cheating on exam essay

Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects

Introduction, definition of cheating, works cited.

The ability of a nation to compete effectively on the international front hinges on the quality of its education. With this in mind, it is okay to conclude that cheating in exams undermines the standard of education in a country and consequently hinders its ability to compete at the world stage. Indeed, students who cheat in exams become poor decision makers in their careers. Their productivity and level of integrity is adversely dented by their belief of having everything the easy way. Academic dishonesty is not new but with the increase in competition for jobs, most students have resorted to cheating in order to qualify for these jobs (Anderman and Johnston 75). The purpose of this paper is to research in detail the causes and effects of cheating in exams.

In the education fraternity, cheating entails: copying from someone, Plagiarizing of academic work and paying someone to do your homework. There are numerous reasons why students cheat in exams however; this action elicits harsh repercussions if one is caught. This may include: suspension, dismissal and/or cancellation of marks (Davis, Grover, Becker and McGregor 16).

One of the major reasons that make students cheat in exams is the over-emphasis that has been placed on passing exams. Apparently, more effort has been directed towards passing of exams than learning due to the high competition in the job market. Similarly, most interviewers focus more on certificates rather than the knowledge of the candidate. It is no wonder most learning institutions these days focus on teaching how to pass an exam and completely disregard impacting knowledge to students.

In some cases, students cheat because they are not confident of their ability or skills in academics. Whenever this feeling is present, students resort to cheating as a way of avoiding ridicule in case of failure. In essence, some of these students are very bright but the fear of failure and the lack of adequate preparations compel them to cheat. The paradox is that when cheating, most students swear that they will never do it again but this only serves as the beginning of a vicious cycle of cheating (Anderman and Johnston 76).

Societal pressure is another major cause for cheating in schools. Parents, teachers and relatives always, with good intentions, mount too much pressure on students to get good grades in order to join good schools and eventually get high paying jobs. All this pressure creates innate feelings that it is okay to cheat in exams if only to satisfy their parents and teachers egos.

There are times when students justify cheating because others do it. In most cases, if the head of the class is cheating then most of the other students will feel they have enough reason to also cheat. The system of education is such that it does not sufficiently reprimand those who cheat and tends to hail those who pass exams regardless of how they have done—the end justifies the means.

With the advent of the internet, it has become very easy to access information from a website using a phone or a computer. Search engines such as Google and Yahoo have made it very easy for students to buy custom-made papers for their class work. It is very easy for students from all over the world to have the same answer for an assignment as they all use a similar website. Indeed, plagiarism is the order of the day, all on has to do is to have the knowledge to search for the different reports and essays on the net (Davis, Grover, Becker and McGregor 18).

Nowadays, most tutors spend most of their class time giving lectures. In fact, it is considered old fashioned to give assignments during class time. Consequently, these assignments are piled up and given during certain durations of the semester. This poses a big challenge to students who have to strike a balance between attending to their homework and having fun. As a result, the workload becomes too much such that it is easier to pay for it to be done than actually do it—homework then becomes as demanding as a full-time job (Jordan 234).

From a tender age, children are taught that cheating is wrong; yet most of them divert from this course as they grow up. In fact, most of them become so addicted to the habit that they feel the need to perfect it. Most often, if a student cheats and never gets caught, he is likely to cheat all his life. Research has shown that students who cheat in high school are twice likely to cheat in college. The bigger problem is that this character is likely to affect one’s career in future consequently tarnishing his/her image.

Cheating in exams poses a great problem in one’s career. To get a good grade as a result of cheating is a misrepresentation of facts. Furthermore, it is difficult for a tutor to isolate students who genuinely need specialized coaching. It becomes a huge embarrassment when a cheating student is expected to give a perfect presentation and fails to demonstrate his ability as indicated by his/her grades. In addition, students who cheat in examination do not get a chance to grasp important concepts in class and are likely to face difficulties in the future when the same principles are applied in higher levels of learning.

The worst-case scenario in cheating in an exam is being caught. Once a student is caught, his reputation is dealt a huge blow. It is likely that such a student will be dismissed or suspended from school. This hinders his/her ability to land a good job or join graduate school. It can also lead to a complete damage of one’s reputation making it hard for others to trust you including those who cheat (Jordan 235).

Cheating in exams and assignments can be attributed to many reasons. To begin with, teaching today concentrates so much on the exams and passing rather than impacting knowledge. Lack of confidence in one’s ability and societal pressure is another reason why cheating is so wide spread. Cheating cannot solely be blamed on the students; lecturers have also played their part in this. Apparently, most lectures concentrate on teaching than giving assignments during class time. This leaves the students with loads of work to cover during their free time.

Technology has also played its part in cheating—many students turn to the internet in a bid to complete their assignments. On the other hand, it is important to note than choices have consequences and the repercussions of cheating in an exams are dire. First, it completely ruins one’s reputation thereby hindering chances of joining college or getting a good job. It also leads to suspensions and/or expulsion from school. Furthermore, the habit is so addictive that it is likely to replicate in all aspects of life—be it relationships, work, business deals etc. It is important to shun this habit as nothing good can come out of it.

Anderman, Erick and Jerome Johnston. “TV News in the Classroom: What are Adolescents Learning?” Journal of Adolescent Research , 13 (1998): 73-100. Print.

Davis, Stephen, Cathy Grover, Angela, Becker, and Loretta McGregor. “Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques, and Punishments”. Teaching of Psychology , 19 (1) (1996): 16–20. Print.

Jordan, Augustus E. “College Student Cheating: The Role of Motivation, Perceived Norms, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Institutional Policy. Ethics and Behavior , 11, (2001): 233–247. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, November 25). Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects. https://studycorgi.com/exam-cheating-its-causes-and-effects/

"Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects." StudyCorgi , 25 Nov. 2020, studycorgi.com/exam-cheating-its-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects'. 25 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects." November 25, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/exam-cheating-its-causes-and-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects." November 25, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/exam-cheating-its-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects." November 25, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/exam-cheating-its-causes-and-effects/.

This paper, “Exam Cheating, Its Causes and Effects”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Effects of Cheating on Exams

How it works

Cheating on exams has become more prevalent throughout the 21st century as the importance of learning is eliminated. It disobeys the expectations for a well-behaved Stuyvesant student, and the offense becomes a violation of the morals of society. In highly-competitive schools, such as Stuyvesant, students are prone to running after success through their academics. Everybody is so concerned over competing to be the best in the class that most students have actually forgotten that a school’s purpose is to educate.

The obsession with running after success is so intense that students try finding any way possible to get to the top and some, to extreme cases, resort to cheating. Cheating embodies the sins of incontinence, violence, and fraud to which the punishments are and aren’t appropriate; these characteristics are comparable to the different circles of Hell in Dante’s Inferno.

Cheating is acting dishonestly to gain advantage in a competitive situation. Success in academic achievements is often earned through a student’s hard work and dedication. However, neglection to such means may usually lead to their tendency to cheat off of others because they do not believe in their own abilities and accomplishments. The students can only become guilty of their undeserving grade. Cheating is immoral because it consists of stealing other students’ intellect and calling it your own. It creates a sense of disrespect and injustice amongst the honest students that actually put the time and effort into studying. Furthermore, cheating stimulates a loss of truthfulness and suspicion between students or a student and a teacher.

The theme of incontinence is great significantly in students’ lack of self control and gluttony in the Third Circle of Hell. The culture of cheating has certainly developed along the years. Some students are forced into believing that they must cheat in order to be successful and get the best grades. Additionally, peer pressure and overwhelmness of workload may lead to temptation. However, when teachers fail to notice cheating, the student starts believing that they can get away with it a second time; this cycle will eventually become a habit where he/she is unable to restraint from temptation. This situation is comparable to that of gluttony, which is the overindulgence of food. In both cases, the guilty parties face a lack of restraint from their inclination. In the Third Circle, the Gluttons are submerged beneath “gross hailstones, water gray with filth, and snow come streaking down across the shadowed air” (6.13-4). By rolling around in the dirty hail for eternity, the Gluttons are symbolized as pigs. The sinners are treated like pigs because they gorge themselves in food, displaying animalistic qualities.

The violence depicted in the Circles of Hell are far more severe than the violence present when cheating in examination. Violence is usually portrayed as physically and intentionally using force to harm others. In Dante’s Inferno, most of the sinners in the Seventh Circle of Hell have committed acts of brutality. While the Circle is divided into three rings, those violent against their neighbors and property, such as Murderers and Tyrants, are sent to the first ring “near the stream of blood .. [to] boil” (12.47-8). These sinners were burned, as a punishment, in the symbolic amount of blood they spilled killing those injured violently. Those who are violent to themselves and commit suicide are sent to the second ring where the soul “rises as a sapling, a wild plant; and then the Harpies, feeding on its leaves, cause pain and for that pain provide a vent” (13.100-2). Here, the souls are turned into trees because they are ungrateful about their body. In comparison to cheating, the offenses in the Circles of Hell are far more immoral. Most cases of violence for cheating usually only relate to peer pressure from bullies and possible threats to share answers; students who are hesitant to help their “friends” are afraid of rejection. Nonetheless, the violence in cheating is unparalleled to the violence in Inferno because there is no true sign of intentions to harm students.

The school’s expected counter-penalty for cheating in examination is usually an automatic zero and a call home notifying parents of the unacceptable behavior. Punishments are certainly necessary for committing a sin as bad as cheating. If the school were to not reprimand them, students would continuously get away with such behavior and no one will learn what’s right. The appropriateness of the counter-penalty is well, but its effectiveness is low. Failing a student because they cheated on a particular assessment will encourage them to be more serious about the situation. However, further cheating cases should not be detention because it will not effectively allow them to be reflective on the situation. The purpose of cheating is because the students feel that they are lacking. Instead of detention, an effective punishment is forcing the students to handwrite the test paper several times until they have the information memorized. This will allow for better understanding of the text and removes the need for cheating. The rationale behind this counter-penalty is to suggest that if the students are interested in looking at other test examinations, they might as well rewrite and memorize every portion of the exam afterwards. Detention and forcing students to stay at home will not effectively help on their self-improvement.

Cite this page

The Effects of Cheating on Exams. (2019, Mar 10). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/

"The Effects of Cheating on Exams." PapersOwl.com , 10 Mar 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). The Effects of Cheating on Exams . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/ [Accessed: 6 May. 2024]

"The Effects of Cheating on Exams." PapersOwl.com, Mar 10, 2019. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/

"The Effects of Cheating on Exams," PapersOwl.com , 10-Mar-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/. [Accessed: 6-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). The Effects of Cheating on Exams . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-effects-of-cheating-on-exams/ [Accessed: 6-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• 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.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique

Article Review

• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Cheating in Exams, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 821

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Cheating in exams can be defined as committing acts of dishonesty during an exam in order to score good grades. This is normally done by students when they fail to prepare for the exams or when they feel that the test is too hard for them and they want to score good grades.

Various acts are considered as cheating: first when a student gets access to exam papers be it part of them or all the exam papers before the exam is considered as cheating. Another way of cheating is by having materials that are not authorized in the exam room either electronic or non electronic in their reach from which the students copy or even copying answers from scripts of other candidates or allowing your script to be copied from by other candidates. Such materials include phones in which they store data; some phones have memory cards that store huge amounts of data and thus a student can even carry the whole syllabus in their phones from which they copy. Other electronic materials are calculators in which students store formulas especially for science and math exams. Science and math formulas may also be written on the desktop which they hide from their supervisors by covering with the answer sheet. Non electronic materials include small notes which the students make on something they suspect will be tested. Such writings are made on small pieces of paper, on the palm or on sole tapes which the students stick on their clothes. Another way of cheating is when a student impersonates another one and ends up doing the exam for them or even communicating with fellow candidates during an exam session. These forms don’t exhaust the many ways of cheating.

When students succeed in their first attempt of cheating they will always be tempted to repeat the act since it enables them to pass exams without struggling however this may bring serious consequences for the students. The problems may be short lived or long term. Short term consequences include being awarded a zero score by the lecturer because they believe that the candidate does not know anything. Getting a fail forces the student to repeat the unit .This means an addition on the other terms work a burden which may make the student fail other units hence causing a cycle of failing. Other lecturers punish these students by suspending them for a given period of time .Such students get it rough in explaining to their parents the reasons for being suspended. They may also become the laughing stock in the village when fellow students spread the rumours. Another short term consequence is when the lecturer forces the students to take remedial studies as others go for holiday hence denying them the opportunity to enjoy their holidays.

Long term consequences include being expelled from school. This means the student has to look for another school and hence the student delays from finishing college which consequently affects their chances in the job market because most job advertisements specify age limit. Cheating students also gain bad reputation from fellow students and lectrurers.Fellow students always see you as a liar and lecturers lose faith in you and it becomes difficulty to convince them that you didn’t cheat at times when you pass.

In the long term a student who passed her exams through cheating may have problems when it comes to delivering services in a job. This is because a student may cheat in exams, graduate from college but have difficulties when solving problems touching on their field of study in work environment since the certificates they present don’t really show their capability but what they pretend to be. When it comes to giving ideas during discussions in the office the cheaters will strain to contribute and also the manner in which they present themselves in such meetings will be affected since they fear that fellow workers will notice their dormancy. Without a question poor performance in the job will lead to job loss.

Cheating in an exam also denies a student important knowledge in their lives which they would have gained if they take their studies seriously A student may escape being caught cheating and get good grades which would sound okay   but the truth is they may lie to their teachers and parents but they cannot cheat themselves .the truth will remain that they waste their money and time in college but at the end of it they wont gain any knowledge since what they show to have gained is not theirs. In some colleges like the ones offering ACCA when a candidate is caught cheating they are discontinued from doing the other papers and this may kill the student’s dream of venturing in such a field.

The consequences of cheating in an exam are just too much to bear and so students should avoid such instances by ensuring they revise utilise their time well and revise thoroughly for their exams.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Abortion Is Murder of Innocent, Defenseless and Helpless, Article Review Example

Conceptualizing a Business, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Doing away with essays won’t necessarily stop students cheating

Honorary Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Julie Hare does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s never been easier for university students to cheat. We just need look to the scandal in 2015 that revealed up to 1,000 students from 16 Australian universities had hired the Sydney-based MyMaster company to ghost-write their assignments and sit online tests.

It’s known as contract cheating – when a student pays a third party to undertake their assignments which they then pass off as their own. Contract cheating isn’t new – the term was coined in 2006 . But it’s becoming more commonplace because new technologies, such as the smart phone, are enablers.

Read more: 15% of students admit to buying essays. What can universities do about it?

Cheating is taken seriously by universities and the national regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency . Much of the focus has been on changing assessment tasks to ones deemed to be harder for a third party to undertake. This is called “ authentic assessment ”.

This type of assessment has been widely adopted at universities . They are comprised of tasks that evaluate knowledge and skills by presenting students with real-world scenarios or problems relevant to the kinds of challenges they would face following graduation. But new research found authentic assessment may be as vulnerable to cheating as other more obvious examples, such as essays.

What the research shows

This new study was conducted by academics from six universities, led by Tracey Bretag and Rowena Harper from the University of South Australia. The research – part of the federal government’s Contract Cheating and Assessment Design project – surveyed 14,086 students and 1,147 staff.

The goal of this research was to collect and understand student’s perceptions of the likelihood of cheating on 13 different assessment tasks. The research then asked teaching staff which of the 13 tasks they used.

The researchers have previously reported from this data set that 6% of students admitted to cheating. The purpose of the current round of analysis was not to understand the extent of cheating, but perceptions of how easily it might be done, and if that correlated with the tasks educators set.

They found, for both students and teachers, assessments with a short turnaround time and heavily weighted in the final mark were perceived as the tasks which were the most likely to attract contract cheating.

Assessments perceived as the least likely to attract contract cheating were in-class tasks, personalised and unique tasks, vivas (oral explanations of a written task) and reflections on practical placements. But these tasks were the least likely to be set by educators, presumably because they’re resource and time intensive.

Contract cheating and assessment design

The research confirms the relationship between contract cheating and assessment design is a complex one. There was no assessment tasks for which students reported a 0% likelihood of contract cheating. Students who engage in contract cheating both see and look for opportunities to cheat regardless of the assessment task.

For universities, that means they must assume cheating is always possible and simply changing what assessments they use will not combat the problem.

Many experts have advocated the use of supervised exams to combat cheating. But this new research adds to a growing body of evidence that exams provide universities and accrediting bodies with a false sense of security. In fact, previous data has shown students reported engaging in undetected cheating on supervised exams at higher rates than other types of cheating.

Another common approach is to use a series of small, graded tasks, such as spontaneous in-class tests, sometimes called continuous assessment . Even here, students indicated these were the third most likely form of assessment to be outsourced.

Who’s most likely to cheat?

There has been much attention , particularly during the MyMaster scandal , on international students’ use of contract cheating. The new research suggests both international students and domestic students from non-English speaking backgrounds are more likely to engage in contract cheating than other students.

Read more: Don't assume online students are more likely to cheat. The evidence is murky

The research also found business and commerce degrees were more likely be perceived as attracting contract cheating. Engineering was also particularly vulnerable to cheating.

Students from non-English speaking backgrounds hypothesised cheating would be most likely to occur in assessments that required research, analysis and thinking skills (essays), heavily weighted assignments and assessments with short turnaround times.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, students who indicated they were satisfied with the quality of teaching were less likely to think breaches of academic integrity were likely. In other words, this confirms previous research which showed students dissatisfied with their educational experience are more likely to cheat.

So what do we do about it?

This research provides yet more compelling evidence that curriculum and changes to teaching strategies and early intervention must be employed to support students’ academic endeavours.

The researchers also point out high levels of cheating risks undermining the reputation and quality of Australia’s A$34 billion export sector in international education.

The data demonstrates assessment tasks designed to develop relevant professional skills, which teachers are highly likely to set, were perceived by students as tasks that can easily be cheated on. These might include asking accounting students to memorandums, reports or other communication groups to stakeholders, such as shareholders. In fact, among students from a non-English speaking background, the risks of cheating might actually increase for these tasks. This means authentic assessment might run the increasing risk of being outsourced.

Read more: Assessment design won’t stop cheating, but our relationships with students might

This research shows the relationship between contract cheating and assessment design is not a simple product of cause and effect. In fact, the nature of the task itself may be less relevant to the prevalence of cheating than other factors such as a student’s from non-English speaking background’s status, perceived opportunities to cheat or satisfaction with the teaching and learning environment.

All educators must remain vigilant about cheating. Teachers must be properly resourced by their universities to ensure they can create rich learning environments which uphold the integrity of the higher education system.

Burdened with large debts and facing a precarious job market after graduation, it’s perhaps unsurprising some students, particularly those who are struggling academically, take a transactional approach to their education. This new research provides more clear evidence contract cheating is a systemic problem that requires a sector-wide response.

• University assessment
• MyMaster cheating scandal
• Essay mills
• Exam cheating
• Essay writing
• Contract cheating

Scheduling Analyst

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation.

Identify possible reasons for the problem you have selected. To find the most effective strategies, select the reason that best describes your situation, keeping in mind there may be multiple relevant reasons.

Students cheat on assignments and exams..

Students might not understand or may have different models of what is considered appropriate help or collaboration or what comprises plagiarism.

Students might blame their cheating behavior on unfair tests and/or professors.

Some students might feel an obligation to help certain other students succeed on exams—for example, a fraternity brother, sorority sister, team- or club-mate, or a more senior student in some cultures.

Some students might cheat because they have poor study skills that prevent them from keeping up with the material.

Students are more likely to cheat or plagiarize if the assessment is very high-stakes or if they have low expectations of success due to perceived lack of ability or test anxiety.

Students might be in competition with other students for their grades.

Students might perceive a lack of consequences for cheating and plagiarizing.

Students might perceive the possibility to cheat without getting caught.

Many students are highly motivated by grades and might not see a relationship between learning and grades.

Students are more likely to cheat when they feel anonymous in class.

This site supplements our 1-on-1 teaching consultations. CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!

Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing Cause and Effect Essay

Introduction.

Cheating on exams is a violation of school’s policies. The research focuses on the effect of cheating on the college exams. The research discusses three distinct effects of cheating on the college exams. Cheating on the college exams is demoralising.

Another Test Will Uncover the Dishonest Act.

After passing the exams, Tim West (West, 2004) emphasized that another test will uncover the cheating activity. Normally, the teacher doubts the cheating student’s high college exam score. Consequently, the teacher may investigate the truthfulness of the student’s high college test score. The teacher may conduct another test to determine the validity of the student’s high score. The follow-up quiz shows strong evidence of the cheating occurrence.

Cheating shames the students.

Depending on the cheating student’s cultural background, Tibbetts (1999) reiterated that the teacher’s spotting of the cheating in progress brings shame on the student involved. Normally, the teacher takes the cheating student’s paper and marks it as cheating. The student receives an automatic failed grade.

The teacher reports the students to the school administrators for disciplinary action. The school administration officer or guidance officer reprimands the students. The repeated acts of cheating force the school administrators and teachers to implement severe punishment on the erring student.

Cheating affects other classmates

In terms of ethics, Tim West (2004) theorized that cheating in class affects the other students. One student feels that cheating in class is unfair to the other students. The cheater copies the answers of the nearest intelligent room seatmate. In some instances, the cheater unintentionally copies the wrong answers of the less intelligent classmate.

In the nutshell, the post agrees with the thesis statement. Cheating on the college academic test is demoralizing. After getting a passing score, another test exposes the student’s cheating activity. The teacher’s spotting of a student cheating on college exams lowers the cheating student’s self esteem. Classmate eyewitnesses often spread the news of the cheating activity. Cheating on class tests causes the other students to cry foul. Indeed, cheating on the college tests is a transgression of the school’s policies.

Tibbetts, S. G.,(1999). Differences Between Women and Men Regarding Decisions To Commit Test Cheating. Research in Higher Education, 40 (1), 323 -342.

West, T. S., (2004). Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom. Journal of Business Ethics , 54 (2), 173 -183.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 25). Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cheating-on-college-exams-is-demoralizing/

"Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing." IvyPanda , 25 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/cheating-on-college-exams-is-demoralizing/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing'. 25 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing." November 25, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cheating-on-college-exams-is-demoralizing/.

1. IvyPanda . "Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing." November 25, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cheating-on-college-exams-is-demoralizing/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Cheating on College Exams is Demoralizing." November 25, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cheating-on-college-exams-is-demoralizing/.

• Exploring Junot Díaz's Narrative Nonfiction
• Sex and Death in Stoker’s Dracula
• Human vs. Divine Ego: What Is the Difference?
• "The Harvest-La Cosecha" by Angus McLennan
• The Detriment of Participation Trophies
• "Tom Torlino Student File" Photograph Analysis
• Should Pay Policies Be Secret or Open?
• “The Corporation” a Film by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan
• North and South Korea Unification Process: Issues and Probability
• Male Dominance as Impeding Female Sexual Freedom
• Students Procrastination Problem
• Marginal Analysis of Cheating
• Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay
• Comprehensive Sex Education
• American History: The Problem of Education in American Culture

How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review

• Open access
• Published: 04 August 2023
• Volume 22 , pages 323–343, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Philip M. Newton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5272-7979 1 &
• Keioni Essex 1  

10k Accesses

15 Citations

32 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Academic misconduct is a threat to the validity and reliability of online examinations, and media reports suggest that misconduct spiked dramatically in higher education during the emergency shift to online exams caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reviewed survey research to determine how common it is for university students to admit cheating in online exams, and how and why they do it. We also assessed whether these self-reports of cheating increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with an evaluation of the quality of the research evidence which addressed these questions. 25 samples were identified from 19 Studies, including 4672 participants, going back to 2012. Online exam cheating was self-reported by a substantial minority (44.7%) of students in total. Pre-COVID this was 29.9%, but during COVID cheating jumped to 54.7%, although these samples were more heterogenous. Individual cheating was more common than group cheating, and the most common reason students reported for cheating was simply that there was an opportunity to do so. Remote proctoring appeared to reduce the occurrence of cheating, although data were limited. However there were a number of methodological features which reduce confidence in the accuracy of all these findings. Most samples were collected using designs which makes it likely that online exam cheating is under-reported, for example using convenience sampling, a modest sample size and insufficient information to calculate response rate. No studies considered whether samples were representative of their population. Future approaches to online exams should consider how the basic validity of examinations can be maintained, considering the substantial numbers of students who appear to be willing to admit engaging in misconduct. Future research on academic misconduct would benefit from using large representative samples, guaranteeing participants anonymity.

Similar content being viewed by others

The temptation to cheat in online exams: moving beyond the binary discourse of cheating and not cheating

Student Integrity Violations in the Academy: More Than a Decade of Growing Complexity and Concern

Cheating is in the Eye of the Beholder: an Evolving Understanding of Academic Misconduct

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Distance learning came to the fore during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Distance learning, also referred to as e-learning, blended learning or mobile learning (Zarzycka et al., 2021 ) is defined as learning with the use of technology where there is a physical separation of students from the teachers during the active learning process, instruction and examination (Armstrong-Mensah et al., 2020 ). This physical separation was key to a sector-wide response to reducing the spread of coronavirus.

COVID prompted a sudden, rapid and near-total adjustment to distance learning (Brown et al., 2022 ; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021 ). We all, staff and students, had to learn a lot, very quickly, about distance learning. Pandemic-induced ‘lockdown learning’ continued, in some form, for almost 2 years in many countries, prompting predictions that higher education would be permanently changed by the pandemic, with online/distance learning becoming much more common, even the norm (Barber et al., 2021 ; Dumulescu & Muţiu, 2021 ). One obvious potential change would be the widespread adoption of online assessment methods. Online exams offer students increased flexibility, for example the opportunity to sit an exam in their own homes. This may also reduce some of the anxiety experienced during attending in-person exams in an exam hall, and potentially reduce the administrative cost to universities.

However, assessment poses many challenges for distance learning. Summative assessments, including exams, are the basis for making decisions about the grading and progress of individual students, while aggregated results can inform educational policy such as curriculum or funding decisions (Shute & Kim, 2014 ). Thus, it is essential that online summative assessments can be conducted in a way that allows for their basic reliability and validity to be maintained. During the pandemic, Universities shifted, very rapidly, in-person exams to an online format, with limited time to ensure that these methods were secure. There were subsequent media reports that academic misconduct was now ‘endemic’, with universities supposedly ‘turning a blind eye’ towards cheating (e.g. Henry, 2022 ; Knox, 2021 ). However, it is unclear whether this media anxiety is reflected in the real-world experience in universities.

Dawson defines e-cheating as ‘cheating that uses or is enabled by technology’ (Dawson, 2020 , p. 4). Cheating itself is then defined as the gaining of an unfair advantage (Case and King 2007, in Dawson, 2020 , P4). Cheating poses an obvious threat to the validity of online examinations, a format which relies heavily on technology. Noorbebahani and colleagues recently reviewed the research literature on a specific form of e-cheating; online exam cheating in higher education. They found that students use a variety of methods to gain an unfair advantage, including accessing unauthorized materials such as notes and textbooks, using an additional device to go online, collaborating with others, and even outsourcing the exam to be taken by someone else. These findings map onto the work of Dawson, 2020 , who found a similar taxonomy when considering ‘e-cheating’ more generally. These can be driven by a variety of motivations, including a fear of failure, peer pressure, a perception that others are cheating, and the ease with which they can do it (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ). However, it remains unclear how many students are actually engaged in these cheating behaviours. Understanding the scale of cheating is an important pragmatic consideration when determining how, or even if, it could/should be addressed. There is an extensive literature on the incidence of other types of misconduct, but cheating in online exams has received less attention than other forms of misconduct such as plagiarism (Garg & Goel, 2022 ).

One seemingly obvious response to concerns about cheating in online exams is to use remote proctoring systems wherein students are monitored through webcams and use locked-down browsers. However, the efficacy of these systems is not yet clear, and their use has been controversial, with students feeling that they are ‘under surveillance’, anxious about being unfairly accused of cheating, or of technological problems (Marano et al., 2023 ). A recent court ruling in the USA found that the use of a remote proctoring system to scan a student’s private resident prior to taking an online exam was unconstitutional (Bowman, 2022 ), although, at the time of writing, this case is ongoing (Witley, 2023 ). There is already a long history of legal battles between the proctoring companies and their critics (Corbyn, 2022 ), and it is still unclear whether these systems actually reduce misconduct. Alternatives have been offered in the literature, including guidance for how to prepare online exams in a way that reduces the opportunity for misconduct (Whisenhunt et al., 2022 ), although it is unclear whether this guidance is effective either.

There is a large body of research literature which examines the prevalence of different types of academic dishonesty and misconduct. Much of this research is in the form of survey-based self-report studies. There are some obvious problems with using self-report as a measure of misconduct; it is a ‘deviant’ or ‘undesirable’ behaviour, and so those invited to participate in survey-based research have a disincentive to respond truthfully, if at all, especially if there is no guarantee of anonymity. There is also some evidence that certain demographic characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in academic misconduct are also predictive of a decreased likelihood of responding voluntarily to surveys, meaning that misconduct is likely under-reported when a non-representative sampling method is used such as convenience sampling (Newton, 2018 ).

Some of these issues with quantifying academic misconduct can be partially addressed by the use of rigorous research methodology, for example using representative samples with a high response rate, and clear, unambiguous survey items (Bennett et al., 2011 ; Halbesleben & Whitman, 2013 ). Guarantees of anonymity are also essential for respondents to feel confident about answering honestly, especially when the research is being undertaken by the very universities where participants are studying. A previous systematic review of academic misconduct found that self-report studies are often undertaken with small, convenience samples with low response rates (Newton, 2018 ). Similar findings were reported when reviewing the reliability of research into the prevalence of belief in the Learning Styles neuromyth, suggesting that this is a wider concern within survey-based education research (Newton & Salvi, 2020 ).

However, self-report remains one of the most common ways that academic misconduct is estimated, perhaps in part because there are few other ways to meaningfully measure it. There is also a basic, intuitive objective validity to the method; asking students whether they have cheated is a simple and direct approach, when compared to other indirect approaches to quantifying misconduct, based on (for example) learner analytics, originality scores or grade discrepancies. There is some evidence that self-report correlates positively with actual behaviour (Gardner et al., 1988 ), and that data accuracy can be improved by using methods which incentivize truth-telling (Curtis et al., 2022 ).

