RESEARCH ARTICLE

European Journal of Education and Pedagogy

www.ej-edu.org

Academic Integrity of Students during the COVID-19

Pandemic:
A Mixed Method Analysis
Ariel E. San Jose

ABSTRACT
This study explored the academic integrity of tertiary students during the
pandemic. Sixty-six students and nine faculty members were participants Published Online: August 12, 2022
in the study. Two adapted survey questionnaires and a validated ISSN: 2736-4534
researcher-made interview guide were used to obtain pertinent data.
DOI:10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
Quantitative results revealed that most students committed academic
dishonesty; however, they considered those misconducts moderate
cheating. Teachers observed that students committed cheating more than A. E. San Jose*
once; however, they only call students’ attention. Qualitative information Southern Philippines Agribusiness and
showed that most students knew the importance of academic integrity; Marine and Aquatic School of
lack of time, procrastination, lack of comprehension, lack of study habits, Technology, Digos City, Philippines.
having a job, low self-esteem, and the desire to get better marks were the (e-mail: arielsanjose74@gmail.com)
reasons why students committed academic misconduct. Students
suggested that the academic institution needs to initiate innovations and *Corresponding Author
implement stricter sanctions on those who committed academic
misconduct. A pledge of academic honesty was developed for students to
commit to academic integrity.

Keywords: Academic Integrity, College Students, Pandemic, SPAMAST.

struggling students with their grades were most likely to

I. INTRODUCTION
The transition of the educational system from face-to-face
to online modalities has threatened academic integrity. San
Jose (2021) mentioned that cheating, copying, surrogacy,
collusion, and other forms of dishonesty have increased
during the pandemic. The problem of academic dishonesty
is not new; however, it is an ongoing problem (Finn &
Frone, 2004). Several works of literature have investigated
and discovered interesting findings. Crown and Spiller
(1998) found that academic dishonesty is serious among
tertiary students. This finding was supported by Lupton and
Chapman (2000) who unveiled that 55 % of American
students admittedly cheated during their college years while
Smyth and Davis (2004) found that 44 % of students in
vocational courses committed academic dishonesty. Recent
studies by Brown and Choong (2005) and Yang (2012)
revealed that 97 % of students in both private and public
academic institutions concealed that they committed
academic dishonesty at least once. On the other hand, Davis
et al. (1992) and Chang (1995) estimated that approximately
60-80 percent of students cheated by copying from notes
while West et al. (2004) found that 74 % cheated on their
take-home exams.
Why do students commit academic dishonesty?
According to Gerdeman (2000), academic dishonesty is
influenced by personal character, peer pressure, teachers’
factors, and institutional policy. Lanier (2006) found that
cheat while those who felt they needed to maintain their
scholarships are more likely to commit academic
dishonesty. Rawwas et al. (2004) in their cross-cultural
study of academic dishonesty found that those individuals
with detached personalities, relativistic, non-religious, and
opportunistic thought of academic dishonesty as an
acceptable act. Nora and Zhang (2010) added that students
with low self-efficacy are more likely to commit academic
dishonesty. Interestingly, several authors found that males
are most likely to cheat than females (Anitsal et al., 2009;
Caruana et al., 2000; Lambert et al., 2003; Rawwas et al.
2004). On the other hand, Pulfrey et al. (2018) opined that
students whose peers practice cheating are likely to accept
academic dishonesty as collective cheating. Rowe (2004)
observed that students who felt they were “distant” from
their peers and teachers are more likely to engage in
dishonesty. Hence, Deranek and Parnther (2015); Stuber-
McEwen et al. (2005) pointed out that online classes
intensify the feeling of separation which led to academic
misconduct. The idea is supported by Burgason et al.,
(2019) who found that online cheating increased as the gap
between students and a physical classroom setting increased.
Moreover, Holden et al. (2020) pointed out that cheating
happens more often in virtual classes because students are
more experienced in using online tools which are likely not
detected by the teachers who are unfamiliar with online
detection techniques. Unfortunately, Diego (2018) averred

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400 Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 97


