copying bad homework

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

Departments

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

Centers, Labs, & Programs

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

Homework copying can turn As into Cs, Bs into Ds

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

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

Previous image Next image

Share this news article on:

Related links.

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

Related Topics

• Education, teaching, academics

More MIT News

Study: Transparency is often lacking in datasets used to train large language models

Read full story →

How MIT’s online resources provide a “highly motivating, even transformative experience”

Students learn theater design through the power of play

A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations

Designing better delivery for medical therapies

Making a measurable economic impact

• More news on MIT News homepage →

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

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

7 Research-Based Reasons Why Students Should Not Have Homework: Academic Insights, Opposing Perspectives & Alternatives

The push against homework is not just about the hours spent on completing assignments; it’s about rethinking the role of education in fostering the well-rounded development of young individuals. Critics argue that homework, particularly in excessive amounts, can lead to negative outcomes such as stress, burnout, and a diminished love for learning. Moreover, it often disproportionately affects students from disadvantaged backgrounds, exacerbating educational inequities. The debate also highlights the importance of allowing children to have enough free time for play, exploration, and family interaction, which are crucial for their social and emotional development.

Checking 13yo’s math homework & I have just one question. I can catch mistakes & help her correct. But what do kids do when their parent isn’t an Algebra teacher? Answer: They get frustrated. Quit. Get a bad grade. Think they aren’t good at math. How is homework fair??? — Jay Wamsted (@JayWamsted) March 24, 2022

As we delve into this discussion, we explore various facets of why reducing or even eliminating homework could be beneficial. We consider the research, weigh the pros and cons, and examine alternative approaches to traditional homework that can enhance learning without overburdening students.

Once you’ve finished this article, you’ll know:

Insights from Teachers and Education Industry Experts: Diverse Perspectives on Homework

Here are the insights and opinions from various experts in the educational field on this topic:

“I teach 1st grade. I had parents ask for homework. I explained that I don’t give homework. Home time is family time. Time to play, cook, explore and spend time together. I do send books home, but there is no requirement or checklist for reading them. Read them, enjoy them, and return them when your child is ready for more. I explained that as a parent myself, I know they are busy—and what a waste of energy it is to sit and force their kids to do work at home—when they could use that time to form relationships and build a loving home. Something kids need more than a few math problems a week.” — Colleen S. , 1st grade teacher

“The lasting educational value of homework at that age is not proven. A kid says the times tables [at school] because he studied the times tables last night. But over a long period of time, a kid who is drilled on the times tables at school, rather than as homework, will also memorize their times tables. We are worried about young children and their social emotional learning. And that has to do with physical activity, it has to do with playing with peers, it has to do with family time. All of those are very important and can be removed by too much homework.” — David Bloomfield , education professor at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York graduate center

“Homework in primary school has an effect of around zero. In high school it’s larger. (…) Which is why we need to get it right. Not why we need to get rid of it. It’s one of those lower hanging fruit that we should be looking in our primary schools to say, ‘Is it really making a difference?’” — John Hattie , professor

”Many kids are working as many hours as their overscheduled parents and it is taking a toll – psychologically and in many other ways too. We see kids getting up hours before school starts just to get their homework done from the night before… While homework may give kids one more responsibility, it ignores the fact that kids do not need to grow up and become adults at ages 10 or 12. With schools cutting recess time or eliminating playgrounds, kids absorb every single stress there is, only on an even higher level. Their brains and bodies need time to be curious, have fun, be creative and just be a kid.” — Pat Wayman, teacher and CEO of HowtoLearn.com

7 Reasons Why Students Should Not Have Homework

Let’s delve into the reasons against assigning homework to students. Examining these arguments offers important perspectives on the wider educational and developmental consequences of homework practices.

1. Elevated Stress and Health Consequences

This data paints a concerning picture. Students, already navigating a world filled with various stressors, find themselves further burdened by homework demands. The direct correlation between excessive homework and health issues indicates a need for reevaluation. The goal should be to ensure that homework if assigned, adds value to students’ learning experiences without compromising their health and well-being.

2. Inequitable Impact and Socioeconomic Disparities

Moreover, the approach to homework varies significantly across different types of schools. While some rigorous private and preparatory schools in both marginalized and affluent communities assign extreme levels of homework, many progressive schools focusing on holistic learning and self-actualization opt for no homework, yet achieve similar levels of college and career success. This contrast raises questions about the efficacy and necessity of heavy homework loads in achieving educational outcomes.

3. Negative Impact on Family Dynamics

The issue is not confined to specific demographics but is a widespread concern. Samantha Hulsman, a teacher featured in Education Week Teacher , shared her personal experience with the toll that homework can take on family time. She observed that a seemingly simple 30-minute assignment could escalate into a three-hour ordeal, causing stress and strife between parents and children. Hulsman’s insights challenge the traditional mindset about homework, highlighting a shift towards the need for skills such as collaboration and problem-solving over rote memorization of facts.

4. Consumption of Free Time

Authors Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish , in their book “The Case Against Homework,” offer an insightful window into the lives of families grappling with the demands of excessive homework. They share stories from numerous interviews conducted in the mid-2000s, highlighting the universal struggle faced by families across different demographics. A poignant account from a parent in Menlo Park, California, describes nightly sessions extending until 11 p.m., filled with stress and frustration, leading to a soured attitude towards school in both the child and the parent. This narrative is not isolated, as about one-third of the families interviewed expressed feeling crushed by the overwhelming workload.

5. Challenges for Students with Learning Disabilities

In conclusion, the conventional homework paradigm needs reevaluation, particularly concerning students with learning disabilities. By understanding and addressing their unique challenges, educators can create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment. This approach not only aids in their academic growth but also nurtures their confidence and overall development, ensuring that they receive an equitable and empathetic educational experience.

