Study calls for streamlined process to end contract cheating

A new study highlights the frustration and indignation felt by faculty members in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) when confronted with assignments they believe are the product of contract cheating and calls for explicit institutional interventions to deal with what is a growing problem.

Titled “I’m not guarding the dungeon”: Faculty members’ perspectives on contract cheating in the UAE” published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity on 3 June, offers several practical measures to mitigate contract cheating, a phenomenon in which a third party completes the assignment, quiz or homework for students in exchange for a fee.

The study, authored by Mona Aljanahi, Mohammed Aljanahi and Eman Mahmoud at the United Arab Emirates University, highlighted faculty perspectives on the issue of contract cheating and sought responses from 23 university instructors who were randomly approached.

Eight of the participants, in six different institutions, located in five different cities, agreed to be virtually interviewed. Participants represented different nationalities, originally hailing from the UAE, United States, England and India.

There were four female participants, four PhD holders, and four with an MA. Three taught in scientific colleges and five in humanities colleges.

The study noted that because of the “sensitive nature” of the topic, some participants withdrew their participation. “Given the limited sample size of the study, it is important to caution against generalising the findings to all faculty members in UAE higher education institutions,” the study stated.

Feelings of violation

What the study did reveal is the indignation staff and faculty felt towards contract cheating for reasons which included the following: violations of faculty’s rights, other students’ rights, and religious rights.

Participants indicated feelings of frustration, discouragement, sadness, demotivation, disappointment, feelings of being disrespected and anger because they believed that principles of equity and fairness had been violated through the act of cheating.

One participant said contract cheating “exacerbates social class differences; people who have money can buy it and then make a degree; people who cannot afford it, they are always behind…”.

Some of the participants indicated that they could identify a specific assignment as being contracted because the submitted work deviated from the requirements, mentioning concepts and theories that had not been included in the class.

Others contained content that did not correlate to a student’s personal experience or reflected a writing style inconsistent with a student’s writing abilities, particularly when most students were second-language users of English.

Lack of institutional support

The results showed that faculty members’ hesitation in reporting contract cheating incidents was due to their perceived lack of support from higher administration institutions and a lack of clear policies and procedures in ethics manuals for guiding faculty members and stakeholders on how to deal with instances of contract cheating.

The results showed that faculty members took their own measures which included checking assignments for rubrics, failing students in tasks or courses, reducing grades, or confronting students.

“Although participants dealt with suspected cases [in ways] they perceived as fair, their actions were not equal, or one might say not consistent,” the study noted.

“The reason they did so was due to their overall sense of responsibility towards students, and the larger community. Here, too, faculty members shouldered such responsibilities individually due to the lack of policies and procedures in honour code books,” the study said.

It went on to suggest that while academic departments were often aware of the phenomena the issue was not officially acknowledged by the institution. “As a result, the lack of support is institutionalised. Everyone is talking about it, but nothing is done to address it,” the authors noted.

Scale of the problem

Andy Pacino, former teaching and learning coordinator at Murdoch University in Dubai, told University World News the incidence of contract cheating was rising. “I don’t think there can be any argument that contract cheating most certainly was on the rise pre-COVID-19, and there is evidence to suggest that the pandemic added fuel to the CC fire,” he said.

In addition to Pacino's 2021 study titled “An investigation into contract cheating in tertiary education, and how to combat the problem in a United Arab Emirates context”, several other studies have grappled with the question of how to stop the phenomenon.

The study by Aljanahi and colleagues argues that unless institutions have clear policies that deal with the phenomenon in a logical way, institutions will see “negative foreseeable consequences in the future”.

The study highlighted the need for a clear definition of what contract cheating is and is not, and “institutional awareness of mechanisms to deal with such knotty phenomena”.

Standardised rules and procedures

“When students are instructed not to outsource their assignments, they might be alarmed that contract cheating is widely recognised, that their institution and instructors are familiar with it, and that there is a considerable chance that academic institutions would deal with these cases seriously,” the study pointed out.

