=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2920/paper_13
|storemode=property
|title=Motivational Background of the Attitudes to Academic Cheating with the Use of the Internet Resources
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2920/paper_13.pdf
|volume=Vol-2920
|authors=Svetlana Vasileva,Anastasia Miklyaeva,Alexandr Tikhomirov
}}
==Motivational Background of the Attitudes to Academic Cheating with the Use of the Internet Resources==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2920/paper_13.pdf
Motivational Background of the Attitudes to Academic
Cheating with the Use of the Internet Resources ∗
Svetlana Vasileva Anastasia Miklyaeva Alexander Tikhomirov
vivatvsv@mail.ru a.miklyaeva@gmail.com katikhomirov@herzen.spb.ru
Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia,
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Abstract
The article presents the results of the study aimed at analyzing motivational prerequisites
for the attitudes to academic cheating with the use of the Internet resources among university
students (n=305). The research program included the method of vignettes and the Academic
Motivation Scale. The results show that students often consider academic cheating with the use
of Internet resources as an acceptable way to solve educational problems. At the same time, none
of the types of academic motivation determines the protection against the use of this form of
cheating in educational activities, but introjected motivation contributes to the actualization of
negative emotions associated with it.
Keywords: academic cheating, electronic academic cheating, university students, academic
motivation, regression analysis
1 Introduction
Nowadays, academic cheating with the use of the Internet resources is a routine form of students’
behavior. The development of information and communication technologies, as well as the increased
functionality and availability of gadgets for Internet access, have created opportunities for the growth
of academic cheating around the world. The problem of academic deception with the use of the
Internet became relevant since the 1990s [Genereux & McLeod, 1995] [Graham et al., 1994] when
students got free access to the Internet content which is allowed for easy copying and sharing with
other users [Balbay & Kilis, 2019], [Jereb et al., 2018]. The evidence suggests that the magnitude
of academic cheating has increased significantly in recent decades due to the proliferation of digital
educational tools, involving up to 70% of students in [LaDuke, 2013]. In this context, the term “elec-
tronic academic dishonesty” was proposed to identify differences from traditional forms of academic
cheating which is the use of the Internet services for academic deception [Namlu & Odabasi, 2007]. In
2020, the problem of electronic academic cheating has become particularly important in connection
with transition to Covid-19-Emergency-Remote Teaching [Radu et al., 2020], [Gamage et al., 2020],
[Daniels et al., 2021].
Academic cheating is now understood as providing or receiving assistance to students in creating
works to be submitted for academic evaluation in ways that are not authorized by the teacher (de-
ception), as well as presenting other people’s ideas as their own (plagiarism) [Hard et al., 2006]. In
∗
Copyright c 2021 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0).
1
the context of digitalization of education, academic fraud includes, in addition to deception and pla-
giarism, collusion, manipulation of technology and distortion of information [Mcgee, 2013]. Research
data suggest that the most common form of electronic academic cheating is plagiarism which is the
use of other people’s materials posted on the Internet as their own [MâăĂ et al., 2020]. The spread
of such a form of academic deception as the presentation of materials from the Internet for teachers’
evaluation determines the relevance of empirical research aimed at analyzing protective factors that
could prevent this behavior. Our study examines the influence of university students’ academic mo-
tivation on their attitudes to academic cheating with the use of the materials which were borrowed
from the Internet.
2 Literature Review
Among the ethical problems associated with pedagogical interaction in the digital environment,
academic cheating takes the leading position today [Ampuni et al., 2020], [Eshet et al., 2021]. Re-
searchers emphasize that the psychological mechanism for the spread of academic cheating in the
digital environment is, first of all, a reduction in the amount of “physical” control on the part of
teachers [Foch & Caves, 2009], [Steinberger et al., 2021]. There is evidence that the physical pres-
ence of the teacher, “face-to-face” interaction with other fellow student and an ethically favorable
institutional environment are key factors in the formation of academic integrity, despite the fact that
these factors are not represented in the practice of digital education [AbdulHafeez et al., 2016]. At
the same time, some studies do not support the hypothesis that the level of academic cheating in the
digital educational space is higher than in situations of traditional interaction between teachers and
students. A number of researchers argue that academic fraud in the digital space is about as common
as in traditional models of pedagogical interaction [Grijalva, 2006], [Spalding, 2009], or even less so
than in “face-to-face” learning [Stuber-McEwen et al., 2009], [Watson Sottile, 2010]. Probably, these
differences are primarily due to the heterogeneity of the research paradigms and tools. Anyway, the
problem of academic cheating in digital environment is relevant for modern higher education. It is of
interest both to describe the phenomenology of academic cheating in the digital environment, and to
search for psychological and pedagogical factors that determine the risk of cheating behavior or, in
contrast, prevent it.
