academic dishonesty assignment

• Academic Integrity Tutorials
• Faculty Tutorial
• Definitions and Types

Faculty Tutorial: Academic Dishonesty Definition and Types

"Good academic work must be based on honesty" ( NIU, 2024a ). Promoting honesty in academic work requires understanding the definition of academic dishonesty, its different types, and its causes and consequences.

According to NIU's undergraduate and graduate catalogs ( NIU, 2024b ),

The attempt of any student to present as their own work that which they have not produced is regarded by the faculty and administration as a serious offense. Students are considered to have cheated, for example, if they copy the work of another or use unauthorized notes or other aids during an examination or turn in as their own a paper or an assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else. Students are guilty of plagiarism, intentional or not, if they copy material from books, magazines, or other sources without identifying and acknowledging those sources or if they paraphrase ideas from such sources without acknowledging them.

Good academic work is expected not only in classroom activities, but also in research and related activities. As NIU's Graduate Catalog ( NIU, 2024b ) emphasizes, research misconduct includes "falsification of data, improper assignment of authorship, claiming another person’s work as one’s own, unprofessional manipulation of experiments or of research procedures, misappropriation of research funds".

Academic Dishonesty Defined

Academic dishonesty refers to committing or contributing to dishonest acts by those engaged in teaching, learning, research, and related academic activities, and it applies not just to students, but to everyone in the academic environment (Cizek, 2003; Whitley, Jr. and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). NIU considers academic dishonesty a serious offense, regardless of whether it was committed intentionally or not ( NIU, 2024a ; NIU, 2024b ).

Academic dishonesty can take many forms, which can be broadly classified as follows (Whitley & Keith-Spigel, 2002; Pavela, 1978; Stern & Havelick, 1986):

• Fabrication or falsification

Cheating involves unauthorized use of information, materials, devices, sources, or practices in completing academic activities. For example, copying during an exam that should be completed individually is an unauthorized practice, and, therefore, is considered cheating. A student who allows another student to copy from their work is considered to be facilitating or contributing to cheating.

The NIU Student Code of Conduct ( NIU, 2024c (PDF) ) states that the term "cheating" includes, but is not limited to:

Use of sources beyond those authorized by the instructor in writing papers, preparing reports, solving problems, or carrying out other assignments; Acquisition, without permission, of tests or other academic material belonging to a member of the university faculty or staff; Engagement in any behavior specifically prohibited by a faculty member in the course syllabus or class discussion.

Check Your Understanding

What if the cheating or plagiarism committed was unintentional?

Reveal Answer

It is still considered as academic dishonesty even if it was committed unintentionally.

Plagiarism is a type of cheating in which someone adopts another person's ideas, words, design, art, music, etc., as his or her own without acknowledging the source, or, when necessary, obtaining permission from the author. For example, copying and pasting material from a web site into your own document without proper citation is considered plagiarism.

Per the NIU Student code of Conduct ( NIU, 2024c ):

The term “plagiarism” includes but is not limited to the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work of another person without full and clear acknowledgment. Plagiarism also includes the unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or agency engaged in the selling of term papers or other academic materials.

• Fabrication or Falsification

Fabrication or falsification involves the unauthorized creation or alteration of information in an academic document or activity. For example, artificially creating data when it should be collected from an actual experiment or making up a source of information that does not exist is considered fabrication or falsification.

Sabotage involves disrupting or destroying another person's work so that the other person cannot complete an academic activity successfully. For example, destroying another person's artwork, experimentd or design is considered sabotage. Failure to contribute as required to a team project can also be considered academic sabotage.

Keep in Mind

The two key ideas to remember in understanding the four types of academic dishonesty are:

• Unauthorized practices
• Improper use of another person's work in the course of completing an academic activity

Even if you unintentionally use another person's work improperly, you are still guilty of academic dishonesty. It is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with these directives and adhere to them in all your academic work.

Two key issues to keep in mind regarding academic dishonesty are:

• Improper use of other person's work

Take Quiz 1

• Definition and Types
• Consequences
• Examples of Plagiarism
• Steps for Proactive Prevention
• Designing Effective Course Activities
• Conducting Exams
• Addressing Incidents
• Case Scenarios

The Academic Integrity Tutorial for Students is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

• Staff Directory
• Workshops and Events
• For Students

Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 6: ChatGPT, AI, and Academic Integrity

by Thomas Keith | Jan 23, 2023 | Instructional design , Services

Author’s Note: This is the latest installment in an ongoing series of articles about issues pertaining to academic integrity in higher education. For earlier installments, please see: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

ATS instructional designers Mohammad Ahmed and Michael Hernandez contributed content to this article.

Introduction

The state of the tool, issues for academic integrity, technological prevention, non-technological prevention, creative adaptation, further resources.

There are few current issues in education that have provoked more interest – or sounded more alarms – than artificial intelligence (AI) technology. While the issue has simmered for some time, it burst into the forefront of debate following OpenAI’s public release of ChatGPT . When given a prompt – e.g. “What were the causes of World War I?” or “How does the Krebs cycle work?” – ChatGPT (the acronym stands for “Generative Pretrained Transformer”) can generate text that reads, at least on superficial examination, like that written by a human – the basis of the famed Turing Test for machine intelligence.

Once the tool’s capabilities became known, it did not take long for fears to be voiced that students would turn to ChatGPT to write their assignments for them. Eye-grabbing headlines began to appear, not only in sensationalist newspapers like the New York Post ( which dubbed the tool “CheatGPT” ) but in more sober publications like the Atlantic , where an opinion piece bluntly claimed that “the college essay is dead”. Advocates for the worst-case scenario see a future in which human-generated and computer-generated text are indistinguishable, essay assignments are meaningless, and the very skill of academic writing is lost.

One need not accept this doomsday proposition to recognize that ChatGPT raises legitimate concerns for academic integrity. But if we are to address such concerns, we must first answer several key questions: what is ChatGPT, exactly? What are its affordances and limitations? And, assuming that ChatGPT and tools like it are here to stay (as seems overwhelmingly likely), how should we rethink pedagogy to address this new reality?

At this time, ChatGPT is essentially an information aggregator. It trawls vast quantities of human-produced texts and extracts data, which it then synthesizes into a response to a given prompt. As noted above, its responses on many topics are at least coherent enough that they may be superficially indistinguishable from student writing.

As with all AI tools, though, ChatGPT’s capacity to give responses depends upon what, and how much, it is “fed”. Its lack of data on current events, for example, limits its capacity to respond to prompts such as “How is the war in Ukraine progressing today?” There are also guardrails in place to prevent the tool’s being used for nefarious purposes (though cybercriminals are already seeking to circumvent these ).

There are other significant limitations to the tool as well. It cannot cite sources correctly – any request for a bibliography produces false and/or irrelevant citations. Nor is it error-free: users have run across blatant, even comical, mistakes when ChatGPT is asked a question as straightforward as “How do you work?” Like all AI, it is subject to the biases of those who supply its data . And, most fundamentally, it is not true artificial intelligence. There are no indications that ChatGPT understands the questions it is being asked or what it is producing in answer; simply put, it is not sapient. This is worth keeping in mind as the debate rages over whether such tools are capable of supplanting human creativity.

It is, without question, too early in the game to expound upon all the possible difficulties ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools could pose for academic integrity. Already, however, ChatGPT-generated text has proved itself capable of evading plagiarism checkers such as Turnitin. Plagiarism detection software relies on comparing student work to a database of pre-existing work and identifying identical phrases, sentences, etc. to produce an “originality score”. Because the text generated by ChatGPT is (in some sense, anyway) “original,” it renders this technique useless.

ChatGPT also ties into the broader issue of contract cheating – hiring a third party to do work, such as writing an essay or taking an exam, on a student’s behalf. Contract cheating is already a severe problem worldwide, and with the widespread availability of AI writing tools, students can now generate “original” written work for free, without the need to involve a human agent who might betray the student’s confidence.

How Do We Deal with the Problem?

As the New York Times has noted , many faculty and instructors already feel the need to adjust their pedagogy to account for the existence of ChatGPT. Their strategies, actual and proposed, for coping with the tool can be divided into three categories: technological prevention; non-technological prevention; and creative adaptation. We shall consider each of these in turn below.

It will come as no surprise that technological counters to ChatGPT are already in play. A 22-year-old computer science student at Princeton named Edward Tian has introduced GPTZero , which claims to distinguish human- and computer-generated text with a high degree of accuracy. Meanwhile, other plagiarism tools, such as Turnitin, offer their own AI-detection tools and are rapidly working to detect the newest generation of generative AI text. And finally, the makers of ChatGPT are themselves exploring “watermarking” technology to indicate when a document has been generated by the software.

Some experts foresee an “arms race” between AI writing tools and AI detection tools. If this scenario comes to pass, faculty and instructors will be hard-pressed to keep up with the bleeding-edge software needed to counter the newest writing tools. But more fundamentally, we might ask: is technology always the best solution to the problems it creates? Or are there other, perhaps less involved, means of addressing the questions raised by AI?

At the other end of the spectrum, some faculty and instructors have sought to neutralize ChatGPT entirely. This may entail banning ChatGPT specifically; banning all computers in the classroom; supervising student essay-writing, whether in class or via monitoring software such as Proctorio; or even requiring writing assignments to be handwritten.

The concern that underlies such measures is understandable, and they can be effective in the short-term, but they come at a cost: aside from the anxiety that can be provoked by being under surveillance, accessibility issues that may be raised by requiring handwritten work, and the legal/ethical issues raised by video proctoring, students miss the opportunity to learn about the tool and its implications. As we confront the likelihood of a future with ubiquitous AI technology, those students who have never experienced tools like ChatGPT and who know nothing about their uses may well find themselves at a professional disadvantage.

At this point in time, it seems most productive to take a third path – one that balances the need to safeguard academic integrity with the reality that ChatGPT and its like are here to stay. Here are some suggestions for methods to integrate AI tools like ChatGPT into your pedagogy in a productive, rather than destructive, fashion.

• Clarify expectations at the outset. As early in your course as possible – ideally within the syllabus itself – you should specify whether, and under what circumstances, the use of AI tools is permissible. It may help to think of ChatGPT as similar to peer assistance, group work, or outside tutoring: in all these cases, your students should understand where the boundaries lie, when help is permissible, and when they must rely on their own resources. You might also discuss with your students how they feel about AI and its ability (or lack thereof) to convey their ideas. Emergent research suggests that at least some students feel dissatisfied with the results when they entrust expression of their ideas to AI.
• Craft writing prompts that require creative thought. A tool like ChatGPT can easily respond to a simple prompt such as “What are the causes of inflation?”, but it is likely to have trouble with a prompt such as “Compare and contrast inflation in the present-day American economy with that in the late 1970s”. The more in-depth and thought out the prompt, the more it will demand critical reasoning – not simply regurgitation – to answer.
• Run your prompts through ChatGPT. Related to the point above, actually using ChatGPT on a draft of your writing prompt can be an illuminating exercise. Successive iterations may help you to clarify your thinking and add nuances to your prompt that were not present in the initial draft.
• Scaffold your writing assignments. This is a time-honored technique for combating plagiarism of any kind in academic writing. It will be much harder for a student to submit a final draft generated by AI and get away with it if you have observed that student’s thinking and writing process throughout the course.
• Promote library resources. As mentioned previously, ChatGPT is not presently able to generate an accurate bibliography, nor does it understand the concept of citation. This shortcoming can be a good jumping-off point for you to explain to your students how to cite properly, why citation is important, and how they can use available resources to do their own research.
• Model productive use of AI tools. For all its hazards, ChatGPT also offers promising possibilities. A “dialogue” between the user and the tool can help the user to probe deeper into the subject matter, become familiar with mainstream scholarship on the topic, and push beyond “easy answers” toward original work. To promote such dialogue, you might, for example, assign your students to come up with their own prompts, post them to ChatGPT, and then comment on the answers, finding the strengths and weaknesses of the “argument” that the tool generates.