European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org
that students cheat because teachers significantly
undermined the students’ rates of academic dishonesty.
Likewise, Vučković et al. (2020) mentioned that teachers
are lenient on the academic dishonesty of students because
they are not aware of the ethics of dishonesty. Lastly,
Löfström et al. (2015) observed that educational institutions
are convinced of the essence of academic integrity;
however, they didn’t know how it should be taught, whether
it can be taught, who should teach it, and how cases of
misconduct should be handled. This observation supported
the earlier findings of Gerdeman (2000) who stated that
academic institutions exclusively rely on students’
handbooks which could not adequately communicate
honesty policies.
In the Southern Philippines Agribusiness and Marine and
Aquatic School of Technology (SPAMAST), academic
dishonesty is unnoticed especially on assignment
requirements and theses outputs of students. It is unfortunate
that the institution has no in place online detector or give
sanctions. This study will assess the student's level of
academic dishonesty engagement and whether they
considered those acts of dishonesty. Thus, this study
dwelled on the prevalence of academic dishonesty which
would become the basis for the academic institution in
crafting practical policies such as subscribing to plagiarism
checkers or implementing sanctions for those who
committed academic dishonesty.
A. Statement of the Problem
The main purpose of this mixed-method study was to
assess the student's academic integrity during the pandemic.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1.What is the level of students’ engagement in
academic dishonesty?
2.What is the level of seriousness the students think
of their academic dishonesty?
3.What are the teachers’ observations and actions are
done on students’ academic dishonesty?
4.What is the importance of academic integrity for
students?
5.What are the reasons students commit academic
dishonesty?
6.What suggestions students can offer to lessen
academic dishonesty?
B. Significance of the Study
The following individuals or groups of individuals will
benefit from this study.
College Administration. The results of this study would
bring additional knowledge to the situation of academic
integrity in the college. Such information would become the
basis for intervention and innovation to formulate measures
to maintain academic integrity in the college.
Teachers. The results of the study would give the teachers
insights to act upon the suggestions of the students to
minimize academic dishonesty.
Students. The results of the study would give the students
insights that academic integrity is a serious matter in their
studies. Hence, practice of honesty is essential.
Future Researchers. The results of the study would
become their reference in the conduct of another study
related to academic integrity. Moreover, it would give them
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
RESEARCH ARTICLE
the gap and the situations of academic integrity in the
college.
C. Theoretical Lens
This study is founded on the principles of the Normative
theory proposed by Slovic et al. (1977). This theory is
concerned with recommending actions that are most closely
aligned with the decision maker's views and values. This
means that the individual’s demographic characteristics are
involved in making decisions. According to Rettinger
(2007), the Normative theory is more complex since it
assumes that the decision-maker adjusts both the values and
the probabilities of events. For Harp and Taietz (1965),
cheating is thought to be a form of deviance. They added
that the study of the norms to which the members of the
system are directed, as well as subsequent deviation from
the expectation of others, is part of a sociological idea.
Chapman et al. (2004) mentioned that students are more
inclined to commit academic deviance in scenarios
involving friends.
In the context of this current study, the researcher
assumed that students' age, economic status, exposures,
coping mechanisms, personality, spirituality, and ethical
standards influence students to commit academic
misconduct.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
This study used the mixed method. The quantitative
method was first used using the adapted questionnaire while
the qualitative method used the structured interview
questionnaires. Due to the Inter-agency Task Force COVID-
19 protocols, the researcher gathered both the quantitative
and qualitative data thru emails and group chats.
The quantitative method was appropriate for the study
because it deals with objective measurements and numerical
analysis (Apuke, 2017). On the other hand, the qualitative
method gathers the participants' inner thoughts, personal
insights, thoughts, and narratives (Brinkman & Kvale,
2014); to understand the participants’ human encounters
with the phenomenon (Alase, 2017; Rosenthal, 2016; San
Jose et al., 2017); and triangulate with the quantitative data
(San Jose, 2021).
B. Research Instruments
This study used three instruments in collecting the data.
The first instrument was adapted from The Florida State
University Academic Integrity Survey Questionnaire (2015)
which was designed to gather teachers’ observations on
students' academic dishonesty. The second instrument was
adapted from McCabe et al. (1999) which assessed students’
engagement in academic dishonesty and the level of
seriousness of the misbehavior. The third instrument was an
interview guide which was designed to elicit the reasons
why students commit academic dishonesty, determine the
importance of academic integrity, and obtain suggestions to
lessen academic integrity.
Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 98

