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
Academic Dishonesty and Contract Cheating in Teacher Education: A Case Analysis and Leadership Implications
Abstract
Academic dishonesty remains a significant challenge in higher education, particularly within teacher education programmes where ethical conduct is paramount. This paper explores the issue of contract cheating—the outsourcing of academic work to third parties—among pre-service teachers. Drawing on recent research and case studies, it examines the causes, implications, and institutional responsibilities associated with contract cheating in teacher education. The post concludes with recommendations for educational leadership practices to strengthen academic integrity and preserve the credibility of teacher preparation programmes.
1. Introduction
Integrity is a cornerstone of the teaching profession. Teacher education programmes are entrusted with preparing individuals who will not only impart knowledge but also model ethical behaviour and fairness. However, growing evidence indicates that academic dishonesty, including contract cheating, occurs even among pre-service teachers (Bretag et al., 2019; Newton, 2018).
Contract cheating involves students paying or persuading others to complete academic work on their behalf, including essays, reports, or lesson plans (Clarke & Lancaster, 2006). The rise of online essay mills and social media platforms has made such misconduct easier to commit and harder to detect (Ellis, Zucker & Randall, 2020). When future teachers engage in these behaviours, the integrity of teacher education programmes—and ultimately the credibility of the profession—is placed at risk.
This paper analyses the nature and impact of contract cheating in teacher education, presents evidence from recent case studies, and discusses leadership responses to prevent and mitigate this form of misconduct.
2. Nature of Contract Cheating in Teacher Education
2.1 Definition and Forms
Contract cheating is defined as a form of academic dishonesty in which a student commissions or purchases academic work completed by someone else (Clarke & Lancaster, 2006). Unlike plagiarism, where existing text is copied, contract cheating involves original work produced by another party—making it more difficult to detect through software.
In teacher education, this may take the form of outsourced lesson plans, reflective journals, curriculum design projects, or research papers. Some students use online “essay mills,” while others rely on friends, tutors, or AI-assisted services.
2.2 Case Evidence
A recent quantitative study of pre-service teachers in the United States found that rates of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism and outsourcing, were comparable to other disciplines (Finn & Frone, 2021). Despite recognizing cheating as unethical, approximately 20–25% of teacher candidates admitted to engaging in dishonest practices at least once during their studies.
Similarly, Bretag et al. (2019) reported that around 6% of Australian students had paid someone to do their assignments, with education students included in the sample. The study further revealed that pressures such as heavy workload, unclear expectations, and fear of failure were major motivators.
In another international case study, Harper, Bretag, and Rundle (2020) observed that contract cheating increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, when coursework assessments replaced in-person exams. This suggests that assessment design can significantly influence the prevalence of cheating.
3. Causes and Contributing Factors
3.1 High Stakes and Pressure
Teacher education is a high-stakes field where academic performance influences licensure, future employment, and professional credibility. Pre-service teachers often juggle coursework, teaching placements, and part-time work, which can result in time pressure and stress (Harper et al., 2020). These conditions make contract cheating an attractive shortcut.
3.2 Digital Opportunities and Accessibility
The growth of commercial “essay mills” and AI writing tools has increased access to contract cheating services (Ellis et al., 2020). Many of these platforms market their services as “study help,” blurring ethical boundaries for students who may not fully understand the seriousness of their actions.
3.3 Cultural and Social Norms
Research shows that peer behaviour and social norms significantly influence decisions to cheat (Finn & Frone, 2021). When students perceive cheating as widespread or institutionally tolerated, moral restraint weakens. In teacher education, this creates a particularly dangerous precedent, as future educators normalize unethical conduct.
3.4 Assessment Design and Institutional Gaps
Assessment structures that rely heavily on unsupervised take-home assignments make cheating easier to conceal. Studies suggest that courses emphasizing reflective or personalised components—such as micro-teaching journals or oral presentations—are less vulnerable (Newton, 2018). Institutional ambiguity regarding penalties or inconsistent enforcement can also exacerbate the problem.
4. Implications for Teacher Education
4.1 Erosion of Professional Integrity
Pre-service teachers who engage in contract cheating may enter the profession lacking both ethical grounding and genuine competence. As teaching relies heavily on trust and modeling ethical behaviour, such misconduct undermines the moral authority of educators (Bretag et al., 2019).
4.2 Questioning Competence and Readiness
If assignments, lesson plans, or teaching portfolios are outsourced, teacher educators cannot accurately assess a student’s ability to plan lessons, manage classrooms, or reflect on pedagogical practice. This misalignment between assessed performance and actual ability poses a serious threat to educational quality and learner outcomes (Harper et al., 2020).
4.3 Institutional and Reputational Risks
Widespread contract cheating can damage the credibility of teacher education institutions and erode public confidence in graduates. Accreditation bodies and school employers may question the legitimacy of qualifications, potentially leading to stricter external oversight or sanctions (Ellis et al., 2020).
5. Leadership and Policy Responses
5.1 Integrity Education
Teacher education programmes must embed academic integrity training within their curricula. This includes explicit instruction on plagiarism, contract cheating, referencing, and ethical decision-making (Sutherland-Smith, 2020). Reflective ethics courses can help pre-service teachers internalize integrity as a professional value.
5.2 Authentic and Mixed Assessment Design
Leaders should promote authentic assessment—tasks that reflect real-world teaching practice, such as lesson simulations, portfolios, oral defenses, or collaborative projects (Boud & Falchikov, 2007). Combining coursework with examinations and in-person presentations reduces opportunities for outsourcing and strengthens assessment validity.
5.3 Institutional Monitoring and Enforcement
Robust policies and consistent enforcement are crucial. Institutions should use plagiarism detection tools, verification interviews, and integrity pledges. Leadership must also establish a culture of honesty, where integrity is rewarded and dishonesty is addressed transparently.
5.4 Support and Mentorship
Many students cheat due to fear, anxiety, or lack of confidence. Providing academic writing support, counselling, and mentorship reduces these pressures (Race, 2007). Effective educational leadership recognizes that prevention, not punishment, is the foundation of integrity.
6. Conclusion
References
- 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. & 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.
- Finn, K. V. & Frone, M. R. (2021). Do preservice teachers cheat in college, too? A quantitative study of academic integrity among preservice teachers. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(3), 1–15.
- 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. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3(67), 1–18.
- Race, P. (2007). The Lecturer’s Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
- 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.
