Between 50-80% of college students cheat at some point.1 These estimates vary, but it’s safe to say that cheating is common in higher education. And since people tend to downplay negative behaviors like academic dishonesty, the true numbers are likely higher.2
Would you cheat in these situations? Be Honest.
Scenario 1: Anything less than a 90% on your last final exam means failing the course, delaying graduation, and paying to retake it—an expense you didn’t plan for, and can’t afford. Meanwhile, you know your classmates are cheating, but the instructor seems to ignore it.
Scenario 2: An elective you’re aren’t interested in requires a long essay. Would you use ChatGPT to “help” write it so you can focus on studying for finals in your career-related courses—especially since you can make a few edits and AI detection won’t catch it?
Many studies suggest that students are likely to cheat in these scenarios.
Sometimes, the reasons for cheating are obvious, like wanting good grades or just because they can. Other times, they’re more complex, like students’ assumptions of how much instructors actually care and gray areas where opinions of what counts as cheating differ—even among faculty. 1(Cantiello & Geschke, 2024; Janke et al., 2021; MacLeod & Eaton, 2020) 2(Newton, 2024)
When cheating becomes a culture
Cheating isn’t because of a few “bad apples.” And it isn’t just your students’ fault. Instructor communication and teaching style, as well as institutional policies and procedures—or lack thereof—play a significant role in creating a learning environment where academic dishonesty is the norm.
But shouldn’t students’ strong values and unwavering moral compasses steer them away from unethical behavior and guide them toward honesty and academic integrity? Not always… especially when students know their peers are cheating and the instructor doesn’t do anything about it.
Why wouldn’t faculty address cheating?
A 2020 survey of over 400 faculty from 17 institutions offered some insight. Unless the behavior is blatantly obvious, some faculty won’t report it because it’s a time-consuming process, and they don’t believe the institution will support them (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020).
Faculty survey insights about why cheating is underreported:
- 66% said their institution doesn’t handle academic dishonesty consistently.
- 48% have ignored cheating when evidence wasn’t entirely conclusive.
- 30% said it’s too time-consuming to formally report cheating.
- 24% indicated that their institution’s integrity policies were effective.
- 10% didn’t believe protecting academic integrity was their responsibility.
Faculty survey insights about why cheating is underreported
said their institution doesn’t handle academic dishonesty consistently.
have ignored cheating when evidence wasn’t entirely conclusive.
said it’s too time-consuming to formally report academic misconduct.
indicated that their institution’s integrity policies were effective.
said academic integrity wasn’t their responsibility.
Although a bit dated, a survey by Staats et al. (2009) reinforced the above findings and added a few more reasons that faculty believe contribute to non-reporting of academic dishonesty:
- Students could take legal action.
- Accusing students is stressful.
- Professors lack the courage to address students who cheat.
- Worries about the situation escalating if a student denies misconduct.
- A reluctance to potentially damage the student’s future.
Addressing a culture of cheating
When students assume others are cheating and that faculty and the institution don’t care or won’t do anything about it, a “cheating culture” emerges (Tolman, 2017). But the thing about cheating is that the more it happens, the more it happens—and with each instance, students see it as a less serious offense (Shu et al., 2011).
So, what can you do about it?
Slap an academic integrity policy on the school website? Ask students to sign course honor codes? Those can help if they’re part of larger efforts. If not, you’re just wasting time.
How about setting up online proctored exams? These help detect and reduce cheating and give faculty evidence to prove it. But proctoring vendors don’t—and shouldn’t—determine the consequences of academic integrity violations. That responsibility falls to the faculty and institution.
You need the right technology, but you also need the right people and processes.
Why do students cheat?
According to McCabe (2016), Simkin & McLeod (2010), and just about every study exploring this topic, there are a few common (and very predictable) reasons for student cheating, like pressure to earn good grades, lack of preparedness, and simply because the opportunity was there with little risk of getting caught. Overall, no surprises here.
Beyond that, academic dishonesty has gray areas related to differing opinions, peer behaviors, specific situations, and whether students feel that the institution and instructor genuinely care, among other factors.
Personality, values, morals, attitudes, and emotions?
Although personalities, values, morals, and attitudes impact students’ intentions to cheat, they have little influence on reducing cheating in most cases (Ababneh et al., 2022; Johnson‐Clements et al., 2024; Kasler et al., 2023).
Think of it like this: we may not intend to eat too much dessert over the holidays, but we still grab the extra slice(s) of pie and a few too many cookies.
