There are several different descriptions of academic dishonesty. Yet, they can all be summarized as any unethical means to achieve better results in learning assessments (Miller et al., 2017). The prevalence of academic dishonesty in higher education institutions is supported by research worldwide (Murdock et al., 2006). When cheating becomes common, it results in consequences for students and higher education institutions. The so-called victimless crime prevents students from attaining the necessary knowledge and capabilities that are being transferred by their programs and disturbs the equity of assessment (Miller et al., 2017). In addition, when students observe their peers cheating and not getting punished, they cheat to level the playing field, creating a campus culture that involves cheating (McCabe et al., 1993). Higher education institutions are also damaged by cheating scandals, which reduces the public’s confidence in every qualification (Harding et al., 2004). It is evident that academic dishonesty has victims; therefore, building an understanding is crucial in developing prevention strategies.

Extensive research has been done to find out why students cheat.  Brimble et al. (2005) discovered that students might have different perceptions of which behaviors are considered academic cheating than university staff. To prevent cheating and to reduce incidences where cheating occurs because of confusion, academic dishonesty regulations are put in motion. Even so, research suggests that students’ understanding of academic dishonesty policies is low (Bretag et al., 2014). Furthermore, studies reveal that university staff tends to ignore student cheating (Coren, 2011). Students give various reasons for why they cheat. Among these reasons believing that others are cheating gains prevalence (Awdry et al., 2021). Relation between assessment type and cheating has limited research, yet Harper et al. (2019) found that it is a contributing factor. Moreover, the use of the internet gave another channel for students to cheat. For instance, whereas buying essays is not new, the internet is a very convenient medium for such behavior.

The current study investigated cheating among undergraduate students to describe their points of view. Also, as this study took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, and as emerging studies pointed out an increase in the prevalence of academic dishonesty during the lockdown period (Comas-Forgas et al., 2021), student opinions related to cheating trends during the Covid-19 pandemic emergency remote teaching (ERT) were gathered (Comas-Forgas et al., 2021). Furthermore, students’ observations about contract cheating were examined. More specifically, the research questions were: What are undergraduate students’ perceptions and opinions on academic dishonesty? What are undergraduate students’ beliefs on dishonesty frequency during emergency remote education compared to in-person education, and how do students explain the reasons for this difference? What are undergraduate students’ observations of contract cheating?

A survey design was used for this study. Data were collected from 442 students through an online survey in the Spring of 2021 from a university in Turkey. The Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire used in this study was developed for this research. First, the items in the questionnaire were written with the help of literature. Next, they were reviewed with the help of a measurement specialist and a Turkish language specialist to eliminate grammar and vocabulary problems, also ambiguity (Devillis, 2016). Afterward, a cognitive interview was held with seven target respondents to eliminate errors in the questionnaire and to confirm that items were understood consistently (Fowler, 2013). The questionnaire has 13 items. The first item ask whether students are aware of academic dishonesty regulations in their university. Also, student perceptions of their peers’ cheating and peers’ knowledge of academic dishonesty regulations are examined on a 5-point scale. Another item collects information about possible student reasons for academic dishonesty. Furthermore, reporting behaviors of instructors and peers are asked on a 5-point scale ranging from “never” to “always.” Also, student perceptions of their peers’ cheating, and peers’ knowledge of academic dishonesty regulations are examined with two similarly styled items. Moreover, their opinions about the relationship between cheating and assessment types are gathered with three items with unordered response categories about assessment type, cognitive process, and assignment deadlines/their place in the overall evaluation. These response categories were written using the assessment preference inventory (Birenbaum, 1994). Student opinions on cheating during ERT were questioned by one categorical and one open-ended question. Lastly, one yes/no and one open-ended question gathered their observations about contract cheating. Descriptive statistics and content analyses were conducted. Responses to two open-ended questions were read extensively, and lists of codes were formed using the related literature. The list of codes and responses were shared with another researcher to ensure inter-coder reliability (Marshall et al., 2016). Cohen’s kappas were calculated as .74 and .91 for two questions, indicating a substantial to an almost perfect agreement between the two coders (Landis et al., 1977).

More than half of the participants did not know the academic dishonesty regulations of their university. They rated their peer’s understanding of the regulations as less than good. Also, they reported that they believed their peers tend to cheat; however, instructors and other students were more likely not to report the incidents. Results imply a belief that cheating happens and punishment is scarce. Moreover, students declared that they mostly cheated to “achieve higher GPA” and “because of coinciding assignment deadlines and exam dates.” The majority of the participants indicated that students would be more likely to cheat in multiple-choice questions, knowledge-based questions, assignments with short time to complete, and highly weighted assignments. They were also asked about their beliefs on changes in academic dishonesty incidences during the Covid-19 pandemic. Most (69.82%) reported they believed cheating increased. In comparison, 25% said it stayed the same, and only 5.18% reported it decreased. Students shared what they think is the reason for changes in the number of cheating incidences. Six themes emerged: exam security issues; dissatisfaction with online education; instructor behavior and attitude; assessment design; personal characteristics of students; Covid-19 pandemic-related issues. It should be noted that their answers shifted focus from their circumstances and concentrated mostly on quality-related issues. One-third of the participants indicated they had observed contract cheating. Participants reported coming up with social media accounts that offered to finish assignments, websites that offered contract cheating services, and adverts for such websites. Some mentioned that they requested money for these services. A few also said that they encountered some instances, such as requests for assistance from other students, assignments completed jointly, and assignments completed with task sharing. Overall, student observations point out that cheating is widespread on campuses and resistant to precautions.

Ahsan, K., Akbar, S. & Kam, B. (2021) Contract cheating in higher education: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1931660 Awdry, R., & Ives, B. (2021). Students cheat more often from those known to them: situation matters more than the individual. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1254–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1851651 Birenbaum, M. (1994). Toward adaptive assessment - The student’s angle. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(94)90011-6 Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., … Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892 Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., … James, C. (2014). “Teach us how to do it properly!” An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406 Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P.A. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32, 19-44. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ743503.pdf Comas-Forgas, R., Lancaster, T., Calvo-Sastre, A., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2021). Exam cheating and academic integrity breaches during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of internet search activity in Spain. Heliyon, 7(10), e08233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08233 Coren, A. (2011). Turning a blind eye: faculty who ignore student cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y DeVellis, R., F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Fowler, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Harper, R., Bretag, T., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university staff. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1857–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462789 Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. (1993). Academic dishonesty : honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64 (5), 522-538. https://doi.org/10.2307/2959991 Miller, A. D., Murdock, T. B., & Grotewiel, M. M. (2017). Addressing academic dishonesty among the highest achievers. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1283574 Murdock, T.B., Anderman, E.M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1