In search for the reasons for the electronic academic cheating spread, researchers analyze the
contextual and personal factors that determine the growth of this form of cheating in the educational
process.
The contextual factors of the spread of electronic academic deception are related, on the one
hand, to the peculiarities of the digital environment, and, on the other hand, to the educational
policy of universities regarding academic dishonesty. Thus, due to the features of the moral reg-
ulation of behavior in the digital environment, students often do not consider academic cheating
with the use of the Internet as unethical acts [Coleman, 2012], [Alshehri, 2017], [Chankova, 2020],
[Blau et al., 2021]. Moreover, students often are unaware that their actions constitute cheating
[Nelson et al., 2013], sometimes due, among other things, to the permanent changes in educational
requirements [Childers & Bruton, 2016]. Students can feel that academic permanent is a native and
integral aspect of their academic life [Costley, 2019]. At the same time, awareness of negative im-
pact of academic cheating on education quality is not a factor of protection against this behavior:
students who declare an understanding of the seriousness of academic cheating, nevertheless deceive
teachers in the educational process [Chala, 2021]. Longitudinal study shows that one of the most
reliable predictors of academic permanent is students’ assessment of the prevalence of this behavior
among fellow students [Shmeleva & Semenova, 2019]. All these facts together point to the normality
of academic cheating among university students, which leads to the perception of the permissibility of
electronic academic dishonesty. Informing students about the ethical aspects of electronic academic
cheating, in turn, leads to a reduction in cases of academic dishonesty [LoSchiavo & Shatz, 2011],
2
[Annie & Mosha, 2015], [Ard & Ard, 2019], [Stephens et al., 2021]. These evidences suggest that in
the context of digital education, it is necessary to pay special attention to the issues of academic
ethics as well as to integration of the information about ethical standards in every educational pro-
gram [Nicolaides, 2018][Thayan, 2017] and to creation an ethically favorable institutional environment
[AbdulHafeez et al., 2016] [Stephens et al., 2021]. In general, the attitude towards academic cheating
is an important factor that mediates dishonest behavior in students [Yu et al., 2020], [Lee et al., 2020],
[Nagi & John, 2020], [Dewanti et al., 2021].
However, some studies suggest that social norms as regulators of online behavior, including
academic cheating, are in complex relationships with student motivation [Daumiller & Janke, 2020].
Motivation is most often studied as a personal factor that determines the propensity for academic
cheating. A recent meta-analytical study found that academic cheating is most likely for students
with external academic motivation or with amotivation, while its rejection is primarily due to in-
ternal motivation for learning and professional development [Krou et al., 2021]. Internal motivation
mitigates the impact of impulsivity and intemperance on the propensity for academic cheating, which
has been described in several studies [Baran & Jonason, 2020], [Bacon et al., 2020]. The formation
of professional motivation contributes to the reduction of academic cheating [Bacon et al., 2020]. Ex-
ternal motivation (e.g., motivation for high academic performance or competitive motivation), in
turn, increases academic cheating [Anderman & Koenka, 2017]. Probably, this relationship between
students’ motivation and academic cheating is determined by the important role of involvement in
the educational process as a factor in preventing such behavior [Putarek & Pavlin-Bernardić, 2020 ].
The self-determination theory of R. Ryan and E. Deci [Deci & Ryan, 2000] provides great oppor-
tunities for studying the relationship between students’ motivation and academic cheating as well as
the concept of educational motivation which is based on it. According to this concept, the motivation
of educational activities is a complex, multidimensional structure that includes not only conscious and
unconscious motives, but also goals, strategies for responding to failures, and cognitive mechanisms.
