Detecting Academic Misconduct Using Learning Analytics
Keywords:academic integrity, keystroke logs, writing processes, contract cheating, cluster analysis
Keystroke logging and clickstream data, both emergent areas of study in the field of learning analytics, present promising alternative methods of detecting and preventing contract cheating. The current study examines whether analysis of keystroke and clickstream data can detect when a student is creating their own authentic writing or transcribing from another source. Participants were 62 university students (47 women, 15 men) who completed three writing tasks under experimental conditions: free writing, general transcription, and self-transcription. Analyses revealed that while completing the free-writing task, participants typed in shorter bursts with longer pauses and typed more slowly with more revisions compared to the two transcription tasks. Model-based clustering was able to accurately distinguish the free-writing task from the two transcription tasks based on patterns of bursts and writing speed. Overall, these results suggest that keystroke and clickstream analysis may be able to distinguish between a student writing an authentic piece of work and one transcribing a completed work. These findings signal significant implications for the detection of contract cheating.
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29(3), 246–277. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451108
Bakharia, A., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., Kennedy, G., Gašević, D., Mulder, R., Williams, D., Dawson, S., & Lockyer, L. (2016). A conceptual framework linking learning design with learning analytics. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ʼ16), 25–29 April 2016, Edinburgh, UK (pp. 329–338). New York: ACM. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883944
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9(2), 291–319. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457949700206X
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., …, van Haeringen, K. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., …, James, C. (2014). “Teach us how to do it properly!” An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150–1169. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406
Buckingham Shum, S., Knight, S., McNamara, D., Allen, L., Bektik, D., & Crossley, S. (2016). Critical perspectives on writing analytics. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ’16), 25–29 April 2016, Edinburgh, UK (pp. 481–483). New York: ACM. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883854
Chan, S. (2017). Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test. Language Testing in Asia, 7(10), 1–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0040-5
Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Paper presented at the 2nd International Plagiarism Conference, 19–21 June 2006, Gateshead, UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228367576_Eliminating_the_successor_to_plagiarism_Identifying_the_usage_of_contract_cheating_sites
Conijn, R., van der Loo, J., & van Zaanen, M. (2018). What’s (not) in a keystroke? Automatic discovery of students’ writing processes using keystroke logging. In A. Pardo, K. Bartimote, G. Lynch, S. Buckingham Shum, R. Ferguson, A. Merceron, & X. Ochoa (Eds.), Companion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ’18), 5–9 March 2018, Sydney, Australia. Society for Learning Analytics Research. http://solaresearch.org/uploads/LAK18_Companion_Proceedings.pdf
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16–20. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1901_3
Deane, P. (2014). Using writing process and product features to assess writing quality and explore how those features relate to other literacy tasks. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(1), 1–23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12002
Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagiarize. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805
Fraley, C., Raftery, A. E., & Scrucca L. (2016). MCLUST: Gaussian Mixture Modelling for Model-Based Clustering, Classification, and Density Estimation, 2016. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mclust. R package version 5.2.
Gallant, T. B., Binkin, N., & Donohue, M. (2015). Students at risk for being reported for cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 217–228. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9235-5
Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070903096508
Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice. Newark, Delaware, USA: International Reading Association.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106
Heuer, H., & Breiter, A. (2018). Student success prediction and the trade-off between big data and data minimization. In Krömker, D., & Schroeder, U. (Eds.), DeLFI 2018 — Die 16. E-Learning Fachtagung Informatik. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (pp. 219–230)
Hickendorff, M., Edelsbrunner, P., McMullen, J., Schneider, M., & Trezise, K. (2018). Informative tools for characterising individual differences in learning: Latent class, latent profile, and latent transition analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 4–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.001
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
Newton, P. (2016). Academic integrity: A quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482–497. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199
Newton, P. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067
Richman, M. (2016, July 28). Microsoft Word, Google Docs and Millennials [Blog post]. https://techpinions.com/microsoft-word-google-docs-and-millennials/46660
Rigby, D., Burton, M., Balcombe, K., Bateman, I., & Mulatu, A. (2015). Contract cheating and the market in essays. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111, 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.019
Schneider, J., Bernstein, A., vom Brocke, J., Damevski, K., & Shepherd, D. C. (2017). Detecting plagiarism based on the creation process. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(3), 348–361. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2720171
Trezise, K., de Barba, P. G., Jennens, D., Zarebski, A., Russo, R., & Kennedy, G. (2017). A learning analytics view of students’ use of self-regulation strategies for essay writing. In H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas. (Eds.), Me, Us, IT! Proceedings ASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education, 4–6 December 2017, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia (pp. 411–421).
Turnitin (2018). Turnitin — Authorship Investigate. Retrieved from https://www.turnitin.com/products/authorship-investigate
Usoof, H., & Lindgren, E. (2008). Who is who and doing what in distance education?: Authentication and keystroke dynamics. Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, 3–4, 175–187. http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A208940&dswid=4818
Walker, M., & Townley, C. (2012). Contract cheating: A new challenge for academic honesty? Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(1), 27–44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9150-y
Xu, C., & Qi, Y. (2017). Analyzing pauses in computer-assisted EFL writing — A computer keystroke log perspective. Educational Technology and Society, 20(4), 24–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26229202
How to Cite
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution - NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).