6. Critique of Underlying Assumptions about Learning

7. issues with homework enforcement, reliability, and temptation to cheat, addressing opposing views on homework practices, 1. improvement of academic performance, 2. reinforcement of learning, 3. development of time management skills, 4. preparation for future academic challenges, 5. parental involvement in education, exploring alternatives to homework and finding a middle ground, alternatives to traditional homework, ideas for minimizing homework, useful resources, leave a comment cancel reply.

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

Redwood Bark

• Top Culture

Epidemic of copying homework catalyzed by technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers,” Erica said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• copying homework

Academic Integrity at MIT

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

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

Collaboration works for you; copying works against you.

If you copy, you are less prepared.

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

If you copy, you aren’t learning.

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

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

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

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

If you collaborate, you learn from your peers.

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

If you collaborate, you learn to work on a team

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

Beyond Copying

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

Changing the answers on an exam for re-grade.

Misrepresenting a family or personal situation to get an extension.

Using prohibited resources during a test or other academic work.

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

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

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

Assisting another student in doing any of the above.

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

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

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

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• School Stuff
• Surviving School

How to Deal With Classmates Who Want Answers to Homework

Last Updated: June 9, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Emily Listmann, MA . Emily Listmann is a Private Tutor and Life Coach in Santa Cruz, California. In 2018, she founded Mindful & Well, a natural healing and wellness coaching service. She has worked as a Social Studies Teacher, Curriculum Coordinator, and an SAT Prep Teacher. She received her MA in Education from the Stanford Graduate School of Education in 2014. Emily also received her Wellness Coach Certificate from Cornell University and completed the Mindfulness Training by Mindful Schools. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 123,201 times.

If you're a responsible and hardworking student, then it's likely your peers have asked for your homework answers. You may be tempted to break the rules and share your answers because of social pressure, but this hurts both you and the person who copies you. Protecting your answers from would-be cheaters is the right thing to do, and actually helps them become better students in the long run. You can prepare to resist peer pressure and avoid cheating by learning ways that you can say "no" to other students, as well as how to manage their expectations of you. Finally, consider starting a study group that allows you and your peers to learn together. It'll all be more productive for you and your friends.

• You may accidentally encourage your classmate to apply more pressure if you soften your “no” in an attempt to be friendly. Avoid using statements like “I don’t know” or “this may be a bad idea.” Instead, trust the clarity and power of a direct “no.”
• Do not provide a complicated answer, just say no. A complicated explanation that emphasizes unusual circumstances may seem friendlier or more helpful, but it can provide an opportunity for your classmate to challenge your refusal and to ask again.

• You can say “I know this is important, but my answer is not going to change,” or “I know that you are worried about grades, but I never share my answers.”
• If you feel yourself weakening, remind yourself of the consequences you could face if you're caught sharing answers. Your teacher could deny you credit for the work you've done since by sharing your work you've engaged in cheating.

• Remember that the long term repercussions outweigh the immediate pressure. A school year can seem like a very long time, and you may worry about awkward situations if you disappoint a classmate. If you say no to a classmate, you may feel uncomfortable for a few days or weeks. If you are caught cheating, the consequences can last for years.
• Point out to the student that the consequences remain even if you don't get caught. Copying homework answers doesn't help you learn the information, so the student who copies you won't be prepared for bigger assignments, such as the upcoming test. Even if they don't get caught now, they may not pass the course if they fail the test.

• Pay careful attention to your school’s rules regarding plagiarism. Plagiarism can seriously damage your academic record. Since what counts as plagiarism may not always be instinctive, speak with your teacher to clarify confusions that you may have. Your teacher will appreciate the opportunity address these questions before potentially plagiarized work is submitted.

• Remember, if the other student doesn't do the homework, then they aren't learning the course material. Most likely, they will fail the big assignments, such as tests.
• Keep in mind that sharing answers would make you guilty of cheating, as well. You could jeopardize your future if you decide to share your answers.

Managing Your Classmates’ Expectations

• When discussing your progress, highlight the effort you're putting into the class, but acknowledge that you won't know how well you know the subject until after your work is graded. Say, "I'm taking good notes and reading the material, but I won't know if my answers are right until I get my paper graded."
• Keep your homework concealed until the moment it is due. Discourage your classmates from asking for your homework answers by not publicizing it. If someone asks you for answers to homework that isn't due for quite a while, you can always lie that you haven't finished it yet.

• Anticipate cheating around test times. Due to the high value placed on providing specific answers for assigning grades, stress can increase before major tests. This may make cheating seem more attractive. Before a test or major assignment, encourage a student that may ask you for answers or offer to study with them. This may reinforce proper study habits and discourage cheating.

Creating a Study Group

• Ask your classmate about their study habits. You may be able to explain how they can do homework more effectively.

• Pay special attention not to emphasize the depth of your understanding. Your goal is to work with the student, not to give them answers. Make sure that they are actively involved.

Community Q&A

• Ask the teacher for advice in confidence. Most high school and college teachers understand the complex nature of social structures in their classrooms. If you are dissatisfied, consult another teacher in the department, your adviser or your dean (principal). Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 2
• Offer to help struggling classmates. You will learn as much as you teach, and you will lessen the need for and appeal of cheating. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 4

• Being an accomplice to cheating is usually punished as harshly as cheating. If you feel that your study group may be close to being a cheating ring, immediately seek consultation from a trusted adult. Thanks Helpful 16 Not Helpful 1
• Be sure that the teacher knows about your study group. Otherwise, when a few students miss the same questions on an assignment, the teacher will assume cheating has taken place. Thanks Helpful 5 Not Helpful 1

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://psychcentral.com/lib/learning-to-say-no
• ↑ https://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin375.shtml
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201401/praise-manipulation-6-reasons-question-compliments
• ↑ http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ720382
• ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/09/how-to-be-a-student-study-group

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Daniel Brown

Jul 17, 2022

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Stack Exchange Network

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

Q&A for work

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

How to deal with students copying?