At the same time, internal and external motivation are not opposed. They are understood as different
degrees of satisfaction/frustration of the core need for autonomy [Gordeeva et al., 2014]. Research
data show that increasing autonomy in the performance of educational tasks helps to reduce academic
cheating, while the need to follow strict instructions, on the contrary, increases it. This fact highlights
the significance of the satisfaction of the need for autonomy in the prevention of academic cheating
[Kanat-Maymon et al., 2015]. The preventive effect of satisfying the need for autonomy is particularly
pronounced in the short term, especially for students with internal motivation [Pulfrey et al., 2019].
It should be noted that the empirical data on the relationship between students’ academic moti-
vation and academic cheating are obtained mainly in studies of traditional (non-electronic) academic
cheating. However, there is evidence that regulators of academic dishonesty in the online environ-
ment may differ significantly from face-to-face terms. For example, studies suggest differences in
such regulation at the value level [Koscielniak & Bojanowska, 2019]. These facts determine the rele-
vance of comparing motivational prerequisites of electronic academic cheating in contraposition with
traditional forms of academic cheating.
3 Current study
The aim of current study was to analyze motivational prerequisites for the attitudes to academic
cheating with the use of the Internet resources among university students. We tested the hypothesis
about the difference in motivational prerequisites of electronic and traditional forms of academic
cheating by the example of academic cheating with the use of the Internet resources (coping ready-
made tasks from the Internet) and interpersonal resources (coping tasks which were completed by
classmates). According to this aim, the following research questions were formulated:
1. What is the difference between attitudes towards academic cheating with the use of the Internet
3
resources and interpersonal resources?
2. What is the relationship between students’ attitudes toward academic cheating and academic
motivation?
3. What aspects of academic motivation influence students’ attitudes toward academic cheating
with the use of the Internet and interpersonal resources?
4 Materials and methods
Empirical data collecting were conducted with the vignette method. Two hypothetical situations (vi-
gnettes) were presented to respondents. The first vignette described academic cheating with the use
of materials posted on the Internet (“Character B downloaded a course paper from the Internet, refor-
matted the text in such a way that the Anti-Plagiarism program could not detect illegal borrowing,
and handed the work over to the teacher. Character A (you) became aware that the course paper of
character B was completely downloaded from the Internet”). The second vignette depicted academic
cheating through the use of interpersonal resources (“Character A (you) learned that character B was
about to hand out homework that he/she did not complete on his/her own but copied from friends”.
Respondents were asked to use a 9-point scale to describe the thoughts and feelings attributed
to the cheating character (“Do you think character B was happy with what he/she managed to do?”),
as well as their own thoughts and feelings:
• “How much does character A (you) feel angry in such a situation?”
• “How much does character A (you) feel anxious in such a situation?”
• “Character A will decide that there is nothing special about this event, because this sometimes
happens”
• “Should character B, in your opinion, confess to the teacher about the deception?”
The motivation sphere of the respondents was characterize with a short version of the “Academic
Motivation Scale” [Gordeeva et al., 2014]. The Scale is based on the theory of self-determination
by R. Ryan and E. Deci. It includes four subscales: learning motivation, achievement motivation,
introjected motivation and external motivation.
Statistical data processing was performed with Statistica10.0 software package and included
descriptive statistics (M ± S), correlation (r) and variance (F) analysis. Statistical data processing was
performed with Statistica10.0 software package and included descriptive statistics (M± S), correlation
(r) and variance (F) analysis.
The study involved 305 students of higher educational institutions of Russia (47.5% of women)
aged 18-25 (average age 19.29 ± 1.27 years). The program and protocol of the study was approved
by the Ethics Committee of the Herzen State Pedagogical University, protocol no. 14 of July 2, 2020.
5 Results
The results suggest that academic cheating in general and, in particular, academic cheating with the
use of resources posted on the Internet does not cause negative ratings among respondents. University
students consider every form of academic cheating as one of the potentially acceptable ways to solve
educational problems. At the same time, academic cheating with the use materials from the Internet
causes more negative emotions in respondents than cheating in the format of coping other students’
works. Moreover, it is perceived as more ethically loaded situation, which, however, brings more
satisfaction to the cheater (see Table 1). In general, academic cheating with the use of Internet
materials is perceived more controversially, in comparison with cheating by traditional cheating.
