Students Say 30% of Their Peers Buy Papers from File Sharing Sites

Plus, Inside Higher Ed just can't quit Course Hero. Plus, the amusing case of Emily Stone.

Issue 53

More on that University of Western Australia Cheating Research

Issue 52 touched on the new research from scholars at the University of Western Australia showing that closer to 10% of students in the country engaged in contract cheating - not the 2 or 3% that other studies had shown.

The new estimates were reached by incentivizing truthful answers, potentially countering the chronic problem of undercounting self-reported cheating.

In addition to the top findings, the paper also says that:

students in the [incentivized for truth] condition estimated on average that 23.46% of students engage custom ghost-writing and 14.93% would admit to doing so. Furthermore, they estimated on average that 30.12% of students engage in file-sharing and 14.93% would admit to doing so

It’s difficult to tell whether students believing that many of their ranks pay for contract cheating reflects reality or just their view of it or is perhaps an attempt to mitigate their own conduct by implying its ubiquity.

Either way, it’s an alarmingly high number.

Even worse, the authors write that their research suggests:

that the significant increase in reported commercial contract cheating under [the incentivized for truth condition] in our study is still likely to underestimate the extent of the behaviour.

In other words, even at 10% or more of students using contract cheating methods, the new research “still likely” underestimates its prevalence.

The UWA paper also finds that the primary predictor of contract cheating is whether English is a first language. Students with a different first language are more likely to pay for written work or buy pre-written assignments from file sharing sites.

My Interview on the VICTVS Pod

VICTVS is a remote exam proctoring company based in the U.K. There, and in other parts of the world, they call proctoring invigilation. Fancy.

In any case, the company has evidently run short of guests for their company podcast and invited me on to discuss “The Cheat Sheet” and what’s what with academic intergrity and misconduct.

You can give it a listen here.

The Amusing Case Private Emily Stone

This isn’t serious. Hence the “amusing” in the title.

But there’s a new book out, a novel, entitled “Cheaters Never Win.” In the announcement, it summarizes the tale of Private Emily Stone who “wanted a career in cybersecurity. She dreamed of one day working in the Pentagon.”

Fair enough.

The blurb goes on to say that Pvt. Stone used her GI benefits to “study online at Dakota Technical Institute.” I buy that. And that she cheated. Knowing what I know about the topic, I buy that too.

But, the blurb continues:

Now her life goals will never be reached. She was caught cheating. Her educational and career plans are now only a pipe dream. 

Ah, no way. Zero chance.

Very few people - only like 5% - are ever actually caught cheating. Fewer still endure significant, life-long consequences. It would be more believable if Pvt. Stone were a vampire.

Moving on, the author’s plot is that:

Private Emily Stone is out for revenge against those who turned her in for cheating; those who ruined her life.

Wait, someone cheated and is now blaming those who caught her? OK, that checks out.

Inside Higher Ed Just Can’t Quit Course Hero

Inside Higher Ed (IHE) has an increasingly troubled relationship with academic integrity, as I’ve highlighted several times - see Issue 49 or Issue 40 or Issue 50.

One of the troubles is the publication’s partnership with notorious cheating company Course Hero - a file sharing site blacklisted by internet security company Cisco as an “academic fraud” provider - see Issue 42.

It appears that relationship is ongoing. Just yesterday, IHE sent another e-mail promoting Course Hero:

This one encourages faculty members to “sign up for a verified educator account” so they can get help and ideas for their courses. Funny, Course Hero does not, as far as I know, verify student accounts - allowing them to anonymously access millions of assignments, study notes and tests and test answers. For a fee, of course.

Pulling faculty into the cheating game has been a visible tactic of Course Hero and other cheating providers recently - see Issue 44.

Chegg, for example, has also started a similar effort - enticing teachers and schools to join to “advance student success.” Chegg will, it appears, outright pay faculty for surrendering their course materials.

None of them will be candid about why they’re doing this. But it’s as obvious as it is cynical. By luring teachers to participate, even paying them, cheating companies get the veneer of integrity and legitimacy, further confusing students as to which practices and partners are appropriate and which are not.

Sadly, some instructors are falling for it. Sad too that Inside Higher Ed continues to lend a hand.

Honorlock to Host Panel on Remote Exam Anxiety

Honorlock, the remote test security company, is hosing an online panel on reducing remote test anxiety.

The notice says:

Honorlock and the University of North Alabama partnered to conduct a detailed study on test anxiety and online proctoring. Learn about student test anxiety drivers, how we can mitigate their impact and help promote student success.

Reducing student test anxiety, especially with remote proctoring and other integrity features, is a good thing. If you’re interested, the sign up link is above and the details are:

Reducing Student Test Anxiety During Online Proctored Assessments

Thursday, Sep 16, 2021

2:00 PM ET

In the next “The Cheat Sheet” - we return to our regular Tuesday/Thursday schedule and we’ll get an update on those lawsuits between a proctoring company and a critic. Plus, a look at anti-cheating technology making its way to corporate HR. Plus, more cheating.

To share this or sign up for future issues of “The Cheat Sheet,” links below.