In university courses with compulsory homework, I quite often find students copying their work from others. Now, you can simply ignore this since they are responsible for their learning. If not, usually a very annoying game starts, where students try to slightly modify their soultions and teachers become detectives. I am not sure if this is helpful.

Is there any literature or best practice experience on the problem of how to deal with copying of mathematics students?

• undergraduate-education

• 4 $\begingroup$ There is maybe a case where the game does not start: If you have homework where students have to write some code (e.g., in numerics this is often the case that some algorithm have to be implemented), then you can use plagiarism software (e.g. theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss ). The software analysizes the structure and ignores empty lines or renaming of variables. If a student can trick the software, he has almost done the same work as someone actually doing the exercise. However, your question have to be difficult and long enough. $\endgroup$ –  Markus Klein Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 7:43
• 5 $\begingroup$ No literature, just personal anecdote: I had to grade homework questions where in the end only a certain threshold needed to be met (no marks, just pass/fail). My mode of grading work where the one student copied another one was awarding half the points with the remark "Same answers as XXX. Half the work, half the points." To my judgement, the message was recieved. For written homework (not code), I think that, if the students manage to obfuscade the fact that they copied, they put in some effort to understand what's to be done. $\endgroup$ –  Roland Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 11:04
• 2 $\begingroup$ @Roland, I used to grade like that. In addition, I would also give the one who was copied from half the points. In effect, there was only one work, and two people claimed it, so half the points go to each. $\endgroup$ –  JRN Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 13:47
• 2 $\begingroup$ @JoelReyesNoche Oh, yes, indeed. My notion of copying is transitive. Both parties with the same answer are getting half the points; I remember awarding one third of the points on three different homeworks. $\endgroup$ –  Roland Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 17:40
• 1 $\begingroup$ What I do is to "randomly" select a (small) sample of students for each homework, which then have to explain what they turned in. The grade of the oral is then the grade of the homework. The rationale is that I really don't care if they copied/worked together/found the answer on the 'web, I care that they understand the subject matter. $\endgroup$ –  vonbrand Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 21:00

At my university the focus is moved to tests and exams. In larger courses homework has usually no or very little significance, while in smaller classes very few attempt copying (it is too easy to spot).

On the other hand, programming homework is handled via plagiarism software (we have our own, its internals being kept secret; the output is reviewed manually), this is a routine procedure, as homework is usually tested automatically, and it is a standard step in various national-level contests that our university handles.

Now, to answer your question, how to handle copying when it happens? I know of three ways:

• By a formal process. The statute of our university says it's forbidden to do so (I suspect this is not unique), and such a student could be expelled. In practice, as far as I can remember, it had never happened. I heard that there had been such attempt, however, the student council had caused enough trouble that it all had come to nothing. This might have something to do with the fact, that the STEM-campus and the humanities don't like each other very much and the student council is in majority from the latter.
• Fail the course . Some insist that such students shouldn't be allowed to attend the make-up session exam, but this would result in a bureaucratic mess. Instead, by plagiarism the student achieves an equivalent of $-\infty$ points and it all fits into professor's "freedom of grading".
• By some agreement. This might be not the most fair, but during their first semester, it might be the most appropriate. Students come from various neighborhoods, their high-school had different policies and are frequently immature. A good talking-to has more positive effects than punishment, which you could still apply later if he/she hasn't learned from the mistakes. Fortunately, at my university copying is rare enough that we can afford such a lenient treatment (and you don't even need to keep track, because people remember).

I hope this helps $\ddot\smile$

• 3 $\begingroup$ "So, professor, how will this -$\infty$ average into my grade?" $\endgroup$ –  Andrew Commented Jan 22, 2016 at 13:54
• 1 $\begingroup$ @Andrew Professor: "Your grade on the exam was 6/10. So your total grade is (winking while writing it down) $-\infty\cdot w+ 6/10\cdot (1-w), \;0<w<1$. If you can tell me "how much that is" I will give you a passing grade." $\endgroup$ –  Alecos Papadopoulos Commented Jan 22, 2016 at 15:24

Your Answer

Sign up or log in, post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged undergraduate-education homework or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Is it possible to accurately describe something without describing the rest of the universe?
• Is the spectrum of Hawking radiation identical to that of thermal radiation?
• Memory-optimizing arduino code to be able to print all files from SD card
• If a trigger runs an update will it ALWAYS have the same timestamp for a temporal table?
• If inflation/cost of living is such a complex difficult problem, then why has the price of drugs been absoultly perfectly stable my whole life?
• How can moral disagreements be resolved when the conflicting parties are guided by fundamentally different value systems?
• "TSA regulations state that travellers are allowed one personal item and one carry on"?
• Why is the movie titled "Sweet Smell of Success"?
• How is it possible to know a proposed perpetual motion machine won't work without even looking at it?
• Maximizing the common value of both sides of an equation
• What explanations can be offered for the extreme see-sawing in Montana's senate race polling?
• What's the meaning of "running us off an embankment"?
• How does the summoned monster know who is my enemy?
• How can judicial independence be jeopardised by politicians' criticism?
• Is there a phrase for someone who's really bad at cooking?
• Background for the Elkies-Klagsbrun curve of rank 29
• AM-GM inequality (but equality cannot be attained)
• Book or novel about an intelligent monolith from space that crashes into a mountain
• How do we reconcile the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and the man stoned for picking up sticks on Sabbath in Numbers 15?
• Why did the Fallschirmjäger have such terrible parachutes?
• I would like to add 9 months onto a field table that is a date and have it populate with the forecast date 9 months later
• magnetic boots inverted
• Suitable Category in which Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem Arises Naturally as Canonical Decomposition
• Parody of Fables About Authenticity

• 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.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Juliette c. désiron.

Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Dominik Petko

Associated data.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Prevalence and factors of digital academic dishonesty in schools

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

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

Effects of homework engagement and digital dishonesty on school performance

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

Present study and hypotheses

The present study serves three combined purposes.