Neutral attitudes and anonymity amplify academic misconduct in online learning environments
Neutral and disengaged attitudes make it easier for students to justify academic misconduct and disconnect from their behavior—even when they know it’s wrong (Lee et al., 2020; Sevnarayan & Maphoto, 2024). The impact of these attitudes is amplified in online learning environments because there’s a sense of anonymity and less personal accountability, both making it easier for students to justify dishonest behavior (Sevnarayan & Maphoto, 2024).
Students’ test anxiety is linked to academic misconduct
The more anxious a student feels, the more likely they are to act unethically in academic settings (Eshet et al., 2024). If a student is anxious and expects a poor grade (because they’re unprepared, for example) they’re more likely to take risks like academic fraud compared to students who expect to perform well (Salgado et al., 2022).
Students view cheating differently
We usually think of cheating as intentional behaviors like peeking at another student’s test or using a cell phone to look up answers during an online exam. But that isn’t always the case.
Sometimes, what seems like intentional unethical behavior may stem from a misunderstanding or a different view of cheating. Other times, students know their behavior is unethical but not technically cheating, and they find it easier to justify in situations where they don’t believe it’s particularly harmful or deceptive (Waltzer & Dahl, 2023).
Students and faculty opinions differ on the severity of certain behaviors
For the most part, students and faculty have similar views on what counts as cheating, but they don’t always see eye-to-eye on the severity of certain behaviors (Pautler et al., 2013). For example, both groups agree that taking a test for another student, using unauthorized notes, and intentional plagiarism are serious offenses.
But when it comes to behaviors like signing in for another student, gathering test question banks from previous years, and unintentional plagiarism, faculty usually interpret these more severely than students do.
Dishonesty or teamwork? Many students don’t consider group work on take-home tests as cheating—even when they don’t have permission from the instructor; they view it more as teamwork than dishonesty (Carpenter et al., 2010; Forkuor et al., 2019).
Students see some behavior as unethical but not cheating
Students recognize that some behaviors are unethical but not academic misconduct. For example, 65.5% indicated that making up an excuse to delay an exam or paper is unethical but not cheating (Carpenter et al., 2010).
Student survey results: cheating vs. unethical behavior
Cheating | Unethical (not cheating) | Neither | |
|---|---|---|---|
Copy classmates’ answers during an exam | 96.4% | 2.3% | 1.1% |
Witnessing cheating but not reporting it | 9.2% | 59.6% | 30.3% |
Allowing others to look at your answers during exams | 73.3% | 3.4% | 23.3% |
Working with peers on online exams without permission | 39.8% | 29% | 30.2% |
Asking classmates about exam questions before taking it | 26.7% | 45.6% | 26.6% |
Falsely claiming you submitted an assignment | 61.1% | 33% | 4.5% |
Copying homework from classmates | 72.9% | 22.6% | 3.9% |
Copying work from other students’ past assignments | 52.3% | 31.1% | 16% |
Storing answers/formulas in a calculator used in an exam | 74.5% | 15.6% | 9.8% |
While most students’ views on academic dishonesty align with what we believe is academic dishonesty, there are some concerning outliers here. For example, while about 40% think taking an exam with classmates without the instructor’s permission is cheating, the other 60% either see it as unethical but not cheating—or don’t think it’s wrong at all. These differences in opinion cause serious academic integrity violations and larger problems in higher education, especially in e-learning.
Rationalizing cheating as “real world” behavior
In a survey of almost 600 college students, many said that people can access resources and share information in real life, so they don’t see that behavior as misconduct (Cole et al., 2014).
Tying that into their future work plans, one student said, “Getting a good grade is more important than learning anything anymore… because when you get to the workplace, they teach you what you want to know, your diploma is just your foot in the door for the most part.” (Cole et al., 2014, p. 43).
Unintentional plagiarism
A survey of graduate and undergraduate students found that 70% view Internet resources as public information that’s free to use without citing (Larkin & Mintu-Wimsatt, 2015).
Students may also unintentionally plagiarize because they’re trying too hard to sound academic, which often happens to doctoral students (Fatemi & Saito, 2020).
of students view Internet resources as public information that’s free to use without citing
Courses are focused on grades, not learning
Students are more likely to cheat when they feel the course focuses on grades (Anderman & Koenka, 2017). This is different from a student’s personal focus on earning good grades. When a course is focused on grades, students feel like everything revolves around grades rather than learning (Anderman & Koenka, 2017; Anderman & Won, 2019). This can happen for many reasons, such as when instructors rely heavily on high-stakes exams to assess knowledge or when every exam or assignment seems to be high-stakes.