In a field evolving by the day, no article, this one included, can hope to offer definite answers. What we have presented here are points we hope will contextualize the debate and provide a framework for further discussion. In the end, what AI tools will mean for higher education – and for society as a whole – remains to be seen.

To learn more about AI in the classroom, we recommend the excellent page on AI Guidance from Yale’s Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. Turnitin also offers a concise but helpful Guide for approaching AI-generated text in your classroom .

If you have further questions, Academic Technology Solutions is here to help. You can schedule a consultation with us or drop by our office hours (virtual and in-person, no appointment needed). We also offer a range of workshops on topics in teaching with technology.

(Cover Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash )

Search Blog

Subscribe by email.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Recent Posts

• Leave Engaging, Accessible Feedback for Students with Canvas Media Comments
• Thinking about Bringing AI into Your Class? Ask these Questions to Plan for a Meaningful Experience
• Getting Started with New Quizzes in Canvas
• How to Use SensusAccess Inside Canvas
• Make Your Canvas Course Sites More Accessible with PopeTech
• A/V Equipment
• Accessibility
• Canvas Features/Functions
• Digital Accessibility
• Faculty Success Stories
• Instructional design
• Multimedia Development
• Poll Everywhere
• Surveys and Feedback
• Symposium for Teaching with Technology
• Uncategorized
• Universal Design for Learning
• Visualization

Plagiarism & Academic Integrity

• Academic Integrity

Types of Academic Dishonesty

• How to Avoid Plagiarism: Citing
• Citing Direct Quotes
• Paraphrasing
• Summarizing
• Try It! Identifying Plagiarism
• Understanding a Turnitin Report

There are many types of academic dishonesty - some are obvious, while some are less obvious.

• Misrepresentation ;
• Conspiracy ;
• Fabrication ;
• Collusion ;
• Duplicate Submission ;
• Academic Misconduct ;
• Improper Computer/Calculator Use ;
• Improper Online, TeleWeb, and Blended Course Use ;
• Disruptive Behavior ;
• and last, but certainly not least, PLAGIARISM .

We will discuss each of these types of academic dishonesty in more detail below. Plagiarism is the most common type of academic dishonesty, and also the easiest type to commit on accident! See the plagiarism page for more info about what plagiarism is and how to avoid it in your work.

Cheating is taking or giving any information or material which will be used to determine academic credit.

  Examples of cheating include:

• Copying from another student's test or homework.
• Allowing another student to copy from your test or homework.
• Using materials such as textbooks, notes, or formula lists during a test without the professor's permission.
• Collaborating on an in-class or take-home test without the professor's permission.
• Having someone else write or plan a paper for you.

  Bribery takes on two forms:

• Bribing someone for an academic advantage, or accepting such a bribe (i.e. a student offers a professor money, goods, or services in exchange for a passing grade, or a professor accepts this bribe).
• Using an academic advantage as a bribe (i.e. a professor offers a student a passing grade in exchange for money, goods, or services, or a student accepts this bribe).

Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation is any act or omission that is intented to deceive an instructor for academic advantage. Misrepresentation includes lying to an instructor in an attempt to increase your grade, or lying to an instructor when confronted with allegations of academic dishonesty.

Conspiracy means working together with one or more persons to commit or attempt to commit academic dishonesty.

Fabrication

Fabrication is the use of invented or misrepresentative information. Fabrication most often occurs in the sciences, when students create or alter experimental data. Listing a source in your works cited that you did not actually use in your research is also fabrication.

Collusion is the act of two or more students working together on an individual assignment.

Duplicate Submission

A duplicate submission means a student submits the same paper for two different classes. If a student submits the same paper for two different classes within the same semester, the student must have the permission of both instructors. If a student submits the same paper for two different classes in different semesters, the student must have the permission of their current instructor.

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is the violation of college policies by tampering with grades or by obtaining and/or distributing any part of a test or assignment. For example:

• Obtaining a copy of a test before the test is admisistered.
• Distributing, either for money or for free, a test before it is administered.
• Encouraging others to obtain a copy of a test before the test is administered.
• Changing grades in a gradebook, on a computer, or on an assignment.
• Continuing to work on a test after time is called.

Improper Computer/Calculator Use

Improper computer/calculator use includes:

• Unauthorized use of computer or calculator programs.
• Selling or giving away information stored on a computer or calculator which will be submitted for a grade.
• Sharing test or assignment answers on a calculator or computer.

Improper Online, TeleWeb, and Blended Course Use

Improper online, teleweb, and blended course use includes:

• Accepting or providing outside help on online assignments or tests.
• Obtaining test materials or questions before the test is administered.

Disruptive Behavior

Disruptive behavior is any behavior that interfers with the teaching/learning process. Disruptive bahavior includes:

• Disrespecting a professor or another student, in class or online.
• Talking, texting, or viewing material unrelated to the course during a lecture.
• Failing to silence your cell phone during class.
• Posting inappropriate material or material unrealted to the course on discussion boards.
• << Previous: Academic Integrity
• Next: Plagiarism >>
• Last Updated: Jan 2, 2024 11:53 AM
• URL: https://spcollege.libguides.com/avoidplagiarism

Academic Integrity at MIT

A handbook for students, search form, what are the consequences.

The consequences for cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, and other forms of academic dishonesty can be very serious, possibly including suspension or expulsion from the Institute. Any violation of the rules outlined in this handbook, established by the instructor of the class, or deviating from responsible conduct of research, may be considered violations of academic integrity. The MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty is outlined in MIT’s Policies and Procedures 10.2 .

Instructors, research or thesis supervisors decide how to handle violations of academic integrity on a case-by-case basis, and three options exist. Questions about these options should be directed to the Office of Student conduct ( [email protected] ).

Academic consequences within a class or research project

Within a class, the instructor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

requiring the student to redo the assignment for a reduced grade.

assigning the student a failing grade for the assignment.

assigning the student a failing grade for the class.

For a research project, the supervisor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

• terminating the student's participation in the research project.

The instructor or supervisor may also submit documentation to the Office of Student Citizenship in the form of a letter to file or a formal complaint. These options are outlined below.

Letter to file

The instructor or supervisor writes a letter describing the nature of the academic integrity violation, which is placed in the student’s discipline file. The student’s discipline file is maintained by the Office of Student Citizenship (OSC) and is not associated with the student’s academic record .

A letter may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

If a student receives a letter to file, s/he has the right to:

submit a reply, that is added to the student’s file.

appeal the letter to the Committee on Discipline (COD) for a full hearing.

In resolving the violation described in the letter, the OSC reviews any previous violations which are documented in the student’s discipline file.

Committee on Discipline (COD) complaint

The instructor or supervisor submits a formal complaint to the COD, which resolves cases of alleged student misconduct.

This complaint may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

A COD complaint is reviewed by the COD Chair and considered for a hearing. Any previous violations documented in the student’s discipline file are reviewed as part of this process.

Cases resulting in a hearing are subject to a full range of sanctions, including probation, suspension, dismissal, or other educational sanctions.

Policies, Procedures, and Contacts

• MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty
• Typical MIT Student Discipline Process Outline
• Committee on Discipline Rules and Regulations
• Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards
• For Faculty and Staff: What You Should Know about Academic Integrity

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Profile of Academic Offenders: Features of Students Who Admit to Academic Dishonesty

Nitza davidovitch.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding Author: Liat Korn, e-mail: [email protected]

Study Design

Data Collection

Statistical Analysis

Data Interpretation

Manuscript Preparation

Literature Search

Funds Collection

Received 2016 Mar 31; Accepted 2016 Apr 20; Collection date 2016.

This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Dishonesty in academic settings is a reckless behavior that is unique to students and is associated with cheat ing and plagiarism of academic tasks. Incidents involving dishonesty in higher education have increased considerably in the past decade, with regard to the extent of these practices, the types of dishonesty employed, and their prevalence. The current study examines the profile of “academic offenders”. Which types are more prone to commit academic offenses? To what degree are they “normative” and do they represent the average student with regard to personal traits, personal perceptions, features of their academic studies, risk behaviors, and health risks. The study is based on a structured anonymous questionnaire. The sample consisted of 1,432 students, of whom 899 were female (63%) and 533 male (37%). The research findings indicate a common tendency among more than one quarter of the sample reported cheating on homework and 12.5% reported cheating on tests. Strong associations were found between academic dishonesty and various personal perceptions, the academic study experience, and involvement in other risky and deviant behaviors. Significant predictors of academic dishonesty were found, i.e., self-image, ethics, grades, time devoted to homework, and deviant and daring behaviors.

The research findings might help indicate policies for optimally dealing with dishonesty, maybe even before the offense is committed, by means of cooperation between academic forces.

MeSH Keywords: Adolescent Behavior, Ethical Analysis, Public Health Administration

Disciplinary offenses and the ethical-cultural climate in Israel

Academic dishonesty is a reckless behavior that is unique to students and is associated with cheating on homework and plagiarism of academic assignments [ 1 – 3 ]. A study conducted in Israel by Balik et al. examined the views of nursing students at Tel Aviv University (n=350) towards dishonesty during academic studies [ 1 ]. The researchers found that respondents tended to see academic dishonesty as a normative behavior that is not unethical, but emphasized that this does not mean that the students perceive this behavior as appropriate. These research findings are compatible with previous findings concerning students [ 2 , 4 ]. A study conducted in 2009 found that cheating on tests or on homework at least once during the past month was reported by some 25% of students [ 5 ]. With regard to gender differences, the research findings are inconsistent. Some studies found that men cheat on tests more than women, while others found no significant gender differences [ 1 , 6 ].

There is wide consensus that lack of integrity in higher education has become considerably worse in the last decade, both in its extent and in the types and prevalence of dishonesty. The “ivory tower” image of academic campuses has been replaced by a completely different image – the campus as a reflection of external society, with its values. This is no surprise, as public personages have been accused and convicted of breach of trust, fraud, and receiving prohibited gifts, as well as submitting assignments that they had not written. Furthermore, cheating occurs in all disciplines, genders, sectors, and levels of religiosity. Moreover, most students see nothing wrong with student deceptions perceived as normative [ 7 ]. Already in the process of academic studies, average students perceive the academic degree as a shady business. Sixty-three percent of students read only the abstracts of most articles and 8.6% do not read them at all. Only a minority of 16.5% read most articles in full (ibid.). There is an entire industry of translations and summaries. This reflects a growing conception that it does not matter what grade you receive as long as you pass the course and receive a degree. Thus, institutions of higher education are gradually becoming schools considered by the students to be “degree brokers” rather than “education imparters.” Young people strive for change and the direction is quite clear: a professional degree leading to occupational placement.

