Developing Policies to Address Historic Contract Cheating and Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
When students submit written assignments for assessment, they are generally trusted to have completed these honestly, and to have benefitted from the opportunity to learn. Academic integrity breaches are sometimes detected during the assessment process. Some common examples of integrity breaches during students’ academic writing include contract cheating, the unauthorised use of GenAI technology for completing assignments, and using AI tools to disguise existing work so that it appears to be original. None of these are new phenomena. Processes and procedures should be in place for managing suspected academic misconduct cases detected during the assessment process. But what happens when academic misconduct is detected retrospectively, sometimes after a student has moved degree programmes or graduated? This position paper sets out the case for universities and other academic institutions having procedures in place to deal with historic academic misconduct. It provides examples of how institutions can become aware of misconduct, including through whistleblowing and through development of more effective detection software. The authors bring together legal and educational expertise to suggest considerations that individual institutions should make towards future policy development. The discussion considers that students must be supported and prepared for success, but that institutions cannot ignore the reputational risks associated with cases of historic misconduct.
- Journal
- Journal of Academic Writing
- Published
- 2025-02-25
- DOI
- 10.18552/joaw.v15is1.1057
- CompPile
- Open Access
- OA PDF Diamond
- Topics
-
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related articles
-
Assessing Writing Oct 2026Modeling the reading-to-writing pipeline: Knowledge graph and LLM-based assessment framework for source-based writing ↗Byungyeon Yun; Miranda Moe; Lauren E. Flynn; Püren Öncel; Laura K. Allen
-
Assessing Writing Oct 2026Student-AI collaboration in peer feedback: Effects on perceived feedback quality, emotional responses, and feedback literacy development ↗Hua Wang; Kai Guo
-
Assessing Writing Oct 2026Replicating and expanding a validity argument for eRevise as a formative assessment: Empirical support for theories of conceptual change ↗Richard Correnti; Lindsay Clare Matsumura; Elaine Lin Wang; Diane Litman; Zhexiong Liu; Haoran Zhang; Tianwen Li
-
Assessing Writing Oct 2026Generative artificial intelligence in writing assessment: University professors’ perspectives and recommendations ↗Chenze Wu; Ricky Lam
-
Journal of Business and Technical Communication Sep 2026Eric Sentell