Chegg作为作弊工具的增长、响应率和普遍性:澳大利亚工程学院审计的启示

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09551-6
Edmund Pickering, Clancy Schuller
{"title":"Chegg作为作弊工具的增长、响应率和普遍性:澳大利亚工程学院审计的启示","authors":"Edmund Pickering, Clancy Schuller","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09551-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Online tools are increasingly being used by students to cheat. File-sharing and homework-helper websites offer to aid students in their studies, but are vulnerable to misuse, and are increasingly reported as a major source of academic misconduct. Chegg.com is the largest such website. Despite this, there is little public information about the use of Chegg as a cheating tool. This is a critical omission, as for institutions to effectively tackle this threat, they must have a sophisticated understanding of their use. To address this gap, this work reports on a comprehensive audit of Chegg usage conducted within an Australian university engineering school. We provide a detailed analysis of the growth of Chegg, its use within an Australian university engineering school, and the wait time to receive solutions. Alarmingly, we found over half of audit units had cheating content on Chegg is broadly used to cheat and 50% of questions asked on Chegg are answered within 1.5 h. This makes Chegg an appealing tool for academic misconduct in both assignment tasks and online exams. We further investigate the growth of Chegg and show its use is above pre-pandemic levels. This work provides valuable insights to educators and institutions looking to improve the integrity of their courses through assessment and policy development. Finally, to better understand and tackle this form of misconduct, we call on education institutions to be more transparent in reporting misconduct data and for homework-helper websites to improve defences against misuse.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chegg’s Growth, Response Rate, and Prevalence as a Cheating Tool: Insights From an Audit within an Australian Engineering School\",\"authors\":\"Edmund Pickering, Clancy Schuller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-024-09551-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Online tools are increasingly being used by students to cheat. File-sharing and homework-helper websites offer to aid students in their studies, but are vulnerable to misuse, and are increasingly reported as a major source of academic misconduct. Chegg.com is the largest such website. Despite this, there is little public information about the use of Chegg as a cheating tool. This is a critical omission, as for institutions to effectively tackle this threat, they must have a sophisticated understanding of their use. To address this gap, this work reports on a comprehensive audit of Chegg usage conducted within an Australian university engineering school. We provide a detailed analysis of the growth of Chegg, its use within an Australian university engineering school, and the wait time to receive solutions. Alarmingly, we found over half of audit units had cheating content on Chegg is broadly used to cheat and 50% of questions asked on Chegg are answered within 1.5 h. This makes Chegg an appealing tool for academic misconduct in both assignment tasks and online exams. We further investigate the growth of Chegg and show its use is above pre-pandemic levels. This work provides valuable insights to educators and institutions looking to improve the integrity of their courses through assessment and policy development. Finally, to better understand and tackle this form of misconduct, we call on education institutions to be more transparent in reporting misconduct data and for homework-helper websites to improve defences against misuse.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09551-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09551-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的学生利用在线工具进行作弊。文件共享和家庭作业帮助网站为学生的学习提供帮助,但很容易被滥用,而且越来越多的报告称它们是学术不端行为的主要来源。Chegg.com 是最大的此类网站。尽管如此,有关将 Chegg 用作作弊工具的公开信息却很少。这是一个重要的疏漏,因为要有效地应对这一威胁,各机构必须对其使用情况有深入的了解。为了弥补这一不足,本研究报告对澳大利亚一所大学工程学院使用 Chegg 的情况进行了全面审计。我们详细分析了 Chegg 的发展、在澳大利亚大学工程学院的使用情况以及获得解决方案的等待时间。令人震惊的是,我们发现半数以上的审计单位存在作弊行为,Chegg 上的内容被广泛用于作弊,Chegg 上 50%的问题在 1.5 小时内得到答复。我们进一步调查了 Chegg 的增长情况,结果表明其使用率已超过流行前的水平。这项工作为希望通过评估和政策制定来提高课程完整性的教育工作者和机构提供了宝贵的见解。最后,为了更好地理解和应对这种形式的不当行为,我们呼吁教育机构在报告不当行为数据时提高透明度,并呼吁家庭作业帮助网站提高对滥用的防御能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Chegg’s Growth, Response Rate, and Prevalence as a Cheating Tool: Insights From an Audit within an Australian Engineering School

Online tools are increasingly being used by students to cheat. File-sharing and homework-helper websites offer to aid students in their studies, but are vulnerable to misuse, and are increasingly reported as a major source of academic misconduct. Chegg.com is the largest such website. Despite this, there is little public information about the use of Chegg as a cheating tool. This is a critical omission, as for institutions to effectively tackle this threat, they must have a sophisticated understanding of their use. To address this gap, this work reports on a comprehensive audit of Chegg usage conducted within an Australian university engineering school. We provide a detailed analysis of the growth of Chegg, its use within an Australian university engineering school, and the wait time to receive solutions. Alarmingly, we found over half of audit units had cheating content on Chegg is broadly used to cheat and 50% of questions asked on Chegg are answered within 1.5 h. This makes Chegg an appealing tool for academic misconduct in both assignment tasks and online exams. We further investigate the growth of Chegg and show its use is above pre-pandemic levels. This work provides valuable insights to educators and institutions looking to improve the integrity of their courses through assessment and policy development. Finally, to better understand and tackle this form of misconduct, we call on education institutions to be more transparent in reporting misconduct data and for homework-helper websites to improve defences against misuse.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1