IELTS Exam Fraud: Is large-scale cheating really a shock to anyone?

January 7, 2025
A screenshot from an online news story. There is a photo of students taking an exam. There is black text on a white background.

The headline reads, “IELTS exam fraud scandal ‘shocks’ Indonesia“, as reported by Vietnam.vn. The article goes on to offer details about large-scale cheating on English-language proficiency testing, saying that, “Faced with the increasing incidence of fraud, many prestigious universities around the world have adjusted their admission policies, especially regarding IELTS requirements.”

Contract cheating and exam proxies (i.e., impersonators) are at the heart of the scandal, with customers each paying about 47,000,000 Vietnamese Dong (which seems to convert to about $1851 USD or $2650 CAD, according to one online currency exchange website).

The article reports that these cheating incidents have caused schools in Singapore, Australia, and the US to raise the minimum test score for entrance to certain programs. (I am puzzled as to why schools think that raising the minimum score for admissions will prevent cheating on standardized texts used as an entrance requirement? My guess is that it might just drive up the price of fraud…)

Two chapters from our edited book, Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education (Eaton, Carmichael, and Pethrick, 2023) are worth mentioning, as the authors of both chapters raised the alarm about the issue of large-scale global cheating on English language proficiency exams.

Soroush Sabbaghan (University of Calgary) and Ismaeil Fazel (University of British Columbia) in their chapter, ‘None of the above: Integrity concerns of standardized English proficiency tests’, “shed light on the complexities and the apparent disconnect between equity, integrity, fairness, and justice in standardized language proficiency tests and the integrity issues that can arise as a result.”

Angela Clark (York University), in her chapter, “Examining the Problem of Fraudulent English Test Scores: What Can Canadian Higher Education Institutions Learn?”, argues that “relying on a single language proficiency test score to determine an individual’s readiness is problematic, and also problematic is the lack of related academic research and data to help guide admissions decision-making”. She looks at media reports from the UK, US, and Canada, noting that, “Media reports and a lack of data serve to promote distrust of the language testing process and the test scores that institutions receive.”

Cheating on English language proficiency exams is nothing new and nor is it isolated to any one country.

Both of these chapters are thoroughly researched and well written. If you’re interested in the topic of fraud in English language exams, I recommend checking them out. In the meantime, large-scale cheating on standardized tests and the related problem of admissions fraud should shock exactly no one.

References

Clark, A. (2023). Examining the problem of fraudulent English test scores: What can Canadian higher education institutions learn? In S. E. Eaton, J. J. Carmichael, & H. Pethrick (Eds.), Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education (pp. 187-207). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21796-8_9 

IELTS exam fraud scandal “shocks” Indonesia. (2024, December 28). Vietnam.vn. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/be-boi-thi-ho-ielts-rung-dong-indonesia/

Sabbaghan, S., & Fazel, I. (2023). None of the above: Integrity concerns of standardized English proficiency tests. In S. E. Eaton, J. J. Carmichael, & H. Pethrick (Eds.), Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education (pp. 169-185). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21796-8_8 

Related posts:

________________________

Share this post: IELTS Exam Fraud: Is large-scale cheating really a shock to anyone? https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/01/07/ielts-exam-fraud-is-large-scale-cheating-really-a-shock-to-anyone/

This blog has had over 3.7 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please ‘Like’ it using the button below or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer. 


Accreditation and Certification Fraud in IT

December 27, 2024

Many people in the academic integrity world are already familiar with contract cheating websites, those that deal in the business of buying and selling exams, bespoke term papers, theses, and exam questions and answers.

But this business isn’t limited to the millions of K-12, high school and post-secondary students. The exam fraud business is alive and well for professional accreditation exams for folks who either want to bypass a formal university degree or to supplement existing credentials.

For example, in the IT industry credentials are often the golden key to new opportunities. Certifications and accreditations (allegedly) validate technical skills, offering (so-called) proof that a candidate has the expertise needed for a professional role. 

Taking into account supply and demand, with job candidates being in high supply and well-paying jobs being in high demand, certification and accreditation fraud is alive and well in the IT industry, as well as other industries. This is a trend employers cannot afford to ignore.

Exposing the Fraud: How Buying and Selling of Certification Exam Questions Works

Certification fraud occurs when individuals falsify credentials, purchase counterfeit certifications, or misuse legitimate certifications obtained by others. But there’s this sneaky grey area that exists when a person actually sits a professional exam themselves, but they’ve prepared by buying the exam questions and/or the answers from an online vendor.

I won’t name specific companies that do this in this post, because I’m not in the habit of advertising for these fraudsters, but I want to show you how they work, so here are some screenshots:

Screenshot #1: Home page

A website screenshot. Black background, with text in white and blue. Some of the text is quoted in the narrative that follows.

At the top of this website, the company claims that 94% of the exam questions that they sold were “almost the same” and that 97% of customers passed the exam using their materials. (Who knows what happened to the other 3%…?) Finally, 98% of customers found the “study guides” effective and helpful.

There’s that phrase that we commonly see on contract cheating websites, “study guide”. For the uninitiated, this is a euphemism for “exam questions”. 

Screenshot #2: Saying it like it is: Not affiliated with any certification provider

A website screenshot. White background with black text.

In this screenshot the company states plainly that they are not affiliated or certified by any certification provider. Reading between the lines, the message is ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘buyer beware’. They are telling you upfront that they are in the business of selling exam questions and make no guarantees about their products.

Screenshot #3: Samples of accreditation exam questions for sale

A website screenshot. White background. Black task bar with light grey text. There are lists of texts written in blue.

Look at all the options: You can buy exam questions for certifications offered by DELL, English language proficiency exams, Citrix, Adobe, and Amazon, and Google just to name a few. 

Screenshot #4: More samples of certification provider exam questions for sale.

A website screenshot. White background. Black task bar with light grey text. There are lists of texts written in blue.

But wait! There’s more! You can buy exam questions for certifications offers by Oracle, IBM, SAP, and others.

Assessment Security

Sites like compromise the assessment security of certification exams that are meant to qualify individuals to do a particular job. If this term is new to you, I recommend Professor Phill Dawson’s book, Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World. For a quick (and free) overview, of Phill’s work, this slide deck from one of his presentations is worth checking out.

Businesses that buy and sell exam certification questions engage in fraudulent practices undermine trust in the certification system and create significant risks for employers.

Consequences for Employers

Hiring someone with counterfeit credentials can have dire consequences. Unqualified employees may lack the technical skills to handle complex tasks, leading to project delays, costly errors, or even security breaches. Beyond the financial impact, fraudulent certifications can erode team morale, as employees with genuine qualifications may feel undervalued when working alongside those who faked their way in.

What Employers and Hiring Managers can Do

Employers, and especially hiring managers and those working in HR, must take proactive steps to safeguard their hiring processes. Some of you may be asking if this kind of practice is actually illegal. I’m not a lawyer, but what I can say is that although contact cheating for students is illegal in countries like Australia, the UK, and Ireland, if you’re not a student, then you might get to live a proverbial grey zone. To the best of my knowledge, it is not actually illegal to buy and sell questions for professional certification exams in most countries of the world.

So, what can employers do? First, trust but verify! Verifying certifications directly with issuing organizations is one step. Many certification bodies offer easy online verification tools to confirm a candidate’s credentials. Additionally, employers should stay informed about recognized accreditation standards and avoid unverified institutions. 

Having said this, verification of credentials and certification won’t help if someone has bought exam questions online and then taken the test themselves. Their results could be ‘verifiable’ in a sense, because there’s an assumption that a person who has passed an exam had the knowledge to do so. But when someone buys their exam questions before sitting the test, it means that they have prepared for an exam and may not necessarily have internalized the knowledge or skills that should match the certification they receive from passing an exam. An exam is one measure of knowledge, but it isn’t the only one. 

Having prospective employees demonstrate their skills and respond to technical questions that could only be answered if the person has the knowledge to back up their documentation can also help. One possibility is to give an interviewee a real-world scenario that could happen at your organization. Ask them how they would go about problem-solving it. If they struggle or stumble, it could be a sign that they lack the necessary skills for the job. (It could also be a sign that they’re just nervous or that interviewing isn’t their strength. So let me also make a plug here for having an inclusive and equitable interviewing process.)

