Make the Philippines Great Again Case Study Chegg

• Original article
• Open Admission
• Published: 04 February 2021

Contract cheating past Stalk students through a file sharing website: a Covid-xix pandemic perspective

International Periodical for Educational Integrity volume 17, Article number:iii (2021) Cite this article

• 16k Accesses

• 27 Citations

• 184 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

Students are using file sharing sites to breach academic integrity in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper analyses the use of i such site, Chegg, which offers "homework help" and other academic services to students. Chegg is often presented as a file sharing site in the bookish literature, only that is just ane of many ways in which it can be used. Equally this paper demonstrates, Chegg can and is used for contract cheating This is despite the apparent existence of an Honour Code on Chegg which asks students not to alienation academic integrity. With pandemic led safe considerations leading to increased online teaching and assessment, the paper analyses information relating to how Chegg is used by students in v STEM subjects, namely Estimator Science, Mechanical Engineering, Electric Engineering, Physics and Chemical science. The results testify that students are using Chegg to request examination mode questions. They demonstrate that contract cheating requests can be put live and answered inside the short duration of an examination. The number of student requests posted for these five subjects increased past 196.25% comparison the time period April 2019 to Baronial 2019 with the period April 2020 to August 2020. This increment corresponds with the time when many courses moved to exist delivered and assessed online. The growing number of requests indicates that students are using Chegg for assessment and test aid oftentimes and in a way that is not considered permissible by universities. The newspaper concludes past recommending that academic institutions put interventions in place to minimise the run a risk to educational standards posed past sites such as Chegg, specially since increased online teaching and assessment may continue afterward the pandemic.

Introduction

This paper reports on the growth of how a unmarried marketplace leading file sharing website has been used for contract cheating purposes. The menstruum of growth coincides with the Covid-nineteen pandemic and the associated necessary increase in online teaching and cess inside didactics.

Rogerson and Basanta (2016) define file sharing as existence "when academic lecture materials, notes, assessment tasks, answers, and responses are shared, swapped, and traded over Internet-based sites in fee, gratuitous, or barter (credit/exchange) arrangements". Although pupil collaboration is often encouraged within an educational setting, a challenge with file sharing comes when students share files owned by a academy with commercial providers. These providers then sell materials which they have no buying merits over to other students. Often a castling system is used, with other students encouraged to upload more materials so that they tin can themselves become admission to other resources and answers. As well as breaching copyright and instructor rights of intellectual property, this also has commercial implications for educational providers. Dixon and George (2020) review the value of content on a single file sharing site and guess that the materials for a frequently taught course at a single academy price $lxx,000 United States Dollars (USD) to produce. They estimate the value of a plan refreshed every 5 years as being $3.5 million USD over that time period, a sizeable value potentially lost from educational providers.

The employ of file sharing sites to breach academic integrity has received lilliputian attending in the bookish literature. Diverse terms are used to be depict file sharing sites, including in the literature and past the sites themselves. These terms include crowd sourcing sites, study assist sites and peer-to-peer platforms. Example file sharing sites include OneClass (2020), Chegg (2020), Class Hero (2020) and Thinkswap (2020). This is not a complete list and file sharing sites exist aimed at but at private universities and in several languages. In many ways, these sites can be considered as an extension of traditional fraternity-based archives of previous assignment solutions, designed to give fraternity members an unfair advantage.

Although file sharing sites are already ethically questionable, a further claiming comes when they can besides be used for commercial contract cheating purposes. Contract cheating, originally discussed by Clarke and Lancaster (2006), takes place when a educatee employs a third political party to complete assessed work for them. Many file sharing sites comprise a department of the site which can exist used for contract cheating purposes, often billed as providing "homework aid". Although traditionally contract cheating requests are sold only to a unmarried student, file sharing sites often operate with a variant strategy where answers can exist made available to many students, once the appropriate payment has been made or bartering has concluded.

This paper considers how contract cheating takes place on the marketplace leading file sharing site Chegg (2020). It makes reference to the volume of requests made and answers supplied pre and post Covid-19. The pandemic has seen the motion of teaching and assessment online, often made with piddling fourth dimension for the revised method of provision to have been planned in advance or for academic integrity safeguards to exist put into place. Where students have previously been taught contiguous, activities such every bit in-person lectures, tutorials, assessments and exams have been replaced by virtual alternatives. The unsupervised nature of assessment, including exams, may mean that students have had increased temptation to cheat or may have felt that the back up they would ordinarily take available was not at that place.

