copying homework assignments is wrong evidence

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Homework copying can turn As into Cs, Bs into Ds

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research paper
• David E. Pritchard
• Young-Jin Lee

Related Topics

• Education, teaching, academics

More MIT News

Students learn theater design through the power of play

Read full story →

A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations

Designing better delivery for medical therapies

Making a measurable economic impact

Faces of MIT: Jessica Tam

First AI + Education Summit is an international push for “AI fluency”

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

teachers for peace

• Math advice for patenrs
• Coping with finance assignments
• Doing homework in a single night
• Assignment games for kids
• Doing macroeconomics assignments
• How to focus on homework
• Where to find an online calculator
• Solving common homework problems
• Doing physics without effort
• Quantum mechanics assignments
• Economics & engineering homework
• Some useful assignment hints
• Nonlinear programming homework
• Working assignment strategies
• Great ideas for art assignments
• High school statistics assignments
• College chemistry assignments
• 4 things to know about homework
• 6 ways to get homework help
• How much do tutoring services cost
• Tips on creating homework calendar
• 5 reasons to do homework in time
• Getting answers for physics
• Helping your child with homework
• Solutions for tackling chemistry
• If you don't understand science
• Why copying is bad
• Is it possible to get free college help?
• How to stop procrastinating
• 4 things about cheap help
• Solutions for linear algebra
• Who will write my homework?
• Dealing with too much homework
• Free help with accounting
• How to find math help online?
• Tips that helped me in high school
• Homework habits
• Fiding free biology homework
• Excellent assignment writing agencies
• Finding free assignment answers
• Good financial management assistance
• Getting aid with science tasks
• Social studies assignment help
• Trigonometry and algebra assistance
• Qualified algebra homework assistance
• Chemical engineering assistance
• Finding a good math solver
• Good geometry homework assistance
• Physics homework: pieces of advice
• Fracture mechanics homework help
• 5 places to get help with math
• Getting religious homework help
• 5 tips to deal with music homework
• Getting help in English
• Who will do my homework?
• Making science homework easier
• Help with astronomy homework
• Aid with fractions
• Qualified biology help
• Help with English language
• Finding best websites
• 5 tips to do homework online
• GIS homework

Why Copying Homework Assignments Is Wrong: The True Reason

There are a lot of times when you are told never to copy assignments. So many students never take this for granted, until that point when they are caught between a rock and a hard place, and they are left wondering why they never spent enough time trying to understand what happened. Copying homework assignments is a bad thing. It is wrong on so many levels, and there are learning institutions which will actually punish you severely when you do this.

Have you ever wondered why schools are so careful about this? Today you will learn so much about this, and perhaps use the tips that you learn to make sure that you never fall short of the same when you are working on your paper, or when you have some work to do. The following are some of the main reasons why you need to make sure that you never copy some of this work at all:

You do not learn anything

You are not able to present your own ideas, you miss out on the learning opportunities.

Some of these tasks are normally given to you so that you can be in a good position to learn a new thing from time to time. You have to make sure that you do them as you have been instructed, so that when it’s all said and done, you are able to make the best use of the learning outcomes available with the task.

One of the other things that you will realize is that as you present someone else’s work as yours, you will not be able to showcase and share your own ideas. The problem with this is that in the long run, you will not be sure whether you have made any progress it the learning process or not.

Learning opportunities are important when you are trying to work on this task. There are some things that are evaluated when you present your paper for marking, other than just your ability to get the answers right.

The teacher will in most cases look at the concepts that you have presented, how you have done the same and make sure that in the long run, you do just what is expected of you.

Useful websites

Get your dissertation papers written with professional writers - they have been writing dissertations and theses for 10 years.

Order research papers from professional writers here - they write essays term papers and theses.

Writing Help

• 5 hints on how to get assistance
• Getting high-standard homework help
• 5 effective ways to tackle homework
• In search of a helpful website
• Deal with the homework fast
• An expert opinion about homework
• Online homework: a quick guide
• Choosing homework help service
• High school homework time tips
• Use of homework writing companies
• Biomedical engineering assignments
• AP Economics homework solutions
• A way to handle History assignments

2012-2024. Teachersforpeace.org. All rights reserved. Homework hints for students.

• Our Mission

Why Students Cheat—and What to Do About It

A teacher seeks answers from researchers and psychologists. 

“Why did you cheat in high school?” I posed the question to a dozen former students.

“I wanted good grades and I didn’t want to work,” said Sonya, who graduates from college in June. [The students’ names in this article have been changed to protect their privacy.]

My current students were less candid than Sonya. To excuse her plagiarized Cannery Row essay, Erin, a ninth-grader with straight As, complained vaguely and unconvincingly of overwhelming stress. When he was caught copying a review of the documentary Hypernormalism , Jeremy, a senior, stood by his “hard work” and said my accusation hurt his feelings.

Cases like the much-publicized ( and enduring ) 2012 cheating scandal at high-achieving Stuyvesant High School in New York City confirm that academic dishonesty is rampant and touches even the most prestigious of schools. The data confirms this as well. A 2012 Josephson Institute’s Center for Youth Ethics report revealed that more than half of high school students admitted to cheating on a test, while 74 percent reported copying their friends’ homework. And a survey of 70,000 high school students across the United States between 2002 and 2015 found that 58 percent had plagiarized papers, while 95 percent admitted to cheating in some capacity.

So why do students cheat—and how do we stop them?

According to researchers and psychologists, the real reasons vary just as much as my students’ explanations. But educators can still learn to identify motivations for student cheating and think critically about solutions to keep even the most audacious cheaters in their classrooms from doing it again.

Rationalizing It


First, know that students realize cheating is wrong—they simply see themselves as moral in spite of it.

“They cheat just enough to maintain a self-concept as honest people. They make their behavior an exception to a general rule,” said Dr. David Rettinger , professor at the University of Mary Washington and executive director of the Center for Honor, Leadership, and Service, a campus organization dedicated to integrity.

According to Rettinger and other researchers, students who cheat can still see themselves as principled people by rationalizing cheating for reasons they see as legitimate.

Some do it when they don’t see the value of work they’re assigned, such as drill-and-kill homework assignments, or when they perceive an overemphasis on teaching content linked to high-stakes tests.

“There was no critical thinking, and teachers seemed pressured to squish it into their curriculum,” said Javier, a former student and recent liberal arts college graduate. “They questioned you on material that was never covered in class, and if you failed the test, it was progressively harder to pass the next time around.”

But students also rationalize cheating on assignments they see as having value.

High-achieving students who feel pressured to attain perfection (and Ivy League acceptances) may turn to cheating as a way to find an edge on the competition or to keep a single bad test score from sabotaging months of hard work. At Stuyvesant, for example, students and teachers identified the cutthroat environment as a factor in the rampant dishonesty that plagued the school.

And research has found that students who receive praise for being smart—as opposed to praise for effort and progress—are more inclined to exaggerate their performance and to cheat on assignments , likely because they are carrying the burden of lofty expectations.

A Developmental Stage

When it comes to risk management, adolescent students are bullish. Research has found that teenagers are biologically predisposed to be more tolerant of unknown outcomes and less bothered by stated risks than their older peers.

“In high school, they’re risk takers developmentally, and can’t see the consequences of immediate actions,” Rettinger says. “Even delayed consequences are remote to them.”

While cheating may not be a thrill ride, students already inclined to rebel against curfews and dabble in illicit substances have a certain comfort level with being reckless. They’re willing to gamble when they think they can keep up the ruse—and more inclined to believe they can get away with it.

Cheating also appears to be almost contagious among young people—and may even serve as a kind of social adhesive, at least in environments where it is widely accepted.  A study of military academy students from 1959 to 2002 revealed that students in communities where cheating is tolerated easily cave in to peer pressure, finding it harder not to cheat out of fear of losing social status if they don’t.

Michael, a former student, explained that while he didn’t need to help classmates cheat, he felt “unable to say no.” Once he started, he couldn’t stop.

Technology Facilitates and Normalizes It

With smartphones and Alexa at their fingertips, today’s students have easy access to quick answers and content they can reproduce for exams and papers.  Studies show that technology has made cheating in school easier, more convenient, and harder to catch than ever before.

To Liz Ruff, an English teacher at Garfield High School in Los Angeles, students’ use of social media can erode their understanding of authenticity and intellectual property. Because students are used to reposting images, repurposing memes, and watching parody videos, they “see ownership as nebulous,” she said.

As a result, while they may want to avoid penalties for plagiarism, they may not see it as wrong or even know that they’re doing it.

This confirms what Donald McCabe, a Rutgers University Business School professor,  reported in his 2012 book ; he found that more than 60 percent of surveyed students who had cheated considered digital plagiarism to be “trivial”—effectively, students believed it was not actually cheating at all.

Strategies for Reducing Cheating

Even moral students need help acting morally, said  Dr. Jason M. Stephens , who researches academic motivation and moral development in adolescents at the University of Auckland’s School of Learning, Development, and Professional Practice. According to Stephens, teachers are uniquely positioned to infuse students with a sense of responsibility and help them overcome the rationalizations that enable them to think cheating is OK.

1. Turn down the pressure cooker. Students are less likely to cheat on work in which they feel invested. A multiple-choice assessment tempts would-be cheaters, while a unique, multiphase writing project measuring competencies can make cheating much harder and less enticing. Repetitive homework assignments are also a culprit, according to research , so teachers should look at creating take-home assignments that encourage students to think critically and expand on class discussions. Teachers could also give students one free pass on a homework assignment each quarter, for example, or let them drop their lowest score on an assignment.

2. Be thoughtful about your language.   Research indicates that using the language of fixed mindsets , like praising children for being smart as opposed to praising them for effort and progress , is both demotivating and increases cheating. When delivering feedback, researchers suggest using phrases focused on effort like, “You made really great progress on this paper” or “This is excellent work, but there are still a few areas where you can grow.”

3. Create student honor councils. Give students the opportunity to enforce honor codes or write their own classroom/school bylaws through honor councils so they can develop a full understanding of how cheating affects themselves and others. At Fredericksburg Academy, high school students elect two Honor Council members per grade. These students teach the Honor Code to fifth graders, who, in turn, explain it to younger elementary school students to help establish a student-driven culture of integrity. Students also write a pledge of authenticity on every assignment. And if there is an honor code transgression, the council gathers to discuss possible consequences. 

4. Use metacognition. Research shows that metacognition, a process sometimes described as “ thinking about thinking ,” can help students process their motivations, goals, and actions. With my ninth graders, I use a centuries-old resource to discuss moral quandaries: the play Macbeth . Before they meet the infamous Thane of Glamis, they role-play as medical school applicants, soccer players, and politicians, deciding if they’d cheat, injure, or lie to achieve goals. I push students to consider the steps they take to get the outcomes they desire. Why do we tend to act in the ways we do? What will we do to get what we want? And how will doing those things change who we are? Every tragedy is about us, I say, not just, as in Macbeth’s case, about a man who succumbs to “vaulting ambition.”

5. Bring honesty right into the curriculum. Teachers can weave a discussion of ethical behavior into curriculum. Ruff and many other teachers have been inspired to teach media literacy to help students understand digital plagiarism and navigate the widespread availability of secondary sources online, using guidance from organizations like Common Sense Media .

There are complicated psychological dynamics at play when students cheat, according to experts and researchers. While enforcing rules and consequences is important, knowing what’s really motivating students to cheat can help you foster integrity in the classroom instead of just penalizing the cheating.

The New York Times

Opinionator | why our children don’t think there are moral facts.

Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.

A misleading distinction between fact and opinion is embedded in the Common Core.

What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles , some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren’t. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that “man is the measure of all things,” and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it’s very unlikely that it’s the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.

Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled “fact vs. opinion.” The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son’s classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to “ distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text .” And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So what’s wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?

First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It’s a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t. In that case, E=MC 2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.

But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:

Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”

Him: “It’s a fact.”

Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”

Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”

Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

How does the dichotomy between fact and opinion relate to morality? I learned the answer to this question only after I investigated my son’s homework ( and other examples of assignments online ). Kids are asked to sort facts from opinions and, without fail, every value claim is labeled as an opinion. Here’s a little test devised from questions available on fact vs. opinion worksheets online: are the following facts or opinions?

— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

— All men are created equal.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

The answer? In each case, the worksheets categorize these claims as opinions. The explanation on offer is that each of these claims is a value claim and value claims are not facts. This is repeated ad nauseum : any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact.

In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.

The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school’s curriculum, it certainly wasn’t true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn’t really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses : If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on.

Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?

Our schools do amazing things with our children. And they are, in a way, teaching moral standards when they ask students to treat one another humanely and to do their schoolwork with academic integrity. But at the same time, the curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave.

We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.

That would be wrong. Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.

What's Next

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

When a student submits a work that is a copy from a colleague, should you also punish the student that made the work?

The question kind of says it all. Imagine that for an assignment you receive two or more similar submissions (e.g. programs). What will you do? Annul all the works? What if you know for certain who was the original author?

Probably this is already in your schools’ code of conduct. In my school it is not and I sometimes don’t really now what to do.

• 28 $\begingroup$ Do you know that the author voluntarily shared the work and it wasn't taken from them unwittingly? $\endgroup$ –  Ellen Spertus Commented Jul 10, 2017 at 20:05
• 2 $\begingroup$ I suppose that most of the times they share the work voluntarily, although they don't admit. $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 10, 2017 at 20:17
• 19 $\begingroup$ Why did you ask on CS Educators instead of Academia ? There doesn't seem to be anything specific to computer science here. $\endgroup$ –  jpmc26 Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30
• 1 $\begingroup$ @jpmc26 I understand what you say, and probably my question should be more clear in that aspect, but in fact I am especially interested in programming assignments (copy of source code). $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 10:32
• 6 $\begingroup$ @jpmc26 Whether a question is on-topic at another site shouldn't matter—as long as the question is on-topic here , it should stay here (and from the reception, the answer appears to be that it is firmly on-topic here). Overlap between sites is absolutely fine if you want an answer from a specific group (like CS Educators, for example, rather than general Academians). $\endgroup$ –  Aurora0001 Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 19:19

14 Answers 14

This would depend on context, in my opinion. Given you know the identity of both the original author and the plagiarist, consider:

Did the original author facilitate the plagiarism, or was the code plagiarised without the original author's knowledge? Can you tell?

Clearly, if the original author was the victim of someone peeking over their shoulder, or just blatantly copying code files, then they should not be punished. But if they gave help to others despite being told that this is inappropriate , then they are equally guilty of misconduct.

It's easy for me to write this, but in practice determining whether the plagiarism was with or without consent is more difficult. I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if there is any chance that one party did not intentionaly cheat.

Is there any record of the students cheating previously? If so, that might be a guide.

I would be keen to avoid punishing someone who might not have done anything wrong, but some others might not give the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly not easy to tell what exactly has gone on when two very similar works are handed in, but if you can rule out any copying without the author's awareness with certainty , then you must assume that the author facilitated cheating.

If you haven't made clear what the difference is between helping and cheating, then you can't really punish anyone fairly —if you don't clearly lay out your expectations, then you can't enforce strict rules.

• 21 $\begingroup$ I think it worth mentioning that the pricing scheme for some git hosting sites makes it likely that some students will use public repositories for their projects, even if working solo. I and several of my peers did this - and I am quite confident that this was done because of money, not in order to facilitate academic dishonesty. $\endgroup$ –  Jeutnarg Commented Jul 10, 2017 at 21:13
• 8 $\begingroup$ What do you mean by facilitating cheating? When I was a student, I published a lot of assignment solutions. I was the author after all, I can do whatever I want with what I've created. $\endgroup$ –  Džuris Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 0:36
• 1 $\begingroup$ Also -- sure, let's encourage people to keep their stuff behind 100 locks. Hell, maybe even ban the use of VCSes altogether. Why not approach this like an actual CS professional? Encourage everyone to use Git or Mercurial for their homework -- if there are any suspicions, a simple look at the commit history will reveal who's to blame (for plagiarism et al ). $\endgroup$ –  Priidu Neemre Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 8:45
• 1 $\begingroup$ @Džuris That would depend on your school's policy. If you are free to do what you want after your project is complete, and you publish it, of course it's not cheating. It's all about the intent—did you willingly help someone else in full knowledge that this is inappropriate, or did they, in effect, copy from your work without your knowledge and without crediting you? $\endgroup$ –  Aurora0001 Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 14:42
• 1 $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat . $\endgroup$ –  thesecretmaster ♦ Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 14:44

I have a somewhat different suggestion. Make every infraction an opportunity for learning, not a punishment scenario. Young people (& others) mess up. They get into "situations" and make dumb decisions. It is in the nature of growing up. You can't (severely) punish young people for making young people mistakes. And any punishment that doesn't stress learning is counterproductive.

I've written elsewhere on this site that if the young weren't risk takers then the human race would still be in the trees and just prey animals. The young put themselves at risk so that the baboons didn't feast on the infants and old ones. Live with it. It is part of our nature, mediated by intelligence for the most part, but still there.

That doesn't mean you can't put a scare into an offender (as a lion would do). But your primary job as a teacher is to teach the students the lessons that they need, not just facts or technical skills.

Repeated infractions and overall disdain for the rules or their fellow students is a different matter requiring more formal measures. So do infractions that hurt other people in some way.

Let me give a personal anecdote. When in college a fellow student and I committed a somewhat different sort of infraction. The faculty were of several minds with some simply dismissing it as "kids!" and one wanting us expelled. There were meetings and a committee that called us to account. After we suitably (and honestly) abased ourselves we were let go with an informal probation. It was very enlightening as well as embarrassing. My co-perpetrator graduated at the top of our class and I wasn't terribly far behind. So it worked out. (No creatures, human or otherwise, were harmed by our little escapade, so it was a simpler case). And I must have grown up wanting to emulate the way I was treated.

But the punishment for academic dishonesty should involve something that assures that the lesson of the assignment is learned as well as learning why the rules are important. Sometimes doing a similar assignment and writing an essay on honesty or whatever is appropriate.

It took me a while, but I learned over the course of my career that the main job is to teach students, not to judge them.

