Staff views on commercial contract cheating in higher education: a survey study in Australia and the UK

Abstract

Contract cheating is, potentially, a serious threat to the quality of higher education around the world. Prior research has focused on student perspectives and the companies themselves, but the staff view is poorly understood, despite staff being a major stakeholder with considerable influence over strategies designed to address contract cheating. We surveyed staff in Australia and the UK about their views on contract cheating. We asked staff to estimate the extent of contract cheating, how much it cost students to buy assignments, and whether proposed strategies to tackle contract cheating would work. We also asked about the factors which may motivate students to engage with contract cheating. Staff in both countries estimated high costs for an assignment from an online essay mill. Staff believed that low numbers (5-10%) of students are using these services, although this could represent approximately a quarter of a million students across the two countries. A large proportion of staff had had some experience with student cases of contract cheating at their university and reported that outcomes were lenient. The most prominent reasons which staff believed contributed to contract cheating were 'Studying in a non-native language' and 'Fear of Failure'. Over half of the respondents were aware of companies selling work to students on campus. There was strong support for the view that contract cheating services should be illegal, and that creative assessment strategies could reduce contract cheating. There was also modest, qualified support for the criminalising of student use of these services, and an increased use of examination-based assessments. Suggestions are made for how these data can inform the ongoing debate around contract cheating, including increasing staff awareness of contract cheating and the development of more appropriate assessment strategies.

They Get Away with Murder! UK Lecturers’ Frustration with Students’ Use of ‘Essay Mills’

“…The university often rule in favour of the student on grounds of 'lack of evidence' though it is clear to everyone that the essay has been bought. This finding is supported by Awdry and Newton [15], who found similar lenient outcome in their study. But why are some universities reluctant to adopt a more rigorous approach like YN's university has done?…”

“…Therefore, there is still a gap here that needs to be filled. Other researchers like Awdry and Newton [15], have surveyed staff views on commercial contract cheating in higher education in Australia and the UK. They reported that a large proportion of staff in these two countries admitted having experienced contract cheating with students at their universities.…”

The rise of contract cheating during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study through the eyes of academics in Kuwait

“…The questions in the interview were developed to gain participants' perceptions of contract cheating in the courses that they teach within their institutes. The questions were adapted from similar studies conducted by Ali and Alhassan (2021) who conducted a qualitative study among higher education institutes in Oman, a culturally similar country to Kuwait; and Awdry and Newton (2019) who surveyed staff views in Australian and British universities via a questionnaire. This study has expanded on these previous studies by including questions assessing faculty members' viewpoints regarding the impact of COVID-19 on contract cheating.…”

“There must be Someone’s Name Under Every Bit of Text, Even if it is Unimportant or Incorrect”: Plagiarism as a Learning Strategy

“…Nowadays, researchers' focus has shifted in two directions worldwide. Firstly, the studies clearly concentrate on written works, where it is not only possible to detect potential plagiarism automatically (Do Ba et al, 2016 ; Foltýnek et al, 2019 ; Lancaster & Clarke, 2012 ) but also evaluate to what extent the work as a whole has been prepared by someone else with the consent of the original author ( contract cheating, ghostwriting, essay mills ) (Awdry & Newton, 2019 ; Bielska, 2015 ; cf. the opinion on the role of writing centres in Clarke, 1999 ).…”