'Contract adulterous', whereby students pay companies to complete assignments on their behalf, threatens to seriously undermine college education standards. Philip M. Newton and Michael J. Draper consider what might be washed to tackle this issue, including the Quality Assurance Agency's suggestion of deploying the United kingdom Fraud Human action (2006). While questions remains as to whether the Fraud Act is likely to prove constructive in prosecuting companies that offering contract adulterous services, it may exist that other legal approaches can be adopted. Additionally, more robust assessment designs and university regulations, together with renewed programmes of stakeholder educational activity, can mitigate the threats posed by contract cheating.

Academy students are paying other people to complete their assessments, a process known as 'contract cheating'. Here, nosotros examine the touch of research on strategies to tackle the issue.  This is a fast-evolving, currently understudied topic and utilising high-quality research is important considering of the serious implications of contract cheating. For example, some of the nigh of import roles in society may exist undertaken past people who have not personally demonstrated the necessary learning. Engineers, doctors, midwives, lawyers, nurses, judges, dentists, etc. tin can all purchase assignments; contract cheating offers a bypass of the gatekeeping function of academy cess, undermining the value of a university degree.

Contract cheating scandals are regularly covered by the mainstream media. Stories highlight the mismatch betwixt what companies say they practice and the consequences of what they actually practice, as well equally the assuming advertising used in public, legitimising activity. Still, we don't really know how many students are using contract cheating services (although a forthcoming research project will give u.s.a. an idea; in Australia, at least). Many academics have anecdotal stories, horror stories by and large, of students using these services. Chat forums interim every bit a sort of Tripadvisor for the industry are total of similar tales.

Image credit: Behemothic Gavel by Sam Howzit. This work is licensed under a CC Past 2.0 license.

What we do know is fairly hair-raising, though. About any blazon of assessment can be purchased, and, every bit our forthcoming research will prove, hundreds of websites offering these services. Although a range of services are offered, a quick Google search shows that most sites have the discussion 'essay' in their name, making information technology fairly articulate where well-nigh of their business comes from. Services offered do non price a lot, and accept a rapid turnaround. When students were asked how (if at all) other students should be penalised for using these services, they chose simply modest penalties: namely that any purchased assignment should be failed. This is in stark contrast to the UK higher didactics sector standard, which is for students to be withdrawn.

So what could exist done about this? There are many ways this event could be addressed, with four common, overlapping themes: assessment blueprint, stakeholder didactics, university regulations, and the police force. The use of a legal approach was endorsed by the Britain regulator of higher education, the Quality Balls Agency (QAA) in the summer of 2016, which specifically suggested the 2006 U.k. Fraud Act be used to tackle UK-based companies offering contract cheating services.

To determine whether or non the U.k. Fraud Human activity might, in fact, be used successfully, our research compared the common business practices of the contract cheating services, including their advertising and terms and conditions, against the Deed. In our academic view, the Fraud Deed is not likely to be effective in prosecuting companies that offer contract cheating services. Disclaimers ordinarily establish in the terms and weather condition often affirm that assignments written by companies are not to exist used as students' own piece of work, simply rather equally 'model answers'. Although some of the aforementioned media reports and, specially, some of the companies' advertising methods oft announced in direct disharmonize with these terms and conditions, we believe this would still not exist sufficient to deploy the Fraud Human action (although it might exist grounds for using Trading Standards or other consumer protection laws).

Following that research, nosotros proposed a new law which would create an offence of strict liability on the auction of essays, subject to a due diligence defence force which would put the burden of proof on the 'essay mill' company to establish legitimate use rather than on the prosecuting authority to establish wrongdoing through 'intent'. The demand to demonstrate intent is a major barrier to legal enforcement. Strict liability offences are regulatory offences deployed, commonly by Parliament-made (statute) police force, in areas of significant public involvement in which it is of import that the law act as a deterrent to regulate behaviour. Specific examples include sections 143 and 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – driving uninsured and driving without a full licence: both of these offences are ones of strict liability which tin can be committed without any intent on the role of the driver. It would therefore be appropriate to include a strict liability offence in relation to essay mills in the College Education and Research Nib.

