A myriad of ideas abound about how to deter or detect contract cheating in higher education. Assessment design is one key strategy academics can consider in terms of deterring contract cheating by their students. This chapter considers the types of assessment that students say they prefer, enjoy, and find most useful, as well as those they say they are less likely to contract cheat on. Building on Self-Determination Theory, we establish a theoretical argument that students may be more motivated to complete work themselves if it meets their fundamental needs of a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We present this conceptual work alongside empirical studies and propose reimagining higher education assessment design that can deter contract cheating by motivating students to complete tasks themselves in order to gain the kinds of knowledge and skills that should be inherent in university assessments.
- Contract cheating
- Assessment design
- Self-Determination Theory
- Student motivation
- Higher education
- Student needs
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Anderman, E. M., & Koenka, A. C. (2017). The relation between academic motivation and cheating. Theory Into Practice, 56(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308172
Awdry, R. (2021). Assignment outsourcing: moving beyond contract cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46(2) 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1765311
Baird, M., & Clare, J. (2017). Removing the opportunity for contract cheating in business capstones: A crime prevention case study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0018-1
Boud, D., Ajjawi, R., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2018). Developing evaluative judgment in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. Routledge.
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary. In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35–48). Kogan Page.
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: Exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self determination theory. In P. A. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & R. Tory (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–437). SAGE.
Dewey, J. (1999). Education and experience. Free Press.
Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., Rozenberg, P., Newton, P., & Saddiqui, S. (2019). Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting contract cheating: Examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620966789. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.002
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2008). The phenomena of contract cheating. In T. Roberts (Ed.), Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions (pp. 144–159). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-801-7.ch010
Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: A covid-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0
Oz, A., Lane, J. F., & Michou, A. (2016). Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying achievement goals during task engagement: Their relation to intrinsic motivation and cheating. Educational Psychology, 36(7), 1160–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1109064
Park, S. (2020). Goal contents as predictors of academic cheating in college students. Ethics & Behavior, 30(8), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1668275
Pulfrey, C. J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Michou, A. (2019). Under pressure to achieve? The impact of type and style of task instructions on student cheating. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1624). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01624
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.
Rowland, S., Slade, C., Wong, K.-S., & Whiting, B. (2018). ‘Just turn to us’: the persuasive features of contract cheating websites. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 652–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1391948
Rundle, K., Curtis, G., & Clare, J. (2019). Why students do not engage in contract cheating. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02229
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sutherland-Smith, W., Dawson, P. (2022). Higher Education Assessment Design. In: Eaton, S.E., Curtis, G.J., Stoesz, B.M., Clare, J., Rundle, K., Seeland, J. (eds) Contract Cheating in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-12679-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-12680-2