Post Four 09/10/25 The Disadvantages of Assignment-Based Assessment as the Sole Evaluation Method 09/10/25

The Disadvantages of Assignment-Based Assessment as the Sole Evaluation Method

Introduction

In contemporary higher education, assignment-based assessment has gained prominence as an alternative to traditional examinations. Assignments are valued for their ability to promote deep learning, critical thinking, and independent research (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). However, when assignments become the only form of assessment, a number of pedagogical, ethical, and integrity-related challenges emerge. One of the most critical issues is the rise in academic misconduct, such as students paying others to complete their assignments, commonly referred to as “contract cheating.” This posts critically examines the disadvantages of relying solely on assignment-based assessment, with a focus on academic integrity, inequity, and learning validity.

Academic Dishonesty and Contract Cheating

One of the most pressing disadvantages of assignment-based assessment is the increased risk of academic dishonesty. With easy access to online marketplaces and essay-writing services, students can pay others to complete assignments on their behalf (Clarke & Lancaster, 2006). This practice, known as contract cheating, undermines the credibility of qualifications and compromises the learning process (Newton, 2018).
According to Bretag et al. (2019), approximately 6% of students in a large Australian study admitted to paying someone to do their work, while up to 15% engaged in forms of outsourcing. The anonymity of digital services and the pressure for high grades have normalized this behavior in some contexts. Unlike invigilated examinations, assignment-based assessments occur outside controlled environments, making detection difficult despite plagiarism-detection software.

Inequity and Socioeconomic Disparities

Assignment-based assessment also tends to favour students with greater resources. Those who can afford private tutoring or professional editing services often gain an advantage (Ellis et al., 2020). As a result, assessments may measure financial and social capital rather than genuine academic ability.
Furthermore, students from non-English-speaking or disadvantaged backgrounds may face barriers in expressing their ideas in academic writing, making the system inherently biased (Wingate, 2012). The inequality is exacerbated when students resort to unethical means, such as paying others to write their papers, simply to remain competitive (Harper et al., 2020). Thus, while assignments encourage autonomy, they also widen achievement gaps between privileged and marginalized learners.

Reduced Validity and Authenticity of Learning

Assignments are meant to assess applied understanding and analytical skills. However, when students outsource their work, the validity of assessment outcomes becomes questionable. Educators may not accurately gauge whether the student has developed the intended competencies (Newton, 2015).
Moreover, assignment-based assessments can lead to surface learning when students prioritize grades over mastery (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Without mechanisms for authentic assessment—such as oral defenses, practical demonstrations, or reflective components—the learning outcomes become unreliable indicators of students’ real abilities.

Pedagogical and Institutional Challenges

Educators also face significant challenges in managing workload, ensuring fairness, and detecting misconduct in assignment-based systems. Turnitin and other plagiarism detection tools are limited in identifying ghost-written or AI-generated content (Sutherland-Smith, 2020). Institutions must therefore balance formative assessment benefits with rigorous academic integrity policies. Overreliance on assignments may discourage diverse assessment strategies such as oral exams, portfolios, and project-based evaluations, which together provide a more holistic picture of learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2007).

Conclusion

While assignment-based assessment supports critical thinking and independent learning, it has notable disadvantages when used as the sole method of evaluation. The risk of academic dishonesty, inequity, and invalid assessment outcomes challenges the integrity of higher education systems. To promote fairness and authenticity, a balanced approach combining assignments, exams, oral presentations, and practical assessments is essential. Institutions must strengthen academic integrity policies and develop innovative strategies to ensure that assessment reflects genuine student learning rather than external contributions.

References

  • Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term. London: Routledge.
  • Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S. & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856.
  • Clarke, R. & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Proceedings of 2nd International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle, UK.
  • Ellis, C., Zucker, I. M. & Randall, D. (2020). The infernal business of contract cheating: Understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1–21.
  • Harper, R., Bretag, T. & Rundle, K. (2020). Detecting contract cheating: Examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 423–438.
  • Newton, P. (2015). Academic integrity: A quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482–497.
  • Newton, P. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3(67), 1–18.
  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2020). Contract cheating and the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for academic integrity. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(5), 1–14.
  • Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A ‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26–37.