Investing in robust, inclusive, and equitable hiring practices not only protects an organization from the pitfalls of fraud but also helps to create a culture of accountability and excellence. By placing a premium on authentic certifications combined with demonstrable knowledge and skills and inclusive hiring practices, employers signal their commitment to integrity and ensure they are building a team of qualified professionals.

Bottom line: If you’re hiring someone who says they have an IT certification based on taking exams, it’s worth it to find out if they actually have the knowledge and skills to do the job. 

And this is just one example of one site. Rest assured that it is not the only one out there. Exam cheating companies like this one don’t exist in isolation. They’re in the game to make money, and lots of it. 

In an industry where skills and knowledge drive success, vigilance against certification and accreditation fraud is not optional—it is a driver of success.

Future Outlook

Fraud and corruption are alive and well education and industry. There is a growing community of sleuths, scholars, and activists who are ready to sniff out fraud and expose it and naïveté about these matters is quickly going out of fashion. 

There may have been a time when it was acceptable—or even fashionable—to clutch your pearls, proclaim moral outrage, or just refuse to accept that educational and professional fraud are more commonplace than you might have previously thought. GenAI is here to stay, and so are companies whose business is educational, accreditation, scientific, and professional fraud. These companies are profitable because they have customers willing to pay for their goods and services.

Vigilance, sleuthing, and exposing fraud are very much on trend as we move ahead into the new year. And if you’re a hiring manager, taking steps to protect the integrity of your operations is definitely part of the job in 2025 and beyond.

References and Further Reading

Carmichael, J. (2023, June 7). Understanding Fake Degrees and Credential Fraud in Higher Ed. The Evollution: A Modern Campus Illumination. https://evolllution.com/programming/credentials/understanding-fake-degrees-and-credential-fraud-in-higher-ed/

Eaton, S. E., & Carmichael, J. (2022). The Ecosystem of Commercial Academic Fraud. In. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary. https://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/40330

Eaton, S. E., Carmichael, J., & Pethrick, H. (Eds.). (2023). Fake degrees and credential fraud in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21796-8

Related posts

________________________

Share this post: Accreditation and Certification Fraud in IT – https://drsaraheaton.com/2024/12/27/accreditation-and-certification-fraud-in-the-it-world/

This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer. 


How to Talk to Your Students about ChatGPT: A Lesson Plan for High School and College Students

April 7, 2023
bionic hand and human hand finger pointing

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

This article by Ben Edwards in ArtsTechnica (April 6, 2023) is worth a read, “Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up”.

Edwards explains in clear language, with lots of details and examples, how and why large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT make up content. As I read this article, it occurred to me that it could serve as a really great way to have pro-active and generative conversations with students about the impact of artificial intelligence for teaching, learning, assessment, and academic integrity. So, here is a quick lesson plan about how to use this article in class:

Education level

Secondary school and post-secondary (e.g., community college, polytechnic, undergraduate or graduate university courses)

Lesson Plan Title: Understanding ChatGPT: Benefits and Limitations

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson students will be able to:

  • Understand how and why AI-writing apps make up content.
  • Explain the term “confabulation”.
  • Discuss the implications of fabricated content on academic integrity
  • Generate ideas about how to fact-check AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy

Lesson Preparation

Prior to the class, students should read this article: “Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up by Ben Edwards, published in ArtsTechnica (April 6, 2023)

Come to class prepared to discuss the article.

Learning Activity

Class discussion (large group format if the class is small or small group format with a large group debrief at the end):

Possible guiding questions:

  • What is your experience with ChatGPT and other AI writing apps?
  • What were the main points in this article? (Alternate phrasing: What were your key takeaways from this article?)
  • What are some of the risks when AI apps engage in confabulation (i.e., fabrication)?
  • Discuss this quotation from the article, “ChatGPT as it is currently designed, is not a reliable source of factual information and cannot be trusted as such.”
  • Fabrication and falsification are commonly included in academic misconduct policies. What do you think the implications are for students and researchers when they write with AI apps?
  • What are some strategies or tips we can use to fact-check text generated by AI apps?
  • What is the importance of prompt-writing when working with AI writing apps?

Duration

The time commitment for the pre-reading will vary from one student to the next. The duration of the learning activity can be adjusted to suit the needs of your class.
  • Students’ pre-reading of the article: 60-minutes or less
  • Learning activity: 45-60 minutes

Lesson closure

Thank students for engaging actively in the discussion and sharing their ideas.