Here we undertook a systematic search of the literature in order to identify research which studied the prevalence of academic dishonesty in summative online examinations in Higher Education. The research questions were thus.

How common is self-report of cheating in online exams in Higher Education? (This was the primary research question, and studies were only included if they addressed this question).

Did cheating in online exams increase during the COVID-19 pandemic?

What are the most common forms of cheating?

What are student motivations for cheating?

Does online proctoring reduce the incidence of self-reported online exam cheating?

The review was conducted according to the principles of the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2009 ) updated for 2020 (Page et al., 2021 ). We adapted this methodology based on previous work systematically reviewing survey-based research in education, misbelief and misconduct (Fanelli, 2009 ; Newton, 2018 ; Newton & Salvi, 2020 ), based on the limited nature of the outcomes reported in these studies (i.e. percentage of students engaging in a specific behaviour).

Search Strategy and Information Sources

Searches were conducted in July and August 2022. Searches were first undertaken using the ERIC education research database (eric.ed.gov) and then with Google Scholar. We used Google Scholar since it covers grey literature (Haddaway et al., 2015 ), including unpublished Masters and PhD theses (Jamali & Nabavi, 2015 ) as well as preprints. The Google Scholar search interface is limited, and the search returns can include non-research documents search as citations, university policies and handbooks on academic integrity, and multiple versions of papers (Boeker et al., 2013 ). It is also not possible to exclude the results of one search from another. Thus it is not possible for us to report accurately the numbers of included papers returned from each term. ‘Daisy chaining’ was also used to identify relevant research from studies that had already been identified using the aforementioned literature searches, and recent reviews on the subject (Butler-Henderson & Crawford, 2020 ; Chiang et al., 2022 ; Garg & Goel, 2022 ; Holden et al., 2021 ; Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ; Surahman & Wang, 2022 ).

Selection Process

Search results were individually assessed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, starting with the title, followed by the abstract and then the full text. If a study clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria based on the title then it was excluded. If the author was unsure, then the abstract was reviewed. If there was still uncertainty, then the full text was reviewed. When a study met the inclusion criteria (see below), the specific question used in that study to quantify online exam cheating was then itself also used as a search term. Thus the full list of search terms used is shown in Supplementary Online Material S1 .

Eligibility Criteria

The following criteria were used to determine whether to include samples. Many studies included multiple datasets (e.g. samples comprising different groups of students, across different years). The criteria here were applied to individual datasets.

Inclusion Criteria

Participants were asked whether they had ever cheated in an online exam (self-report).

Participants were students in Higher Education.

Reported both total sample size and percent of respondents answering yes to the relevant exam cheating questions, or sufficient data to allow those metrics to be calculated.

English language publication.

Published 2013-present, with data collected 2012-present. We wanted to evaluate a 10 year timeframe. In 2013, at the beginning of this time window, the average time needed to publish an academic paper was 12.2 months, ranging from 9 months (chemistry) to 18 months (Business) (Björk & Solomon, 2013 ). It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that a paper published in 2013 was most likely submitted in 2012. Thus we included papers whose publication date was 2013 onwards, unless the manuscript itself specifically stated that the data were collected prior to 2012.

Exclusion Criteria

Asking participants would they cheat in exams (e.g. Morales-Martinez et al., 2019 ), or did not allow for a distinction between self-report of intent and actual cheating (e.g. Ghias et al., 2014 ).

Phrasing of survey items in a way that does not allow for frequency of online exam cheating to be specifically identified according to the criteria above. Wherever necessary, study authors were contacted to clarify.

Asking participants ‘how often do others cheat in online exams’.

Asking participants about helping other students to cheat.

Schools, community colleges/further education, MOOCS.

Cheating in formative exams, or did not distinguish between formative/summative (e.g. quizzes/exams (e.g. Alvarez, Homer et al., 2022 ; Costley, 2019 ).

Estimates of cheating from learning analytics or other methods which did not include directly asking participants if they had cheated.

Published in a predatory journal (see below).

Predatory Journal Criteria

Predatory journals and publishers are defined as “ entities which prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices .” (Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ). The inclusion of predatory journals in literature reviews may therefore have a negative impact on the data, findings and conclusions. We followed established guidelines for the identification and exclusion of predatory journals from the findings (Rice et al., 2021 ):

Each study which met the inclusion criteria was checked for spelling, punctuation and grammar errors as well as logical inconsistencies.

Every included journal was checked against open access criteria;

If the journal was listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) database (DOAJ.org) then it was considered to be non-predatory.

If the journal was not present in the DOAJ database, we looked for it in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) database (publicationethics.org). If the journal was listed on the COPE database then it was considered to be non-predatory.

Only one paper met these criteria, containing logical inconsistencies and not listed on either DOAJ or COPE. For completeness we also searched an informal list of predatory journals ( https://beallslist.net ) and the journal was listed there. Thus the study was excluded.

All data were extracted by both authors independently. Where the extracted data differed between authors then this was clarified through discussion. Data extracted were, where possible, as follows:

Author/date

Year of Publication

Year study was undertaken . If this was a range (e.g. Nov 2016-Apr 2017) then the most recent year was used as the data point (e.g. 2017 in the example). If it was not reported when the study was undertaken, then we recorded the year that the manuscript was submitted. If none of these data were available then the publication year was entered as the year that the study was undertaken.

Publication type. Peer reviewed journal publication, peer reviewed conference proceedings or dissertation/thesis.

Population size. The total number of participants in the population, from which the sample is drawn and supposed to represent. For example, if the study is surveying ‘business students at University X’, is it clear how many business students are currently at University X?

Number Sampled. The number of potential participants, from the population, who were asked to fill in the survey.

N . The number of survey respondents.

Cheated in online summative examinations . The number of participants who answered ‘yes’ to having cheated in online exams. Some studies recorded the frequency of cheating on a scale, for example a 1–5 Likert scale from ‘always’ to ‘never’. In these cases, we collapsed all positive reports into a single number of participants who had ever cheated in online exams. Some studies did not ask for a total rate of cheating (i.e. cheating by any/all methods) and so, for analysis purposes the method with the highest rate of cheating was used (see Results).

Group/individual cheating. Where appropriate, the frequency of cheating via different methods was recorded. These were coded according to the highest level of the framework proposed by Noorbehbahani (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ), i.e. group vs. individual. More fine-grained analysis was not possible due to the number and nature of the included studies.

Study Risk of Bias and Quality metrics

Response rate . Defined as “ the percentage of people who completed the survey after being asked to do so” (Halbesleben & Whitman, 2013 ).

Method of sampling. As one of the following; convenience sampling, where all members of the population were able to complete the survey, but data were analysed from those who voluntarily completed it. ‘Unclassifiable’ where it was not possible to determine the sampling method based on the data provided (no other sampling methods were used in the included studies).

Ethics. Was it reported whether ethical/IRB approval had been obtained? (note that a recording of ‘N’ here does not mean that ethical approval was not obtained, just that it is not reported)

Anonymity . Were participants assured that they were answering anonymously? Students who are found to have cheated in exams can be given severe penalties, and so a statement of anonymity (not just confidentiality) is important for obtaining meaningful data.

Synthesis Methods

Data are reported as mean ± SEM unless otherwise stated. Datasets were tested for normal distribution using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test prior to analysis and parametric tests were used if the data were found to be normally distributed. The details of the specific tests used are in the relevant results section.

25 samples were identified from 19 studies, containing a total of 4672 participants. Three studies contained multiple distinct samples from different participants (e.g. data was collected in different years (Case et al., 2019 ; King & Case, 2014 ), or were split by two different programmes of study (Burgason et al., 2019 ), or whether exams were proctored or not (Owens, 2015 ). Thus, these samples were treated as distinct in the analysis since they represent different participants. Multiple studies asked the same groups of participants about different types of cheating, or the conditions under which cheating happens. The analysis of these is explained in the relevant results subsection. A summary of the studies is in Table  1 . The detail of each individual question asked to study participants is in supplementary online data S2 .

Descriptive Metrics of Studies

Sampling method.

23/25 samples were collected using convenience sampling. The remaining two did not provide sufficient information to determine the method of sampling.

Population Size

Only two studies reported the population size.

Sample Size

The average sample size was 188.7 ± 36.16.

Response Rate

Fifteen of the samples did not report sufficient information to allow a response rate to be calculated. The ten remaining samples returned an average response rate of 55.6% ±10.7, with a range from 12.2 to 100%.

Eighteen of the 23 samples (72%) stated that participant responses were collected anonymously.

Seven of the 25 samples (28%) reported that ethical approval was obtained for the study.

How Common is Self-Reported Online Exam Cheating in Higher Education?

44.7% of participants (2088/4672) reported engaging in some form of cheating in online exams. This analysis included those studies where total cheating was not recorded, and so the most commonly reported form of cheating was substituted in. To check the validity of this inclusion, a separate analysis was conducted of only those studies where total cheating was recorded. In this case, 42.5% of students (1574/3707) reported engaging in some form of cheating. An unpaired t -test was used to compare the percentage cheating from each group (total vs. highest frequency), and returned no significant difference ( t (23) = 0.5926, P = 0.56).

Did the Frequency of Online Exam Cheating Increase During COVID?

The samples were classified as having been collected pre-COVID, or during COVID (no samples were identified as having been collected ‘post-COVID’). One study (Jenkins et al., 2022 ) asked the same students about their behaviour before, and during, COVID. For the purposes of this specific analysis, these were included as separate samples, thus there were 26 samples, 17 pre-COVID and 9 during COVID. Pre-COVID, 29.9% (629/2107) of participants reported cheating in online exams. During COVID this figure was 54.7% (1519/2779).

To estimate the variance in these data, and to test whether the difference was statistically significant, the percentages of students who reported cheating for each study were grouped into pre-and during-COVID and the average calculated for each group. The average pre-COVID was 28.03% ± 4.89, (N = 17), whereas during COVID the average is 65.06 ± 9.585 (N = 9). An unpaired t- test was used to compare the groups, and returned a statistically significant difference ( t (24) = 3.897, P = 0.0007). The effect size (Hedges g) was 1.61, indicating that the COVID effect was substantial (Fig.  1 ).