The purpose of the current study is to try and characterize students who report academic dishonesty (on tests or homework). Who are those who are prone to committing academic offenses? To what degree are they “normative” and do they represent the average student?

The relationship between the accessibility of higher education and the rise in disciplinary offenses and acts of dishonesty

The twentieth century brought about a revolution in higher education. Up to World War II the main role of this system in most societies was to nurture the elite [ 8 ], and it constituted a vehicle for preserving the existing social order [ 9 ]. However, from the second half of the twentieth century academia has been acting more and more in the service of society, by making higher education accessible to everyone. The United Sates led the spread of higher education [ 10 ]. In 1940 some 15% of the 18–21 age groups in the United States were enrolled in colleges and universities. By 1970 that rate had reached 45% [ 11 ].

The rapid spread of higher education was characteristic of many Western countries in the 1970s, leading to the term “massification of higher education” [ 12 ]. Higher education, which until that time could be defined as an opportunity reserved for the privileged few, became the right of everyone, and even a civil duty [ 13 ].

In Israel, higher education has gone through a process of expansion and change since the early 1990s. By 2015 Israel had nine universities (including the Open University), 42 academic colleges, 25 colleges for education, and 4 branches of foreign universities recognized by the Council for Higher Education (CHE), for a total of 80 institutions of higher education.

The most important process in this respect was that, as of the 2002/3 school year, there were more undergraduate students studying at colleges than at universities, although in that year the number of university students (76,581) was greater than the number of college students excluding CHE recognized branches of foreign universities (68,115) [ 14 ]. The total number of students in academic colleges in 2014 was 96,927 [ 15 ]. This reflects the increased accessibility of higher education for many students. The colleges encouraged a process that opened the gates of higher education to students previously excluded from academic tertiary education. However even at the time of the decision to increase accessibility, in the 1990s, doubts were raised as to whether the expansion of higher education would have a detrimental or positive effect on its quality [ 16 ].

Researchers are of the opinion [ 17 ] that one of the outcomes of the massification of higher education is the emergence of disciplinary offenders in academia. Academia in Western countries, including Israel, underwent a process of integrating lower class groups, which drastically changed the system of higher education. This had direct significance for issues of student integrity, discipline, and behavior, both in Israel and elsewhere. Students’ attitude to academic studies became mainly instrumental. Moving the emphasis from education to training also produced significant and diverse disciplinary problems previously unknown on the campuses. Hence, the current study will attempt to characterize students reporting academic dishonesty (on tests or homework). What types are inclined to commit academic offenses? To what degree are they “normative,” and do they represent the average student?

The relationship between technology in the digital era and the rise in disciplinary offenses and acts of dishonesty

Recently presented research findings [ 18 ] indicate that academic fraud has been gathering momentum among students in recent years, with a considerable part of it performed with the assistance of technological means, such as smartphones and social networks [ 19 ]. In contrast, another study found that it is precisely students who report greater use of the internet for preparing homework who show the lowest prevalence of dishonest acts [ 20 ].

The relationship between deviant and risky behavior norms, as well as recklessness and use of addictive substances, and between the rise in disciplinary offenses and acts of dishonesty

The relationship between various behaviors of deviance and risk, recklessness, health risks, and use of addictive substances is evident from many studies [ 21 – 25 ] and is also explained at length by the problem behavior theory (PBT). This theory assumes that problem behaviors are the product of a combination of risk factors and protective factors contained in the personal and social systems that surround us [ 24 , 26 ]. Risk behaviors, according to this theory, are interrelated and show a clustering effect. Therefore, it may be assumed that dishonesty on tests, which is at the very least a violation of the school’s regulations, will be accompanied by other deviant behaviors and by other student problems within various systems in their environment.

A previous study found that academic dishonesty is a significant predictor of illegal use of cannabis [ 27 ]. Furthermore, students who seek thrills, commit driving offenses, and are involved in health risk behaviors are more inclined to use marijuana both initially and regularly than students who have a lower prevalence of these behaviors. The high prevalence of behaviors such as dishonesty on tests, smoking marijuana, and various driving offenses among students indicates that they do not consider them deviant [ 28 ].

Material and methods

Research questions.

What is the current prevalence of academic dishonesty as reported by students?

Does cheating on homework differ from cheating on tests and to what degree? To what degree, if at all, are these behaviors performed by the same people?

What are the characteristics of the “academic offender” type:

Personal characteristics: gender, age, marital status, and religiosity.

Personal perceptions: self-image, thrill seeking, attention disorders, expectations for the future, ethics and deviance, the security situation, mental health, perceived fitness.

Academic studies: grade average, academic stress, hours of studying or of preparing homework or assignments (beyond school hours), and attitude toward studies.

Risk behaviors: driving violations, driver at fault for accident, deviance, and daring behaviors.

Health risks: misguided nutrition practices (snacks instead of regular meals, energy drinks, and sweetened drinks), smoking, alcohol, cannabis, other drugs, experience with Ritalin and non-prescription Ritalin, and multiple sexual partners.

What weight do these characteristics have when attempting to investigate offending student types?

Research tools

A structured, anonymous self-report questionnaire, based mostly on two main sources: Professor Richard Jessor’s questionnaire on risk and well-being behaviors of college students at the University of Colorado in Boulder [ 29 ] and the Israeli Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) questionnaire [ 30 ]. The questionnaire includes questions on various subjects, as follows: various sociodemographic questions; self-perceptions; mental stress; self-image and body image; nutrition, eating habits; physical activity; cigarette smoking habits and withdrawal from cigarettes; smoking a water pipe; drinking alcohol; and drug use. Some of the variables examined were psychosomatic symptoms, social support, social relationships, academic studies, religion and security, and thrill seeking. The questionnaire constructed for the purpose of the current study was comprised mostly of Jessor’s questionnaire and adapted for Israeli students. The questionnaire was distributed among students in class during April and May 2015. The surveyors entered more than 60 classrooms in total within a single university. Each student in the class received a questionnaire. Completion of the questionnaire took 20 minutes on average. The study was conducted according to the rules of the university’s ethics committee and received its approval.

The population and the sample

Of all undergraduate students at the university (the research population), 1442 students participated in the study, constituting 20% of all undergraduate students. The team of surveyors entered classrooms at the School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty of Engineering, and School of Architecture. The approximate rate of response to the questionnaire was 89.7%. Ten participants who did not state their gender were omitted. After refining the data, 1432 students were retained in the final sample. The sample included 899 women (62.8%) and 533 men (37.2%). The mean age of the sample was 27 years (SD=6.01 years). Table 1 presents the sample by various sociodemographic variables. It is evident that there is a greater prevalence of women than men (62.8% versus 37.2%, respectively), which was compatible with the distribution of students in the departments sampled. More than 70% of the sample was single, and more than one third of the sample was religious. All the faculties were adequately represented in the sample. The sample represents approximately 80% of the student population in the university.

Description of the sample by various sociodemographic variables.

Research procedure

For the purpose of conducting this study, questionnaires were administered in all undergraduate classrooms of the School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, and some departments of the Faculty of Social Sciences, and Faculty of Engineering, as well as the School of Architecture. All the students who were in class received a questionnaire. Visits to the classrooms were coordinated by the administrative staff to optimally suit the lecturers, students, and research team. The primary researcher held a preliminary telephone conversation with the lecturers and provided an explanation of the study. All visits to the classes were coordinated in advance with the lecturers. Significant cooperation of the lecturers and students was obtained for purposes of the study. The team of surveyors received adequate training in order to administer the survey in class. The students were told that they are not obliged to participate and that they are not obliged to answer all the questions if they do not wish to.

Description of the variables

Explained variables are “Cheating on tests during the last month” and “Cheating on assignments or homework during the last month” (1 – never… 5 – up to 5 times or more). A dichotomous variable consists of “Cheating in academy” (0 – not cheated, 1 – cheated).

Description of scales

The “religion” scale had four items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.95), e.g., “Be able to rely on the teachings of religion when you have a problem?” and “Believe in God or a higher power or creator?” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – high religious score, 1 – low religion score). The “self-image” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.66), e.g., “Ability to make decisions in life” and “Ability to work school success.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – higher self-esteem, 1 – low self-esteem). The “sensation-seeking” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.69), e.g., “Likes to do things just for the thrill of that” and “Sometimes doing ‘crazy’ things just for fun.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – low sensation-seeking, 1- high sensation seeking). The “Primary ADHD symptoms” scale had six items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.71), e.g., “I find it hard to complete the details of a project, after finishing the challenging parts.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – less frequent symptoms, 1 – often symptoms). The “future expectations” scale had six items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.80), e.g., “College graduation” and “Success at work I do.” The “moral” scale had seven items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.74), e.g., “It’s OK to cheat on tests or homework” and “It’s okay to steal.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 - I think it’s wrong, 1 - I think it’s OK). The “security situation” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.63), e.g., “Feel my life is in danger after the security incident” and “I made changes in my life after the attacks.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – slightly afraid, 1 – very afraid). The “mental health” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.65),. e.g., “Bad mood” and “Anger.” Variables dichotomously divided by the median (0 – good mental health, 1 – poor mental health). The “fitness concepts” scale had four items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.86), e.g., “It is important to me to feel that I am in good shape” and “I have a lot of energy.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – high fitness concepts, 1 – low fitness concepts). The “Study” scale had eight items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.72), e.g., “It is important to me to get good enough grades to reach a master’s degree” and “Courses which I take now are interesting.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – important for me, 1 – not important for me). The “driving violations” scale had seven items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.68), e.g., “I went through a stop sign without stopping full stop” and “I drove too close to the car in front of me.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – fewer violations, 1 – multiple violations). The “deviation and daring” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.83), e.g., “Shoplifting” and “Damage or marking public or private property on purpose.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – low frequency, 1 – high frequency). The “smoking” scale had four items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.62), e.g., “Cigarette smoking experience” and “Average number of cigarettes per day.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – low, 1 – high). The “alcohol and its complications” scale had 13 items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.73), e.g., “Experience getting drunk” and “I got in trouble with my parents due to alcohol.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – less, 1 – more). The “cannabis” scale had five items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.74), e.g., “Experience of cannabis (hashish/marijuana)” and “Frequency of use.” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – less, 1 – more). The “other drugs” scale had four items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82), e.g., “Cocaine (coke) or crack cocaine” and “Ecstasy (MDMA, X).” Combined values dichotomously divided by the median (0 – narcotics low frequency, 1 – narcotics high frequency).

