• TEQSA registers Sydney College of Divinity as a University College

    TEQSA has decided to register the Sydney College of Divinity as a University College.

    The TEQSA Commission made this decision after the presentation of new evidence, following a previous decision by TEQSA in July 2021.

    TEQSA Chief Commissioner Professor Peter Coaldrake AO said the national higher education regulator accepted that the Sydney College of Divinity now meets the standards for registration as a University College.

    The University College category was established in July 2021 following reforms to the categorisation of Australian higher education providers.

    There are now 6 providers in the University College category, offering a diverse range of courses in fields such as: Education, Creative Arts, Health and Society and Culture.

    The Sydney College of Divinity was established in 1983 and currently has 1250 students enrolled in undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Theology, Ministry and Philosophy.

    Quotes attributable to TEQSA Chief Commissioner Professor Peter Coaldrake AO

    “On behalf of TEQSA, I congratulate the Sydney College of Divinity on achieving registration as Australia’s sixth University College.”
     

    “The University College category supports more opportunities for providers to develop course offerings that better meet the future needs of students, employers, industry and communities.”

    Media enquiries

    TEQSA Communications
    comms@teqsa.gov.au 
    0437 143 012

    Date
    Last updated:
    Featured image
    University college

  • Three more guidance notes released for consultation

    TEQSA continues to enhance its suite of guidance notes as part of ongoing work to support greater self-assurance within the higher education sector.

    You are invited to participate in the consultations for a further three guidance notes:

    • Academic and research integrity
    • Academic monitoring, review and improvement
    • Facilities and infrastructure.

    The consultation period closes on Thursday 10 August 2023 at 5pm.

    Date
    Last updated:
    Featured image
    Consultation

  • TEQSA Assessment Experts Forum

    For more than a year, TEQSA has been engaging assessment design, academic integrity and artificial intelligence experts and the wider higher education sector about the opportunities and risk presented by generative AI (genAI).

    To further this work, in August 2023 we are bringing together leading Australian experts to develop a set of guiding principles that will support institutions mitigate the risks to their assessments while also exploring opportunities for incorporating genAI as part of their educational programs.

    The outputs from the TEQSA Assessment Experts Forum: Rethinking assessment in the age of artificial intelligence will be shared with all registered Australian higher education providers for feedback to support the develop of guidance to facilitate sector-wide uplift.

    This approach follows feedback we have received from multiple providers and academics seeking further information to support decision-making and to protect assessment integrity.

    Dates: 10 and 11 August, Sydney
    Please note: attendance at this event is by invitation
    Questions: integrityunit@teqsa.gov.au

    Date
    Last updated:

    TEQSA is hosting an invite-only forum for assessment experts next month.

    Featured image
    Students at desk

  • TEQSA's submission to the generative AI inquiry

    The House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training has been asked to inquire into and report on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system.

    Visit Parliament of Australia - Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training to learn more about the Committee’s work.

    Date
    Last updated:
    Featured image
    Keyboard

  • Academic integrity toolkit

    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

    Photo of Tracey Bretag Professor Tracey Bretag

    University of South Australia
    Photo of Guy Curtis Dr Guy Curtis

    The University of Western Australia
    Photo of Margot McNeill Dr Margot McNeill

    International College of Management Sydney
    Photo of Christine Slade Dr Christine Slade

    The University of Queensland
    AQA logo Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities
    NZQA logo New Zealand Qualifications Authority
    Last updated:

    Related links

  • How to respond to contract cheating: Detection and management

    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. 

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Last updated:

    Related links

  • What is contract cheating and methods to reduce it

    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:

    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:

    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.

    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. 

    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.

    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.

    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.

    How to design assessments to prevent contract cheating

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

    Last updated:

    Related links

  • Legislation

    The Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services Bill 2019 (the Bill) amended the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and was passed by Parliament on 26 August 2020.

    The Bill implements the recommendations of the Higher Education Standards Panel to introduce deterrents to third party academic cheating services in higher education.

    Measures contained in the Bill:

    • make it an offence for any person to provide or advertise academic cheating services relating to the delivery of higher education in Australia, whether that person is in Australia or elsewhere
    • provide for financial and custodial penalties where an offence is proven of up to 500 penalty units and/or two years imprisonment. The Bill distinguishes between cheating services provided on a commercial basis, and where the cheating service is provided without payment. Criminal and civil penalties will apply to commercial cheating services; civil penalties only will apply to unpaid cheating services
    • expand TEQSA’s role, as the regulator responsible for administering the law, to include:
      • gathering, providing and sharing information, and providing education in relation to academic cheating services
      • conducting research relating to academic cheating services
      • taking action to prevent access to online sources of academic cheating services.

    View the Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services Bill 2019

    View our TEQSA Act page

    Last updated: