11 Ways to Prevent Cheating with WebAssign

Online homework has two competing job titles: (1) “practice tool that helps students learn,” and (2) “temptation buffet that answers websites would love to turn into a drive-thru.” WebAssign sits in the middle: it’s designed to help students build skills with immediate feedback, but it also gives instructors real control over security, settings, and exam conditions.

The good news: you don’t need to turn your course into a surveillance documentary to protect academic integrity. In most classes, the biggest wins come from a smarter mix of assessment design + WebAssign settings + clear expectations. The goal isn’t “catch every cheater.” The goal is: make dishonest shortcuts harder, make honest work easier, and keep the learning outcomes actually… learning-shaped.

Below are 11 practical, instructor-friendly ways to prevent cheating with WebAssignwritten for real-world teaching, not a fantasy where every student reads the syllabus twice and never Googles anything ever.

1) Randomize numeric values (so copying answers becomes a guessing game)

If ten students see the same numbers, you’ve basically created a group project… without telling anyone it’s a group project. WebAssign supports randomization of question values so each student receives a unique version of a problemsame concept, different inputs.

Why it works

• Students can still collaborate on the method (“use conservation of energy here”), without sharing a final answer that matches word-for-word.
• Answer-sharing sites lose value when the numbers don’t match.
• You get fewer “My friend’s answer is different, so yours must be wrong” emails. (A small miracle.)

Pro tip: Use randomization heavily for homework and practice. For exams, pair it with question pools and a short availability window for a one-two punch.

2) Randomize question order and use question pools (reduce “twinsies” tests)

Even with randomized numbers, students can still line up screens and march through the same question order together. WebAssign allows you to randomize question order, and secure testing guidance also emphasizes question pools for examsso different students see different sets or sequences.

Why it works

• It disrupts synchronized answer-sharing (“What did you get for #7?” becomes “Which #7?”).
• It lowers the chance of one “leak” giving everyone the same advantage.
• It’s still fair when pools are built to measure the same objectives and difficulty level.

Instructor move that pays off: build pools where each item targets the same learning outcome (e.g., “apply chain rule,” “set up a stoichiometry ratio,” “solve a 2×2 system”). Students get variety; your outcomes stay consistent.

3) Show one question at a time (and consider limiting backtracking for exams)

WebAssign includes a “one question at a time” option, which reduces quick scanning, screen sharing, and rapid copying. For higher-stakes tests, some instructors also limit backtracking (where available) so students can’t jump around collecting questions like Pokémon.

Why it works

• It slows down mass-capture behavior and makes it harder to distribute an entire exam in one go.
• It increases focus, which also helps honest students who get overwhelmed by a long page of problems.

Keep it humane: One-at-a-time works best when questions are clearly written and students can flag items mentally. If your exam relies on multi-step reasoning across problems, consider grouping related items into a smaller set rather than turning navigation into a maze.

4) Set a time limit that rewards preparationnot panic

Time limits are one of the most reliable integrity tools for online testing. WebAssign secure testing recommendations highlight time limits because they reduce the opportunity to search for answers students don’t already know.

How to do it without being “that” instructor

• Use realistic timing: enough for prepared students to finish without frantic guessing.
• Plan accommodations: time extensions for approved needs and make-up cases (WebAssign supports extensions policies).
• Practice first: give a timed, low-stakes quiz early so students learn the format before the big test.

In math and science courses, time limits work especially well when paired with randomized values and restricted feedback (more on that soon).

5) Limit availability windows (stop the “take it whenever” loophole)

If an exam is open for 48 hours, you’ve unintentionally created a relay race: early testers pass “tips” to later testers. A shorter availability window helps keep the assessment aligned to a single moment in time.

What “smart availability” looks like

• Short window + time limit: e.g., exam available 2 hours, time limit 60 minutes.
• Multiple sections: use different pools/versions for different class times.
• Communication: announce the window clearly and repeat it (calendar + LMS + in-class reminder). Repetition is not a moral failing. It’s pedagogy.