Data analysis

In order to examine the data and in order to perform various analyses in this study, the IBM SPSS Statistics 21 program was used. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the distribution of frequencies through a frequency command. Table 2A – 2E present the cross-tabulation frequency, examining significance by chi-square to explore variable independence and differences between groups. Table 3 includes multiple variables from 19 different domains used to predict academic dishonesty. In order to reduce the variable load, scales were constructed by subject using factor analysis, after examining the reliability between items by Cronbach’s alpha and any changes resulting from the addition or omission of items. This table presents the values of cross-frequencies by cross-tabulation frequency, chi-square analysis of differences between groups, and a risk measure for determining the risk ratio for academic dishonesty. Variables with a low Cronbach’s alpha are presented separately. All the variables were dichotomized to examine the risk ratio by the median value of each variable. The analysis was based on a stepwise hierarchical regression to locate the most influential variables on the predicted variable of academic dishonesty.

Prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on sociodemographic variables.

– non-significant.

Prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to health risks.

Stepwise logistic hierarchical regression for predicting academic dishonesty (OR).

p<0.001.

The first research question deals with the prevalence of academic dishonesty reported by students. Based on the findings received from more than 1100 students, dishonesty is not a marginal event evident among a small proportion of students; rather, it was displayed by more than one quarter of the sample. Of all students examined, 27.1% reported cheating on assignments or homework at least once in the last month. Cheating on tests was less common, and 12.5% reported having done so at least once in the last month. The highest prevalence (three times or more) was evident among a larger proportion for cheating on assignments or homework than for cheating on tests (5.3% versus 1.3%, respectively).

The second research question deals with the difference between the prevalence of cheating on homework and cheating on tests. The question is to what degree are these two phenomena related, i.e., are they performed by the same people? Do those who cheat on tests also cheat on homework, and vice versa?

The findings indicate, significantly (p<0.001), that 64.5% of the students who reported cheating on tests also reported cheating on assignments and homework, versus 35.5% who cheated on tests but did not cheat on assignments or homework. Similarly, of the students who reported cheating on assignments or homework, nearly 30% also reported cheating on tests. Hence, the behavior of cheating on tests is less prevalent, and indeed many more students reported cheating on assignments or homework but not on tests (about 70%) compared with the opposite situation where students reported cheating on tests but not on assignments or homework (about 6%).

The third research question deals with typical characteristics of the “academic offender”:

Personal characteristics (gender, age, marital status, and religiosity): Table 2A .

Personal perceptions (self-image, thrill seeking, attention disorders, expectations for the future, ethics and deviance, security situation, mental health, perceived fitness): Table 2B .

Academic studies (grade average, academic stress, hours devoted to studies or preparing homework or assignments (beyond class time), and attitude to studies: Table 2C .

Risk behaviors (driving violations, driver at fault for accident, deviance and daring): Table 2D .

Health risks (nutrition, smoking, alcohol, cannabis, other drugs, experience with Ritalin and nonprescription Ritalin, and sexual partners): Table 2E .

Prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to personal perceptions.

p<0.0001.

Prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to academic studies.

Prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to risk behaviors.

The findings presented in Table 2A show a positive and significant association between dishonesty and being male (35.9%), single or divorced (33.8%), less religious (32.3%), and students who define their sexual identity as not heterosexual (44.0%). No significant association was found in the distribution of academic dishonesty by age. Of these variables, the highest odds ratio (OR=1.74) was found among those who define their sexual identity as not heterosexual (homosexual and bisexual or other than heterosexual). The odds of academic dishonesty were found to be 1.52 times higher among single and divorced students than among married students.

Table 2B presents the prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to personal perceptions: self-image, thrill seeking, attention disorders, expectations of the future, ethics and deviance, security situation, mental health, and perceived fitness.

The findings presented in Table 2B show a positive and significant association between academic dishonesty and each of the variable scales. The prevalence of cheating on tests was found to be higher among students who ranked their self-image as low (36.3%) than among those who ranked their self-image as high (26.2%), and among those seeking a thrill (35.1%) than among those less thrill seeking (27.9%). Students with higher scores for symptoms of attention disorders also showed a higher prevalence of cheating (36.3%) than students with a low score for symptoms of attention disorders that cheat in their studies (26.6%). Students with lower expectations for the future reported a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty (33.5%) than students with high expectations of the future (28.2%). Students who think that it is okay to display deviant behaviors and show poor ethics also displayed more academic dishonesty (46.8%) than students who do not think it is okay (23.3%). Moreover, students who have high concerns about the security situation (34.5%), show poor mental health measures (36.4%), and have low perceived fitness (33.6%) had a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty than students who are less concerned about the security situation (28.0%), and have good mental health (28.0%) and high perceived fitness (28.6%). Of the various measures of these variables, the highest odds ratio (OR=2.90) was found among those with a low measure of ethics and high tolerance for deviant behaviors. Moreover, students with a low self-image had a 1.60 chance of cheating in their studies compared with students with a high self-image. The odds ratio is also higher for academic dishonesty in the case of students with symptoms of attention disorders (OR=1.57).

Table 2C presents the prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to academic studies: grade average, academic stress, hours devoted to studies or to homework and assignment preparation (beyond school hours), and attitude about studies.

Table 2C also indicates positive and significant associations between academic dishonesty and various variables relevant for academic studies. The prevalence of cheating on tests was found to be higher among students with a lower grade average (38.4%) than among students with higher grades (25.8%), among those who report high academic stress (33.5%) than among those who report lower stress (25.5%), among those who devote more of their free time to their studies (34.5%) than among those who spend less time (27.2%), and among those who perceive their attitude toward their studies as less positive (38.2%) than among those who perceive their studies more positively (27.4%). Of the various scales of these variables, a higher odds ratio for academic dishonesty was found among those who received low grades (OR=1.79) and whose study experience was less positive (OR=1.64).

Table 2D presents the prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to risk behaviors: driving violations, driver at fault for accident, deviance, and daring.

Table 2D as well indicates strong and significant positive associations between academic dishonesty and variables related to risk behaviors. The prevalence of cheating on tests was found to be higher among students with many driving violations (44.7%) than among those with few driving violations (29.4%), among those who had caused an accident (40.8%) than among those who were involved in an accident not of their own fault (30.8%), and among those who reported more behaviors of deviance and daring (61.4%) than among those who showed a low prevalence of deviance and daring (27.4%). Of the variables in the table, the highest odds ratio for academic dishonesty (OR=4.20) was found among those showing a higher prevalence of deviance and daring behaviors. Students with traffic violations had a 1.94 times higher chance of cheating on tests.

Table 2E presents the prevalence and probability of academic dishonesty based on variables related to health risks: unhealthy nutrition practices, smoking, alcohol, cannabis, other drugs, experience with Ritalin and non-prescribed Ritalin, and sexual behavior.

Similar to the previous tables, Table 2E shows that academic dishonesty has strong and significant positive associations with health risk behaviors. The prevalence of cheating on tests was found to be higher among students who devote less attention to healthy nutrition, who show various complications related to excessive alcohol consumption (39.6%), and who use cannabis (38.2%), other drugs (51.4%), and non-prescription Ritalin (45.1%), versus those who pay more attention to healthy nutrition, show fewer alcohol-related complications (23.6%), and have not used cannabis (26.9%) or other drugs (30.2%) or prescription Ritalin (30.7%). It also appears that students who had multiple sex partners during their lifetime (34.0%) and in the last month (43.5%) reported a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty than those who had few sexual partners in life (29.4%) or in the last month (31.5%). Of the variables in the table, the highest odds ratios for academic dishonesty were found among those who used drugs (OR=2.47), who reported various complications following unrestricted drinking of alcohol (OR=2.11), and who used non-prescription Ritalin (OR=1.85).

Based on the findings presented in Table 2A – 2E , in confirmation of our hypotheses, it is clearly evident that students show a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty when they have more negative personal perceptions; a more negative attitude toward their studies; are more involved in risk behaviors of deviance, daring behaviors, and driving violations; and engage in substance use.

The fourth research question deals with the weight of each of the features mentioned (personal characteristics, personal perceptions, academic studies, risk and health risk behaviors) in predicting academic dishonesty. In order to explore this question, a stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to predict academic dishonesty through the different variables. Table 3 presents the findings of this analysis. The dependent variable “academic dishonesty” is comprised of a combination of the variables of cheating on tests and cheating on assignments or homework. The hierarchical logistic regression included nine stages as follows:

Stage 1: Sociodemographic variables

Stage 2: Personal perceptions

Stage 3: Sociodemographic variables + personal perceptions (significant variables only)

Stage 4: Academic studies

Stage 5: Sociodemographic variables + personal perceptions + academic studies (significant variables only)

Stage 6: Risk behaviors

Stage 7: Sociodemographic variables + personal perceptions + academic studies + risk behaviors (significant variables only)

Stage 8: Health risk

Stage 9: The final model: sociodemographic variables + personal perceptions + academic studies + risk behaviors + health risk (significant variables only).

In Table 3 , the ninth and final step of the analysis included all the variables found significant for predicting the dependent variable of academic dishonesty in the previous stages. Of all the variables examined in the study, the most significant predictors of academic dishonesty were self-image (OR=1.480), ethics (OR=2.338), grades (OR=1.984), homework time (OR=2.075), and deviance and daring behaviors (OR=2.687). These variables explained 18.7% of the variance. In conclusion, the table indicates that students with a low self-image, poor ethics, low grades, who devote many hours to their studies, and who are involved in deviance and other daring behaviors have higher odds of being involved in academic dishonesty than students with a high self-image, high grades, not particularly many hours devoted to studies, and who are less involved in risky and daring behaviors. In the bottom line, these were the most significant predictors of academic dishonesty.

This study examined the characteristics of students who report academic dishonesty (on tests or homework) and attempted to characterize the types prone to committing academic offenses and to discover to what degree they are “normative” or representative of the average student. The research population included a sample of undergraduate university students. The participants consisted of 1432 students, constituting 20% of all undergraduate students, in a variety of disciplines: health sciences, natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, engineering, and architecture. The estimated response rate was about 90%, and of all respondents 899 were women (63%) and 533 were men (37%). The mean age of the sample was 27 years.

The first research question dealt with the prevalence of academic dishonesty as reported by students. The prevalence of academic dishonesty was found to comprise more than one quarter of the sample: 27% of the students reported cheating on assignments or homework at least once a month, and 12.5% reported cheating on tests at least once a month. Not only was cheating on home assignments or homework more common than cheating on tests, but also the highest frequency of doing so (three times or more) was evident among a larger proportion (5.3% versus 1.3%, respectively). Hence, this is not a marginal occurrence among students; rather, it shows considerable presence as a characteristic of a large minority that constitutes a not inconsiderable part of the student mainstream. This raises the question of whether there is any point in requiring students to perform assignments or homework if the process is not controlled and not under the direct supervision of the lecturers, particularly in the current generation when knowledge can be easily obtained and distributed. Namely, lecturers who require assignments and homework for courses but do not supervise the student’s work process may be encouraging dishonesty and missing out on their goal. Practicing at home is obviously important for many subjects and contents, and lecturers find it hard to forego this technique considering the existing class load throughout the semester, but they must also supervise the process, for example, by encouraging thinking through oral questions in class in order to find out to what degree the students processed the material at home on their own or simply copied it.

