All of Us Turning into Diploma Mills

Plus, some odd presentations at EduCause. Plus, a great article on essay mill alternatives.

Issue 69

“We Have the Risk of All of Us Turning into Essentially Diploma Mills”

A new episode of “The Score” - the podcast on academic integrity - is out this week. This one is an interview with integrity expert Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant.

If you don’t know the good doctor, she is Director of Academic Integrity at University of California, San Diego, a former Board Member of the International Center for Academic Integrity and co-editor of the upcoming book, “Cheating Academic Integrity, Lessons from 30 Years of Research.”

Her in-depth interview is imperative listening. Here are a select few of the very many highlights.

On whether cheating is different or on the increase since the pandemic, she said,

In contract cheating, is the word, the phrase we use to define when students outsource their academic work to others. And so, there are websites that exist where students can post their exam question, or their assignment question, or their paper assignment, and somebody else will do the work for them. So that definitely increased during the pandemic, both because there were more opportunities to do so in terms of all of my assessments were now remote, but also, I think because of the stress and pressure the pandemic

No question.

And how common is cheating? Bertram Gallant told “The Score,”

So these are students telling us how much they're cheating. So some social desirability bias in there, which means that the numbers are probably higher than what they're telling us. And it's as low as 10% of students admitting that they cheat at least once a year, to as many as in the 40%, or even some studies have shown in the 70 and 80% range are admitting to it.

It’s kind of amazing what you can learn when you ask an actual expert (see Issue 49).

Asked about what can be done to curb misconduct, Bertram Gallant gives what may be her most important answer,

We must spend money on it. We must have symbols that we care about academic integrity. We're known, myself and some others are known for saying that if we don't do this, if we don't attend to academic integrity in a very proactive, intentional way, we have the risk of all of us turning into essentially diploma mills, where we are not truly, honestly and fairly assessing and certifying knowledge and abilities because cheating is potentially out of control. That sounds very hyperbolic and very alarmist, and I'm not talking tomorrow, or next week, or next month, but there's signs that cheating is becoming institutionalized in the periphery of higher education by all these companies that exist to facilitate cheating, if we don't act in a way that counters those highly effective actors, then it can't be good.

I mean - exactly.

And while I feel as though I’ve already cribbed too much of her interview - you really should jump over and listen to it - there’s one more nugget I cannot overlook.

The host of the podcast, education writer Kathryn Baron, asked, “Is integrity in some way a part of accreditation for colleges and universities?” Bertram Gallant’s answer,

Not in the United States.

Adding,

And there are not pressures from the accrediting agencies for institutions to attend to academic integrity.

True. Sad, but true. Facing what many experts have warned is an existential threat to American higher education, the nation’s accrediting bodies have done absolutely nothing.

Missing the Memo at EduCause

EduCause held its conference this past month, inexplicably offering up several troubling and confusing sessions regarding academic integrity.

More on a few of those later - as getting access to them is more difficult than you may expect. Until then, the published summary of one presentation caught my attention. It was titled, “Promoting Academic Integrity in Online: ‘Open Note’ Exams without Surveillance Software.”

Yes, “surveillance software.” Ugh.

The description says the presentation was about how chemistry professors at University of Maryland, Baltimore County, developed a large test bank to feed short, relatively random, “open note” exams to their class of 800+ students, supposedly eliminating the need for “surveillance software.”

“To top it off,” the summary says:

students can’t even access the exam without first signing an honor pledge, which research has shown can inspire students to not only do their best, but also be their best

Well, golly. That sounds super.

It also sounds as though the professors and EduCause missed the note that the research they’re talking about, how signing “an honor pledge” before an exam reduces misconduct, was fake (see Issue 52). I mean it probably does no harm but there’s no evidence it actually helps and it’s certainly no replacement for proctoring.

They’ve also, it seems, missed how “open note” exams and lack of an exam proctor can actually encourage cheating. And how feeding students different exam questions, while good, ignores the numerous, easily available answer-on-demand services that students regularly, routinely and easily access during unproctored exams.

Finally, a Great Piece on Essay Mill Alternatives

The Motley Fool is an investment and personal finance publication. Late last month though, on its U.K. site, it ran an outstanding piece by Jennifer Laird titled, “5 legal alternatives to ‘essay mills’ temptation.”

It’s not perfect. But it is the kind of article I’d print out and share with my classes or deans, if I had either one. Or if people printed things anymore.

Laird starts by saying that essay mills sell writing services and encourage buyers not to submit the work as their own. But, she correctly says, “essay mills could encourage cheating and plagiarism.”

Fact check: true.

Her alternatives to buying papers include - wait for it - asking your professor for approved resources. Asking your professor for better or more feedback on your writing and hiring an actual tutor, a person you can pay hourly. She also suggests not selling your previously written papers for fast cash.

It’s so great to see a writer not take the easy path of “studying is hard and teachers are mean so we understand.”

Teachers Hate to Accuse Students of Misconduct

One of the biggest myths of academic integrity and misconduct is that teachers or schools or test security companies want to catch cheaters. They absolutely do not. Most often, they hate doing it.

There are many reasons this is true but the biggest ones include the emotional work, the actual work, the increasingly adversarial process and the lack of support from school leaders, perceived or actual.

The University of Texas, Dallas student paper has a story out this week about a teacher (a T.A., I think) who accused a student of plagiarism.

I don’t know how accurate or truthful the account is - much of it feels invented. But I do think the underlying point - that teachers can and do face penalties when their students cheat - is valid, important and in need of repeating. The article says:

[The teacher's] relationship with her students has deteriorated since this incident. The student in question had already taken a previous course taught by her, and he frequently visited her during office hours before the charges occurred. Now [the teacher] is leery of all of her students, not knowing if she will get burned again.

We should spend more time, I think, acknowledging and discussing how teachers feel when they have to levy a misconduct charge. Let’s hear those stories more often.

In the next “The Cheat Sheet” - More from EduCause. Plus, more coverage of proctoring. Plus, more cheating.

Subscribe and share “The Cheat Sheet” below and, as always, thank you for sharing on social media.