The paper first discusses the relevant literature surrounding academic integrity, contract adulterous and online exams in more detail. Online teaching and cess are non in themselves new, even though changes to assessment due to Covid-19 may have made this more prominent. The Chegg file sharing site is further discussed, with reference to how this can exist used for contract cheating purposes. The newspaper provides a quantitative assay of how Chegg is used for contract cheating within a selection of Scientific discipline, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (Stem) subjects, offering an analysis over a two-year menses with reference to pre and post Covid-xix provision. The paper concludes by recommending that the sector works to address contract cheating through file sharing sites particularly as this relates to Covid-19.

Groundwork

Many forms of cess are susceptible to contract cheating. The literature in this field has revealed that an aggressive industry exists, aiming to implore students to cheat (Ellis et al. 2018; Lancaster 2020a). Contract adulterous solutions tin be purchased cheaply by students, oftentimes from writers operating in economic surroundings where incomes are typically low (Lancaster 2020b). Contract cheating solutions can also be provided quickly (Wallace and Newton 2014). This includes providing them inside the limited time bachelor for a standard online exam.

Where courses are taught online, contract cheating is a item adventure. Lancaster and Clarke (2014) reviewed how students at online universities were using a site that nominally stated information technology connected students with tutors for contract cheating. They found the majority of requests were from the United States, mainly from the Business concern and Computing subject areas. Students themselves working as academic integrity partners with educators accept afterward begun to apply the term "toxic tutors" to describe those individuals advertizing themselves as providing aid, but actually there to do work for students (ICAI 2020). Students have brash their peers to carefully consider the services tutoring services say they offering and to choose providers with care to avoid accidentally breaching academic integrity.

Examinations themselves have as well been establish to exist susceptible to contract cheating. Lancaster and Clarke (2017) identified a broad range of sites that could be used to provide students with unauthorised exam assistance, including tutorial sites. Where exams are online, remote proctoring services that apply cameras to bank check the activities of students take been suggested as possible solutions. Still, experts have warned most the dangers of such an approach. Eaton and Turner (2020) conducted a rapid review into literature on academic integrity relating to Covid-19. They identified that students felt they were suffering from stress and anxiety, peculiarly when remote proctoring solutions were used to preserve academic integrity. However, when students are not monitored during examinations, they may be able to plow to file sharing websites to asking contract adulterous solutions. Although farther research in this field is necessary, this does illustrate the trade-off between the demand to protect the value of academic awards, only to still ensure that students feel supported and do not need to utilize doubtable providers of services from exterior their ain bookish institution.

Research has shown that cheating is more probable to occur during online exams than on-site exams. From a survey of bookkeeping students, King et al. (2009) found that students believed that adulterous in online exams was easier than cheating in exams held in person. They also noted that students said they would be less likely to cheat if instructors specifically told them that this was not allowed.

The solutions to exam integrity breaches through file sharing websites need to be considered. Cluskey Jr et al. (2011) suggested changing the questions for online exams every time they run. This would prevent standard answers being already available on file sharing websites, but that, in itself, would non seem to be a solution to contract adulterous.

Clark et al. (2020) have recommended specific solutions to online examination integrity in light of Covid-19. They found that contract adulterous was occurring in online chemical science exams and suggest watermarking exam materials to make them more difficult to share with contract adulterous providers. They also recommend the use of unique data sets for private students to work on. This means that if questions are placed on a visible file sharing site, the educatee with that data set allocated to them tin can be traced. Even where this is not a viable solution, it can be possible to detect contract cheating, including answers obtained from file sharing sites. Rogerson (2017) provided indicators for assessors to look out for, including commendation and referencing irregularities, likewise as the apply of inconsistent language.