The second research question dealt with the difference between the prevalence of cheating on homework and cheating on tests, with the purpose of examining to what degree these two practices are related, i.e., do those who cheat on tests also cheat on homework and vice versa? To what degree are these practices performed by the same people? A significant finding was that 64.5% of students who reported cheating on tests also reported cheating on assignments and homework, versus 35% who reported cheating on tests but did not cheat on assignments or homework. Similarly, of the students who reported cheating on assignments or homework, nearly 30% also reported cheating on tests. Thus, the behavior of cheating on tests is less prevalent and may require more daring than cheating on assignments and homework, which is more common. Furthermore, many more students reported cheating on assignments or homework but not on tests (70%) than the opposite situation of students who reported cheating on tests but not on assignments or homework (6%). As the PBT suggested, these behaviors are connected [ 24 , 26 ].

This finding also emphasizes the issue of homework as an assessment tool, but the finding requires examination of the relationship between the learning outputs aimed for, in order to advance the students, the manners of assessment, and the ways of teaching and assessment [ 31 ]. It is possible that in the digital era, when everyone is connected and everyone has access to the internet, individual homework is a challenge that students are not up to. It is contrary to their networked environment that is typical of a considerable part of their life. Perhaps instead of turning them into criminals, it would be better to adapt the assignments to the language they use.

The third research question branched out into several areas and dealt with the characteristics of the “academic offender” type. With regard to personal characteristics , a significant association was found between academic dishonesty and gender (more prevalent among men [36%] versus women [29%]), marital status (more prevalent among singles and divorced [34%] versus married students [25%]), religiosity (more prevalent among the more secular [32%] versus the more religious [30%]), and sexual identity (more prevalent among homosexuals and bisexuals [44%] versus heterosexuals [31%]). This study found no association between academic dishonesty and students’ age, calculated by the median value in the sample.

With regard to personal perceptions , the findings indicate a positive significant association between academic dishonesty and personal perceptions: self-image, thrill seeking, attention disorders, expectations for the future, ethics and deviance, security situation, and mental health.

Odds ratios nearly 3 times higher were found among those with a low ethics scale and higher tolerance of deviant behaviors. Furthermore, those with a low self-image have a 1.60 chance of academic dishonesty versus those with a high self-image. The odds ratio for academic dishonesty was also higher for those with symptoms of attention disorders (OR=1.57).

With regard to variables related to academic studies , positive and significant associations were found between academic dishonesty and various variables relevant for academic studies: grade average, academic stress, time devoted to studies or to preparation of homework or assignments, and attitude toward studies. Of the various scales for these variables, a higher odds ratio for academic dishonesty (1.79) was found among those who receive low grades and whose study experience is less positive (1.64).

With regard to risk behaviors , strong significant and positive associations were found between academic dishonesty and various variables related to risk behaviors. (1) There was more dishonesty among students with many driving violations (45%) than among those with few driving violations (29%). (2) There was more dishonesty among students who caused an accident (41%) than among those who were involved in an accident that was not their fault (31%). (3) Academic dishonesty was reported more by students with more behaviors of deviance and daring (61%) than among those who showed a low prevalence of deviance and daring (27%). Of the different variables in Table 2d , the highest odds ratio for academic dishonesty (4.20) was found among those who displayed a higher prevalence of deviant and daring behaviors. Traffic offenders had a 1.94 times higher chance of cheating on tests.

With regard to health risk variables, academic dishonesty was found to have strong and significant positive associations with health risk behaviors: unhealthy nutrition practices, smoking, alcohol, cannabis, other drugs, experience with Ritalin and non-prescription Ritalin, and sexual behavior. The prevalence of cheating on tests was found to be higher among students who pay less attention to healthy nutrition, who display various complications related to excessive alcohol consumption (40%), and who use cannabis (38%), other drugs (51%), and non-prescription Ritalin (45%) than among those who pay attention to healthy nutrition, show fewer alcohol-related complications (24%), and have no experience with cannabis (27%), other drugs (30%), or prescribed Ritalin (31%). Furthermore, it appears that those who have had multiple sexual partners throughout their lifetime (34%) and in the last month (43.5%) reported a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty than those who had few sexual partners throughout their life (29%) and in the last month (31.5%). Of the different variables in Table 2E , the highest odds ratio for academic dishonesty was found among those who use drugs (OR=2.47), report various complications as a result of excessive alcohol consumption (OR=2.11), and use non-prescription Ritalin (OR=1.85).

The fourth research question deals with the weight of each of the features stated (personal characteristics, personal perceptions, academic studies, risk behaviors, and health risks) in predicting academic dishonesty. A stepwise logistic regression analysis for predicting academic dishonesty according to the different variables showed that in the final model, the most significant variables for predicting academic dishonesty are self-image (OR=1.480), ethics (OR=2.338), grades (OR=1.984), time devoted to homework (OR=2.075), and deviant and daring behaviors (OR=2.687). These variables explain 18.7% of the variance. In conclusion, students with a low self-image, poor ethics, low grades, who devote many hours to their studies, and are involved in deviant and daring behaviors have the highest chance of being involved in academic dishonesty. Ultimately, these were the predictors found most significant for academic dishonesty from among dozens of variables in different areas of life. These findings add significantly to the research literature, by linking academic dishonesty to various behaviors in different spheres.

Academia is under a great deal of criticism for its admission terms and because of the claim that the exams students must pass in order to be accepted (usually psychometric and matriculation) often do not reflect their degree of academic success. The current study adds an important aspect that should perhaps be considered before admitting students, and this is the ethics and involvement of candidates in risky and daring behaviors. This matter should be translated into monitoring, supervision, and support within the institution. It should not necessarily be added to the admission terms; however, if candidates are found to have clear characteristics predisposing them to dishonesty, an appropriate setting for their needs should be designated. This setting should take their tendencies into consideration, together with close and supervised support that will help change the problematic behavior and reduce further academic dishonesty.

Accordingly, this study voices two essential recommendations: One is to examine the ethics of candidates and their involvement in risky and reckless behaviors before admitting them to studies in the department. The second is to form an academic environment that nurtures ethics and monitors immorality. For example, by increasing the number of supervisors during tests and by photocopying and promptly addressing disciplinary and cheating offenses, lecturers would be given the tools to handle cheating and immediate and long-term sanctions would be established as an institutional surveillance system.

The purpose of the current study was to try and characterize students who report academic dishonesty (in exams or in homework). Which types are prone to academic offenses? To what degree are they “normative,” and do they represent the average student? Both the research literature and the research findings show a complex picture: On one hand, the type prone to disciplinary offenses is certainly “normative” and represents the average student. These students are part of the policy of making higher education more accessible, which is opening the gates to populations previously barred from higher education. They live in a technological world and they are more daring, as future “idols.” On the other hand, types prone to disciplinary offenses are not “normative” and do not represent the average student. Students with a low self-image, poor ethics, low grades, who devote many hours to their studies, and who are involved in deviant and reckless behaviors have a higher chance of being involved in academic dishonesty than students with a high self-image, high ethics, high grades, who do not devote many hours to their studies, and who are less involved in risky and reckless behaviors.

The system of higher education must address these two aspects of the new disciplinary “offenders”: On one hand, the system must determine learning outcomes and assessments accordingly and address manners of instruction and manners of assessment that are appropriate for current day students and compatible with the technological environment and the attitude of Generation Y students. Only this type of approach will prevent a situation of inadvertent “offenders” who do not understand and internalize the issue of behavior norms that involve dishonesty, as some of these behavior norms are perceived by them as tools or as a language.

On the other hand, the system of higher education must determine ways of addressing students’ personality aspects even before they reach academic studies, and there are ways of detecting low self-image, poor ethics, low grades, devoting many hours to studies, and involvement in deviant and reckless behaviors. Examples include requesting recommendations, reviewing IDF discharge papers that refer to the human factor, and adding to the application form questions that can illuminate the subject.

Conclusions

The research findings confirm our hypotheses. It is clearly evident that students with more negative personal perceptions, a more negative attitude to academic studies, a more negative study experience, who are more involved in deviant and daring behaviors and driving violations, and who engage in substance use show a higher prevalence of academic dishonesty versus students with more positive personal perceptions, a more positive attitude toward academic studies, a more positive study experience, who are less involved in deviant and daring risk behaviors and driving violations, and who do not engage in substance use.

This study is based on a case study of a single academic institution, in which participants showed a high response rate both to sensitive questions and to non-sensitive questions, and it illuminates the phenomenon of academic dishonesty and ways of dealing with it. There is room for further research comparing different types of institutions of higher education.

