Research: By Nearly 3:1 Margin, Students Say Cheating Increased During Covid Instruction
Plus, citing cheating, Cambridge Law limits time on exams. Plus, two integrity technology demonstrations this week. Plus, AI and hot garbage.
Issue 246
To join the 3,662 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below. New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday. It’s free:
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 14 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 24 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Thank you!
Research: By 3:1 Margin, Students Believe Cheating Increased During Covid Remote Instruction
In July, a trio of scholars from the University of Manitoba - Brenda M. Stoesz, Matthew Quesnel, and Amy E. De Jaeger - released survey research on whether students believed cheating had increased during pandemic-related transitions to remote teaching and assessment.
Surprising absolutely no one, most students said they thought academic cheating had increased under those conditions.
As I’ve pointed out about similar research, it’s most likely that students and others think cheating increased because cheating increased. Frankly, I’m not sure anyone disputes this. Even these researchers share that:
These findings are consistent with publicly available academic misconduct reports
True. And at Manitoba, where this survey originated, cheating spiked considerably (see Issue 6).
This new data comes from an online survey of students in 81 courses between January and April of 2020; 5,276 students were solicited and around 725 responded. The survey was an eye-opening 50 minutes long. And it did not ask about cheating conduct directly, only whether students thought other students were cheating more during COVID-related changes.
As mentioned, a majority - about 51% of students - agreed that cheating among their peers had increased. But that’s not a split-decision. Only 18% of students disagreed.
The research also found that:
only about one fifth and one quarter of students believed that ‘buying, trading or selling notes’ (20.3%) and ‘sharing completed assignments’ (27.2%), respectively, increased during this period. When asked about their beliefs about increases in providing or receiving exam assistance, 36.7% and 37.5% of students, respectively, agreed that these outsourcing behaviours increased.
I think it’s worth noting the use of “only” there. If more than one in every five of your students tells you that “buying, trading or selling notes” increased, I’d say that should start with “shockingly,” instead of “only.” Minimizing it with “only,” is a choice.
Although, another special note is that this study’s literature review reported:
Analysis of responses to questions about cheating revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a large proportion of first-time cheating (46%), and with deliberate acts to circumvent instructors’ attempts to prevent academic misconduct (e.g., using software, taping notes to computer screens, using a second device, calling friends).
The study authors also get credit for this, from their report:
Before and during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty members and sessional instructors at University of Manitoba raised concerns to university administration, support staff, and the teaching and learning centre staff about students’ unpermitted use of academic file-sharing and tutoring services (e.g., Chegg) and how this use serves as a gateway to contract cheating
I’d say that using Chegg and related services is not a “gateway” to contract cheating, it is contract cheating. Still, anyone who cites Chegg by name in academic research about cheating gets a thumbs up.
Still, this research is a major miss because it’s clear that the authors were, and probably are, disposed to mitigate and ameliorate the serious threats and consequences of cheating. Hence the “only” in the finding that 20% of students think buying, selling, or trading academic material increased.
Further, by focusing on what students think about the conduct of others, the research can hone in on the “perceptions” of cheating instead of on the cheating itself.
Yes, perceptions of misconduct do influence the culture of integrity and individual decision-making. So it’s not as though such questions are pointless, it’s that they conveniently miss the point. It’s like asking people whether they think food shortages are a problem so we can discuss the perception of food shortages and never get to the better questions of - are food shortages an actual problem and, above all, what do we plan to do about it?
That’s where these authors are. I know this also because, as in other examples (see Issue NY22/23), they write about “fears of increased academic misconduct” instead of actual misconduct, as if the fears of cheating are what we should be worried about. However, in this case, these authors at least concede:
Fears of increased academic misconduct may have been partially justified
Though just “partially.”
They also, without cited foundation, write:
increased stress may have contributed to poor decision-making and engagement in academic misconduct
That excusing away responsibility for deliberative action is also evident when these researchers write:
All too often, postsecondary institutions focus disproportionately on the students’ responsibility to avoid misconduct. In Canada, this is evident in academic integrity policy documents, where procedures for dealing with allegations and consequences of cheating are emphasized and the commitment from the university community to support learning with integrity is absent. An integrity culture should not be grounded in fear of punishment as is argued to be the case in Western approaches to higher education, where “monetary value and students’ desire to not “waste” their money on irrelevant knowledges” are present
I am sorry, but they actually wrote that. And it’s pure nonsense. Mushy, rationalized nonsense. Disproportionately focusing on students’ responsibility for cheating? Schools should focus more on those who did not cheat? You must be kidding.