Quantitative bookish research relating to the employ of file sharing sites by students is limited. In a study conducted pre Covid-19, Bretag et al. (2019) surveyed students at Australian educational institutions and asked them about their file sharing tendencies. They found that 15.3% said they had brought or traded notes and 27.2% had provided assignments to other students. They found that 2.iv% of students said they had received assist during examinations. Although these results are not specifically linked to file sharing websites, they do advise that many students could be encouraged to employ sites like these.

Grams (2011a, 2011b) tested the hypothesis that students would perform ameliorate if they had legitimate and approved access to the materials from a file sharing site. Grams noted that, despite students believing access would positively increase their grades, there was no noticeable difference between students who were granted access to such a site for a year compared to other students. Instructors generally had a negative stance about the use of such sites. Grams also noted that the students preferred to learn from textbook solutions over those provided through the file sharing site being examined. Van de Sande (2011) independently reviewed the quality of solutions on such a site and found that 56% of them were not as good as those establish in instructor solution manuals.

Ardid et al. (2015) establish no departure in the results students received when taking in-person and online exams, provided both types of exams were proctored. Withal, when students took the exam online and it was not proctored, students received higher marks than in a proctored situation. A similar upshot was found by Nizam et al. (2020) in inquiry conducted during Covid-19. They besides establish that students obtained higher marks in unproctored exams had higher marks than in proctored exams. This may be due to access to students having access to the contract cheating industry in such a situation.

If contract adulterous opportunities are growing as a result of Covid-19, there are other risks to consider. Yorke et al. (2020) have warned how students are at run a risk of blackmail, both during their course and following its completion. They have also shown that nearly students are unaware of the risks of using contract cheating providers.

Methodology

This study reviews the available of contract adulterous solutions through the file sharing site Chegg (2020). Amongst other services offered, Chegg provides a homework help section, where people can post problems and request total solutions. These requests might include homework questions, textbook problems, assignments and exam questions. Free users tin view questions, but non post them. Subscribers can post upwardly to 20 questions per month and view all answers. Answers tin can exist provided by regular Chegg users, just also past a group that Chegg has certified equally experts. Not every question receives an answer and questions tin receive more than than one answer. The question archive is divide into subject categories making it possible to see how students self-classified their requests. This archive tin can as well exist searched by keyword.

For this report, the Chegg archive of homework help questions was examined for v subjects in the STEM group to provide an indication of how the site was beingness used. The subjects investigated were Calculator Science, Mechanical Engineering, Electric Engineering science, Physics and Chemistry. Quantitative information related to the number of questions posted per subject area per day was collected over a two-year menstruation from 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2020. The researchers did not subscribe to the Chegg service to collect this information, which was freely attainable and manually collected. The data was collected direct from the subject level card on Chegg. The data gear up provides two complete years of Chegg data for the 5 subjects, allowing for comparisons between 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2019, with 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020, dates roughly equivalent to the academic year in many countries.

For simplicity in the remainder of the paper, the menstruum from ane September 2018 to 31 August 2019 will be referred to every bit xviii/nineteen. The period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020 will be referred to as 19/20.

In addition, a single typical solar day was selected, consequent for each year. The number of questions that 24-hour interval receiving at least ane answer was calculated. This unmarried twenty-four hour period comparison was intended to allow researchers to place if, in the event of the number of questions asked changing, did this affect the number of questions being answered?

Enquiry methodology limitations

Due to the labour intensive nature of this research, data collection was restricted to a limited range of subjects for a two-twelvemonth period. The subjects were selected to be STEM based to permit this field to exist considered in more depth. The timeline for data collection was considered to allow the bear on of Covid-19 to be explored with relation to contract cheating. The inquiry also only considers a single file sharing site, so information technology is non certain if these results will generalise to other such sites.

Results and discussion

In total, beyond the five analysed subjects in that location were 3,050,372 questions posted during eighteen/19 and 5,335,770 questions posted betwixt during nineteen/20. This showed an increase in the number of questions posted of 74.92% from 18/19 to 19/20. The average (mean) number of questions posted in 18/19 was 8357 and in 19/twenty was xiv,578. Tabular array 1 shows this calculation on a subject basis.