Source of support: Self financing

• 1. Chaya B, Dganit S, Kelishek S, Nili T. Attitudes towards Academic Cheating during Nursing Studies. Refuah Umishpat. 2010;37:85–97. [IHP] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Arnett JL, Arnett JJ, Feldman SS, Cauffman E. It’s wrong, but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among High School and College Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2002;27:209–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Bernard EW. Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education. 1998;39(3):235–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Lior T, Shimon G. Ethical Norms of Medical Students’ Behavior. Harefuah. 2007;146(6):429–34. [IHP] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Soen D, Davidovitch N. Hachinch Usvivo. Vol. 31. Tel Aviv: Kibbutz Seminar [IHP]; 2009. Integrity and Discipline in Academia Dealing with Misbehaving Students at Two Israeli Campuses; pp. 33–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Jordan AE. College Student Cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior. 2001;11(3):233–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Almog T, Almog O. Study day: Generation Y – how they learn. or not. [Accessed June 23, 2013]. [IHP] https://acty.mta.ac.il/Events/Pages/MeAndY.aspx .
• 8. Morrison K. Management theories for educational change. London: Paul Chapman; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Havighurst RV. Education, social mobility and social change in four societies. International Review of Education. 1958;IV(2) [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Perrucci R. Education, stratification and mobility. In: Hansen DA, Gerstl JE, editors. On Education: Sociological Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1967. pp. 105–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Hurn CJ. The limits and possibilities of schooling. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Trow M. Policies for Higher Education, From the General Report on the Conference on Further Structures of Post-secondary Education. Paris: OECD; 1974. Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education; pp. 132–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Trow M. The expansion and transformation of higher education. International Review of Education. 1972;18:61–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) Students in Universities and other institutions of higher education, 2003. Jerusalem: 2004. Press Release 209/2004. [IHP] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) Table 8.59. Website of the Open University. 2015. http://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/social-2015-1.pdf [IHP]
• 16. Volansky A. Opening the gates of higher education led to enrichment of the academic spirit. Kivunim Hadashim. 2014;30:131–43. [IHP] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Whitley BE, Keith-Speigel P. Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Friedman A, Blau I, Eshet-Alkalai Y.The faculty of dishonesty studies: Coping with academic dishonesty in academia– crime and punishmentProceedings of the 10th Chais Conference for innovation in learning technologies Eshet-Alkalai Y, Blau I, Caspi A, et al.2015250–51.[IHP] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Stronger JM, Miller BL, Marcum CD. Learning to E-cheat: A criminological test of internet facilitated academic cheating. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2013;24(2):175–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Oran NT, Can HO, Şenol S, Hadımlı AP. academic dishonesty among health science school students. Nurs Ethics. 2015 doi: 10.1177/0969733015583929. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Korn L, Harel Y, Amitai G. Social and behavioral determinants of Nargila smoking among Israeli youth: Findings from the 2002 HBSC Survey. Journal of Substance Use. 2008:1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Costa FM, Jessor R, Turbin MS. college student involvement in cigarette smoking: The role of psychosocial and behavioral protection and risk. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9(2):213–24. doi: 10.1080/14622200601078558. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Vazsonyi AT, Chen P, Young M, et al. A Test of Jessor’s problem behavior theory in a Eurasian and a Western European development context. J Adolesc Health. 2008;43:555–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.06.013. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Jessor R. Problem behavior theory: A half century of research on adolescent behavior and development. In: Lerner RM, Petersen AC, Silbereisen Rk, Brooks-Gunn J, editors. The developmental science of adolescence: History through autobiography. New York: Psychology Press; 2014. pp. 239–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Ko C-H, Yen J-Y, Yen C-F, et al. The association between internet addiction and problematic alcohol use in adolescents: The problem behavior model. ” Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(5):571–76. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0199. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Jessor R, Turbin MS, Costa FM. Adolescent problem behavior in China and United States: A cross-national study of psychosocial protective factors. Journal of Research of Adolescence. 2003;13(3):329–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Korn L, Bonny-Noach H. Health risk and deviant behaviors among students in an academic institution in Israel. International Journal of Child & Adolescent Health. 2013;6(2):191–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Korn L, Bohhy-Noach H. Health risk and deviant behaviors among students in an academic institution in Israel. Journal of Social Issues in Israel. 2011;12:112–43. [IHP] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Jessor R, Turbin MS, Costa MF. Survey of personal and social development at CU. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Harel-Fisch Y, Korn L, Fogel-Grinvald H, et al. International Research Program on the Well-being and Health of Youth. School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bar Ilan University; 2007. Youth in Israel, Health, Well-being, and Risk Behaviors. Summary of the Fifth National Study 2006 – Analysis of Trends From 1994–2006 and International Comparison. [IHP] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Davidovitch N. Learning-centered teaching and backward course design – from transferring knowledge to teaching skills. Journal of International Education Research. 2013;9(4):329–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (335.0 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

What is Academic Dishonesty?

Academic dishonesty refers to any form of unethical behavior in an academic setting that compromises the principles of honesty, fairness, and responsibility. It encompasses actions that provide an unfair advantage or misrepresent a student’s abilities, thereby undermining the integrity of the educational process. Common forms of academic dishonesty include plagiarism, cheating, falsification of data, unauthorized collaboration, and contract cheating, such as hiring someone to complete assignments. These behaviors not only affect the individual’s learning but also compromise the credibility of academic institutions. Academic dishonesty erodes trust, devalues genuine achievements, and can have serious consequences for students, including disciplinary action, loss of reputation, and limitations in career opportunities. Understanding and addressing academic dishonesty is crucial for creating a fair and credible educational environment that values authentic learning and ethical behavior.

Academic dishonesty is the act of engaging in unethical practices to gain an unfair advantage in academic settings, violating core principles such as honesty, trust, fairness, and responsibility. It encompasses behaviors like plagiarism , where a student uses someone else’s work or ideas without proper attribution; cheating, which involves using unauthorized aids or copying answers during exams; and fabrication, where data or research findings are invented or altered to mislead. Other forms of academic dishonesty include unauthorized collaboration, in which students work together on assignments meant to be completed individually, and contract cheating, where students hire someone else to complete their work. These actions misrepresent a student’s true abilities and undermine the integrity of the educational process, affecting not only individual learning but also devaluing the achievements of others and eroding trust within the academic community. Institutions enforce academic integrity policies to discourage these behaviors, promoting a culture of ethical learning and respect for knowledge.

Why is Academic Dishonesty Considered a Serious offense in Educational Institutions?

Academic dishonesty is considered a serious offense in educational institutions because it undermines the fundamental values of honesty, fairness, and integrity that are essential to the educational process. When students engage in dishonest behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, or fabrication, they misrepresent their true abilities, knowledge, and efforts. This compromises their learning and devalues the hard work of other students who uphold integrity in their studies. Academic dishonesty creates an unfair advantage, disrupting the level playing field that education is meant to provide, and can lead to a culture of mistrust within the academic community.

Moreover, academic dishonesty damages the credibility of the institution itself. Degrees and qualifications lose value if they do not accurately reflect a student’s skills and knowledge. Employers, graduate programs, and society at large rely on the legitimacy of educational institutions to certify that their graduates are competent and well-prepared. When academic dishonesty is widespread or overlooked, it calls into question the integrity of the institution’s standards and the reliability of its graduates. For this reason, educational institutions enforce strict academic integrity policies and penalties to uphold trust, ensure fair assessments, and maintain the reputation of their qualifications. By treating academic dishonesty as a serious offense, institutions help instill values of ethical behavior that students carry into their careers and personal lives, contributing positively to society.

The Different Types of Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty refers to a range of unethical behaviors that compromise the integrity, fairness, and honesty of the educational process. These actions violate the fundamental values of trust and responsibility underpinning academic institutions and undermine genuine learning. For students, understanding the different types of academic dishonesty is crucial to making ethical choices and preserving the value of their education. Here are the different types of academic dishonesty:

• Copying text from an online article without citing the source.
• Rephrasing someone else’s ideas but failing to give credit to the original author.
• Submitting a paper written by a friend or purchased online as one’s own work.

Impact: Plagiarism misrepresents a student’s originality and undermines the intellectual property rights of others. It can lead to grade penalties, academic probation, or even expulsion, damaging the trust between students and educators.

• Looking at a peer’s test paper or using notes during a closed-book exam.
• Sharing or receiving exam questions or answers from classmates before or during the exam.
• Using unauthorized online calculators or tools during assignments or exams.

Impact: Cheating disrupts the level playing field that education is meant to provide and undermines the accuracy of assessments. It affects the dishonest student’s growth and devalues the achievements of honest students, eroding trust in the academic process.

• Inventing survey responses or research data that was never actually collected.
• Altering lab results or research findings to fit a hypothesis.
• Citing non-existent sources to make an assignment appear more researched.

Impact: Fabrication and falsification damage the credibility of research, and if left unchecked, they can mislead future studies. In fields like medicine, engineering, and social sciences, inaccurate or falsified data can have severe consequences for public safety, policy, and knowledge.

• Discussing answers with classmates during an online quiz meant to be done alone.
• Collaborating on a take-home exam without permission from the instructor.
• Dividing up tasks for an individual project with a friend.
• Reusing a research paper written for one class to fulfill a different assignment in another course.
• Using parts of a previously completed project for a new assignment without permission.
• Revising a past paper and submitting it as original work for a new class.
• Impact: Self-plagiarism gives students credit for work already completed, undermining the educational process. It misleads instructors about the student’s current engagement and reduces opportunities for learning and growth.
• Allowing a classmate to copy homework answers.
• Sharing exam questions with friends who have not yet taken the test.
• Completing a project or assignment for another student.
• Impact: Facilitating dishonesty enables unethical behavior and disrupts the fairness of academic assessments. It has a ripple effect, creating a culture where dishonesty becomes normalized, affecting the integrity of the entire academic community.
• Using AI tools like ChatGPT to write essays or complete assignments without personal input.
• Consulting unauthorized websites or apps during an exam.
• Submitting AI-generated work without acknowledging its use.

Impact: The misuse of technology compromises the authenticity of a student’s work and undermines the learning process. It misrepresents a student’s abilities and diminishes the value of their education by bypassing critical thinking and skill development.

• Paying for a pre-written essay from an online service and submitting it as one’s own.
• Hiring a third party to complete an online exam or project.
• Submitting a paper written by someone else without acknowledging their contribution.

Impact: Contract cheating undermines the entire purpose of education, as students who engage in it fail to learn or demonstrate their abilities. It can have serious consequences, damaging the student’s reputation and leading to disciplinary action, suspension, or expulsion.

• Changing grades in a transcript or online system.
• Forging a professor’s signature on an academic form.
• Altering attendance records to meet course requirements.

Impact: Tampering with academic records compromises the institution’s integrity and erodes trust in academic credentials. It can also have legal consequences and severely damage a student’s academic and professional reputation.

• Listing a degree on a resume that was not completed.
• Exaggerating GPA or honors on applications or resumes.
• Falsifying certifications or awards.

Each form of academic dishonesty represents a unique breach of trust within the academic community. These behaviors not only compromise a student’s learning experience but also devalue the achievements of others, erode trust, and undermine the integrity of academic institutions. The consequences of academic dishonesty can range from grade penalties and academic probation to suspension, expulsion, and long-term damage to a student’s reputation. By understanding these different types of academic dishonesty, students can make informed, ethical decisions, contributing to a culture of integrity that values fairness, honesty, and respect. Educational institutions reinforce these values by promoting awareness, supporting resources, and implementing policies discouraging dishonesty. In doing so, they ensure a learning environment that fosters genuine growth, critical thinking, and the development of future professionals who prioritize ethical behavior in all aspects of life.

Why Do Some Students Engage in Academic Dishonesty Despite Knowing the Consequences?

