Low-effort Cheating Reduction Methods

Investigators at UCR identified and tested six low-effort methods to reduce cheating in an introductory programming class.

In a recent study, investigators at the University of California, Riverside and at zyBooks, California tested methods to reduce cheating in an introductory programming class.  The investigators identified Pressure, Opportunity, and Rationalisation as drivers of student cheating. Avoiding high-effort interventions—extensive help, individualised assignments, one-on-one marking, etc—the investigators trialed six low-effort interventions:

1.Having an academic integrity talk:

Addressing Rationalisation and Opportunity, the investigators trialed a five minute talk in Week 1 and a thirty minute talk in Week 4 of their ten-week teaching period (hitting a point when students’ class registrations are confirmed and when students are focused on their first major assessment task).

2.Giving an integrity quiz:

Addressing Rationalisation, the investigators trialed a two-to-three question quiz in Week 1 and a fifteen-question quiz in Week 3, “making it harder for students to justify cheating (especially via ‘I thought it was OK’)”.

3.Allowing students to retract submissions:

The investigators addressed Pressure by allowing students to retract submissions up to one week after the dues dates.  The ‘regret clause’ allowed retraction without admission but yielded a mark of zero for the submission.  The investigators noted that “students may have a better perspective after a deadline.”

4.Reminding students about cheating:

Addressing Rationalisation and Opportunity, the investigators shared reminders, noting that “a tradeoff exists with creating a state of fear in students, so such a reminder might just be a simple discussion forum post or five minute talk in lecture."

5.Showing tools:

The investigators suggested that students may be unaware—or disbelieving—of the power of the tools that teaching staff have available to detect academic misconduct.  They noted that “showing tools in class can help address Opportunity, helping students realize they are likely to get caught."

For information about the tools available to teaching staff at the University of Melbourne to detect academic misconduct in student submissions, please see Learning Environments’ guides to Turnitin’s Similarity Report and AI Writing Detection Tool.

6.Normalizing help:

The investigators note that “students... ....may not realize that needing help is normal.  Instructors can remind students that help is normal.”  To address Pressure and Rationalisation, they had teaching staff and subject outlines direct students to helpful resources.

A comprehensive list of useful resources available to ABP students is accessible through the green 'Student Support and Resources' button on each ABP subject’s Canvas home page.

Taking time spent by students on their submissions and similarity between students’ submissions as their metrics (with less time and more similarity indicating an increased likelihood of cheating), the investigators found significant improvements by applying the methods above.

For further information, please read the full article: Vahid et al. (2023) Impact of Several Low-Effort Cheating-Reduction Methods in a CS1 Class.

Find out more about academic misconduct and about how to address it through BEL+T’s Academic Integrity Guidance, or reach out to BEL+T directly at abp-belt@unimelb.edu.au.