European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org
C. Research Participants
The participants of this study were 66 selected students.
Also, 9 full-time and part-time teachers of the Institute of
Human Service (IHS) of the Southern Philippines
Agribusiness and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology
(SPAMAST). In compliance with the ethical consideration
particularly confidentiality of data, the researcher opted not
to reveal the sex disaggregate of the participants.
The student-respondents were chosen based on the
following criteria: enrolled during the First Semester 2021-
2022; took BS Criminology, BS Social Work, bachelor’s in
public administration, and BS Development
Communication; enrolled in the third or fourth year; used
the flexible-learning modality; however, only those students
who gave their consents and responded were considered.
On the other hand, the teacher-respondents were chosen
based on the following criteria: had taught during the First
Semester of 2021-2022; taught BS Criminology, BS
Development Communication, BS Social Work, and Public
Administration students; taught using the flexible learning
modality and had full-time or part-time status.
D. Scope and Limitations
This study was only limited to those students under the
Institute of Human Service. Moreover, this study did not
deal with the students’ experiences of academic dishonesty.
Likewise, this study was conducted during COVID 19 when
the flexible-learning modality was utilized. With the limited
number of participants, the researcher could not make
generalize results for all students of the college. Instead, the
findings were only true for those who participated in the
study. However, an extended study may be conducted to
verify the veracity of the results.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Level of Students’ Engagement in Academic
Dishonesty
Results revealed that generally, all respondents admitted
to having committed academic dishonesty. Specifically,
based on the highest percentage, five statements obtained
“never committed”; nine got “committed once”; and two
gained “committed more than once.” The items with the
highest percentage under the items which were committed
more than once were:
I helped my classmates in taking the online test or
exam and I opened the online exam or quiz first to see
the questions then I read the module to look for the
answers; the least committed academic dishonesty
items were: I asked my siblings, parents, or friends to
the task for me; I worked on the tasks with others even
when the teachers asked for individual work; I copied
few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal
without citing the author.
Out of the 15 items, nine items were committed once.
This result implies that most college students committed
academic dishonesty for several reasons. They do
misconducts with friends and when they wanted to have
better grades in the examination.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Moreover, this finding corroborates with other research.
In Saudi Arabia, students justified some of their academic
dishonesty as “assisting” their peers (Nurriddin, 2019); and
they are pressured to do it (Yusliza et al., 2020). In Japan,
students justified their academic misconduct because their
actions are less deterred by the fear of punishment (Aljurf et
al., 2020). While Hendy et al. (2021) said that students are
ready to make academic misconduct to help the weak
students and their desire to build relationships with them.
Moreover, the opening of the online exam to know the
questions and look for answers in the module implies the
unpreparedness of the students. Hussain (2021) mentioned
that this type of academic dishonesty is a rampant practice
among students. In this study, it was observed that students
justified this misconduct by the lack of internet connectivity
or electric current interruption.
B. Seriousness the Students Think of their Academic
Dishonesty
Based on percentage, seven statements were considered
moderate cheating, six were not cheating, and two as serious
cheating. The two considered serious cheating items were:
I copied a few sentences from a book, magazine, or
journal without citing the author and I copied a few
sentences from a site on the internet without citing the
author.
This implies that students didn’t know proper citations
and techniques in writing the review of related literature.
Landau et al. (2002) found that several students who
incorrectly credit a source do so due to a lack of expertise,
as they are unaware of the necessary citation criteria. But
Greenberger et al. (2016) observed that even if students see
that copying without citation is a serious act of academic
dishonesty, they unknowingly engage in such practice
because they lack the abilities of proper paraphrasing or
summarizing skills
On the other hand, the six items considered not cheating
by the respondents were:
I helped my classmates in taking the online test or
exam; I copied the output of my classmates; the teacher
wouldn’t notice it; I asked my siblings, parents, or
friends to do the task for me; I worked on the tasks with
others even when the teachers asked for individual
work; I took pictures of the test or exam with a mobile
phone or screenshots of information during a test; I
used the same paper in two different subjects to save
time and effort.
This implies that cheating most likely happens when
peers are involved and out of laziness and mediocrity.
Interestingly, some students also believed that some
statements were trivial cheating. The statement, I texted or
message my classmates to obtain or share my answers in a
test or exam, obtained the highest percentage. This indicates
that students have practiced that “one for all, all for one”
dogma. They were ready to commit misconduct for as long
as their peers are involved. In a particular scenario, Stoesz et
al. (2018) believed that students feel the pressure of
belongingness. The student's desire to help their peers over-
weighs the consequences of misbehavior.
Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 99