Academic dishonesty, including behaviors such as plagiarism, cheating, and falsification, is a serious offense in educational institutions. Most students are well aware of the potential consequences, which can range from failing grades and academic probation to expulsion and long-term impacts on their reputation. Yet, despite understanding these risks, some students still engage in dishonest practices. Here are some of the common reasons students may choose to engage in academic dishonesty:

• Academic Pressure and Performance Anxiety: Many students face significant pressure to excel academically, whether for personal satisfaction, to maintain scholarships, or to meet the expectations of family and peers. This pressure can be intense, especially in competitive programs, and students may feel that their grades are crucial to their future success. In such high-stakes environments, the fear of failure or disappointing results can drive some students to cheat as a way to secure the grades they feel they need. Example: A student may resort to using unauthorized resources during an exam if they feel unprepared but fear the impact of a poor grade on their GPA and scholarship eligibility.
• Poor Time Management and Procrastination: Time management is a common struggle for many students. With multiple assignments, exams, extracurriculars, and sometimes part-time jobs, students may find it difficult to manage their schedules effectively. Procrastination can lead to last-minute stress, where students may feel that cheating is their only option to meet deadlines. Example: A student who puts off writing an essay until the night before the deadline may decide to copy content from online sources because they believe they don’t have enough time to complete it on their own.
• Perceived Low Risk of Getting Caught: Some students may engage in academic dishonesty because they believe they won’t be caught. They may think that instructors are unlikely to check for plagiarism, that online assessments are difficult to monitor, or that peer assistance will go unnoticed. This perception of low risk can create a sense of impunity, especially if they know other students who have gotten away with similar behavior. Example: A student may use an AI tool to generate answers for a take-home exam, believing that the instructor won’t be able to tell if the responses are their own or generated by a tool.
• Lack of Understanding of Academic Integrity Standards: Not all students fully understand what constitutes academic dishonesty, particularly if they come from different educational backgrounds. International students or students new to higher education may be unfamiliar with specific citation standards or collaboration rules. Unintentional plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, or misuse of resources can occur if students aren’t clear about what is allowed. Example: A student may work with a friend on an individual assignment, not realizing that the institution considers this unauthorized collaboration.
• Peer Pressure and Social Influences: Peer pressure can be a powerful influence on student behavior. In academic settings, some students may feel pressured to participate in dishonest practices if they see their peers doing the same or if friends encourage them to share answers or work together on assignments. Students may fear being isolated or left behind academically if they don’t join in. Example: A student might share answers with a friend during an online exam because they don’t want to seem unhelpful or competitive.
• Desire for Convenience and Ease: Some students may engage in academic dishonesty simply because it offers a shortcut. For these students, cheating may seem convenient for completing tasks with minimal effort. They may view education as a means to an end, prioritizing grades over learning and taking advantage of any opportunity to achieve higher scores more easily. Example: A student may purchase a pre-written essay online rather than spending time conducting research and writing, viewing it as a faster way to complete the assignment.
• Fear of Failure and Lack of Confidence: A lack of self-confidence and fear of failure can also contribute to academic dishonesty. Students who doubt their abilities or feel unprepared may resort to cheating as a way to avoid the risk of failing. This is often exacerbated by low self-esteem or a fixed mindset, where students feel they are incapable of achieving the results they want without external help. Example: A student may falsify lab data to make results match their expectations, fearing that a failed experiment would indicate incompetence.
• Mental Health Challenges and Stress: College life can be overwhelming, and many students face mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, or burnout. These issues can affect focus, motivation, and decision-making. When students feel emotionally strained, they may be more likely to take shortcuts to alleviate their stress, even if they know it’s against academic integrity policies. Example: A student experiencing high levels of anxiety may use a cheat sheet during an exam to reduce the stress of trying to recall information under pressure.
• Financial and Career Pressures: Financial pressures and career aspirations can also drive students to compromise on integrity. Some students, particularly those dependent on academic scholarships or financial aid, may feel that they must maintain high grades to secure their funding. Similarly, students may cheat if they believe that high academic performance is essential to their future career success. Example: A student who needs to maintain a certain GPA to keep a scholarship may feel they have no choice but to cheat on a difficult exam.
• Misconceptions About Academic Integrity : Some students may believe that certain forms of academic dishonesty are not serious offenses or are common practices. For example, students may think that copying a small amount of text without citation is acceptable or that collaborating on individual assignments is harmless if everyone does it. This normalization of dishonest behavior can lead students to overlook the ethical implications of their actions. Example: A student may copy answers from a friend’s homework, believing that it’s not a big deal because it’s just homework and won’t be graded harshly.

Addressing Academic Dishonesty: Solutions and Strategies

Understanding why students engage in academic dishonesty is essential for institutions to create effective strategies for prevention. By addressing the root causes of dishonest behavior, institutions can foster an environment where integrity is valued, and students feel empowered to succeed honestly.

• Educating Students on Integrity Standards: Providing workshops, clear guidelines, and resources on academic integrity helps students understand expectations and reduces unintentional violations.
• Promoting a Growth Mindset: Encouraging students to focus on learning and improvement rather than perfection can reduce the fear of failure and promote resilience.
• Offering Academic Support: Tutoring centers, writing labs, and mental health resources provide students with the support they need to manage coursework without feeling overwhelmed.
• Implementing Fair Consequences: Clear and consistent policies, combined with fair consequences for academic dishonesty, help students recognize the seriousness of unethical behavior.
• Encouraging Honest Peer Support: Creating a culture of integrity where students support one another in learning rather than in taking shortcuts can help reduce peer pressure and foster a positive academic environment.

By promoting a supportive and transparent culture around academic integrity, institutions can help students develop the skills, confidence, and ethical values they need for academic success and long-term professional growth. Understanding and addressing the reasons behind academic dishonesty empowers students to make better decisions and appreciate the true value of their education.

How Academic Dishonesty Can Impact a Student’s Academic and Professional Future

Academic dishonesty can have profound and lasting impacts on a student’s academic and professional future, affecting their reputation, skills, and opportunities. While students may engage in dishonest practices with the hope of achieving short-term gains, the potential long-term consequences often outweigh any immediate benefits. Here’s how academic dishonesty can impact a student’s future:

• Academic Penalties and Disciplinary Consequences: Most educational institutions enforce strict policies against academic dishonesty. Students who are caught cheating, plagiarizing, or engaging in other forms of misconduct may face serious academic penalties. These can include failing grades, academic probation, suspension, or even expulsion from the institution. For many students, such disciplinary actions become a permanent part of their academic record, which may be visible to other academic institutions or prospective employers. Impact: Failing grades and academic probation can delay graduation, affect scholarship eligibility, and lead to significant setbacks in a student’s academic journey. In cases of suspension or expulsion, students may find it challenging to transfer to another institution or pursue higher education, which can severely impact their career goals.
• Loss of Reputation and Trust: Academic dishonesty damages a student’s reputation within their academic community, affecting how peers, professors, and administrators view them. Once a student is caught cheating, it can be difficult for others to trust their work and intentions, even if they later commit to acting honestly. This loss of trust can create a lasting stigma, influencing relationships and interactions within the academic and professional communities. Impact: Losing the trust and respect of mentors and classmates can hinder networking opportunities, limit academic support, and impact a student’s ability to secure recommendations for internships, jobs, or graduate programs.
• Missed Learning Opportunities and Skill Development: Engaging in academic dishonesty often means that students bypass the learning process, opting for shortcuts instead of genuine engagement with their studies. This behavior prevents students from developing the critical skills, knowledge, and competencies that are essential for success in their field. When students rely on dishonesty, they miss out on the benefits of hard work, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Impact: Entering the workforce without the necessary skills and knowledge can lead to challenges in job performance and career advancement. Students who do not fully develop their expertise may struggle to meet employer expectations, affecting their professional growth and success.
• Limited Academic and Career Opportunities: Academic dishonesty can have a direct impact on future academic and career opportunities. Many graduate programs, scholarships, and professional organizations require character assessments and recommendations from faculty members who can vouch for a student’s integrity. A record of academic dishonesty may prevent students from receiving strong endorsements, which can limit their options for scholarships, internships, graduate programs, or other opportunities. Impact: Students who have been involved in academic misconduct may struggle to gain admission to competitive programs or secure funding for further studies. Additionally, certain fields, such as law, medicine, and finance, place a strong emphasis on ethics and may conduct background checks, where a history of dishonesty could disqualify candidates.
• Potential Legal Consequences: In some cases, academic dishonesty can lead to legal consequences, especially when it involves contract cheating, copyright infringement, or fraudulent behavior. For instance, students who submit purchased essays or falsify research data may face legal repercussions, particularly if the dishonesty involves academic fraud or the misuse of research funds. Impact: Legal issues not only result in fines or penalties but can also impact a student’s professional reputation, making it difficult to pursue certain careers or professional certifications that require a clean record.
• Damage to Professional Reputation: Employers place a high value on integrity, accountability, and ethical behavior. Students who engage in academic dishonesty set a precedent that may carry over into their professional lives. Some employers conduct background checks, contact educational institutions, or ask for transcripts when hiring, and a record of academic dishonesty can raise red flags. Furthermore, if a student has a reputation for dishonesty in their academic work, they may be perceived as less trustworthy and dependable in professional settings. Impact: A damaged professional reputation can lead to difficulty securing jobs, limited career advancement, and a lack of trust from colleagues and supervisors. Employers may question a candidate’s ethics and reliability if they know of a history of academic dishonesty, potentially hindering promotions or leadership opportunities.
• Lowered Self-Confidence and Self-Esteem: While academic dishonesty may offer temporary relief from academic pressures, it can have negative effects on a student’s self-confidence and self-esteem. Relying on dishonest practices can create feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inadequacy, as students know that their achievements aren’t a true reflection of their abilities. This cycle can erode self-confidence, making students feel that they cannot succeed without taking shortcuts. Impact: Lower self-confidence can affect students academically and professionally, as they may feel unprepared to face challenges or hesitant to take on new responsibilities. This lack of confidence can make it difficult to advance or take initiative in the workplace, limiting career growth and job satisfaction.
• Ethical Dilemmas and Poor Decision-Making in the Workplace: Engaging in academic dishonesty can set a precedent for unethical behavior, affecting how students handle challenges and ethical decisions in their careers. Individuals who justify dishonest practices in school may be more likely to engage in similar behaviors in professional settings, such as misrepresenting work, falsifying data, or cutting corners. Impact: In professional settings, unethical decisions can have serious consequences, leading to legal or disciplinary action, loss of employment, and damage to an organization’s reputation. A strong foundation of integrity built in academic settings can help students develop good decision-making habits that benefit them throughout their careers.
• Financial Consequences :  Academic dishonesty can have financial repercussions, especially for students who rely on scholarships or financial aid, which are  contingent on their academic performance and integrity. Many scholarships and financial aid packages require students to maintain a certain GPA and uphold ethical standards. Engaging in academic dishonesty can lead to scholarship revocation, resulting in increased financial burdens. Impact: Losing financial support can create additional stress and may even delay a student’s graduation. In the long term, academic dishonesty can lead to job instability, limiting earning potential and financial security.
• Long-Term Career Limitations: For students entering fields that prioritize ethics and professionalism, such as healthcare, law, education, and engineering, a record of academic dishonesty can be particularly damaging. Many professions require certifications or licenses that include background checks, and a history of dishonest behavior can hinder students from meeting these requirements. Additionally, employers in these fields often prioritize ethical conduct, and a reputation for dishonesty can limit career advancement or lead to job loss. Impact: Limited career options can have lifelong consequences, affecting a student’s professional success, personal satisfaction, and financial stability. Ethical conduct is critical in professions that involve public trust, and a tarnished record can make it difficult to build a fulfilling and respected career.

Academic dishonesty can have serious and far-reaching consequences for a student’s academic, personal, and professional future. The risks associated with dishonest behavior far outweigh any short-term gains, from academic penalties to lost opportunities and reputational damage. Students who choose integrity build a foundation of trust, self-confidence, and skill that prepares them for success beyond the classroom.

Institutions can help students avoid academic dishonesty by providing resources, guidance, and support, encouraging students to embrace ethical learning practices. Ultimately, academic integrity is more than just a set of rules; it’s a commitment to personal growth, honesty, and accountability that empowers students to achieve their goals with pride. By upholding these values, students secure their academic success and lay the groundwork for a rewarding and respected career.

How Teachers and Schools Detect and Prevent Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty, which includes cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of misconduct, undermines the learning process, disrupts fairness, and damages the credibility of educational institutions. Teachers and schools use various tools and strategies to detect and prevent dishonest behaviors, maintain academic integrity, and foster a culture of honesty and accountability. Here’s a closer look at how educators and institutions identify and deter academic dishonesty.