• 1 $\begingroup$ I love the last line, and the overall sentiment of this answer. $\endgroup$ –  Floris Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 12:57
• 1 $\begingroup$ Agreed that, for example, expulsion for a first offense, particularly for a freshman, might be excessively harsh, but I'd also say that the best way for most people to learn the lesson is for the punishment to be at least enough to sting, especially in case of blatant academic dishonesty where any reasonable person should have known better. Getting a zero on the particular assignment, for example, seems appropriate. I also had at least one professor who, upon discovering students shared an assignment, would grade the assignment and then divide by the number of students who shared. Seemed fair. $\endgroup$ –  reirab Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 18:30
• $\begingroup$ @reirab Your professor made my day! $\endgroup$ –  cst1992 Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 19:18

As outlined in my syllabus, both the contributor and the receiver have committed an integrity violation, and both will be punished. For me to feel that this is fair for everyone, I make sure to be very clear of the rules early in the course. I have a section in my syllabus that directly addresses "helping" other students. I have a list of actions that constitute integrity violations. But I also have a list of actions that are permissible in attempting to help other students. This has proven useful for the stronger student that truly does want to help their struggling colleague. It also gives the stronger partner a reference that they can show their struggling partner when they feel they are being pressured to help too much.

When I have instances of a student using another student's code, I will go back to the syllabus and cite the specific actions that were violated. The "supplier" may think that the punishment outlined in the syllabus is too harsh, but I rarely have a student now who denies that they violated a stated rule. And the punishment was known before the offense took place.

This is all assuming that you know one student was the supplier for another. I only pursue this if I have a extremely high level of confidence that this happened. Usually with submitted programming assignments, there are enough artifacts in the digital file (white spacing, identical inconsistencies, etc.) to be confident of copying.

• 10 $\begingroup$ "there are enough artifacts in the digital file...to be confident of copying." but not to be confident that the copying is not the result of a code theft (supplier was not consenting to this copy). Would'nt this approach punish the victim of a theft along with the thief ? $\endgroup$ –  Quentin Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 8:25
• 1 $\begingroup$ Says the guy who's never seen code stolen outright. I started booby-trapping mine after a few times. $\endgroup$ –  Joshua Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 17:17
• $\begingroup$ @Joshua your homework code wouldn't be stolen if you weren't doing something unethical with either it or your pc. Other students aren't going to hack your pc. If they are, they probably don't need to see your answer. $\endgroup$ –  user64742 Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 1:46
• 1 $\begingroup$ @Typhon: It was stolen off the department server not my computer. My home computer had too weak a distro for advanced computer labs and I couldn't suck down a modern one over floppy disks. $\endgroup$ –  Joshua Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 1:48
• 1 $\begingroup$ @Joshua in that situation the department is at fault, period. The security shouldn't be like that and you cannot be punished for illegal access like that. $\endgroup$ –  user64742 Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 1:53

I have 3 usual responses at my small institution:

• If two students cooperated, I ignore it the first time, after that I talk with them.
• If one copied from another, possibly by looking in my "In Box" (on my desk), I talk with that person.
• I report it to the Administrator in charge of Students.

We have only a few dozen students and one Administrator, so it is a small problem and gets dealt with quickly. Usually, if someone is getting excessive help from other students or is copying things, they end up not being able to do this coursework and we can redirect them to another program.

There is another way to approach this sort of problem, but it requires that you have the authority or power to modify the basic structure of the course.

I actually prefer to structure a course in such a way that this sort of problem can't arise. To do this requires that you encourage or even require students to work together, either in pairs or in larger teams. Work is submitted by the team. A naive approach to this won't work, of course.

A weaker proposal is to let students help one another pretty freely, but require that all collaborators be named in any submission. A subtle form of this is to let students collaborate, but not share code. However, you need a strong and well written Code of Conduct for this to work.

The issue, as I implied in my earlier answer to this question, is that learning must take place. Some problems given to students have a crux point and seeing it allows the student to have an A Ha moment that can be very powerful. The Dutch National Flag exercise has such a crux with a key insight that can broaden the education of any student. It is a shame to deny this moment to any student, which is one of the reasons we often require our students to work alone. However, if the student doesn't arrive at the denouement in a timely manner her/his learning may be slowed. And students often panic in the face of deadlines.

When I was much younger and teaching mathematics, I really believed that students should work strictly alone so that they could have such insights. I believed that, even though, at that time it was becoming increasingly common for working mathematicians to work in groups rather than alone. In fact, one of the reasons that I left math for CS is that I was teaching at a place at which there was no opportunity for local collaboration and the synergy it brings. This was before the internet of course (but we had left stone tools behind, thankfully).

There is a dilemma here, of course. We want each student to learn. We need to permit them to advance. Insight is good and aids this. Getting "stuck" inhibits it. In my view the way to cut the Gordian Knot here is:

Teach in such a way that there are more opportunities for a ha moments.

If there are many many opportunities, then the fact that student A helps B get through the crux on one such doesn't deny B the opportunity on the next one. There is evidence in the Pair Programming community (Agile Addicts) that pairing aids synergy, and doesn't leave anyone behind. Different people can contribute different things at different times and all advance.

Some additional points:

First, teamwork is a valuable, even required, skill for most employment. It doesn't come naturally to many any more or less than programming in a functional style (for example) does. It can be taught and needs to be practiced.

Also, knowing who the collaborators are, by design, lets you assign marks fairly. But you should arrange it so that people don't always work with the same partners. Students then learn less about teamwork and you have a harder time knowing who is shining and who needs a bit more polishing.

If you do this sort of thing, it is also useful, perhaps required, that you let the students give some sort of evaluation of their team-mates. Students are reluctant to do this of course, but it can be arranged if you make it positive for them. If you ask "How did your buddy do?" you are likely to not get useful information. However you can do the following:

If students are paired have them fill out an evaluation with two questions * What was your partners chief contribution? * What was your own chief contribution?

Make this a part of every paired assignment. If you have a student who answers "nothing" to the first question you learn something. If you have a student who always answers this way you learn something else. Both likely require a response from you.

In larger groups, have each student fill out a questionnaire at the end with questions like, supposing a group of five, for example, * Who were the three most valuable members of your team, possibly including yourself? * What was the main contribution of each of the people named above? * What was your own main contribution.

Make sure the students know about this, including the questions themselves, before the first group assignment.

If you allow collaboration, as in my "weaker" proposal at the top of this, you can also have collaborators fill out such an evaluation and submit it with the work. It doesn't add much to your work, as such submissions are usually short, but it does give you a better picture of individual progress.

An anecdote is instructive. I once had a group of students in a class and one of them seemed to be slacking. He didn't contribute much to discussions and didn't have great responses. However, on a fairly large project, he was the one named by every other member as the key to getting the work done. Since their work was done outside my view, I'd have missed this entirely. He got a big boost, of course, as he had earned it.

• $\begingroup$ Buffy, first of all thank you for such and interesting answer. I also believe that pair/group work are very important, especially in CS. The problem is that in the past I've done that, but when it came to that part when I asked them: Well, who made what? Was it 50-50? Who contributed the most?... Even when I was sure that it was like 80-20 (100-0 in some cases) they would say it was 50-50. :) $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 11:34
• 1 $\begingroup$ That is why I ask the sort of questions that let them avoid such answers. Not, "did your partner do his/her share", but "what did he/she contribute". $\endgroup$ –  Buffy Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 11:42
• $\begingroup$ :) Sure, with me that question would also arise immediately after the first one. But they would have their lesson well study and in the end would still seem like (50-50). Even know I receive pieces of code with almost one comment per line :) $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 11:56
• $\begingroup$ Hmmm. Excessive comments are a "Code Smell" of course. $\endgroup$ –  Buffy Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 12:01

It depends on the situation and your school's policy on academic integrity. At my school, it clearly states that authors may not knowingly permit other students to submit their work. You may want to ask your school to update its policy to include a clause like this.

You will have to determine if authors know if other students submitted their work. The author could be a student in the current class or another class. The author could be a stranger online. In a previous class, I suspected that one student submitted another student's program. This was confirmed when I saw that the filename included the original student's first and last name. After discussing this with both students, I resolved it. I can't say that I follow a hard and fast rule. I think it depends on the situation (severity of the violation, actions of both parties, etc.).

Having been in a similar situation myself as a student (once upon a time) might I suggest a different strategy - one that doesn't immediately punish either party?

Consider Jeutnarg's comment above about source control. Firstly, you absolutely do not want to encourage budding learners to be secretive with their code as that leads to far greater problems down the line. I appreciate some of these commercial tools may cost money to host private repositories but I would say that there's more harm than good can come from punishing a student for using a public repository. ( It's worth pointing out at this stage that many online apps give student and educational accounts out for either very little money, or for free. )

In this situation, I'd use this exact scenario as an opportunity - get them to write docs, or interview them one-on-one about the code. Ask them questions about the functionality, the expected output, and then discuss the plagiarism aspect directly with each student. Give them an opportunity to resubmit the work (or an entirely new piece) on their own but if the same thing happened in future, then take the steps toward punishment. If you take the route of a careless mistake (publishing code online when it should have been private), this is a perfect opportunity to explain how dependencies and open source libraries work. If they took the route of actively "cheating" (I know of not one single programmer that hasn't copied and pasted directly from Stack Overflow at one point in their career) then give them a second chance.

My advice? Speak to them directly. Perhaps both had issues with the material, or with teaching style, or perhaps even one was completely lazy and went for the easy route... but you'll never know until asking them directly.

Background: Our entire class got flunked because one student had copied various functions from other people's code. That and we used a few functions from the text book verbatim. I found this really demoralising and unfair as, although the functions were copied verbatim, that was the best way, that we knew of at the time , for that "thing" to be done. Long story short, the student that went around copying everyone had difficulty with the teaching method - and all it took was a couple of simple one-on-one sessions with the tutor to resolve... after we all had to resit the entire course though. That guy ended up dropping out due to the pressure of an entire class hating him. Don't let that happen to your student(s).

• 2 $\begingroup$ Hi Scott! Welcome to Computer Science Educators ! Thank you for this very interesting take on this question! I hope to hear more from you around the site. $\endgroup$ –  thesecretmaster ♦ Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 3:25
• 1 $\begingroup$ Hi Scott! To me it is OK, if one student help other. Even if a part of the code is similar, no problem. To me, a huge problem happens when several different files are 90-100% equal... $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 10:14

To kind of back up comments from others, I'll share something that happened to me.

I wrote an assembler for the 6800 for a software tools class, about 1985 or so. I put lot of work into it, partly because I have a bad habit of trying to do too much, and partly because I had a 6800 protoboard I wanted to be able to write programs for.

One of the TAs for the class was a really cute redhead I had a crush on (which may or may not be relevant). She looked at my completed work and convinced herself it must have been beyond my ability.

I was not party to the discussion with the prof and the other TA that determined the course of action she took, but the upshot was that she contacted me and arranged to meet me in the lab to ask me questions about my code. She had the listing and I did not. She also asked about the design process and the coding process.

I was not under pressure about my code, but I was under a different kind of pressure. She was still able to determine to her satisfaction that I had written the code.

The school did have a policy on doing your own work. That is something your school should develop, and should use your situation to get started with. They also had a policy about the process of investigating infractions, and the prof and she followed it.

I think my point is that a face-to-face interview, teacher has the source, student does not, can allow the teacher to determine whether or not the student really knows what is there in the way that the author of the code should.

• $\begingroup$ Joel, I understand what you said, and I agree with you. I always have interviews and code reviews with the students. So there goes my question: I am 100% sure about who really made the work. Should I punish that student? In other answers people are saying that it might have happened involuntarily (GIT, ...)... although that might be the case, I guess that in most cases, the students simply exchange the code between themselves (via Facebook groups, Whatsapp, ...) $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 10:21

If your school does not have a code of conduct, then you need to write a set of understandings that you can give out to your classes. Ultimately, there are no fair responses without some kind of memorandum of understanding. In there, you will outline what you consider to be cheating, and where, exactly, the lines are.

If you want to take a slightly different approach, the lack of a school policy also creates an interesting opportunity for you to get a lot of student buy-in for a strong policy on cheating.

At the beginning of the year, show a few CS plagiarism policies to your students, and ask each student to write their own example of a policy that they would consider to be both fair and enforceable.

During the next period, have each student pair and share, and debate each other for 3 minutes, and then rate the other student's policy on a few key metrics. Then have them switch to a new pairing and do the same. Once every kid has rated a few policies, have them rate their own. Collect all of the policies, and say that you will go over the top 3 policies along with some of your own comments the next day.

On day 3, you now have the makings of a very healthy debate, and the setup for a class vote on a policy. You will need some sort of structure to facilitate (and vote on) document modifications, and an overall vote for adoption. What you will wind up with is a document that the students created democratically, that they can take ownership of, and that they will back. You've also started a very healthy relationship between your students and your course.

• $\begingroup$ Ben, my school has a code of conduct, but it does not say anything about this particular issue. Your idea about the debate is a very good one, but I teach in a higher education school where several of my "kids" are older than I am :) and I suppose I won't have time for that! But I will for sure start doing a debate about this issue on the first class of the semester. $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 10, 2017 at 20:59

I would recommend the same punishment for each party, for several reasons:

• If you get two near-identical projects, it can be nearly impossible to determine which was the original. If you can only punish the one who copied, then you won't be able to punish anyone without determining which is which, and people can cheat with impunity.
• Suppose that Alice and Bob are friends in the same class, and Alice asks Bob to let her copy an assignment. If it's known in advance that there will be no consequences for Bob even if they get caught, there's some social pressure to go along with it. But if both are punished, Bob can simply say he isn't willing to take the risk. The policy makes Bob less likely to aid in cheating and also lessens any social consequences for doing the right thing if he would have done so anyway.
• Helping someone else cheat is unethical, so I have no problem punishing someone who does so willingly.

But we do want to avoid punishing someone who unknowingly helps someone cheat. There are two likely scenarios here:

• Alice looks at Bob's assignment when Bob isn't paying attention. This is less of a problem in CS than it would be elsewhere, due to the large number of coding assignments; a quick glance generally won't be enough. But for instances where it might be... The students are informed that keeping their work from being copied is their own responsibility, but if a small enough portion of the answer is copied that this is a plausible scenario, I'd probably give them the benefit of the doubt anyway (especially since small similarities can happen by coincidence).
• Alice and Bob collaborate a bit more than they should have, but don't actually intend to cheat . I'm perfectly okay with students discussing assignments so long as they're helping each other learn the material instead of just copying answers, but sometimes the line between the two isn't perfectly clear. My policy here is to insist that if students collaborate (or ask for help on stackoverflow, for that matter), they cite their sources on the assignment. If too much of the answer came from another source, I might take off a few points or have them redo the assignment (or more likely, just let them know that in the future, they need to do more of the work on their own), but as long as they're honest about where it came from, there's no ethical violation.

• $\begingroup$ Bob is the author of his solutions. How can you forbid him to publish his own work? Plagiarism is the fault of the plagiazer not the original author. $\endgroup$ –  Džuris Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 0:31
• $\begingroup$ @Džuris Published? I'm talking about students copying code written for class projects; nothing's published anywhere (or worth publishing, for that matter). But if Bob had previously published code that he reused for the assignment, then the publication's timestamp would establish Bob as the original author, and I'd require Alice to cite that source just like anything else she found online. And if Bob only wrote the code for the assignment, he should hold off on publishing it until all the submissions are in. $\endgroup$ –  Ray Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 0:42
• 1 $\begingroup$ Ray, I agree with all your scenarios, and so far I have never punished the original author, but as you mentioned, that is giving them a sense that they can share what they want. In some way, it is kind of holding an exam solution and walk in the classroom showing the solution to the colleagues. The student is just showing the solutions… the colleagues may or may not copy them. $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 10:29

I've been on the end that my work was copied. Or rather, I sent my solution to a classmate (as I needed help with a bug), discussed it, and later found out that another classmate had exactly the same code as I sent to the first classmate, with the same comments, bugs and variable names (which, knowing me and my bad naming standards/hygiene at the time, would definitely have called out that it was not his code) and all.

While I am happy that I was not punished, I believe that the teacher should at least have talked with me about it. As it was now, I had to deal with "should I call out on my friend(s)?", "Do I dare tell the teacher that I let both of them copy my code?", "If I call out on the second guy, what will happen with the first that I asked for help?"

My advice: Talk to the student, the very least. It'll save them a lot of stress. I would only annul all the works if you believe that the copying is widespread.

I should mention though that we was encouraged to help each other, so that I asked the first guy for help was not strange. What was as bit on the line was the fact that I sent him the entirety of my code. If that's the case with your students, then I would really advice NOT to annul all the works. It make them much less prone to help each other in the future, and it would just create harsh feelings.

• $\begingroup$ In "My advice" I think you mean "to the professor". I think that is good advice, as are your reasons for it. You might clarify the post a bit with edit. $\endgroup$ –  Buffy Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 13:55

As mentioned, there are likely institutional guidelines for students handing in duplicated work. In my university this typically led to both students drawing the short straw (and as a result it nearly never happened).

Assuming the work is clearly not made independent, and you are not worried that the work may have been copied due to a weakness in the security of the university (and its way of working), then both parties are likely involved.

Therefore I would recommend you to be strict and simply both give them zero points. If one of the students has been unjustly treated he will likely complain. If a he can indeed indicate how he was not at fault you can always become more lenient (and moving in the reverse direction is likely not something you want to do).

• $\begingroup$ Hi Dennis! Welcome to Computer Science Educators ! I'm glad you were able to add a new perspective here. $\endgroup$ –  thesecretmaster ♦ Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 10:41
• $\begingroup$ I think that "guilty until proven innocent" isn't best practice in any field. There can be social pressure among students that push an innocent person to not speak up to defend themselves. Surely the system should be more fair. $\endgroup$ –  Buffy Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 11:13

As someone who had a friend accused of cheating, because someone's assignment was very similar, but who knew nothing of that person, the solution is simple. Take them both and assign them two very similar, but just slightly different problems of a similar type to the one given. If they can both do them, it's coincidence. If one can and one can't, you have identified the cheater. If they both can't, then maybe they helped each other too much, or both got their work from some 3rd party.

• 2 $\begingroup$ Hmmm. Doesn't that put more work on an innocent party? $\endgroup$ –  Buffy Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 0:23

Note: This answer specifically applies to programming-based assignments .

