Cited by 56Academic integrity and plagiarismAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingArtificial Intelligence in Education

Can software improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A pilot study of the Turnitin authorship investigate alpha

Open access
Dawson, Phillip, Sutherland-Smith, Wendy, Ricksen, Mark·2020·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

Contract cheating happens when students outsource their assessed work to a third party. One approach that has been suggested for improving contract cheating detection is comparing students’ assignment submissions with their previous work, the rationale being that changes in style may indicate a piece of work has been written by somebody else. This approach is time consuming, but recent advances in machine learning and natural language processing suggest that it may be well suited to computerization. We trialed an early alpha version of Turnitin’s Authorship Investigate tool, which compares students’ submissions against their previous work. Twenty-four experienced markers from five units of study were asked to make decisions about the presence of contract cheating in bundles of 20 student assignments, which included 14 legitimate assignments and six purchased from contract cheating sites. We asked markers to determine if each assignment was contract cheating, then provided them with an Authorship Investigate report and let them change their decision. Marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating increased significantly, from 48% to 59% after using the report, with no significant difference in false positives. These findings suggest that software may be an effective component of institutional strategies to address contract cheating.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2019.1662884

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Dawson et al. (2020) noted that the use of software which includes authorship analysis can increase detection rates.

    “but noted that the use of software which includes authorship analysis can increase detection rates.”

    From Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT (2024) · cites this paper as Dawson et al. (2020)

  • A later paper by Dawson et al. (2020) found a lower success rate of unassisted markers (at 48%).

    “A later paper by Dawson et al. (2020) found a lower success rate of unassisted markers (at 48%)”

    From Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT (2024) · cites this paper as Dawson et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dawson, P., Sutherland-Smith, W., & Ricksen, M.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;
  • Turnitin (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Dawson, Phillip
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2019-09-23
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
473-482
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2977097344
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
contract cheating, academic integrity, student assignment submission, stylistic comparison, academic misconduct detection, higher education assessment

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