Focusing on grades also makes academic integrity violations feel more acceptable in classes students dislike or aren’t interested in (Anderman & Won, 2019). This is especially troubling for instructors who typically have students taking their course as an elective (remember the scenario in the beginning with the elective you don’t even care about?)
They believe other students are cheating
Students are more likely to cheat if they believe their peers cheat, especially when they witness it firsthand, which makes it seem like normal and acceptable behavior, and it can even lead them to justify it (Bath et al., 2014; O’Rourke et al., 2010; Tatum, 2017).
Knowing that their peers are cheating is one of the strongest predictors of a student’s own academic dishonesty (O’Rourke et al., 2010). Peer influence also shapes students’ views on dishonest and acceptable behavior more than the rules set by instructors or the school (Forkuor et al., 2019).
“Clearly, cheating among college students is prevalent and it is even common among students who acknowledge that it is morally wrong. Morality does not seem to be a major influence on student decisions to cheat or not to cheat. Peer disapproval of cheating and the behavior of peers are clearly much greater influences and may help explain the success of academic honor codes in reducing cheating.”
(McCabe, 1997, p. 444)
11 strategies to prevent cheating in online learning
Addressing and preventing cheating can feel like you’re running through a never-ending obstacle course. And just when you think you’re getting ahead, a new challenge pops up. While it’s an endless effort, a few core strategies can help clear the path in your courses and across your institution.Reduce test anxiety
Anxious students are more likely to cheat, especially when they’re unprepared and/or fear bad grades, as stress increases risky shortcuts (Eshet et al., 2024; Salgado et al., 2022). Aside from those stressors stress, a student survey by Honorlock and a partner university found that students also worry about using test technologies. Managing these concerns can help improve performance, reduce unethical behavior, and encourage academic integrity.
Tips to help reduce student test anxiety:
- Set expectations: Let students know what the test will cover, its format, and any other details (time limit, grading criteria, etc.) to reduce uncertainty and help them prepare.
- Review the rules, instructions, and procedures: Go over the test rules, instructions, and procedures, and answer any questions students may have to avoid confusion and uncertainty.
- Make sure students can use the technologies: Show them how to use any tools, platforms, or software they’ll use to take the exam. Provide a live demonstration if needed.
- Offer practice exams: Practice exams help students get familiar—and hopefully comfortable—with technologies and confirm their device meets system requirements.
- Show students how to access technical support: Provide technical support contact information and show them how to access it.
- Provide information about accommodations: Discuss available accommodations (e.g., extended exam time, assistive technologies, etc.) and provide information on how to access those resources.
Prevent the use of generative AI chatbots
Generative AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot, are a double-edged sword in higher education. They’re great for faculty because they assist with content creation and lesson planning, and students can use them for tutoring and interactive learning activities like language practice and debates. Unfortunately, students also use AI to generate written responses for assignments, whether it’s long-form essays or short answers.
Teaching strategies to mitigate AI cheating in online learning
While it’s an uphill battle to some extent, there are ways faculty can adapt their course activities and assessment and technology that can help.
Does AI detection work?
AI detection works when students copy and paste AI-generated text without changing it. But students are smart and savvy. They’ll edit, paraphrase, and rework the text to make it their own; when that happens, AI detection software is ineffective and unreliable at best.
Aside from using remote proctoring technology to block AI, here are a few examples (below) of how to discourage students from using AI to complete their coursework.
Studies about the effectiveness of AI detection
Baron (2024) tested the largest commercial plagiarism and AI detection platform against ChatGPT-generated text. The study found that the detection tool was accurate when the text was unaltered, but when Quillbot paraphrased the text, the AI detection platform’s accuracy score dropped to 31% and 0% after two rephrases.
A study by Weber-Wulff et al. (2023) tested 14 AI detection platforms (12 publicly available and 2 commercial) against ChatGPT. The researchers concluded that AI detection is often inaccurate when text is manually edited, paraphrased, or reordered, and struggles with identifying AI-translated content.
Gupta and Gupta (2024) discuss the accuracy issues of AI detection platforms, stating that, “The market teems with AI detection tools, each boasting superior precision and competitive advantages. Yet, research reveals a stark reality: these tools often fall short in accuracy and reliability.”
Scaffolded assignments are basically just a series of smaller tasks/assignments that build up to a larger assignment. For example, instead of one long-form essay, have students brainstorm topics and submit a proposal and outline, then write a rough draft for peer review, and the final assignment is an essay followed by a reflection.