Possible Follow-up Activities

  • Tips for fact-checking. Have students in the class generate their own list of tips to fact-check AI-generated content (e.g., in a shared Google doc or by sharing ideas orally in class that one person inputs into a document on behalf of the class.)
  • Prompt-writing activity. Have students use different prompts to generate content from AI writing apps. Ask them to document each prompt and write down their observations about what worked and what didn’t. Discuss the results as a class.
  • Academic Integrity Policy Treasure Hunt and Discussion. Have students locate the school’s academic misconduct / academic integrity policy. Compare the definitions and categories for academic misconduct in the school’s policies with concepts presented in this article such as confabulation. Have students generate their own ideas about how to uphold the school’s academic integrity policies when using AI apps.

Creative Commons License

This lesson plan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license applies only to the lesson plan, not to the original article by Ben Edwards.

Additional Notes

This is a generic (and imperfect) lesson plan. It can (and probably should) be adapted or personalized depending on the needs of the learners.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Rahul Kumar, Brock University for providing an open peer review of this lesson plan.

 _________________________________

Share or Tweet this: How to Talk to Your Students about ChatGPT: A Lesson Plan for High School and College Students – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/how-to-talk-to-your-students-about-chatgpt-a-lesson-plan-for-high-school-and-college-students This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks! Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.

Upcoming Webinar: None of the above: Integrity concerns of standardized English proficiency tests with Soroush Sabbaghan and Ismaeil Fazel

January 4, 2021

Sabbaghan Fazel webinarThis session will bring to fore (or highlight) the oft-neglected discord between equity and integrity in high-stakes standardized language tests. The equity issues surrounding these so-called standardized language tests can potentially precipitate and predispose academic dishonesty. This presentation will discuss the ramifications of inherent inequities in high stakes language proficiency tests for academic integrity and will call for a more critical consideration of commercialized high stakes language tests. Redressing equity issues in language assessment can serve to promote academic integrity and reduce academic dishonesty.

Learning outcomes

  • Learn more about challenges to equity in high stakes language testing.
  • Recognize discords between equity and integrity in commercial standardized language tests
  • Review principles and best practices for equitable language assessment

About the presenters

Ismaeil Fazel - web sizeIsmaeil Fazel is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Education of Simon Fraser University. He has a PhD in TESL and a sub-specialization in Measurement and Evaluation from the University of British Columbia. His main research interests include English for Academic and Professional Purposes, academic discourse socialization, and language assessment. His publications have appeared in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes, English for Specific Purposes Journal, and TESL Canada Journal, among others.

Soroush Sabbaghan - web sizeSoroush Sabbaghan is a Senior Instructor at the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary. He holds two PhDs, one in TESL and the other in Curriculum and Learning with a focus in Mathematics Education. His main research interests include language and mathematics education of bilingual and multilinguals, Language Learning and Technology, and ecological complexity discourses. He has publications in both Language and mathematics education journals and books.

Friday, 08 January 2021

10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Calgary (Mountain) time

This session is open to the public and everyone is welcome. Registration required. Deadline to register is 07 Jan 2021.

More information and registration:

https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/series-and-events/academic-integrity-urgent-emerging-topics

This webinar is part of our series, Academic Integrity: Urgent and Emerging Topics. This series addresses timely and emergent topics that are cutting edge, provocative or high profile in nature. The series is hosted by the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary.

_____

Share or Tweet this: Upcoming Webinar: None of the above: Integrity concerns of standardized English proficiency tests with Soroush Sabbaghan and Ismaeil Fazel

This blog has had over 2 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.


Comparing E-Proctoring Software to Hydroxychloroquine: An Apt Analogy

November 4, 2020

Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

To help educators and administrators understand why I urge caution, and even skepticism about the use of e-proctoring software and other surveillance technologies such as those that lockdown students’ Internet browsers, here’s an analogy I have been using that seems to resonate:

In my opinion, e-proctoring software is to higher education what Hydroxycloroquine has been to the COVID-19 virus.