European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org
C. Teachers’ Observations on Students’ Academic
Dishonesty
Generally, the teachers believed that all students
committed academic dishonesty more often. Of the 20
statements, 17 obtained “more than once.” Of which, the
statements, “students copy few sentences from a book,
website, or journal without citing the author and students
use excuse to obtain an extension on a due date,” gained
100 %. Hence, copying without proper citation is the most
rampant misconduct committed by students. Fazilatfar et al.
(2018) relate this problem to students’ confusion about how
to cite. The researcher observed that even the teachers lack
the ability to cite properly. Their background and
understanding of proper citation were limited because they
were not taught to learn such when they were in college.
The researcher’s observation has become the norm in the
academe and coincides with the theory used in this study.
The teacher’s lack of knowledge of appropriate citations
contributes to their leniency in checking the outputs of their
students.
Moreover, the statement, “using digital technology such
as text messaging, students get unpermitted help from
someone during a test or examination,” obtained the highest
percentage under “committed once” by the students.
Likewise, the statement, “students submit the same paper in
more than one course,” gained the highest percentage under
the “never” committed.
D. Teachers’ Action on Students’ Academic Integrity
Generally, although the students committed academic
dishonesty, the teachers did not fail the students. Moreover,
the teachers took action by calling the attention of the
students. However, the statements, “students delay in taking
the examination and students use excuse to obtain an
extension on a due date,” were allowed by some teachers as
consideration to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The
researcher believed that calling the attention of the students
and not giving sanctions cultivates the commission of
academic dishonesty more. McCabe et al. (2006) opined
that if faculty members take no concrete action on students’
academic misconduct, students can only believe that
dishonesty is going to be commonplace in the academe.
Burke and Sanney (2018) pointed out that students are likely
to do academic misconduct and believe in the acceptability
of dishonesty when teachers consider their emotional
reasons. The researcher assumed that an individual’s
personality somehow influences academic dishonesty.
E. Themes and Core Ideas on the Importance of
Academic Integrity
1) Realization of the value of academic integrity
Generally, the students realized that academic integrity
promotes honesty. This implies that the students knew very
well the meaning and importance of academic integrity. This
result corroborates the study of Bretag et al. (2014) among
students in six Australian universities. They found the
majority of the students expressed good awareness and
understanding of their institution's academic integrity
policy. It is necessary according to Gerdeman (2000) that
institutional environments have well-defined and articulated
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
RESEARCH ARTICLE
policies on academic dishonesty and its consequences to
maintain academic integrity.
Few others understood that academic integrity ensured
someone’s accountability, stimulated self-autonomy, and
recognized the accomplishment of other individuals. This
implies that the students were aware of the fundamental
significance of academic integrity. If students have
academic integrity, they can depend on and support their
assignments to whatever scrutiny. Moreover, if students
were honest about their academic outputs, it was assumed
that they were independent and self-efficient. As mentioned
by Landa-Blanco et al. (2020), the lack of self-esteem
among students greatly influenced their misbehavior and
decision-making. Likewise, students’ attitudes towards
disloyalty and cheating (Abdaoui, 2018). Further, academic
integrity promotes recognition of others' work. Hence, if
students had no respect for others' achievements, they would
not bother recognizing them.
2) Consideration in committing academic dishonesty
Typically, the students found that the lack of time to
study was one of the reasons why many students indulged in
academic dishonesty. This implies that students were busy
with other things aside from their studies. It was observed
by the researcher that most of the respondents were working
and married. Thus, the student's time and attention were
divided between their job and studies. This result coincided
with Verhoef and Coetser (2021), Landa-Blanco et al.
(2020), and Karanauskiene et al. (2020) that students
committed academic dishonesty due to their lack of time
management.
It can be noted that during COVID-19, a flexible learning
modality was adopted. Hence, students stayed at home and
made home and self-study. This situation was new to
Filipino students because, during the face-to-face, only
computer-oriented academic institutions implemented online
classes. The COVID-19 pandemic situation forced many
unprepared students into independent and self-isolated
learning. Schlenz et al. (2020) were convinced that online
learning was time-consuming not only for the students but
also for the teachers.
Variantly, other students found becoming indolent,
lacking comprehension of the tasks to be done, lacking
routine study time, having work, lacking self-esteem, and
wanting to have better marks pushed those students to
commit academic dishonesty. These imply that students
have their reasons why they indulged in academic
dishonesty. Gresham and Tackett (2020) pointed out that
procrastination is linked to academic dishonesty,
performance anxiety, and low academic self-efficacy among
students. While Amelia and Usman (2020) reiterated that
academic procrastination has a huge influence on students’
cheating behavior. However, in a recent study conducted by
Oktaria et al. (2021) among Indonesian undergraduate
medical students, they found that there was no significant
relationship between academic procrastination with
academic dishonesty. With these contradicting results, the
researcher assumed that the link between procrastination and
academic dishonesty may be dependent on the course the
students were taking.
Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 100