You can also ask students to submit each task in a different format. For example, the brainstorm could be presented as a mind map; the proposal and outline could be presented in PowerPoint with visuals; the rough draft and final essay could be in Word or Google Docs; and the peer review and reflection could be done through audio or video submissions.
Authentic assessments offer students an opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge by completing realistic tasks they may face in the real world.
For example, instead of asking accounting students to answer a series of multiple choice test questions, an authentic assessment may ask them to prepare cash flow statements, balance sheets, multi-year depreciation schedules, etc.
Connect assignments to information directly from class, such as comparing and contrasting discussion responses from two classmates or aligning a theory with a particularly interesting comment from a live discussion.
While this isn’t foolproof, students would likely spend more time giving the AI the right information and tweaking the response than simply writing the response themselves.
Scaffold assignments
Scaffolded assignments are basically just a series of smaller tasks/assignments that build up to a larger assignment. For example, instead of one long-form essay, have students brainstorm topics and submit a proposal and outline, then write a rough draft for peer review, and the final assignment is an essay followed by a reflection.
Authentic assessments
Authentic assessments offer students an opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge by completing realistic tasks they may face in the real world.
For example, instead of asking accounting students to answer a series of multiple-choice test questions, an authentic assessment may ask them to prepare cash flow statements, balance sheets, multi-year depreciation schedules, etc.
Connect to class
Connect assignments to information directly from class, such as comparing and contrasting discussion responses from two classmates or aligning a theory with a particularly interesting comment from a live discussion.
While this isn’t foolproof, students would likely spend more time giving the AI the right information and tweaking the response than simply writing the response themselves.
AI resources from universities
Several universities have developed excellent resources for faculty to control the use of AI, whether blocking it entirely or integrating it thoughtfully in their course activities.
- University of Florida offers a hub of AI resources to improve teaching and learning. They also provide a page on ChatGPT, how it works, and considerations when using it.
- The Ohio State University provides a great overview of AI tools that includes information about how they’re used, the benefits and limitations, and course design strategies to consider. They also provide a guide with AI teaching strategies for assignment design.
- Seton Hall University developed an Artificial Intelligence Resource Center with information on mitigating AI generated content as well as integrating AI into the curriculum.
Involve students in the process
Students significantly influence their peers’ academic behavior, both positively and negatively, so faculty and institutions should collaborate with students to align on acceptable behavior and build a culture of academic honesty where students reject cheating and lead by example (Daumiller & Janke, 2020; Forkuor et al., 2019).
Students learn more about academic integrity when their peers teach them, and having student delegates address integrity issues and guide them through processes like requesting hearings creates a more positive, lasting impact (Malizia and Jamenson, 2018; Zivcakova et al., 2014).
Orr & Orr (2019) suggest that peer-to-peer discussions about academic misconduct can deepen students’ understanding of academic integrity and recommend training student delegates to:
- Conduct respectful, supportive conversations
- Understand academic integrity policies, procedures, and processes
- Practice real-life scenarios to prepare for handling cases
Institutional leadership should continually talk to those involved in handling dishonesty cases and educating peers about academic integrity to understand how the institution can improve efforts, such as streamlining specific processes and offering students practical training and resources like citation workshops and digital guides with citation tips.
Clearly define academic dishonesty
As we mentioned earlier, students struggle to understand which actions are considered cheating (Carpenter et al., 2010; Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). However, when students are provided with clear examples of what counts as cheating, it can help them understand their own actions and whether they qualify as cheating (Burrus et al., 2007).
Tips to create a shared definition of cheating:
- Define it: Provide detailed descriptions of what you consider cheating along with examples and share them throughout the course.
- Write clear rules and instructions: Write clear, objective rules for exams and assignments. Review them with students and discuss scenarios to define cheating together.
- Emphasize the value of integrity: Discuss how academic integrity contributes to academic growth and prepares them for future success instead of enforcing compliance.1
- Remind them of the course honor code: Mention the course honor code before each exam because studies show this can reduce cheating.2 This shouldn’t be the only time you discuss the honor code though.
Bonus tip: Teach students how to cite their work. Plagiarism can be confusing and so can citation requirements—APA or MLA? Chicago, maybe? When do you cite sources? What’s considered “common knowledge”? Teach students how to cite sources and provide helpful resources in the course.
Recommendation from: 1Forkuor et al., 2019; 2Zhao et al., 2023
Reading definitions of cheating can change how students view their behavior
After reading definitions of behaviors that are considered cheating, students reported much higher rates of cheating (Burrus et al., 2007).