It’s not that e-proctoring software is bad, it is that it was never designed to be used under the current conditions. There are colleagues who would disagree with me about this kind of software being bad in principle. I accept their position. Let’s look at this through the eyes of scholar who is trained to reserve judgement on an issue without evidence to back it up. If we assume the software was designed for a specific purpose – to invigilate exams taken via a computer, then it fulfills that purpose. So, in that sense, it does what it is supposed to do. However, that is not the whole story.

We can turn to Hydroxychloroquine as an analogy to help us understand why we should be skeptical.

Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malaria drug, also used to treat arthritis. It was never designed to be used against the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus. Hasty attempts to do research on the coronavirus, including studies on Hydroxychloroquine, have resulted in numerous papers now being retracted from scientific journals. People ran to this drug as a possible antidote the coronavirus, just as schools are running to e-proctoring software as an antidote for exam cheating. Neither e-proctoring software nor Hydroxychloroquine were designed to be used during the current pandemic. People flocked to them both as if they were some kind of magic pill that would solve a massively complex problem, without sufficient evidence that either would actually do what they so desperately wanted it to do.

The reality is that there is scant scientific data to show that e-proctoring actually works in the way that people want it to, that is, to provide a way of addressing academic misconduct during the pandemic. By “scientific data” I do not mean sales pitches. I am talking about independent scholarly studies undertaken by qualified academic researchers employed at reputable universities. By “independent scholarly studies” I mean research that has not been funded in any way by the companies that produce the products. That kind of research is terrifyingly lacking.

We need to back up for a minute and look about why we invigilate exams in the first place. To invigilate means “to keep watch over”. Keeping watch over students while they write an exam is part of ensuring that testing conditions are fair and objective.

The point of a test, in scientific terms, involves controlling all variables except one. In traditional testing, all other factors are controlled, including the conditions under which the test was administered such as the exam hall with desks separated, same lighting and environment for all test-takers, length of time permitted to take the test, how it is invigilated, and so on. All variables are presumably controlled except one: the student’s knowledge of the subject matter. That’s what’s being tested, the student’s knowledge.

Exams are administered in what could be termed, academically sterile environments. In an ideal situation, academic hygiene is the starting point for administering a test. Invigilation is just one aspect of ensuring academic hygiene during testing, but it is not the only factor that contributes to this kind of educational hygiene that we need to ensure testing conditions control for all possible variables except a student’s knowledge of the subject matter.

During the pandemic, with the shift to remote learning, we cannot control all the variables. We simply cannot assure an academically hygienic environment for testing. Students may have absolutely no control over who else is present in their living/studying quarters. They may have no control over a family member (including their own children) who might enter a room unannounced during a test. The conditions under which students are being tested during the pandemic are not academically hygienic. And that’s not their fault.

E-proctoring may address one aspect of exam administration: invigilation. It cannot, however, ensure that all variables are controlled.

As an academic integrity scholar, I am distressed by the lack of objective, peer-reviewed data about e-proctoring software. Schools have turned to e-proctoring software as if it were some kind of magic pill that will make academic cheating go away. We have insufficient evidence to substantiate that e-proctoring software, or any technology for that matter, can serve as a substitute for an in-person academically hygienic testing environment.

Schools that were using e-proctoring before the pandemic, such as Thompson Rivers University or Athabasca University in Canada, offered students a choice about whether students preferred to take their exams online, at home, using an e-proctoring service, or whether they preferred to drive to an in-person exam centre. During the pandemic, students’ choice has been taken away.

We all want an antidote to academic misconduct during remote learning, but I urge you educators and administrators to think like scholars and scientists. In other words, approach this “solution” with caution, and even skepticism. At present, we lack sufficient evidence to make informed decisions. Educators need to be just as skeptical about this technology and how it works during pandemic conditions as physicians and the FDA have been about using Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus. Its use as being effective against the coronavirus is a myth. The use of e-proctoring software as being an effective replacement for in-person exams is also a myth, one perpetuated by the companies that sell the product.

Forcing surveillance technology on students against their will during a pandemic is tantamount to forcing an untested treatment on a patient; it is unethical to the extreme.

______

Share or Tweet this: Comparing E-Proctoring Software to Hydroxychloroquine: An Apt Analogy – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2020/11/04/comparing-e-proctoring-software-to-hydroxychloroquine-an-apt-analogy/(opens in a new tab)

This blog has had over 2 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.