Cheating and Chegg: a Retrospective

Broemer, Eli; Recktenwald, Geoffrey

doi:10.18260/1-2--36792

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this work, we identify solution times as a function of year, finding the time to solve 50% of questions has dropped from 3.6 hrs (2015) to 1.4 hrs (2020). This is similar to Broemer and Recktenwald (2021) who found 50% of questions answered in 1 hour. If the current trend continues, these solution times will reduce further.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…study notes and assessment) and citation assistance. Of concern in this paper are Q&A services, which are identified as a concerning source of cheating (Broemer and Recktenwald 2021;Lancaster and Cotarlan 2021). Through these Q&A services, students can look up solutions to questions on a database or submit their own questions to be solved by the website's 'tutors' (these are then added to the database).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these sites purport to be for legitimate study, they are highly vulnerable to misuse, and there are limited mechanisms to prevent students using these Q&A services to cheat. Broemer and Recktenwald (2021) Considering a student's motivations to cheat, homework-helper websites are highly appealing. A small portion of students routinely cheat, while a much larger group, approximately 44%, fall within the cheat-curious categorythese are students who may cheat under certain circumstances (Bretag et al 2018;Bretag et al 2019;Rigby et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lancaster and Cotarlan (2021) studied the impact of COVID-19 on Chegg usage, Ruggieri (2020) found 38 -71% of physics students reported Chegg usage, with increased usage in more advanced units, while Busch (2017) explored methods to reduce usage of sites like Chegg. In a significant conference paper, Broemer and Recktenwald (Broemer and Recktenwald 2021) presented a detailed investigation of Chegg usage in a 2-hour online mechanical engineering exam, identifying 129 unique posts to Chegg, with 71% of posts answered during the exam (50% answered within 1 hour). Interestingly, many answered posts were not viewed during the exam, even by the uploader.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Chegg’s growth, response rate, and prevalence as a cheating tool: Insights from an audit within an Australian engineering school

Pickering¹,

Schuller²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online tools are increasingly being used by students to cheat. File-sharing and homework-helper websites offer to aid students in their study, but are vulnerable to misuse, and are increasingly reported as a major source of academic misconduct. Chegg.com is the largest such website. Despite this, there is little public information about the use of Chegg as a cheating tool. This is a critical omission, as for institutions to effectively tackle this threat, they must have a sophisticated understanding of their use. To address this gap, this work reports on an audit of Chegg conducted within an Australian technology university engineering school. We provide a detailed analysis of the growth of Chegg, it’s use within an Australian technology university engineering school, and the wait time to receive solutions. We demonstrate that Chegg is broadly used to cheat and can be effective in both assignment tasks and online exams. To better understand and tackle this form of misconduct, we call on education institutions to be more transparent in reporting misconduct data and for homework-helper websites to improve defences against misuse.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chegg’s growth, response rate, and prevalence as a cheating tool: Insights from an audit within an Australian engineering school

Pickering¹,

Schuller²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the meantime, despite the multiple variants, RTD is also explored in several disciplines and fields related to design (e.g. Lenzholzer, Duchhart & Koh 2013; Maher et al 2018; Groeneveld et al 2019; Shroyer & Turns 2021; Bofylatos 2022; Cortesão & Lenzholzer 2022) with multiple interpretations also (e.g. Suberi 2022) by evidencing an interest in finding formal models and frameworks for its application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research through co-design

Busciantella-Ricci,

Scataglini

2024

Des. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Through Design (RTD) needs to reconsider the meaning of “designing” in the research process of “through design.” We propose Research Through Co-design (RTC) as a new application of Control System Theory (CST) that includes a research problem assigned to a co-design process in RTD. It embeds the participatory paradigm through collaborative design practice and makes the research a collaborative process for learning from all the participants. To sustain the RTC theory, we present a cognitive model of RTC. It is a “model for” – rather than a “model of” – describing how the co-design, as a neural network process, works through its nodes’ collaboration to find co-designed solutions and the research answer. Diversity increases as non-experts and non-designers with different backgrounds participate. This is valuable for the RTC learning system. The discussions highlight the possibility of considering (i) the RTC model as useful for describing a robust RTD process through CST; (ii) RTC as a cognitive model for explaining the value of co-design in research processes; and (iii) RTC as a strategy for applying the participative paradigm in formal research. Finally, new insights and implications are highlighted, including using RTC as a predictive tool through artificial intelligence.

show abstract

Chegg’s Growth, Response Rate, and Prevalence as a Cheating Tool: Insights From an Audit within an Australian Engineering School

Pickering,

Schuller

2024

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online tools are increasingly being used by students to cheat. File-sharing and homework-helper websites offer to aid students in their studies, but are vulnerable to misuse, and are increasingly reported as a major source of academic misconduct. Chegg.com is the largest such website. Despite this, there is little public information about the use of Chegg as a cheating tool. This is a critical omission, as for institutions to effectively tackle this threat, they must have a sophisticated understanding of their use. To address this gap, this work reports on a comprehensive audit of Chegg usage conducted within an Australian university engineering school. We provide a detailed analysis of the growth of Chegg, its use within an Australian university engineering school, and the wait time to receive solutions. Alarmingly, we found over half of audit units had cheating content on Chegg is broadly used to cheat and 50% of questions asked on Chegg are answered within 1.5 h. This makes Chegg an appealing tool for academic misconduct in both assignment tasks and online exams. We further investigate the growth of Chegg and show its use is above pre-pandemic levels. This work provides valuable insights to educators and institutions looking to improve the integrity of their courses through assessment and policy development. Finally, to better understand and tackle this form of misconduct, we call on education institutions to be more transparent in reporting misconduct data and for homework-helper websites to improve defences against misuse.

show abstract

Cheating and Chegg: a Retrospective

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Chegg’s growth, response rate, and prevalence as a cheating tool: Insights from an audit within an Australian engineering school

Chegg’s growth, response rate, and prevalence as a cheating tool: Insights from an audit within an Australian engineering school

Research through co-design

Chegg’s Growth, Response Rate, and Prevalence as a Cheating Tool: Insights From an Audit within an Australian Engineering School

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About