Table 1 Questions posted on Chegg in 18/19 and nineteen/20

Full size tabular array

The number of questions asked and answered on i March each year was as well calculated. Eight grand ii hundred lxx-six questions were posted ane March 2018 beyond all five subjects. These were answered 89.96% of the time. Thirteen thousand vii hundred nineteen questions were posted on 1 March 2020 and answered 85.57% of the time. Despite the slight drib in the percentage of questions answered, the raw numbers showed a substantial quantitative increase.

Table ii shows this information at bailiwick level for 1 March each year. Of notation is the subtract in the per centum of answered questions in Computer Scientific discipline, although this is still an increase in numeric terms.

Table 2 Answered Questions on ane March 2019 and 1 March 2020

Full size tabular array

The boilerplate number of questions per day per month was also calculated at a subject level and compared on a month-by-calendar month footing. This showed a striking result. Between September and March, inclusive, the percentage increase never exceeded 32.27% for any of the subjects. Betwixt April and August, inclusive, the smallest increase was 80.08% and the largest increase 343%. Table 3 provides an example of this for Chemistry as monthly averages. The pattern shows a slight increase in March as universities began to move to online educational activity, so a much greater increase from April onwards.

Table 3 Percent increase per solar day per month of Chemical science questions posted between xviii/19 and xix/20

Full size table

Figures one, ii, 3, four and v graphically illustrate the average number of questions asked per 24-hour interval per month for each discipline across the 18/19 and 19/20 period. Although the numbers differ slightly, the graphs show a largely similar shape. They illustrate ii peak asking times for contract cheating services each year, with one in Apr–May and some other in October–November. These may link with university cess periods. The Apr–May elevation for 19/20 is of a greater order of magnitude than that from 18/19.

Fig. 1

Questions per day per month of Information science questions posted between 18/19 and 19/xx

Total size image

Fig. 2

Questions per day per month of Physics questions posted between 18/xix and 19/20

Full size image

Fig. iii

Questions per twenty-four hours per month of Chemistry questions posted between 18/19 and 19/20

Total size prototype

Fig. 4

Questions per day per month of Mechanical Engineering science questions posted betwixt xviii/19 and 19/xx

Full size image

Fig. 5

Questions per twenty-four hours per calendar month of Electrical Engineering science questions posted betwixt 18/19 and nineteen/xx

Full size prototype

For example, in Fig. i (Computer Science), the maximum meridian values in xviii/19 in Nov was 2541 questions and in April was 2903 questions, simply in 19/twenty, the peak in November was 2867 questions and in Apr this rose to 5228 questions. The graph also shows that the gradient of the slope between the years after April is very like, with the number of questions posted decreasing each calendar month. It is important to notice that these trends occurred regardless of the discipline area. Based on the sample, it looks likely that the same trend will occur in subjects outside those selected for assay.

Effigy six shows similar information to Figs. ane, 2, 3, iv and 5, only for the v subjects being considered taken as overall totals. The shape of the graph and the overall peaks are again consistent with the idea that the employ of Chegg to request answers has increased twelvemonth-on-twelvemonth in the post Covid-19 menstruation.

Fig. 6

Questions per mean solar day per month of questions from all STEM subjects analysed, posted betwixt 18/19 and 19/xx

Total size epitome

A further analysis considered the average number of questions asked per day in the September to March menstruum and in the April to August period, compared over the two years. Betwixt September and March, this showed an overall 12.68% increase between the years of the boilerplate number of questions posted per mean solar day per calendar month, only between April and August the increase was 196.25%, which is a substantial deviation. Furthermore, the average had dropped by 28.92% between the September 2018–March 2019 and April 2019–August 2019 periods, but increased by 87.74% between the September 2019–March 2020 and April 2020–August 2020 periods.

Table 4 details the percentage changes over the two time periods at subject level.

Table 4 Subject comparing of the September to March and April to August time periods

Full size table

Although Table 4 shows only a slight increase in the number of questions posted during the September to March periods, the Apr to August periods show an overall increase of 196.25%. This indicates that the file sharing site has been used much more during this fourth dimension. Similar trends were observed across all five subjects. Chegg usage decreased approaching Baronial and September 2019, simply increased in the post-obit twelvemonth, further reinforcing the observation made above.

Chegg do not provide the facility to trace requests directly back to an private academic provider, or even a land of origin. On occasion it may exist possible to work this out, but the fashion in which information is shown on the site makes this difficult. For instance, some posts incorporate photos or screenshots of a trouble that is likely to take been encountered in a standard textbook. Such standard questions could exist in use at many institutions.