European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org
Understanding the tasks to be done may also contribute to
academic dishonesty. Unclear instruction on assignments,
homework, quizzes, and examinations may lead to students'
collusion and cheating. The researcher found this scenario
very common during the COVID-19 online learning
modality. Instead of asking the teachers to clarify the
instructions, students would prefer to ask their peers as a
result of collusion happened. However, this researcher’s
observation contradicted Ives and Nehrkorn (2019) who
mentioned that instructions did not affect those students who
have the intention of committing academic dishonesty
because they were insensitive to academic misconduct.
3) Suggestions to lesson academic dishonesty
Generally, the students believed that promoting academic
integrity in academic institutions could somehow lessen if
not eradicate academic dishonesty. However, as to how it
should be done, the students did not make any specific
suggestions. The researcher assumed that the students gave
the academic institution the choice of what to do to promote
academic integrity in the college.
Few other students suggested that specific strategies
could lessen students’ academic dishonesty like the practice
of reading, zero tolerance for plagiarized or colluded
outputs, and clear instruction on how the tasks were to be
done. The suggestion to practice reading implies that most
of the students have no reading habits. Figuracion and
Ormilla (2021) found that reading habits have been
disregarded by many young and old Filipino students due to
the huge influence of different technology. With regards to
the suggestion of zero tolerance for plagiarized or colluded
outputs, it implies that students committed this dishonesty,
however, no sanctions have been given against them by their
teachers. The researcher’s believed that students are more
inclined to cheat if they believed their teachers are
unconcerned and permissive of their actions. Lastly, the
suggestion to have clear instructions for the given task,
implies that there are teachers who do not make clear
instructions on the tasks they give to their students. Worku
et al. (2020) reported that unclear instructions from teachers
constitute academic misconduct among students.
San Jose (2021) mentioned that academic integrity is an
interdisciplinary notion that serves as the foundation for all
aspects of education at all levels. He emphasized that when
discussing academic reputation and how to avoid these
actions, the discourse appears to focus on theft, plagiarism,
dishonesty, fraud, and other forms of academic malpractice.
To avoid these, the positive qualities of honesty, confidence,
fairness, respect, accountability, and bravery as
fundamentally motivated drivers of ethical academic
practice should be emphasized by the academe among its
clientele. Academic integrity is more than a student issue; it
requires commitment from all members of the academic
community, including undergraduate and postgraduate
students, professors, current academics, and administrators.
For Scanlan (2006), an institutional plan that can create an
institutional culture of academic integrity should be
established and implemented. It should however be
combined with measures to prevent and detect academic
misconduct, as well as fair sanctions for those who
committed dishonesty.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
RESEARCH ARTICLE
F. Convergence
Paradoxically, the qualitative information revealed that
the students understand the importance of academic
integrity; however, the quantitative data showed that most of
the students have committed academic dishonesty.
Moreover, the qualitative information shows the specific
reasons why students indulge in academic misconduct.
These reasons were lack of time, procrastination, lack of
comprehension of the tasks, lack of study habits, job, and
low self-esteem. The students believed that those academic
misconducts they committed are justified as moderate
cheating because they are helping their peers. On the other
hand, the teachers observed that students committed
dishonesty more than once, contrary to students’ responses
of once. Despite the teachers’ observation, none of the
students failed; instead, the teachers only call their attention.
Students suggested that academic institutions need to
promote academic integrity, use specific teaching strategies,
and give necessary sanctions to those who committed
academic misconduct.
IV. CONCLUSION
The researcher’s assumptions that personality,
spirituality, and ethical standards may influence the
commission of academic dishonesty are seen in the results
of this study. Results revealed that despite the students’
knowledge of the relevance of academic integrity in their
studies; generally most of them admitted to having
committed academic dishonesty. This is an indication of low
ethical standards on the part of the students. Hence, values
re-orientation and establishment of code-of-conduct are
necessary for these students to develop honesty. It is also
revealed that the majority of the students committed
dishonesty once but considered those commissions as
moderate cheating because they help other students. This
justification of the students’ actions indicates their lack of
strong morality. An issue that needs to be addressed by the
academe. Moreover, albeit teachers observe that students
committed academic dishonesty, their action is only to call
the attention of those students. The lenient actions of the
teachers signal their permissive personality to students’
misbehavior. Nevertheless, few students suggested that the
academic institution needs to promote academic integrity
and put stricter sanctions on those who commit dishonesty.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the results of the study, the researcher
recommends the following:
For the school administration, to lessen academic
dishonesty among students, innovative software to detect
students’ plagiarize may be purchased. Moreover, the
crafting of an academic integrity code may be established.
Likewise, regular value re-orientation may be done. Lastly,
an institutional academic disciplinary board may be
established to focus on academic dishonesty concerns.
The teachers, need to innovate assessment strategies that
could minimize academic integrity among students.
Strategies such as performance and outcomes are based
Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 101