“Standardised procedures should entail reporting contract cheating, reviewing each unique case and choosing from the predefined disciplinary measures for contract cheating cases,” it stated.

The study argues that staff would “feel more confident and supported” by having access to written rules and regulations.

Students, it suggests, should be provided with resources to improve their writing abilities. Other preventive mechanisms could include training faculty to detect contract cheating and minimising the incidence by the changing of assignments and encouraging innovative assessment mechanisms.

“Fairness must be at the centre of uniform guidelines to deal with contract cheating,” the study emphasised.

However, the study also suggested that faculty members be afforded “some degree of agency in the decision-making process” to ensure their continued participation and support in institutional mitigation measures.

“When faculty members have agency and can contribute to the decision, the chances of reporting and reducing contract cheating will increase,” the study noted.

“Institutions of higher education must strike a balance between centralised policies for contract cheating and affording case-by-case flexibility in their implementation,” it said.

Pacino endorsed the idea of more academic writing training for students. “I suggest that more practical support and training in academically stylised vocabulary and writing must go a long way to preparing students for assignment writing,” he said.

“In my experience, students entering their first year at undergraduate level are not well enough prepared for their university journey and, therefore, a solid foundation programme must be implemented [give] them a far better understanding of academic requirements and knowledge of assignment structure,” he explained.

Pacino said that despite the study’s failure to explore the use of ChatGPT and other AI in academic assignments, policymakers would need to understand the extent to which contract cheating and GenAI were being used by students.

“We also have to accept that the contract cheating problem is not going to simply go away, and we must, therefore, find more practical ways to support our students and integrate generative artificial intelligence use into our pedagogical delivery, and have students understand best practice policies,” he stressed.

Value for policymakers

Dr Zeenath Reza Khan, founding president of the Centre for Academic Integrity at the University of Wollongong in the UAE, told University World News the study was a “unique contribution” to the existing store of knowledge.

Previous research in the UAE, she said, mostly focused on students’ perceptions, the impact on students, and the proliferation of contract cheating service providers online.

“The study is highly significant for policymakers locally and globally as its findings provide a clear picture of the concerns surrounding contract cheating in UAE which is a concern everywhere,” said Khan.

Khan, who is the author of a 2022 study entitled “The devil’s in the detail – Counting unique and organic contract cheating sites targeting higher education students in the UAE as a call to delegitimize them”, toldUniversity World News the study highlighted the necessity of providing adequate support to faculty members.

“Policymakers can use these insights to develop training programmes and support systems that empower faculty to effectively combat contract cheating,” she said.

“The study’s recommendations for a multifaceted approach, including prevention, detection, and management of contract cheating, are in line with leading experts’ suggestions and findings globally and can guide policymakers in creating robust frameworks that address the issue from multiple angles,” she added.

Potential challenges

Anticipating the kinds of challenges new mitigation measures might face, Khan suggested that universities may encounter implementation challenges owing to resource constraints and resistance to change.

“Students and faculty might resist new policies and procedures, especially if they feel that these measures are too punitive or intrusive,” she said.

Khan suggested that stakeholders should be engaged in the development of policies to ensure buy-in.

She emphasised the importance of nurturing academic integrity through awareness campaigns and training and prioritising resource allocation. She pointed to the benefits of external funding or partnerships to supplement resources.

“Universities must also focus on working with governing entities to delegitimise such contract cheating services as a nationwide effort to uphold the integrity of assessments and education,” Khan noted.

“Universities should foster a culture of integrity and transparency, ensuring that students understand the value of honest academic work and the long-term consequences of contract cheating,” she stressed.

Khan admitted that addressing contract cheating was “a complex challenge” and said it required a concerted effort from all stakeholders in the educational community.

“Collaboration among institutions, legal authorities, and EdTech providers is essential to combat the sophisticated means by which contract cheating services operate.

“By prioritising academic integrity, universities can uphold the quality and credibility of their educational programs, ultimately benefiting students, faculty, and society as a whole,” she said.