CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 201Academic integrity and plagiarismStudent Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship

Open access
Bretag, Tracey, Harper, Rowena, Burton, Michael, Ellis, Cath, Newton, Philip, van Haeringen, Karen, Saddiqui, Sonia, Rozenberg, Pearl·2019·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper reports on findings from a large Australian research project that explored the relationship between contract cheating and assessment design. Using survey responses from 14,086 students and 1147 educators at eight universities, a multivariate analysis examined the influence of a range of factors on the likelihood that different assessment types would prompt considerations of contract cheating in students. Perceptions of likelihood were highest among students who speak a language other than English at home. Perceptions of likelihood were also higher among students who reported there to be lots of opportunities to cheat, and amongst students who were dissatisfied with the teaching and learning environment. Perceptions of likelihood for certain assessment types were also higher in commerce and engineering than in any other discipline. Overall, four assessment types were perceived by students to be the least likely to be outsourced, however these are also the least likely to be set by educators. The analysis indicates that educators are more likely to use these assessment tasks when they report positively on organisational support for teaching and learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Students' misconduct is not equal across all assessment types; some forms lend themselves to academic dishonesty more than others.

    “As with pre-AI discussions of academic integrity, it is important to recognise that students' misconduct is not equal across all assessment types; some forms lend themselves to academic dishonesty more than others (Bretag et al., 2019).”

    From The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI supported assessment (2024) · cites this paper as Bretag et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia;
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Bretag, Tracey
ORCID
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-12-14
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
676-691
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
DOI
10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892
OpenAlex
W2905256499
Cited by
201
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8
FWCI
22.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Government Department of Education and Training (SP16-5383)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
contract cheating, academic integrity, assessment design, student perceptions, assessment types, language background, teaching and learning environment, higher education teachers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review