Many questions list a number of bachelor marks on them. Others announced to comprise randomised variables. These are indicators that the questions are likely from online exams. Some questions incorporate both marks and randomised variables, as indicated by the Physics question example shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Example Question on Chegg likely from Online Exam

Full size image

Students have besides been observed posting a series of requests 1 after another, almost often where the questions are multiple pick or brusk answer format. Effigy 8 shows one such case for Computer Science, with a question sequence that extended far beyond the minor sample shown. As occurs with many questions on Chegg, these accept the form of low-quality images, which would make whatever course of automated processing of these difficult. Questions requested past other students were made in between these, demonstrating just how rapidly requests appear on Chegg during height periods.

Fig. 8

Question Series Instance on Chegg likely from Online Test

Total size image

An interesting consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic is that there are many questions on Chegg whose themes include Covid-19. A pick of terms such as COVID, pandemic and coronavirus were used equally search terms across all questions on Chegg from all subjects. In every case, Chegg returned 500 results, which is the limit of the number of questions returned by a search. This indicates that students around the world are being prepare questions on Covid-19 and that many of them are finding their way onto file sharing sites for third parties to answer on their behalf.

Conclusion

This newspaper has reviewed how a file sharing website popular with students is used to facilitate contract cheating. There are many assessed coursework and exam questions posted and answered every day. The data shows a substantial increase in the number of questions asked and answered in the period from Apr 2020 onwards, largely matching with the move online of didactics and assessment. Given the number of exam style questions, it appears highly likely that students are using this site as an piece of cake way to breach bookish integrity by obtaining outside help.

Using the fact that around 85% of questions asked are answered at least once, information technology is possible to approximate the number of questions answered each year. Based on Table 2, this suggests that about 2.6 million questions were answered out of the three million questions posted in 2018–2019, and around 4.viii million out of the v.3 one thousand thousand questions in 2019–2020 were answered. This approximation covers only the five STEM subjects reviewed in the paper and not the other subjects from which Chegg also offers solutions to students. The number of questions asked and answered on Chegg each twelvemonth is probable to exist many times greater.

To accept a successful and growing concern and to evangelize a return to its shareholders, Chegg depends on a continual growth in the number of subscribers it has. Based on the growth in the number of questions asked, this also suggests an increment in subscribers and thus the number of students who have access to the answers.

The apparent growth in student cheating also matches an increase in the market value of Chegg. Table five contains the value of shares at the get-go of each calendar month, retrieved from Google after searching 'Chegg valuation'. Since not all months take an entry for the first day of the month, the value has been obtained from the outset bachelor date. Table v indicates that between Oct 2019 and May 2020 at that place was an increase of no more than $xiv USD, but and then the share toll increased by over $20 USD in the month post-obit May.

Table 5 Chegg share price, by calendar month

Full size table

In an interview, Chegg's chief executive mentioned that they noticed a "sustainable growth" of the website starting from 15 March 2020 (Gelles 2020). This further corresponds to the data presented in this paper and the increment in the market value of Chegg and suggests that contract cheating may take been a factor here.

Chegg does merits to have an Honor Lawmaking in place. In the Honour Lawmaking, it is stated that Chegg does not support fraud, cheating or breaches of copyright and suggests that materials may be removed or user accounts terminated if bookish institutions contact them to open an investigation. There is petty bear witness that account termination has happened. In add-on, information technology appears that in that location is nothing to stop students posting questions online and receiving answers inside the fourth dimension frame of an exam. There does not seem to be any manual approval of requests or periods of delay before questions are put live to be answered. People, including Chegg certified experts, appear to exist ready and waiting to reply questions equally they are asked. This seems to provide evidence that the Chegg Honour Code arrangement is not working based on the book of requests for assessed piece of work that take been observed.

Some individuals accept stated that requests can be made to Chegg if their copyrighted teaching or assessment material is found online (Murdoch 2020; Reddit 2020). This may include the details of accounts who have accessed the material, including their proper noun, email address and institution. Notwithstanding, there has also been discussion online that the procedure is onerous, requires senior potency from universities and that students are given the opportunity to remove their accounts prior to the investigation then that no information tin be transferred. This suggests that Chegg do non actually desire to eliminate contract cheating.