I'm a student, and I'd just like to add my opinion here. We're taught programming in school using Turbo C++ . Yeah. That ancient compiler which hasn't been updated in decades .

Needless to say, when we search for help and find samples of code on the internet, most of the code doesn't even compile.

And to add to that, our teachers... Aren't always able to teach very well, due to time constraints or whatever.

I happen to be one of the the best students in class, and often my classmates will ask me to help them out. Whenever possible I'll take a look at their code and point out mistakes, but that's tough to do with a few dozen students in the class.

So sometimes I'll leave my code up and let the students take reference from it, but ask them to write the code themselves. Sure, there are a few kids who just straight up copy it, but I feel that the number of students benefiting learning from it outweighs that.

• $\begingroup$ Additional details: High school, none of us have been taught programming before except basic HTML. I have been programming for years, and the teachers are aware of the fact that students ask me for help, sometimes they're even sent to me by them... $\endgroup$ –  undo Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 6:16
• $\begingroup$ Hi, Rahul2001! First off, thoughtful student responses are certainly welcome in this community, so welcome to Computer Science Educators ! This answer has a few problems, however. First, it violates the Be Nice policy. Second, it isn't really an answer to OP's question. I have edited for the first problem, but the second one only you can fix. (BTW, don't worry, we still like you. I promise that you aren't the first person to have trouble with an initial post, and you won't be the last!) $\endgroup$ –  Ben I. ♦ Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 10:17
• $\begingroup$ @Rahul2001 I understand what you are saying. The teachers can't cover every single student at the same time, so to me it is OK if you have a student looking at someone's code to have a board idea about the solution or to overcome a specific difficulty. On the other side, I feel that it is not so correct when a student simply grabs the colleagues code and submit the code as being written by themselves. My initial question was about this last scenario. ;) $\endgroup$ –  Nuno Gil Fonseca Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 10:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged plagiarism or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• My colleagues and I are travelling to UK as delegates in an event and the company is paying for all our travel expenses. what documents are required
• Can a rope thrower act as a propulsion method for land based craft?
• How to connect ceramic resonator to OSC_IN/OSC_OUT pins of CH32V203 MCU?
• What is this strengthening dent called in a sheet metal part?
• My visit is for two weeks but my host bought insurance for two months is it okay
• I'm trying to remember a novel about an asteroid threatening to destroy the earth. I remember seeing the phrase "SHIVA IS COMING" on the cover
• `Drop` for list of elements of different dimensions
• I don’t know what to buy! Again!
• Which programming language/environment pioneered row-major array order?
• Is every recursively axiomatizable and consistent theory interpretable in the true arithmetic (TA)?
• What would be non-slang equivalent of "copium"?
• What is an intuitive way to rename a column in a Dataset?
• Aligning Grid elements by symbol for "equals" and symbol for "approximately equals"
• What was I thinking when I made this grid?
• How much payload could the falcon 9 send to geostationary orbit?
• How can these humans cross the ocean(s) at the first possible chance?
• Why is one of the Intel 8042 keyboard controller outputs inverted?
• What happens when a helicopter loses the engine and autorotation is not initiated?
• Running different laser diodes using a single DC Source
• Using Thin Lens Equation to find how far 1972 Blue Marble photo was taken
• How to attach a 4x8 plywood to a air hockey table
• Using "no" at the end of a statement instead of "isn't it"?
• Would Camus say that any philosopher who denies the absurd is intellectually dishonest?
• Do metal objects attract lightning?

Academic Integrity at MIT

A handbook for students, search form, copying and other forms of cheating.

While guidelines on the acceptable level collaboration vary from class to class, all MIT instructors agree on one principle: copying from other students, from old course “bibles,” or from solutions on OCW sites is considered cheating and is never permitted .

Collaboration works for you; copying works against you.

If you copy, you are less prepared.

MIT Professor David E. Pritchard, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics, has said,“Doing the work trumps native ability.” Those who invest the time working through the problem sets are better prepared to answer exam questions that call for conceptual thinking.

If you copy, you aren’t learning.

Research done in 2010 by Professor Pritchard and others showed that those who copied more than 30% of the answers on problem sets were more than three times as likely to fail the subject than those who did not copy.

(Source: Pritchard, D.E. What are students learning and from what activity? Plenary speech presented at Fifth Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium 2010. Retrieved in July 2019 from http://linc.mit.edu/linc2010/proceedings/plenary-Pritchard.pdf )

If you copy, you violate the principles of academic integrity.

Copying is cheating. When you fail to uphold the principles of academic integrity, you compromise yourself and the Institute.

If you collaborate, you learn from your peers.

Every student brings a unique perspective, experience, and level of knowledge to a collaborative effort. Through discussion and joint problem solving, you are exposed to new approaches and new perspectives that contribute to your learning.

If you collaborate, you learn to work on a team

Gaining the skills to be an effective team member is fundamental to your success as a student, researcher and professional. As you collaborate with your peers, you will face the challenges and rewards of the collegial process.

Beyond Copying

Whether because of high demands on your time or uncertainty about your academic capabilities, you may be tempted to cheat in your academic work.  While copying is the most prevalent form of cheating, dishonest behavior includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Changing the answers on an exam for re-grade.

Misrepresenting a family or personal situation to get an extension.

Using prohibited resources during a test or other academic work.

Forging a faculty member’s signature on a permission form or add/drop form.

Falsifying data or claiming to have done research you did not do.

Claiming work of others as your own by deliberately not citing them.

Assisting another student in doing any of the above.

(Adapted from: Jordan, David K.  (1996).  “Academic Integrity and Cheating.”  Retrieved from http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/cheat.html  in July 2019.)

If you are tempted to cheat, think twice.  Do not use the excuse that “everybody does it.” Think through the consequences for yourself and others. Those who cheat diminish themselves and the Institute. Cheating can also negatively impact other students who do their work honestly.

If you observe another student cheating, you are encouraged to report this to your instructor or supervisor, the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards , or reach out to the Ombuds Office for advice.

Homework – Top 3 Pros and Cons

Pro/Con Arguments | Discussion Questions | Take Action | Sources | More Debates

From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [ 1 ]

While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [ 45 ]

In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann , who encountered the idea in Prussia. [ 45 ]

In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal , decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ]

Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War . And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [ 3 ] [ 45 ]

A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [ 4 ] [ 44 ]

Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [ 47 ]

Is Homework Beneficial?

Pro 1 Homework improves student achievement. Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicated that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” [ 6 ] Students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework on both standardized tests and grades. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take-home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school. [ 10 ] Read More

Pro 2 Homework helps to reinforce classroom learning, while developing good study habits and life skills. Students typically retain only 50% of the information teachers provide in class, and they need to apply that information in order to truly learn it. Abby Freireich and Brian Platzer, co-founders of Teachers Who Tutor NYC, explained, “at-home assignments help students learn the material taught in class. Students require independent practice to internalize new concepts… [And] these assignments can provide valuable data for teachers about how well students understand the curriculum.” [ 11 ] [ 49 ] Elementary school students who were taught “strategies to organize and complete homework,” such as prioritizing homework activities, collecting study materials, note-taking, and following directions, showed increased grades and more positive comments on report cards. [ 17 ] Research by the City University of New York noted that “students who engage in self-regulatory processes while completing homework,” such as goal-setting, time management, and remaining focused, “are generally more motivated and are higher achievers than those who do not use these processes.” [ 18 ] Homework also helps students develop key skills that they’ll use throughout their lives: accountability, autonomy, discipline, time management, self-direction, critical thinking, and independent problem-solving. Freireich and Platzer noted that “homework helps students acquire the skills needed to plan, organize, and complete their work.” [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 49 ] Read More

Pro 3 Homework allows parents to be involved with children’s learning. Thanks to take-home assignments, parents are able to track what their children are learning at school as well as their academic strengths and weaknesses. [ 12 ] Data from a nationwide sample of elementary school students show that parental involvement in homework can improve class performance, especially among economically disadvantaged African-American and Hispanic students. [ 20 ] Research from Johns Hopkins University found that an interactive homework process known as TIPS (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork) improves student achievement: “Students in the TIPS group earned significantly higher report card grades after 18 weeks (1 TIPS assignment per week) than did non-TIPS students.” [ 21 ] Homework can also help clue parents in to the existence of any learning disabilities their children may have, allowing them to get help and adjust learning strategies as needed. Duke University Professor Harris Cooper noted, “Two parents once told me they refused to believe their child had a learning disability until homework revealed it to them.” [ 12 ] Read More

Con 1 Too much homework can be harmful. A poll of California high school students found that 59% thought they had too much homework. 82% of respondents said that they were “often or always stressed by schoolwork.” High-achieving high school students said too much homework leads to sleep deprivation and other health problems such as headaches, exhaustion, weight loss, and stomach problems. [ 24 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] Alfie Kohn, an education and parenting expert, said, “Kids should have a chance to just be kids… it’s absurd to insist that children must be engaged in constructive activities right up until their heads hit the pillow.” [ 27 ] Emmy Kang, a mental health counselor, explained, “More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies.” [ 48 ] Excessive homework can also lead to cheating: 90% of middle school students and 67% of high school students admit to copying someone else’s homework, and 43% of college students engaged in “unauthorized collaboration” on out-of-class assignments. Even parents take shortcuts on homework: 43% of those surveyed admitted to having completed a child’s assignment for them. [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 2 Homework exacerbates the digital divide or homework gap. Kiara Taylor, financial expert, defined the digital divide as “the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern information and communications technology and those that don’t. Though the term now encompasses the technical and financial ability to utilize available technology—along with access (or a lack of access) to the Internet—the gap it refers to is constantly shifting with the development of technology.” For students, this is often called the homework gap. [ 50 ] [ 51 ] 30% (about 15 to 16 million) public school students either did not have an adequate internet connection or an appropriate device, or both, for distance learning. Completing homework for these students is more complicated (having to find a safe place with an internet connection, or borrowing a laptop, for example) or impossible. [ 51 ] A Hispanic Heritage Foundation study found that 96.5% of students across the country needed to use the internet for homework, and nearly half reported they were sometimes unable to complete their homework due to lack of access to the internet or a computer, which often resulted in lower grades. [ 37 ] [ 38 ] One study concluded that homework increases social inequality because it “potentially serves as a mechanism to further advantage those students who already experience some privilege in the school system while further disadvantaging those who may already be in a marginalized position.” [ 39 ] Read More

Con 3 Homework does not help younger students, and may not help high school students. We’ve known for a while that homework does not help elementary students. A 2006 study found that “homework had no association with achievement gains” when measured by standardized tests results or grades. [ 7 ] Fourth grade students who did no homework got roughly the same score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam as those who did 30 minutes of homework a night. Students who did 45 minutes or more of homework a night actually did worse. [ 41 ] Temple University professor Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek said that homework is not the most effective tool for young learners to apply new information: “They’re learning way more important skills when they’re not doing their homework.” [ 42 ] In fact, homework may not be helpful at the high school level either. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, stated, “I interviewed high school teachers who completely stopped giving homework and there was no downside, it was all upside.” He explains, “just because the same kids who get more homework do a little better on tests, doesn’t mean the homework made that happen.” [ 52 ] Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Is homework beneficial? Consider the study data, your personal experience, and other types of information. Explain your answer(s).

2. If homework were banned, what other educational strategies would help students learn classroom material? Explain your answer(s).

3. How has homework been helpful to you personally? How has homework been unhelpful to you personally? Make carefully considered lists for both sides.

Take Action

1. Examine an argument in favor of quality homework assignments from Janine Bempechat.

2. Explore Oxford Learning’s infographic on the effects of homework on students.

3. Consider Joseph Lathan’s argument that homework promotes inequality .

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

More School Debate Topics

Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? – Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.

Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? – Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.

Should Corporal Punishment Be Used in K-12 Schools? – Proponents say corporal punishment is an appropriate discipline. Opponents say it inflicts long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

• August 25 BTSD kicks off new school year on right note
• August 25 The foundation of democracy: Voting education in school
• July 12 Utopia or Dystopia? The hidden history of Bay Area cults
• June 29 Public protests and perspectives
• June 27 Reflejando otra vez con los ELD seniors
• June 27 A letter to sophomores: how to run next year’s marathon
• June 22 What it means to be a Giant
• June 21 Senior Maze
• June 21 Spring Sports Recap
• June 20 The bulging red bumps of your teen years should not be normalized: Acne vulgaris, a detrimentally neglected disease
• June 15 Redwood class of 2024 graduates amid tears, cheers and airhorns: A celebration to remember
• June 13 El fútbol en España: un pilar cultural

Redwood Bark

• Top Culture

Epidemic of copying homework catalyzed by technology

What is it that leads students to neglect their own thoughts and brainlessly transcribe someone else’s for a passing grade? Similar to the bubonic plague, smallpox and Ebola, copying homework is the next epidemic, and it’s already here.

The March Bark survey found that 80 percent of Redwood students copy homework at least once a month. In 2014, a similar Bark survey found that only 53 percent of students were copying with that frequency.

Increased technology use has contributed to the simplification of copying homework. In 2015, 64 percent of American adults owned a smartphone and the number for minors was hypothesized to be even more, according to the Pew Research Center. Another study in January found that now nearly 77 percent of American adults own a smartphone, presumably with an increased number for teenagers.

The recent Bark survey found that nearly five times the amount of students copy homework daily than three years ago in a 2014 Bark survey of similar caliber.

Sophomore “Erica” who wished to remain anonymous, admitted to copying homework a few times per week and addressed the prevalence of copying homework. Though Erica copies homework, she has been able to maintain passing grades in all of her classes, causing her to question the value of homework in the first place.

“Sometimes I don’t know how to do [homework], sometimes I don’t want to do it, sometimes I don’t have time to do it,” Erica said. “My answers aren’t always correct so if other people’s are, that’s better for the tests.”

Erica, along with 13 percent of students, according to a March self-representative Bark survey, admit to receiving homework a few times a week. Erica mostly copies homework via texting.

Chemistry teacher Marissa Peck recognized that copying homework was more difficult without the use of technology.

“[Copying was not as frequent when I was in school] mostly because we didn’t have phones that took pictures,” Peck said. “The main change I’ve seen over the last few years is that students take a picture of [homework] on their phone. I see students with someone else’s assignment pulled up on their phone and they’re just wholesale copying off of it, and that’s very frustrating.”

Guidance counselor Candace Gulden attributed the increase of students who copy homework to the intense academic culture at Redwood.

“I think students [copy homework] because they’re overwhelmed. One thing that I wish students would do is recognize that homework is there for you to practice and learn, you’re not really gaining anything by copying someone’s homework. You haven’t learned anything, you haven’t gained any skills,” Gulden said.

Peck stated that copying does not serve the ultimate purpose of homework: to learn and understand the classwork.

“I definitely have seen [copying]. I myself found that you don’t learn it as well, and it’s harder down the road,” Peck said. “I’m not assigning homework so they have more to do. It’s to reach the goal of learning something . ”

Peck grades a few assignments for each unit of Chemistry based on accuracy, which could arguably increase pressure on students to complete assignments correctly. However, she believes it allows her to see where students are, and for students to self-evaluate.

“I make that decision to check in and see how students are doing, to give students more feedback from me so that they can understand better where they’re making mistakes, and to know if I need to teach something. Teachers need to get feedback too, if I need to focus on one area. It’s for the students, but it’s also good information for me,” Peck said.

According to the Tamalpais Union High School District Parent/Student Handbook, repercussions for copying work can be severe. The handbook states that cheating can be grounds for suspension and even expulsion. Despite these dangers, 10 percent of students self-reported in the March Bark survey to copying homework daily. In 2014, only 2 percent of students did so in a Bark survey.

As a teenager’s prefrontal cortex and brain continue to develop, decision making is often impaired and taking risks is more appealing as it produces more of an adrenaline rush. Copying homework doesn’t exactly get your heart pumping, but students are still widely unaware of the consequences that come with copying homework, especially when their main focus is getting a passing grade. Because it is such a common occurrence, cheating doesn’t have any negative connotations

Erica stated that sometimes she even copies homework in class. Teachers like Peck use a variety of ways to minimize cheating during classes and especially on tests. Peck makes four different versions of tests to assure that students at the same table are not tempted to glance at another paper. In the future, she hopes to even add variety to homework assignments and incorporate more open ended questions which are more difficult to replicate from another student.

While the consequences can be extreme, some students use copying homework as a way to understand material with more clarity, since they can model their homework from the correct answers. Erica said she is more likely to do homework if there is an answer key accessible for her.

“Sometimes I don’t know how to do [the homework], but if someone else shows me, I can figure it out from their

answers,” Erica said.

Erica began copying homework in the early years of middle school. This year, she has began asking for homework from her peers more often with a busier schedule and harder classes. Not all of Erica’s classes correct homework before testing, and she believes that seeing other student’s work can be a good tool for studying and checking her own knowledge.

Forgetting your moral compass and succumbing to the rampant cheating has become a routine high school experience.

“Sometimes students don’t view it as cheating. When they’re looking at their friend’s assignment, or taking a picture of the answer key, those things really are cheating. Sometimes students don’t view, ‘ oh I’m giving my paper to my friend ’ as they are cheating too… There’s a little misunderstanding about what cheating is,” Peck said.

Gulden continues to reinforce her ideas to minimize cheating at Redwood, including helping students find their limits before they are pushed too far.

“I wish that students could see that big picture,” Gulden said. “I wish students would take a less rigorous schedule so they could focus more on learning each subject.”

However, despite the clear immorality of copying homework, one must wonder why they resort to this.

Many staff members recognize the intensity of Redwood’s cutthroat academic culture. However, faculty still have to teach a full curriculum and with students all taking various classes, it is difficult to optimize the homework load so that it is balanced for all students.

“I think there’s a combination of things going on. I think students specifically here have a lot on their plates. I do understand that when [students] get home they have sports, or drama commitments, or music commitments, or jobs. They have a lot of things they need to do and obligations,” Peck said. “Sometimes [cheating] is easier to do, and students need to do it.”

Gulden said despite hearing about cases of copying homework, it generally does not affect her written college recommendations, unless she encounters a repeat offender. Even then, Gulden generally works with students to get to the bottom of their issues.

“A lot of what we’re learning in school is to be able to function as an adult. I can’t just cheat off my colleagues or copy their assignments, you have to learn to be able to do these things on your own,” Gulden said.