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

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

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

Participants

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

Digital dishonesty in homework scale

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

Frequencies of averaged digital dishonesty in homework (weighted data)

Homework engagement scale

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

Demographics

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

Study program

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

Technologies and schools

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

Test scores

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

Data analyses

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

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

Additional scales for Switzerland

Digital dishonesty in homework practices.

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

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

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

Homework effort

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

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

Frequencies of averaged homework engagement (weighted data)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multilevel regression analysis: Cheating and test scores (H2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

Limitations and directions

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

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

List of abbreviations related to PISA datasets

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

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich

Data availability

Declarations.

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Advertisement

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

• Open access
• Published: 23 July 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 1251–1271, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Juliette C. Désiron   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3074-9018 1 &
• Dominik Petko   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1569-1302 1  

7169 Accesses

5 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Homework characteristics as predictors of advanced math achievement and attitude among US 12th grade students

Do home computers and Internet access harm academic and psychological outcomes? Statistical evidence from Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, Thailand, and Turkey

Academic Integrity Matters: Successful Learning with Mobile Technology

Explore related subjects.

• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

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

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

1.1 Prevalence and factors of digital academic dishonesty in schools

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

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

1.2 Effects of homework engagement and digital dishonesty on school performance

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

1.3 Present study and hypotheses

The present study serves three combined purposes.

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

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

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

2.1 Participants

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

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 digital dishonesty in homework scale.

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

2.2.2 Homework engagement scale

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

2.2.3 Demographics

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

2.2.4 Study program

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

2.2.5 Technologies and schools

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

2.2.6 Test scores

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

2.3 Data analyses

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

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

3.1 Additional scales for Switzerland

3.1.1 digital dishonesty in homework practices.

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

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

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

3.1.2 Homework effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 Multilevel regression analysis: Cheating and test scores (H2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Discussion

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

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

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

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

4.1 Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

4.2 Limitations and directions

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

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

Data availability

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

Agasisti, T., Gil-Izquierdo, M., & Han, S. W. (2020). ICT Use at home for school-related tasks: What is the effect on a student’s achievement? Empirical evidence from OECD PISA data. Education Economics, 28 (6), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1822787

Article   Google Scholar  

Amzalag, M. (2021). Parent attitudes towards the integration of digital learning games as an alternative to traditional homework. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17 (3), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20210701.oa10

Anderman, E. M., & Koenka, A. C. (2017). The relation between academic motivation and cheating. Theory into Practice, 56 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308172

Aparicio, J., Cordero, J. M., & Ortiz, L. (2021). Efficiency analysis with educational data: How to deal with plausible values from international large-scale assessments. Mathematics, 9 (13), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9131579

Arpacı, S., Mercan, F., & Arıkan, S. (2021). The differential relationships between PISA 2015 science performance and, ICT availability, ICT use and attitudes toward ICT across regions: evidence from 35 countries. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6299–6318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10576-2

Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2020, March 16). As schools close due to the coronavirus, some U.S. students face a digital “homework gap”. Pew Research Center, 1–8.  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/19/5-charts-on-global-views-of-china/ . Retrieved November 29th, 2021

Baş, G., Şentürk, C., & Ciğerci, F. M. (2017). Homework and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research, 27 (1), 31–50.

Google Scholar  

Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2017). The ethical dissonance in digital and non-digital learning environments: Does technology promotes cheating among middle school students? Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.074

Bol, T. (2020). Inequality in homeschooling during the Corona crisis in the Netherlands. First results from the LISS Panel. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hf32q

Bouville, M. (2010). Why is cheating wrong? Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 (1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0

Bray, A., Byrne, P., & O’Kelly, M. (2020). A short instrument for measuring students’ confidence with ‘key skills’ (SICKS): Development, validation and initial results. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37 (June), 100700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100700

Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers and Education, 77, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010

Cheng, Y. C., Hung, F. C., & Hsu, H. M. (2021). The relationship between academic dishonesty, ethical attitude and ethical climate: The evidence from Taiwan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13 (21), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111615

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

Chow, H. P. H., Jurdi-Hage, R., & Hage, H. S. (2021). Justifying academic dishonesty: A survey of Canadian university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Education , December. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.951714

Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Prevalence and correlates of academic dishonesty: Towards a sustainable university. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11 (21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216062

Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2021). Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120 (2), 504–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000285

Djokovic, R., Janinovic, J., Pekovic, S., Vuckovic, D., & Blecic, M. (2022). Relying on technology for countering academic dishonesty: the impact of online tutorial on students’ perception of academic misconduct. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031756

Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48 (1), 16–37.

Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. A. (2021). Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review. Prospects , 0123456789 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09582-6

Ercegovac, Z., & Richardson, J. V. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries, 65 (4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301

Erzinger, A. B., Verner, M., König, N., Petrucci, F., Nidegger, C., Roos, E., & Salvisberg, M. (2019). PISA 2018: Les élèves de Suisse en comparaison internationale . SEFRI/CDIP et Consortium PISA.ch.

Erzinger, A. B., Verner, M., Salvisberg, M., Nidegger, C., & Seiler, S. (2021). PISA 2018 in Switzerland, add-on to the international dataset: Swiss specific variables [Dataset] . FORS. https://doi.org/10.23662/FORS-DS-1285-1

Evering, L. C., & Moorman, G. (2012). Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (1), 35–44.

Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students’ achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986–2015. Educational Research Review, 20, 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003

Fernández-Alonso, R., álvarez-Díaz, M., Suárez-álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2017). Students’ achievement and homework assignment strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (MAR), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2015). Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science: Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (4), 1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000032

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

Husain, F. M., Al-Shaibani, G. K. S., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). Perceptions of and attitudes toward plagiarism and factors contributing to plagiarism: A review of studies. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15 (2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9274-1

Isakov, M., & Tripathy, A. (2017). Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity and reward expectation. PLoS One1, 12 (10), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186054

Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73 (2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7 (1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5

Josephson Institute of Ethics (2012). 2012 Report card on the ethics of American youth .  https://charactercounts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ReportCard-2012-DataTables.pdf . Retrieved January 24th, 2022

Kam, C. C. S., Hue, M. T., & Cheung, H. Y. (2018). Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: Application of theory of planned behavior. Educational Psychology, 38 (7), 945–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1454588

Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Are cheaters common or creative?: Person-situation interactions of resistance in learning contexts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19 (2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09379-w

Kiss, H. J., & Keller, T. J. (2022). Individual characteristics do (not) matter in cheating. Available at SSRN 4001278. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4001278

Krou, M. R., Fong, C. J., & Hoff, M. A. (2021). Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (2), 427–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09557-7

Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Goldhammer, F. (2020). ICT engagement: A new construct and its assessment in PISA 2015. Large-Scale Assessments in Education , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00084-z

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9 (4), 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335

Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory into Practice, 47 (3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153809

Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.013

McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty & educational opportunity. Liberal Education, 91 (3), 26–31.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11 (3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2

Moss, S. A., White, B., & Lee, J. (2018). A systematic review into the psychological causes and correlates of plagiarism. Ethics and Behavior, 28 (4), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837

Nora, W. L. Y., & Zhang, K. C. (2010). Motives of cheating among secondary students: The role of self-efficacy and peer influence. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (4), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9104-2

Odell, B., Cutumisu, M., & Gierl, M. (2020). A scoping review of the relationship between students’ ICT and performance in mathematics and science in the PISA data. Social Psychology of Education , 23 (6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09591-x

OECD, & Publishing, O. E. C. D. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection . PISA. https://doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2015-68-en

OECD (2019a). Chapter 16. Scaling procedures and construct validation of context questionnaire data. In PISA 2018 Technical Report . OECD.

OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 Results - What school life means for students’ life (Vol. III). OECD Publishing.  https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_IDN.pdf . Retrieved October 20th, 2021

OECD (2020a). Learning remotely when schools close . 1–13.  https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=127_127063-iiwm328658&title=Learning-remotely-when-schools-close . Retrieved November 29th, 2021

OECD (2020b). PISA 2018 Results: Effective policies, successful schools (Vol. V). PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en

Parczewska, T. (2021). Difficult situations and ways of coping with them in the experiences of parents homeschooling their children during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Education 3–13 , 49 (7), 889–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1812689

Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the power of association on campus: A model code of academic integrity. Law and Policy, 24 (1), 1–22.

Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students ICT use, ICTRelated attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54 (8), 1070–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116649373

Rosário, P., Carlos Núñez, J., Vallejo, G., Nunes, T., Cunha, J., Fuentes, S., & Valle, A. (2018). Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and academic achievement. Examining the mediating role of students’ perceived homework quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53 (April), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.04.001

Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., & Trautwein, U. (2008). Hausaufgabenqualität im Französischunterricht aus der Sicht von Schülern, Lehrkräften und Experten und die Entwicklung von Leistung, Hausaufgabensorgfalt und Bewertung der Hausaufgaben. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 22 (3–4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.233

Schynder Godel, I. (2015). Die Hausaufgaben unter der Lupe. Eine empirische Untersuchung im Fach Französisch als Fremdsprache.

Skryabin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, L., & Zhang, D. (2015). How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. Computers and Education, 85, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.004

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51 (2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.b

Thorn, W., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2022). Education in the time of COVID-19 in France, Ireland, the Unites Kingdom and the United States: The nature and impact of remote learning. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Primary and secondary education during Covid-19 (pp. 383–420). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2632-5_2

Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17 (3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009

Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003). Was lange währt, wird nicht immer gut: Zur Rolle selbstregulativer Strategien bei der Hausaufgabenerledigung. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17 (3–4), 199–209.

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438

Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework-achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 (1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001

Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2022). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations, and motivations. Ethics and Behavior , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775

Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 41 (9–10), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018863909149

Xu, J. (2015). Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Computers and Education, 81, 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024

Xu, J., Du, J., Cunha, J., & Rosário, P. (2021). Student perceptions of homework quality, autonomy support, effort, and math achievement: Testing models of reciprocal effects. Teaching and Teacher Education , 108 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103508

Yaniv, G., Siniver, E., & Tobol, Y. (2017). Do higher achievers cheat less? An experiment of self-revealing individual cheating. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 68, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.04.005

Zhang, L., Ayres, P., & Chan, K. (2011). Examining different types of collaborative learning in a complex computer-based environment: A cognitive load approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.038

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Juliette C. Désiron & Dominik Petko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliette C. Désiron .

Ethics declarations

Competing of interests, additional information, publisher’s note.

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

List of abbreviations related to PISA datasets

students’ perceived autonomy related to ICT use

students’ perceived ICT competence

frequency of computer use at home for entertainment purposes

index of economic, social, and cultural status (computed from PARED, HISEI and HOMEPOS)

parents’ highest occupational status

home possessions

frequency of computer use for school-related purposes at home

digital cheating for homework items for Switzerland

homework engagement items for Switzerland

positive attitude towards ICT as a learning tool

student’s ICT interest

parents’ highest level of education

students’ ICT as a topic in social interaction

frequency of computer use at school

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

Désiron, J.C., Petko, D. Academic dishonesty when doing homework: How digital technologies are put to bad use in secondary schools. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 1251–1271 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11225-y

Download citation

Received : 11 May 2022

Accepted : 05 July 2022

Published : 23 July 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11225-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic dishonesty
• Digitally-supported cheating
• Secondary education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

teachers for peace

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

Why Copying Homework Assignments Is Wrong: The True Reason

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

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

You do not learn anything

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

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

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

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

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

Useful websites

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

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

Writing Help

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

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

Homework – Top 3 Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Homework Beneficial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions

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

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

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

Take Action

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

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

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

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

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

More School Debate Topics

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

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

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

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

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

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

Cite This Page

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

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

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

Get the Reddit app

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

It makes grading much easier and go faster.