Hereafter action in this area is necessary. This includes awareness raising with both staff and students. Using contract cheating services is not victimless and this has to be communicated. Similarly, the messaging needs to provide consistent and clear advice that there are benefits to working with academic integrity and there are risks involved when breaching it. Staff should exist encouraged to monitor file sharing sites for their assessments, just this tin be difficult when questions are posted as images rather than text. Some form of automated monitoring, with immediate reporting to instructors if their assessments or examination questions appear to be found online, would be a useful development.

Further research data could be collected from Chegg, covering more subjects over a longer time period. This investigation has focused just on Stalk subjects, which typically take many questions that are mathematical or scientific in nature. This may make this surface area easier for contract cheating providers to requite quick answers for these subjects than it would be for those that are more text based or descriptive. In improver, content analysis of the questions posted would likewise exist useful, but that would most likely require an automated or machine learning based approach. Although it is the market leader, Chegg is not the merely file sharing site. It would be instructive to encounter if the trends identified here extend more widely.

Bookish integrity breaches are happening and, as the data presented in this paper has demonstrated, such breaches are condign more than common as a result of Covid-19. These breaches exercise crave a continued reconsideration of teaching and assessment methods. Even if face up-to-face teaching returns, information technology is unlikely that this will ever now consistently take the aforementioned format it did prior to the pandemic. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and there is no way to put the stopper dorsum in. The entire academic integrity community, including merely not limited to staff, students, academic institutions, quality bodies and commercial providers akin, needs to be ready and prepared to human action.

Availability of information and materials

An anonymised version of the quantitative data analyzed during the electric current written report is available from the corresponding writer on reasonable asking.

Abbreviations

ICAI:

International Center for Academic Integrity

IDOA:

International Twenty-four hours of Action against Contract Cheating

STEM:

Scientific discipline, Engineering science, Applied science and Mathematics

USD:

United States Dollars

References

• Ardid Chiliad, Gómez-Tejedor J, Meseguer-Dueñas J, Riera J, Vidaurre A (2015) Online exams for composite assessment. Study of unlike application methodologies. Comput Educ 81:296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.010

• Bretag T, Harper R, Burton M, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, van Haeringen K (2019) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students. Stud High Educ 44(11):1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788

• Chegg (2020). Get 24/7 homework help. http://chegg.com/ Accessed 22 Nov 2020

  Google Scholar

• Clark T, Callam C, Paul N, Stoltzfus M, Turner D (2020) Testing in the time of Covid-19: a sudden transition to unproctored online exams. J Chem Educ 97(9):3413–3417

• Clarke R, Lancaster T (2006) Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Proceedings of 2d international plagiarism conference. Newcastle, United Kingdom

  Google Scholar

• Cluskey G Jr, Ehlen C, Raiborn M (2011) Thwarting online exam cheating without proctor supervision. J Acad Business Ethics 4(1):i–vii

• Dixon Z, George M (2020) Monitoring uncharted communities of Crowdsourced plagiarism. J Acad Ethics. https://doi.org/x.1007/s10805-020-09381-ii

• Eaton S, Turner K (2020) Exploring academic integrity and mental health during COVID-19: rapid review. J Contemporary Educ Theory Res 4(ii):35–41. https://zenodo.org/tape/4256825#.X6gXr5NKhm8

• Ellis C, Zucker I, Randall D (2018) The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business organization processes and models of academic custom writing sites. Int J Educ Integr fourteen(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3

• Gelles, D. (2020). For online learning, business has never been better The New York Times June 12 2020

• Grams M (2011a) Cramster: Friend or foe? Phys Teach 49(4):225–227. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3566032

• Grams Thousand (2011b) The Cramster conclusion. Phys Teach 49(5):291–294. https://doi.org/x.1119/ane.3578424

• Class Hero (2020). Make every study hour count. http://coursehero.com/. Accessed 22 November 2020

  Google Scholar

• ICAI (2020). ICAI IDOA student grouping console get-go "newscast". 20 Alive in twenty -- Global Conversations about Contract Cheating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V-DDhYnksM. Accessed 22 Nov 2020

