Can software improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A pilot study of the Turnitin authorship investigate alpha
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Rogerson, A. M. (2017) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-017-0021-6 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y · Cited by 984 · see citing works
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.3.02 · Cited by 547 · see citing works
“And for some, effective measures of detection, and prescription of significant punishment has been the proposed solution (Amigud & Dawson, 2019; Dawson et al., 2020).”
Method
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- green
- figshare.com
- 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