors, or from using any available technology.

As with text-matching software, for providers who do use technology to assist in their detection processes, human interaction to quality control outputs of system reports is important. An expert eye can provide a clear intervention in data which may or may not be a substantial enough level of evidence for local processes. This is equally applicable whether determining evidence for submitted assignments or considering suspicions of outsourcing in online exams.

• Chuang, Craig, and Femiani 2017 
  Detecting probable cheating during online assessments
• Juola 2012
  Using technology to determine authorship attribution: Large scale experiments in authorship attribution

Standards of evidence and burden of proof

Evidence that is presented to students needs to be clear. The standard of proof for providers is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. This means that the burden of proof for a decision-maker (which may be an individual, panel of people, or committee) is that it is more probable than not that the evidence presented before them indicates that the student submitted work which was completed by someone else.

The evidence considered must include the evidence collated by the institution, and any evidence submitted or presented in response to the allegation and original evidence by the student, or the student’s representative. 

Evidence should be detailed

Any outcome or determination letter which informs the student as to whether the allegation was substantiated or not, must refer to the evidence that was used by the decision-maker/s to come to that outcome. For example, during any committee hearing, it may have been found that a piece of evidence was refuted by the student, and the counter evidence accepted by the committee. The evidence which related to the determination of the case (whether substantiated or not substantiated) should be detailed.

Provided no details of the decision-making process are shared (for example do not share minutes or case reports), it is recommended that outcomes are given to those reporting suspicions and allegations. This provides confidence to persons throughout the institution that cases are carefully considered and matters with substantial evidence are managed appropriately.

• Ellis, Haeringen, and House 2020
  Technology and standards of evidence in contract cheating case management

Managing caseloads, procedural fairness, and natural justice

Providers should ensure that they have sufficient systems, structures, and processes to manage cases which are brought to them in a timely manner, and one in which procedural fairness and consistency is applied at all times.

Sufficient systems, structures and processes are required to manage contract cheating cases

Training for staff involved in collating evidence, or considering evidence, is important to ensure parity of treatment in regard to evidentiary standards, as well as in considering counter-evidence and responses provided by the student whose work is being questioned. Decision-makers must be able to interpret case reports or data presented. Where applicable, this training should also be provided to student advocacy services.

Providers may have interim steps which allow for informal or formal conversations or interviews, which may alleviate the need for a formal hearing. Irrespective of the processes, all students should be afforded the same opportunities to defend their work (natural justice). Templates and standard practices can assist providers in maintaining this consistency, where processes for investigation and decision-making are decentralised. Clear accountability for each step of the process should be defined.

Site type awareness and blocking

TEQSA will be developing further advice and guidance on this matter over coming months.

Sites and companies can be ruthless!

Not only are the marketing campaigns from these sites predatory and ruthless in targeting students, they are also very persuasive when it comes to promoting themselves as legitimate methods for students to get help in their studies. Messaging often focusses on the key drivers previously outlined that may lead students to approach an outsourcing provider in the first place.

Contract cheating companies often promote themselves as legitimate methods for students to get help

Companies may also criticise educational institutions as not providing students with enough help, support, or time from tutors, and that they (the company) may be a great option for the student to get help. These targeted campaigns are usually found in the more commercial companies, contract cheating companies and bidding sites, but similar tactics may be found in the peer-sharing sites.

Business models may often have a parent company with several child companies, all of which share information and may use work a student uploads onto a peer-sharing site to sell on to another person through one of their essay mill sites. This has even been seen in the detail found in the small print of a site’s T&Cs.

Companies can also trawl public pages and social media feeds for keywords to offer their services to people posting that they are working on an assignment, and stressed, for example. As seen in research undertaken by Amigud in the US, companies are not put off in advertising their services even when this may be illegal.

• Amigud 2019
  Analysis of Twitter targeting and promotion of contract cheating
• Ellis, Zucker, and Randall 2018
  The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites
• Rowland et al 2018
  Marketing campaigns of sites: ‘Just Turn to Us’: the persuasive features of contract cheating websites

Direct targeting and security considerations

What can be alarming to students are the direct targeting to personal phone numbers or email accounts. This can happen for a variety of reasons, unrelated to an account being hacked. For example, Facebook groups set up for students may show the list of group members. Students who include their phone number on their Facebook profile may have their phone number accessed this way. Companies may set up general targeted mailing campaigns based on the known end of university email addresses or may have gained access to student class lists. Unfortunately, when engaging some contract cheating providers, students have allowed providers access to their unit sites to complete work for them, giving over their email address and password. This gives the third-party access to class lists or email listings.