  Google Scholar

• King C, Guyette R Jr, Piotrowski C (2009) Online exams and cheating: an empirical analysis of business concern students' views. J Educ Online half dozen(ane):1–11

• Lancaster T (2020a) Academic subject integration past contract cheating services and essay mills. J Acad Ethics xviii:115–127. https://doi.org/x.1007/s10805-019-09357-x

• Lancaster T (2020b) Commercial contract adulterous provision through micro-outsourcing web sites. Int J Educ Integrity xvi(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00053-vii

• Lancaster, T and Clarke, R (2014). An observational analysis of the range and extent of contract cheating from online courses found on agency websites. In: Proceedings of 2014 Eighth International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS): 56–63. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISIS.2014.9

• Lancaster, T and Clarke, R (2017) Rethinking assessment past examination in the age of contract adulterous. In: Glendinning, I, Foltýnek, T, Rybička, J (eds) Proceedings of Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond 2017. Brno, Czech republic: 215–228

• Murdoch, Thousand (2020). Twitter. https://twitter.com/CC___Raider/status/1296628611210866690. Accessed 22 Nov 2020

• Nizam N, Gao S, Li M, Mohamed H, Wang G (2020) Scheme for cheating prevention in online exams during social distancing

  Google Scholar

• OneClass (2020). Personalized courses, study materials and homework help. http://oneclass.com. Accessed 22 Nov 2020

  Google Scholar

• Reddit (2020). PSA: Hither's the information Chegg will give an official investigation. https://world wide web.reddit.com/r/Professors/comments/g1jiob/psa_heres_the_information_chegg_will_give_you. Accessed 22 Nov 2020

  Google Scholar

• Rogerson A, Basanta G (2016) Peer-to-peer file sharing and academic integrity in the internet age. In: Bretag (ed) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55

• Rogerson AM (2017) Detecting contract adulterous in essay and report submissions: process, patterns, clues and conversations. Int J Educ Integr 13(1):ten. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s40979-017-0021-6

• Thinkswap (2020). Handpicked study resources for students. http://thinkswap.com/ Accessed 22 November 2020

  Google Scholar

• Van de Sande, C (2011). How are students' problems existence solved? The quality of worked solutions on a popular open up, online, mathematics, assist forum, In: Spada, H, Stahl Grand, Miyake, N, Law, N (eds) Proceedings of International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2011). Hong Kong: 280–287

• Wallace MJ, Newton PM (2014) Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating. Educ Stud 40(2):233–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.889597

• Yorke J, Sefcik L, Veeran-Colton T (2020) Contract adulterous and bribery: a risky business? Studies in Higher Instruction: ane–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1730313

Download references

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Imperial College London StudentShapers programme. The student partner, Codrin Cotarlan, received a bursary to support his participation.

Author data

Affiliations

1. Department of Computing, Majestic Higher London, London, UK

   Thomas Lancaster & Codrin Cotarlan

Contributions

Both authors contributed to developing the research written report and collaborated throughout. Codrin Cotarlan collected and analysed the inquiry data and documented the results. Both authors contributed to different sections of the paper. Thomas Lancaster edited and produced the final version of the newspaper. The writer(south) read and approved the terminal manuscript.

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Thomas Lancaster.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors take no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution iv.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as yous give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Eatables licence, and point if changes were fabricated. The images or other third party material in this commodity are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the cloth. If fabric is not included in the article'due south Creative Commons licence and your intended apply is not permitted past statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/iv.0/. The Artistic Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the information made bachelor in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

Nearly this article

Cite this commodity

Lancaster, T., Cotarlan, C. Contract cheating by Stem students through a file sharing website: a Covid-19 pandemic perspective. Int J Educ Integr 17, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0

Download citation

• Received: 22 November 2020

• Accepted: 06 January 2021

• Published: 04 February 2021

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s40979-021-00070-0

Keywords

• Chegg
• Academic integrity
• Contract cheating
• File sharing
• Academic misconduct
• Online exams
• Assessment
• Covid-19
• Pandemic

randallgairciand.blogspot.com

Source: https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0

Share this post