4
Table 1: Comparative analysis of academic cheating characteristics
Note: * – p ≤ 0.05; ∗ ∗ −p ≤ 0.01; ∗ ∗ ∗˘p ≤ 0.001
Correlation analysis results show that the psychological prerequisites for academic cheating with
the use of materials from the Internet are primarily related to introjected and external motivation,
while the indicator of learning motivation was not included in the structure of correlation relationships,
as well as the indicator of the age of respondents. For academic cheating with coping ready-made
tasks completed by classmates, learning motivation is incorporated in this structure as a positive
correlate of the indicator “Confidence about the need to confess to cheating”, which is also related to
age (see Figure 1).
However, analysis of variance confirms the contribution of learning and especially introjected mo-
tivation to the students’ attitudes to academic cheating, while no significant contribution of external
motivation was found (see Figures 2-3).
The results of the variance analysis also demonstrate that in relation to academic cheating with
the use of interpersonal resources, academic motivation serves as a regulator of emotions, but does
not determine the intention to perform cheating actions. For academic cheating with the use of the
Internet resources, such regulator is introjected motivation.
6 Discussion
The empirical study solved the problem of identifying the motivational prerequisites of academic
cheating with the use of resources posted on the Internet.
In accordance with the first research question, we noted that students tend to perceive academic
cheating (both electronic and traditional) as the native side of their educational activities and do not
give it an ethical meaning. This data supports previous evidence that academic cheating in the student
environment is assessed as a habitual component of everyday educational activity [Coleman, 2012],
[Alshehri, 2017], [Chankova, 2020]. At the same time, academic cheating with the use of materials
from the Internet is perceived by students as more contradictory form of activity, in comparison with
the traditional copying of tasks completed by classmates. On the one hand, this form of cheating
brings students more satisfaction, but, on the other hand, it is accompanied by more pronounced
5
Figure 1: Correlations between characteristics of academic cheating, motivation and age
Note: light gray background – characteristics of cheating; dark gray background-motivation; solid
line – positive relationship, p≤ 0.05; dottedline˘negativerelationship, p ≤ 0.05
negative emotions. We assume that these differences are determined by the peculiarities of using
materials posted on the Internet in comparison with materials prepared by classmates: the access to
6
Figure 2: Contribution of learning motivation to the attitudes towards academic cheating
Figure 3: Contribution of introjected motivation to the attitudes towards academic cheating
the Internet materials is much easier but their quality is less certain than in the situations of copying
classmates’ tasks.
The correlation analysis showed that the structures of relations between attitudes towards aca-
demic cheating and students‘ motivation differ for situations of academic cheating with the use of
materials posted on the Internet or copied from classmates. For traditional academic cheating, the
relation between negative attitudes and learning motivation has been confirmed, as in other studies
[Anderman & Koenka, 2017], [Baran & Jonason, 2020], [Krou et al., 2021]. However, for academic
7
cheating with the use of the Internet resources, this relation was not found. Thus, we can answer the
second research question as follows: the correlations between attitudes towards academic cheating
and students’ motivation vary for situation of traditional and electronic cheating.
In relation to the third research question, we can suggest that learning motivation, along with
introjection, is a factor of protection against traditional forms of academic cheating, but it is not
related to the subjective readiness to commit academic cheating through the use of materials posted
on the Internet. Introjected motivation, which is an urge to study due to a sense of duty and a sense
of shame in a situation of non-fulfillment of the curriculum, can be a factor of protection against
academic cheating in both cases. Along with it, in the case of using ready-made materials from
the Internet introjected motivation contributes primarily to negative emotions, but does not lead to
actions associated with the rejection of cheating, as it happens in a situation of cheating by copying
works completed by other students. External motivation aimed at avoiding possible problems in
case of failure to meet the requirements, in turn, increases the subjective admissibility of academic
cheating with the use of materials posted on the Internet.