European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org
instead on traditional paper and pen quizzes and exams.
Moreover, they should attend seminars and workshops on
literature review techniques to enhance their knowledge and
skills. Likewise, they should impose a zero plagiarism
policy and sanctions on those who committed academic
misconduct.
The students should realize that academic dishonesty is
by all means unethical. Hence, they need to discipline
themselves and consider all academic activities essential;
thus, there should no room for mediocrity.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares that he has not any conflict of interest
in the conduct of this study.
REFERENCES
Abdaoui, M. (2018). Strategies for avoiding cheating and preserving
academic integrity in tests. Alkhitab w el-Tawassol Journal, 4(1), 1-9.
Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A
guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal
of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9-19.
Aljurf, S., Kemp, L. J., & Williams, P. (2020). Exploring academic
dishonesty in the Middle East: A qualitative analysis of students’
perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(7), 1461-1473.
Amelia, D., & Usman, O. (2020). The Influence Of Self Efficacy, Peer
Conformity, Parenting Style, and Academic Procrastination On
Student Cheating Behavior. Peer Conformity, Parenting Style, and
Academic Procrastination On Student Cheating Behavior (January 1,
2020).
Anitsal, I., Anitsal, M. M., & Elmore, R. (2009). Academic dishonesty and
intention to cheat: A model on active versus passive academic
dishonesty as perceived by business students. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 13(2), 17.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach.
Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management
Review, 33(5471), 1-8.
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.
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2014). Epistemological issues of interviewing.
Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative interviewing, 55-82.
Brown, B. S., & Choong, P. (2005). An investigation of academic
dishonesty among business students at public and private United
States universities. International Journal of Management, 22(2),
201—214.
Burgason, K. A., Sefiha, O., & Briggs, L. (2019). Cheating is in the eye of
the beholder: An evolving understanding of academic misconduct.
Innovative Higher Education, 44(3), 203-218.
Burke, D. D., & Sanney, K. J. (2018). Applying the fraud triangle to higher
education: Ethical implications. J. Legal Stud. Educ., 35, p. 5.
Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., & Ewing, M. T. (2000). The effect of anomie
on academic dishonesty among university students. International
Journal of Educational Management.
Chang, H. (1995). College student test cheating in Taiwan. Student
Counseling, 41, 114—128.
Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004). Academic
integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little
help from my friends. Journal of marketing education, 26(3), 236-
249.
Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on
collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of
business ethics, 17(6), 683-700.
Davis, S. F., & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional data on academic
dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. The teaching of
Psychology, 22(2), 119-121.
Deranek, J., & Parnther, C. (2015). Academic honesty and the new
technological frontier. The Hilltop Review, 8(1), 4.
Diego, L. A. (2018). Level of awareness of students during examination.
Fazilatfar, A. M., Elhambakhsh, S. E., & Allami, H. (2018). An
investigation of the effects of citation instruction to avoid plagiarism
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400
RESEARCH ARTICLE
in EFL academic writing assignments. Sage Open, 8(2),
2158244018769958.
Figuracion, V. C., & Ormilla, R. C. G. (2021). The word reading
performance of grade V pupils through a library hour program in the
Philippines. EDUCATUM Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 95-103.
Finn, K. V., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating:
Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The journal