Ultimately, students all develop unique paths through adolescence. Developing a habit of cheating creates a lack in work ethic and persistence that can halt student’s futures.

However, copying homework is a daunting issue to fix. In the last three years, the percentage of students copying homework has increased significantly, and the advances in technology will continue allowing for easy, accessible sharing. Copying homework may be immoral, but the workload students face and lack of work ethic will be the influencing factor on this generation’s leaders.

• copying homework

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to penalize students who copy each other but don't realize they have plagiarized?

I gave my students an opportunity to rewrite one of their papers for extra points. As I was grading, I realized that two papers were almost identical. They had a similar structure, organization, and presented ideas in a similar manner. I asked the students about plagiarism but they denied it. Since it was a rewrite, I told them that I wouldn't add any points to their grades and they should never do this again.

One of the students, however, emailed me stating that she is worried their final assignments might look similar as well. She was trying to convince me that her paper is her original work and the second student "worked really hard to make sure their papers don't look alike!".

She included screen shots of their fb conversation as evidence. In FB conversation the one with the original work is telling her friend to use her paper as a basis but change the sentences and examples so it won't look like plagiarism.

This is a clear case of plagiarism. Correct? I am not sure how to handle it. I know they are not realizing that's plagiarism, otherwise they wouldn't have shared those fb conversations. So I don't want to report to the school (yet!). But I am also not sure how to penalize them? Give a zero for the assignment? What do you recommend? Should I give zeros to both of them?

• 81 The student with the original work has not completed plagiarism. She may have committed academic misconduct if the policy explicitly says do not share your work. The second student has committed plagiarism. –  StrongBad Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 0:14
• 32 Maybe you should give them an extra assignment – one where they have to write a 1-2 page paper on this topic: What Is Plagiarism? –  J.R. Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 11:45
• 4 Make them write the exactly same paper 10 times. Longhand. And they will be enlightened. ;-) –  Captain Emacs Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 12:56
• 25 I went to public schools - plagiarism is redundantly covered, repeatedly, over and over. For emphasis. They're being lazy and playing dumb, but they know exactly what they're doing. They're testing you and think you're too lazy to throw the book at them. Don't let them get away with it. –  Aaron Hall Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 13:10
• 5 It sounds like the students don't completely understand what constitutes plagiarism. You'll at least need to help them understand what constitutes plagiarism, whatever you choose to do in relation to the assignment. –  NeutronStar Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 14:34

7 Answers 7

This isn't just plagarism - it's out and out cheating - and both students are guilty and one of them has kindly produced proof of their guilt. I would escalate to whatever process is usually undertaken for cheating students.

That they apparently have failed to grasp the concept doesn't make them any less guilty of the infringement and it simply doesn't matter whether they "meant to cheat" - they did.

The appropriate way to deal with cheating students is to escalate it to the system for dealing with cheating students. You should trust that this process will take their ignorance into account while (a) being fair to other students and (b) expressing the appropriate level of opprobrium for their actions.

• 23 That they apparently have failed to grasp the concept doesn't make them any less guilty of the infringement. Actually it precisely does make them less guilty . That is a well-established principle of the law, known as mens rea . See my answer. –  Dan Romik Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 18:55
• 34 @DanRomik Mens rea applies to the offense - not to the knowledge of the law . Mens rea applies when your actions accidentally cause an offense - these are typically cases of neglect. However those students knew they are copying their works , they just didn't know that it's an offense. Different concept applies there, called Ignorantia juris non excusat . –  Tomáš Zato Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 14:18
• 4 It simply doesn't matter whether they "meant to cheat" - they did. The appropriate way to deal with cheating students is to escalate it to the system for dealing with cheating students - that process should take their ignorance into account while (a) being fair to other students and (b) expressing the appropriate level of opprobrium for their actions. –  Jack Aidley Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 15:32
• 5 Thanks! Administration recommended the same thing. I was worried because I knew it would show up in their records but apparently they would just get a warning for the first time. After meeting with one of them, the story got more complicated. Therefore, I think asking for the professional advice of more experienced people would be the best option. –  Kar Masia Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 22:40
• 5 @TomášZato - fun fact: that principal was developed in the beginnings of the ancient Roman Empire when the plebeians demanded to know the laws so that the learned people could not make up laws. After some demonstrations, the government put up the Twelve Tables . This made it so that all citizens will be held liable for any unlawful actions, and ignorance of the law is no longer an excuse because the laws are publicly available. –  Daniel Commented Mar 22, 2016 at 14:55

Learn about your school's policy. Learn about whether your school has an honor code, defines plagiarism in its catalog, or requires mandatory training such as an online orientation. Many schools have specific rules about what kind of punishments are allowed, and these rules may be based on their own interpretations of local laws or their past experiences with lawsuits. For example, my school's policy specifically tells us that we are not allowed to give a student a failing grade in the course for dishonesty, and it also spells out different levels of consequences for a first and second offense.

Look at your own syllabus to see what you said about plagiarism; usually administrators will support you on anything that's laid out clearly in your syllabus.

Don't assume that administrators will support you. Their priorities may be very, very different from yours.

Once you have done all your homework, talk to your dean and propose how you want to handle the issue. Make sure your dean is on board with what you plan to do. Consider "soft" penalties such as forcing the students to meet with the dean.

• 11 Thank you! That is a lot of work. I cannot say I am looking forward to it! –  Kar Masia Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 0:18
• 2 Sad that the administrators might not be on the side of the instructor. When I was teaching, it was a great comfort to know that my back was guarded by a bureaucracy larger than any of us. It was particularly helpful when dealing with the litigiously unreasonable. –  Ryan Reich Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15
• 18 "we are not allowed to give a student a failing grade in the course for dishonesty..." Boy, is that backwards. I would understand if you were required to pass someone who could honestly demonstrate competence in the material even if they had lied about doing their homework—but a blanket rule that you can't fail someone for dishonesty? Even if they cheat, plagiarize, and don't actually learn the subject themselves? Yeesh. –  Wildcard Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 8:33
• 30 Wildcard, you may be misinterpreting the statement. At our University we cannot alter grades for academic misconduct, but we can and should report the student to the honor council, which can and will give them a "special F" for the course if they are "convicted." Not only do they fail, but they have a permanent "black spot" on their record. Failing them would actually be a mercy we are not allowed to do, and skip their "due process." –  Richard Rast Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 9:57
• Similarly, in France higher education teachers are not allowed to grade taking into account assumed fraud. Frauds and misconducts should be dealt with by a special committee. The main reason is that students have the right to be trialled fairly, including seeking legal advice by an lawyer. A benefit of this approach is that when student cheat repeatedly but get caught only every now and then, precedents show up at the committee, not if different teachers dealt with the matters discretely. –  Benoît Kloeckner Commented Mar 22, 2016 at 11:26

This is a matter of education. Some students think plagiarism is only copy and pasting from one another. They also think placing a citation is a license to copy. Some also define it as ok if software, eg turnitin, cannot detect it.

In my case I make it clear. If they steal one sentence it is an automatic zero. It is also a zero if they steal the structure of a paragraph or section. These need to be emphasized multiple times until they eject their old ways out of their system.

• 21 +1 This is the real problem. If these students don't think they've committed plagiarism, you need to make sure they learn and understand that they did. It's not about giving them the correct grade or penalty, but about making damn sure that they understand the principle, and never forget it. The grade is secondary. –  Peter Bloem Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 9:22
• 7 Honestly, I have been a bit irritated by the two of them throughout the quarter, especially the one who copied the work. They kept challenging me on their grades constantly. The one who copied the work emailed me saying "if it will make you feel better, I will write the essay again!". I don't know if it's because I am a new teacher or I am being oversensitive, but that sounds rude. It also shows she knows what she did was wrong! –  Kar Masia Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 6:45
• 10 @Karin These kids are trying to walk all over you. They seem the type that will scheme and whine and cry to get their way. Schools are full of these kids - they'll do anything but the work they're supposed to do to try to scratch together a higher grade for themselves. It's a manipulation game and every time you let them win, give them some slack or leeway, extra chances, you are encouraging this awful behaviour. For the sake of those who will have to deal with these creatures as adults in the workplace, please dispense the discipline now. –  J... Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 11:05
• 1 @Peter I guess branding irons are out of question... –  Mindwin Remember Monica Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 12:54
• 5 Oh I agree! They are trying to push boundaries. I gave extensive comments on second student's assignment. It was a 3 page paper, and I had 2-3 long comments per paragraph. She could have fixed her own paper but instead chose to use someone else's work. There is a section on academic misconduct in my syllabus, the paper was only 3 pages double spaced, it was from the material we discussed in the class, and I told her how to fix her paper.There was also the option of sending me outlines to look over before submitting the papers. Btw, Administration told me to file a report. –  Kar Masia Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 22:33

I'm going to disagree with Ben Crowell's answer, despite it being well-written and mostly sensible except for one crucial detail. The students have perhaps committed what we technically define as plagiarism (or more precisely, as StrongBad commented, one of them committed plagiarism and the other allowed her work to be used), but the element of mens rea , the "guilty mind" that we consider morally necessary to inflict punishment, is clearly lacking. So my verdict is not guilty .

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how much we educators wring our hands about "kids these days". If someone clearly doesn't know that a behavior is wrong then it is foolish and harmful to penalize them for it. It is our job to educate students about what constitutes plagiarism and what are the standards we expect of them for independent work and citation of sources. All the things that Ben Crowell's answer lists are basically irrelevant, since if a student is showing you a facebook conversation proving that they did not realize what they were doing is plagiarism, that means your institution has failed to properly educate the students about this subject, whether it's written in the catalog or not.

I should add that in my opinion part of the problem with this common misunderstanding of plagiarism by students is that plagiarism is in fact quite a subtle concept, and that our expectations of how fast and easily students can understand and adapt to it are simply unrealistic. To criminalize a behavior that can result from a misunderstanding or lack of sophistication that is very common among students entering university is very problematic, and can backfire in all sorts of unexpected ways. (On the other hand, of course plagiarism is a real problem that needs to be dealt with; I don't have all the answers about what is the correct approach or balance to strike, and a detailed discussion of this topic is in any case beyond the scope of this question.)

To summarize, in my opinion it would be wrong to penalize the students in this case . You can and should use this as a teaching opportunity, and it would be reasonable to require the plagiarizing student to submit a revised paper that satisfies your standards for academic writing, after very clearly and carefully explaining to her what those standards are. This is also an opportunity for all of us to reflect on what we are trying to achieve with various "zero tolerance" policies that impose an unrealistically high standard of behavior on students who may not be adequately prepared to be capable of satisfying those lofty standards.

Edit: thanks to all the commenters for their lively and intelligent discussion and criticism of my answer. You have persuaded me that the answer is perhaps more subjective than I thought. I am willing to tone down my recommendation and say that the plagiarizing student may be deserving of punishment. I think ultimately it would all depend on specific details about the facebook conversation and other evidence that we do not have. At the same time, given the information presented in the question I still think an educational, rather than punitive, approach, would be the most appropriate one in this case. The key question that needs to be answered in my opinion is whether the student "knew what she was doing" in the sense that she had an understanding that basing her paper off of another student's paper was wrong. It doesn't sound like she did, but I'm only speculating and am open to changing my mind about this if presented with new information.

• 39 I think this is a misunderstanding of the concept of mens rea. The student knew what they were doing, even if they didn't know that it would be classified as plagiarism, so I would say they did have mens rea. If they had read someone else's work years before and then unwittingly reproduced the argument without citing that might be plagiarising without mens rea. –  bdsl Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 16:49
• 11 I mean it was done on purpose, it wasn't an accident. The students understood their own actions, they just didn't fully understand the concept of plagiarism. –  bdsl Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 17:57
• 7 A good number of university plagiarism policies I'm familiar with have no requirement that students understand that they are committing plagiarism before they can be found guilty of it. Many policies explicitly state that plagiarism will be treated seriously regardless of whether students know they are violating the policy. The student didn't need to know he was committing plagiarism; he just needed to know that he was copying another student's work. Similarly, a bank robber doesn't need to know robbery is against the law, just that he intended to permanently take someone else's money. –  Zach Lipton Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 19:36
• 14 @DanRomik I certainly respect using your own judgment and not wanting to take drastic measures, but I don't consider this "mild plagiarism" at all. It seems one student did an assignment (actually, multiple assignments) and shared it in its entirety with another student, who did a sloppy job of rewriting a few bits and turned it in as his own work. In other words: multiple entire assignments containing zero original work. That's no missing footnote or quotation marks, which can be honest mistakes. If the students thought this was a group project, I can understand, but that's not the case here. –  Zach Lipton Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 20:01
• 19 -1. I strongly disagree with this answer. If we had to prove a "guilty mind" before any kind of punishment, the law would be a complete joke. The students might have not been aware of the concrete consequences of their actions, but they knew that what they were doing had quirks (otherwise, why change the paper at all?). What will they (and others) learn if this goes unpunished? –  Martin Argerami Commented Mar 20, 2016 at 21:11

Some students, myself in particular, get taught incorrectly in the early years of education that "putting something in your own words" is how to avoid plagiarism. This is of course, overly simplistic and wrong of course. If you give both students the benefit of the doubt, that neither know what plagiarism is, I don't think they should be penalized for this naivety.

I think you should probably invite the students to your office to teach them or send around the school's academic honesty guide to all your students (it should be pretty small and thoroughly define the terms it uses). If this is happening to one pair, it is likely happening to others or these two students are doing similar in other courses. Example: Jill reads something online and simply rewords it for the report while maintaining the structure and flow of the original material.

• 5 This myth continues well beyond the “early years” of education. –  gerrit Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 17:45

Honestly, I have been a bit irritated by the two of them throughout the quarter, especially the one who copied the work. They kept challenging me on their grades constantly. The one who copied the work emailed me saying "if it will make you feel better, I will write the essay again!"

It sounds like you have a student who is eager to learn how to do the right thing and get it right, even if she isn't doing so right now. This is a good thing because you have a much stronger opportunity for a teachable moment where the teaching is more likely to be effective, than a student whose attitude is "I'll try this minimum that I think might scrape by, and in the unlikely event someone is paying enough attention to catch it, oh well, that'll just be the end result." Further, you have students who care about their grades, and you control at least one of those, so you have some leverage that seems likely to be effective.

How about having that student write the essay - or a similar one on the same topic or another topic still related to your course - in a supervised environment* where she would have no access to classmates' work? If network-isolated, you might have to provide some printed reference material, but (a) it might be a good thing for students to get at least one experience writing in that way and (b) this exercise/test is focusing more on the student's ability to critically analyze content and discuss the material with some potentially original insights, than on breadth of a background literature search.

You do apparently need to teach the distinction between copyright infringement (which involves copying the particular expression of ideas, and for which paraphrasing all the content is a valid way around), plagiarism (which relates more to passing off another person's ideas as one's own), and failing to write original content/ideas (which may involve proper citation of the others' ideas and is honest, but may not meet the course requirements for a top grade). It appears the students in question are confusing the first two, and those in the third sentence of Prof. Santa Claus's answer ("They also think placing a citation is a license to copy") are confusing the latter two. These distinctions are not obvious and the ethics of each are not universal. It does take teaching them, and it might be worth you having a conversation with the dean to try to make sure this gets into the curriculum in a first semester writing course or something like that.

Here, your students at least seem willing to learn. Good luck making the most of the teaching opportunity!

(*): Where there are more people present than just you and the student, in case the student would otherwise come up with false accusations against you should she receive a poor course grade.

• 3 Thanks for the comment! I learned my lesson for future classes! rewriting the essays is not an option. I gave students extensive comments on their papers. Instead of fixing her own work, one of them copied her friend's work. I don't think the issue is her eagerness to learn but her obsession with grades. I told her she wasn't getting good grades because she didn't understand the nuances of the arguments and offered her help if she needed. Idk, my skin might become thicker once I do this often, but I am very exhausted right now! Teaching is very difficult! –  Kar Masia Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 23:14

When my mom was a TA back in the day, she had a similar situation where one student thought she was helping her friend by letting her see the paper, but the second student was straight-up copying. My mom and the TA of the other student came up with this idea: Grade the paper as though it were submitted singularly. Then, go to both students and let them decide how they want to split the points. For instance, if it were worth 80 points, they could do a 40-40 split, or the original writer could take all, or whatever else.

• 3 Do you know how the two decided? –  jakebeal Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 18:27
• Sounds a lot like "giving an F for cheating." –  user28174 Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 1:32
• This is in fact the strategy i think works best is. It works even better if you announce the policy beforehand as it makes it implicitly understood that its a bad idea in general, also makes a 3 way split impossible. But then you get these papers where they declare the WANT a 60-40 split. –  joojaa Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 5:45
• @ joojaa 60-40 split would come out as 48 and 32, but I would say this is just a bad way to do it. At least one of them is cheating. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing others your work but you do risk them stealing it and the lecturer not knowing who it belongs to. –  rom016 Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 13:34
• 1 @jakebeal In my mom's case, they split it evenly (much to her surprise). –  RblDiver Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 14:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged plagiarism ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Why doesn't the world fill with time travelers?
• Using "no" at the end of a statement instead of "isn't it"?
• How to volunteer as a temporary research assistant?
• What was I thinking when I made this grid?
• How do you say "head tilt“ in Chinese?
• Can a 2-sphere be squashed flat?
• Are all scratch orgs created with an org shape trial orgs?
• If inflation/cost of living is such a complex difficult problem, then why has the price of drugs been absoultly perfectly stable my whole life?
• How much payload could the falcon 9 send to geostationary orbit?
• Fill a grid with numbers so that each row/column calculation yields the same number
• Should I report a review I suspect to be AI-generated?
• Purpose of burn permit?
• Philosophies about how childhood beliefs influence / shape adult thoughts
• vNM theorem for finitely additive measure?
• Simple casino game
• Do the amplitude and frequency of gravitational waves emitted by binary stars change as the stars get closer together?
• How long does it take to achieve buoyancy in a body of water?
• Stuck on Sokoban
• My visit is for two weeks but my host bought insurance for two months is it okay
• Exact time point of assignment
• How does \vdotswithin work?
• Is having negative voltages on a MOSFET gate a good idea?
• Is there a faster way of expanding multiple polynomials with power?
• Aligning Grid elements by symbol for "equals" and symbol for "approximately equals"

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Academic dishonesty when doing homework: How digital technologies are put to bad use in secondary schools

Juliette c. désiron.

Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Dominik Petko

Associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in SISS base at 10.23662/FORS-DS-1285-1, reference number 1285.

The growth in digital technologies in recent decades has offered many opportunities to support students’ learning and homework completion. However, it has also contributed to expanding the field of possibilities concerning homework avoidance. Although studies have investigated the factors of academic dishonesty, the focus has often been on college students and formal assessments. The present study aimed to determine what predicts homework avoidance using digital resources and whether engaging in these practices is another predictor of test performance. To address these questions, we analyzed data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2018 survey, which contained additional questionnaires addressing this issue, for the Swiss students. The results showed that about half of the students engaged in one kind or another of digitally-supported practices for homework avoidance at least once or twice a week. Students who were more likely to use digital resources to engage in dishonest practices were males who did not put much effort into their homework and were enrolled in non-higher education-oriented school programs. Further, we found that digitally-supported homework avoidance was a significant negative predictor of test performance when considering information and communication technology predictors. Thus, the present study not only expands the knowledge regarding the predictors of academic dishonesty with digital resources, but also confirms the negative impact of such practices on learning.

Introduction

Academic dishonesty is a widespread and perpetual issue for teachers made even more easier to perpetrate with the rise of digital technologies (Blau & Eshet-Alkalai, 2017 ; Ma et al., 2008 ). Definitions vary but overall an academically dishonest practices correspond to learners engaging in unauthorized practice such as cheating and plagiarism. Differences in engaging in those two types of practices mainly resides in students’ perception that plagiarism is worse than cheating (Evering & Moorman, 2012 ; McCabe, 2005 ). Plagiarism is usually defined as the unethical act of copying part or all of someone else’s work, with or without editing it, while cheating is more about sharing practices (Krou et al., 2021 ). As a result, most students do report cheating in an exam or for homework (Ma et al., 2008 ). To note, other research follow a different distinction for those practices and consider that plagiarism is a specific – and common – type of cheating (Waltzer & Dahl, 2022 ). Digital technologies have contributed to opening possibilities of homework avoidance and technology-related distraction (Ma et al., 2008 ; Xu, 2015 ).

The question of whether the use of digital resources hinders or enhances homework has often been investigated in large-scale studies, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). While most of the early large-scale studies showed positive overall correlations between the use of digital technologies for learning at home and test scores in language, mathematics, and science (e.g., OECD, 2015 ; Petko et al., 2017 ; Skryabin et al., 2015 ), there have been more recent studies reporting negative associations as well (Agasisti et al., 2020 ; Odell et al., 2020 ). One reason for these inconclusive findings is certainly the complex interplay of related factors, which include diverse ways of measuring homework, gender, socioeconomic status, personality traits, learning goals, academic abilities, learning strategies, motivation, and effort, as well as support from teachers and parents. Despite this complexity, it needs to be acknowledged that doing homework digitally does not automatically lead to productive learning activities, and it might even be associated with counter-productive practices such as digital distraction or academic dishonesty. Digitally enhanced academic dishonesty has mostly been investigated regarding formal assessment-related examinations (Evering & Moorman, 2012 ; Ma et al., 2008 ); however, it might be equally important to investigate its effects regarding learning-related assignments such as homework. Although a large body of research exists on digital academic dishonesty regarding assignments in higher education, relatively few studies have investigated this topic on K12 homework. To investigate this issue, we integrated questionnaire items on homework engagement and digital homework avoidance in a national add-on to PISA 2018 in Switzerland. Data from the Swiss sample can serve as a case study for further research with a wider cultural background. This study provides an overview of the descriptive results and tries to identify predictors of the use of digital technology for academic dishonesty when completing homework.

Prevalence and factors of digital academic dishonesty in schools

According to Pavela’s ( 1997 ) framework, four different types of academic dishonesty can be distinguished: cheating by using unauthorized materials, plagiarism by copying the work of others, fabrication of invented evidence, and facilitation by helping others in their attempts at academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty can happen in assessment situations, as well as in learning situations. In formal assessments, academic dishonesty usually serves the purpose of passing a test or getting a better grade despite lacking the proper abilities or knowledge. In learning-related situations such as homework, where assignments are mandatory, cheating practices equally qualify as academic dishonesty. For perpetrators, these practices can be seen as shortcuts in which the willingness to invest the proper time and effort into learning is missing (Chow, 2021; Waltzer & Dahl,  2022 ). The interviews by Waltzer & Dahl ( 2022 ) reveal that students do perceive cheating as being wrong but this does not prevent them from engaging in at least one type of dishonest practice. While academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon, it has been changing together with the development of new digital technologies (Anderman & Koenka, 2017 ; Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004 ). With the rapid growth in technologies, new forms of homework avoidance, such as copying and plagiarism, are developing (Evering & Moorman, 2012 ; Ma et al., 2008 ) summarized the findings of the 2006 U.S. surveys of the Josephson Institute of Ethics with the conclusion that the internet has led to a deterioration of ethics among students. In 2006, one-third of high school students had copied an internet document in the past 12 months, and 60% had cheated on a test. In 2012, these numbers were updated to 32% and 51%, respectively (Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2012 ). Further, 75% reported having copied another’s homework. Surprisingly, only a few studies have provided more recent evidence on the prevalence of academic dishonesty in middle and high schools. The results from colleges and universities are hardly comparable, and until now, this topic has not been addressed in international large-scale studies on schooling and school performance.

Despite the lack of representative studies, research has identified many factors in smaller and non-representative samples that might explain why some students engage in dishonest practices and others do not. These include male gender (Whitley et al., 1999 ), the “dark triad” of personality traits in contrast to conscientiousness and agreeableness (e.g., Cuadrado et al., 2021 ; Giluk & Postlethwaite, 2015 ), extrinsic motivation and performance/avoidance goals in contrast to intrinsic motivation and mastery goals (e.g., Anderman & Koenka,  2017 ; Krou et al., 2021 ), self-efficacy and achievement scores (e.g., Nora & Zhang,  2010 ; Yaniv et al., 2017 ), unethical attitudes, and low fear of being caught (e.g., Cheng et al., 2021 ; Kam et al., 2018 ), influenced by the moral norms of peers and the conditions of the educational context (e.g., Isakov & Tripathy,  2017 ; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2021 ). Similar factors have been reported regarding research on the causes of plagiarism (Husain et al., 2017 ; Moss et al., 2018 ). Further, the systematic review from Chiang et al. ( 2022 ) focused on factors of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. The analyses, based on the six-components behavior engineering, showed that the most prominent factors were environmental (effect of incentives) and individual (effect of motivation). Despite these intensive research efforts, there is still no overarching model that can comprehensively explain the interplay of these factors.

Effects of homework engagement and digital dishonesty on school performance

In meta-analyses of schools, small but significant positive effects of homework have been found regarding learning and achievement (e.g., Baş et al., 2017 ; Chen & Chen, 2014 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). In their review, Fan et al. ( 2017 ) found lower effect sizes for studies focusing on the time or frequency of homework than for studies investigating homework completion, homework grades, or homework effort. In large surveys, such as PISA, homework measurement by estimating after-school working hours has been customary practice. However, this measure could hide some other variables, such as whether teachers even give homework, whether there are school or state policies regarding homework, where the homework is done, whether it is done alone, etc. (e.g., Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 , 2017 ). Trautwein ( 2007 ) and Trautwein et al. ( 2009 ) repeatedly showed that homework effort rather than the frequency or the time spent on homework can be considered a better predictor for academic achievement Effort and engagement can be seen as closely interrelated. Martin et al. ( 2017 ) defined engagement as the expressed behavior corresponding to students’ motivation. This has been more recently expanded by the notion of the quality of homework completion (Rosário et al., 2018 ; Xu et al., 2021 ). Therefore, it is a plausible assumption that academic dishonesty when doing homework is closely related to low homework effort and a low quality of homework completion, which in turn affects academic achievement. However, almost no studies exist on the effects of homework avoidance or academic dishonesty on academic achievement. Studies investigating the relationship between academic dishonesty and academic achievement typically use academic achievement as a predictor of academic dishonesty, not the other way around (e.g., Cuadrado et al., 2019 ; McCabe et al., 2001 ). The results of these studies show that low-performing students tend to engage in dishonest practices more often. However, high-performing students also seem to be prone to cheating in highly competitive situations (Yaniv et al., 2017 ).

Present study and hypotheses

The present study serves three combined purposes.

First, based on the additional questionnaires integrated into the Program for International Student Assessment 2018 (PISA 2018) data collection in Switzerland, we provide descriptive figures on the frequency of homework effort and the various forms of digitally-supported homework avoidance practices.

Second, the data were used to identify possible factors that explain higher levels of digitally-supported homework avoidance practices. Based on our review of the literature presented in Section 1.1 , we hypothesized (Hypothesis 1 – H1) that these factors include homework effort, age, gender, socio-economic status, and study program.

Finally, we tested whether digitally-supported homework avoidance practices were a significant predictor of test score performance. We expected (Hypothesis 2 – H2) that technology-related factors influencing test scores include not only those reported by Petko et al. ( 2017 ) but also self-reported engagement in digital dishonesty practices. .

Participants

Our analyses were based on data collected for PISA 2018 in Switzerland, made available in June 2021 (Erzinger et al., 2021 ). The target sample of PISA was 15-year-old students, with a two-phase sampling: schools and then students (Erzinger et al., 2019 , p.7–8, OECD, 2019a ). A total of 228 schools were selected for Switzerland, with an original sample of 5822 students. Based on the PISA 2018 technical report (OECD, 2019a ), only participants with a minimum of three valid responses to each scale used in the statistical analyses were included (see Section 2.2 ). A final sample of 4771 responses (48% female) was used for statistical analyses. The mean age was 15 years and 9 months ( SD  = 3 months). As Switzerland is a multilingual country, 60% of the respondents completed the questionnaires in German, 23% in French, and 17% in Italian.

Digital dishonesty in homework scale

This six-item digital dishonesty for homework scale assesses the use of digital technology for homework avoidance and copying (IC801 C01 to C06), is intended to work as a single overall scale for digital homework dishonesty practice constructed to include items corresponding to two types of dishonest practices from Pavela ( 1997 ), namely cheating and plagiarism (see Table  1 ). Three items target individual digital practices to avoid homework, which can be referred to as plagiarism (items 1, 2 and 5). Two focus more on social digital practices, for which students are cheating together with peers (items 4 and 6). One item target cheating as peer authorized plagiarism. Response options are based on questions on the productive use of digital technologies for homework in the common PISA survey (IC010), with an additional distinction for the lowest frequency option (6-point Likert scale). The scale was not tested prior to its integration into the PISA questionnaire, as it was newly developed for the purposes of this study.

Frequencies of averaged digital dishonesty in homework (weighted data)

Homework engagement scale

The scale, originally developed by Trautwein et al. (Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2006 ), measures homework engagement (IC800 C01 to C06) and can be subdivided into two sub-scales: homework compliance and homework effort. The reliability of the scale was tested and established in different variants, both in Germany (Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein & Köller, 2003 ) and in Switzerland (Schnyder et al., 2008 ; Schynder Godel, 2015 ). In the adaptation used in the PISA 2018 survey, four items were positively poled (items 1, 2, 4, and 6), and two items were negatively poled (items 3 and 5) and presented with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “Does not apply at all” to “Applies absolutely.” This adaptation showed acceptable reliability in previous studies in Switzerland (α = 0.73 and α = 0.78). The present study focused on homework effort, and thus only data from the corresponding sub-scale was analyzed (items 2 [I always try to do all of my homework], 4 [When it comes to homework, I do my best], and 6 [On the whole, I think I do my homework more conscientiously than my classmates]).

Demographics

Previous studies showed that demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status, could impact learning outcomes (Jacobs et al., 2002 ) and intention to use digital tools for learning (Tarhini et al., 2014 ). Gender is a dummy variable (ST004), with 1 for female and 2 for male. Socioeconomic status was analyzed based on the PISA 2018 index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS). It is computed from three other indices (OECD, 2019b , Annex A1): parents’ highest level of education (PARED), parents’ highest occupational status (HISEI), and home possessions (HOMEPOS). The final ESCS score is transformed so that 0 corresponds to an average OECD student. More details can be found in Annex A1 from PISA 2018 Results Volume 3 (OECD, 2019b ).

Study program

Although large-scale studies on schools have accounted for the differences between schools, the study program can also be a factor that directly affects digital homework dishonesty practices. In Switzerland, 15-year-old students from the PISA sampling pool can be part of at least six main study programs, which greatly differ in terms of learning content. In this study, study programs distinguished both level and type of study: lower secondary education (gymnasial – n  = 798, basic requirements – n  = 897, advanced requirements – n  = 1235), vocational education (classic – n  = 571, with baccalaureate – n  = 275), and university entrance preparation ( n  = 745). An “other” category was also included ( n  = 250). This 6-level ordinal variable was dummy coded based on the available CNTSCHID variable.

Technologies and schools

The PISA 2015 ICT (Information and Communication Technology) familiarity questionnaire included most of the technology-related variables tested by Petko et al. ( 2017 ): ENTUSE (frequency of computer use at home for entertainment purposes), HOMESCH (frequency of computer use for school-related purposes at home), and USESCH (frequency of computer use at school). However, the measure of student’s attitudes toward ICT in the 2015 survey was different from that of the 2012 dataset. Based on previous studies (Arpacı et al., 2021 ; Kunina-Habenicht & Goldhammer, 2020 ), we thus included INICT (Student’s ICT interest), COMPICT (Students’ perceived ICT competence), AUTICT (Students’ perceived autonomy related to ICT use), and SOIACICT (Students’ ICT as a topic in social interaction) instead of the variable ICTATTPOS of the 2012 survey.

Test scores

The PISA science, mathematics, and reading test scores were used as dependent variables to test our second hypothesis. Following Aparicio et al. ( 2021 ), the mean scores from plausible values were computed for each test score and used in the test score analysis.

Data analyses

Our hypotheses aim to assess the factors explaining student digital homework dishonesty practices (H1) and test score performance (H2). At the student level, we used multilevel regression analyses to decompose the variance and estimate associations. As we used data for Switzerland, in which differences between school systems exist at the level of provinces (within and between), we also considered differences across schools (based on the variable CNTSCHID).

Data were downloaded from the main PISA repository, and additional data for Switzerland were available on forscenter.ch (Erzinger et al., 2021 ). Analyses were computed with Jamovi (v.1.8 for Microsoft Windows) statistics and R packages (GAMLj, lavaan).

Additional scales for Switzerland

Digital dishonesty in homework practices.

The digital homework dishonesty scale (6 items), computed with the six items IC801, was found to be of very good reliability overall (α = 0.91, ω = 0.91). After checking for reliability, a mean score was computed for the overall scale. The confirmatory factor analysis for the one-dimensional model reached an adequate fit, with three modifications using residual covariances between single items χ 2 (6) = 220, p  < 0.001, TLI = 0.969, CFI = 0.988, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) = 0.086, SRMR = 0.016).

On the one hand, the practice that was the least reported was copying something from the internet and presenting it as their own (51% never did). On the other hand, students were more likely to partially copy content from the internet and modify it to present as their own (47% did it at least once a month). Copying answers shared by friends was rather common, with 62% of the students reporting that they engaged in such practices at least once a month.

When all surveyed practices were taken together, 7.6% of the students reported that they had never engaged in digitally dishonest practices for homework, while 30.6% reported cheating once or twice a week, 12.1% almost every day, and 6.9% every day (Table  1 ).

Homework effort

The overall homework engagement scale consisted of six items (IC800), and it was found to be acceptably reliable (α = 0.76, ω = 0.79). Items 3 and 5 were reversed for this analysis. The homework compliance sub-scale had a low reliability (α = 0.58, ω = 0.64), whereas the homework effort sub-scale had an acceptable reliability (α = 0.78, ω = 0.79). Based on our rationale, the following statistical analyses used only the homework effort sub-scale. Furthermore, this focus is justified by the fact that the homework compliance scale might be statistically confounded with the digital dishonesty in homework scale.

Descriptive weighted statistics per item (Table  2 ) showed that while most students (80%) tried to complete all of their homework, only half of the students reported doing those diligently (53.3%). Most students also reported that they believed they put more effort into their homework than their peers (77.7%). The overall mean score of the composite scale was 2.81 ( SD  = 0.69).

Frequencies of averaged homework engagement (weighted data)

Multilevel regression analysis: Predictors of digital dishonesty in homework (H1)

Mixed multilevel modeling was used to analyze predictors of digital homework avoidance while considering the effect of school (random component). Based on our first hypothesis, we compared several models by progressively including the following fixed effects: homework effort and personal traits (age, gender) (Model 2), then socio-economic status (Model 3), and finally, study program (Model 4). The results are presented in Table  3 . Except for the digital homework dishonesty and homework efforts scales, all other scales were based upon the scores computed according to the PISA technical report (OECD, 2019a ).

Multilevel models explaining variations in students’ self-reported homework avoidance with digital resources

Note : * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

We first compared variance components. Variance was decomposed into student and school levels. Model 1 provides estimates of the variance component without any covariates. The intraclass coefficient (ICC) indicated that about 6.6% of the total variance was associated with schools. The parameter (b  = 2.56, SE b  = 0.025 ) falls within the 95% confidence interval. Further, CI is above 0 and thus we can reject the null hypothesis. Comparing the empty model to models with covariates, we found that Models 2, 3 and 4 showed an increase in total explained variance to 10%. Variance explained by the covariates was about 3% in Models 2 and 3, and about 4% in Model 4. Interestingly, in our models, student socio-economic status, measured by the PISA index, never accounted for variance in digitally-supported dishonest practices to complete homework.

Further, model comparison based on AIC indicates that Model 4, including homework effort, personal traits, socio-economic status, and study program, was the better fit for the data. In Model 4 (Table  3 ; Fig.  1 ), we observed that homework effort and gender were negatively associated with digital dishonesty. Male students who invested less effort in their homework were more prone to engage in digital dishonesty. The study program was positively but weakly associated with digital dishonesty. Students in programs that target higher education were less likely to engage in digital dishonesty when completing homework.