Educating students on cyber security issues will help protect their contact details

In order to address direct targeting, it is advised that providers communicate with their students about these issues and that messaging includes appropriate cyber security measures. Educating students on security issues related to third party provider access to their own student accounts will help protect those individual students and reduce impact on others if student class lists are accessed.

Blocking of sites

The blocking of sites identified as being a contract cheating (or other form of assignment provider) can be one method to prevent access to these sites. The action has been promoted as a method to send a message to students that these types of sites are not condoned. However, there are some drawbacks with site blocking.

Firstly, students will only receive the message when on campus and logging on from institutional Wi-Fi, or when using a provider’s computer (in a computer lab for example). Messaging will not work when students are off-campus, and given the mass shift to online delivery to adhere to COVID-safe distancing measures across Australia, this will be applicable to the vast majority of the student body. 

Site blocking lists will need to be regularly maintained

Secondly, it is recommended that any blocking of sites is coupled with an educative response to refer students to local support services and study guides or referring them to academic integrity definitions in regard to breaching expected standards.

Finally, the list of sites itself changes frequently. Sites may often have a parent and child site and these child sites are known to change their names or redirect to other sites. New sites are regularly appearing and will need to be added to sites to be blocked. Any list which is utilised at an institution will need to be regularly maintained.

• Seeland, Stoesz, and Vogt 2020
  Effectiveness of blocking sites: Preventing online shopping for completed assessments: Protecting students by blocking access to contract cheating websites on institutional networks 

What is contract cheating?

Contract cheating includes different types of behaviours in which a student outsources their work, or contracts it out, to a third party.

TEQSA defines contract cheating as: ‘…when students outsource their assessments to a third party, whether that is a commercial provider, current or former student, family member or acquaintance. It includes the unauthorised use of file-sharing sites, as well as organising another person to take an examination’ (see Good Practice Note: Addressing Contract Cheating, p.2).

Many behaviours which might fit within the definition of contract cheating are not as obvious as the more traditional methods of these behaviours, often referred to as essay mills or using ‘ghostwriters’. 

There may not always be an exchange of money, the assignment may have been obtained for free, sometimes from credits built up with commercial providers. Work might have been given to students from those known to them (such as friends, family or other students), as well as in exchange for something else. 

There may not always be an exchange of money

Researchers globally have studied the different types of outsourcing behaviours and sites, such as peer-sharing sites, using friends and family to do assignments, engaging with bidding sites, and employing other types of commercial contract cheating for assignment or online exam completion. 

Some examples of relevant research includes:

• Awdry 2020 
  Assignment outsourcing: moving beyond contract cheating 
• Clarke and Lancaster 2006
  Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying usage of contract cheating sites
• Ellis, Zucker, and Randall 2018
  The infernal business of contract cheating: Understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites
• Harrison et al 2020, Study ‘help’ sites in Canada
  Student and faculty perceptions of study helper sites: A new practice in collaborative cheating
• Lancaster and Clarke 2016
  Definitions of contract cheating and bidding sites: Contract cheating: The outsourcing of assessed work
• Rogerson and Basanta 2016
  Peer-to-peer filesharing and academic integrity in the internet age

What is the prevalence of student engagement with contract cheating?

Varying rates have been reported in global research of the proportion of students who may be engaging in these behaviours.

The largest two studies undertaken in Australia have reported prevalence rates of 5.78 per cent (Bretag, 2018, based on contract cheating and sharing behaviours) and 7.53 per cent (Awdry, 2020, based on informal and formal outsourcing types). 

Up to about 8 per cent of students may be engaged in contract cheating

Other large-scale studies include:

• Awdry 2020
  Global study on prevalence rates, including Australia, Assignment outsourcing: moving beyond contract cheating
• Bowers 1964
  Student dishonesty and its control in college. One of the original studies, included behaviours which would today be defined as contract cheating
• Bretag et al 2018
  Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students
• Curtis and Clare 2017
  How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders?
• McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield 2001
  Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research 
• McCabe 2005
  Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective
• Newton 2018
  How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review

How to define the problem locally

Do you have a strategy?