Write objective rules and instructions
As discussed throughout this article, confusion and different interpretations of cheating often lead to dishonest behavior. One piece of the puzzle to help reduce confusion is writing clear and objectives rules and instructions for tests and assignments.
Writing these can be difficult. They need to be comprehensive but also clear and concise, which is a tough balancing act.
The testing area and any surface your device is placed on must be clear of all items except the device used to complete the test. This includes books, papers, electronics, and other personal belongings.
Rationale: The original rule doesn’t account for situations where a student’s only option is to place their device on the floor or a kitchen counter, for example, instead of a desk or table. Students might argue, “I was at a table, not a desk,” or, “The rule says ‘your desk,’ but I don’t own this desk.”
That rationale may seem far-fetched, but the point is that word choices matter and they can be exploited. And if nuances in word choices didn’t matter, attorneys and contract specialists would have way more free time.
Support faculty & remove friction from the reporting process
Two faculty surveys found that they don’t report cheating because it’s so time-intensive, and they don’t believe their institution handles cases of academic dishonesty consistently or effectively, all contributing to faculty feeling unsupported (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009).
Survey faculty and staff involved in academic misconduct cases to identify issues and gather improvement ideas, then use their input to review the process with these initial considerations:
- What’s holding things up? Identify bottlenecks and specific steps that cause delays and frustration.
- Revamp and remove: Are there outdated steps or unnecessary requirements that can be updated, changed, or removed?
- Identify quick fixes and long-term changes: Start with quick fixes while planning and working toward larger, long-term improvements.
- Use technology to make things easier: Can any technologies reduce manual work and streamline processes?
- Examples: Electronic forms to eliminate paperwork, scheduling software to automate case-specific meetings, proctoring tools to collect evidence, such as video recordings of misconduct, etc.
- Collect feedback: After making changes, provide time for those involved in the reporting process to adjust and test the updates. Then, ask for their feedback on the process and what’s working or not working as planned.
Because every institution has its own resources, staff, structure, and technology, these tips are simply a starting point for improving the process of reporting academic misconduct, and they should be adapted to fit your specific needs.
Proctor online exams
While online exam proctoring effectively reduces cheating1, its impact on exam scores is less significant and straightforward than it might seem. Unproctored exam scores are usually higher than proctored ones—sometimes by a lot2, but the difference is usually relatively small3.
Shouldn’t unproctored exam scores ALWAYS be higher if students cheat? Not always.
Proctoring may change how students prepare for exams (in a good way)
Students may prepare more thoroughly for proctored exams because they know they can’t rely on using outside resources like the internet for help, which, according to Howard (2020), leads to exam scores comparable to those of students using those resources during unproctored exams. This extra preparation may explain why students who took proctored exams scored higher on recall tests months later (Howard, 2020; Zhang, 2024).
These findings align with a survey of over 1,500 students, where many said taking remotely proctored exams helped them prepare and stay focused, including one who stated, “I can’t cheat [during proctored exams]. Therefore, I have to push myself to learn.”
More student survey quotes about how proctoring helps them focus
Students indicated that proctoring:
“… keeps me focused and not think[ing] about distractions.”
“… helps me focus more since I’m in my own environment.”
“… makes you accountable for actually learning the material, not just cheating your way through.”
“… keeps me focused on my work.”
“… challenges you to really try your best.”
“… helps me focus more and reduces the urge to cheat on things.”
“… keeps me in the right head space.”
“… keeps me focused on finishing the test.”
“… gives students the feeling of being alone and gets them in the right mindset to take a test.”
However, we aren’t saying that better grades on unproctored exams are only because students can cheat. Other factors contribute to higher scores on unproctored exams, like question formats and the testing environment itself (Zhang, 2024).
And most importantly, we can’t lose sight of the fact that many students prepare diligently for every exam whether they’re proctored or not.
Finding the right proctoring solution
Comparing proctoring vendors can be tricky because there are so many tools and types to choose from. Below is a brief overview of proctoring tools and the different types available.
Online proctored exam tools and features
Most services that use AI, whether entirely or as part of a hybrid solution, offer basic proctoring tools for online exams, like browser lockdowns and video monitoring. Those are a good start, but you’ll need more advanced tools to stop students from using cell phones or AI during exams.
Basic tools
- Browser lockdown software: Restricts access to other websites and blocks keyboard shortcuts.
- Video/audio monitoring: Uses the webcam and microphone to record behavior and the testing environment.
- Identity verification: Confirms that the test taker is the student getting credit. Typically, it involves holding a form of identification up to the webcam.
