THE CASE OF MR VISHAL STUDENT POWER : paying others to do their assignments
2. I recall when I KNEW MR VISHAL at the UNIVERSITY, he had the reputation that OTHERS were doing his assignments, he was PAYING other people to do his assignments and was passing his degree in that way.
3. Strange coincidence.
4. Either ways; as everyone knows all my work, assignments, projects, research all I have been doing by myself, obviously by researching on the internet etc but I DO MY OWN STUDIES and most of my work are ORIGNAL piece of work,
and I normally do not even keep any contacts with anyone of any Courses I follow; I do not even stay in whatsapp groups,
so I wonder how many of those list of people are like MR VISHAL ; they pay others to do their assignments
Contract Cheating in Teacher Education: Implications for Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Development
Abstract
Contract cheating, the act of outsourcing academic work to third parties for payment or benefit, has emerged as a major ethical and educational issue in higher education. Within teacher education, this phenomenon undermines professional integrity, educational quality, and trust in the teaching profession. This post explores cases of contract cheating in both pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes, analyses their causes, and discusses institutional responses to uphold academic integrity.
1. Introduction
Academic dishonesty in higher education is not a new phenomenon, but the rise of contract cheating—where students pay or otherwise induce others to complete their assessments—has intensified the challenge (Lancaster & Clarke, 2016). In teacher education, this problem assumes greater significance, as teachers are expected to model ethical behaviour and integrity. When future or current teachers engage in contract cheating, it calls into question their professional readiness and moral disposition (Bretag et al., 2019).
2. Contract Cheating Among Pre-Service Teachers
Pre-service teacher education programmes often involve extensive coursework, reflective essays, and portfolio assessments, creating opportunities for contract cheating (Newton, 2018). For example, Bretag et al. (2019) documented cases in Australian universities where student teachers purchased lesson plans and reflective journals from essay mills. Similarly, Ellis et al. (2020) found that pre-service teachers cited high workload, fear of failure, and time pressure as main motivators for outsourcing assignments.
The reliance on assignment-based assessment, without proper invigilation or formative feedback, can further incentivize contract cheating (Harper et al., 2021). Such behaviour not only compromises academic standards but also leads to underdeveloped pedagogical competencies—undermining future classroom practice.
3. Contract Cheating Among In-Service Teachers in Higher Education
Contract cheating is not limited to pre-service students. In-service teachers pursuing postgraduate qualifications, such as Master of Education or professional development diplomas, have also been implicated (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019). These educators often face competing demands of teaching, family, and study, making them susceptible to shortcuts.
A study by Dawson and Sutherland-Smith (2018) revealed instances of practicing teachers commissioning dissertations or research projects to meet institutional advancement requirements. The ethical contradiction—educators breaching integrity while teaching moral values—creates reputational risks for teacher education institutions (Devlin, 2022).
4. Causes of Contract Cheating in Teacher Education
Multiple systemic and individual factors drive contract cheating.
Assessment design: Overreliance on written assignments increases the likelihood of outsourcing (Harper et al., 2021).
Institutional pressure: Teachers in higher education face pressure to obtain postgraduate qualifications for promotion (Devlin, 2022).
Digital accessibility: Online essay mills and freelance platforms make cheating easier (Lancaster, 2020).
Cultural attitudes: In some contexts, collaborative work may blur boundaries of individual authorship (Newton, 2018).
5. Institutional Responses and Preventive Strategies
Universities have begun implementing multi-pronged strategies, including authentic assessment, digital literacy training, and academic integrity modules (Bretag et al., 2019). For teacher education, fostering reflective ethical practice is crucial.
Authentic assessment: Oral presentations, supervised microteaching, and viva voce exams reduce the risk of contract cheating (Ellis et al., 2020).
Plagiarism detection tools: Systems such as Turnitin can identify inconsistencies in writing style (Lancaster, 2020).
Professional ethics integration: Embedding integrity education into teacher training curricula strengthens moral reasoning (Devlin, 2022).
6. Conclusion
Contract cheating in teacher education—whether among pre-service or in-service participants—poses a serious threat to the credibility of the teaching profession. Upholding integrity requires comprehensive strategies encompassing assessment design, institutional culture, and ethical education. Teacher educators must lead by example to ensure that academic honesty remains the foundation of professional practice.
References
- Amigud, A. & Lancaster, T. (2019). Digital deception: The prevalence of contract cheating among online learners. Computers & Education, 132, 29–42.
- Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P. & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856.
- Dawson, P. & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2018). Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 286–293.
- Devlin, M. (2022). Academic integrity in teacher education: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(3), 1–14.
- Ellis, C., Zucker, I. & Randall, D. (2020). The role of assessment type in contract cheating: Evidence from Australian universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 421–431.
- Harper, R., Bretag, T. & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting and deterring contract cheating: A framework for assessment reform. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 265–278.
- Lancaster, T. (2020). The emergence of contract cheating services and their implications for academic integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1–13.
- Newton, P. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? Frontiers in Education, 3(67), 1–18.