If your institution doesn’t have a strategy or framework for approaching and addressing academic integrity, it is possible that the practices you may have in place for education, training, policy definitions, detection and processing of suspected breaches are not aligned and their impact may be lessened.

Determine the approach you want to take and then assess if your policies and education match the strategy you are promoting. What is the focus? Education and training; communication; detection and procedural fairness in case management?

Substantial research exists on the promotion of academic integrity frameworks and the key considerations for addressing breaches, whether for plagiarism generally, or contract cheating specifically.

• Bretag and Mahmud 2016
  A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education
• Morris 2016
  Academic integrity: A teaching and learning approach
• Morris 2018
  Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating
• Sutherland-Smith 2014
  Thinking about discourse of institutional strategies on plagiarism management: Legality, quality assurance and learning: Competing discourses of plagiarism management in higher education

Clear policy and procedures are critical!

Providers must ensure that their policies and procedures clearly define behaviours which incorporate contract cheating.

This should be explained in clear, plain English, with no ambiguity. Having clear definitions will guide students, and also support any action which providers may take following a reported suspicion or allegation of any academic integrity breaches. For further information, see the Evidence and Processes section.

Producing student and staff facing guides will also help providers ensure that the entire institutional community has an understanding of what behaviours may be included in the definition of contract cheating. Whether, for example, this is as a separate breach of any academic integrity behaviours, or as a sub-section of plagiarism. Providing clear examples of breaches can also help to promote understanding of what is not acceptable. Connecting any breach definitions back to any other relevant documents (such as a Student Code of Conduct, or Student Responsibilities) is important. Providers should also make sure that all definitions or descriptions in different documents are consistent. 

Providing clear examples of breaches can help to promote understanding of what is unacceptable

If, due to specialisations in certain delivered courses, there are very specific examples which could arise, detail those in course or school/faculty materials. Framing the ethics required and what breaches may occur in a local context educates students studying in those fields, as well as those staff teaching them.

It is also important that terminology does not exclude certain areas, for example that definitions are not focussed on ‘written work’ or types of file submissions which might exclude other types of student assessment that involves physical objects, design, music and other non-text based work. The vast majority of assessment types can be outsourced.

For advice and information on assessment design, refer to the Academic Integrity Toolkit.

Incorporate institution definitions and links to training or relevant resources

In addition to having clear policies, the methods of support for students and staff need to be well articulated and signposted. Policies should promote expected behaviours of ethics and honesty, as well as what breaches might look like. Giving exemplars of good practice is useful for student’s education in these areas.

If your institution has peer support networks, study skills areas, library and learning support or local faculty/school support, detail those and provide live links in any guides or webpages about the topic. This ensures that people are not clicking around pages trying to find help either during the assessment process or after having received an allegation.

Advocacy or support services should be involved in any policy, definition, or guidance updates so that all staff have the same understanding and knowledge of documentation and processes, and no conflicting advice is given to students.

What motivates students to engage in this behaviour?

There are multiple different factors which can lead students to engage in contract cheating and associated behaviours. The reasons outlined below are not exhaustive, but are some of the more common reasons observed.

Peer effects, normalisation, and neutralisation

Studies have shown that students' beliefs of the rate at which others are cheating or that cheating is normalised amongst their peer groups can influence their decision to cheat. Often their beliefs are not founded in fact, but assumptions. However, some research has shown that students have directly reported knowing students who have cheated. Encouraging students to have open conversations about honest behaviours or reporting those known to be cheating, can help to minimise some of these peer effects. 

Reporting those known to be cheating can help minimise peer effects

Additionally, some research has shown that students might ‘neutralise’ their behaviour (derived from Techniques of neutralisation, Sykes and Matza 1957). Blaming others for the reasons that led them to cheat (Everyone does it, so why shouldn’t I? Tutors don’t give us enough time or support. I have too many assignments due at the same time).

Situational variables

Disengagement/disinterest with courses, units, learning components or assignments themselves (for example, not understanding the purpose of why they are being asked to do the assignment), have all been seen as reasons which have led students to outsource their assignments. Students not having confidence or belief in their own skills has been shown in some studies to be contributors to students seeking external help.