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

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

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

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

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

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

Reset your password

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

Check your inbox

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

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• General Discussion

Do you let people copy out your homework?

• Thread starter heartless
• Start date Apr 3, 2006
• Tags Homework
• Apr 3, 2006
• Higher-order topological simulation unlocks new potential in quantum computers
• Using a gamma ray burst to search for violations of Einstein's relativity postulates
• Researchers present new diagnostic tool for laser-plasma accelerator using metal foil as 3D scanner

I once made the mistake of doing a bit of home work for a girl because she had me all twitterpated. Other than that I never did anyone elses work for them or let them copy off of me. It's not a good thing to do.  

Never, ever give out your homework. It is cheating them out of their future, it is lying to the teachers, it is being a party to plagurism, it destroys your credibility and makes you more likely to lie and be untrustworthy in the future, it's thankless work that you never get anything out of. Don't worry about, as you called it, making enemies. If people are to lazy to do their homework, or don't want to get honest help, then they aren't worth a second thought, as an enemy or a friend. Your integrity is more important then making friends or enemies, or even hurting their feelings. Most times it's just a sham to make you feel sorry for them.  

Try this: Be very original with your homework anwers. Especially when answering conceptual questions. Be funny, say weird things. As a teacher, I love it when students put some life into their answers. It also forces others to not copy verbatim. IF they do, well they're screwed. I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing another student to see what you wrote for an answer, or how you solved a problem. It's the verbatim copiers I dislike. But homework is not the primary grading asessment anyway for me. I tell them that the real pain for not doing homework will be felt during the tests. I agree with others here too, that anyone who repeatedly asks to copy homework is not worth your time. And if you are a good student in all other ways, your teachers should not lose respect for you because you thought you were helping another student.  

... to graduate school.

A pf molecule, bubble-pipe squirrel.

I don't let people copy. If it's just a homework assignment I'm be willing to sit down and compare methods to see where they went wrong (or where I went wrong) or just provide general hints regarding the problems. The point of homework is to better understand the material so anything that does that is fair game for me.  

Me and my friends copy but it's pretty much "I missed 3 or 4 problems" which for us, helps our grades but never really forces us to lose out on our education. We also keep to a 1:1 kinda thing where if one person doesn't finish a few problems and asks for the answers, they better finish another test and let us see when we miss a few problems. We never let someone copy everytime without helping us out. A great sense of mis-trust in each other is always helpful though since we're always questioning why each of us did something which helps us learn haha.  

Me and my friends copy but it's pretty much "I missed 3 or 4 problems" which for us, helps our grades but never really forces us to lose out on our education.

cyrusabdollahi said: Me and my friends?

TheStatutoryApe said: When you're from CA that's called proper english. Could have been "me and my peeps".

People that copy only excel in the short term and screw up everyone in the real world when they don't know what they're doing. But that's a fine line, if it was my best friend and I knew he knew how to do the work but had no time, yeah, but some lazy derelict. I'd browbeat them then ask for advanced classes. Then again, I'm not trying to fit in with a fake crowd and I'm a pretty healthy guy. It's ashame that you can't even concentrate on your studies 100% and have to juggle some punk. cheers  

heartless said: Hello, thank you guys for answers, I also have another problem, rather harder to solve. Suppose you're taking a test, and suddenly a person behind you starts to kick you in the back trying to get some answers out of you. You don't want him/her to get into trouble, so you're not going to yell "Just stop it! I'm not telling you anything" you're not also going to punch a person in the face because fighting is never a right solution. I mean, you can tell the teacher or the person, but that makes enemies, and why bring people into trouble? not worth it. So actually you have 3 choices, tell the answer, tell the wrong answer (happens that actually you have all the answers wrong and give the person all rights -> lesser probability) or in some silent way tell the person to stop. I found two good ways to do this, show the middle finger - always works but unpleasant, wave up your hand - takes up more muscles then middle finger and more easy to notice by the teacher. In fact you don't want to do anything from it, so what do you do? A few months ago, we were writing an essay in class, in the middle of it, a person asked to me show him because he wants to see my ideas and how I wrote it altogether. Well, I did show it to him, but in fact I saw him copying off my essay When I got it back, I asked him to show me his, and what I heard? He suddenly became busy checking it and doing work for other classes. I grabbed it short after the bell, and he copied my body paragraphs and conclusion. I thought, well I'm going to leave the school with a black eye, but I'm not going to be people's donkey either. I ripped off the two pages with my paragraphs leaving him with just an introduction. I didn't want to get into trouble, when teacher reads an essay he often notices 2 the same works. Short after that, I had a conversation with that person. I tried to explain him that things like that bring people into trouble, and dishonesty and he even said sorry to me. Right now it seems like we're alright. Has anything like that ever happened you?

JasonRox said: People think that if people copy off you, you get in trouble too. Actually you don't. A teacher once caught someone copying off of me and just politely asked me to change seats away from that person. Then later he disciplined the student. The teacher knew that I wasn't intending to let him cheat, so that's why I didn't get in trouble.

• Apr 4, 2006

I just help my friends with homework. Usually works.  

Meh, grade or no grade. I am not offended by someone that copies their work in the class. The test grades speak for themselves. When the class avg is a 60% and I have an 83, it becomes clear that their copying for a few measly homework points won't do much in the grand scheme of things.  

• Apr 5, 2006

A PF Organism

But, sometimes I give it to them. I don't know why. I mean, I give it to pretty girls ( I know I'm dumb and stupid) but I really don't want to do that. Then I loose all day, thinking over whether I'm going to loose teacher's trust and friendship or not.

heartless said: Suppose you're taking a test, and suddenly a person behind you starts to kick you in the back trying to get some answers out of you. You don't want him/her to get into trouble, so you're not going to yell "Just stop it! I'm not telling you anything" you're not also going to punch a person in the face because fighting is never a right solution. I mean, you can tell the teacher or the person, but that makes enemies, and why bring people into trouble? not worth it.