Increased self-report of cheating in online exams during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data represent the mean ± SEM of the percentages of students who self-report cheating in online exams pre-and-during COVID. *** = P < 0.005 unpaired t- test

To test the reliability of this result, we conducted a split sample test as in other systematic reviews of the prevalence of academic misconduct (Newton, 2018 ), wherein the data for each group were ordered by size and then every other sample was extracted into a separate group. So, the sample with the lowest frequency of cheating was allocated into Group A, the next smallest into Group B, the next into Group A, and so on. This was conducted separately for the pre-COVID and ‘during COVID’. Each half-group was then subject to an unpaired t- test to determine whether cheating increased during COVID in that group. Each group returned a significant difference ( t (10) = 2.889 P = 0.0161 for odd-numbered samples, t (12) = 2.48, P = 0.029 for even-numbered samples. This analysis gives confidence that the observed increase in self-reported online exam cheating during the pandemic is statistically robust, although there may be other variables which contribute to this (see discussion).

Comparison of Group vs. Individual Online Exam Cheating in Higher Education

In order to consider how best to address cheating in online exams, it is important to understand the specific behaviours of students. Many studies asked multiple questions about different types of cheating, and these were coded according to the typology developed by Noorbehbehani which has a high-level code of ‘individual’ and ‘group’ (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ). More fine-grained coding was not possible due to the variance in the types of questions asked of participants (see S2). ‘Individual’ cheating meant that, whatever the type of cheating, it could be achieved without the direct help of another person. This could be looking at notes or textbooks, or searching for materials online. ‘Group’ cheating meant that another person was directly involved, for example by sharing answers, or having them sit the exam on behalf of the participant (contract cheating). Seven studies asked their participants whether they had engaged in different forms of cheating where both formats (Group and Individual) were represented. For each study we ranked all the different forms of cheating by the frequency with which participants reported engaging in it. For all seven of the studies which asked about both Group and Individual cheating, the most frequently reported cheating behaviour was an Individual cheating behaviour. For each study we calculated the difference between the two by subtracting the frequency of the most commonly reported Group cheating behaviour from the frequency of the most commonly reported Individual cheating behaviour. The average difference was 23.32 ± 8.0% points. These two analyses indicate that individual forms of cheating are more common than cheating which involves other people.

Effect of Proctoring/Lockdown Browsers

The majority of studies did not make clear whether their online exams were proctored or unproctored, or whether they involved the use of related software such as lockdown browsers. Thus it was difficult to conduct definitive analyses to address the question of whether these systems reduce online exam cheating. Two studies did specifically address this issue in both cases there was a substantially lower rate of self-reported cheating where proctoring systems were used. Jenkins et al., in a study conducted during COVID, asked participants whether their instructors used ‘anti cheating software (e.g., Lockdown Browser)’ and, if so, whether they had tried to circumvent it. 16.5% admitted to doing this, compared to the overall rate of cheating of 58.4%. Owens asked about an extensive range of different forms of misconduct, in two groups of students whose online exams were either proctored or unproctored. The total rates of cheating in each group did not appear to be reported. The most common form of cheating was the same in both groups (‘web search during an exam’) and was reported by 39.8% of students in the unproctored group but by only 8.5% in the proctored group (Owens, 2015 ).

Reasons Given for Online Exam Cheating

Ten of the studies asked students why they cheated in online exams. These reasons were initially coded by both authors according to the typology provided in (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ). Following discussion between the authors, the typology was revised slightly to that shown in Table  1 , to better reflect the reasons given in the reviewed studies.

Descriptive statistics (the percentages of students reporting the different reasons as motivations for cheating) are shown in Table  2 . Direct comparison between the reasons is not fully valid since different studies asked for different options, and some studies offered multiple options whereas some only identified one. However in the four studies that offered multiple options to students, three of them ranked ‘opportunities to cheat’ as the most common reason (and the fourth study did not have this as an option). Thus students appear to be most likely to cheat in online exams when there is an opportunity to do so.

We reviewed data from 19 studies, including 25 samples totaling 4672 participants. We found that a substantial proportion of students, 44.7%, were willing to admit to cheating in online summative exams. This total number masks a finding that cheating in online exams appeared to increase considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 29.9 to 54.7%. These are concerning findings. However, there are a number of methodological considerations which influence the interpretation of these data. These considerations all lead to uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the findings, although a common theme is that, unfortunately, the issues highlighted seem likely to result in an under-reporting of the rate of cheating in online exams.

There are numerous potential sources of error in survey-based research, and these may be amplified where the research is asking participants to report on sensitive or undesirable behaviours. One of these sources of error comes from non-respondents, i.e. how confident can we be that those who did not respond to the survey would have given a similar pattern of responses to those that did (Goyder et al., 2002 ; Halbesleben & Whitman, 2013 ; Sax et al., 2003 ). Two ways to minimize non-respondent error are to increase the sample size as a percentage of the population, and then simply to maximise the percentage of the invited sample who responds to the survey. However only nine of the samples reported sufficient information to even allow the calculation of a response rate, and only two reported the total population size. Thus for the majority of samples reported here, we cannot even begin to estimate the extent of the non-response error. For those that did report sufficient information, the response rate varied considerably, from 12.2% to 100, with an average of 55.6%. Thus a substantial number of the possible participants did not respond.

Most of the surveys reviewed here were conducted using convenience sampling, i.e. participation was voluntary and there was no attempt to ensure that the sample was representative, or that the non-respondents were followed up in a targeted way to increase the representativeness of the sample. People who voluntarily respond to survey research are, compared to the general population, older, wealthier, more likely to be female and educated (Curtin et al., 2000 ). In contrast, individuals who engage in academic misconduct are more likely to be male, younger, from a lower socioeconomic background and less academically able (reviewed in Newton, 2018 ). Thus the features of the survey research here would suggest that the rates of online exam cheating are under-reported.

A second source of error is measurement error – for example, how likely is it that those participants who do respond are telling the truth? Cheating in online exams is clearly a sensitive subject for potential survey participants. Students who are caught cheating in exams can face severe penalties. Measurement error can be substantial when asking participants about sensitive topics, particularly when they have no incentive to respond truthfully. Curtis et al. conducted an elegant study to investigate rates of different types of contract cheating and found that rates were substantially higher when participants were incentivized to tell the truth, compared to traditional self-report (Curtis et al., 2022 ). Another method to increase truthfulness is to use a Randomised Response Technique, which increases participants confidence that their data will be truly anonymous when self-reporting cheating (Mortaz Hejri et al., 2013 ) and so leads to increased estimates of the prevalence of cheating behaviours when measured via self-report (Kerkvliet, 1994 ; Scheers & Dayton, 1987 ). No studies reviewed here reported any incentivization or use of a randomized response technique, and many did not report IRB (ethical) approval or that participants were guaranteed anonymity in their responses. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it again seems reasonable to conclude that the majority of the measurement error reported here will also lead to an under-reporting of the extent of online exam cheating.

However, there are very many variables associated with likelihood of committing academic misconduct (also reviewed in Newton, 2018 ). For example, in addition to the aforementioned variables, cheating is also associated with individual differences such as personality traits (Giluk & Postlethwaite, 2015 ; Williams & Williams, 2012 ), motivation (Park et al., 2013 ), age and gender (Newstead et al., 1996 ) and studying in a second language (Bretag et al., 2019 ) as well as situational variables such as discipline studied (Newstead et al., 1996 ). None of the studies reviewed here can account for these individual variables, and this perhaps explains, partly, the wide variance in the studies reported, where the percentage of students willing to admit to cheating in online exams ranges from essentially none, to all students, in different studies. However, almost all of the variables associated with differences in likelihood of committing academic misconduct were themselves determined using convenience sampling. In order to begin to understand the true nature, scale and scope of academic misconduct, there is a clear need for studies using large, representative samples, with appropriate methodology to account for non-respondents, and rigorous analyses which attempt to identify those variables associated with an increased likelihood of cheating.

There are some specific issues which must be considered when determining the accuracy of the data showing an increase in cheating during COVID. In general, the pre-COVID group appears to be a more homogenous set of samples, for example, 11 of the 16 samples are from students studying business, and 15 of the 16 pre-COVID samples are from the USA. The during-COVID samples are from a much more diverse range of disciplines and countries. However the increase in self-reported cheating was replicated in the one study which directly asked students about their behaviour before, and during, the pandemic; Jenkins and co-workers found that 28.4% of respondents were cheating pre-COVID, nearly doubling to 58.4% during the pandemic (Jenkins et al., 2022 ), very closely mirroring the aggregate results.

There are some other variables which may be different between the studies and so affect the overall interpretation of the findings. For example, the specific questions asked of participants, as shown in the supplemental online material ( S2 ) reveal that most studies do not report on the specific type of exam (e.g. multiple choice vs. essay based), or the exam duration, weighting, or educational level. This is likely because the studies survey groups of students, across programmes. Having a more detailed understanding of these factors would also inform strategies to address cheating in online exams.

It is difficult to quantify the potential impact of these issues on the accuracy of the data analysed here, since objective measures of cheating in online exams are difficult to obtain in higher education settings. One way to achieve this is to set up traps for students taking closed-book exams. One study tested this using a 2.5 h online exam administered for participants to obtain credit from a MOOC. The exam was set up so that participants would “likely not benefit from having access to third-party reference materials during the exam” . Students were instructed not to access any additional materials or to communicate with others during the exam. The authors built a ‘honeypot’ website which had all of the exam questions on, with a button ‘click to show answer’. If exam participants went online and clicked that button then the site collected information which allowed the researchers to identify the unique i.d. of the test-taker. This approach was combined with a more traditional analysis of the originality of the free-text portions of the exam. Using these methods, the researchers estimated that ~ 30% of students were cheating (Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015b ). This study was conducted in 2014-15, and the data align reasonably well with the pre-COVID estimates of cheating found here, giving some confidence that the self-report measures reported here are in the same ball park as objective measures, albeit from only one study.

The challenges of interpreting data from small convenience samples will also affect the analysis of the other measures made here; that students are more likely to commit misconduct on their own, because they can. The overall pattern of findings though does align somewhat, suggesting that concerns may be with the accuracy of the numbers rather than a fundamental qualitative problem (i.e. it seems reasonable to conclude that students are more likely to cheat individually, but it is challenging to put a precise number to that finding). For example, the apparent increase in cheating during COVID is associated with a rapid and near-total transition to online exams. Pre-covid, the use of online exams would have been a choice made by education providers, presumably with some efforts to ensure the security and integrity of that assessment. During COVID lockdown, the scale and speed of the transition to online exams made it much more challenging to put security measures in place, and this would therefore almost certainly have increased the opportunities to cheat.