Summary of the two-steps Model 4 (estimates - β, with standard errors and significance levels, *** p < 0.001)

Multilevel regression analysis: Cheating and test scores (H2)

Our first hypothesis aimed to provide insights into characteristics of students reporting that they regularly use digital resources dishonestly when completing homework. Our second hypothesis focused on whether digitally-supported homework avoidance practices was linked to results of test scores. Mixed multilevel modeling was used to analyze predictors of test scores while considering the effect of school (random component). Based on the study by Petko et al. ( 2017 ), we compared several models by progressively including the following fixed effects ICT use (three measures) (Model 2), then attitude toward ICT (four measures) (Model 3), and finally, digital dishonesty in homework (single measure) (Model 4). The results are presented in Table  4 for science, Table  5 for mathematics, and Table  6 for reading.

Multilevel models explaining variations in student test scores in science (standardized coefficients and model parameters)

Multilevel models explaining variations in student test scores in mathematics (standardized coefficients and model parameters)

Multilevel models explaining variations in student test scores in reading (standardized coefficients and model parameters)

Variance components were decomposed into student and school level. ICC for Model 1 indicated that 37.9% of the variance component without covariates was associated with schools.

Taking Model 1 as a reference, we observed an increase in total explained variance to 40.5% with factors related to ICT use (Model 2), to 40.8% with factors related to attitude toward ICT (Model 3), and to 41.1% with the single digital dishonesty factor. It is interesting to note that we obtained different results from those reported by Petko et al. ( 2017 ). In their study, they found significant effects on the explained variances of ENTUSE, USESCH, and ICTATTPOS but not of HOMESCH for Switzerland. In the present study (Model 3), HOMESCH and USESCH were significant predictors but not ENTUSE, and for attitude toward ICT, all but INTICT were significant predictors of the variance. However, factors corresponding to ICT use were negatively associated with test performance, as in the study by Petko et al. ( 2017 ). Similarly, all components of attitude toward ICT positively affected science test scores, except for students’ ICT as a topic in social interaction.

Based on the AIC values, Model 4, including ICT use, attitude toward ICT, and digital dishonesty, was the better fit for the data. The parameter ( b  = 498.00, SE b  = 3.550) shows that our sample falls within the 95% confidence interval and that we can reject the null hypothesis. In this model, all factors except the use of ICT outside of school for leisure were significant predictors of explained variance in science test scores. These results are consistent with those reported by Petko et al. ( 2017 ), in which more frequent use of ICT negatively affected science test scores, with an overall positive effect of positive attitude toward ICT. Further, we observed that homework avoidance with digital resources strongly negatively affected performance, with lower performance associated with students reporting a higher frequency of engagement in digital dishonesty practices.

For mathematics test scores, results from Models 2 and 3 showed a similar pattern than those for science, and Model 4 also explained the highest variance (41.2%). The results from Model 4 contrast with those found by Petko et al. ( 2017 ), as in this study, HOMESCH was the only significant variable of ICT use. Regarding attitudes toward ICT, only two measures (COMPICT and AUTICT) were significant positive factors in Model 4. As for science test scores, digital dishonesty practices were a significantly strong negative predictor. Students who reported cheating more frequently were more likely to perform poorly on mathematics tests.

The analyses of PISA test scores for reading in Model 2 was similar to that of science and mathematics, with ENTUSE being a non-significant predictor when we included only measures of ICT use as predictors. In Model 3, contrary to the science and mathematics test scores models, in which INICT was non-significant, all measures of attitude toward ICT were positively significant predictors. Nevertheless, as for science and mathematics, Model 4, which included digital dishonesty, explained the greater variance in reading test scores (42.2%). We observed that for reading, all predictors were significant in Model 4, with an overall negative effect of ICT use, a positive effect of attitude toward ICT—except for SOIAICT, and a negative effect of digital dishonesty on test scores. Interestingly, the detrimental effect of using digital resources to engage in dishonest homework completion was the strongest in reading test scores.

In this study, we were able to provide descriptive statistics on the prevalence of digital dishonesty among secondary students in the Swiss sample of PISA 2018. Students from this country were selected because they received additional questions targeting both homework effort and the frequency with which they engaged in digital dishonesty when doing homework. Descriptive statistics indicated that fairly high numbers of students engage in dishonest homework practices, with 49.6% reporting digital dishonesty at least once or twice a week. The most frequently reported practice was copying answers from friends, which was undertaken at least once a month by more than two-thirds of respondents. Interestingly, the most infamous form of digital dishonesty, that is plagiarism by copy-pasting something from the internet (Evering & Moorman, 2012 ), was admitted to by close to half of the students (49%). These results for homework avoidance are close to those obtained by previous research on digital academic plagiarism (e.g., McCabe et al., 2001 ).

We then investigated what makes a cheater, based on students’ demographics and effort put in doing their homework (H1), before looking at digital dishonesty as an additional ICT predictor of PISA test scores (mathematics, reading, and science) (H2).

The goal of our first research hypothesis was to determine student-related factors that may predict digital homework avoidance practices. Here, we focused on factors linked to students’ personal characteristics and study programs. Our multilevel model explained about 10% of the variance overall. Our analysis of which students are more likely to digital resources to avoid homework revealed an increased probability for male students who did not put much effort into doing their homework and who were studying in a program that was not oriented toward higher education. Thus, our findings tend to support results from previous research that stresses the importance of gender and motivational factors for academic dishonesty (e.g., Anderman & Koenka,  2017 ; Krou et al., 2021 ). Yet, as our model only explained little variance and more research is needed to provide an accurate representation of the factors that lead to digital dishonesty. Future research could include more aspects that are linked to learning, such as peer-related or teaching-related factors. Possibly, how closely homework is embedded in the teaching and learning culture may play a key role in digital dishonesty. Additional factors might be linked to the overall availability and use of digital tools. For example, the report combining factors from the PISA 2018 school and student questionnaires showed that the higher the computer–student ratio, the lower students scored in the general tests (OECD, 2020b ). A positive association with reading disappeared when socio-economic background was considered. This is even more interesting when considering previous research indicating that while internet access is not a source of divide among youths, the quality of use is still different based on gender or socioeconomic status (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007 ). Thus, investigating the usage-related “digital divide” as a potential source of digital dishonesty is an interesting avenue for future research (Dolan, 2016 ).

Our second hypothesis considered that digital dishonesty in homework completion can be regarded as an additional ICT-related trait and thus could be included in models targeting the influence of traditional ICT on PISA test scores, such as Petko et al. ( 2017 ) study. Overall, our results on the influence of ICT use and attitudes toward ICT on test scores are in line with those reported by Petko et al. ( 2017 ). Digital dishonesty was found to negatively influence test scores, with a higher frequency of cheating leading to lower performance in all major PISA test domains, and particularly so for reading. For each subject, the combined models explained about 40% of the total variance.

Conclusions and recommendations

Our results have several practical implications. First, the amount of cheating on homework observed calls for new strategies for raising homework engagement, as this was found to be a clear predictor of digital dishonesty. This can be achieved by better explaining the goals and benefits of homework, the adverse effects of cheating on homework, and by providing adequate feedback on homework that was done properly. Second, teachers might consider new forms of homework that are less prone to cheating, such as doing homework in non-digital formats that are less easy to copy digitally or in proctored digital formats that allow for the monitoring of the process of homework completion, or by using plagiarism software to check homework. Sometimes, it might even be possible to give homework and explicitly encourage strategies that might be considered cheating, for example, by working together or using internet sources. As collaboration is one of the 21st century skills that students are expected to develop (Bray et al., 2020 ), this can be used to turn cheating into positive practice. There is already research showing the beneficial impact of computer-supported collaborative learning (e.g., Janssen et al., 2012 ). Zhang et al. ( 2011 ) compared three homework assignment (creation of a homepage) conditions: individually, in groups with specific instructions, and in groups with general instructions. Their results showed that computer supported collaborative homework led to better performance than individual settings, only when the instructions were general. Thus, promoting digital collaborative homework could support the development of students’ digital and collaborative skills.

Further, digital dishonesty in homework needs to be considered different from cheating in assessments. In research on assessment-related dishonesty, cheating is perceived as a reprehensible practice because grades obtained are a misrepresentation of student knowledge, and cheating “implies that efficient cheaters are good students, since they get good grades” (Bouville, 2010 , p. 69). However, regarding homework, this view is too restrictive. Indeed, not all homework is graded, and we cannot know for sure whether students answered this questionnaire while considering homework as a whole or only graded homework (assessments). Our study did not include questions about whether students displayed the same attitudes and practices toward assessments (graded) and practice exercises (non-graded), nor did it include questions on how assessments and homework were related. By cheating on ungraded practice exercises, students will primarily hamper their own learning process. Future research could investigate in more depth the kinds of homework students cheat on and why.

Finally, the question of how to foster engaging homework with digital tools becomes even more important in pandemic situations. Numerous studies following the switch to home schooling at the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic have investigated the difficulties for parents in supporting their children (Bol, 2020 ; Parczewska, 2021 ); however, the question of digital homework has not been specifically addressed. It is unknown whether the increase in digital schooling paired with discrepancies in access to digital tools has led to an increase in digital dishonesty practices. Data from the PISA 2018 student questionnaires (OECD, 2020a ) indicated that about 90% of students have a computer for schoolwork (OECD average), but the availability per student remains unknown. Digital homework can be perceived as yet another factor of social differences (see for example Auxier & Anderson,  2020 ; Thorn & Vincent-Lancrin, 2022 ).

Limitations and directions

The limitations of the study include the format of the data collected, with the accuracy of self-reports to mirror actual practices restricted, as these measures are particularly likely to trigger response bias, such as social desirability. More objective data on digital dishonesty in homework-related purposes could, for example, be obtained by analyzing students’ homework with plagiarism software. Further, additional measures that provide a more complete landscape of contributing factors are necessary. For example, in considering digital homework as an alternative to traditional homework, parents’ involvement in homework and their attitudes toward ICT are factors that have not been considered in this study (Amzalag, 2021 ). Although our results are in line with studies on academic digital dishonesty, their scope is limited to the Swiss context. Moreover, our analyses focused on secondary students. Results might be different with a sample of younger students. As an example, Kiss and Teller ( 2022 ) measured primary students cheating practices and found that individual characteristics were not a stable predictor of cheating between age groups. Further, our models included school as a random component, yet other group variables, such as class and peer groups, may well affect digital homework avoidance strategies.

The findings of this study suggest that academic dishonesty when doing homework needs to be addressed in schools. One way, as suggested by Chow et al. ( 2021 ) and Djokovic et al. ( 2022 ), is to build on students’ practices to explain which need to be considered cheating. This recommendation for institutions to take preventive actions and explicit to students the punishment faced in case of digital academic behavior was also raised by Chiang et al. ( 2022 ). Another is that teachers may consider developing homework formats that discourage cheating and shortcuts (e.g., creating multimedia documents instead of text-based documents, using platforms where answers cannot be copied and pasted, or using advanced forms of online proctoring). It may also be possible to change homework formats toward more open formats, where today’s cheating practices are allowed when they are made transparent (open-book homework, collaborative homework). Further, experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic have stressed the importance of understanding the factors related to the successful integration of digital homework and the need to minimize the digital “homework gap” (Auxier & Anderson, 2020 ; Donnelly & Patrinos, 2021 ). Given that homework engagement is a core predictor of academic dishonesty, students should receive meaningful homework in preparation for upcoming lessons or for practicing what was learned in past lessons. Raising student’s awareness of the meaning and significance of homework might be an important piece of the puzzle to honesty in learning.

List of abbreviations related to PISA datasets

Juliette C. Désiron: Formal analysis, Writing (Original, Review and Editing), Dominik Petko: Conceptualization, Writing (Original, Review and Editing), Supervision.

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich

Data availability

Declarations.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Agasisti T, Gil-Izquierdo M, Han SW. ICT Use at home for school-related tasks: What is the effect on a student’s achievement? Empirical evidence from OECD PISA data. Education Economics. 2020; 28 (6):601–620. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2020.1822787. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amzalag M. Parent attitudes towards the integration of digital learning games as an alternative to traditional homework. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 2021; 17 (3):151–167. doi: 10.4018/IJICTE.20210701.oa10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderman EM, Koenka AC. The relation between academic motivation and cheating. Theory into Practice. 2017; 56 (2):95–102. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1308172. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aparicio J, Cordero JM, Ortiz L. Efficiency analysis with educational data: How to deal with plausible values from international large-scale assessments. Mathematics. 2021; 9 (13):1–16. doi: 10.3390/math9131579. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arpacı S, Mercan F, Arıkan S. The differential relationships between PISA 2015 science performance and, ICT availability, ICT use and attitudes toward ICT across regions: evidence from 35 countries. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26 (5):6299–6318. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10576-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2020, March 16). As schools close due to the coronavirus, some U.S. students face a digital “homework gap”. Pew Research Center, 1–8.  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/19/5-charts-on-global-views-of-china/ . Retrieved November 29th, 2021
• Baş G, Şentürk C, Ciğerci FM. Homework and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research. 2017; 27 (1):31–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau I, Eshet-Alkalai Y. The ethical dissonance in digital and non-digital learning environments: Does technology promotes cheating among middle school students? Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 73 :629–637. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.074. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bol, T. (2020). Inequality in homeschooling during the Corona crisis in the Netherlands. First results from the LISS Panel. 10.31235/osf.io/hf32q
• Bouville M. Why is cheating wrong? Studies in Philosophy and Education. 2010; 29 (1):67–76. doi: 10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bray A, Byrne P, O’Kelly M. A short instrument for measuring students’ confidence with ‘key skills’ (SICKS): Development, validation and initial results. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 (June):100700. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100700. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CM, Chen FY. Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers and Education. 2014; 77 :67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng YC, Hung FC, Hsu HM. The relationship between academic dishonesty, ethical attitude and ethical climate: The evidence from Taiwan. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2021; 13 (21):1–16. doi: 10.3390/su132111615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiang, F. K., Zhu, D., & Yu, W. (2022). A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 907–928. 10.1111/jcal.12656
• Chow, H. P. H., Jurdi-Hage, R., & Hage, H. S. (2021). Justifying academic dishonesty: A survey of Canadian university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Education , December. 10.17985/ijare.951714
• Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Prevalence and correlates of academic dishonesty: Towards a sustainable university. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11 (21). 10.3390/su11216062
• Cuadrado D, Salgado JF, Moscoso S. Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2021; 120 (2):504–537. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000285. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Djokovic, R., Janinovic, J., Pekovic, S., Vuckovic, D., & Blecic, M. (2022). Relying on technology for countering academic dishonesty: the impact of online tutorial on students’ perception of academic misconduct. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 14 (3). 10.3390/su14031756
• Dolan JE. Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2016; 48 (1):16–37. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. A. (2021). Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review. Prospects , 0123456789 . 10.1007/s11125-021-09582-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Ercegovac Z, Richardson JV. Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries. 2004; 65 (4):301–318. doi: 10.5860/crl.65.4.301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erzinger AB, Verner M, König N, Petrucci F, Nidegger C, Roos E, Salvisberg M. PISA 2018: Les élèves de Suisse en comparaison internationale. SEFRI/CDIP et Consortium PISA.ch; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erzinger, A. B., Verner, M., Salvisberg, M., Nidegger, C., & Seiler, S. (2021). PISA 2018 in Switzerland, add-on to the international dataset: Swiss specific variables [Dataset] . FORS. 10.23662/FORS-DS-1285-1
• Evering LC, Moorman G. Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2012; 56 (1):35–44. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.00100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan H, Xu J, Cai Z, He J, Fan X. Homework and students’ achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986–2015. Educational Research Review. 2017; 20 :35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R, álvarez-Díaz M, Suárez-álvarez J, Muñiz J. Students’ achievement and homework assignment strategies. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8 (MAR):1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R, Suárez-Álvarez J, Muñiz J. Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science: Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 107 (4):1075–1085. doi: 10.1037/edu0000032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giluk TL, Postlethwaite BE. Big Five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 72 :59–67. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Husain FM, Al-Shaibani GKS, Mahfoodh OHA. Perceptions of and attitudes toward plagiarism and factors contributing to plagiarism: A review of studies. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2017; 15 (2):167–195. doi: 10.1007/s10805-017-9274-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Isakov M, Tripathy A. Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity and reward expectation. PLoS One1. 2017; 12 (10):6–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186054. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs JE, Lanza S, Osgood DW, Eccles JS, Wigfield A. Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development. 2002; 73 (2):509–527. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00421. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janssen J, Erkens G, Kirschner P, Kanselaar G. Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning. 2012; 7 (1):25–43. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Josephson Institute of Ethics (2012). 2012 Report card on the ethics of American youth .  https://charactercounts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ReportCard-2012-DataTables.pdf . Retrieved January 24th, 2022
• Kam CCS, Hue MT, Cheung HY. Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: Application of theory of planned behavior. Educational Psychology. 2018; 38 (7):945–963. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1454588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapoor H, Kaufman JC. Are cheaters common or creative?: Person-situation interactions of resistance in learning contexts. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2021; 19 (2):157–174. doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09379-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiss, H. J., & Keller, T. J. (2022). Individual characteristics do (not) matter in cheating. Available at SSRN 4001278. 10.2139/ssrn.4001278
• Krou MR, Fong CJ, Hoff MA. Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review. 2021; 33 (2):427–458. doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09557-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Goldhammer, F. (2020). ICT engagement: A new construct and its assessment in PISA 2015. Large-Scale Assessments in Education , 8 (1). 10.1186/s40536-020-00084-z
• Livingstone S, Helsper E. Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media and Society. 2007; 9 (4):671–696. doi: 10.1177/1461444807080335. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma HJ, Wan G, Lu EY. Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory into Practice. 2008; 47 (3):197–203. doi: 10.1080/00405840802153809. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin AJ, Ginns P, Papworth B. Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences. 2017; 55 :150–162. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCabe DL. It takes a village: Academic dishonesty & educational opportunity. Liberal Education. 2005; 91 (3):26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD. Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior. 2001; 11 (3):219–232. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss SA, White B, Lee J. A systematic review into the psychological causes and correlates of plagiarism. Ethics and Behavior. 2018; 28 (4):261–283. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nora WLY, Zhang KC. Motives of cheating among secondary students: The role of self-efficacy and peer influence. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2010; 11 (4):573–584. doi: 10.1007/s12564-010-9104-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Odell, B., Cutumisu, M., & Gierl, M. (2020). A scoping review of the relationship between students’ ICT and performance in mathematics and science in the PISA data. Social Psychology of Education , 23 (6). 10.1007/s11218-020-09591-x
• OECD, & Publishing, O. E. C. D. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection . PISA. 10.1787/factbook-2015-68-en
• OECD (2019a). Chapter 16. Scaling procedures and construct validation of context questionnaire data. In PISA 2018 Technical Report . OECD.
• OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 Results - What school life means for students’ life (Vol. III). OECD Publishing.  https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_IDN.pdf . Retrieved October 20th, 2021
• OECD (2020a). Learning remotely when schools close . 1–13.  https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=127_127063-iiwm328658&title=Learning-remotely-when-schools-close . Retrieved November 29th, 2021
• OECD (2020b). PISA 2018 Results: Effective policies, successful schools (Vol. V). PISA, OECD Publishing. 10.1787/ca768d40-en
• Parczewska, T. (2021). Difficult situations and ways of coping with them in the experiences of parents homeschooling their children during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Education 3–13 , 49 (7), 889–900. 10.1080/03004279.2020.1812689
• Pavela G. Applying the power of association on campus: A model code of academic integrity. Law and Policy. 1997; 24 (1):1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students ICT use, ICTRelated attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54 (8), 1070–1091. 10.1177/0735633116649373
• Rosário P, Carlos Núñez J, Vallejo G, Nunes T, Cunha J, Fuentes S, Valle A. Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and academic achievement. Examining the mediating role of students’ perceived homework quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018; 53 (April):168–180. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnyder I, Niggli A, Trautwein U. Hausaufgabenqualität im Französischunterricht aus der Sicht von Schülern, Lehrkräften und Experten und die Entwicklung von Leistung, Hausaufgabensorgfalt und Bewertung der Hausaufgaben. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie. 2008; 22 (3–4):233–246. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.233. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schynder Godel, I. (2015). Die Hausaufgaben unter der Lupe. Eine empirische Untersuchung im Fach Französisch als Fremdsprache.
• Skryabin M, Zhang J, Liu L, Zhang D. How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. Computers and Education. 2015; 85 :49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarhini A, Hone K, Liu X. Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2014; 51 (2):163–184. doi: 10.2190/EC.51.2.b. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorn, W., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2022). Education in the time of COVID-19 in France, Ireland, the Unites Kingdom and the United States: The nature and impact of remote learning. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Primary and secondary education during Covid-19 (pp. 383–420). Springer. 10.1007/978-981-13-2632-5_2
• Trautwein U. The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction. 2007; 17 (3):372–388. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U, Köller O. Was lange währt, wird nicht immer gut: Zur Rolle selbstregulativer Strategien bei der Hausaufgabenerledigung. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie German Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 17 (3–4):199–209. doi: 10.1024//1010-0652.17.34.199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U, Lüdtke O, Schnyder I, Niggli A. Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 (2):438–456. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U, Schnyder I, Niggli A, Neumann M, Lüdtke O. Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework-achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2009; 34 (1):77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2022). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations, and motivations. Ethics and Behavior , 1–21. 10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775
• Whitley BE, Nelson AB, Jones CJ. Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles. 1999; 41 (9–10):657–680. doi: 10.1023/A:1018863909149. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Computers and Education. 2015; 81 :304–314. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, J., Du, J., Cunha, J., & Rosário, P. (2021). Student perceptions of homework quality, autonomy support, effort, and math achievement: Testing models of reciprocal effects. Teaching and Teacher Education , 108 . 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103508
• Yaniv G, Siniver E, Tobol Y. Do higher achievers cheat less? An experiment of self-revealing individual cheating. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2017; 68 :91–96. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2017.04.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang L, Ayres P, Chan K. Examining different types of collaborative learning in a complex computer-based environment: A cognitive load approach. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27 (1):94–98. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Trending Post : 12 Powerful Discussion Strategies to Engage Students

