Detecting contract cheating in essay and report submissions: process, patterns, clues and conversations

Abstract

Detecting contract cheating in written submissions can be difficult beyond direct plagiarism detectable via technology. Successfully identifying potential cases of contract cheating in written work such as essays and reports is largely dependent on the experience of assessors and knowledge of student. It is further dependent on their familiarity with the patterns and clues evident in sections of body text and reference materials to identify irregularities. Consequently, some knowledge of what the patterns and clues look like is required. This paper documents how to identify some of the patterns and clues observed in essay and report submissions. Effective assessment design with specific contextual requirements make irregularities easier to detect and interpret. The irregularities identified were confirmed as instances of contract cheating through conversations held with postgraduate students. An essential element of the conversations was the evidence presented for discussion. Irregularities were noted on a pro-forma specifically developed for this purpose. Patterns identified include misrepresented bibliographic data, inappropriate references, irrelevant material and generalised text that did not address the assessment question or grading criteria. The validated patterns formed the basis of identifying potential instances of contract cheating in later submissions. Timely conversations with students before the end of semester are essential to determining whether the patterns and clues link to poor knowledge of academic writing conventions or classified as contract cheating necessitating the application of appropriate penalties under institutional policies and procedures.

Contract cheating in UK higher education: A covert investigation of essay mills

“…As discussed extensively elsewhere in the literature on contract cheating (e.g. Mahmood, ; Baird & Clare, ; Clare et al ., ; Rogerson, ), this might include a stronger focus on timed and invigilated assessment techniques, varying assignments between classes (Baird & Clare, ), staged assessments and the use of a viva voce to support written work (Mahmood, ). These approaches are arguably less vulnerable to essay mill interference, as they require students to present themselves in person, or to engage in some form of interaction, to achieve the assessment outcome.…”

“…Perhaps most prominent in previous literature around academic integrity and misconduct is the issue of student plagiarism, which involves copying some or all of the work of another without crediting the original source (Page, ; Youmans, ). A form of academic misconduct related to student plagiarism is ‘contract cheating’ (Clarke & Lancaster, ; Mahmood, ; Walker & Townley, ; Rigby et al ., ; Clare et al ., ; Rogerson, ). This is ‘the process of offering the process of completing an assignment for a student out to tender’ (Clarke & Lancaster, ).…”

“…As indicated above, much prior work on contract cheating has focused on either the demand side, in terms of students’ willingness to pay for its outputs (Rigby et al ., ), or on the institutional perspective, with a particular focus on the detection and prevention of contract cheating by universities (Mahmood, ; Baird & Clare, ; Clare et al ., ; Rogerson, ). In terms of institutions militating against contract cheating, Baird and Claire () have suggested introducing a series of interventions into the design of student assessments.…”

“…Selwyn, ; Rigby et al ., ) and (ii) the detection and policing of contract cheating by HE institutions, staff and systems (e.g. Baird & Clare, ; Clare et al ., ; Rogerson, ). The contribution of this article is that it examines contract cheating in HE from a supply‐side perspective, specifically in terms of the ‘manufacture’ of work for students by a third party.…”

Interinstitutional perspectives on contract cheating: a qualitative narrative exploration from Canada

“…Some argue that it involves a monetary transaction between a student and a corporate provider (Rigby, Burton, Balcombe, Bateman, & Mulatu, 2015). Others have a broader definition that includes third parties who complete work for the student but do not receive payment (Ellis, Zucker, & Randall, 2018;Lancaster & Clarke, 2008;Rogerson, 2017;Walker & Townley, 2012).…”