It was challenging to gather more detail about the specific types of cheating behaviour, due to the considerable heterogeneity between the studies regarding this question. The sector would benefit from future large-scale research using a recognized typology, for example those proposed by Dawson (Dawson, 2020 , p. 112) or Noorbehbahani (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ).

Another important recommendation that will help the sector in addressing the problem is for future survey-based research of student dishonesty to make use of the abundant methodological research undertaken to increase the accuracy of such surveys. In particular the use of representative sampling, or analysis methods which account for the challenges posed by unrepresentative samples. Data quality could also be improved by the use of question formats and survey structures which motivate or incentivize truth-telling, for example by the use of methods such as the Randomised Response Technique which increase participant confidence that their responses will be truly anonymous. It would also be helpful to report on key methodological features of survey design; pilot testing, scaling, reliability and validity, although these are commonly underreported in survey based research generally (Bennett et al., 2011 ).

Thus an aggregate portrayal of the findings here is that students are committing misconduct in significant numbers, and that this has increased considerably during COVID. Students appear to be more likely to cheat on their own, rather than in groups, and most commonly motivated by the simple fact that they can cheat. Do these findings and the underlying data give us any information that might be helpful in addressing the problem?

One technique deployed by many universities to address multiple forms of online exam cheating is to increase the use of remote proctoring, wherein student behaviour during online exams is monitored, for example, through a webcam, and/or their online activity is monitored or restricted. We were unable to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of remote proctoring or other software such as lockdown browsers to reduce cheating in online exams, since very few studies stated definitively that the exams were, or were not, proctored. The two studies that examined this question did appear to show a substantial reduction in the frequency of cheating when proctoring was used. Confidence in these results is bolstered by the fact that these studies both directly compared unproctored vs. proctored/lockdown browser. Other studies have used proxy measures for cheating, such as time engaged with the exam, and changes in exams scores, and these studies have also found evidence for a reduction in misconduct when proctoring is used (e.g. (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020 ).

The effectiveness (or not) of remote proctoring to reduce academic misconduct seems like an important area for future research. However there is considerable controversy about the use of remote proctoring, including legal challenges to its use and considerable objections from students, who report a net negative experience, fuelled by concerns about privacy, fairness and technological challenges (Marano et al., 2023 ), and so it remains an open question whether this is a viable option for widespread general use.

Honour codes are a commonly cited approach to promoting academic integrity, and so (in theory) reducing academic misconduct. However, empirical tests of honour codes show that they do not appear to be effective at reducing cheating in online exams (Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015a , b ). In these studies the authors likened them to ‘terms and conditions’ for online sites, which are largely disregarded by users in online environments. However in those same studies the authors found that replacing an honour code with a more sternly worded ‘warning’, which specifies the consequences of being caught, was effective at reducing cheating. Thus a warning may be a simple, low-cost intervention to reduce cheating in online exams, whose effectiveness could be studied using appropriately conducted surveys of the type reviewed here.

Another option to reduce cheating in online exams is to use open-book exams. This is often suggested as a way of simultaneously increasing the cognitive level of the exam (i.e. it assesses higher order learning) (e.g. (Varble, 2014 ), and was suggested as a way of reducing the perceived, or potential increase in academic misconduct during COVID (e.g. (Nguyen et al., 2020 ; Whisenhunt et al., 2022 ). This approach has an obvious appeal in that it eliminates the possibility of some common forms of misconduct, such as the use of notes or unauthorized web access (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022 ; Whisenhunt et al., 2022 ), and can even make this a positive feature, i.e. encouraging the use of additional resources in a way that reflects the fact that, for many future careers, students will have access to unlimited information at their fingertips, and the challenge is to ensure that students have learned what information they need and how to use it. This approach certainly fits with our data, wherein the most frequently reported types of misconduct involved students acting alone, and cheating ‘because they could’. Some form of proctoring or other measure may still be needed in order to reduce the threat of collaborative misconduct. Perhaps most importantly though, it is unclear whether open-book exams truly reduce the opportunity for, and the incidence of, academic misconduct, and if so, how might we advise educators to design their exams, and exam question, in a way that delivers this as well as the promise of ‘higher order’ learning. These questions are the subject of ongoing research.

In summary then, there appears to be significant levels of misconduct in online examinations in Higher Education. Students appear to be more likely to cheat on their own, motivated by an examination design and delivery which makes it easy for them to do so. Future research in academic integrity would benefit from large, representative samples using clear and unambiguous survey questions and guarantees of anonymity. This will allow us to get a much better picture of the size and nature of the problem, and so design strategies to mitigate the threat that cheating poses to exam validity.

Alvarez, Homer, T., Reynald, S., Dayrit, Maria Crisella, A., Dela Cruz, C. C., Jocson, R. T., Mendoza, A. V., & Reyes (2022). & Joyce Niña N. Salas. Academic dishonesty cheating in synchronous and asynchronous classes: A proctored examination intervention. International Research Journal of Science, Technology, Education, and Management , 2 (1), 1–1.

Armstrong-Mensah, E., Ramsey-White, K., Yankey, B., & Self-Brown, S. (2020). COVID-19 and Distance Learning: Effects on Georgia State University School of Public Health Students. Frontiers in Public Health , 8 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.576227 .

Barber, M., Bird, L., Fleming, J., Titterington-Giles, E., Edwards, E., & Leyland, C. (2021). Gravity assist: Propelling higher education towards a brighter future - Office for Students (Worldwide). Office for Students. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/gravity-assist-propelling-higher-education-towards-a-brighter-future/ .

Bennett, C., Khangura, S., Brehaut, J. C., Graham, I. D., Moher, D., Potter, B. K., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2011). Reporting guidelines for Survey Research: An analysis of published Guidance and Reporting Practices. PLOS Medicine , 8 (8), e1001069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics , 7 (4), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 .

Blinova, O., & WHAT COVID TAUGHT US ABOUT ASSESSMENT: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY IN DISTANCE LEARNING. (2022). INTED2022 Proceedings , 6214–6218. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2022.1576 .

Boeker, M., Vach, W., & Motschall, E. (2013). Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 13 , 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-131 .

Bowman, E. (2022, August 26). Scanning students’ rooms during remote tests is unconstitutional, judge rules. NPR . https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119337956/test-proctoring-room-scans-unconstitutional-cleveland-state-university .

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of australian university students. Studies in Higher Education , 44 (11), 1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788 .

Brown, M., Hoon, A., Edwards, M., Shabu, S., Okoronkwo, I., & Newton, P. M. (2022). A pragmatic evaluation of university student experience of remote digital learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on lessons learned for future practice. EdArXiv . https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/62hz5 .

Burgason, K. A., Sefiha, O., & Briggs, L. (2019). Cheating is in the Eye of the beholder: An evolving understanding of academic misconduct. Innovative Higher Education , 44 (3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9457-3 .

Butler-Henderson, K., & Crawford, J. (2020). A systematic review of online examinations: A pedagogical innovation for scalable authentication and integrity. Computers & Education , 159 , 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104024 .

Case, C. J., King, D. L., & Case, J. A. (2019). E-Cheating and Undergraduate Business Students: Trends and Role of Gender. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences , 31 (1). https://www.proquest.com/openview/9fcc44254e8d6d202086fc58818fab5d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2030637 .

Chiang, F. K., Zhu, D., & Yu, W. (2022). A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 38 (4), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12656 .

Corbyn, Z. (2022, August 26). ‘I’m afraid’: Critics of anti-cheating technology for students hit by lawsuits. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/26/anti-cheating-technology-students-tests-proctorio .

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015a). Measuring and maximizing the effectiveness of Honor Codes in Online Courses. Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale , 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2728663 .

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015b). Deterring cheating in Online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , 22 (6), 28:1–2823. https://doi.org/10.1145/2810239 .

Costley, J. (2019). Student perceptions of academic dishonesty at a Cyber-University in South Korea. Journal of Academic Ethics , 17 (2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9318-1 .

Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The Effects of Response Rate Changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly , 64 (4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/318638 .

Curtis, G. J., McNeill, M., Slade, C., Tremayne, K., Harper, R., Rundle, K., & Greenaway, R. (2022). Moving beyond self-reports to estimate the prevalence of commercial contract cheating: An australian study. Studies in Higher Education , 47 (9), 1844–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1972093 .

Dawson, R. J. (2020). Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World: Preventing E-Cheating and Supporting Academic Integrity in Higher Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Defending-Assessment-Security-in-a-Digital-World-Preventing-E-Cheating/Dawson/p/book/9780367341527 .

Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports , 2 , 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033 .

Dumulescu, D., & Muţiu, A. I. (2021). Academic Leadership in the Time of COVID-19—Experiences and Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://www.frontiersin.org/article/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648344 .

Ebaid, I. E. S. (2021). Cheating among Accounting Students in Online Exams during Covid-19 pandemic: Exploratory evidence from Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of Economics Finance and Management , 9–19.

Elsalem, L., Al-Azzam, N., Jum’ah, A. A., & Obeidat, N. (2021). Remote E-exams during Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of students’ preferences and academic dishonesty in faculties of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine and Surgery , 62 , 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.054 .

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify Research? A systematic review and Meta-analysis of Survey Data. PLOS ONE , 4 (5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 .

Gardner, W. M., Roper, J. T., Gonzalez, C. C., & Simpson, R. G. (1988). Analysis of cheating on academic assignments. The Psychological Record , 38 (4), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395046 .

Garg, M., & Goel, A. (2022). A systematic literature review on online assessment security: Current challenges and integrity strategies. Computers & Security , 113 , 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102544 .

Gaskill, M. (2014). Cheating in Business Online Learning: Exploring Students’ Motivation, Current Practices and Possible Solutions. Theses, Student Research, and Creative Activity: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education . https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnstudent/35 .

Ghias, K., Lakho, G. R., Asim, H., Azam, I. S., & Saeed, S. A. (2014). Self-reported attitudes and behaviours of medical students in Pakistan regarding academic misconduct: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Ethics , 15 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-43 .

Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2015). Big five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences , 72 , 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.027 .