There are different ways to mitigate these issues, through carefully considering the assessment design and process, connecting courses and learning materials to real world examples or employment/professions, as well as encouraging students to work to their strengths and seek help through official institutional services when they need more support.

For further information on assessment design, refer to the Good Practice Note and Academic Integrity Toolkit.

Disengagement can lead students to outsource their assignments

Other situational variables which have been connected to cheating behaviours relate to other external pressures. For example, time pressures from having to work or care-giving; pressure for grades by others; lack of understanding of assignment criteria or academic integrity requirements.

Some assessment types and disciplines have also been associated with higher reports of contract cheating, as well as the mode of delivery. 

Personal/individual variables

Some common factors associated with students engagement with contract cheating or other forms have cheating have been gender (that males engage in this more often than other genders); age (younger students are more likely to cheat); and level of study (lower levels of study have higher self-reported rates of use of contract cheating services than higher levels).

Some common factors associated with students engaging with contract cheating are gender, age and level of study

Some research has pointed to students studying in a second language as being a predictor of contract cheating, or at least a contributing factor. However, other research has not found this to be the case. Institutions should consider this variable within their own contexts.

Other studies have found personality traits to be associated with higher engagement in cheating. For example, those who display less morals or more dishonest behaviours; students who lack intrinsic learning motivations; students who display lower self-control than others have shown higher propensities towards cheating. Students higher in adjustment traits who could respond to stress have also been found to have lower rates of cheating.

In addition to this, some studies have considered the behaviours in conjunction with deviancy and criminological theories, arguing that students weigh up the costs and benefits of their behaviours and make a rational choice over what the best outcome for them will be (related to Rational choice theory, Clarke and Cornish 1986). This might include the severity of the penalty given at their institution for cheating, compared to time it might take to complete the assignment, cost to purchase, and fear of failure.

Some of the below research relates to general cheating or plagiarism. The starred items refer specifically to contract cheating. 

• *Amigud and Lancaster 2019
  246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students’ reasons for seeking to outsource academic work 
• *Bretag et al 2018
  Contract cheating in Australian Higher Education: a comparison of non-university higher education providers and universities
• Brimble 2016
  Why students cheat: An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education
• Christensen Hughes and McCabe 2006
  Understanding academic misconduct (includes summary of research for situational and personal factors which lead students to engage in cheating)
• *Foltýnek and Králíková 2018
  Analysis of the contract cheating market in the Czech Republic, includes what led students to cheat
• Haines et al 1986
  College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment and the neutralizing attitude 
• *Newton 2018
  How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review
• Rigby et al 2015
  Considering rational choices students make when deciding if to purchase an assignment: Contract cheating and the market in essays
• *Rundle, Curtis, and Clare 2019
  Why students do not engage in contract cheating
• Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2010
  Study considering what conditions led to a favourable attitude towards cheating: Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality
• Tomar 2015
  A former ghostwriter provides insights into the reasons students engaged his services, Detecting and deterring ghostwritten papers: A guide to best practice
• Tremayne and Curtis 2020
  Study on plagiarism which included contract cheating: Attitudes and understanding are only part of the story: Self-control, age and self-imposed pressure predict plagiarism over and above perceptions of seriousness and understanding 

How to raise student awareness

Involve students

It is a great idea to get your student representatives, groups and societies involved in any awareness campaigns. This enables students to talk about the pitfalls and risks of cheating and also influence each other in the promotion of positive behaviours. Student peer mentors and networks can also be a positive contributor, by sharing ideas and experiences about challenges they faced meeting deadlines or requirements and directing others where to seek help.

Get your student representatives, groups and societies involved in any awareness campaigns

If you are organising campaigns such as the International Day of Action Against Contract Cheating (October each year), ask students to be involved. Not only is it important to involve your students in policy/procedure reviews so that they speak to the student body, but having students co-design education and awareness drives will also provide the sort of messaging that students may be more likely to relate and respond to.

• Pitt, Dullaghan, and Sutherland-Smith 2020
  Students helping to guide others to practice academic integrity: Mess, stress and trauma: Students’ experiences of formal contract cheating processes
• Saddiqui 2016
  Community-consultative approach to academic integrity: Engaging students and faculty: Examining and overcoming the barriers

Encourage proactive conversations

Encourage proactive conversations and highlight relevance of honest behaviours to students. This doesn’t have to only be done in academic integrity modules (which some research has found to be ineffective). Framing the importance of ethics, integrity and honesty for student’s personal and professional lives helps to situate the topic within a wider setting and not just as something that ‘must be done’, such as making sure correct citations and references are used.

