In some ways, you have to give credit where credit is due (even if it’s unethical).
Someone sees a hole in the market and fills it. Got a job you don’t want to do yourself, outsource it to someone willing to do it for you, at a cost. Basic supply/demand. This seems to be an increasingly held view of some students. What’s the big deal, they shrug? As we all know, the big deal is that they are missing the point of an assessment task, it’s value and the learning opportunity it presents.
Recently I attended a webinar on contract cheating hosted by Turnitin (they often run interesting webinars and archive past ones, you can view them through this link). Hosted by Associate Professor Wendy Sutherland-Smith from Deakin University, Sutherland-Smith gave an overview of literature and Deakin’s research into contract cheating and why students turn to these services:
- 3-10% of students use contract cheating
- It’s a $300m industry (which means it won’t be going anywhere!)
- Students fear the high stakes of an assessment
- Students fear a specific skill set
- They become desperate
- They are unaware of the seriousness
- They see outsourcing as a legitimate use of time and resources
I’ve been thinking for some time about writing a mini-exposé on contract cheating and buying fake qualifications. It’s quite interesting a. how easy it is; b. how professional the sites look now; and c. the marketing they do. Last week I was looking at some of these sites to get a gauge on how some students can fall for the idea that these are a legitimate service. Now I’m receiving ads on Facebook. I guess if the industry is worth $300 million, they’ve got the cash to splash. A student also mentioned in passing that they (and others) have received targeted emails from companies. To their student email account.
This makes me wonder if students are critically questioning whether this is actually ethical to do, especially if others in their social circles see it as acceptable or is it just that they aren’t engaging any serious thought into the consequences? These sites offer plagiarism free, money back guarantee, 24/7 support and also offer Turnitin reports. Tempting for some.
How can you tell if an assignment has been written by one of these services?
Wendy Sutherland-Smith’s research found the following characteristics:
- the task doesn’t answer the key questions
- reflections are done badly
- poor structure
- sections are missing, including diagrams, tables, and charts
- lack of discipline-specific discussion
- lack of conceptualisation of key, specific theory covered in the unit
So what can be done to combat contract cheating?
Obviously, it can’t be eliminated and clever, professional-looking advertising is working. Sutherland-Smith suggests that a viva assessment is incredibly challenging for contract cheating, but you can also consider:
- Unpacking with students their assessment tasks and their value: how they relate to what they are learning, what they are measuring and how these relate to real-world experiences. Talk about the bigger picture.
- Assessment design that brings in a building or staged approach, where for example, Task 2 requires a reflection or implementation of feedback from Task 1.
- Assess the process, not just the product
- Change up topics of assessment each time the unit runs and have tasks embed concepts from in-class discussion
- Authentic assessment tasks, or problem-based learning where you give students a real-world problem or scenario related to your discipline
- Incorporate peer and self-review
- TEQSA’s resource Good Practice Note: Addressing contract cheating to safeguard academic integrity
Here’s some homework for you. Are your assessment tasks online?
Do a web search on your unit code e.g.: ‘BSK101’ and you might be surprised what you find.
Upcoming Event – Academic Integrity Workshops – 1-3 May 2018