I mean, some schools and teachers do make it too easy to cheat, giving the impression that they simply do not care about, or that they even condone, cheating. But saying that the absence of “support[ing] learning with integrity” by the “university community” is somehow responsible for cheating is blame-shifting misconduct - blaming one of the biggest victims of academic fraud for the fraud. Well, you did not support “learning with integrity” - whatever that means - so this is on you.
It makes me angry, obviously.
If you think there’d be less cheating if universities simply did more to support “learning with integrity,” you are naive. That is as nice as I can be about it.
I’ll wrap this up with this partial re-post from Issue 236. In it, I quote an article that quotes Arthur Schafer, professor of philosophy and founding director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at - wait for it - the University of Manitoba.
In the cited article, Schafer says it’s the “main job” of the university:
to protect academic integrity and dissuade students from academic misconduct by making “the likelihood of detection high enough and the rewards from cheating low enough” that students are not incentivized to cheat.
He continues:
“When you increase the opportunities to cheat and decrease the likelihood that the cheating will be discovered, it’s to be expected that there will be more cheating,” he said.
I have no idea why we are still debating this.
Citing Cheating, Cambridge Law School Cuts Exam Time
According to coverage in the independent paper of the prestigious University of Cambridge in England, the law school has cited cheating as the reason it will reduce the time students may spend on exams.
Cambridge uses a true Honor Code, with no exam proctoring and open book testing, relying instead on a culture of integrity and peer reporting. And because students were cheating and otherwise displaying “poor academic practice,” all law school exams will now be shortened from five hours to three.
From the reporting:
The Faculty wrote that candidates spent too long cutting and pasting pre-prepared answers rather than answering the set question. “This fails to test the skills the exams are designed to test,” the letter reads.
The letter’s concerns also include plagiarism and collusion such as the use of AI, described as ‘under[mining] the integrity of the law degree’. An exclusive study by [the newspaper] in April found that 47.3% of Cambridge students have used ChatGPT to help with their degree.
In Issue 214, I noted the high use of GTP at Cambridge in two separate student surveys - 49% and 47% - and that, despite this, Cambridge had zero academic integrity cases related to the use of generative AI. Zero. Students say about half of them are using it, “to help with their degree.” No one is getting in trouble for it. That tracks.
Anyway, the story also says that, despite the cheating, the school is not considering a move to in-person, secure testing but will continue giving unsupervised, online, open-book exams.
In other words, they know there is cheating going on, but they’re not going to do much to actually stop it.
Oh wait, my mistake:
Alongside the exam change, the Faculty is organising compulsory sessions on Good Academic Practice for all years, including talks on the use of artificial intelligence platforms.
Talks. Mandatory talks.
[comment voluntarily redacted by the author]
Two Important Integrity Demonstrations Upcoming
As shared previously, two companies with academic integrity solutions are holding open demonstrations of their approaches and tools on Wednesday, October 18.
You may sign up for the demo from Cursive at this link. Or visit:
https://cursivetechnologyinc-901.my.webex.com/weblink/register/r6699960664b5243a4bc0a5f14a24e597
You may also register for the demo by Examind on their LinkedIn page or visit:
https://www.linkedin.com/events/fromdetectiontotransparency-aut7110030753446469633/about/
AI Plagiarism is Turning News into “Hot Garbage”
Though it is not specifically and precisely about academic misconduct, Scientific American has an article that’s worth reviewing. The piece is about AI plagiarism in news - using AI to create news content. So, pretty close.
The article starts with the embarrassment that MSN published an AI-written or AI-paraphrased obituary of a former NBA player with the headline:
“Brandon Hunter useless at 42.”
Nice.
MSN’s AI spat out further “garbage” including:
“Throughout his NBA profession, he performed in 67 video games over two seasons and achieved a career-high of 17 factors in a recreation in opposition to the Milwaukee Bucks in 2004.”
Great stuff.
It’s clear ChatGPT did not write that obituary. But - and this is important for the academic community - the author of the Scientific American article did ask ChatGPT to take a crack at it:
When I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary for Hunter, for example, the prose was grammatically clean. Sterile, even. Absent of any new information, and so full of cliches that it could never offend anyone, even by accident. “His prowess, tenacity, and charismatic personality left an indelible mark on the game and on those who had the privilege of watching him play....” the algorithm disgorged. “He established the Brandon Hunter Foundation, a charitable organization aimed at providing opportunities for underprivileged youth through sports and education.”
Spoiler alert, there ain’t no such foundation.
So, again, the good generative AI may write clean (“sterile”) copy, but it just makes stuff up. Like, all the time. Whether it’s news, or 800 words on the plot development of To Kill a Mockingbird, reader beware. Be very aware.