of educational research, 97(3), 115-121.
Gerdeman, R. D. (2000). Academic dishonesty and the community college.
ERIC Digest.
Greenberger, S., Holbeck, R., Steele, J., & Dyer, T. (2016). Plagiarism Due
to Misunderstanding: Online Instructor Perceptions. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 72-84.
Gresham, M., & Tackett, A. (2020). Structuring student success:
Construction and design to support academic integrity.
Harp, J., & Taietz, P. (1965). Academic integrity and social structure: A
study of cheating among college students. Soc. Probs., 13, 365.
Hendy, N. T., Montargot, N., & Papadimitriou, A. (2021). Cultural
differences in academic dishonesty: A social learning perspective.
Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(1), 49-70.
Holden, O., Kuhlmeier, V. A., & Norris, M. (2020). Academic integrity in
online testing: a research review.
Hussain, A. (2021). Implementation of online assignment submission with
instant feedback in a pharmacy course. Pharmacy Education, 21, 45-
50.
Ives, B., & Nehrkorn, A. (2019). A research review: post-secondary
interventions to improve academic integrity. Prevention and
Detection of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education, 39-62.
Karanauskienė, D., Česnaitienė, V. J., Miežienė, B., & Emeljanovas, A.
(2020). Differences in Understanding Academic Integrity: A
Lithuanian Case. In Corruption in Higher Education (pp. 25-29).
Brill.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2003). Collegiate academic
dishonesty revisited: What have they done, how often have they done
it, who does it, and why did they do it. Electronic journal of
sociology, 7(4), 1-27.
Landa-Blanco, M., Santos-Midence, C., & Blanco, A. L. (2020). Academic
integrity: attitudes and practices of students of a public university in
Honduras. Academia, (20-21), 202-217.
Landau, J. D., Druen, P. B., & Arcuri, J. A. (2002). Methods for helping
students avoid plagiarism. The teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 112-
115.
Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of
criminal justice education, 17(2), 244-261.
Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who
teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it?. Higher
Education, 69(3), 435-448.
Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J., & Weiss, J. E. (2000). International
perspective: A cross-national exploration of business students'
attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic dishonesty.
Journal of Education for Business, 75(4), 231-235.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic
integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A
qualitative investigation. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2),
211-234.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic
dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and
proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
5(3), 294-305.
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.
Nuriddin, A. (2019). Academic dishonesty among Saudi preparatory year
program students: Their perceptions and suggestions to promote
academic integrity (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Oktaria, D., Azzahra, S. S., & Angraini, D. I. (2021). The Relationship Of
Academic Procrastination and Academic Dishonesty in
Undergraduate Medical Students. Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran
Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education, 10(3), 207-
214. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.63137.
Pulfrey, C., Durussel, K., & Butera, F. (2018). The good cheat:
Benevolence and the justification of collective cheating. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 110(6), 764.
Rawwas, M. Y., Al-Khatib, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (2004). Academic
dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of US and Chinese marketing
students. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 89-100.
Rettinger, D. A. (2007). Applying decision theory to academic integrity
decisions. In Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 141-167).
Academic Press.
Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 102
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
www.ej-edu.org