Advanced tools
- Cell phone detection: Detects when students use cell phones, so you don’t have to rely on a proctor seeing a cell phone in real time.
- AI blocking: Prevent students from using AI like ChatGPT unless faculty want to allow it.
- Exam content protection: Searches the internet for your leaked exam content; offers a one-click takedown request.
- Speech detection: Specifically listens for words/phrases, like commands that activate voice assistants like Alexa or Siri, which could provide students with answers.
- Exam analytics: In-depth, actionable reporting on proctored assessments in one easy-to-use portal.
Types of proctoring software and services
The proctoring service’s approach also matters—some only use AI, others rely on humans, and some use both. Each type creates a different testing experience for students, so finding the right one is important for your institution, faculty, and especially your students.
Lockdown browser
Blocks sites, software, and keyboard shortcuts. Cheap, easy setup, but doesn’t stop cheating; students can still use phones and other resources.
Automated (AI only)
Live (humans only)
Human proctors watch multiple students in real time and intervene if they see dishonest behavior. Offers human oversight and addresses misconduct immediately, but it’s expensive, scheduling is a hassle, and it increases student anxiety.
Hybrid
Hybrid proctoring blends live proctors with AI and a browser lock. AI monitors behavior during exams and alerts a proctor to review any suspicious behavior and intervene only if cheating is confirmed. There’s human oversight but this approach is less stressful for students because they aren’t being watched by a stranger. Hybrid proctoring also removes scheduling issues which improves scalability.
Record & review
Focus on learning and mastery instead of grades
Initial strategies to help shift the focus of your course to learning and mastery:
- Allow revisions to focus on mastery: Students are less likely to cheat when they can revise and improve their work because it shifts their focus to mastering the material instead of chasing grades (Anderman & Koenka, 2017; Ruth et al., 2024).
- Provide detailed, constructive feedback: Providing feedback with examples, actionable tips, positive reinforcement, and supplemental resources helps students learn and improve their work.
- Align coursework with real-world application: Course activities that reflect real-world situations help reduce dishonest behavior (Ruth et al., 2024). For example, accounting students could create balance sheets in Excel instead of answering multiple-choice questions.
These teaching strategies can help reduce students’ motivation to cheat and build toward a more positive, supportive culture focused on mastery (Malesky et al., 2022).
And here’s some good news for instructors teaching elective courses to students who may only be there for credit: Focusing on mastery makes students less likely to rationalize cheating, even in classes they may be particularly interested in (Anderman & Won, 2019).
Address academic dishonesty every time it happens
Cheating decreases when faculty address every instance of dishonesty (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). But as we mentioned earlier, faculty understand the importance of addressing cheating yet still hesitate to act on it for a number of reasons (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020).
Sometimes, it’s because reporting misconduct is too time-consuming, but some instructors avoid addressing cheating because of the stress and anxiety it causes (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009). And it’s just as tough on students, even though some see that as part of the consequences of breaking the rules.
But is that still true when a student cheated— let’s say they didn’t cite their sources—but genuinely didn’t realize it? Maybe they were never taught how to and when to cite them. Either way, you have to address it, or everyone loses.
How to talk to students about cheating
These conversations are as delicate to conduct as they are tough to prepare for. But they don’t have to be as negative and stressful as they seem.
What do you say? Better yet, what SHOULDN’T you say? What evidence do you need? What even counts as evidence? Do you email them first?
This article about how to talk to students about cheating has everything you need—even different email templates and talk tracks, depending on the situation.
Do more with academic integrity policies and honor codes
Academic integrity policies and honor codes won’t stop cheating altogether, but they can help reduce it to an extent. Sometimes, even just mentioning them before an exam reduces dishonest behavior, as students may think twice about their actions and potential consequences (Malesky, 2022; Tatum & Schwartz, 2017).
Most faculty are familiar with their institution’s academic integrity policy, but many only pay attention to it after incidents of academic misconduct occur or when they receive reminders to include policy details in their syllabi (MacLeod et al., 2020).
But they need to be more than a document on a school’s website or something you mention before a test. Institutions and faculty need to embed integrity into larger efforts that influence and encourage a culture of academic integrity, transparency, and accountability.
In addition to the other strategies we’ve discussed, the tips below are a starting point to help faculty and leadership build a culture of academic integrity.
Faculty tips
Regularly discuss integrity policies with students: Review and discuss academic integrity policies and class honor codes and link to them throughout your course syllabus, announcements, discussion boards, etc.