Again, this is a fast-evolving effect. An amendment to the electric current College Pedagogy and Enquiry Pecker was tabled, proposing to make essay mills illegal, although this nevertheless required the demonstration of 'intent'. Information technology was debated in the House of Lords on 25 January, with our research (here and hither) directly cited by Lord Storey of Liverpool in back up of the subpoena. Nevertheless, the government response was to propose greater emphasis on guidance from, and for, universities and other stakeholders. The subpoena was not supported in its current course.

Then, Jo Johnson, Government minister of Land for Universities, Science, Enquiry and Innovation, concluding week issued a statement calling on universities to do more than to end students buying custom written essays online, saying:

"This form of cheating is unacceptable and every university should have strong policies and sanctions in place to detect and deal with it".

The Minister asked for guidance aimed at universities, and information for students to help combat the utilise of these services too every bit other forms of plagiarism. The Minister too chosen for guidance to include tough new penalties for those who brand use of essay mills websites, as well as the need to educate students virtually the potentially significant negative impacts on their future career should they be defenseless adulterous. This would seem to show less enthusiasm for a change in the police, although Department of Education briefings to the media did appear to leave the door open for a legal approach.

This issue is too important to be cast into the graveyard of 'guidance'. Proposals demand backing up with regulation, whether in law or in the QAA'southward requirements. Indeed, the QAA was specifically mentioned by Johnson as existence "tasked to accept action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with this problem" – we sincerely hope this volition result in universities existence required to use, at least in role, assessment methodologies that cannot exist contracted out so apace and cheaply.

This brings u.s.a. to other means by which contract cheating might be tackled: stakeholder education, cess pattern, and academy regulations. These need more research. The aforementioned project in Australia will examine a relationship (or non) between 'accurate assessment' and contract cheating. Accurate assessment is a term used to describe assessment methods that are more than reflective of the means in which students will actually use the knowledge they learn; practical exams, face-to-confront assessments, etc. I view is that such assessment methods are harder to contract out.

On university regulations, Michael J. Draper has moved to introduce a regulation that prohibits the unproblematic commissioning of an essay, to reinforce that commissioning an essay from a third political party is considered an bookish offence in its own right (in addition to the submission of an unattributed commissioned essay). In other words, the simple act of request 1 of these companies to write an assignment would be an bookish offence. Whilst evidencing such activity is difficult, this is seen as a argument of intent also as a principle with deterrent value.

In addition to a regulatory framework that reinforces these values, students can exist supported in their learning evolution through instructional tools. One such back up tool is an online, interactive, customised module developed equally part of the Skills for Learning, Skills for Life project run by the Swansea University for Inclusivity and Learner Success and the Centre for Academic Success, in conjunction with universities in Ireland, Commonwealth of australia and New Zealand. Feedback from pilots undertaken strongly indicates that students engage with these resources nigh effectively when supported past their academic tutors, either through bespoke or timetabled sessions or when referenced in educatee handbooks and pedagogy materials at key points of modules.

Finally, in that location is the possibility of a coordinated approach across Europe. The Quango of Europe has established the ETINED platform to tackle corruption in instruction, including a stream defended to contract adulterous. The platform volition produce guidance for member states aimed at tackling the result. If you aren't au fait with the details of European politics, the Uk volition remain a member of the Council of Europe later Brexit. Yet, of interest is that the Uk is one of the few member states not to formally ship a representative to the ETINED platform, despite many Great britain academics (Philip Newton included) actualization to give skilful evidence to the projection.

In summary, enquiry into contract cheating has fabricated an impact and volition proceed to do and so. Hopefully this will result in it beingness harder for students to submit assignments they have paid someone else to exercise, thereby upholding the quality and standards of higher education.

This blog post is based on the authors' commodity, ' Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An assay of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK) ', published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity (DOI: x.1007/s40979-017-0014-5).

This article gives the views of the authors, and non the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Most the authors

Philip Thou. Newton is the Director of Learning and Teaching at the Swansea University Medical School. He teaches neuroscience and educational theory to students in the school and was the 2015 BMA Cymru Swansea Teacher of the Twelvemonth. His enquiry interests are in the area of evidence-based education, particularly academic integrity, and he is the programme director for the Research in Wellness Professions Pedagogy (RiHPE) professional doctorate plan. @newtonsneurosci

Michael J. Draper is Associate Professor in College of Police force and Criminology, Swansea University; and Director of the Swansea University Inclusivity and Learner Success. He is besides Chair of the University Regulations and Student Cases Board.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email