• Example: A teacher uploads student essays to Turnitin, which scans the submissions and provides a similarity report, highlighting any content that closely resembles other sources.
• Impact: Plagiarism detection tools discourage students from copying others’ work and encourage them to produce original material, knowing that their submissions will be analyzed.
• Example: During an online test, a proctoring tool locks the student’s screen, monitors their webcam, and flags any unusual movements, sounds, or attempts to open unauthorized resources.
• Impact: Proctoring software helps create a secure and controlled environment, deterring students from using external resources or engaging in other dishonest behaviors.
• Example: An instructor creates open-ended essay prompts that require students to apply course concepts to their own experiences or analyze recent news events, making it difficult to copy answers from external sources.
• Impact: Thoughtfully designed assessments encourage students to think independently, emphasize genuine learning, and reduce the temptation to rely on shortcuts.
• Example: In a large lecture course, the instructor creates three different versions of the final exam, distributing them randomly to students.
• Impact: Randomized questions and multiple exam versions help ensure that students are evaluated on their own knowledge, making it harder for students to share answers or work together.
• Example: Before starting an exam, students are required to sign an honor pledge stating that they will not use unauthorized resources and will work independently.
• Impact: Honor codes and integrity pledges reinforce the importance of ethical behavior, making students more likely to approach their work honestly.
• Example: During orientation, students attend a workshop on academic integrity, learning about proper research practices, citation requirements, and the consequences of misconduct.
• Impact: Educating students on academic integrity helps them make informed decisions, reduces instances of accidental dishonesty, and fosters a culture of respect for ethical standards.
• Example: A student caught plagiarizing receives a failing grade for the assignment and is required to complete an academic integrity workshop before continuing with the course.
• Impact: Clear consequences underscore the seriousness of academic dishonesty, deterring students from unethical behavior by highlighting the risks involved.
• Example: Before beginning an online exam, students must use a lockdown browser that restricts access to other websites, programs, and screen-capture tools.
• Impact: Anti-cheating tools create a secure testing environment, minimizing the chances of cheating and ensuring that students’ test scores reflect their own efforts.
• Example: A teacher encourages students to form study groups to discuss class material but emphasizes that specific assignments must be completed independently.
• Impact: By clarifying boundaries, teachers help students understand the limits of collaboration, reducing the likelihood of unintentional misconduct.
• Example: A teacher asks students to explain their project findings in a brief oral presentation, allowing the teacher to assess each student’s grasp of the material.
• Impact: Personalized assignments and oral exams provide a unique insight into each student’s knowledge, discouraging dishonesty and emphasizing individual learning.

Teachers and schools use various effective strategies to detect and prevent academic dishonesty. From leveraging technology, designing thoughtful assessments, educating students, and enforcing clear policies, these approaches promote a culture of integrity that values honesty and respect. By fostering a transparent, supportive environment, educators help students understand the importance of ethical behavior, empowering them to approach their studies with accountability.

Through proactive detection methods and preventive strategies, schools and teachers reduce instances of academic dishonesty and encourage students to engage fully in their education. These efforts benefit students’ learning experiences, reinforce the value of hard work, and prepare them for responsible, successful careers.

What Are the Consequences or Penalties for Academic Dishonesty in Schools and Universities?

Academic dishonesty in schools and universities is taken seriously, as it undermines the integrity of the educational process, devalues the achievements of honest students, and can harm an institution’s reputation. Educational institutions have established consequences and penalties for academic misconduct to uphold ethical standards. These consequences vary based on the severity of the offense, the institution’s policies, and whether the incident is a first-time or repeat offense. Here are the common consequences and penalties for academic dishonesty in schools and universities:

• Example: A student who is caught copying from another student’s homework may receive a grade of zero for that assignment.
• Impact: A failing grade on an assignment affects the student’s overall grade in the course, impacting their GPA and serving as a clear warning to avoid dishonest practices in the future.
• Example: A student who submits a paper with significant portions copied from an online source without citation may fail the entire course.
• Impact: Failing a course can delay graduation, impact the student’s GPA, and require additional time and money to retake the course. It serves as a strong deterrent and underscores the importance of completing coursework honestly.
• Example: A student who commits a moderate offense, such as copying a portion of a project, may be placed on academic probation for the following semester.
• Impact: Academic probation is a serious mark on a student’s record, which may be visible to future educational institutions or employers. It clearly indicates that the student’s conduct is under scrutiny and that any further violations may result in dismissal.
• Example: A student who engages in contract cheating (hiring someone else to complete assignments) may face suspension for one or more semesters.
• Impact: Suspension can delay a student’s progress, disrupt their academic journey, and lead to financial consequences if financial aid or scholarships are affected. Suspension also becomes part of the student’s academic record, which can impact future applications to other institutions or career opportunities.
• Example: A student caught manipulating research data or repeatedly submitting purchased essays may face expulsion.
• Impact: Expulsion has lifelong consequences, as it bars students from completing their education at that institution and makes it challenging to transfer to another school. An expulsion from an academic record can also make it difficult to secure future employment or admission to other academic programs.
• Example: A graduate whose thesis is found to contain extensive plagiarism after the fact may have their degree revoked by the university.
• Impact: Degree revocation can have significant career and legal implications, particularly for students whose employment or professional licensing depends on the credentials awarded by the institution.
• Example: A student who commits a minor first-time offense, such as improper citation, may be required to attend a workshop on research ethics and academic integrity.
• Impact: Academic integrity workshops are more rehabilitative than punitive, allowing students to learn from their mistakes and improve their understanding of academic ethical practices.
• Example: A student who holds an academic scholarship but is caught cheating on a major exam may lose their scholarship as a result.
• Impact: Losing financial support can impose financial hardship, and losing leadership roles can limit networking opportunities and reduce the student’s overall academic experience.
• Example: A student’s transcript may have a notation of “Academic Misconduct” after they are found guilty of plagiarism in a senior thesis.
• Impact: Permanent notations on a transcript can impact the student’s ability to transfer to other institutions, gain admission to graduate programs, and apply for jobs where academic records are reviewed as part of the hiring process.
• Example: A student who pays a service to complete their entire thesis project may face legal consequences if the dishonesty is discovered, especially if the research involves external funding or copyright infringement.
• Impact: Legal consequences can involve fines, legal fees, and long-lasting implications for a student’s record, especially in professions that require background checks or licensing.

The consequences of academic dishonesty are designed to uphold the integrity of educational institutions and to reinforce the value of honest, diligent work. Schools and universities apply a range of penalties based on the severity and nature of the offense, from failing grades and probation to suspension, expulsion, and even legal action. In addition to the immediate consequences, academic dishonesty can impact a student’s academic record, financial support, and future career opportunities.

For students, understanding the potential repercussions of academic misconduct highlights the importance of maintaining ethical standards in their studies. By committing to academic integrity, students protect their educational experience and future opportunities and contribute to a fair and respectful academic environment. Schools play a vital role in fostering this culture by setting clear expectations, offering resources on integrity, enforcing consequences, and emphasizing the value of honest scholarship. In doing so, they prepare students to approach their academic and professional lives with integrity, accountability, and respect for the learning process.

Reference Article:

• Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., & Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education , 22 (2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034
• Bacon, A. M., McDaid, C., Williams, N., & Corr, P. J. (2020). What motivates academic dishonesty in students? A reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 (1), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12269
• Bayaa Martin Saana, S. B., Ablordeppey, E., Mensah, N. J., & Karikari, T. K. (2016). Academic dishonesty in higher education: Students’ perceptions and involvement in an African institution. BMC Research Notes , 9 (1), 234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2044-0
• Bens, S. L. (2010). Senior education students’ understandings of academic honesty and dishonesty . http://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-09192010-154127
• Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type. The Journal of Economic Education , 39 (1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.39.1.4-21
• Boyle, D. M., Boyle, J. F., & Carpenter, B. W. (2016). Accounting Student Academic Dishonesty: What Accounting Faculty and Administrators Believe. The Accounting Educators’ Journal , 26 . https://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/view/329
• Burgason, K. A., Sefiha, O., & Briggs, L. (2019). Cheating is in the Eye of the Beholder: An Evolving Understanding of Academic Misconduct. Innovative Higher Education , 44 (3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9457-3
• Cizek, G. J. (2003). Educational Testing Integrity: Why Educators and Students Cheat and How To Prevent It . https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480061
• Colnerud, G., & Rosander, M. (2009). Academic dishonesty, ethical norms and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 34 (5), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802155263
• Eastman, J., Iyer, R., & Reisenwitz, T. (2008). The Impact Of Unethical Reasoning On Different Types Of Academic Dishonesty: An Exploratory Study. Journal of College Teaching & Learning , 5 . https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v5i12.1211
• Ercegovac, Z., & Richardson, J. V. (2004). Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A Literature Review. College & Research Libraries , 65 (4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301
• Guerrero-Dib, J. G., Portales, L., & Heredia-Escorza, Y. (2020). Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 16 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3
• Hamlin, A., Barczyk, C., Powell, G., & Frost, J. (2013). A Comparison of University Efforts to Contain Academic Dishonesty. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues , 16 , 35.
• Happel, S. K., & Jennings, M. M. (2008). An Economic Analysis of Academic Dishonesty and Its Deterrence in Higher Education. Journal of Legal Studies Education , 25 , 183.
• Hughes, J. M. C., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Understanding Academic Misconduct. Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 36 (1), 49–63.
• Marshall, L. L., & Varnon, A. W. (2017). Attack on Academic Dishonesty: What “Lies” Ahead? Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education , 13 (2), 31–40.
• McCabe, D. L. (2005). It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty & Educational Opportunity. Liberal Education , 91 (3), 26–31.
• Moten, A. R. (2014). Academic dishonesty and misconduct: Curbing plagiarism in the Muslim world. Intellectual Discourse , 22 (2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.31436/id.v22i2.610
• Pittman, O. A., & Barker, E. (2020). Academic dishonesty: What impact does it have and what can faculty do? Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners , 32 (9), 598. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000477
• Saidin, N., & Isa, N. (2013). Investigating Academic Dishonesty among Language Teacher Trainees: The Why and How of Cheating. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , 90 , 522–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.122
• Stephens, J. M., & Nicholson, H. (2008). Cases of incongruity: Exploring the divide between adolescents’ beliefs and behavior related to academic dishonesty. Educational Studies , 34 (4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802257127
• Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P. A., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, Click, and Cheat: Frequency and Type of Academic Dishonesty in the Virtual Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Point%2C-Click%2C-and-Cheat%3A-Frequency-and-Type-of-in-Stuber-McEwen-Wiseley/c97bca797861f02f9e0ae12ce1914a9252be9334
• Thomas, A., & Bruin, G. P. D. (2012). Student academic dishonesty: What do academics think and do, and what are the barriers to action? African Journal of Business Ethics , 6 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.15249/6-1-8

Related Posts

Academic integrity in higher education, differences between academic integrity and academic dishonesty, what is academic integrity definition, importance, and examples.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.