Be open and genuine: Have open, genuine conversations with students about why you care about academic integrity and how it impacts their education. Try sharing a bit about yourself.; tell them about your values and experiences or a relevant story to help them understand your perspective.
Assign class delegates: These students can help educate classmates about integrity policies and lead discussions about academic honesty.
Quick confirmation question: Add a question (graded or ungraded) at the start of a test where students acknowledge that they understand the instructions, rules, and policies. This is especially helpful when recent changes/updates have been made.
Leadership tips
Build faculty and staff alignment: Hold semesterly training, require policy acknowledgments, create awareness of what counts as dishonest behavior, and centralize resources to keep faculty and staff aligned on integrity policies and updates.
Collect faculty feedback: Survey faculty (anonymously) to understand what questions and suggestions they have for academic integrity policies and the challenges they face in formally addressing academic dishonesty.
Train faculty to address cheating: Provide resources to help faculty conduct effective, healthy conversations with students they suspect of cheating. Hold workshops where faculty can engage in mock discussions for practice.
Learn from student delegates: Talk to those involved in handling dishonesty cases and educating peers about academic integrity to understand how the institution can improve efforts, such as streamlining specific processes and offering students practical training and resources like citation workshops and digital guides with citation tips.
No matter what strategies, policies, or technologies you have in place, there’s no cheat-proof system that lasts forever. Students are resourceful, and technology never stops evolving.
That’s why it’s not just about the tools and processes—it’s the people behind them. Faculty, staff, administrators, and students working together make the real difference.
When everyone aligns, a culture of academic integrity emerges, where cheating becomes the exception, and learning comes first.
References
Ababneh, K. I., Ahmed, K., & Dedousis, E. (2022). Predictors of cheating in online exams among business students during the Covid pandemic: Testing the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100713
Adam, T., Warren-Griffin, C. (2022). Use of supports among students with disabilities and special needs in college. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores. Online Learning, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885
Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2018). Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3698
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
Anderman, E. M., & Won, S. (2019). Academic Cheating in Disliked Classes. Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1373648
Bath, M., Hovde, P., George, E., Schulz, K., Larson, E., & Brunvatne, E. (2014). Academic integrity and community ties at a small, religious-affiliated liberal arts college. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v10i2.1005
Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.3200/jece.38.1.3-17
Cantiello, J., & Geschke, R. H. (2024). Preventing Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses: Best Practices to Discourage Cheating. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 40(2), 205–230.
Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., & Finelli, C. J. (n.d.). Using Research to Identify Academic Dishonesty Deterrents Among Engineering Undergraduates.
Cole, M. T., Swartz, L. B., & Shelley, D. J. (2014). Students’ Use of Technology in Learning Course Material: Is it Cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2014010104
Dahl, A., & Waltzer, T. (2024). A Canary Alive: What Cheating Reveals about Morality and Its Development. Human Development, 68(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1159/000534638
Daffin Jr, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018). Comparing Student Performance on Proctored and Non-Proctored Exams in Online Psychology Courses. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.), 22(1), 130-. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079
Daumiller, M., & Janke, S. (2020). Effects of performance goals and social norms on academic dishonesty in a test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12310
Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033
Eshet, Y., Grinautsky, K., & Steinberger, P. (2024). To behave or not (un)ethically? The meditative effect of mindfulness on statistics anxiety and academic dishonesty moderated by risk aversion. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00151-w
Fatemi G, Saito E (2020) Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: the challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. J Furth High Educ 44(10):1305–1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521
Forkuor, J. B., Amarteifio, J., Attoh, D. O., & Buari, M. A. (2019). Students’ Perception of Cheating and the Best Time to Cheat During Examinations. The Urban Review, 51(3), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0491-8
Gibson, Y., & Kuhn, R. (2024). E-Proctoring Tools: Is It a Necessary Inconvenience. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 24(7), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v24i7.7088
Han, S., Nikou, S., & Yilma Ayele, W. (2023). Digital proctoring in higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(1), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2022-0522
Herrick, S. J., Lu, W., & Bullock, D. (2020). Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Predictors of Adaptation to College. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 24(2), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120941011
Howard, D. (2020). Comparison of exam scores and time taken on exams between proctored oncampus and unproctored online students. Online Learning, 24(4), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2148
Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers and Education, 92–93, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002
Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, Ä., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. (2021). Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity? Computers and Education Open, 2, 100055-.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100055
Johnson-Clements, T. P., Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2024). Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09561-4
Kalhori, Z. (2014). The Relationship between Teacher-student Rapport and Student’s Willingness to Cheat. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.306
Kasler, J., Sharabi-Nov, A., Shinwell, E. S., & Hen, M. (2023). Who cheats? Do prosocial values make a difference? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00128-1
Larkin, C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2015). Comparing cheating behaviors among graduate and undergraduate online business students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(7), 54–62.