A few months ago, we were writing an essay in class, in the middle of it, a person asked to me show him because he wants to see my ideas and how I wrote it altogether. Well, I did show it to him, but in fact I saw him copying off my essay When I got it back, I asked him to show me his, and what I heard? He suddenly became busy checking it and doing work for other classes. I grabbed it short after the bell, and he copied my body paragraphs and conclusion. I thought, well I'm going to leave the school with a black eye, but I'm not going to be people's donkey either. I ripped off the two pages with my paragraphs leaving him with just an introduction. I didn't want to get into trouble, when teacher reads an essay he often notices 2 the same works. Short after that, I had a conversation with that person. I tried to explain him that things like that bring people into trouble, and dishonesty and he even said sorry to me. Right now it seems like we're alright. Has anything like that ever happened you?

Depends on the scenario. The people in my usual study groups are usually pretty good about not wanting to directly copy, it almost never happens, because they know they'll be screwed come exam time. But its fairly common for us to look over each others papers as we work the same problem through 2 or 3 times so everyone in the group understands the answer. That said, I definitely would not suggest letting someone just copy off your work, its bad for both of you.  

Chopnik Spraymaster

Related to do you let people copy out your homework, 1. can i copy your homework.

As a scientist, I believe in the importance of academic integrity and honesty. I do not condone or support the act of copying someone else's homework. It is important to develop your own understanding and skills, rather than relying on others' work.

2. Will you get in trouble if I copy your homework?

As a scientist, I have a responsibility to uphold ethical standards and promote academic integrity. If someone were to copy my homework, I would not get in trouble, but I would not allow it as it goes against the principles of learning and academic honesty.

3. Do you mind if I use your homework as a reference?

I understand that sometimes it can be helpful to use references for studying and understanding new concepts. However, I would recommend using my homework as a reference rather than copying it. This will ensure that you are developing your own understanding and skills.

4. Can I collaborate with you on the homework assignment?

Collaboration can be a valuable learning experience, but it is important to make sure that each individual is contributing and understanding the material. If you are struggling with a homework assignment, it is best to seek help from a teacher or tutor rather than copying someone else's work.

5. What if I'm just stuck and need to copy your homework as a last resort?

I understand that sometimes homework can be challenging and time-consuming. However, copying someone else's work is not a solution. It is important to communicate with your teacher or seek help from a tutor to ensure that you are truly understanding the material and not just copying it.

Similar threads

• Sep 3, 2023
• Oct 31, 2019
• Jul 31, 2024
• Jul 29, 2024
• Dec 13, 2020
• Feb 13, 2018
• Feb 15, 2024
• Dec 26, 2019
• Nov 6, 2022
• Jun 18, 2019

Hot Threads

• News   University research in the Age of Protest
• Is the criteria for the present perfect tense in Warriner's textbook inadequate?
• News   2024 Summer Olympic Games Discussion
• How to become brilliant?
• Bad at math and great at physics, explain this paradox?

Recent Insights

• Insights   Brownian Motions and Quantifying Randomness in Physical Systems
• Insights   PBS Video Comment: “What If Physics IS NOT Describing Reality”
• Insights   Aspects Behind the Concept of Dimension in Various Fields
• Insights   Views On Complex Numbers
• Insights   Addition of Velocities (Velocity Composition) in Special Relativity
• Insights   Schrödinger’s Cat and the Qbit

Platform for students

Platform for parents

• DL platform

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

Explain to students why cheating and copying are bad

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

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

You should explain to them that:

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

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

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

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

Author: Tijana Rajić

Literatura:

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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

For more information, please call us or apply here:

You have successfully applied. We will contact you soon.

• Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
• Contact us:
• +1 (213) 221-0069
• [email protected]

Can I Copy Your Homework? Best Solution away from the Memes

How to Copy Homework Safely

For those out there who are not aware of the phrase, “can I copy your homework?” it is a collection of meme jokes that compares pieces of pop culture.

In most cases, they compare two pieces of pop culture where one of the pieces is portrayed to have imitated the other piece.

Instead of copying homework, have your assignment done by a professional and get an original copy that is legit and not related to your friends.

It is a joke referencing school practice whereby one student requests the other to copy their assignment, and the latter agrees on the condition that they alter a few things to make sure that their papers do not appear plagiarized.

This results in an almost identical homework assignment.

Can I Copy your Homework

Well, you can copy homework if you are smart enough to change the whole of it and uniquely make it yours. Away from the memes on copying homework, it is a thriving practice by students who seek a quick way to earn a grade while not doing the assignments.

That is the origin of the memes but presents practical cheating in college.

Now that we are clear about its origins and its pop-cultural usage, what response would you give to a classmate after posing the question, “can I copy your homework?

Well, the answer will be either yes or no depending on your ethics and perceptions of cheating.

If your response is yes, then there are things to consider to avoid detection.

As the meme goes, a request to copy homework is accepted under the condition that a few things should be changed so that the two assignments will not appear similar or plagiarized.

The best method to reduce or avoid similarity is to paraphrase. These are the results of students having assignment burdens that give them little to no choice.

People Also Read: Pearson Homework Answers: Genuine Help in Sciences & Maths

How to Successfully Copy someone’s Homework

1. by paraphrasing it.

What is paraphrasing? Paraphrasing can be defined as presenting information and ideas you have taken from another source in your own words.

Ideally, you should acknowledge where those ideas and pieces of information originated from. However, in this case, a student cannot acknowledge the source of information because it would be traced back to their classmate.

Paraphrasing is just like recycling information because even though the words and sentence structure have been changed, the meaning and ideas remain the same.