Rosenthal, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how

to conduct interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research.
Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 8(4), 509-516.
Rowe, N. (2004). Cheating in Online Student Assessment: Beyond
Plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. VII,
No. II, Summer. Retrieved on October 9, 2021, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/rowe72.html
San Jose, A. (2021). Academic integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A student perspective. GRIN Verlag.
San Jose, A. (2021). Translating theory into practice: The gender and
development training evaluations using Kirkpatrick’s Model.
Available at SSRN 3908296.
San Jose, Ariel E., Bahket, R. and Ali Alsalhi, H. H. (2017).Teach us the
way we want: Teaching approach for special needs students.
European Journal of Special Education Research (2017).
Scanlan, C. L. (2006). Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity
and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. Journal of allied
health, 35(3), 179-185.
Schlenz, M. A., Schmidt, A., Wöstmann, B., Krämer, N., & Schulz-
Weidner, N. (2020). Students’ and lecturers’ perspectives on the
implementation of online learning in dental education due to SARS-
CoV-2 (COVID-19): A cross-sectional study. BMC medical
education, 20(1), 1-7.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision
theory. Annual review of psychology, 28(1), 1-39.
Stoesz, B. M., & Yudintseva, A. (2018). Effectiveness of tutorials for
promoting educational integrity: a synthesis paper. International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1-22.
Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among two-
year college students: Academic versus business situations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 51(1), 63-73.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). The point, click
and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual
classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
12(3).
The Florida State University (2015).
https://provost.gsu.edu/document/florida-state-university-academic-
integrity-survey-spring-2015/
Verhoef, A. H., & Coetser, Y. M. (2021). Academic integrity of university
students during the emergency remote online assessment: An
exploration of student voices. Transformation in Higher Education, 6,
12.
Vučković, D., Peković, S., Blečić, M., & Đoković, R. (2020). Attitudes
towards cheating behavior during assessing students᾽ performance:
student and teacher perspectives. International Journal for
Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1-28.
West, T., Revenscroft, S. P., & Shrader, C. B. (2004). Cheating and moral
judgment in the college classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 54, 173—183.
Worku, D., Dejenie, M., & Getahun, K. Prevalence, Forms, Contributing
Factors, and Consequences of Academic Cheating among Public
Second Cycle Primary School Students: In Mersa City
Administration, Amhara Region, Ethiopia.
Yang, S. C. (2012). Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty:
A survey of Taiwanese graduate students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(3),
218-237.
Yusliza, M., Saputra, J., Fawehinmi, O., Mat, N., & Mohamed, M. (2020).
The mediating role of justification on the relationship of subjective
norms perceived behavioral control and attitude on intention to cheat
among students. Management Science Letters, 10(16), 3767-3776.

Ariel E. San Jose, Ph.D. is an associate professor

of linguistics and literature at the Southern
Philippines Agribusiness and Marine and Aquatic
School of Technology, Malita, Davao Occidental,
Philippines. He is designated as the Director of the
college. Mr. San Jose has published several research
articles focusing on special needs (hard of hearing
and mute), dyslexia, language acquisition and
learning, and many more.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.4.400 Vol 3 | Issue 4 | August 2022 103