Why Students Cheat on Homework and How to Prevent It

One of the most frustrating aspects of teaching in today’s world is the cheating epidemic. There’s nothing more irritating than getting halfway through grading a large stack of papers only to realize some students cheated on the assignment. There’s really not much point in teachers grading work that has a high likelihood of having been copied or otherwise unethically completed. So. What is a teacher to do? We need to be able to assess students. Why do students cheat on homework, and how can we address it?

Like most new teachers, I learned the hard way over the course of many years of teaching that it is possible to reduce cheating on homework, if not completely prevent it. Here are six suggestions to keep your students honest and to keep yourself sane.

ASSIGN LESS HOMEWORK

One of the reasons students cheat on homework is because they are overwhelmed. I remember vividly what it felt like to be a high school student in honors classes with multiple extracurricular activities on my plate. Other teens have after school jobs to help support their families, and some don’t have a home environment that is conducive to studying.

While cheating is  never excusable under any circumstances, it does help to walk a mile in our students’ shoes. If they are consistently making the decision to cheat, it might be time to reduce the amount of homework we are assigning.

I used to give homework every night – especially to my advanced students. I wanted to push them. Instead, I stressed them out. They wanted so badly to be in the Top 10 at graduation that they would do whatever they needed to do in order to complete their assignments on time – even if that meant cheating.

When assigning homework, consider the at-home support, maturity, and outside-of-school commitments involved. Think about the kind of school and home balance you would want for your own children. Go with that.

PROVIDE CLASS TIME

Allowing students time in class to get started on their assignments seems to curb cheating to some extent. When students have class time, they are able to knock out part of the assignment, which leaves less to fret over later. Additionally, it gives them an opportunity to ask questions.

When students are confused while completing assignments at home, they often seek “help” from a friend instead of going in early the next morning to request guidance from the teacher. Often, completing a portion of a homework assignment in class gives students the confidence that they can do it successfully on their own. Plus, it provides the social aspect of learning that many students crave. Instead of fighting cheating outside of class , we can allow students to work in pairs or small groups  in class to learn from each other.

Plus, to prevent students from wanting to cheat on homework, we can extend the time we allow them to complete it. Maybe students would work better if they have multiple nights to choose among options on a choice board. Home schedules can be busy, so building in some flexibility to the timeline can help reduce pressure to finish work in a hurry.

GIVE MEANINGFUL WORK

If you find students cheat on homework, they probably lack the vision for how the work is beneficial. It’s important to consider the meaningfulness and valuable of the assignment from students’ perspectives. They need to see how it is relevant to them.

In my class, I’ve learned to assign work that cannot be copied. I’ve never had luck assigning worksheets as homework because even though worksheets have value, it’s generally not obvious to teenagers. It’s nearly impossible to catch cheating on worksheets that have “right or wrong” answers. That’s not to say I don’t use worksheets. I do! But. I use them as in-class station, competition, and practice activities, not homework.

So what are examples of more effective and meaningful types of homework to assign?

• Ask students to complete a reading assignment and respond in writing .
• Have students watch a video clip and answer an oral entrance question.
• Require that students contribute to an online discussion post.
• Assign them a reflection on the day’s lesson in the form of a short project, like a one-pager or a mind map.

As you can see, these options require unique, valuable responses, thereby reducing the opportunity for students to cheat on them. The more open-ended an assignment is, the more invested students need to be to complete it well.

DIFFERENTIATE

Part of giving meaningful work involves accounting for readiness levels. Whenever we can tier assignments or build in choice, the better. A huge cause of cheating is when work is either too easy (and students are bored) or too hard (and they are frustrated). Getting to know our students as learners can help us to provide meaningful differentiation options. Plus, we can ask them!

This is what you need to be able to demonstrate the ability to do. How would you like to show me you can do it?

REDUCE THE POINT VALUE

If you’re sincerely concerned about students cheating on assignments, consider reducing the point value. Reflect on your grading system.

Are homework grades carrying so much weight that students feel the need to cheat in order to maintain an A? In a standards-based system, will the assignment be a key determining factor in whether or not students are proficient with a skill?

Each teacher has to do what works for him or her. In my classroom, homework is worth the least amount out of any category. If I assign something for which I plan on giving completion credit, the point value is even less than it typically would be. Projects, essays, and formal assessments count for much more.

CREATE AN ETHICAL CULTURE

To some extent, this part is out of educators’ hands. Much of the ethical and moral training a student receives comes from home. Still, we can do our best to create a classroom culture in which we continually talk about integrity, responsibility, honor, and the benefits of working hard. What are some specific ways can we do this?

Building Community and Honestly

• Talk to students about what it means to cheat on homework. Explain to them that there are different kinds. Many students are unaware, for instance, that the “divide and conquer (you do the first half, I’ll do the second half, and then we will trade answers)” is cheating.
• As a class, develop expectations and consequences for students who decide to take short cuts.
• Decorate your room with motivational quotes that relate to honesty and doing the right thing.
• Discuss how making a poor decision doesn’t make you a bad person. It is an opportunity to grow.
• Share with students that you care about them and their futures. The assignments you give them are intended to prepare them for success.
• Offer them many different ways to seek help from you if and when they are confused.
• Provide revision opportunities for homework assignments.
• Explain that you partner with their parents and that guardians will be notified if cheating occurs.
• Explore hypothetical situations.  What if you have a late night? Let’s pretend you don’t get home until after orchestra and Lego practices. You have three hours of homework to do. You know you can call your friend, Bob, who always has his homework done. How do you handle this situation?

EDUCATE ABOUT PLAGIARISM

Many students don’t realize that plagiarism applies to more than just essays. At the beginning of the school year, teachers have an energized group of students, fresh off of summer break. I’ve always found it’s easiest to motivate my students at this time. I capitalize on this opportunity by beginning with a plagiarism mini unit .

While much of the information we discuss is about writing, I always make sure my students know that homework can be plagiarized. Speeches can be plagiarized. Videos can be plagiarized. Anything can be plagiarized, and the repercussions for stealing someone else’s ideas (even in the form of a simple worksheet) are never worth the time saved by doing so.

In an ideal world, no one would cheat. However, teaching and learning in the 21st century is much different than it was fifty years ago. Cheating? It’s increased. Maybe because of the digital age… the differences in morals and values of our culture…  people are busier. Maybe because students don’t see how the school work they are completing relates to their lives.

No matter what the root cause, teachers need to be proactive. We need to know why students feel compelled to cheat on homework and what we can do to help them make learning for beneficial. Personally, I don’t advocate for completely eliminating homework with older students. To me, it has the potential to teach students many lessons both related to school and life. Still, the “right” answer to this issue will be different for each teacher, depending on her community, students, and culture.

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING CHALLENGING BEHAVIORS IN SECONDARY

You are so right about communicating the purpose of the assignment and giving students time in class to do homework. I also use an article of the week on plagiarism. I give students points for the learning – not the doing. It makes all the difference. I tell my students why they need to learn how to do “—” for high school or college or even in life experiences. Since, they get an A or F for the effort, my students are more motivated to give it a try. No effort and they sit in my class to work with me on the assignment. Showing me the effort to learn it — asking me questions about the assignment, getting help from a peer or me, helping a peer are all ways to get full credit for the homework- even if it’s not complete. I also choose one thing from each assignment for the test which is a motivator for learning the material – not just “doing it.” Also, no one is permitted to earn a D or F on a test. Any student earning an F or D on a test is then required to do a project over the weekend or at lunch or after school with me. All of this reinforces the idea – learning is what is the goal. Giving students options to show their learning is also important. Cheating is greatly reduced when the goal is to learn and not simply earn the grade.

Thanks for sharing your unique approaches, Sandra! Learning is definitely the goal, and getting students to own their learning is key.

Comments are closed.

Get the latest in your inbox!

Why is Cheating Wrong?

• Published: 11 August 2009
• Volume 29 , pages 67–76, ( 2010 )

Cite this article

• Mathieu Bouville 1  

3202 Accesses

38 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Since cheating is obviously wrong, arguments against it (it provides an unfair advantage, it hinders learning) need only be mentioned in passing. But the argument of unfair advantage absurdly takes education to be essentially a race of all against all; moreover, it ignores that many cases of unfair (dis)advantages are widely accepted. On the other hand, the fact that cheating can hamper learning does not mean that punishing cheating will necessarily favour learning, so that this argument does not obviously justify sanctioning cheaters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reward for Good Performance Works Better Than Punishment for Mistakes: Economic Explanation

Cheaters Should Never Win: Eliminating the Benefits of Cheating

“But everybody’s doing it!”: a model of peer effects on student cheating

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

One can notice that all students who seek good grades (even those studying hard) basically see the teacher as a distributor of grades, not as an end. In fact, it is not clear to me how students can avoid treating teachers as means: teachers are essentially means to an education. (This is true whatever your job: if you were not a means to anyone, who would accept to remunerate you?)

Even if cheating is wrong, this does not automatically imply that it must be harshly punished. Guyau ( 1884 , p. 168) even claims that moral judgement “cannot pass the limits of the moral world to be transformed into the least kind of coercive and penal action. This affirmation ‘You are good, you are bad’ ought never to become this: ‘You must be made to enjoy or to suffer’.” In any case, the harsher the sanction, the more uncontroversial the crime should be.

The reason why grades trump one’s intuition of the value of students is probably that they are objective and thus deemed superior to the subjective opinion of a teacher. But if grades claim that good students are bad, of what exactly are they an objective measure? Grading based on the number of points the student’s name would get in Scrabble is objective as well; it is also completely silly (also see Bouville 2009b ). Saying that the objectivity of grades is their main quality means that what they actually measure is of secondary importance. “What grades offer is spurious precision” (Kohn 1994 ). This, again, undermines the meaning of grades as measure of the value of the students.

One should also remark that grades (which one so dearly wants to protect from cheating) are bad for education as well. Ruth Butler ( 1988 ) found that students who received feedback in the form of grades did worse than those who received written comments but no grade. Butler and Nissan ( 1986 ) note that “grades may encourage an emphasis on quantitative aspects of learning, depress creativity, foster fear of failure, and undermine interest”. According to Anderman et al. ( 1998 ), “students who reported cheating in science perceived their classrooms as being extrinsically focused and perceived their schools as being focused on performance and ability”—i.e. the emphasis on grades favours cheating.

Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 84–93.

Article   Google Scholar  

Blankenship, K. L., & Whitley, B. E. (2000). Relation of general deviance to academic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 10 , 1–12.

Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14 , 311–322.

Bouville, M. (2009a). Crime and punishment in scientific research. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4058 .

Bouville, M. (2009b). Exam fairness. Available at http://www.mathieu.bouville.name/education-ethics/Bouville-exam-fairness.pdf .

Burkill, S., & Abbey, C. (2004). Avoiding plagiarism. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28 , 439–446.

Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58 , 1–14.

Google Scholar  

Butler, R., & Nissan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 , 210–216.

Cole, S., & Kiss, E. (2000). What can we do about student cheating? About Campus, 5 , 5–12.

Collier, H. W., Perrin, R., & McGowan, C. B. (2004). Plagiarism: Let the policy fix the crime. In Fourth Asia Pacific interdisciplinary research in accounting conference , Singapore, 4–6 July 2004, pp. 1226–1245.

Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat. Journal of Higher Education, 12 , 418–420.

Guyau, J.-M. (1884). Esquisse d’une morale sans obligation ni sanction . Paris: Félix Alcan (G. Kapteyn, Trans. (1898). A sketch of morality independent of obligation or sanction. London: Watts & Co).

Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Gupton, R. H. (1995). Predictive validity of the study process questionnaire for undergraduate students. College Student Journal, 29 , 234–239.

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s wrong, but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27 , 209–228.

Johnston, D. K. (1991). Cheating: Reflections on a moral dilemma. Journal of Moral Education, 20 , 283–291.

Kohn, A. (1994). Grading: The issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership, 52 (2), 38–41.

Kohn, A. (2007). Who’s cheating whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 89 , 88–97.

Lingen, M. W. (2006). Tales of academic dishonesty and what do we do about it? Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 102 , 429–430.

McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 , 433–445.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6 , 461–476.

McKeachie, W. J. (2002). Teaching tips . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students’ judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 , 765–777.

Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2005). Southern college students’ cheating behaviors: An examination of problem behavior correlates. Deviant Behavior, 26 , 439–461.

Parmley, W. W. (2000). Plagiarism—How serious is it? Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 36 , 953–954.

Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47 , 643–684.

Roig, M., & Caso, M. (2005). Lying and cheating: Fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism. Journal of Psychology, 139 , 485–494.

Roth, N. L., & McCabe, D. L. (1995). Communication strategies for addressing academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 36 , 531–541.

Stephens, J. M. (2005). Justice or just us? What to do about cheating. In A. Lathrop & K. Foss (Eds.), Guiding students from cheating and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: Strategies for change (pp. 32–34). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Stephens, J. M., & Nicholson, H. (2008). Cases of incongruity: Exploring the divide between adolescents’ beliefs and behaviors related to academic cheating. Educational Studies, 34 , 361–376.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK

Mathieu Bouville

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Bouville .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bouville, M. Why is Cheating Wrong?. Stud Philos Educ 29 , 67–76 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0

Download citation

Received : 29 September 2008

Accepted : 29 July 2009

Published : 11 August 2009

Issue Date : January 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic dishonesty
• Academic integrity
• Academic misconduct
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jay Caspian Kang

The movement to end homework is wrong.

By Jay Caspian Kang

Opinion Writer

Do students really need to do their homework?

As a parent and a former teacher, I have been pondering this question for quite a long time. The teacher side of me can acknowledge that there were assignments I gave out to my students that probably had little to no academic value. But I also imagine that some of my students never would have done their basic reading if they hadn’t been trained to complete expected assignments, which would have made the task of teaching an English class nearly impossible. As a parent, I would rather my daughter not get stuck doing the sort of pointless homework I would occasionally assign, but I also think there’s a lot of value in saying, “Hey, a lot of work you’re going to end up doing in your life is pointless, so why not just get used to it?”