Summing up, we can conclude that our hypothesis about the difference between motivational
prerequisites of electronic and traditional forms of academic cheating by the example of academic
cheating with the use of the Internet resources and interpersonal resources was confirmed. The results
of our research strongly suggest that the investigation of electronic academic cheating is a specific
problem that needs to be studied separately from traditional forms of academic cheating. Similar
evidence was found for value regulation of academic chatting [Koscielniak & Bojanowska, 2019] which
supports our conclusions. The prospects of the research are related to the analysis of the motivational
prerequisites for other forms of electronic academic cheating, as well as to the expansion of the range
of personal factors that can potentially influence academic behavior in the digital environment.
Conclusions
Students evaluate academic cheating with the use of materials posted on the Internet as an ordinary
element of educational activity, but perceive it more contradictory, compared to traditional forms of
cheating. In contrast to academic cheating based on interpersonal resources, in the case of academic
cheating with the use of materials from the Internet, academic motivation (primarily introjected
motivation) determines only the emotional component of the attitudes to cheating, but does not
provide protection against the use of such actions in educational activity. The further studies should
be focused on searching for psychological prerequisites for the attitude to academic cheating with the
use materials from the Internet in order to find factors that could contribute to reducing this form of
students’ behavior in the educational activity.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as part of a state
task (project No. FSZN-2020-0027).
References
[AbdulHafeez et al., 2016] AbdulHafeez M., Mohd. Feham MD. G., Farooq A., Quadri N. N.,
Asadullah S. (2016) A Study to Investigate State of Ethical Development in E-Learning. In-
ternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 7(4). doi:
10.14569/IJACSA.2016.070436
[Alshehri, 2017] Alshehri M. (2017) Code of Ethics for Teaching-Learning for an e-Learning System.
International. Journal of Computer Applications, 166(50), 16–20. doi: 10.5120/ijca2017914043
8
[Ampuni et al., 2020] Ampuni S., Kautsari N., Maharani M., Kuswardani S., Buwono S. B. S. (2020)
Academic dishonesty in indonesian college students: An investigation from a moral psychology
perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 395–417. doi:10.1007/s10805-019-09352-2
[Anderman & Koenka, 2017] Anderman E. M., Koenka A. C. (2017) The relation between academic
motivation and cheating. Theory into Practice, 56, 95–102. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1308172
[Annie & Mosha, 2015] Annie V. N.; Mosha M. A. (2015) Plagiarism of Students in Higher Education
Institutions in the Era of Improved Internet Access: A Case Study of Developing Countries.
Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 203–216.
[Ard & Ard, 2019] Ard S. E., Ard F. (2019) Library and Writing Center Create a Workshop: Ex-
ploring the Impact of an Asynchronous Online Course on Academic Integrity. New Review of
Academic Librarianship, 25(2-4), 218–243. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2019.1644356
[Bacon et al., 2020] Bacon A. M., McDaid C., Williams N., Corr P. J. (2020) What Motivates Aca-
demic Dishonesty in Students? A Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Explanation. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 152–166. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12269
[Balbay & Kilis, 2019] Balbay S., Kilis S. (2019) Perceived effectiveness of Turnitin in detect-
ing plagiarism in presentation slides. Modern Educational technologies, 10(1), 25–36. doi:
10.30935/cet.512522
[Baran & Jonason, 2020] Baran L., Jonason P. K. (2020) Academic dishonesty among university
students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy, PLoS ONE, 15(8). doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0238141
[Blau et al., 2021] Blau I., Goldberg S., Friedman A., Eshet-Alkalai Y. (2021) Violation of digital and
analog academic integrity through the eyes of faculty members and students: Do institutional
role and technology change ethical perspectives? Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
33(1), 157–187. doi:10.1007/s12528-020-09260-0
[Chala, 2021] Chala W. D. (2021) Perceived seriousness of academic cheating behaviors among un-
dergraduate students: An ethiopian experience. International Journal for Educational Integrity,
17, 2. doi:10.1007/s40979-020-00069-z
[Chankova, 2020] Chankova M. (2020) Teaching Academic Integrity: The Missing Link. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 18(2), 155–173. doi: 10.1007/s10805-019-09356-y
[Childers & Bruton, 2016] Childers D., Bruton S. (2016) “Should this be considered plagiarism?” -
students’ perception of complex citation problems. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(1), 1–17. doi:
10.1007/ s10805-015-9250-6
[Coleman, 2012] Coleman P. (2012) Ethics, Online Learning, and Stakeholder Responsibility for the
Code of Conduct in Higher Education. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in CollegeTeaching and
Learning, 9, Article 3, 29–34.