6) Password-protect tests and share the password at the right time

Password protection is a simple, underrated security step: students can’t start early unless they have the password, and you control when it’s released (for example, at the beginning of a class period or proctored session).

Best uses

• In-person quizzes: announce the password once everyone is seated.
• Synchronous remote exams: release the password in your video meeting or LMS announcement at start time.
• Testing centers: proctors can handle password release.

Small detail, big impact: Use a fresh password each time (no “FinalExam2020” traditions, please).

7) Restrict by IP address/location when you truly need controlled conditions

WebAssign supports IP (location) restrictions, letting you require that students be signed in from a specific location (like a campus lab or testing center). This isn’t necessary for every assignmentbut it’s powerful for high-stakes testing when you have the infrastructure.

Where it shines

• On-campus exams in a computer lab
• Departmental testing centers
• Make-up exams where you want consistent conditions

Equity note: If some students cannot access campus, offer an alternative pathway (proctoring option, different assessment format, or documented accommodations).

8) Require LockDown Browser for tests (reduce unauthorized browsing and app-switching)

LockDown Browser is designed to prevent students from navigating to other websites or applications during a test. WebAssign supports LockDown Browser requirements for assignments that need tighter control.

Best practice

• Use it for exams, not everyday homework (otherwise you’ll spend your life troubleshooting instead of teaching).
• Provide a tech-check quiz that’s worth a tiny amount of credit, so students install and test early.
• Have a backup plan for genuine tech failures (documented, fair, and consistent).

9) Add proctoring selectively (Respondus Monitor, LMS proctoring, or Proctorio integrations)

Sometimes, the stakes justify additional proctoring. WebAssign supports proctoring approaches (including integrations through an LMS) and has expanded capabilities such as Respondus Monitor options and LMS-specific proctoring solutions. If you use Canvas-integrated WebAssign, there are documented ways to connect proctoring tools like Proctorio for monitoring during WebAssign exams.

How to use proctoring without losing student trust

• Be transparent: explain what is recorded/monitored and why.
• Use it only when needed: midterms/finals, placement tests, certification-style exams.
• Design still matters: proctoring is not a substitute for randomization, time limits, and good question writing.

Reality check: Proctoring can introduce privacy, accessibility, and tech-equity concerns. Many teaching centers recommend prioritizing assessment design first, and then adding security tools when appropriate.

10) Tune submissions and scoring to discourage guessing (without punishing learning)

WebAssign allows you to set submission limits and apply scoring adjustments, including deducting points based on the number of submissions. Used thoughtfully, this reduces brute-force guessing on multiple-choice or true/false questions while still giving students room to learn on practice work.

Practical settings that balance integrity and learning

• Multiple choice: allow fewer attempts than choices (so guessing can’t brute-force a perfect score).
• For-credit homework: allow multiple attempts but add small penalties after a threshold, so students are encouraged to reflect before resubmitting.
• Practice sets: keep attempts generous and feedback helpful; make the graded version more controlled.

Example: In an intro statistics course, a weekly practice assignment can allow generous retries and hints. The quiz that follows can tighten attempts and apply a modest penalty for repeated submissionsencouraging preparation and careful work.

11) Control feedback timing (don’t hand out the answer key while the quiz is still alive)

Immediate feedback is fantastic for learningbut it can also become an answer pipeline if you release correct answers too early. WebAssign includes student feedback settings that let you control when answer keys, correctness indicators, scores, and other help features appear.

Settings that reduce answer-sharing

• Show answer keys only after the due date for graded work.
• Delay full solutions until the assessment window closes (especially for multi-section courses).
• Give formative feedback without giving away the farm: show “incorrect” plus a targeted hint (“check units,” “revisit sign convention”) rather than the full worked solution during the active window.

Bonus learning move: After the deadline, release richer feedback and require a short “error analysis” reflection for partial credit recovery. It turns integrity problems into learning opportunitieswithout rewarding shortcuts.