Goff, D., Johnston, J., & Bouboulis, B. (2020). Maintaining academic Standards and Integrity in Online Business Courses. International Journal of Higher Education , 9 (2). https://econpapers.repec.org/article/jfrijhe11/v_3a9_3ay_3a2020_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a248.htm .

Goyder, J., Warriner, K., & Miller, S. (2002). Evaluating Socio-economic status (SES) Bias in Survey Nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics , 18 (1), 1–11.

Google Scholar  

Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., & Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature , 576 (7786), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y .

Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to Grey Literature Searching. Plos One , 10 (9), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 .

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). Evaluating Survey Quality in Health Services Research: A decision Framework for assessing Nonresponse Bias. Health Services Research , 48 (3), 913–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12002 .

Henry, J. (2022, July 17). Universities “turn blind eye to online exam cheats” as fraud rises. Mail Online . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11021269/Universities-turning-blind-eye-online-exam-cheats-studies-rates-fraud-risen.html .

Holden, O. L., Norris, M. E., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2021). Academic Integrity in Online Assessment: A Research Review. Frontiers in Education , 6 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.639814 .

Jamali, H. R., & Nabavi, M. (2015). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics , 105 (3), 1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2 .

Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, Ä., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. (2021). Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity? Computers and Education Open , 2 , 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100055 .

Jantos, A., & IN SUMMATIVE E-ASSESSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION - A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS. (2021). MOTIVES FOR CHEATING. EDULEARN21 Proceedings , 8766–8776. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2021.1764 .

Jenkins, B. D., Golding, J. M., Grand, L., Levi, A. M., M. M., & Pals, A. M. (2022). When Opportunity knocks: College Students’ cheating amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching of Psychology , 00986283211059067. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211059067 .

Jones, I. S., Blankenship, D., Hollier, G., & I CHEATING? AN ANALYSIS OF ONLINE STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES. (2013). AM. Proceedings of ASBBS , 59–69. http://asbbs.org/files/ASBBS2013V1/PDF/J/Jones_Blankenship_Hollier(P59-69).pdf .

Kerkvliet, J. (1994). Cheating by Economics students: A comparison of Survey results. The Journal of Economic Education , 25 (2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1994.10844821 .

King, D. L., & Case, C. J. (2014). E-CHEATING: INCIDENCE AND TRENDS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS. Issues in Information Systems , 15 (1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.48009/1_iis_2014_20-27 .

Knox, P. (2021). Students “taking it in turns to answer exam questions” during home tests. The Sun . https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15413811/students-taking-turns-exam-questions-cheating-lockdown/ .

Larkin, C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2015). Comparing cheating behaviors among graduate and undergraduate Online Business Students—ProQuest. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice , 15 (7), 54–62.

Marano, E., Newton, P. M., Birch, Z., Croombs, M., Gilbert, C., & Draper, M. J. (2023). What is the Student Experience of Remote Proctoring? A Pragmatic Scoping Review . EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/jrgw9 .

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, T. P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine , 6 (7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .

Morales-Martinez, G. E., Lopez-Ramirez, E. O., & Mezquita-Hoyos, Y. N. (2019). Cognitive mechanisms underlying the Engineering Students’ Desire to Cheat during Online and Onsite Statistics Exams. Cognitive mechanisms underlying the Engineering Students’ Desire to Cheat during Online and Onsite Statistics Exams , 8 (4), 1145–1158.

Mortaz Hejri, S., Zendehdel, K., Asghari, F., Fotouhi, A., & Rashidian, A. (2013). Academic disintegrity among medical students: A randomised response technique study. Medical Education , 47 (2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12085 .

Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology , 88 , 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229 .

Newton, P. M. (2018). How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Education , 3 . https://www.frontiersin.org/article/ https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067 .

Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451 .

Nguyen, J. G., Keuseman, K. J., & Humston, J. J. (2020). Minimize Online cheating for online assessments during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education , 97 (9), 3429–3435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00790 .

Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A., & Aminazadeh, M. (2022). A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7 .

Owens, H. (2015). Cheating within Online Assessments: A Comparison of Cheating Behaviors in Proctored and Unproctored Environment. Theses and Dissertations . https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/1049 .

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj , 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Park, E. J., Park, S., & Jang, I. S. (2013). Academic cheating among nursing students. Nurse Education Today , 33 (4), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.015 .

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future , 8 (1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481 .

Rice, D. B., Skidmore, B., & Cobey, K. D. (2021). Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 10 , 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01733-2 .

Romaniuk, M. W., & Łukasiewicz-Wieleba, J. (2022). Remote and stationary examinations in the opinion of students. International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications , 68 (1), 69.

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education , 44 (4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870 .

Scheers, N. J., & Dayton, C. M. (1987). Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique. Research in Higher Education , 26 (1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991933 .

Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Formative and Stealth Assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 311–321). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25 .

Subotic, D., & Poscic, P. (2014). Academic dishonesty in a partially online environment: A survey. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies , 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/2659532.2659601 .

Surahman, E., & Wang, T. H. (2022). Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , n/a (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12708 .

Tahsin, M. U., Abeer, I. A., & Ahmed, N. (2022). Note: Cheating and Morality Problems in the Tertiary Education Level: A COVID-19 Perspective in Bangladesh. ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS) , 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530190.3534834 .

Valizadeh, M. (2022). CHEATING IN ONLINE LEARNING PROGRAMS: LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND SOLUTIONS. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 23 (1), https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1050394 .

Varble, D. (2014). Reducing Cheating Opportunities in Online Test. Atlantic Marketing Journal , 3 (3). https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/amj/vol3/iss3/9 .

Whisenhunt, B. L., Cathey, C. L., Hudson, D. L., & Needy, L. M. (2022). Maximizing learning while minimizing cheating: New evidence and advice for online multiple-choice exams. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology , 8 (2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000242 .

Williams, M. W. M., & Williams, M. N. (2012). Academic dishonesty, Self-Control, and General Criminality: A prospective and retrospective study of academic dishonesty in a New Zealand University. Ethics & Behavior , 22 (2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.653291 .

Witley, S. (2023). Virtual Exam Case Primes Privacy Fight on College Room Scans (1) . https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/virtual-exam-case-primes-privacy-fight-over-college-room -scans?context=search&index=1.

Zarzycka, E., Krasodomska, J., Mazurczak-Mąka, A., & Turek-Radwan, M. (2021). Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ communication and collaboration and the role of social media. Cogent Arts & Humanities , 8 (1), 1953228. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1953228 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the efforts of all the researchers whose work was reviewed as part of this study, and their participants who gave up their time to generate the data reviewed here. We are especially grateful to Professor Carl Case at St Bonaventure University, NY, USA for his assistance clarifying the numbers of students who undertook online exams in King and Case ( 2014 ) and Case et al. ( 2019 ).

No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, Wales, UK

Philip M. Newton & Keioni Essex

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PMN designed the study. PMN + KE independently searched for studies and extracted data. PMN analysed data and wrote the results. KE checked analysis. PMN + KE drafted the introduction and methods. PMN wrote the discussion and finalised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip M. Newton .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This paper involved secondary analysis of data already in the public domain, and so ethical approval was not necessary.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Newton, P.M., Essex, K. How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review. J Acad Ethics 22 , 323–343 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5

Download citation

Accepted : 17 June 2023

Published : 04 August 2023

Issue Date : June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5

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 Integrity
• Distance Learning
• Digital Education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Cheating — Argumentative Essay About Cheating

Argumentative Essay About Cheating

• Categories: Cheating

About this sample

Words: 773 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 773 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1236 words

2 pages / 1025 words

2 pages / 1051 words

3 pages / 1209 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Cheating

Jones, S., & Smith, J. (2022). The Impact of Cheating on Academic and Professional Future. Journal of Education Ethics, 45(3), 231-247.Johnson, A., & Brown, L. (2021). Collaborative Learning: Benefits and Challenges in [...]

Audrey Campbell, A. C. (2017, December 20). Cultural differences in plagiarism. Retrieved from www.turnitin.com. 2019.

Plagiarism, the act of using someone else's words, ideas, or work without proper attribution, is a prevalent issue in educational institutions worldwide. While educators and institutions take strong measures to combat it, the [...]

O'Malley, Brendan. 'Cheating by International Students Rampant at British Universities, Says Newspaper.' The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 January 2016. Retrieved from [...]

In a very broad sense, cheating involves betraying a partner’s expectations about the type of contact the cheater has with others. When a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, violates one’s expectations about what is [...]

Cheating has always been a prevalent issue in schools, with students finding various ways to deceive teachers and gain an unfair advantage over their peers. From peeking at a neighbor's paper during a test to plagiarizing entire [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• No category

Essay on Cheating in EXAM

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Essays About Cheating: Top 5 Examples and 9 Writing Prompts

Essays about cheating show the value of honesty, see our top picks for examples and prompts you can use in writing.

In the US, 95% of high school students admitted to participating in some form of academic cheating . This includes exams and plagiarism. However, cheating doesn’t only occur in schools. It’s also prevalent in couples. Psychologists say that 50% of divorce cases in the country are because of infidelity . Other forms of cheating exist, such as cheating on a diet, a business deal, etc.

Because cheating is an intriguing subject, many want to read about it. However, to write essays about cheating appropriately, you must first pick a subtopic you’re comfortable discussing. Therefore, we have selected five simple but exemplary pieces you can read to get inspiration for writing your paper.

See below our round-up of top example essays about cheating.

1. Long Essay On Cheating In School By Prasanna

2. the reality of cheating in college essay by writer kip, 3. why cheating is wrong by bernadette mcbride, 4. what counts as cheating in a relationship by anonymous on gradesfixer, 5. emotional cheating by anonymous on papersowl, 1. types of cheating, 2. i was cheated on, 3. is cheating a mistake or choice, 4. tax evasion and cheating , 5. when i cheated, 6. cheating in american schools and universities, 7. review a famous book or film about cheating, 8. a famous cheating quote, 9. cause and effects of cheating.

“Cheating is a false representation of the child’s ability which he may not be able to give without cheating. It is unfair to everyone involved as it deprives the true one of the chance to come on the top.”

Prasanna begins the essay by defining cheating in schools and then incorporates how this unethical behavior occurs in reality. She further delves into the argument that cheating is not learning but an addiction that can result in students losing self-confidence, sanity, and integrity. 

