Logo image
Back
Motivations to contract cheat in higher education: A Pre-COVID Pre-ChatGPT pilot study
Conference proceeding

Motivations to contract cheat in higher education: A Pre-COVID Pre-ChatGPT pilot study

Steven Goh, Zach Quince, Andrew Wandel, Joanna Turner and Sang-Soon Park
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2024), pp.168-176
35th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2024), 35th (Christchurch, New Zealand, 08/12/2024–11/12/2024)
12/2024
Appears in  Recent Faculty of Science and Engineering Publications
url
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering EducationView

Related links

Metrics

11 Record Views

Abstract

academic integrity contract cheating Engineering education Higher education
CONTEXT: The term “contract cheating” describes the form of academic dishonesty where students get academic work completed on their behalf, which is submitted for academic credit as if they had created it themselves. Normally it is presented as an entirely original piece of work, and is unlikely that it will be detected using standard anti-plagiarism text matching software. This is also present in students using generative AI software to complete their assessments. PURPOSE OR GOAL: The aim of this pilot study is to understand why student “cheat” by outsourcing their assignments and exams. We also posed several hypotheses to be tested. We wanted to know if the value of higher education has changed from a transformative to a transactional perception. Additionally, we asked if student “fear” is the most dominating factor leading to transactional perception of higher education driven by self, parental, cultural, societal expectations, and whether the ease of access and low cost has increased its appeal. APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS: A qualitative exploratory approach is adopted to allow flexibility to tap the expected richness of data. The method of data collection is via one-to-one semi-structured interviews supported by a structured questionnaire. Interviews of about 10-15 minutes of 80 students has been chosen as the central instrument, with 58 valid responses. The data was collected during August 2018. ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES: We found within the cohort that the main drivers for motivation to cheat are poor time management and low self-efficacy, however we noted that fear (of failure) is not a direct motivator for cheating, and that students generally value higher education in both transformative and transactional ways. We found slight influence from cultural background and financial dependency in the international cohort and/or those who grew up outside of Australia. We did not find ease of access and low cost has increased the appeal of contract cheating. There was a small cohort who may consider engaging in contract cheating services despite knowing that it is unacceptable and in breach of university policy. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY: Addressing contract cheating requires a multifaceted approach. Educational interventions, such as promoting academic integrity through coursework and workshops, have shown some efficacy in reducing contract cheating incidents. Creating a culture of academic honesty and emphasizing the value of learning over grades can also influence student behaviour.

Details

Logo image