[Costley, 2019] Costley J. (2019) Students ’ perception of academic dishonesty at a cyber-university
in South Korea. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17(2), 205–217. doi: 10.1007/s10805-018-9318-1
[Daniels et al., 2021] Daniels L. M., Goegan L. D., Parker P. C. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 trig-
gered changes to instruction and assessment on university students’ self-reported motivation, en-
gagement and perceptions. Social Psychology of Education, 24(1), 299–318. doi:10.1007/s11218-
021-09612-3
9
[Daumiller & Janke, 2020] Daumiller M., Janke S. (2020) Effects of performance goals and social
norms on academic dishonesty in a test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2),
537–559. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12310
[Deci & Ryan, 2000] Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
[Dewanti et al., 2021] Dewanti P. W., Purnama I. A., Sukirno, Parthasarathy K. (2021) Subjective
norms and academic dishonesty: A decision tree algorithm analysis. International Journal on
Informatics Visualization, 5(1), 46–50. doi:10.30630/joiv.5.1.423
[Eshet et al., 2021] Eshet Y., Steinberger P., Grinautsky K. (2021) Relationship between statistics
anxiety and academic dishonesty: A comparison between learning environments in social sciences.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3), 1–18. doi:10.3390/su13031564
[Foch & Caves, 2009] Foch, D., Caves, S. (2009) Academic dishonesty: innovative methods of fraud,
their detection and prevention. Teaching and Training in Nursing, 4(2), 37–41
[Gamage et al., 2020] Gamage K. A. A., de Silva E. K., Gunawardhana, N. (2020) Online delivery
and assessment during COVID-19: Safeguarding academic integrity. Education Sciences, 10(11),
1–24. doi:10.3390/educsci10110301
[Genereux & McLeod, 1995] Genereux R. L., McLeod B. A. (1995) Circumstances related to
fraud: a survey of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687–704. doi:
10.1007/BF02208251
[Gordeeva et al., 2014] Gordeeva T. O., Sychev O. A., Osin E. N. (2014) Questionnaire “Scales of
academic motivation”. Psychological Journal, 35(4), 96–107.
[Graham et al., 1994] Graham M. A., Monday J., O’Brien K., Steffen S. (1994) Fraud in small Col-
leges: a study of the attitudes and behaviors of students and faculty. Journal of College Student
Development, 35, 255–260.
[Grijalva, 2006] Grijalva T. C., Nowell C., Kerkvliet J. (2006) Academic integrity and online courses.
College Student Journal, 40(1), 180–185.
[Hard et al., 2006] Hard S. F., Conway J. M., Moran A. C. (2006) Faculty and college students’ beliefs
about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6),
1058–1080.
[Jereb et al., 2018] Jereb E., Perc M., Lämmlein B., Jerebic J., Urh M., Podbregar I., Šprajc P. (2018)
Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovenian stu-
dents. PloS ONE, 13(8), e0202252-e0202252. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0202252
[Kanat-Maymon et al., 2015] Kanat-Maymon Y., Benjamin M., Stavsky A., Shoshani A., Roth G.
(2015) The role of basic need fulfilment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.002
[Koscielniak & Bojanowska, 2019] Koscielniak M., Bojanowska A. (2019) The role of personal val-
ues and student achievement in academic dishonesty // Frontiers in Psychology, Vol.10, 2019.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01887
[Krou et al., 2021] Krou M. R., Fong C. J., Hoff M. A. (2021) Achievement motivation and aca-
demic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 427–458.
doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09557-7
10
[LaDuke, 2013] Laduke R. D. Academic dishonesty today, unethical practices tomorrow? Journal of
professional nursing, 29(6), 402–406.
[Lee et al., 2020] Lee S. D., Kuncel N. R., Gau, J. (2020) Personality, attitude, and demographic
correlates of academic dishonesty: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 10421058.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000300
[LoSchiavo & Shatz, 2011] LoSchiavo F. M., Shatz M. A. (2011) The impact of the honor code on
online course fraud. Journal of Online Learning Teaching, 7(2), 179–184.