Apart from showing the common causes and harmful effects of cheating on students, Prasanna also adds parents’ and teachers’ critical roles in helping students in their studies to keep them from cheating.

“It’s human nature to want to win, and some of us will go against the rules to do so. It can be harmless, but in many cases, it is annoying, or even hurtful.”

Kip defines cheating as human nature and focuses his essay on individuals who are hell-bent on wanting to win in online games. Unfortunately, these players’ desire to be on top is all-consuming, and they’re willing to go against the rules and disregard their integrity.

He talks about his experiences of being cheated in a game called AoE. He also incorporates the effects of these instances on newbies. These cheaters will humiliate, dishearten, and traumatize beginners who only want to have fun.

Check out these essays about cooperation .

“A cheater is more than likely lying to themselves more than to the people around them. A person can only go so far before their lies catch up to them, begin to accumulate, and start to penalize you.”

Mcbride dedicates her essay to answering why cheating is wrong, no matter the circumstance. She points out that there will always be a definite punishment for cheaters, whether they get caught. Mcbride believes that students who cheat, copy, and have someone else do their work are lazy and irresponsible. These students will never gain knowledge.

However, she also acknowledges that some cheaters are desperate, while some don’t realize the repercussions of their behaviors. At the end of the essay, she admits to cheating but says she’s no longer part of that vicious cycle, promising she has already realized her mistakes and doesn’t want to cheat again.

“Keep in mind that relationships are not based on logic, but are influenced by our emotions.”

The author explains how it’s challenging to define cheating in a relationship. It’s because every person has varying views on the topic. What others consider an affair may be acceptable to some. This includes the partners’ interaction with others while also analyzing the individual’s personality, such as flirting, sleeping in the same bed, and spending time with folks.

The essay further explains experts’ opinions on why men and women cheat and how partners heal and rebuild their trust. Finally, examples of different forms of cheating are discussed in the piece to give the readers more information on the subject. 

“…emotional cheating can be described as a desire to engage in another relationship without physically leaving his or her primary relationship.”

There’s an ongoing debate about whether emotional cheating should be labeled as such. The essay digs into the causes of emotional cheating to answer this issue. These reasons include lack of attention to each other, shortage of affectionate gestures, and misunderstandings or absence of proper communication. 

All of these may lead to the partner comparing their relationship to others. Soon, they fall out of love and fail to maintain boundaries, leading to insensitivity and selfishness. When a person in a relationship feels any of these, it can be a reason to look for someone else who can value them and their feelings.

9 Helpful Prompts in Writing Essays About Cheating

Here are some cheating subtopics you can focus your essay on:

Some types of cheating include deception, fabrication, bribery, impersonation, sabotage, and professional misconduct. Explain their definitions and have examples to make it easier for readers to understand.

You can use this prompt even if you don’t have any personal experience of being cheated on. You can instead relay events from a close friend or relative. First, narrate what happened and why. Then add what the person did to move on from the situation and how it affected them. Finally, incorporate lessons they’ve learned.

While this topic is still discussed by many, for you, is cheating a redeemable mistake? Or is it a choice with consequences? Express your opinion on this matter. Gather reliable evidence to support your claims, such as studies and research findings, to increase your essay’s credibility.

Tax evasion is a crime with severe penalties. Explain what it is and its punishments through a famous tax evasion case your readers can immediately recognize. For example, you can use Al Capone and his 11-year imprisonment and $215,000 back taxes . Talk through why he was charged with such and add your opinion. Ensure you have adequate and reliable sources to back up your claims.

Start with a  5 paragraph essay  to better organize your points.

Some say everyone will cheat at some point in their life. Talk about the time you cheated – it can be at a school exam, during work, or while on a diet. Put the perspective that made you think cheating was reasonable. Did you feel guilt? What did you do after, and did you cheat again? Answer these questions in your essay for an engaging and thrilling piece of writing.

Since academic cheating is notorious in America, use this topic for your essay. Find out which areas have high rates of academic cheating. What are their penalties? Why is cheating widespread? Include any measures the academe put in place.

Cheating is a frequent cause of conflict on small and big screens. Watch a film or read a story and write a review. Briefly summarize the plot, critique the characters, and add your realizations after finishing the piece. 

Goodreads has a list of books related to cheating. Currently, Thoughtless by S.C. Stephens has the highest rating.

Use this as an opportunity to write a unique essay by explaining the quote based on your understanding. It can be quotes from famous personalities or something that resonates with you and your experiences.

Since cheating’s cause and effect is a standard prompt, center your essay on an area unrelated to academics or relationships. For instance, write about cheating on your diet or cheating yourself of the opportunities life presents you.

Create a top-notch essay with excellent grammar. See our list of the best grammar checkers.

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

Would you like to explore a topic?

• LEARNING OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

Or read some of our popular articles?

Free downloadable english gcse past papers with mark scheme.

• 19 May 2022

How Will GCSE Grade Boundaries Affect My Child’s Results?

• Akshat Biyani
• 13 December 2021

The Best Free Homeschooling Resources UK Parents Need to Start Using Today

• Joseph McCrossan
• 18 February 2022

What are the consequences of cheating in exams?

• August 23, 2022

What is cheating?

How to cheat in an exam, what are the consequences of cheating in schools.

Cheating definition: 

Cheating is the act of obtaining advantages or rewards without following the rules that apply to others. Examples include cheating in a board game or in a test at school.

What causes cheating?

• The problem is related to the issue of merit and rising competition. Students have to fight for the best possible grades in order to get into the most valued courses at university. Cheating in an exam is seen as an easy solution.
• This spirit of competition usually translates into the idea that all is fair, that only the result counts. But this idea is challenged by well-known sportsmen and women who are regularly involved in doping cases, even though they are role models for the younger generation . 🚴🏼
• When a child is under family pressure and is not allowed to make mistakes , or there is no room for failure, fraud and cheating may appear to be the only way to live up to expectations.
• Finally, a student may start cheating to join a group of peers or friends who encourage this malpractice, to try and rebel or to challenge the school system. 

But seriously, do you really think I'm going to encourage your child to commit a crime? Certainly not. 

• We all know the trick of the scientific calculator on which it is possible to record formulas or even definitions (but this does not work in French  or English lessons!)
• A cheat sheet can be written behind the label on the water bottle or hidden in the bottom of a pencil case
• The mobile phone wallpaper acts as a notepad, which we pretend to use to look at the time 👀

All these tricks are well known classics that sometimes work during an assessment but are incredibly risky, and evidence of malpractice and cheating in exams.

Online tools

During school isolation periods in the past few years, even the most serious students enjoyed the thrill of cheating on online exams, which were much more difficult to monitor by teachers and schools. 

This may have been collaborative fraud via chat groups with classmates on platforms such as Snapchat or WhatsApp. Others even paid more advanced candidates to take the exams for them. Or, more simply, they took their tests online with a second computer open on the Google homepage.

But keep in mind that whether online or face-to-face, the cheating student still faces the same risk of punishment! 👮

Cases of cheating in class 

If a student hasn’t managed to revise , wants to cheat and is caught in class, it can seriously damage his or her results, as well as reputation or even place at the school. They could get a zero on their assessment, contact home or even detentions and exclusion from the school. 

Parents and guardians even make an agreement with the school before their child starts to never cheat or be involved in any malpractice, which schools are serious about throughout their time there. 

What are the penalties for exam fraud?

National qualifications such as GCSEs , A-Levels and exams at university are all official exams recognised by the government. If an exam invigilator catches your child cheating in the examination room, a verbal and written report will be drawn up and an investigation will begin.

Depending on the seriousness of the situation and the exam board or school, cheating at the exam can lead to different types of sanctions:

• Reprimand. This is a disciplinary sanction, a call to order without too serious consequences, usually reserved for internal school exams only (not National qualifications where consequences are more serious)
• Removal from the course or overall diploma, sometimes resulting in having to restart completely
• Immediate contact to the exams regulation authority, JCQ , who monitor most exam boards like AQA or Edexcel 
• No awarded mark, grade, GCSE, A-Level or points for the course at university in that subject (usually named an ‘Ungraded’ or U)
• Sometimes a ban on taking any National exams for a number of years
• Sometimes, but infrequently, a ban on enrolling into a higher education institution for 5 years

Exam malpractice is rising; in 2019 Ofqual reported an 11% rise in malpractice reports, and this includes teachers and schools helping students to cheat!

Can you pass your driving test if you cheat at your exam? 

I've always heard that a student who is caught cheating on the exam is then likely to be barred from taking any other official exam, including the assessment to get their UK driving licence. 🚗

Today, I can officially tell you that this is an urban legend. As the driving licence is not linked with our education certification system, it is not affected by the sanctions. But, cheating in an exam (and getting caught) can change your mindset to all other exams you go on to sit for the worse. 

But rather than having to ask yourself this question, the best thing to do is to book some lessons online with our tutors. They will help your child to prepare well for challenging exams like GCSEs, without the need to cheat! 

Popular posts

• By Guy Doza

• By Akshat Biyani

• By Joseph McCrossan
• In LEARNING TRENDS

4 Surprising Disadvantages of Homeschooling

• By Andrea Butler

What are the Hardest GCSEs? Should You Avoid or Embrace Them?

• By Clarissa Joshua

More great reads:

Advice From a Teacher: How Can I Help My Child If They Fail Their Mock Exams?

• By Natalie Lever
• January 9, 2024

What Are Mock Exams and Why Are They Important?

• January 8, 2024

SQA Results Day 2023: Important Information About How to Get Scottish Exam Results

• By Sharlene Matharu
• August 3, 2023

Book a free trial session

Sign up for your free tutoring lesson..

To complete the subscription process, please click the link in the email we just sent you.

0, text: error()">

Let's fight boredom together!

Become a member

0, text: error(), css: errorCssClass">

Password reminder

Please provide your email address and we will send your password shortly.

If there's a Bored Panda account associated with , you'll receive an email with instructions.

If you don't receive an email, please check your spam inbox, or enter your email address again .

Please enter your email to complete registration

Activate to continue

Your account is not active. We have sent an email to the address you provided with an activation link. Check your inbox, and click on the link to activate your account.

• Relationships

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here .

• Partnership
• Success stories
• --> -->