I certainly am not the only person wondering about the value of homework. Recently, the sociologist Jessica McCrory Calarco and the mathematics education scholars Ilana Horn and Grace Chen published a paper, “ You Need to Be More Responsible: The Myth of Meritocracy and Teachers’ Accounts of Homework Inequalities .” They argued that while there’s some evidence that homework might help students learn, it also exacerbates inequalities and reinforces what they call the “meritocratic” narrative that says kids who do well in school do so because of “individual competence, effort and responsibility.”

The authors believe this meritocratic narrative is a myth and that homework — math homework in particular — further entrenches the myth in the minds of teachers and their students. Calarco, Horn and Chen write, “Research has highlighted inequalities in students’ homework production and linked those inequalities to differences in students’ home lives and in the support students’ families can provide.”

Put a bit more simply: The quality of students’ homework production is linked to their socioeconomic status. This alone doesn’t seem particularly controversial. As I’ve discussed in this newsletter, many measures of academic achievement wind up being linked to wealth. The authors go on to argue that since this is the case, teachers should “interpret differences in students’ homework production through a structural inequalities frame.” What they have found, however, is that teachers don’t think of homework this way. Instead, they tend to rely on the “myth of meritocracy” to explain “homework inequalities.”

Calarco, Horn and Chen are all respected scholars at top-tier universities. Their paper was published in Educational Researcher, a journal of the American Educational Research Association, one of the pre-eminent research organizations in the education space. Homework reduction, or abolition, is part of an emerging educational movement. And while the authors acknowledge that eliminating homework would be difficult in the short term, given how rooted it is in American pedagogy, I imagine that many public schools over the next decade or so will start to de-emphasize homework as these ideas start to make their way to school boards and curriculum writers.

Trying to assess the value of homework, reduce it or at least make less of it busywork might very well be a useful endeavor. But Calarco, Horn and Chen are questioning something much more fundamental to the American educational system than homework. Whether they intend to or not, they are, in effect, reframing the purpose of schooling itself. Is school a place where a select group of children can distinguish themselves from their peers through diligence, talent and the pursuit of upward mobility? Is it a place where everyone should have equal access to learning and opportunity, whatever that might mean? And are these two ideals mutually exclusive?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Get the Reddit app

Dear students, when copying homework, make sure you copy off the “smart kid”..

It makes grading much easier and go faster.

Haha April Fools, cheating is wrong. But this thought did cross my mind as I am currently writing up 3 students for turning in the same homework with the same mistakes. They might have gotten away with it had they also not copied the same meaningless doodle one of them drew in the corner of the page.

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

9 Reasons Why Copy Homework is Cheating?

Copy homework has become a standard educational practice around the world and the United States. Suppose you are a high school student, a college student, or studying at a university.

In that case, you must have encountered a situation when you copied or reproduced someone’s homework to complete your class assignment, research paper, etc. This imitation routine is not only used by students but also by school teachers, professors, researchers, practitioners, and other academic stakeholders alike, intentionally or unintentionally.

What Does this Blog Have for You?

This blog post from a  unique paper writing service  highlights the 11 severe educational and legal consequences when you copy your homework assignment. Moreover, It also discusses 13 little-known types of cheating and academic dishonesty in addition to powerful tips on how to stop students from copying other answers.

Table of Contents

What is Copy Homework? Meaning and Definition

Homework copying is replicating, reproducing, or pirating someone else’s work to submit by misrepresenting it as your own.

But have you ever thought is copying homework cheating?

The answer is absolutely yes. According to  expert essay writers , emulating or forging someone else’s work is cheating, unethical, immoral, and comes under educational dishonesty. When you steal other people’s work, you misrepresent it and claim it as your property, which is a clear violation of universal academic integrity.

13 Types of Homework Copying and Academic Dishonesty

Plagiarism or direct copied homework.

This replication technique involves stealing others’ work without even slightly changing it. You follow the same structure, outline, format, words, etc. 

Paraphrasing

In paraphrasing, you use different words, structure, format, outline, etc, but they convey the same meaning and context. Although you change the word’s representation, it violates educational integrity practices.

Online Copying

Online copying includes visiting different educational websites, forums, communities, groups, etc, to find answers and copy homework. You copy and paste it without giving proper references, citations, and credits to the source.

Bonus Resource:  Learn  how to cite a research paper  to avoid copyright infringements.

Using AI to Solve Assignments

Due to the prevalence of Open AI, Google, and other chatbots such as Chatgpt, Bard, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, etc, students find it easy to get the exact solution for their homework assignment. Using these tools to solve your exams or other work also comes under dishonesty. These tools assist and do not replace the students while they do the necessary homework. 

You are involved in cheating practices when you try to discreetly look for a fellow’s answer sheet, assignment solution, or any other work. Moreover, intentionally allowing others to do homework copying also comes under the categories of educational dishonesty and piracy practices. 

Bribery is when you give money or any other gift to your teacher, professor, or examiner to take undue educational benefits. Doing so may influence the marks, grades, and academic performance evaluation. Bribery undermines the ethics and principles of fairness, meritocracy, and equal opportunities. 

Self-plagiarism

Self-plagiarism comes when you try to submit your homework or assignments more than once. Although it is your work, trying to get credit repeatedly for the same efforts comes under misrepresentations.

Impersonation

Impersonation is also one of the other forms of educational dishonesty and cheating. You impersonate or ask someone else to solve an assignment or take an online exam in place of you. Moreover, obtaining someone else’s attendance credit also comes under cheating. 

Forging and Falsifying

Forging refers to creating or submitting falsified, fraudulent, counterfeit homework or other academic work to deceive or gain an unfair advantage. Copying homework, which is done by someone else without permission or citation, is considered cheating and dishonesty.

Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation comes when you provide inaccurate data or information with your academic assignments or other work. It can be submitting wrong experimental findings, numbers, or any other form of data.

Using Prohibited Resources to Copy Your Homework

Taking help for the assignment solution or other academic work from strictly prohibited resources is also academic cheating and dishonesty. It can be a website, forums, communities, electronic devices, or other helpful material.

Assisting and Collaborating with Others Unethically

Taking help and assistance from peers while solving homework assignments or papers is also discouraged in educational settings. Although collaboration is most helpful in academia, this cooperation should be done ethically and legally.

Unauthorized Access to Academic Material

Using academic material such as journals, databases, someone’s assignments, paperwork, publications, etc, without permission is also academic dishonesty. This practice violates the copyright laws and ethical guidelines of education.

Exclusive Offer:  Feeling overwhelmed about writing your class assignment uniquely? Don’t worry! Go ahead and avail yourself of our  cheap assignment writing service  now to ensure your assignment stands out from the class.

11 Severe Consequences Of Copy Homework

Absence of personal learning.

Class assignments and homework are means to provide self-learning opportunities to the students. They help students grasp the concepts of the topics by interacting with the material and learning independently. However, when you replicate other’s work, you miss the chance for self-growth and academic excellence. 

Poor Understanding

Copying homework leads to poor comprehension of the subject matter. Because when you only focus on the pirating, you leave the chance of learning the true essence of the topic. 

Inefficient Assessment

Copied homework misleads the teacher or your professor while evaluating your assignments. Because when you copy your homework represents your knowledge and abilities which results in poor assessment.

Lack of Confidence

Replicating another’s assignment causes shallowness of the mind. Students face a lack of confidence and various problems in practical scenarios without a necessary understanding of the core subjects. 

Unpreparedness for the Exam

Exams and quizzes require students to apply their understanding of the concepts and knowledge to answer the questions. Therefore, counterfeiting class assignments makes the students ill-prepared for the tests and other assessments. 

Deficiency of Skill Development

Class activities provide excellent opportunities to learn the concepts while applying them in parallel. Therefore, relying on others’ work instead of self-learning leads to a deficiency in skill development such as management, organization, and self-sufficiency.

Violation of Academic Integrity When You Copy Homework

Homework copying violates the moral, ethical, and educational principles of working and learning. When you imitate someone else’s work, it compromises the integrity of the educational system. 

Loss of Self-Estee

Earning grades or marks based on the copied homework always haunts the students. It lowers self-respect and self-worth in the eyes of fellows and teachers. 

Limited Feedback On Copying Homework

When you cheat or steal others’ work, you miss the opportunity to get constructive feedback from your professors because teachers’ responses or reactions highlight mistakes and bring improvements and excellence. 

Negative Impact on Collaboration

Cheating on homework undermines teamwork collaboration and leads to mistrust amongst the fellows. Moreover, it also lowers the resolve for shared learning. 

Poor Problem Solving and Critical Thinking

Plagiarizing assignments leads you to miss the chance to apply your problem-solving and critical-thinking skills to solve complex problems in the future. 

Additional Resource: Follow the  quick guide on short essay format  if you want to avoid plagiarism and piracy for your next essay.

9 Tips On How to Stop Students from Copying Other People’s Answers?

• Give assignments that include logical reasoning and problem-solving skills.
• Try to make the homework questions difficult, requiring researching, critical thinking, and writing unique answers.
• Try to make the assignment questions unique that don’t match with any other student.
• Include those questions that force students to apply innovation and creativity.
• Use state-of-the-art assessment strategies for practical evaluation. 
• Use plagiarism detection tools to identify any pirated content.
• Teach the students the importance of educational integrity, ethics, and principles.
• Involve Parents to seek their support for students’ academic excellence.
• Motivate students by rewarding them with prizes and other gifts.

Bottom Line On Copy Homework

Homework copying is pirating, stealing, imitating, and reproducing other people’s work. This practice is unfair, immoral, and unethical and violates educational integrity.

Copied homework brings various consequences, such as a lack of self-learning, poor understanding of the subject matter, loss of self-confidence, etc.

Therefore, you should stop yourself from pirating and not let others copy your homework.

What is Copy Homework?

Is it ok to copy the assignment, is copying homework assignment wrong, what to do when students copy homework, what to say when someone asks to copy your homework, is copying homework cheating, what to do when students copy each other.

• Note the suspicious activities and behavior.
• Gather the evidence.
• Discuss it with them privately.
• Teach them about the legal, ethical, and educational consequences.

Is Copying Illegal?

Why is homework copying wrong.

• Homework copying is wrong because it compromises educational integrity, morality, and principles.
• It leads to missing opportunities for self-learning.

Should You Let Your Friend Copy Your Homework?

How do i tell students not to copy my homework, what is the word for copying homework.

• Replication
• Reproducing
• Counterfeiting

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

Platform for students

Platform for parents

• DL platform

• HOW TO ENROL?
• Admission process
• Parent-school contract
• Tuition fees
• Full-time, part-time and online education
• Additional services
• Admission office
• Registration
• Enrolment benefits
• Incentives for the best
• WELCOME PACKAGE
• Supporting new students
• School starter set
• School uniforms
• About International School
• Accreditation
• Mission and vision
• IB World School
• Cambridge Global Perspectives school
• Future-ready school
• UCAS registered centre
• Policy and regulations
• The highest LINK edu Alliance standards
• Impressions and accomplishments of our students
• Our successful alumni students around the world
• Who is who at International School?
• Characteristics of International School’s teachers
• Principal’s welcome
• About founding company
• TAKE A TOUR AT IS
• Gallery school life
• Gallery school space
• Video gallery
• School's bulletin
• THE CURRICULUM
• IB Diploma Programme
• The IB Diploma curriculum
• IB Subjects
• Fees for IB Diploma Programme
• IB assessment and exams
• IB learner profile
• IB regulations and policies
• IB Academic Calendar
• RECOGNIZED DIPLOMAS
• IB diploma and certificates
• About the International Baccalaureate (IB)
• FURTHER SCHOOLING
• 10 reasons to choose IB Diploma programme
• Enrolling universities in the USA
• Enrolling universities abroad
• IB vs Cambridge Education
• CAMBRIDGE LOWER SECONDARY (11-14 years)
• Cambridge LS Programme
• Cambridge LS curriculum
• Cambridge LS subject descriptions
• Fees for Cambridge LS programme
• Cambridge LS assessments
• Cambridge LS certificates and diploma
• Cambridge LS Academic Calendar
• 10 reasons to choose CLS programme
• What makes CLS a great choice for education?
• Why should your child switch to IS from Year 7?
• CAMBRIDGE SECONDARY AND ADVANCED (14-19 years)
• Cambridge Programme
• Cambridge curriculum
• Cambridge subject descriptions
• Fees for Cambridge programme
• Cambridge secondary education
• Cambridge Academic Calendar
• The IGCSE programme
• Cambridge ICE Diploma
• The Advanced or A Level programme
• Cambridge AICE Diploma
• ACT and SAT test
• 10 reasons to choose Cambridge
• Enrolling universities in Serbia
• Cambridge vs IB Education
• Cambridge International Distance Learning
• Cambridge International DL programmes and qualifications
• Cambridge International DL assessments and examinations
• Fees for Cambridge International DL programme
• Cambridge International DL policy and regulations
• Individual approach to students
• Focus on personal development
• Progress reports
• Viber/SMS service for parents
• Safe environment
• Download the prospectus
• Test for parents
• UNIQUE WAY OF WORKING WITH STUDENTS
• What is creative teaching like?
• Innovative educational practices
• A mentor for each student
• Creative and modern approach
• Creative learning
• Truly different P. E. lessons
• 21st century education
• Teaching methodology
• Dual Diploma
• SKILLS FOR THE FUTURE
• 8 most important skills for students
• Developing competences
• Design Thinking and Problem Solving
• Student motivation
• STEAM concept
• Sociability and Emotional Intelligence
• Cognitive biases
• The students' guide
• RICH SCHOOL LIFE
• Clubs and workshops
• Career Counselling
• Student’s activism
• IS Student Council
• LINK kidZ & Youth WBCC
• LINK Summer Jobs
• LINK eSports
• LINK Internship
• OKmathematics
• Technology in use
• Tablets for learning
• Interactive whiteboards
• Google apps for education
• How to use platform for students
• Live lessons
• Digital badges
• iOS and Android apps
• EngLife project
• Teach the Future project
• PT4ASD project
• MICR@S project
• Primary School
• Secondary School

Explain to students why cheating and copying are bad

Cheating and copying are quite frequent at schools. Despite all of the teachers’ efforts, students use various methods to cheat and it’s difficult to root out.

Have you ever asked yourself why that is? Is our approach to the issue perhaps inadequate? If we supervise, forbid or punish it and fail to raise the awareness of students on the reasons for why cheating is wrong, are we really changing their minds about it?

You should explain to them that:

• Copying and cheating in tests is very similar to lying . Regardless of whether they are copying from someone else or the Internet, the student is claiming that something is their original work even though it’s not.
• Assuming the work of someone else is equivalent to stealing . When they copy from someone, students steal someone else’s words and work and pass it off as their own.
• Cheating and copying in tests is not the right thing to do . It’s not right by the students who actually studied or by the teacher.
• Those who copy and cheat are just masking their lack of knowledge. By hiding their insufficient knowledge, students are just lowering their chances for success in different fields.
• A student who cheats or copies shows that they don’t understand the fact that education is so much more than just memorising facts and solving problems, because it is also there to help us learn about ourselves and find our place in society so that we can be happy and successful.
• Students who copy or cheat devalue their diploma . When you know that students receive high marks by copying or cheating at a school or faculty, the diploma awarded by that institution becomes less valuable on the job market and in society compared to diplomas awarded by institutions where a mark is an objective estimate of the student’s knowledge and effort.
• Copying and cheating betrays trust . It only takes one instance of cheating or copying to betray the trust of a teacher and even if the student never does it again, it’s very difficult to restore the trust that was placed in them.
• Cheating and copying leads to a continuous cycle . For example, when a student doesn’t learn the introductory materials for a test, it’s more likely that they will copy at their subsequent test rather than make up for what they missed. It is therefore much easier and beneficial to learn everything on time.
• Copying and cheating does not end at school . It continues even later, at university and even at work. It becomes a character trait.
• Copying and cheating is stressful .

• They don’t see cheating as something serious.
• They justify cheating by explaining it as a team effort.
• They view the materials they learn as boring, useless and too demanding.
• They don’t see a point in learning.
• They are overwhelmed with a large amount of information they are supposed to remember.
• They are not motivated to learn.
• They are learning for a mark that can easily be attained through cheating or copying.
• They don’t pay attention to lessons.
• They don’t see the value of learning and knowledge in society.
• Everyone else is doing it too and they don’t get caught.
• They don’t think a particular subject is important.
• They can’t find the time to learn.
• The expectations of their parents are too high.

Start with the reason that students most often cite in order to justify their cheating and try to motivate them not to do that again. Here are a couple of suggestions to motivate students not to copy or cheat :

• The knowledge they receive at school is useful and in fact necessary, no matter how much it doesn’t seem like it. If they don’t acquire it now, they will have to invest their time in it later on.
• They will need the knowledge they acquire now at work in order to successfully complete their work assignments. They will also need it in life in order to successfully overcome the challenges that lie ahead.
• Tests and assessments are there to evaluate their knowledge at a given time and if students cheat or copy, they will not receive realistic feedback from the teacher on their knowledge so that they will not be able to advance in learning.
• When they achieve something by putting effort into it, they will feel more confident and accomplished.
• If they were an employer and if they found out that the candidate they are interviewing cheated and copied while at school, would they really hire them?

Author: Tijana Rajić

Literatura:

• Bouville, M. (2009). Why is Cheating Wrong? . Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(1), pp.67–76.
• Pbskids.org. (2016). It’s My Life. School. Cheating. Why It’s Wrong | PBS Kids GO!. [online] Available at: http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/school/cheating/article5.html [Accessed 28 Feb. 2016].
• Witmer, D. (2016). 10 Things You Should Tell Your Teen About Why Cheating is Wrong . [online] Verywell. Available at: https://www.verywell.com/reasons-why-cheating-is-wrong-2609548 [Accessed 29 Feb. 2016].

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

APPLICATIONS ARE CLOSING SOON! ONLY A FEW SPOTS LEFT FOR THE 2024/25 CLASS

For more information, please call us or apply here:

You have successfully applied. We will contact you soon.

Is it a fact or an opinion that copying homework assignments is wrong?

It's dependent on how you use the word "wrong".

If we're speaking strictly on moral grounds, it would be an opinion.

If wrong refers to "against the rules", then you would have to look at the rule book. If the rule book indicated such a thing, it would be a fact.

Anonymous ∙

Add your answer:

Top Categories