There are various techniques for paraphrasing. However, you should apply those techniques once you have completely understood what your classmate has written.

It would be unthoughtful to paraphrase an assignment that you do not understand. You will end up messing things up and being caught because of plagiarized work.

2. Use Synonyms

The first technique in paraphrasing is to use synonyms. Synonyms are words that carry the same meaning. As we have noted, paraphrased work should portray the same meaning and ideas as the original work.

Therefore, the utilization of synonyms is a good way to paraphrase your friend’s work or any other paper.

For example, if the original text is, “he was deeply saddened by the loss”, you could paraphrase it to, “he was devastated by the loss”.

“Deeply saddened” in the original text has been replaced by “devastated”, which is a synonym.

The two sentences are not similar but they carry the same meaning.

However, be very careful when using synonyms while paraphrasing. This is because words may carry several meanings depending on the context and the intended message to be portrayed.

Because of this, you have to consider the most applicable synonym that expresses the intended meaning for the specific context.

For example, the word “manage” can mean an activity linked to a leadership role while it can also mean the ability to do a particular task. Be careful while selecting synonyms.

3. Change the Sentence Form

The second technique of paraphrasing is changing the form of sentences or words. For example, you can replace a verb with a noun from a similar word family.

Again, you can replace an adjective with a verb. This also brings in another strategy of changing the grammatical structure of a sentence.

For example, if the grammatical structure for comparing something to another is by the use of “slower than”, you can paraphrase the phrase by replacing it with “not as quick as” or “not as rapid as”.

While paraphrasing, you can decide to combine all the above techniques to come up with something unique. It all depends on what you want and the technique you are most comfortable with.

If you have been asked the question, “can I copy your homework?” and your answer is no, your reason can be motivated by the fact that copying is cheating.

In any situation, copying your friend’s homework is wrong and is against the school policy. However, the most viable solution for this is to let us write your homework afresh. You may be wondering who we are talking about.

If you haven’t been allowed to copy, we offer professional writing solutions where we write your homework afresh.

What this means is that you only have to access our writing services online. From there, you will interact with our support team which will guide you through the process.

Ideally, you will create a profile from which you will be placing your assignment orders.

You will have your platform where you will provide all the necessary information about the assignment such as the instructions, the format, the number of pages, the type of paper, and the due date.

Once you have placed an order, the best professional writer will be selected to tackle your assignment.

Our rates are very friendly to students. Your paper will be professionally written as per the instructions. Both the professional writers and editors use high-quality plagiarism checking tools that detect any similarity.

We ensure that the papers we deliver are of high quality and free from plagiarism. If the paper does not meet your standards and by chance, you have rejected it, we guarantee your money back!

Therefore, the best solution is to let us write your homework afresh.

People Also Read: Economics Homework Help: Top Econ Assignment Helpers Online

Is Copying Homework Bad? Is It Cheating?

From a moral and integrity perspective, copying homework is bad and constitutes cheating in school. This is because it is taking another person’s work and claiming it as your own.

It is considered wrong by both institutions of learning and law. Moreover, cheating on homework gives cheats an undue advantage over others.

If you are caught copying homework by the institution, you will get a zero and get an academic warning. In extreme cases, you can be suspended for a certain number of academic days or be expelled completely from the institution.

When it comes to the law, you can face hefty fines or possible jail time if the actual owner of the copied material decides to take you to court.

Because of all this, copying homework is bad and it can be considered a form of academic cheating or dishonesty.

If you find yourself tempted to copy your homework without the approval of the owner or without giving them credit through citations and references in the case of academic writing, it is best to seek professional academic writing services that will guarantee high-quality and unique papers.

But there are reasons why you should not try to copy homework. There are some reasons why you shouldn’t copy your homework.

Reasons to avoid Copying Homework

Copying is cheating

The first reason is that copying is similar to lying and cheating. You will be claiming something that does not belong to you.

Copied assignments will never be your work and therefore no matter how good your grades will be, you will never be proud of yourself and your work.

Copying is unfair

Secondly, copying is an unfair act to other students who studied for the assignment.

While such students may be driven by the need to get good grades, they fail to understand that education is much more than solving problems and memorizing facts.

Education is about gaining knowledge while understanding oneself so that a person can be successful and happy in the future.

Copying Betrays Trust

Finally, copying betrays trust. Your fellow students and teachers will develop a negative perspective on you because you are not a trustworthy person.

It demonstrates that you are not to be trusted in other things. While cheating is one of the ways students escape not doing their homework , it is not the best in terms of integrity.

Copying develops into a continuous cycle that does not end at school. It persists all your life, hence the reason people will not trust you. 

People Also Read: How to Find Answers to Homework Worksheets Online

How to Safely Copy or Cheat on Homework

The easiest way of safely copying or cheating on homework is to copy from your more knowledgeable friend.

This is the best method because your friend is tackling the same homework and your work will be to take what they have written and transfer it to your paper.

However, make sure that you have paraphrased the content as aforementioned to avoid detection. While doing this, avoid plagiarism at all costs.

You can use adverbs and adjectives, change the order of the text, and effectively document quotes to wisely plagiarize other people’s works.

Another method is to reuse previous homework done by you or others. This is a crazy way if you cannot do your assignment , but it does not guarantee safety as you can be caught.

This method is risky if your institution uses plagiarism detecting tools to check your homework’s originality. If they do not use the tool, you can reuse similar homework done by you or others.

Students who are on a level beyond yours may have similar homework because teachers may recycle assignments for different students.

When not handling complex essays and academic writing tasks, Josh is busy advising students on how to pass assignments. In spare time, he loves playing football or walking with his dog around the park.

Related posts

cheating on math homework

How to Cheat on Math Homework and the Best Websites to Use

Motivate Yourself do Homework

How to Motivate Yourself to Do Homework and Study

Doing Homework At Work

Doing Homework At Work: How to do your Assignment Fast