Pointing out the benefits of academic integrity skills doesn’t need to be limited to learning in core modules or requirements. Where possible this can be communicated across their learning journey. Keeping students engaged in their learning through talking about issues they may face in completing their work can help to mitigate risks of them considering taking shortcuts.

Highlight the pitfalls that any outsourcing can have on your students' knowledge of their field

Encourage students to engage in their learning and highlight the pitfalls that any outsourcing can have on their knowledge of their field. Without completing the work themselves, they will not be able to demonstrate the requisite and expected skills to future employers.

• Gallant 2020
  Leveraging the teachable moment: what, if anything, can students learn from cheating?
• Sefcik, Striepe, and Yorke 2019
  Considering effectiveness of academic integrity modules: Mapping the landscape of academic integrity education programs: What approaches are effective?

Educate students about the risks

Aside from the risks associated with the outsourcing being detected by their institution, which at the extreme end may have consequences such as exclusion/expulsion (which could result in visa cancellations, job losses etc.), suspension or the requirement to pay unit/course fees again; there are many other risks associated with using commercial sites. 

It is important to educate students on these drawbacks, not least to highlight to them the risks associated with choosing to effectively pay for their education twice, first to enrol in something they should be learning in, and secondly for someone to complete their work for them. Indeed, in some cases students pay for their education a third time if they are required to retake a unit/course at cost. Make sure that outcomes which might be applied at the institutional level and transparent and discussed so that students are aware of the ramifications a substantiated allegation of contract cheating may have for them.

Unfortunately, students can be blackmailed by contract cheating companies, sometimes long after they purchased the assignment. Blackmail may relate to companies threatening to inform the student’s educational institution or their employer unless they pay further sums of money. 

Sites themselves may take payment for a product in advance and students never receive the assessment, or it is of very poor quality, which the student has to alter or completely redo, or they receive a poor/fail grade for.

Alert students to the risks of being preyed upon and their details shared, as highlighted in ‘Site type awareness section’; alert them to the ruthless marketing campaigns; alert them to the poor quality of many of these sites.

Alert your students to the risks of being preyed upon by contract cheating companies

YouTube and other platforms contain numerous ‘cheating help’, or ‘how to get away with cheating’ advice videos. Don’t advertise them to students but make your staff aware of them. If you have the same information that students may have, you’re in a far better position to detect one of the ‘tricks’ given by these cheat videos.

None of these are issues that are not happening to your students, everyone is at risk of these behaviours and marketing campaigns. What you need to do as a tertiary/higher education provider is educate yourselves on these matters, and educate your students to try to mitigate the risks.

• Lines 2016
  Quality of purchased work: Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services available to tertiary students in Australia
• Sutherland-Smith and Dullaghan 2019
  Engaging with contract cheating companies: You don’t always get what you pay for: User experiences of engaging with contract cheating sites
• Yorke, Sefcik, and Veeran-Colton 2020
  Contract cheating and blackmail: A risky business?

How to design assessments to prevent contract cheating

There are numerous resources available to assist with designing assessments to prevent contract cheating:

• Academic Integrity Toolkit – Contract Cheating
• Assessment considerations in moving from closed-book to open-book exams (PDF, 146 KB)
  Author: Dr Chris Deneen, The University of Melbourne 
• Assessment Integrity – Online Learning Good Practice
• Contract cheating and assessment design framework
• Designing an assessment rubric (PDF, 428 KB) and rubric template (MS Word, 57 KB)
  Author: Emeritus Professor Janice Orrell, Flinders University
• Expert advice on designing authentic assessments for online delivery (PDF, 367 KB)
  Author: Emeritus Professor Janice Orrell, Flinders University
• Expert advice for student authentication of online assessment (PDF, 293 KB)
  Author: Emeritus Professor Janice Orrell, Flinders University
• Redesigning high-risk assessments to engage students and address contract cheating
  Author: Samer Skaik, CQUniversity
• The prevention of contract cheating in an online environment
  Author: Associate Professor Phillip Dawson, Deakin University