Put it all together: a simple “secure exam” recipe

If you want a quick starting point for a higher-stakes WebAssign test, here’s a practical combo that many instructors find effective:

• Question pools + randomized order
• Randomized values where possible
• Short availability window + a reasonable time limit
• Password released at start time
• LockDown Browser (and proctoring only if needed)
• Answer key released after due date

Then layer in a human piece: clearly explain what counts as allowed collaboration, how students should cite help, and what to do if they get stuck. A surprising amount of “cheating prevention” is really “confusion prevention.”

Monitor patterns and respond like an educator (not a detective in a noir film)

WebAssign provides logs and reporting tools that can help you review access and submission activity, see timing estimates, and investigate anomalies when something seems off. The best practice isn’t to obsess over every outlierit’s to look for meaningful patterns:

• Unusually fast completion on complex, multi-step questions
• Repeated identical response patterns across multiple students
• Sudden performance spikes that don’t match the student’s prior work
• Frequent “just-in-time” submissions with minimal work history

When you do see a concern, start with a calm, documentation-based conversation. Often, you’ll uncover a mix of stress, misunderstanding, and poor choices. Your response can protect fairness while still supporting growth.

Instructor Experiences: What Actually Changes When You Turn These Settings On (About )

Instructors who adopt WebAssign’s anti-cheating settings often report the same first surprise: the course gets quieternot because students stop asking questions, but because the “Is my friend’s answer supposed to match mine?” chatter fades. In a College Algebra section, for example, switching on randomized values and randomized question order tends to eliminate the easy habit of texting final answers. Students still compare methods (“Did you distribute first or factor first?”), but the pressure to copy a single numeric result drops because it simply won’t match. That shift nudges students toward process-focused collaboration, which is the kind you actually want.

Another common experience shows up during quizzes. When instructors add a short availability window plus a time limit, the “I’ll do it later tonight” plan becomes less tempting, and so does the “I’ll wait until someone else takes it and tells me what’s on it” strategy. The best versions of this approach don’t feel punitive; they feel structured. Students know exactly when the quiz happens, they prepare accordingly, and the class develops a rhythm. Many instructors pair this with a low-stakes timed practice quiz early in the term, which dramatically reduces tech-panic on the first real test.

Password protection is often described as the simplest high-impact change. Instructors who run in-person quizzes love that it prevents early accessno more “I clicked the quiz by accident last night” mystery. In synchronous online sections, releasing the password at the start of a video meeting creates a shared start time that feels fair. It also reduces the awkwardness of policing: you’re not chasing rumors, you’re simply controlling access like you would in a classroom by handing out the paper test when the clock starts.

LockDown Browser and proctoring tools tend to produce more mixed experiences. When used sparingly for midterms and finalsand when students are given a tech-check assignment ahead of timethese tools can reduce obvious unauthorized browsing and keep the testing environment consistent. But instructors also notice that overusing security tools creates support overhead and student anxiety. The instructors who report the best outcomes typically reserve heavy security for truly high-stakes assessments and rely on better assessment design (randomization, pools, feedback timing, and question writing) for everything else.

Finally, logs and timing estimates often become less about “gotcha” moments and more about course improvement. Instructors discover which questions are unexpectedly time-consuming, which topics trigger repeated attempts, and where students seem to guess instead of reason. When suspicious patterns do appear, the most effective responses are often educational: a required re-work session, a short oral check-in, or a policy reminder paired with support resources. In other words, the tools don’t just prevent cheatingthey also reveal where learning is breaking down, so you can fix the underlying problem instead of just treating the symptom.

Conclusion

Preventing cheating with WebAssign isn’t about one magic switchit’s about building a course environment where honest work is the easiest path. Start with the essentials (randomization, pools, time limits, and feedback timing). Add access controls (passwords, IP restrictions, LockDown Browser) when the stakes justify it. Use proctoring selectively, transparently, and with care. Then monitor patterns, respond fairly, and keep the focus where it belongs: helping students learn the material in a way that holds up outside the homework screen.