Lee, S. D., Kuncel, N. R., & Gau, J. (2020). Personality, Attitude, and Demographic Correlates of Academic Dishonesty: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 1042–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000300
MacLeod, P. D., & Eaton, S. E. (2020). The Paradox of Faculty Attitudes toward Student Violations of Academic Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09363-4
Malesky, A., Grist, C., Poovey, K., & Dennis, N. (2022). The Effects of Peer Influence, Honor Codes, and Personality Traits on Cheating Behavior in a University Setting. Ethics & Behavior, 32(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1869006
Malizia, D. A., & Jameson, J. K. (2018). Hidden in plain view: The impact of mediation on the mediator and implications for conflict resolution education. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21212
McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0046-y
McCabe, D. L. (2016). Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 187–198). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Morin, M., Alves, C., & De Champlain, A. (2022). The Show Must Go On: Lessons Learned from Using Remote Proctoring in a High-Stakes Medical Licensing Exam Program in Response to Severe Disruption. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 23, 15-.
Newton, P. M., & Essex, K. (2024). How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5
O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2010). Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Cheating: The Influence of Direct Knowledge and Attitudes on Academic Dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903482616
Orr, J. E., & Orr, K. (2023). Restoring Honor and Integrity Through Integrating Restorative Practices in Academic Integrity with Student Leaders. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09437-x
Pautler, H. M., Ogweno, A. W., Schnur, J. S., Schnur, E. S., Rapp, L. E., Kilgore, K. J., & Grice, G. R. (2013). An academic honor code developed and implemented by students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 5(6), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.08.001
Peterson, J. (2019). An analysis of academic dishonesty in online classes. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 31(1), 24–36.
Rüth, M., Jansen, M., & Kaspar, K. (2024). Cheating behaviour in online exams: On the role of needs, conceptions and reasons of university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(5), 1987–2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12994
Salgado, J. F., Cuadrado, D., & Moscoso, S. (2022). Counterproductive Academic Behaviors and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis and a Path Analysis Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 893775–893775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893775
Sevnarayan, K., & Maphoto, K. B. (2024). Exploring the Dark Side of Online Distance Learning: Cheating Behaviours, Contributing Factors, and Strategies to Enhance the Integrity of Online Assessment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09501-8
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138
Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x
Staats, S., Hupp, J. M., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes Don’t Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and Students’ Views on Why Professors Don’t Report Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623716
Stearns, S. A. (2001). The Student-Instructor Relationship’s Effect on Academic Integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_6
Tatum, H., & Schwartz, B. M. (2017). Honor Codes: Evidence Based Strategies for Improving Academic Integrity. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308175
Tolman, S. (2017). Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses: Considerations for Graduate Preparatory Programs in Higher Education. College Student Journal, 51(4), 579–584.
Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2023). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations, and motivations. Ethics & Behavior, 33(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775
Waltzer, T., Samuelson, A., & Dahl, A. (2022). Students’ Reasoning About Whether to Report When Others Cheat: Conflict, Confusion, and Consequences. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09414-4
Zhang, N., Larose, J., & Franklin, M. (2024). Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge. The Journal of Chiropractic Education. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-16
Zhao, L., Peng, J., Yang, X., Yan, W., Ke, S., Dong, L. D., Li, Y., Ma, J., & Lee, K. (2023). Effects of honor code reminders on university students’ cheating in unproctored exams: A double-blind randomized controlled field study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 75, 102213-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102213
Zivcakova, L., Wood, E., Forsyth, G., Zivcak, M., Shapiro, J., Coulas, A., Linseman, A., Mascioli, B., Daniels, S., & Angardi, V. (2014). Investigating Perceptions of Students to a Peer-Based Academic Integrity Presentation Provided by Residence Dons. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9206-2
Sign up for our blog
More resources for educators
How to Talk to Students About Cheating
A comprehensive guide with situational talk tracks, email templates, and realistic strategies for faculty to address academic dishonesty with students.
Remote Proctoring 101: Software & Services
A comprehensive guide with situational talk tracks, email templates, and realistic strategies for faculty to address academic dishonesty with students.
How to Proctor Written Assignments
Learn how to proctor essays and other written assignments to prevent the use of AI.
Cell phones are the most common way students try to cheat on proctored tests. Learn how to stop it.