[MâăĂ et al., 2020] MâăĂ L., Lazăr I. M., Ghiat, Ău R. Exploring Academic Dishonesty Practices
among Science Education University Students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(1),
91–107.
[Mcgee, 2013] Mcgee P. (2013) Supporting Academic Honesty in Online Courses. Journal of Educators
Online, 10(1). doi: 10.9743/JEO.2013.1.6
[Nagi & John, 2020] Nagi K., John V. K. (2020) Plagiarism among thai students: A study of attitudes
and subjective norms. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on e-Learning (econf),
Sakheer, Bahrain, 45–50. doi: 10.1109/econf51404.2020.9385427.
[Namlu & Odabasi, 2007] Namlu A. G., Odabasi H. F. (2007) An unethical computer using a behavior
scale: A reliability and validity study on Turkish university students. Computers and Education,
48(2), 205–215. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.006
[Nelson et al., 2013] Nelson L., Nelson R., Tichenor L. (2013) Understanding Today’s Students: En-
gaging entry-level students in Scientific Dishonesty. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(3),
52–57.
[Nicolaides, 2018] Nicolaides A. (2018) Striving for ethical practice in the distance assessment of
higher education in the School of Business Leadership. Global Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, 3, 8. doi: 10.28933/gjeba-2018-01-1802
[Pulfrey et al., 2019] Pulfrey C. J., Vansteenkiste M., Michou A. (2019) Under pressure to achieve?
The impact of type and style of task instructions on student cheating. Frontiers in Psychology,
10, 1624. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01624
[Putarek & Pavlin-Bernardić, 2020 ] Putarek V., Pavlin-Bernardić N. (2020) The role of self-efficacy
for self-regulated learning, achievement goals, and engagement in academic cheating. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 35, 673–674. doi:10.1007/s10212-019-00443-7
[Radu et al., 2020] Radu M., Schnakovszky C., Herghelegiu E., Ciubotariu V., Cristea I. (2020) The
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of the educational process: a survey of stu-
dents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 1–15. doi:
10.3390/ijerph17217770
[Shmeleva & Semenova, 2019] Shmeleva E., Semenova T. (2019) Academic dishonesty among College
students: Academic motivation vs. contextual factors. Educational Studies Moscow, 3, 101–129.
doi: 10.17323 / 1814-9545-2019-3-101-129
[Spalding, 2009] Spalding, M. (2009) The perception of academic integrity on the Internet versus
Face-to-face classes. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 183–198.
[Steinberger et al., 2021] Steinberger P., Eshet Y., Grinautsky K. (2021) No anxious student is left
behind: Statistics anxiety, personality traits, and academic dishonesty—lessons from covid-19.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(9), 4762. doi:10.3390/su13094762
11
[Stephens Wangaard, 2016] Stephens J., Wangaard D. (2016) Workshop “Achieving Integrity: an
Integrative Approach to Promoting moral Development in High School Classrooms”. International
Journal for the Integrity of Education, 12(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s40979-016-0010-1
[Stephens et al., 2021] Stephens J. M., Watson P. W. S. J., Alansari M., Lee G., Turnbull S. M. (2021)
Can online academic integrity instruction affect university students’ perceptions of and engage-
ment in academic dishonesty? Results from a natural experiment in New Zealand. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 569133. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.569133
[Stuber-McEwen et al., 2009] Stuber-McEwen D., Wisel P., Hoggatt S. (2009) Point, click, and Cheat:
the frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Dis-
tance Learning Administration, 12 (3), 10.
[Thayan, 2017] Thayan B. M. (2017) Fraud and plagiarism in the context of the Middle East Uni-
versity. Journal of Education and Training, 6(1), 158–166.
[Watson Sottile, 2010] Watson G., Sottile J. (2010) Fraud in the Digital Age: Are students more
likely to cheat on online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1), 9.
[Yu et al., 2020] Yu H., Glanzer P. L., Johnson B. R. (2020) Examining the relationship between stu-
dent attitude and academic cheating. Ethics and Behavior. doi:10.1080/10508422.2020.1817746
12