Actively detecting and exploring suspicions
Detection should be carried out as a matter of course – active detection alerts teachers that students might have cheated. Teachers should not rely entirely on familiarity with students to arouse suspicions. If teachers do have suspicions, they need techniques to help them take a closer look.
Publicise whole-organisation detection practices that all staff are expected to implement. Individual teachers should not be left to devise their own approaches. Unitec provides guidance for academic staff on ‘what is’, and ‘what might not be cheating’. Advice for teachers is available as a badge Course: TCD – Teaching Competencies Home Page (unitec.ac.nz)
It may also be useful to provide a flowchart and written ‘script’ for staff needing to confront students they suspect of cheating.
Require teachers to record the anti-cheating measures they have taken when they write up their Course Evaluation Report (CEP). This raises staff awareness and allows managers to check that whole-organisation anti-cheating systems and practices are being implemented. Ultimately, the organisation relies on practices implemented by individual tutors to minimise cheating.
Tips for Teachers to detect and minimise Academic Dishonesty
Encourage teachers to get to know each student so well that they immediately notice any changes/irregularities in individual student responses/performance. Changes/irregularities in student responses/performance are seen to be a primary detection tool, and staff need to be equipped with strategies to do so systematically. This ‘pedagogical approach’ ensures teachers know about each student’s understanding of concepts, writing style, ability to organise ideas, etc. Teaching is about helping students to make progress – teachers cannot do that if they do not know what level students are at. (Some teachers consider they are not teaching well if they do not know their students are cheating.)
- Look for “grade shifts” – unexplained discrepancies between levels of performance in different assessments could indicate dishonest behaviour.
- Attendance issues and participation in class discussion and activities can be key indicators – a student who shows little engagement but submits quality work could arouse suspicions.
- The number of students dealt with by each teacher can be an issue – teachers with fewer than 20 students report no problems in developing familiarity with individuals, but some say classes as large as 35 are manageable . Other strategies are used for larger groups, including having one teacher mark all assignments or the same section in all assignments.
- Use content matching software to validate the authorship of written assignments. Unitec employs Turnitin. Some teachers enter sections of text into a general internet search engine or use websites such as
- Note the limitations of content matching programmes. Most software programmes can help identify plagiarism from public sources, but not plagiarism from other students or other forms of cheating, such as “ghostwriting”.
- Turnitin is integrated into Moodle, our in-house student management software to provide seamless information. It is important to train staff and students in using these tools.
In practical assessments, especially on short courses, assess each student in isolation where possible. This is especially relevant if students have been preparing or practising in groups or observing the teacher. Set assessment tasks that are not exactly the same as those demonstrated by the teacher. If students simply need to repeat the assessor’s methods they can superficially adjust their performance to suit. (This is more like mimicry than cheating, but it does mean that students can perform in ways that are not entirely authentic.)
Make the most of evidence from formative assessments. Some of these should be completed under supervised conditions so teachers have samples of each student’s work they know is authentic. Markers can compare work in summative assessments with evidence from formative assessments.
- Keep a file of student work from formative assessments and/or the teacher’s notes/marks. Relatively informal formative assessments can be properly conducted and results documented. Any evidence, even informally collected, can be helpful if there are later suspicions of cheating.
- Conduct brief ‘spot tests’. Teachers use tests and quizzes to reinforce and recap learning but this practice will be more useful later for comparing/contrasting the improvement of students. Spontaneous spot testing (e.g. an informal quiz) could be more appropriate with some programmes/groups but even in these cases information about individual students could be noted.
Written assignments completed in students’ own time. See suggestions on setting assessment tasks in Preventing (above). Additional strategies include requiring students to submit planning notes, worksheets, raw data records, drafts and study/research notes with final assignments, or ask to see them from time to time as assignments are being completed. These can include:
- Requiring students to keep a journal, recording their activities and their thinking as they work toward a finished assignment.
- Interviewing each student after assignments have been submitted – teachers can compare the student’s oral responses with work produced in uncontrolled situations.
- Using content matching software (as above).
Marking (making assessment decisions):
- Be familiar with sources students use. If teachers/markers know about websites and other resources students are likely to refer to, they can spot cheating, especially plagiarism.
- Ideally, have all work marked by teachers who are familiar with students. Where large numbers are involved, some providers have each question/item marked by only one marker.
- Make sure all work is marked by the same teacher. Even if they do not know the students well, markers will be able to notice suspicious patterns and repetition. This should also apply to on-job assessments, assignment and group work.
- Be suspicious if student work does not align with the topic set (questions asked). If students seem to be focusing on a different topic, either across the whole assignment or within sections, they could be using work from other students, engaging a ‘ghostwriter’ or plagiarising sections of work.
- Be alert to signs of ‘ghostwriting’. Indicators include breadth of research, writing style, used of generic terms not specifically related to the topic, spelling or terminology not normally used in New Zealand, referencing, formatting or essay construction a student has not demonstrated previously.
- Keep a central file of all electronically-submitted work – markers will be able to compare work from later assessments. Turnitin does this.
- Ensure that on-job evidence of performance is attested by a responsible senior person – emphasise the importance of the information they are signing off. There may be a tension between getting attestation from a senior person and making sure that person is absolutely sure of the student’s performance. The person attesting might need to confirm from coworkers that data collection was authentic.
Set up a system for ‘whistle-blowers’. Students who become aware that other students are cheating are likely to disapprove or have a sense of injustice. Emails to teachers, course co-ordinators and APMs can provide a confidential channel for student complaints about dishonesty. |
Useful Resources
Moodle Support
Course: Academic Integrity for students (unitec.ac.nz)
Relevant Policies and Procedure
Academic Integrity Procedure
Student Disciplinary Statute
NZQA Guidance
Effective practice in preventing and detecting academic fraud
|
